CHAPTER I.

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.