In the Mormon religion, “Elohim” is the name of the god who is the father of our spirits. More commonly referred to as “Heavenly Father,” Elohim is also the LDS “Most High God.”
The scripture passages specifically about “Elohim” can be quickly found in the LDS Topical Guide under the heading “God the Father – Elohim.” Please take a moment to open the link, and look at the verses. Notice that the first three (four) scriptures on the list are from the Old Testament. (Is it just me, or do you also find it odd that there are only four?)
Let’s take a look at the LDS Topical Guide selections for “God the Father – Elohim:”
Selection 1: “Blessed be Abram of the most high God, Gen. 14:19.” This passage is clearly about “Elohim” because it is about the “most high God.” But just to be sure, let’s involve at least a little more context:
Genesis 14:18-22 “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth…”
When we consider the passage context, we find that the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, is “the LORD.” In the KJV, the all-caps word “LORD” shows up many times. But who is the LORD? Good question. Let’s hold off on the answer for a moment longer, while we look at two more selections.
Selections 2 and 3: “God of the spirits of all flesh, Num. 16:22 (Num. 27:16).” These verses are about “Elohim” because they refer to the god of our spirits. Let’s again consider more context:
Numbers 16:20-23 “And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment. And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation? And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying…”
And Numbers 27:16: “Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation…”
So, the God of the spirits of all flesh is also “the LORD.” Let’s figure out who the LORD is then.
Of the 7,970 times the all-caps word “LORD” occurs in the entire KJV Bible, 6510 times it has been translated from the Hebrew word יְהֹוָה. This Hebrew word can be transliterated “YHWH” and is thought to be pronounced “Yahweh.” It is the very same Hebrew word from which we get the name with which many of us are already familiar: Jehovah.
But who is Jehovah, in Mormonism? Let’s go back to the Topical Guide. Click on this link and scroll down a bit, to see that in Mormonism, there are two “God the Father”s: Elohim and Jehovah. Notice that one of the subheadings of “God the Father – Jehovah” is “Jesus Christ–Jehovah.” Do Mormons believe that Jehovah is Jesus? I was taught such as an LDS member.
So, we have read three of the four passages in the Old Testament, designated by the LDS leadership as representative verses of their god “Elohim,” who is Jesus’ supposed spiritual and earthly father, known to us as Heavenly Father. We’ve found that they are, in actuality, about Jehovah, whom Mormons believe is Jesus himself.
Let’s figure this out, shall we? We’ll look at the issue from a different angle on Monday 🙂
Clyde, Smith claimed in 1835-6 that he had seen two personages in 1820. And yet, in 1830, he was still saying that there is only ONE GOD (both in the Book of mormon and in the Doctrine and Covenants). And he didn't start saying "Elohim" until much after 1835, which is when he began trying to study Hebrew. And the church (which was pretty much born in 1830, right?) believed like joseph did, initially, that Jehovah was the name of the Father, and Jesus was his representative on earth. In fact, many of his congregation apostasized when he changed his mind. How do you make sense of this? the only thing we can be sure of is that someone intentionally tried to rewrite Joseph's history. The 1820 thing never happened, or he would have believed there were two gods when he began his church, not after he learned that "elohim" was a plural word.
setfree,
Yes and maybe.
The article, like many of the above posts conflates two issues; 1 the authorship of the Pentateuch and 2 the historicity of Moses. As far as I'm concerned, this is a discussion about the authorship of the Pentateuch. I'm not disputing the historicity of Moses or the other stories (PS Please, please understand that by "story" I refer to something that could be factual, as in "the story of the second world war"). It's not that I think the article is "wrong", but if I wanted to get really aggressive and blow holes in it, I think I probably could, starting with this conflation. (PPS I'm not going to attempt to do it here, nor will I respond to any posts on the matter on this forum because, heck, it's the wrong forum)
Johnny – I do not buy the whole Graf-Wellhausen theory (that the religion of Israel started out as polytheistic folk-religion and got re-molded by the JEDP redaction) principally because nobody, not even Graf or Wellhausen, has seen what the texts supposedly looked like before they got redacted. I believe that is what the critics of the theory have demonstrated and, IMO, their criticism is founded on a very robust, observable premise.
f_melo – Yes, I am comparing the credibility of Joseph Smith with Jesus Christ. One is found grossly wanting, the other is the way, the truth and the life. After all I've posted here, I should not have to point out which one I believe is which.
Rick, I have "ignored" your posts on my blog because, frankly, they are rude, belligerent and uninformed by the very Bible that you aspire to defend.
All, I have to say I am taken aback at your reactions, but I should not have been so naive.
I had hoped to discuss what is there in Scripture, rather than what we think is there, or what we would like to be there (where have we seen this before?).
I had hoped that we could tell the difference between extra-Biblical tradition and what the texts actually say (where have we seen this before?).
I had hoped to seriously engage the issues, rather than resort to denial or name-calling as a first line of defense (where have we seen this before?).
I had hoped I would never have to prove my credentials here, but if you want them, here they are.
Martin,
My only major issue was you said I cannot defend my position and you make that claim by saying I gave lack of evidence. I stated first and foremost I dont believe you seriously want to debate, so I never was to aggressive in providing evidence. Then when I finally reminded you that you ignored question I asked, I stated them again and gave evidence of what I saw was problems and gave side by side verse and asked more questions you never posted them. And you never let anyone know that I added more information. That makes you look like you were correct about me not being able to debate, yet it was also deceitful because you know I ghave more info and you never posted it or stated that I did. I felt that proved my point that you really were not serious.
Martin,
If one wants to be sure of his beliefs, and or be able to share and argue his beliefs, it is a very good idea for him to wrestle with the strongest arguments against them, not just the weakest. I believe that is what you do, and I'm glad.
Having said that, the Bible has also proven itself over and over again to such an extent, in my opinion, that it is reasonable to also look at what it says about people in general. I believe that there is at least some degree of WANTING THE BIBLE TO BE NATURAL, instead of supernatural, in the hearts of those who put together the theories we've been talking about, for the reasons the Bible says. But again. If we want to have a strong case, we do need to engage the hardiest arguments against our case, not only the weakest.
Martin said
I'm not asking or saying you should debate any of this here, but let me remind you that it was YOU who started all of this here on this blog. You started by saying you dont agree with something I believe then went on from their, and to think I wont reply to someone who says something about me or what I believe is wrong, I reply to everyone as best I can.
"I had hoped to seriously engage the issues, rather than resort to denial or name-calling as a first line of defense"
Name calling, from whom? Denial, what denial? You never addressed what i said, i thought it was completely unfair that you called us hypocrites for not engaging in a discussion about some theory that you yourself said it had a lot of speculation in it. I´m sorry if i don´t find interesting the same things you do, and no, i don´t think the theory is valid, and that´s not denial, because scriptures are clear when Jesus referred to the Old Testament, He didn´t question its authorship – you´re the one arguing extra-biblically, that being a modern tradition that likes to doubt the Bible´s authenticity, and put it on the same stand as cleverly devised fables. Unless you´re calling Jesus´ teachings just mere tradition as well.
"I had hoped to discuss what is there in Scripture, rather than what we think is there, or what we would like to be there (where have we seen this before?)."
Except that you never did. I even cited a verse, but you didn´t bother to show us through the writings of scriptures why we should take that hypothesis seriously, but maybe you think you did.
"I had hoped that we could tell the difference between extra-Biblical tradition and what the texts actually say (where have we seen this before?)."
And you did that how again?
"I had hoped to seriously engage the issues, rather than resort to denial or name-calling as a first line of defense (where have we seen this before?)."
Didn´t see name calling, didn´t see denial, didn´t see any of that. Again, just because you like that theory so much it doesn´t mean i have to like it too, and it doesn´t mean nobody responded to, we just didn´t respond the way you wished.
If all that had taken place after Jesus´ time and Jesus had no bearing on the subject, then i would give more credit to that theory, other than that it´s just interesting reading that doesn´t prove anything. What a way to be worked out over nothing at all. What a way also to be unfair and be found guilty of the same hypocrisy charge you put us all under.
What about the verse i cited where Jesus attributes the Law to Moses? Why do you willfully ignore that? Why do you willfully ignore all the words of Jesus about the Old Testament that attests to its authenticity? Is that denial? Yes it is, but not from us, from you.