Title: The Mormon Doctrine of Deity - The Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion
Author: Roberts, B. H. (Brigham Henry)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Mormon Doctrine of Deity - The Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion" ***


http://mormontextsproject.org/ for a complete list of
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.

"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."--Joseph Smith.

"He who possesses a knowledge of God, and a knowledge of man, will not
easily commit sin."--Talmud.

Salt Lake City, Utah.

1903.



PREFACE.

In 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 surprising that the very first revelation
given was one that revealed 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," resembling
each other in form and features, but whose brightness and glory defied
all description. One of these personages addressed the prophet and
said, as he pointed to the other--

"_This is my beloved Son, 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 in form;
but infinitely more glorious in appearance, 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 him." Also the
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 is, 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
be two separate and distinct persons or individuals; hence the Godhead
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 anthropomorphism 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 abroad a knowledge of the true God. Still,
controversy, I repeat could not always be avoided. From the beginning,
"Mormon" views of Deity have been assailed. They have been denounced as
"awful blasphemy;" "soul destroying;" "the lowest kind of materialism;"
"destructive of all truly religious sentiment;" "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 described. 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, sarcasm, 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 delivered by a prominent sectarian minister of Salt Lake
City, and other discourses delivered 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 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.
Accordingly the discourse, which makes chapter one in this book, was
delivered. The discourse attracted some considerable 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 of the editors of the _Improvement
Era_ was published in that magazine, and now appears as chapter two in
this work.

It was very generally conceded 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 opinion that the Rev.
gentleman's argument could not be successfully answered. This was
a view in which I did not concur; for however unequal my skill in
debate might be as compared with that of the Rev. gentleman of the
Catholic Church, I had, and have now, supreme confidence in the truth
of the doctrines I believe and advocate; and I was sure this advantage
of having the truth would more than outweigh any want of skill in
controversy on my part. In this confidence the Rejoinder was written
and published in the _Improvement Era_, and now appears as chapter
three in this work. How successfully 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 revelation of God;--that such as
Jesus Christ is, God is.

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 arranged as to make clear the fact that
our doctrines on the subject of Deity are today what they have been
from the commencement; 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 more 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.

THE "MORMON" DOCTRINE OF DEITY.

Form of God.

The Oneness of God.

The Plurality of Gods.

The Future Possibilities of Man.


CHAPTER II.

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

Philosophical Proofs of God's Simplicity or Spirituality.

Man Can Never Become as God.

The Unity of God.


CHAPTER III.

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

The Form of God.

Of God Being Invisible.

Of the Incarnation of the Son of God.

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

Of Mr. Van Der Donckt's Premise.

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

Of Jesus Christ Being Both Premise and Argument Against Mr. Van Der
Donckt's Philosophical Argument.

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

Mr. Van Der Donckt's Contrast Between Man and God.

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

Of the Unity of God.

Of the Father Alone Being God.

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

Of the Lord our God Being One God.

Of our Revelations From God Being Local.

Of God Being One in a Generic Sense.

Of God, the Spirit of the Gods.

Concluding Reflections.


CHAPTER IV.

JESUS CHRIST: THE REVELATION OF GOD

Beliefs in India and Egypt.

The Religion of China.

Religion in Northern Europe.

Gods of the Greeks and Romans.

Epicureans.

The Stoics.

The Jews.

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

Evidence of Christ's Divinity from the Scriptures.

Jesus Christ is called God in the Scriptures.

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

Jesus Christ to be Worshiped, Hence God.

Jesus Christ Equal with God the Father, Hence God.

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

The Humility of God.

The Obedience of God.

The Patience of God Under Temptation.

The Compassion and Impartiality of God.

God's Treatment of Sinners.

The Severity of God.

God Completely Revealed Through Christ.


CHAPTER V.

A COLLECTION OF PASSAGES FROM "MORMON" WORKS, SETTING FORTH "MORMON"
VIEWS OF DEITY.

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.

The Doctrine of the Godhead According to the Book of Mormon.

The Doctrines of the Godhead and Man According to the Book of Abraham.

The Godhead According to the Doctrine and Covenants.

The "Mormon" Doctrine of Deity as Set Forth in the Discourses of the
Prophet Joseph Smith and Early Church Publications.

The King Follett Sermon, April 7, 1844.

The Discourse of June 16, 1844.

Use of the word Elohim.

Omnipresence of God.


CHAPTER VI.

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

Adam and His Relation to the Inhabitants of the Earth.

The Living God.

Materiality.


CHAPTER VII.

DISCOURSES ON DEITY AND MAN.

I. President Brigham Young.

II. Elder Orson Pratt.


CHAPTER VIII.

"I KNOW THAT MY REDEEMER LIVES."

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

Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus the Father of this World.

Glorious Possibilities of Man.

Man to Become Like Christ.

Personal Testimony.



THE "MORMON" DOCTRINE OF DEITY.[A]

[Footnote A: A lecture originally delivered before the conference of
the Mutual Improvement Associations of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion,
August 18, 1901.]



CHAPTER I.

I.

FORM OF GOD.

MY brethren and sisters, there are two things which conjoin 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 working 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 principles;
and a large division of the Manual which has been prepared 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 is a little offensive--"and to know that we may converse
with him, as one man converses with another." On the same occasion,
he also said: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted
man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.[A]" Since, then, to know
the character of God is one of the first principles of the Gospel, 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.

[Footnote A: History of Joseph Smith: _Millennial Star_, Vol. xxiii, p.
246.]

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,[A] and also in a discourse delivered by another
minister before the Teachers' association of the Utah Presbytery,[B] 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 association. I read from the synopsis
of his discourse published in one of the morning papers:

[Footnote A: This was Rev. Alfred H. Henry, Pastor First M. B. Church.]

[Footnote B: This was Dr. Paden of the Presbyterian church, August 16,
1901.]


    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 being of parts, with a body like 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 fashioned 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 subject and
present to you what in reality the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day
Saints teaches with reference to the Godhead.

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 powers 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.[A] While it
is true that in a certain sense the heavens declare his glory, and
the firmament showeth his handiwork, and proclaim to some extent his
eternal power and Godhead, yet nothing absolutely definite with respect
of God may be learned from those works of nature. I will narrow the
field still 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.

[Footnote A: Job ii:7.]

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 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
God, 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 testimony. 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. * * * And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
    us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the inly begotten of
    the Father) full of grace and truth.[A]

[Footnote A: John 1.]

The identity between Jesus of Nazareth--"the Word made flesh"--and the
"Word" that was "with God from the beginning," 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 him was
    life; and the life was the light of men.[A]

[Footnote A: Verses 3, 4.]

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.[A]

[Footnote A: Heb. 1:1-3.]

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 Nazareth, 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 think,
perchance, the clearest verification of that statement 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 common fund of the Church; but selfishness asserted
itself, and they concluded to lie as to the price of the land, and only
consecrate 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."[A] 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.

[Footnote A: Acts 5.]

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 simultaneously, not as
one, but as three, each one doing a different thing, so that however
completely they may be one in spirit, in purpose, in will, they are
clearly distinct as persons--as individuals.

In several instances in the scriptures these three personages are
accorded equal dignity 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 preach the gospel to all
nations. He stood in the presence of the 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.[A]

[Footnote A: Matt. 28:18-20.]

Each of the three is here given equal dignity in the Godhead. 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 personages 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 against the Holy Ghost, it
    shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the
    world to come.[A]

[Footnote A: Matt. 12:31,32.]

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 blaspheme against him,
farewell hope of forgiveness for such a sin, in this world or in the
world to come!

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 content to allow
this expression of their belief to excite their reverence without
arousing their curiosity as to the nature of God. Happy, perhaps,
for 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
among the Christians by that time had been stricken down; and, as some
of our historians record it, only weak and timorous men were left
in the church to grapple with the rising power of "science, falsely
so-called."[A] 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 philosophizings and definitions which have grown out of
it, and which reduce the dignity of the Godhead to a mere vacuum--to
a "being" impersonal, 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!

[Footnote A: See Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. Cent. iv. bk. ii, ch. i, (note.)]

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 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 everywhere. We must expand the person
of God out until it fills the universe. And so they tell us that
this plain, simple, straightforward 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:


    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.[A]

[Footnote A: Messianic Prophecy, p. 70.]

I say it is rather refreshing to hear one speak like that whose
scholarship, at least, is above 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 illustrations, this celebrated man--Dr.
Samuel Kinns--whose scientific and scholarly standing I have already
referred to, speaks of the effect of this belief upon man, and thus
concludes his statement 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 refine 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 statements of
either learned divines or scientists on this subject; for the reason
that we have higher and better authority to which 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
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.[A]

[Footnote A: Gen. 18.]

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. Do not tell
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; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren
the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship
God!"[B] The fact that this personage before whom Joshua bowed to the
earth received without protest divine worship from him, proclaims
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.

[Footnote A: Joshua 5:13,14.]

[Footnote B: Rev. 22:8,9. Also Rev. 19:10.]

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."[A] I pass by, I say, such incidents as
these, and come to more important testimony.

[Footnote A: Dan. 3:25.]

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

[Footnote A: Col. 1:15.]


    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.

[Footnote A: Heb. 1:1,2.]

In the face of these scriptures, will anyone who believes in the Bible
say that it is blasphemy 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, 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 blasphemy 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 gentle 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 "heathenism." 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 of Christ?"_

I suppose that thousands of sermons every year are preached from that
text by Christian ministers. And now I arraign 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
appeared 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 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."[A] Then,
in further attestation of the reality 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 observance of the Sabbath. One
who was a little liberal in his views of the law pertaining to the
Sabbath was once arguing with an orthodox brother on the subject, and
urged that even Jesus so far bent the law pertaining 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. "O 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 material 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.

[Footnote A: Luke 24:36-39.]

[Footnote B: Luke 24:41-43.]

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 resurrected hands had
provided.[A] Moreover, for forty days he continued ministering to his
disciples after his resurrection, eating and drinking with them;[B] 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 personages in white apparel stood beside them and said: "Ye men of
Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which
is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye
have seen him go into heaven."[C] 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 glorious 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
distressed 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."[D]

[Footnote A: John 21:9-13 and Acts 10:41.]

[Footnote B: Acts 10:31, and Acts 1:2,3.]

[Footnote C: Acts 1:11.]

[Footnote D: Zech. the 12th, 13th, and 14th chapters.]

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, as Paul tells, "in the express
image of his [the Father's] person"--so, too, the Father God is a man
of immortal tabernacle, glorified and exalted: for as the Son is, so
also is the Father, a personage 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."[A] 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."[B]
Consequently our philosophers, especially those who lived when the
present Christian creeds concerning God were forming, thought that by
some legerdemain 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.

[Footnote A: I Cor. 8:4.]

[Footnote B: John 14.]

Let us seek out some reasonable explanation of the language used. I
refer again to the passage I just quoted from the writings of Paul
with reference to there being "none other 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.[A]

[Footnote A: I Cor. 8:4-6.]

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 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_.[A]

[Footnote A: John 17.]

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
    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._[A]

[Footnote A: John 17.]

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 indwelling 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:


    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.[A]

[Footnote A: Eph. 8:14-19.]

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 partake of the divine
nature, until God shall be all in all. This is the explanation of the
mystery of the oneness both of the Godhead and of the disciples for
which Jesus prayed.

III.

THE PLURALITY OP 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 attention 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, I would like to know from our friends--the critical sectarian
ministers who complain of this part of our faith--the meaning of the
following expressions, carefully selected from the scriptures:

"The Lord your God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords." That is from
Moses.[A]

[Footnote A: Deut. 10:17.]

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

[Footnote A: Josh. 22:22.]

"O give thanks unto the God of Gods! * * O give thanks to the Lord of
Lords!" That is David.[A]

[Footnote A: Psalm 137:2,3.]

"And shall speak marvelous things against the God of Gods." That is
Daniel.[A]

[Footnote A: Daniel 11:36.]

"The Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of Lords, and King of
Kings." That is the beloved disciple of Jesus--John the Revelator.[A]

[Footnote A: Rev. 17:14.]

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 matter 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 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."[A] 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.

[Footnote A: Psalm 82:1.]

In this same Psalm, too, is the passage which seems to introduce some
telling evidence from the Lord Jesus Christ himself, _viz_: "I have
said ye are Gods, and all of you are the children 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 disposed, 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:


    _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 scripture
    cannot be broken;_ say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified
    and 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 present to you, on another branch of the
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 attained
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 speaking 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 offspring. 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.[A]

[Footnote A: Acts 17:24-29.]

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 his 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 fashioned 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 Nebuchadnezzar, or an Alexander, or a Napoleon, who shall
found 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. From 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 Beethoven, 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 for his guide, 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 incomprehensible God.
Such conceptions of existence no longer satisfy the longings of the
intelligent or spiritual-minded man.[A]

[Footnote A: 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 confinement 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 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.)]

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 unworthy 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 I 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
no 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 smallest of the group of major planets at that.
Outside of this 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."[A] 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 groups; or at least we may say that
reasoning from analogy, that is regarded as a very probable fact.

[Footnote A: "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
unchangeability 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 introduce a very
noticeable change in the aspect of the constellations." (Newcomb's
Astronomy, pp. 464-5.)]

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 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 to each sun, 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 doubtless 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
    fortuitous 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.[A]

[Footnote A: Self Culture for March, 1899.]

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 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.[A]

[Footnote A: "Other Worlds Than Ours," p. 240.]

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 it 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 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, selfluminous
bodies, unquestionably the centers of planetary systems the same as
our sun is--all this, I 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 powerful helps he can devise, man in contemplation
can stand and conceive 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 space where there is no kingdom [created world], and there is
no kingdom where there is no space, either a greater or a lesser
space."[A] But this is beside the subject.

[Footnote A: Doc. & Cov. sec. 88:36,37.]

What I want you to do is to think how small and insignificant this
earth of ours is, even in comparison with some of the planets of
our own system, some of which are hundreds of times larger than our
earth.[A] 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:

[Footnote A: The planet Jupiter, for example, has a diameter of about
85,000 miles, while the earth's diameter is but about 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.)]


    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 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 unspeakable insignificance.[A]

[Footnote A: Draper's "Intellectual Development of Europe," vol. 2, p.
292.]

And the earth itself, then, what of that? What an insignificant thing
it is in the creations of God! With all its islands and continents, its
rivers, lakes and mighty oceans; its mountains 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 we "Mormons" 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 countenances when this doctrine is named, it is surprise,
astonishment, that any one at all capable of grasping the largeness and
extent of the universe--the grandeur of existence and the possibilities
in man for growth, for progress, should be so lean of intellect, should
have such a paucity of understanding, as to call it in question at
all. That is what our change of countenance means--not shame for the
doctrine Brigham Young taught.

I feel that I must have wearied you with so long a discourse; 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 upon
this subject, 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,[A] BY REV. C. VAN DER
DONCKT, OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, POCATELLO, IDAHO.

[Footnote A: The following note preceded Rev. Van Der Donckt's reply,
when published in the _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
denominations 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."]

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."

1. First, Mr. Roberts asserts: "Jesus came with no abstract definition
of God." He certainly gave a partial definition 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 of 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 context of the Bible admits of no such
interpretation. And if anyone should still hesitate to accept the
universally received meaning of the word _spirit_, our risen Savior
settles the matter. As his disciples, upon first seeing him after his
resurrection, 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 24:37-39).

2. Another very strong and explicit statement is: "Blessed art thou,
Simon Bar-Jona [son of John] because _flesh and blood_ 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
striking 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 are visible.
Absolutely invisible beings are immaterial or bodiless: God is
absolutely invisible, therefore God is immaterial 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" (1 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? Tertullian, (A.
D. 160-245), Ambrose (330-397), Augustine (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 appeared to bodily eyes; whereas the Son manifested himself as
an angel, or through an angel, and as man after his incarnation. He
is the eternal revelation of the Father. It is necessary 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 occasion (see Cardinal Newman's
"Development of Christian Doctrine," 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 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 representation 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 example 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.

That even the Latter-day Saints thus understand such expressions 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
(Exodus 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
according 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 experimenting 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 incarnation 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 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 exposition 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 believeth 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 destruction 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) dwelleth all the fulness
of the Godhead _corporeally_" (Col. 2:9). Had God a body (_Latin
corpus_) what sense would there be in St. Paul's 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 impressing 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 Docetae, Cerinthus, Ebion, etc., who,
attributing the flesh to an evil principle, and therefore holding it as
utterly polluted, 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 of 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 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). "_I am the Lord and I change not_" (Mal. 3:6).
"_The 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 of God as the Everlasting Present "I Am Who Am." "Before
Abraham was, I am." "From eternity 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 component 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 creates 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, before 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 before a human being comes into existence. No need of more
illustration. Fancy a clock, an engine, a shoe, or any composite being.
The parts must exist before the whole. Then to have the compound, some
one or something must do the compounding, 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; therefore, there exists
the Necessary Being. Everything that exists is produced or unproduced.
Now all things cannot be produced; 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 existed) 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 aggregate of parts.

First supposition: 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 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 supposition: contingent
beings cannot by their addition or collection 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; therefore, 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. Nothing 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: _I 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
something 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 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 compound of infinite
parts.

3. 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
composite being.

II.

Above, I 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 implies 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 infinite 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 perfection.
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 never become
infinite. Supposing man grown or improved for billions 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, necessary 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,
the Tyndalls, the Pasteurs, the Kochs, the Teslas, the Edisons, etc.,
etc., supply them with the most ingenious 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
President Roosevelt or Emperor William, or other sovereigns, ever give
them an order to manufacture 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 pathways 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 bewildering 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 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' 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).

"Seeing I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord whereas I am dust
and ashes" (Genesis 18:27). "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 be 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" (Psalm 144: 3). "All nations
are before him as if they had no being at all, and are counted to him
as nothing 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 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 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.)

Man is indeed capable of progress, but his forward movement is slow,
and in some matters his attainments remain stationary; 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 Writings by proclaiming him,
so the Jew in all subsequent generations, 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.[A]

[Footnote A: "Hours with the Bible," by Geikie, vol. 1, chapters 1, 2.]

Primeval revelations of God had everywhere become corrupted 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 philosophers.

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
other gods, to the knowledge of the One God, we are content to answer,
that it was by a special _divine revelation_.[A]

[Footnote A: "Chips from a German Workshop," by Max Muller, vol. 1, pp.
345-372.]

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). ("Mormon" 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.[A]

[Footnote A: 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.]

From these clear statements of the Divine Book it is evident that all
the texts quoted by Mr. Roberts do not bear the inference he draws from
them; on the contrary, 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 downright blasphemy.

The liability to self-contradiction is characteristic of human frailty.
It is incompatible with God's infinite perfections. 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 representatives 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.[A]

[Footnote A: "There is none like thee among the gods, O 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).]

Now, all these Bible expressions point to the clear inference 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 qualification:
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 Corinthians 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
would 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 * * * and the
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 the light lacked brightness, would the
gods have been powerless 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 revelations 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: "_I 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, sent me to
you)" (Exodus 3:14). "Jehovah, the God of your fathers--I am Jehovah"
(Exodus 6:2).

If there ever was an occasion on 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: _I 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.[A]

[Footnote A: J. Corluy S. J. "_Spicilegium_," Volume 1. Com. 2. See
also Smith's Bible Dictionary, word God.]

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 asserts his
physical, not merely moral, unity with the Father.

"My sheep hear my voice * * * and I give them everlasting 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 consubstantiality, 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' argument, one must
read and understand the original text of St. John's Gospel, that is,
the Greek; or the _Latin_ translation: _Ego et Pater unum sumus_.

If Christ had meant _one_ in mind or _one morally_ and not
_substantially_, 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 signifies
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 saith to
him: Lord, show us the Father, * * * Jesus 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 action, 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, inseparable 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 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 testimony in heaven, and
these three are one_ (1 John 5:8).

As Christ proved his identity and unity with the Father by texts
quoted: "_The 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 or 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_.[A] Therefore I said: because he will receive of mine and
announce it to you" (John 16:13-15).

[Footnote A: In the Old Testament, the foreknowledge of future events
was ever spoken of as an incommunicable attribute of Jehovah (Isaiah
41:22, 23; 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.]

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 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 is,
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 Tertullian
("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.[A]

[Footnote A: 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.]

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 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. Caecilius 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 DER 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 "Mormon 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 subject; second, the "Mormon" views of Deity are in conflict with
the accepted Christian philosophy; third, that "Mormon" doctrines stand
in sharp contrast to both Catholic and Protestant ideas respecting 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 agreement 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, "Mormon" 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 orthodox Christian
doctrine against the "Mormon" doctrine, I undertake to controvert his
arguments.

I.

THE FORM OF GOD.

Following the order of my treatise, the gentleman first deals with the
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_, 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_."[A] Again, in speaking of the general
assembly 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."[B] 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.

[Footnote A: Discourse delivered at Nauvoo, March 20, 1842. _Mill.
Star_, Vol. xix, p. 213.]

[Footnote B: Discourse delivered at Nauvoo, Oct. 9, 1843. _Mill. Star_,
Vol. xxii, p. 231.]

I would remind the reader, also, that while Jesus said, "God is a
spirit," and that a spirit "hath nor 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 Der Donckt,
more in detail. The inspired apostle says: "_Our God is a consuming
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 solemnly received the word from God which he delivered
unto Israel, also says, "_The Lord thy God is a consuming fire_"
(Exod. 4:24). Is 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 interpreting these passages by
others, and by reason? Would he not want to quote Moses again where
he says, "Thy God is * * * _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 explanation 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
definitions 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" answer 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"--meaning 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 of handling the text, "God is a
spirit," might lead him into serious 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."[A]
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.

[Footnote A: "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.]

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 incorporated 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.

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 statement, 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 perfect than his creatures, and pure minds
are more perfect _than minds united to bodies_[A] (men)." In support
of which he quotes the following: "The corruptible body is a load upon
the soul, and the earthly habitation presseth down the mind" (Wisdom
9:15)[B]; and Paul's saying, "who shall deliver me from this body of
death?"[C] (Rom. 6:24). _Therefore the Creator is a pure spirit._

[Footnote A: Italics are mine.]

[Footnote B: This is a book received by the Catholic Church on alleged
apostolical tradition, but not found in the Hebrew Bible nor Protestant
versions of the Bible.]

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

I fear Mr. V. in these statements has run into more difficulty. 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_.
* * * Therefore 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 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 conclusions
could 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 bodies, 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,
O God, is for ever and ever_" (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 exalted name;
third, that the angels are commanded to worship him; fourth, God, the
Father, addressing Jesus, said, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and
ever." In this passage the Father directly addresses Jesus by the
title "God." And as God is exalted above 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 resurrected 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
    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.

From this it is clear that, in the mind of the Reverend gentleman,
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."[A] 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 perception, elevated by a supernatural influx from God!"
This admission with reference to Jesus and his existence as an immortal
personage of flesh and bone, and our literal view of him in heaven
"face to face," draws 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
creed, 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
confounding 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 enclosed 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.

[Footnote A: 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.]

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 conception of the
"substance" being divided, and the existence of two individual Gods
instead of one. The one a spirit unembodied, and the other a spirit
enclosed in a body of flesh and bone--the glorified, exalted Man,
Christ. This danger is also increased 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 considered 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 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.[A] 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 plainness 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 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.

[Footnote A: 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 words 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.]

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 statement 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 sapphire 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).

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 conclusion to be reached
than the Christian fathers and Cardinal Newman. 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 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 connection 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 or
God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, "Behold,
I see the heavens opened, and the ton of Man standing on the right
hand of God_." (Acts 7:55-6). Undoubtedly, for reasons that are wise,
God the Father has been "invisible" 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 Melchizedek 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; and without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of
    the Priesthood, 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 Cov. 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 "immaterial 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 follows 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 invisible 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 material
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 powerful to render these atoms visible."[A]
What of the ether extending 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 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 reckless, 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?

[Footnote A: Samuel Kinns' "Harmony of the Bible and Science," p. 338.]

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 personages--one of them is called "the
Lord"--"did eat" (Gen. 18)--were they immaterial or bodiless? Perhaps
the Reverend gentleman 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 occasion!" For which theory, as whimsical as it is nonsensical, I
venture to tell the Reverend gentleman there is no warrant of 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 something _like_ blood!"[A] 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?

[Footnote A: _Tuscul. Dispt._ Cicero, p. 227 (Younge's translation).]

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.

Of 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 understanding that
sacred book literally. With reference to the first he says:


    All men after the example 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.

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 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 form to man,_
as in the passage just quoted? Was that done to make human beings or
certain truths more intelligible 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 emphasized by the
fact that Jesus is declared to have been in "the express 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 description 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.[A]

[Footnote A: 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
abhorrence the idea that God has a form such as man's--or any form
whatsoever--parts, organs, affections, sympathies, passions or any
attributes seen in man's spirit, are, nevertheless, under the necessity
of representing 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 consciousness, 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 humanity
for one exalted and entire: they add nothing to their conception of
God as he is, but only take away a part of their conception of man.
Sympathy, and love, and fatherly kindness, and forgiving 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 continuing unchanged? Our conception of
continuance is human. Do we conceive him as knowing and determining?
What are knowledge and determination but modes of human consciousness?
and what know we of consciousness itself, but as the contrast between
successive 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 humanity? 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 relation to time
from which no philosophy, whatever its pretensions, can wholly free
itself; pursuing with indomitable resolutions a preconceived design;
deaf to the yearning instincts which compel his creatures to call upon
him. Yet this, forsooth, is a philosophical conception of the Deity,
more worthy of an enlightened reason than the human imagery of the
Psalmist: 'The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears
are open unto their prayers.' Surely downright idolatry 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
likeness 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 misshapen 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 elements which together furnish all that we can conceive or
imagine of conscious or personal existence, and to deify the emptiest
of all abstractions, 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
feelings 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 perversion.
"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. * * * * * We 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.]

But the strangest part of the Reverend gentleman's contention on
the matter now in hand is that the Latter-day Saints understand the
anthropomorphic expressions in the scriptures as he explains them; and
cites our catechisms (chapter 5, question 9) in proof of it![A] I quote
the reference given:

[Footnote A: This is a thing so astonishing for Mr. Van Der Donckt to
say, that lest the reader should 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 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.

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


    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.

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 language of the
Bible literally. He says it is from anthropomorphic passages of the
Bible that the Latter-day Saints conclude that God has a body--such
passages as speak of the face, hands feet and other limbs and organs of
God. He holds these passages to be figurative. "I contend," he remarks,
"that if we must understand the Bible literally in those passages
('God created 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_."[A] I 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 temperaments, 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 principle 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 created man in his own image, in the image 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 figurative 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 a very
long hand as to extend to the uttermost parts of the sea;" and "such an
extremely long face, reaching from heaven to hell;" and "conclude that
David had wings!" Further remarks on this head are not necessary. One
is under no obligation to seriously discuss nonsense.

[Footnote A: Italics are mine--R.]

Of the Incarnation or the Son or 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 over again
in our sacred books will passages 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 between the
Latter-day Saints and "Christians" on the subject of incarnation, is
that the Latter-day Saints believe that incarnation 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
(Doctrine and Covenants, section 93). But Mr. V. thinks he discovers
in this doctrine of incarnation a proof that "God has 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 already 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 treating. He should remember that
our theology holds that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are distinct
and separate personages, 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 foundation" (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 am God and not man" (Psalm). These
passages simply present the contrast between man as he is now, and with
all his imperfections 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.[A] It follows that when man shall attain
to that destiny, the contrast now so striking between man and God
will not exist. The contrast noted in the scriptures by Mr. V. is not
between _perfected_ men and God, but between very imperfect men--men
who lie, 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 Gladstone, 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 the idea that the child may not change his status, and finally
become all that the great man is with whom he is now contrasted.
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.

[Footnote A: In a discourse in which much of the "Mormon" doctrine
concerning 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 be 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
exaltation, even beyond the grave_."]

The same answer applies to the Reverend gentleman's contention based
on the passage, "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 "immutability 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 arguments 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 eternity 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 arguments, 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 say, on this division of the
subject. I call attention to the fact that neither in my discourse
which brought forth Mr. Van Der Donckt's 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 unnecessary 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 of God the Father.

Also the specific points of argument based upon God's unchangeability,
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 embodied one; and
there was a "before and after"--in reference to this great event, in
the God Jesus' experience. Is it thinkable 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 Protestant
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 succession 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 pleased 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
philosophical 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 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.

_Third:_--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 absolutely 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:_--The Bible distinctly ascribes to God and angels the form,
limbs, organs, feelings and passions of men; and the Bible 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
anthropomorphic 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 spirituality," 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 statements,
and indulge in lines of argumentation he would not have followed had
he apprehended aright the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. Since his philosophical 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, constitute 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 explanation is necessary, as that statement does
not quite meet our belief. Our doctrine is that "Intelligences are
begotten spirits," which spirits are in form like men, and are really,
substance, that is, matter, but of a more subtle and finer nature than
the matter composing man's tabernacle of flesh and bone.[A] 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, 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 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;[B] and then answers:

[Footnote A: 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.)]

[Footnote B: April 7th, 1844, Mill. Star, vol. xxiii p. 245, et seq.]


    All learned men, and doctors of divinity, say that God created
    it in the beginning; but it is not so; the very idea lessens man
    in my 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. * * *
    * We say 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 manner 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 beginning? 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 beginning, 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 between 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 conception." There is that in man,
according to our doctrine, which is not created at all; there is in him
an "ego"--a "spirit" uncreated, never made, a self-existent entity,
eternal as God himself; 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's philosophical
argument touches it?

Mr. Van Der Donckt, it must be remembered, bases his philosophical
argument upon the absolute "simplicity or spirituality" 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
understand 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 of 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 necessary 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 independent 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 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
    compound 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
    composite being.

Of Mr. Van Der Donckt's 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 [therefore 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 attribute or was susceptible of division
or of relation, his absolute simplicity--that tremulously precarious
thing on which, according to Mr. V.'s philosophy, 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 _without body, parts
or passions_.[A] With which also the Westminster 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.[B]

[Footnote A: Bk. Com. Prayer, Articles of Religion, Art. 1.]

[Footnote B: Westminster Confession, Art. 2, Sec. 1.]

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 interpretation of "I
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 to 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 conclusions from
the premise are just; and Mr. V.'s "most simple," "infinite being,"
he who is "pure existence itself," vanishes amid the metaphysical
subtleties of the learned Germans.[A]

[Footnote A: "Existence itself, that so-called highest category of
thought, is only conceivable in the form of existence modified in some
particular 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 horror of
what they call anthropomorphism, or anthropopathy, refuse to represent
the Deity under symbols borrowed from the limitations of human
consciousness, 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).]

Let us examine the effect of this Deity-destroying postulate 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 absurdity, showing them to be "unthinkable,"
and that ultimate religious 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 substantially
the same conclusion--with an exception to be noted later.[A] 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 reasoning of the former, whom he quotes
with approval and at great length. I select from these writers a few
typical passages tending to show the absurdity of God's "simplicity,"
or "spirituality," 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.

[Footnote A: Page 109.]

Mr. Spencer, after showing that the First Cause cannot be finite,
nor dependent, reaches the conclusion that it must be infinite 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;
    seeing 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
    prevents change. For if it contains something which imposes such
    necessities 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.[A]

[Footnote A: First Principles (Spencer) pp. 29, 30; 1896 edition, D.
Appleton & Co., N. Y.]

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


    But these three conceptions--the Cause, the Absolute, the
    Infinite--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 cannot 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
    become 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. * * Supposing the Absolute to be a cause, it will
    follow that it operates 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 relation to its effect. The act of causation
    must therefore be voluntary, and volition is only possible in a
    conscious being. But consciousness again is only conceivable as a
    relation. There must be a conscious subject and an object of which
    he is conscious. The subject 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 absolute as related to another and the
    absolute as related to itself. The absolute, it may be said, may
    possibly be conscious 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 coexistence, whether in consciousness or
    not, is itself a relation.

    The corollary from this reasoning is obvious. Not only is the
    absolute, as conceived, incapable of a necessary 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 instance 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 accumulation of parts
    or attributes, this principle alone is the true absolute. 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 far as reason has any voice in the matter. But this
    absolute unity, as indifferent and containing no attributes, can
    neither be distinguished from the multiplicity of finite beings
    by any characteristic 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 simple; it cannot be conceived
    by difference, neither can it be conceived by the absence of
    difference: it cannot be identified with the universe, neither can
    it be distinguished from it. The One and the Many, regarded as the
    beginning of existence, are thus alike incomprehensible.

    Let us, however, suppose, for an instance, that these difficulties
    are surmounted, and the existence of the Absolute securely
    established 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 how 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 comparative imperfection to one of comparative
    perfection; and, therefore, was not originally perfect. If the
    state of activity is an inferior state to that of quiescence, the
    Absolute, 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 creation 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 vanishes. * * *

    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 conceived exists, as an object of thought, in and by that
    conception. We 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, annihilates 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
    contradiction 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, be 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.[A]

[Footnote A: First Principles (Spencer) pp. 40-44. Limits of Religions
Thoughts, lecture II, first American edition, 1875.]

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 human understanding and good
sense--he arbitrarily declares, in the face of his own inexorable logic
and its inevitable deductions, that, "_it 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. At
this point, the philosopher and the churchman reach the parting of the
ways, and this is the exception, in the conclusion of the two, noted a
few pages back.[A]

[Footnote A: Page 105.]


    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 within them,
    we are nevertheless told that we must represent the Absolute to
    ourselves under these forms! * * * That 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 perversely to
    rebel against them. Let those who can, believe there is eternal
    war between our intellectual faculties and our moral obligations.
    I, for one, admit no such radical vice in the constitution of
    things.[A]

[Footnote A: First Principles, p. 110.]

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," "infinite," 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[A] which orthodox creeds affirm, and 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 compound, 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
conceived 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.

[Footnote A: "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
inconceivable apart from matter." "_Origin and Development of Religious
Beliefs--Christianity_."--(S. Baring-Gould, p. 112.) It was held
by well nigh the whole medieval school of theologians that God was
unknowable because "the absolute simplicity of the divine essence was
incompatible with the existence of distinctions therein." (See art.
"Theism," _Ency. Brit._, and the references there given.)]

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 is 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 instance, 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 personality of God, but it demands the belief that in God are
_three persons_--the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. This further
complicates the matter, and removes orthodox Christians still further
from the postulate of "simplicity" they affirm of God; for if there are
three persons in God, by no intellectual contortions whatsoever 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 something
the other has not, and each lacks something which the other has, how
can it be said that each of these persons is God, and each infinite as
he must be in order to be God, under Mr. V.'s doctrine?

[Footnote A: "Distinction is necessarily limitation; for, if one object
is to be distinguished from another, it must possess some form of
existence which the other has not, or it must not possess some form
which the other has." Dean Mansel, "Limits of Religious Thoughts."]

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"[A] 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 Confession of Faith_,
"_must ever continue to us a profound mystery, as it transcends all
analogy_."[B] So the Douay Catechism (Catholic), ch. i:

[Footnote A: See the creed of St. Athanasius, a copy is published in
the History of the Church, vol. I, Introduction, p. 87.]

[Footnote B: This Commentary is by Rev. A. A. Hodges, D.D., LL.D., p.
58.]


    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 blasphemy," is
the lofty assertion behind which some of the orthodox hide when hard
pressed with the inconsistency of their creed; and if I mistake not, "A
God understood is a God dethroned," 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 "spirituality?" Only this:

First, his premise is proven to be unphilosophical and untenable,
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"--more than
a mere, and, I may say, bare and barren "existence," a metaphysical
abstraction. 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 doctrine 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 "simplicity"
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 possessed by man, which, in the minds
of philosophers of Mr. V.'s school, limit him who must be, to their
thinking, without any limit whatsoever; and ascribes 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 Testament, for the writers
of that volume of scripture accept the doctrine of the Old Testament
respecting God, and even emphasize 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 authority.

Plato, in his _Timaeus_, (Jowett's translation, page 530,) 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. V.'s "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 anything
    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 existence." Also his God who
can only be seen with the "soul's intellectual perception, elevated by
a supernatural influx from God." Dr. Mosheim, in his account of Plato's
idea of God, says: "He considered the Deity, to whom he gave the
supreme governance of the universe, as a being of the highest wisdom
and power, and _totally unconnected with any material substance_."[A]

[Footnote A: Mosheim's "Historical Commentaries on the State of
Christianity, During the First Three Hundred Years", vol. 1. p. 37.]

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 reference 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, 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 undefinable, who is alone beautiful and good, and
    who is at once implanted into those souls who are naturally well
    born, through their relationship 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 process of becoming and perishing but never really is. * * * Was
    the world [universe], always in existence and without beginning? 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," Mr. William
G. T. Shedd says:[A] "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. '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 regarded 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.'"

[Footnote A: Vol 1, p 56.]

It is conceded by Christian writers that the Christian doctrine of God
is not expressed in New Testament terms, but in the terms of Greek
and Roman metaphysics, as witness the following from the very able
article in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ on Theism, by the Rev. Dr.
Flint, Professor of Divinity, University of Edinburgh: "The proposition
constitutive of the dogma of the Trinity--the propositions in the
symbols of Nice, Constantinople 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
of Greek and Roman metaphysics_." The same authority says: "The massive
defense of theism, erected by the Cambridge school of philosophy,
against atheism, fatalism, and the denial of moral distinctions, 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 followed the
Greek philosophers rather than the writers of the New Testament.[A]
"Platonism, and Aristotelianism," says the author of the _History of
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 certainly 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 influence
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, Calvin and Melanchthon. And if we look
at European philosophy as it has been unfolded in England, Germany
and France, we shall perceive that all the modern theistic schools
have discussed 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, Leibniz, and Kant, so
far as the first principles of intellectual and moral philosophy are
concerned, agree with their Grecian predecessors. A student who has
mastered the two systems of the Academy and Lyceum will find in modern
philosophy (with the exception of the department of natural science)
very little that is true, that may not be, found for substance, and
germinally, in the Greek theism."[B]

[Footnote A: Especially compare Plato's methods of arising from
the conception of the finite and variable, to the infinite and
unchangeable; from the relatively beautiful and good, to the absolutely
beautiful and good, 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.]

[Footnote B: History of Christian Doctrine, by William G. T. Shedd;
Vol. I, p. 52.]

It is hoped that enough is said here to establish the fact 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
Donckt's "Philosophical Argument."

And now as to the whole question of God being "existence," "pure
being," "most simple," "not compound;" also his "immutability," 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 be in harmony with what Jesus Christ
is_: I meet Mr. V.'s "philosophical argument" as I meet his scriptural
argument. I appeal 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 ascension
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 remark, a whole without parts
is inconceivable. Then it follows that God's "infinity," so far as it
is spoken of in scripture, does 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 concerning his own nature,
being assured that in God's infinite knowledge he knows himself, and
that which he reveals concerning himself is to be trusted far beyond
man's philosophical conception of him.

But to resume our inquiry: Is Jesus Christ immutable, unchangeable? 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 beginning
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 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 holding _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
relations 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 likewise
    (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.[A]

[Footnote A: _Millennial Star_, Vol. 23: p. 247.]

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 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 philosophy by Jesus
Christ as God.

Is Jesus Christ without passions? No; his deathless love for his
friends, so beautifully manifested by word and deed throughout his
mortal life, together with his love for mankind, which led him to
give his life for the world, as also his explicitly declared hatred
of that which is sin and evil, forbid us thinking of him as without
passions.[A] 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 "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
"spirituality" or "immutability" of God.

[Footnote A: God is angry with the wicked every day (Ps 7:11.)]

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 differ 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
comprehension 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 his present earth-bound
conditions, here and now he must recognize his intellectual
limitations: for, as in Christ's humiliation (i. e. in his earth-life)
his judgement 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 discovered 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
form. 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 indestructible has become a common-place," he remarks. "The
seeming annihilations of matter turn out, on close observation, to be
only changes of state. It is found that the evaporated water, though it
has become invisible, may be brought by condensations to its original
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 represent to ourselves the parts the matter as approximated,
    we cannot 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 impossible to think of something
    becoming nothing, for the same reason that it is impossible to
    think of nothing becoming something. (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 divisible into ultimate atoms. Not that such a fact has been
demonstrated or is demonstrable; but granted the existence of matter,
its existence as an aggregation of such 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 atoms. 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 constitute the material
universe, which, so far as the wit of man can conceive, is infinite;
and hence, we may say the infinite universe is composed of finite
atoms; or, several finite things--Mr. V.'s philosophy to the contrary
notwithstanding--produce the infinite.

2--"_Many infinite beings are inconceivable; for if there were several,
they would have to differ from each other by some perfection. Now, the
moment one would have a perfection 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 absolutely 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 is conceived of as
absolutely infinite, in his substance as in his attributes, then all
idea of personality respecting him must be given up; for personality
implies limitations. 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 regard God as distinct from what they call
the "material universe," 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 or 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 "finite 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 infinite 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? Moreover, when
_infinity_ is thus understood--and it can be understood when relating
to God in no other way--the difficulty 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 perfection 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
therefore the perfections possessed by those beings of a different
nature will constitute no limitation to their infinity.

3--"_If one is infinite nothing can be added to it_."

This maybe true of the absolutely infinite; for that which is
absolutely infinite must be the sum total of all existence. 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 statement 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 "_if
one is infinite, 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 parts, 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 Der Donckt, which thus constantly brings 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 conception 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 _if 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 tabernacle of flesh--something finite
was added to the 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:--


    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.

But since the premises themselves have been shown to be utterly
untenable, as relating to God, as revealed in the scriptures, and in
the person and nature of Jesus Christ, the conclusions 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 changeable and changing,
ever susceptible of improvement." Granting that man is ever susceptible
of improvement, ought not the gentleman to proceed with some caution
before dogmatically asserting that there are to be limitations to
man's enlargement, to his progress, and to his attainments? Given
the susceptibility to improve, never ending duration through which
the processes of improvement shall continue, and God to direct such
processes, who can dogmatize upon the limitations of the Intelligences
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 attributes, such as being
both finite and infinite, compound and 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 that absolute 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 conception
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 follows that urging the apparent absurdity of such
characteristics in Deity as these is of no avail against the facts in
the revelations 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 insuperable 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 comprehends 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 earth-life his intellectual and spiritual powers
were somewhat veiled; and with man doubtless it is the same; in his
earth-life that intellectual excellence which he enjoyed as a spirit
in the mansions 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 dogmatically upon its nature or its
limitations. To illustrate my thought: I am this moment sitting 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 empires 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: live 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 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 between 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 require 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 extend 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 habitation 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 inconceivable (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 his future immeasurably exalted state he may project both thought
and consciousness equally to all points of the universe at once,
steadfastly 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 "oneness" which also involves "likeness," be
realized, in fulfilment of Messiah's prayer, it must be by men rising
to divinity, Mr. Van Der Donckt's "impossibilities" to the contrary
notwithstanding.

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

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, challenges 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, 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 narrowness, weakness, imperfections and limitations; and
also recognize 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 and 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 attainments 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 existence 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 unattainable 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 immeasurably 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 stands,
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
    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 overlooked.

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 _harmony_ in its government. Nor am I unmindful of the
force there is in the deduction usually drawn from these premises,
viz., that the Creator and Governor of the universe, must necessarily
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
intelligence the more perfect can the unity of purpose and of effort
become: so that one needs only the existence of perfect intelligences
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 explanation
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 conditions that obtain_.
Moreover, it will be found, on careful inquiry, that the explanation
of the "Oneness" controlling in the universe, on the theory that it
results from the perfect agreement or unity of Many Intelligences,[A]
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
government. This theory Mr. Van Der Donckt, of course, denies, and this
is the issue between us that remains to be tested.

[Footnote A: John Stuart Mill, in his Essay on _Theism_, in speaking of
the evident unity in nature, which suggests that nature is governed by
_One Being_, comes very near stating the exact truth in an alternative
statement to his first remark, viz.: "At least, if a plurality be
supposed, 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_, p. 133).]

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

It is a matter of common knowledge that the word translated "God" in
the first chapter of our English version of the Bible, in the Hebrew,
is _Elohim_--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 explanation 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,[A] "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."

[Footnote A: This is Rev. R. 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.]

Other Jewish scholars content themselves in accounting for this
inconvenient plural in the opening chapter of Genesis, 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_ (singular Eloah) is the generic name of
God, and, being _plural_ in form, is probably a plural of excellence
and majesty."[A] Dr. Havernick derives the word _Elohim_ from a
Hebrew root now lost, _Coluit_, and thinks that the plural is used
merely to indicate the abundance and super-richness contained in the
divine Being.[B] Rabbi Jehuda Hallevi (twelfth century) found in the
usage of the plural _Elohim_ a protest against idolators, who call
each personified 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."[C] 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 recognizes 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."[D] This view was maintained at
length by Rev. H. Highton, in the Christian Jewish periodical, _The
Voice of Israel_, before quoted. "But Calvin, Mercer, Dresius and
Ballarmine," says Dr. Hackett,[E] of the Theological Institution of
Newton, Massachusetts--editor of Smith's Bible Dictionary--"have given
the weight of their authority against an explanation so fanciful and
arbitrary."

[Footnote A: "Vindication of Mosaic Authorship of Pentateuch," p. 65.]

[Footnote B: See "Kitto's Biblical Literature," Art. "God," Vol. 1, p.
777.]

[Footnote C: Smith's Bible Dict. (Hackett edition), Art. Jehovah, p.
1242.]

[Footnote D: "Critical and Explanatory Commentary" (Jamieson, Faussett
and Brown) Gen. 1:1, 2.]

[Footnote E: Smith's Bible Dictionary (Hackett edition), Art. Jehovah,
Vol. 2, p. 1242.]

Others explain the use of the plural "we" or "us," by saying 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."[A]

[Footnote A: _Voice of Israel_, p. 95.]

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."[A]

[Footnote A: "Vindication of Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch"
(Elliott) p. 64.)]

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 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
    adjectives.

Relative to this, a friend[A] 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," possessive
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, refer to true Gods. Again in
Genesis 3:22--"Man is become as one of _us_," Mr. Ramseyer suggests
that here, again, the pronoun used is in the first person plural. I
find this view of both these passages sustained by Rev. H. Highton in
the lecture before quoted. First he says:

[Footnote A: Prof. A. Ramseyer, of the Latter-day Saints' University.]


    The Hebrew word meaning God, is 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 mention some of the clearest passages
    in which it is so used, 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 God 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 _El-Bethel_: because their God
    appeared unto him." And with a plural adjective 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 remarkable 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 emphatically 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 obvious 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 accurate 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 image_?" 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 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
    plurality of persons in God than these, where he says "one of us."
    M. Leeser, of Philadelphia, the editor of the _Occident_, which
    is the American Jewish magazine, 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 become 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 suffix _Nu_ "our," twice, and they also use the plural
form of the verb _Naaseh_, "let us make." The Professor also adds the
illustration 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.[A]

[Footnote A: 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.]

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 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
representatives of God merely, who said: "The man has become as one of
_us_" (Genesis 2:7); and so also with other passages in the quotation
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 Testament,
    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 probable 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 the 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 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 thus 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 leading 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 enthusiastic in their study of Hebrew, and after Prof.
Seixas' term as teacher had expired, the class was continued with
Joseph Smith as instructor, Orson Pratt continuing in attendance on the
school. The "Mormon" Church leaders, I repeat, were better 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 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
evidently 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 evident throughout
that Mr. Van Der Donckt has rushed 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 conceptions 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 conscious of
having stumbled upon a difficulty which he ineffectually 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 follow that the Son of God,
Jesus Christ, is _not_ God; that the Holy Ghost is _not_ God! Yet
the New Testament, in representing the Father as addressing Jesus,
says--"Thy throne, O God, is forever and forever" (Heb. 1:8). Here is
the positive word of the Father that 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 emphatically
declares that Jesus is God, has any one the right to contradict 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
conclusion 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 contention: "The
All-knowing alone is God, the Father alone is All-knowing, therefore,
the Father alone is God?" Mr. V. constructs this mighty syllogism
upon a very precarious basis. It 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 one knoweth; 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 circumstances. In the case in question,
the Twelve disciples had come to Jesus, and among other questions asked
him what should be the sign of 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 exclude 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 concerning the Father,
the Son and the Holy Ghost being "the same identical Divine Essence."
Mr. V. bases this part of his argument 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
    _substantially_, 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 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 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 individual being, the One God.

It is amusing sometimes to observe how the learned disagree about the
meaning of words--especially in the languages called dead. It must
be admitted in favor of Mr. V.'s contention that the Fathers of the
Council of Sardica, A. D. 347, expressly 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 substance;[A] still, before that time, a number of the so-called
Christian Fathers, some among the most influential, too, held to a
contrary opinion, as the following from Dr. Priestley's _History of the
Corruptions of Christianity_, with the accompanying references to the
works of the Christian Fathers themselves, will show:

[Footnote: Theodoret, Book II, Chap. 8.]


    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[A] 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 were of
    one_ [unum] _heart and of one_ [unum] _soul_," and then he will
    understand this, "_I and my Father are one_,"[B] [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 watereth are
    both one" [unum][C].

[Footnote A: Against Prexas, Chap. 22, p. 513.]

[Footnote B: Against Celsum, Lib. 8, p. 386.]

[Footnote C: _Ibid_, Chap. 27, p. 99.]

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 interpretation 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
kill him, because he not only had 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 asserts 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 shall believe on me
through their word; _that they all may be one: * * * that they may be
one, even as we are one_.[A]

[Footnote A: St. John 17:11, 20, 21, 22.]

In Latin, the clauses written in _Italics_ in the above, stand: _Ut
sint 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 substance, with the Father; not agreement of mind, or
concord of purpose, or moral union. Very well, for the moment let us
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 identity or physical union of the Father and the Son--is
strengthened by the fact that it is followed 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 so 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 are
physically 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
physically united with God, in one essence or substance--not just 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 inevitable 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 sincerest desire
of the Hindoo is to be "physically united with God," even if that
involve "a blowing out," or the attainment of Nirvana--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 persistence 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 defended 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 describe 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 which the utmost we may assert is, '_that it is_.'"[A]
In all of which one may see Mr. V.'s "_That which is_;" "I Am who Am;"
"Infinite Being;" God, "most _simple, or not compound_"--whose "essence
is actual being or existence."

[Footnote A: Max Muller, "Chips from a German Workshop," vol. I, p.
285.]

_My_ point is, that the text, "I and my Father are one," refers 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 physical union
of man with God. Both his interpretation of scripture and his
philosophy--especially the latter--would require it. Man and God, in
his 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, God infinite;
nothing can be added to the infinite, therefore, man cannot be added
to the infinite in physical union. "The nature of the parts would
cling to the whole," and the infinity of God would be marred by the
physical union of finite parts to him; hence, the oneness of Christians
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 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, are seen, in the Father and the Son,
whose oneness consists not of physical identity, but of agreement of
mind, concord of will, and unity of purpose; a oneness born of perfect
knowledge, equality of power and dominion. But if a perfect oneness, as
above set forth, may subsist between two persons, it may subsist with
equal consistency among any number of persons 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 perfect 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, O 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 coming 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 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 Corinthian 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 evident 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 quotes: "_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 be
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 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, O, Israel: the Lord _our_ God is one Lord."--_Moses_.

"The head of the Gods appointed _one_ God for us."--Joseph Smith.[A]

[Footnote A: From discourse delivered 10th June, 1844. _Mill. Star_,
vol. 24, p. 108 _et seq_.]

"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.[A]

[Footnote A: Sixteenth of June sermon, 1844. _Mill. Star_, vol. 24, p.
140.]

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 appointed _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, as did Moses, Paul and Joseph Smith? No
wonder that Moses sent ringing down through the centuries that clarion
sentence: "Hear, O 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 _there_ BE _Gods many, and Lords
many_--but _to us_ there is but one God;" or that Joseph Smith, in the
Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, should take up the 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;[A] it is only here and there
that a glimpse 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 expressed,
hence--"Hear, O, 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:

[Footnote A: 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 Abraham'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 Compendium, Gems, 289).]


    Worlds without number have I created, * * * but 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
    the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O 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. * * * And now, 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 permitted the
truth of the one God idea committed to them to degenerate into mere
superstition. Through race pride, and vain glory in their guardianship
of the name of the one God, they 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.[A] 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."

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

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 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
(contemporary with Messiah), they were brought to accept many of the
vagaries of the Grecian pagan philosophy, which, afterwards, 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 Church 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, "Ahman." "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 on 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 angels
    are a little lower than man.[A] What is the conclusion to be drawn
    from this? It is that these intelligent beings are all parts of
    God.[B]

[Footnote A: 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
translation of the passage, it may be said of the latter that it is in
better harmony 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 little 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.]

[Footnote B: Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 342.]

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.
    Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made,
    neither indeed can be. * * * For 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 Cov., sec. 93:29-35).

Nor is the doctrine less in harmony with the Jewish scriptures:


    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
    sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which
    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 his great discourse 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[A], 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 reasoning, 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
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.

[Footnote A: 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.]

Paul might also have quoted the great Hebrew poet: "God standeth in the
congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the Gods. * * * _I 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 offspring 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
God, 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 kingdom, and into sonship with
God. But though alienated from God through sin, man is nevertheless
by nature the Son of God, 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 Spirit 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."[A] 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 upholds and sustains
all worlds. Hence it is said, in one of the most beautiful of the
revelations God has given in this last dispensation:

[Footnote A: Edward Markham.]


    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,
    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 giveth 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 kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these,
    hath seen God moving in his majesty and power (Doc. and Cov., 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 divine 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, 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 embodiment 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_. And
so in every inhabited 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 becomes
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 permeates 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:[A] An infinitude of worlds and
systems of worlds rising one above another 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, Patriarchs, 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 we 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 principles, there is a unity in their government that
makes it one even as they are one. Let worlds and systems 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-systems.

[Footnote A: New Witness for God, pp. 473-5.]

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 _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; _third_, because it must demonstrate to our youth, that we
have no fear of placing our principles 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 subject; 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 becoming
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.[A]

[Footnote A: A discourse delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden, Utah,
Tuesday evening, April 22, 1902, under the auspices of the Young Men's
Mutual Improvement Association of the Weber Stake of Zion.]

_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 it 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 bruise
    his heel.[A]

[Footnote A: Gen. 3: 15.]

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
    everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to
    condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.
    [A]

[Footnote A: St. John 3:16, 17.]

I say to be the Savior of the world was the primary purpose 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."[A]--"which," says Matthew in his Gospel,
"being interpreted, is God with us."[B]

[Footnote A: Isaiah 7:14.]

[Footnote B: Matt. 3:23.]

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
    Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.[A]

[Footnote A: I Tim. 3:16.]

That this passage has direct reference to the Lord Jesus Christ no one
can doubt; for to none but to him does the language apply. Here let me
say with reference to the Bible statement 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 prevailing 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 revelation of God being given; for men knew him not;
nor had they 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 prevailed. Now, I know that
word represents complex rather than simple ideas to you, and needs a
little explanation. Pantheism, speaking 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
substance theory; and is spoken of by some of our philosophers as the
purest Theism--that is, faith in one God. Indeed, Pantheism, 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 manifestations. 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
was the Pantheism of Egypt, and led to the abominable and disgusting
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 supposed 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 elevated 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 represented as
    Heaven and Earth.[A]

[Footnote A: Science of Religion (Muller) pp. 61, 62.]

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," 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
distance."[A]

[Footnote A: Ibid p. 87.]

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 understood 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 remembered 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 analysis 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 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
writings 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 were 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 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 blood." "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 anger and affection
are inconsistent with the nature of a happy and immortal being. These
apprehensions 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
of Cotta, in his Tusculan Disputations, viz., "Epicurus has allowed
a deity in words but destroyed him in fact." He rendered his Gods as
intangible, as useless, as far removed from exciting adoration, or of
controlling the universe, as have the orthodox Christian sects their
Deity, 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 governed by them, and (4) that they
exercise a superintendency over human affairs.

The evidence for the existence of the Gods they saw primarily in the
universe itself. "What can be so plain and evident," they argued, "when
we behold the heavens, and contemplate 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 approbation 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 beings." The God of the Stoics is
further described as a corporeal being, united to matter by a necessary
connection; and, moreover, 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 philosophy mainly from Socrates and Aristotle. Their cosmology
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 revealed. Their ancestors constituted a nation, a
people, peculiarly 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 harmonizing 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, or the
LXX. 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 generally 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, however, the time or
manner in which the translation was accomplished that we are interested
in, but the character of the translation 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 Septuagint:


    Putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, 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 composition. 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 undeniably there, which can only be explained
    by reference to Jewish tradition, 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, however, 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 character of Jewish
    Hellenising. In the same class we reckon what constitutes the
    prominent characteristics of the LXX version, which, for want of
    better terms, 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 be
    said, often very unsatisfactorily. More especially, a strenuous
    effort is made to banish all anthropomorphisms, as inconsistent
    with their ideas of the Deity.[A]

[Footnote A: "Jesus, the Messiah," by Edersheim,vol. I, pp. 27-8,
eighth edition.

Later the same authority points out the fact that the Septuagint
version of the Hebrew scriptures became really the people'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 allegorical meaning."[A]

[Footnote A: Ibid, p. 29.]

The foundation thus laid for a superstructure of false philosophy
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 Alexandria, 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 Edersheim, 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 philosophers had learned from the Bible. Thus,
according to Aristobulus, Pythagoras, Plato, and all the other sages,
had really learned from Moses, and the broken rays found in their
writings were united in all their glory in the Torah."[A]

[Footnote A: "Jesus, the Messiah," Edersheim, vol. 1, p. 36.]

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 Scripture. 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 anthropomorphisms, but cut the knot
wherever difficulties seemed insuperable. Again, Philo would find an
allegorical, along with the literal, interpretation 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."[A]

[Footnote A: 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."]

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 so 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 extravagant was the idea that a word which occurred in the
Septuagint 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 necessary to read the following quotation
from an authority upon such subjects:


    Philo's doctrine starts from the idea that God is "being"
    absolutely bare of all quality. All quality in finite beings has
    limitation, and no limitation can be predicated of God, who is
    eternal, unchangeable, simple substance, 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 consistent application of Philo's abstract
    conception of God would exclude the possibility of any active
    relation of God to the world, and therefore 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. But 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 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 world 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
    operative "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.[A]

[Footnote A: Professor E. Schurer, of University of Giessen, art.
_Philo_ in Encyclo. Brit.]

In all this one may see only too plainly the effort to harmonize 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 witnesses 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 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 comes 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 revelation of God.
He whom the Egyptians and Indians sought for in their Pantheism, must
be made known. God, whom Confucius would have men respect, but keep
at a distance, must draw near. The "Alfader" of the Goths, undefined,
incomprehensible to 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 speculations
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, without 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 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 Father'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 dispute 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 know him, from the least to the greatest, so
tangible, so real a revelation 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 foreknowledge 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.[A]

[Footnote A: This synopsis of the Christ's life is in Acts 2.]

Mark you, in all this there is not a word about the mysterious,
ineffable generation of the Son of God from the Father, together with
all the mysteries that men have gathered together in their learned
disquisitions about God. No question is raised as to whether Jesus
was made out of nothing or begotten 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;[A] and being a man, held forth himself to be God.[B] 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 personage of flesh and bones, as
tangible as the exalted man, Christ Jesus the Lord.

[Footnote A: John 5:18.]

[Footnote B: John 10:30-33.]

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 flesh," 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 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 Latter-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 writings 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",[A] the interpretation of which name is,
according to Matthew, "God with us".[B] 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:

[Footnote A: Isaiah 7:14.]

[Footnote B: Matt. 1:23.]


    For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the
    government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called
    Wonderful, Counselor, _The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the
    Prince of Peace_.[A]

[Footnote A: Isaiah 9:6.]

All concede that this is in plain allusion to Jesus Christ, and the
scriptures here directly call Him _The 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 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 being 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
children of men, he was for that reason called the "Word."[A]

[Footnote A: 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 Cov. Sec. 93.) That is, it appears that Messiah was
called the "Word" because He was the "Messenger"--"the Messenger of
Salvation."]

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 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
footing 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, O 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 remember 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."[A] So you see the
angels refuse divine honors. But the scriptures prove that Jesus was
especially to be worshiped; hence he must be Deity:


    [Footnote A: Rev. 19:10.]

    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.[A]

[Footnote A: Heb. 1:5, 6.]

The same doctrine is taught in the epistle to the Philippians:


    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 in 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.[A]

[Footnote A: Phil. 2:9, 10.]

There are other passages to the same effect, but it is perhaps
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.[A]

[Footnote A: John 1:1-4.]

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 heaven * * who is the image
    of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. 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.[A]

[Footnote A: Col. 1:12-17.]

Again in 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 judgment 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.[A]

[Footnote A: Rev. 14:7.]

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 Matthew:


    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; teaching them to
    observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.[A]

[Footnote A: Matt. 28:18, 19.]

Observe that the Lord Jesus Christ is placed upon a footing 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.[A]

[Footnote A: Phil. 2:6.]

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

[Footnote A: Heb. 3:3.]

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.[A]

[Footnote A: II Cor. 4:4.]

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.[A]

[Footnote A: Col. 1:5.]

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.[A]

[Footnote A: Col. 1:19, 2:9.]

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 branch of my subject. I now
wish to show you that Jesus Christ manifested God also in his life; and
although I have been addressing you for some time, I 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 of God.

First of all, I call your attention to the deep, the profound humility
of God; his great condescension 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 kingdom, 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 you 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![A] 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 not men taught
humility, as they are taught it by no other circumstance whatsoever!

[Footnote A: St. John 8:41.]

The Obedience of 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."[A] 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 humiliation 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. They 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 unto him,[B] it was
not so at first, for "He received not of the fullness at the first,
but received grace for grace."[C] The child Jesus "grew, and waxed
strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon
him. * * * And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with
God and man."[D] 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.

[Footnote A: Acts 8:33.]

[Footnote B: St. John 3:34.]

[Footnote C: Doc. and Cov., Sec. 93:12, 13]

[Footnote D: Luke 2:40, 52.]

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
remission 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, "I 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? "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it
becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." He who had said that men
must be baptized for the remission of sins, though himself 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 of 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 hungered," 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 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 scriptures: "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
relationship with God.

Lucifer next approaches Jesus upon the side most vulnerable 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
exercise of it. It was upon this side that Lucifer sought to break in
upon the virtue of Jesus. He unveils the kingdoms of 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
humble up to this point; and has endured the taunts and questionings
of his great enemy with becoming modesty and humility, now, evidently,
feels stirring within him some of those master powers 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, desolate
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 compassion towards this woman. He stops the
bier, takes the dead by 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 ministry 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 whole." Accordingly she crowded her
way forward, dropped upon her knee, clutched the garment, and received
the divine power from him which cleansed her body and healed her
completely. 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 expected 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 leaving 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 presence, and
who, notwithstanding the loathsomeness of their disease, 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 sinners? I
take one incident that has always appealed very strongly to me, and
illustrates the spirit in which Christ deals with sinners; 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 sanctity 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 so 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
repentance." As if he had said, you who are righteous and have no need
of healing for sin, stand by yourselves; my mission 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 refer 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 Rabbis,
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 elders, and in either case would have sufficient cause
to denounce 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 commanded 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 sinner? Why, he may look upon the sinner with infinite compassion.
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 circumstance 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 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 disciple
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 heaven 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 reported this case and told what they had
done. Jesus said, "Forbid 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 of God.

But notwithstanding all his mercy, his tolerance, his patience 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 finally the voice of 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, hypocrites! 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 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 announce 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 cannot be enthroned. 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 become 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 remain, 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" utterances on the
subject 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.

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.

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 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 be
    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 chapter 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
    attempt 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
    scarcely done so when immediately I was seized upon by some power
    which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence
    over me, as to bind my tongue 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 myself 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
    brightness 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.[A]

[Footnote A: Pearl of Great Price, pp. 83-85. Also History of Church
Vol. I, pp. 4-6.]

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 communication to make to
man.

Second, it reveals the errors into which men had fallen, concerning
the personages of the Godhead. It makes it manifest 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 revolution 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 gospel 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 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.[A]

[Footnote A: New Witnesses for God, vol. I, pp. 173-4.]

THE DOCTRINE OF THE GODHEAD ACCORDING TO THE BOOK OF MORMON.

The Book of Mormon is not a formal treatise on the subject 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. But 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
    before 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.[A]

[Footnote A: Alma, 11:44.]

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
    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.
    * * * * And this is 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 I bear record
    of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me, believeth 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.[A]

[Footnote A: III Nephi, 11:24-27; 32, 35.]

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 kingdom, to
    sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father and
    unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God.[A]

[Footnote A: Mormon, 7:7.]

Seeing, then, that reference is so frequently made to the members of
the Godhead as separate 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 temporal, _and
    becoming as Gods_, knowing good from evil, etc.[A]

[Footnote A: Alma, 12:31.]

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 am_. * * *
    * And ye shall sit down in the Kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy
    shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fullness of joy;
    _and ye shall be even as lam, and I am even as the Father; and the
    Father and I are one_.[A]

[Footnote A: III Nephi, 27:27; 28:10.]

If the disciples became as Christ, and Christ, we are assured, is as
the Father is, then these words of Jesus contemplate 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; * * * * and 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;
    for 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 spake unto me as a
    man speaketh with another_.[A]

[Footnote A: I Nephi, 11:8-11.]

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 exceeding
    faith as thou hast; for were it not so, you could not have seen
    my finger. * * * * And 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.[A]
    In me shall all mankind have light, and that eternally, even they
    who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my 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 appear unto my people in the flesh.[B]

[Footnote A: 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 fullness of
the Father; that is, a fullness of his glory, his power, and dominion,
hence Jesus represented God in his completeness--"in 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 immediate 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 tabernacled in the flesh, and, in his
earthly career, received not a fullness of the Godhead at first. See
Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 93. Also Mosiah 15:1-4, and the remarks of
President Joseph F. Smith in this chapter.]

[Footnote B: Ether 3:6-16.]

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 harmony 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, until March, 1842, at Nauvoo, when it appeared
in the _Times and Seasons_, numbers 9 and 10, Vol. III. In his writings
and teachings 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 Abraham, written
by his own hand upon papyrus." It will be understood, 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
journal. And now a few extracts from the book itself:


    And I, Abraham, had the Urim and Thummim, 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
    standest. And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, 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 standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time, according
    to the reckoning of Kolob. * * * *

    And the Lord said unto me: Now, Abraham, these two facts exist,
    behold thine eyes see it; it is given unto thee to know the times
    of reckoning, and the set time, 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 is, 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 thou 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 talketh 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,
    because 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 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 another 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: Abraham, 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 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 revelations 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
    everlasting to everlasting, the same unchangeable 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
    likeness, 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 devilish,
    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.[A]

[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov. Sec. 20:17-28.]

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 separation
is swept away; that on the one hand the divinity of man is proclaimed,
and on the other, the humanity 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:


    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, 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 fullness at the first, but received
    grace for grace: and he received not of the fullness at first,
    but continued from grace to grace, until 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 upon 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. * * * And 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-born. * * * Ye were also in the beginning with the
    Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth. * * * Man
    was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, 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 condemnation,
    for 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; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that
    temple.[A]

[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov. Sec. 93:1-35.]

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.[A]

[Footnote A: Ibid Sec. 130:22.]

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 fullness, and
    of his glory, and are Priests of the Most High, after the order of
    Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after
    the order of the Only Begotten Son; wherefore, as it is written,
    _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.[A]

[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov. Sec. 76:54-59.]

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 dispensation 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.[A]

[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov. Sec. 121:32.]

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, forever
    and ever.[A]

[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov. Sec. 132:17.]

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 everlasting to
    everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all,
    because all things are subject unto them. _Then shall they be
    Gods_, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto
    them.[A]

[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov. Sec. 132:19, 20.]

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 plurality of Gods.

THE "MORMON" DOCTRINE OF DEITY AS SET FORTH IN THE DISCOURSES OF THE
PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH AND EARLY CHURCH PUBLICATIONS.

From the King Follett Sermon, April 7, 1844.[A]

[Footnote A: _Millenial Star_, vol. xxiii, p. 245 _et seq._]


    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 of God, and received instructions from, and
    walked, talked, and conversed 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.

    * * * *

    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.[A]

    * * * *

[Footnote A: 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).


    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 exaltation, 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.

    * * * *

    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, I 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.

    * * * *

    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
    will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history
    of the creation in the Bible. _Berosheit_: I want to analyze
    the word. _Baith_--in, by, through, etc. _Rosh_--the head.
    _Sheit_--grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it,
    he did not put the bath there. A Jew, without any authority, added
    the word: he 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.

    * * * *

From the Discourse of June 16, 1844.[A]

[Footnote A: _Mill. Star_ Vol. 24, p. 108, _et seq_.

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 apostatized
    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
    personage, 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 Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and
    behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can
    contradict it? The text says--"And hath made us kings 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 Scriptures, 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 doctrine. 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 head; _Sheit_, a grammatical termination. The _Baith_
    was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but
    it has been since added by a Jew. _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 aushamayeen 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
    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.

    * * * *

    I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by
    translating the [Egyptian] papyrus which is now in my house. I
    learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned 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 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:
    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 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 exalted
    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
    mixture 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, * * * "Thou shalt be
    a God unto the children of Israel." God said: "Thou shalt be a God
    unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman." I believe 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." O thou God who art King of kings and Lord
    of lords, the sectarian world, by their actions, declare--"We
    cannot believe thee."

USE OF THE WORD ELOHIM.[A]

BY PROFESSOR W. H. CHAMBERLIN, OF THE BRIGHAM YOUNG COLLEGE, LOGAN,
UTAH.

[Footnote A: During the progress of the discussion between the Rev.
C. Van Der Donckt and myself, as published in the _Improvement Era_,
Professor 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.]

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 Deity, 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 context. In the same verse, the behemoth is referred to by the
singular pronoun he.

But the use of _Elohim_, in this sense, by the later writers of Israel,
is not necessarily opposed to the view that in the earliest documents
or writings which the Hebrews possessed, it was applied to a plurality
of Gods.

The objection to this view has been made that, with the plural form
_Elohim_, in Gen. 1, the singular verb is used. Such a use of a
singular predicate with a plural 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 the subject in number or it may assume the _primary
form_, viz.: third masculine singular, whatever be the number of the
following subject." 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 you, but the participle would then follow the
finite verb, giving a very unusual construction for the early 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. (III Nephi, 15:5,
Doc. and Cov. sec. 110.) Probably few of the Jews were ever able to
distinguish Jehovah from _Elohim_, as it was latterly used, i. e., in
the singular 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 expression _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 _Eloah_ 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
would give us _Eloi_, the form given in the basic gospel, in Mark
15:34. (See also Judges 5:5, of the Septuagint).

In the year 1830, we find Joseph Smith, in the face of the tradition
of the whole world, daring to render the word _Elohim_ 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 similar passages, we find as one explanation in the
lexicon mentioned 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 exactly. In conclusion I shall quote the words of
the great Biblical scholar, the Rev. A. B. Davidson of Edinburgh, in
explanation 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 consciousness
of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Is.
5:8)." (See _Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible_, page 205.)

OMNIPRESENCE OF GOD.[A]

BY ELDER WILLIAM HENRY WHITTALL.

[Footnote A: Millennial Star Vol. xxiii No. 19, p. 292.]

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, religious and secular, would be
avoided to a great extent, if the disputants clearly understood and
attended to each other's terms, and clearly defined their own.

Words are frequently used in such different sense--sometimes 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 means _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 present, and nowhere absent.

One reservation, however, must here be made, for the sake of scientific
accuracy,--namely, that wherever matter exists and moves, there is of
necessity a corresponding or proportionate 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;
consequently, 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 intimately 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 represent 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, standing up, walking about, &c. Now, a person, when
sitting down, does not occupy the same space as when standing up. He
always occupies the same amount of space, but no more, whatever 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_ omnipresent.

But we sometimes speak of God in reference to his attributes of love,
wisdom, goodness, influence, power, authority, &c.

The next question, then, is, Can he be said to be omnipresent in these
respects?

Yes, undoubtedly so; but not _literally_.

As these are all abstract terms, it is evident that they cannot 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 authority as occupying so many square or cubic feet of
space, or describe the height, depth, length, or width of intelligence
or faith. These are all abstract terms; and in describing the extent
of any attribute of God or man, we are bound to speak figuratively. We
thus speak of "infinite power," of "boundless love," of "illimitable
wisdom," of "unbounded influence," of "unlimited 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 locate 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
literalized.

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 ordained 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
personally absent, just as her Majesty the Queen may be said to be
present throughout all her dominions by her official and representative
agents. She is not literally, but virtually or officially,
representatively or vicariously present wherever her regal authority
is swayed. It is not actually she who is present, but her agents or
authorities, who act in her name in her various principalities 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 tabernacle, and the last a personage of spirit.
In this sense the Spirit can be no more spatially extended, and no more
omnipresent, 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, cannot be
_literally_ omnipresent, although we may (as we often do) speak of him
as being present here and there by his influence, authority, and power.

But we also frequently speak of the Spirit of God as a divine 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 Deity 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 increase 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 relationship 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, 1840, 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
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 together 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 stewardship 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.

How have we come at the Priesthood in the last days? It came down, in
regular succession. Peter, James, 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 together 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 Priesthood, 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.

II.

In order to investigate the subject of the Priesthood, so important 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
Melchizedek and the Aaronic or Levitical. Although there are two
Priesthoods, yet the Melchisedek Priesthood comprehends the Aaronic
or Levitical Priesthood, and is the grand head, and holds the highest
authority which pertains to the Priesthood, and the keys of the Kingdom
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 highest 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 purposes 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 beginning 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 dispensation 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
dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should
be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.

And again: God purposed in himself, that there should not be eternal
fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered
together in one, and that all things whatsoever 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
ordinances 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
minister 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
offering. And again: Hebrews 11:4--"By faith Abel offered unto God a
more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that
he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it he being dead,
yet speaketh." How doth he yet speak? Why, he magnified the Priesthood
which was conferred upon him, and died a righteous 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 Godliness.

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 presidency 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.

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 Methuselah, who were all high
    priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous,
    into 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 Cov., 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 considerations, 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, _Millennial Star_, vol. xxiv, p. 140).

THE LIVING GOD.[A]

(_From the Times and Seasons._)

[Footnote A: 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."]

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 God_, 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 greatness, and
we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen
this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. Now, therefore,
why should we die? For this great fire 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 original,
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 history: "_These 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, speaking of the
flesh could say: I am the Son of man; and, Peter, enlightened by the
Holy Ghost: Thou art the Son of the Living God, meaning our Father in
heaven, who is the Father of all spirits, and who, with Jesus 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 mentioned
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, and in
the first hour I will come unto you, and ye shall behold the joy of my
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 countenance;
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 excellency
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 I looked, and lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Zion, and
with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name
written in their foreheads."

Their Father's 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 presidency 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, O, then, they are all "Living Gods," having passed from death
unto life, and possess the power of eternal lives!

MATERIALITY.[A]

(From the "Prophet.")

[Footnote A: This article on the nature of God, man, and angels appears
in the editorial columns of the "Prophet" for May 24, 1845. The
"Prophet" was published in New York and Boston, and at the time of the
appearance of this article Elder Parley P. Pratt was the editor, and
hence it was doubtless written by him.]

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 negative 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 way 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 possesses no property
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. 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 anticipated
heaven, his immortal self--his all.

O sectarianism! O atheism!! O annihilation!!! Who can perceive 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,
possess 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.

This being cannot occupy two distinct places at once. Therefore, 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
image 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 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 universe,
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 increased in proportion.

Such are the riches, glories, blessings, honors, thrones, dominions,
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.[A]

[Footnote A: 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
brethren in these discourses are not dealing with that phase of the
subject; 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 immortality of
man, at pages 99 to 102. I mean the distinction that exists between
"generation" and "creation;" between a being "begotten," and a thing
"created," or "made." And here, somewhat to my surprise, I may quote
with approval one of the very eminent "Christian Fathers." "Let it be
repeated," he remarks, "that a created thing is external to the nature
of the being who creates; but a generation 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 is
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-essential or con-substantial with
the builder: or a ship with the shipwright; but it is proper to say,
that every son is co-essential or consubstantial with his father."
(The foregoing extracts from Athanasius 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.]

I.

PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG.[A]

_To Know God is Eternal Life._

[Footnote A: This discourse was delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake
City, February 8, 1857. _Journal of Discourses_, Vol. IV, pp. 215 _et
seq_.]

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 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.

You 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 revelation, 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 you, 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 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 year; and yet you
are seeking to become acquainted with him, when the fact is, you have
merely forgotten 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 beginning 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 to 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; 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 character 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 inhabitants 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 children. 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 agriculture, 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 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
considerable 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 consider 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 the 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 ascendancy 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 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 his 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.

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, "unclean, 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 my 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.

II.

ELDER ORSON PRATT.[A]

_Salvation Tangible--Personality and Character of God--Jesus our Elder
Brother--Transformation of the Earth--Its Final Destiny._

[Footnote A: This discourse was delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake
City, Nov. 12, 1876.]

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 salvation. 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 precious,
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 season, 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 different light
from the religious world generally. We look for something 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 religious 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 that for many years now I have been engaged, more
or less, in the study of religion, and have therefore 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 writings, 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 worshiped by
the Methodists--a people whom I highly respect, and whose meetings
I attended in my early youth more than those of any other religious
denomination. The three persons that compose this one God are the
Father, the Son, and the Holy 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, understand how it
was that one of these three persons could be crucified if he had no
body; how it was possible, and be consistent 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 anything 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 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 personages, 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 Methodists, 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).

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 contradiction 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 look upon God and converse with him face to
face, as he says he did, he must have seen a personage, 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, bearing 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 represented 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 children 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
origin, 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 in universal nature, that being, which 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? O, 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 cried
with a loud voice, saying, How long, O 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 anticipating 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 existence? 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 uninspired
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. 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,
sanctified and glorified as the residence and world where God resides.
Born there? Yes, we were born there. Even our great Redeemer whose
death and sufferings we are this afternoon celebrating, 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 hundreds of millions who were born upon
our earth before the body of flesh and bones was born whom we call
Jesus. How is it, then, that he is your 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 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 precisely 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 diligence
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 his 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?
Because 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 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 himself, he were to
seek to the learned Christian world for enlightenment 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 answer 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, "O God, the God of the spirits of
all flesh," etc. He understood that God was the Father of our spirits,
and he addressed him as such. I think too that the apostles in ancient
days must have had an idea of the pre-existence of man, judging 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 present 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 Biblical authority, I will quote you part of the Savior's
prayer to the Father, just prior to his crucifixion--"And now, O Father
glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with
thee before the world was." Here we find Jesus actually 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 Abraham
was, I am." He was, in fine, the _first_-born of every creature, 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 according to man in the flesh, 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 connection 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 speaking of man as a resurrected being, 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 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 blasphemy 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 Scriptures
cannot be broken." This clearly proves to all Bible believers that in
this world, in our imperfect state, being the children of God, we are
destined, if we keep his commandments, to grow in intelligence until we
finally become like God our Father. By 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
children through diligence attain to the wisdom and knowledge of their
parents, so may we attain to the knowledge of our Heavenly parents' and
if they be obedient to this commandment 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 persons 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 Eternal 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 mortal ordeal as we
mortals are now doing?" Why not? If it is necessary 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 is impossible
for man to conceive of a limit to it. If duration 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 continuation of endless successive
moments--it had no beginning. Precisely so with regard to this endless
succession of personages; 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 his
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 fullness of the celestial glory, to be crowned
with God the Eternal 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 become 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 principle, 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 kingdom.

How many transformations this earth had before it received its present
form of creation, I do not know. Geologists pretend 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 creation 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 Scripture to be found within
the lids of the Old and New Testament, or Book of Mormon, or Doctrine
and Covenants, or in any of the revelations of God, ancient or modern,
that even intimates such 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 I began to study the Hebrew language, I learned that
the material of which this earth was made always did exist, and that it
was only an organization or formation 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 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 government 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 ministered 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
again 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 his 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 particle of the earth will be annihilated,
not a particle of the earth was ever originated, consequently not a
particle 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 diffused 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 tabernacle 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 immortal beings,
who will no more be subject to death, consequently 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 prove themselves faithful who will be born during
the Millennium. 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 conference 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
Doctrine and Covenants. Part of it, in relation to a land of promise,
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 inheritance of your children for ever, while the earth
    shall stand, and ye shall possess it again in eternity, no more to
    pass away.[A]

[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov. Sec. 38; 19-20.]

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 children 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 astonished that I had never thought of it
before. "Blessed are the meek," says the Savior, "for they shall
inherit the earth."[A] 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 shall 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 passages. 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 Abraham, 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 coming 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."

[Footnote A: Matt. 5:5.]

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 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 realizing our inheritances and enjoying them forever, when the
earth becomes sanctified 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 belong 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 inhabited 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 experience 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
progeny. Amen.



CHAPTER VIII.

"I KNOW THAT MY REDEEMER LIVES."[A]

_President Joseph F. Smith on the "Mormon" Doctrine of Deity._

[Footnote A: 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.]

My beloved brethren and sisters, while listening to the singing of the
last hymn, my mind reverted to a revelation contained in the Book of
Doctrine and Covenants, and I feel impressed 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, thus saith 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 revelation
there is a key given to us, as the people of God, by which we may
know how to obtain the knowledge 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 I 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, understanding,
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 inspiration from God, proceeding throughout
all his creations that enlighteneth 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 of men to do that which is good and to eschew that which is
evil; which quickens the conscience of man and gives him intelligence
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, humbling himself before the Lord,
and obeying in sincerity the commandments of God. As it is stated here,
"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." He shall be forgiven, and receive of the
greater light; he will enter into a solemn covenant 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 revealed
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, he 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, however, he receive that greater
light, and then sin against it, the 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 construe 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 declare 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:

    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 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 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 received 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, precept
upon precept, until they shall receive a fulness, as he has received 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
    receive 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 fulness,
    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
    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 commandments.

    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
    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
    condemnation.

    For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and
    element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy:

    And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

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 like 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 immortality 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 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 immortal, 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 tabernacle
    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 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 receive a forgiveness 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 testimony to the
world, 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. Especially 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 satisfied 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 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 matters.
"Mormonism" has been interpreted by one who was inspired 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
believe 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 fellowmen. We should do
unto others as we would have them do to us. We should observe the laws
of chastity, honesty and uprightness, deal justly with our neighbors,
and kindly and mercifully with the erring. We should seek to do good at
all times and under all circumstances. The feeling should predominate
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 increase 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
observance 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 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
ancient 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.



Transcriber's Note

Some apparent printer's errors, especially spelling errors and unclosed
quotation marks where a correct reading was obvious, have been resolved
as seemed reasonable. (The 'scanctity' of the Pharisees was a personal
favorite.)





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Mormon Doctrine of Deity - The Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.