### Nicene Beliefs Non Latter-day Saint Christians (also known as Nicene Christians) believe the following about God: - **There is only one God** > “We believe in one God...” — Nicene Creed, opening line - **God created everything in existence** > “…the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things > visible and invisible.” — Nicene Creed, 381 version - **God is eternal, uncreated, and the source of all life** > “…begotten, not made…” (referring to the Son), and “the Lord and Giver > of Life” (referring to the Holy Spirit) — Nicene Creed - **God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons, one essence** > Implied throughout the Nicene Creed and formally defined at the 1st Council of Constantinople (381 CE) ### LDS Beliefs On the other hand, these core Nicene beliefs are **not** shared by the Church of Latter-day Saints. Indeed the LDS Church explicitly rejects these tenets: > **There is only one God** Latter-day Saints worship only God the Father through Jesus Christ, but they also believe in the existence of a plurality of Gods. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct beings, and this divine plurality extends beyond them — faithful humans can and have also become exalted and become gods themselves: > “I will preach on the plurality of Gods… The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us.” - Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse --- >> **God created everything in existence** LDS theology holds that God organized the universe from pre-existing, eternal matter, rather than creating ex nihilo (out of nothing). Matter is considered co-eternal with God: > “The elements are eternal...” — Doctrine and Covenants 93:33 --- >> **God is eternal, uncreated, and the source of all life** LDS theology teaches that God is eternal, but not uncreated in the classical Christian sense. According to LDS theology, the LDS God was once a mortal man who progressed to godhood: > “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man... If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form.” — Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse --- >> **God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons, one essence** Latter-day Saints reject the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, they believe in a Godhead of three distinct divine beings: God the Father, Jesus Christ (His Son), and the Holy Ghost. These are united in purpose but are not of one substance. > “Latter-day Saints do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity as developed in the post–New Testament church.” — Gospel Topics: Godhead ### Question With these apparent fundamental differences in mind, do Nicene Christians believe that they worship the same god as Latter-day Saints? Or do they believe that the Nicene/Trinitarian God is ontologically different enough from the LDS God that they cannot be said to be the same being?

### Introduction Christian Trinitarians believe "that there is one eternal being of God – indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit". The Hebrew bible book of Deuteronomy makes a few statements about the oneness of God: > **Deuteronomy 6:4** - "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, **the Lord is one**." > **Deuteronomy 4:35** - "To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; **there is no other besides Him**." These statements do not make distinctions between *being* and *personhood* and seem to point to a divine simplicity. ### "Gods you did not know" Deuteronomy later contains a stark warning for the Israelites about false gods and prophets, saying: > **Deuteronomy 13:1-3** - If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and show you omens or portents, and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, **‘Let us follow other gods’ (whom you have not known) ‘and let us serve them,’** you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you... The key injunction being against *other gods whom you [the Israelites] did not know*. ### Question - Do Trinitarian Christians believe the audience of Deuteronomy 13 (Israelites) knew of a triune god? - If Israelites did not know a triune god, why do Trinitarians believe Deuteronomy 13 doesn't prohibit following after a trinity? *This question is not suggesting that the trinity added new gods, but potentially that a triune god is different ontologically from a unitary god such that they cannot have the same identity (example: Trinitarians likely believe that the Mormon god is not the same god as the trinitarian god because the Mormon god is a created man who was exalted to godhood, therefore the Mormon god's fundamental nature is different from the trinitarian god)*

> "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." - Isaiah 43:10 (KJV) In King Follett Sermon, Joseph Smith teaches that members of the LDS church may too become gods one day: **Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ (King Follett Sermon)** > The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. 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. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me. Moreover; we are aware that the Church of Latter Day Saints believes that the Godhead (Father Son & Holy Ghost) are three separate gods sharing the same will. > Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct > roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united > in bringing to pass Heavenly Father's divine plan of salvation. > > [Godhead (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)](https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead) Also; **Abraham 4** teaches creation was committed by multiple gods. > 1. 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. With this in mind; How does the Church of Latter Day Saints interpret Isaiah 43:10? Bonus points if the verse is kept in context.

There are infinitely many combinations of possible polytheisms (2 gods, 3 gods, 4 gods, etc). There are also polytheisms where gods perform different and often complementary functions. What makes Christian theism more likely to be true than all of the polytheistic alternatives? What specific characteristics show its superiority?

I am an atheist and Ex-Hindu. I used to watch Stephen Colbert (American and Catholic) on comedy central before his current more famous tv show. In one of episodes, he was talking about Hinduism, and said "Hindus worship the wrong gods" (google search would back me up on this), which I found fascinating -- This point of view about other religions. I admit that Hinduism seems to have a lot of issues, such as infamous cast system. I would like to know if this point of view was intended as a joke, or do people think that there is such a thing as "worshipping the wrong gods" I hope this is a right forum for this. Please edit my question, if necessary, to make the question suit the forum.

> Polytheism is the belief in, and often worship of, multiple deities or spirits, which are usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own religious sects and rituals. Polytheism is a type of theism. Within theism, it contrasts with monotheism, the belief in a singular God who is, in most cases, transcendent. In religions that accept polytheism, the different gods and goddesses may be representations of forces of nature or ancestral principles; they can be viewed either as autonomous or as aspects or emanations of a creator deity or transcendental absolute principle (monistic theologies), which manifests immanently in nature (panentheistic and pantheistic theologies). Polytheists do not always worship all the gods equally; they can be in monolatrists or kathenotheists, specializing in the worship of one particular deity only or at certain times (respectively). The recognition of the existence of multiple gods and goddesses, however, does not necessarily equate to the worship of all the deities of one or more pantheons, as the believer can either worship them as a whole, or concentrate only on a specific group of deities, determined by various conditions such as the believer's occupation, tastes, personal experience, family tradition, etc. It is also possible to worship a single deity, considered supreme, without ruling out the existence of other gods. This religious position has been called henotheism, but some prefer to call it monolatry. Although the term "henotheism" is controversial, it is recognized by scholars that the worship of a single God accompanied by belief in other deities maintains the principle of polytheism. - Wikipedia In the following article, quoted in part, the claim that the LDS Church is polytheistic is denied: > Latter-day Saints are not polytheists in any reasonable sense of the term that does not also exclude most other Christians who deny the Modalist heresy - fairlatterdaysaints.org A distinction was attempted by Apostle Orson Pratt that, although there have been, are, and will be an unknown number of Gods as the process of begetting and deification continues there is only one God (principle of truth, light, and knowledge) and this God, often personified but who is no actual being, inhabits or may inhabit an unknown number of "temples" which are also referred to as Gods. The God of the Bible, the Heavenly Father, then, is one of these "temples" as is the Son now and someday so shall all who achieve or inherit Christ-likeness. Additionally, Heavenly Father once was a man such as Jesus was and became God the being (the temple housing God the principle) at some past point just as Jesus did. This opinion was opposed and ultimately excluded from official LDS teaching, primarily on the grounds that Pratt's conception of God/(s) having reached a condition of complete knowledge (omniscience proper) conflicted with then President Young's insistence that God/(s) knowledge eternally increases. Neither ever wavered from the doctrine that an unknowable number of Gods exist. The definitions appear widely variant however with Pratt's Gods having arrived at perfect knowledge and Young's Gods forever perfecting knowledge. One of the denials of polytheism appears to hinge upon acknowledging the existence of multiple Gods while at the same time only worshiping one of them. This seems to fall within the category of henotheism which, according to the Wikipedia article quoted above, does not fall outside the lines of polytheism. Monotheism claims that there is only one God anywhere (multiple universes or not); it speaks of ontological being rather than unity between beings. It allows for the existence of other beings who may claim to be God but does not allow for them to be true. The LDS claim to monotheism seems to appeal to the oneness of the various Gods while maintaining the insistence that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct beings. Of the unknowable number of Gods which exist (unknowable because they are outside of our universe and no revelation of them is given) there are at least 3 distinct beings who are each God. To Latter-day Saints, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 3 distinct beings, and these members of the Godhead have perfect unity in purpose and plan. Our worship goes in one and only one direction. What do LDS adherents worship, the unity between the Gods or the distinct God's themselves? If it is 1 of 3 distinct God's who are but some of many, how then are they not polytheist? If it is the unity between the Gods, how then are they not pantheists (Pantheist belief does not recognize a distinct personal god, anthropomorphic or otherwise, but instead characterizes a broad range of doctrines differing in forms of relationships between reality and divinity.)? ___________________________________________________________________________ Note - A significant edit has been made to this question on the basis of comments and further research. I have endeavored to remove a quotation that appeared to be official LDS teaching but was not without obliterating the heart of the question itself. Apologies if some answers are invalidated by this action.

From what I've heard about the Mormon God, he doesn't actually seem to fit the description of "supreme being" and rather seems more like a polytheistic Greek or Hindu God. The following may be misconceptions, so I'm open to correction: 1. The Mormon God didn't create matter. The matter was pre-existing and he just shaped it into being. This would seem to indicate that matter is as fundamental and eternal as God himself, potentially even more so. 2. Mormons seem to literally be polytheists: as I understand it they believe that the father, the son and the spirit are three separate Gods. However if that's true then neither the son, the spirit, or the father could be a "supreme being" because a supreme being can have no equal by definition. It's impossible to have more than one supreme being. If there was more then one then they wouldn't be "supreme". Mormonism complicates things further by the doctrine of exaltation, which I understand to mean that we can leave behind our human natures and literally become Gods. Sounds like strict polytheism. 3. The Mormon God doesn't act as the ground and source of all existence, like the Christian (or Islamic, or Jewish) God does. He doesn't seem to be sustaining all of reality in existence from moment to moment by his creative energies, like the God of classical theism. Instead he seems to be hanging out in creation using his omnipotence like a really powerful human being would as if he were Jim Carrey in Bruce Almighty. Again, more like a Greek or Hindu God, who have very human/"created being" personalities. I might be totally wrong about that though. Most religions that I've investigated seem to have some concept of a supreme being/ultimate reality. For example in Hinduism you have the idea of Brahman, which is a Pantheistic Supreme being/Ultimate reality (the line gets a bit blurry in Hinduism) - all things have their source in Brahman. In Taoism you have the Tao, which is kind of like a force which permeates all creation and reality - all things have their source in the Tao. In the Classical Theism religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) you have the idea of God, who created all of reality and holds it in existence by his creative will from moment to moment - all things have their source in God. Whereas the pattern breaks when you look at Mormonism. "All things have their source in the Mormon God" doesn't seem to hold true. In this sense the Mormon God honestly seems like an inferior being to the usual conception of God in Christianity. (I don't mean that as an insult, I'm just describing the situation as it presents itself to me) So for my actual question: Is there something I'm missing? Perhaps Mormonism DOES have some fundamental "ultimate reality" concept and I just haven't come across it during my research. Perhaps Mormon philosophers and scholars have thought about the issue and devised some "ultimate reality" concept but it hasn't been spoken about publicly much if at all. For an alternate wording: Is there something which is "above" God in Mormonism? or is the Mormon God as supreme as it's going to get?

I remembered recently that long ago, in middle school, my history teacher told us in the class that Yahweh, the Hebrew God was a god part of a polytheistic religion, and that He wasn't even the king of gods(like Zeus from Greek religion), and that Abraham choose Him(Yahweh) from the other gods to be the all-mighty, all-knowing, all-powerful, single God to his new monotheistic religion, that he passed to his son Issac and his grand-son Israel and it became the God of Israel nation and trough Jesus(who was part of the Israeli nation, kingdom of Judah), it became God-The Father for us, Christians. This sounds like a blasphemy to me, but is this based on any historical discovery, or has it any theological or historical veracity?

So Saint Thomas Aquinas said there cannot be multiple gods because there would be disorder since what one wills the other might not and to not fulfill one's will is a defect. But if all gods are good since divinity is good wouldn't they will the same things since they are good? Doesn't this refute Aquinas? Or are there neutral things that can be willed?

Brian Muraresku's The Immortality Key argues that the original Eucharistic meal contained psychoactive ingredients that facilitated certain kinds of experiences. He cites in particular John 6:55 > "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the > flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. > 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I > will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is real food, and > My blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood > remains in Me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent Me and > I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on Me will > live because of Me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. > Unlike your fathers, who ate the manna and died, the one who eats this > bread will live forever.”" According to Muraresku, the 'real presence' of Jesus in the Eucharist is actually psychoactive compounds in the wine and bread. He compares this with Dionysian worship, which he argues involved not normal wine but wine combined with psychoactive additives. As the article Dionysus and Communion by a different author commenting on John 6 says, quoting Abraham Heschel > "The central rite of the Dionysiac orgies was that of theophagy, i.e., > of eating the god. Worshippers, rapt in ecstatic trance, tore an > animal—the incarnation of the god—and devoured its flesh. By killing > the god, eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, they were filled > with divine power and transplanted into the sphere of divinity. In > order to make room for the entrance of the higher force, the person > must forfeit the power over the self. He must abandon his mind in > order to receive the spirit. Loss of consciousness, ecstasy, is a > prerequisite for enthusiasm, or possession." As the author then goes on to say, > "Is it any wonder that Jews found Yeshua’s words scandalous? Yeshua > certainly sounded like a Dionysian preacher. They wanted nothing to > do with this Greek mystery religion. Of course, Yeshua doesn’t avoid > this theme. Much later, at the last supper with his disciples, he > reiterates the idea. “. . . for this is My blood of the covenant, > which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins,” perhaps with a > bit more explanation." Have any prominent theologians or scriptural academics argued we have good reasons (scriptural, archaeological, cultural) to believe that the original Eucharistic meal contained psychoactive properties beyond normal wine?

I say ‘gods’ because of the LDS doctrine of the plurality of gods. They believe in more than one God. I’ve now become confused with an LDS answer to this recent question, asking how the LDS view of ‘eternity’ is unique. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/90047/how-is-the-lds-view-of-eternity-unique The chosen answer eventually admits that, “we know from President Snow that our Father had a beginning”. Please read the whole of the official LDS link here to see that this is official LDS doctrine: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question/is-president-snows-statement-as-man-now-is-god-once-was-as-god-now-is-man-may-be-accepted-as-official-doctrine?lang=eng I understand that this Father in heaven is called Jehovah. See this official LDS link: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jehovah?lang=eng&letter=j “Jehovah - It denotes “the eternal I AM.” Jehovah is the premortal Jesus Christ and came to earth as a son of Mary (Mosiah 3:8; 15:1; 3 Ne. 15:1–5).” But this is confusing because this Jehovah (who later became the man, Jesus) is said to have been born as a spirit baby to the god Elohim and his spirit wife. He is said to be their firstborn offspring, one of many. “God the Son: The God known as Jehovah is the Son, Jesus Christ… he is the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim… it was actually Jesus who was the Creator under the direction of God the Father.” Jesus Christ: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jesus-christ?lang=eng Jehovah: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jehovah?lang=eng&letter=j This means that the LDS Father had a beginning, a starting point in time, and so did his father, Elohim, and so did all the other gods going back and back and back – into eternity? **How can one who calls himself “the eternal I AM” have a starting point in time, requiring a superior being to birth him, and that his creator also had to be birthed,** *ad infinitum?* Surely any such one would have to say “I ***became*** the eternal I AM” (once he was created, with ‘eternal’ only meaning from that time on into the eternal future)? The answer I refer to clearly shows that the LDS view of “eternity” only means from the point of time of that being’s creation, going on into an eternal future. ***I’m not asking about that***. My confusion is that ***if they say Jehovah is “the eternal I AM” but he was created by Elohim, and Elohim likewise was created by a previous god, then there cannot be any god (in their estimation) who claims to be the eternal, self-existent One, without beginning or end.*** **Is that actually true, or have I misunderstood? Or do they say that Elohim is the eternal, uncreated, self-existent One?** **EDIT CORRECTION** I misunderstood when I said (above) that *the LDS Father in heaven is called Jehovah.* Join JBH on Codidact pointed that out in his comment below. Also, depperm said in his answer here, “Jesus/Jehovah and Elohim are eternal”. Then Hold to the Rod said in his answer to another LDS Q – “Latter-day Saints believe that Jehovah is not the name of God the Father, but rather is the pre-mortal name of Jesus… God as a title, not a personal name” Then from the official LDS site, https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/godhead?lang=eng “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.. These three beings make up the Godhead… They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship,” So LDSs pray to Elohim in the name of the one he birthed as a spirit (Jehovah), who later he created as the man, Jesus. **The LDS worship Elohim, who – to them – is the heavenly Father**. I’ve finally got it!

John of Damascus says "*of the Greek we have the distinction of hypostases.*". That is adding Greek doctrine to "Christianity." When John says "**we have**" something "**from**" the Greeks he is speaking of the source of the belief, and not a mere agreement. Is there an exegetical reason to doubt based on these two statements from Gregory and John that: **the Trinity was looked upon by the Fathers themselves as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism**? **Church Fathers attribute the Trinity to a mixture of Pagan and Jewish teachings.** **Gregory of Nyssa - Oratio Catechetica 3 PG 45, 17 D-20 A** Gregory of Nyssa, Last of the great Cappadocians and brother of Basil of Caesarea, was bishop of Nyssa in 372. Gregory states that "Orthodox" doctrine is a combination or syncretizatation of Jewish monotheism and Pagan polytheism: > "the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality." **John of Damascus - De Fide Orth. I, 7 PG 94, 808 A** John of Damascus, who followed Gregory of Nazianzus agrees that "Christianity" takes what s best in Judaism and paganism: > "On the one hand, of the Jewish idea we have the unity of God's nature, and, on the other, **of the Greek, we have the distinction of hypostases**, and that only." Patristics scholar Wolfson says: > evidently the opposition of **orthodoxy** to Arianism was not so much on the ground that it was a combination of Jewish monotheism and heathen polytheism as on the ground that the combination was not to its liking. In fact, **its own conception of the Trinity was looked upon by the Fathers themselves as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism**, except that to them this combination was a good combination; in fact, it was to them an ideal combination of what is best in Jewish monotheism and of what is best in pagan polytheism**, and consequently they gloried in it and pointed to it as evi­dence of the truth of their belief. We have on this the testi­mony of Gregory of Nyssa - one of the great figures in the history of the philosophic formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity - and his words are repeated by John of Damascus­ the last of the Church Fathers. (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers: Faith, Trinity, Incarnation Third Edition, Revised https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002MS4UN6/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_jxjkEbZW3TCV8)

What made it possible for Christian missionnaires to convert natives of America, Africa and Asia to another religion despite the fact that they already had beliefs and gods ?

It seems upon course consideration that God has always taught that he is the only actual God. But upon closer inspection, it appears that God reveals himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as "El Shaddai" which is "God Almighty" or "The Almighty God", El being the general word for "a god" in the Canaanite language. He is also referred to as "El Elyon" which is "Most High God" or "Uppermost God." He says to Moses in Exodus 6:3, > "I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, YHWH, I did not make Myself known to them." These names from Genesis, as well as much of the dialogue in the narrative that forms a context for them, seem to me to suggest that the patriarchs revered YHWH as the greatest of the gods or the god of gods, but not necessarily the only real God. Later, the Spirit of Prophecy reveals through Isaiah that YHWH is the only true God. > Isaiah 43:9-13 (NASB) > 9 All the nations have gathered together So that the peoples may be assembled. Who among them can declare this And proclaim to us the former things? Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified, Or let them hear and say, “It is true.” 10 “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. 11 “I, even I, am the Lord, And there is no savior besides Me. 12 “It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, And there was no strange god among you; So you are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And I am God. 13 “Even from eternity I am He, And there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?” > Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. I can't find any references before Isaiah that clearly state that there are no other gods, without qualifiers like "before me" or "like me". Where in the biblical narrative is it first made clear that YHWH is not only the most powerful and greatest God, but he is the One True God, and that all other beings or objects that might be called "gods" are false?

The LDS church teaches Jesus, Father and Holy Ghost are three separate beings. What is the LDS perspective on the following piece of scripture? > 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. - John 14:9-10

There seems to be a clear difference between the Pearl of Great Price and the Bible in terms of creation: The Pearl of Great Price > 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. - Abraham 4:1 The Bible > > In the beginning **God** created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1 How does an LDS member interpret this distinction? Why does the Pearl of Great Price change from one God to multiple 'Gods'? According to Biblical Hermeneutics, The Hebrew scripture implied a plural God ('Elohim') in singular context which in a Protestant/Catholic perspective would be perceived as the Triune God; How is this specific case interpreted from an LDS perspective? https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8331/why-is-elohim-translated-as-god-rather-than-gods-in-genesis-11 Moreover if Jesus created the world, in Genesis 1:31, the word 'he' is used as a singular alongside 'God saw all he made' while God remains as Elohim in Hebrew acting as a plural in a singular context. Can Elohim be used for both Jesus and The Father in the LDS church? > God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. - Genesis 1:31

[Deuteronomy 32:8–9](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32:8-9&version=NRSV) (NRSV), part of Moses' song, reads: > When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share. Can someone tell me what this means? God is one of many gods and he got Israel? God divided the earth among his angels? Or is he talking about idolatry?

Are there any Christian sects that allow for the existence of other "God" claims? That is, allow for claims that are (semi-)polytheistic in nature. I'm excluding claims that the Trinity is polytheistic for purposes of this question. I may have just found my answer. It turns out Mormonism allows for the existence of other "Gods" – their afterlife claims include the belief that they become "Gods". Correct me if I'm wrong. Are there any *other* Christian sects that allow for multiple "God" claims?

It is stated that Mormons believe in an afterlife scenario that includes the ability to become a god of their own planet (only men though). Does this mean Mormonism is polytheistic? Would this be the only example of polytheistic Christianity?