Mormonism and the nature of God/Infinite regress of Gods

The FAIR Wiki Defending Mormonism by providing well-researched answers to challenging questions within a faithful context

FAIRwiki portal
God
FAIRwiki articles
Corporeality God a Spirit? BoM says so? Father: Embodied vs. Spirit Lecture of Faith #5 Modalism/Sabellianism? Polytheism Seeing God? Trinity Unchanging Divine foreknowledge Elohim and Jehovah Graven images Creatio ex nihilo Creation in Col. 1:16 Deification/theosis of man "No God beside me" Infinite regress of Gods?|Infinite regress? Spirit bodies & 1 Cor 15 Wiki Heavenly Mother
FAIR Wiki Topical Guide
Deity
FAIR web site
Topical Guide Articles
FARMS web site
[Pending]
Additional reading
On-line Print
Other portals
Jesus Christ Holy Ghost Holy Bible Early Christianity & Apostasy

This page is based on an answer to a question submitted to the FAIR web site, or a frequently asked question.

Question

Is it true that LDS doctrine teaches a "genealogy of gods," in which God the Father had/has a God, and this God had a God, and so forth?

If so, how does LDS doctrine deal with the problem of an "infinite regress" of "great-great-grandfather Gods"?

See also: Citations to the critical sources for these claims

Introduction

This is a difficult question to address, partly because so very little is known about this issue in LDS scripture and doctrine.

The basis of this idea rests in the ideas which Lorenzo Snow encapsulated in his famous "couplet":

[A] As man now is, God once was, and

[B] as God now is, man may become. ^[1]

The implications of part [B] are clear, and relatively well laid out in LDS doctrine. This is the doctrine of human deification, or theosis. It formed a key part of early Christian belief, and is discussed elsewhere in the FAIRwiki.

However, the meaning and implication of [A] are much less clear. President Gordon B. Hinckley rightly indicated in a TIME magazine interview that while we accept the first part of President Snow's couplet, we do not understand or preach much about it.

Stance #1: God the Father had a divine Father

This position is likely the dominant one in LDS thought. This line of thinking concludes that because God the Father had a mortal experience, He too was at one point the spirit child of another deity. This deity allowed the Father to progress through mortal life and obedience to moral law, and the Father thereby was eventually divinized. Implicit in this idea is the suggestion that the "Heavenly Grandfather" would likewise have needed to undergo a mortal experience under the patronage of yet another divine Father, and so on.

These ideas are partly based on later 19th century doctrinal extension by Joseph Smith's sucessors following his death. Two addresses given by Joseph Smith shortly before his death, the King Follet discourse (7 April 1844) and the "Sermon in the Grove" (16 June 1844), were the key source material for these later ideas. Joseph was killed soon after presenting these ideas publicly, and so did not have the opportunity to fully expand, clarify, or explain them. There is some contemporary evidence from the Nauvoo Period that Joseph Smith actually taught this. For example, the anti-Mormon Nauvoo Expositor mentioned this concept. "Among the many items of false doctrine that are taught the Church, is the doctrine of many Gods, one of the most direful in its effects that has characterized the world for many centuries....It is contended that there are innumerable gods as much above the God that presides over this universe, as he is above us..."

Stance #2: God the Father did not have a divine Father

Joseph's remarks were not published until after his death, and no word-for-word transcription of his remarks exists. The version of these addresses with which most members of the Church are familiar, and upon which proponents of stance #1 have often mostly relied, were those published in the Times and Seasons, History of the Church, and Joseph Fielding Smith's compilation of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Some Church members have argued, as a result, that the conclusions drawn from the commonly-available versions of Joseph's talks are mistaken, and that Joseph actually meant to teach primarily that God the Father underwent a mortal experience.

Therefore, in this view, Jesus' mortal experience is a better model for the Father's mortality, instead of the experiences of other, fallible mortals. These are compared and contrasted in the table below:

Jesus' Mortal Experience	All Others' Mortal Experience
Jesus was divine prior to being born (John 1:1-3.)	We were spirit children of God the Father, but were not divine beings.
Jesus' body was conceived by the action of the Holy Ghost on a mortal woman. (Luke 1:35.) God was the Father of His physical body. This allowed Jesus to choose when and whether to die.(John 10:18.)	We had physical bodies conceived by two mortals; death was inevitable, and not under our own control.
Jesus lived a sinless life through proper choices and the moral excellence inherent in his divine status.(Hebrews 4:15.)	Not being divine or perfect, all other mortals choose to sin.(Romans 3:23.)
Christ atoned for the sins of all humanity. (1 Timothy 4:10, 1 Nephi 10:6.)	Humanity was unable to atone for their own sins, and would have been separated from God's presence forever without Christ's intercession (2 Nephi 2:5.)
Following His death, Christ was able to resurrect Himself.(John 10:18.)	We could not be resurrected without the power of Christ's atonement.(1 Corinthians 15:22.)
Following His resurrection, Christ resumed His full divine status by right.(John 17:5.)	Humans achieve theosis or divine status only through the grace of Christ.(Revelation 3:21.)

Proponents of the second view argue that God was once as man is now, but in the sense that Christ was once as man is now. That is, they read Joseph Smith as asserting that the Father took on a mortal body and suffered the privations and trials of a mortal life, just as Christ did. However, as with Jesus, this does not imply that the Father was not divine prior to receiving a mortal body, nor that the Father required someone else to atone for or redeem Him:

It seems fairly clear to me that Joseph Smith had [the Father being born as a mortal] in mind and not [the Father being spiritually begotten by another Father above him]. First, immediately after discussing the fact that generation of a son necessarily requires a father, he states: "I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He [Jesus] laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before." Thus, Joseph returns to the same explanatory principle that he had in the King Follett discourse. The Son as a mortal does "precisely" what the Father did before him.^[2]

Many proponents of this view argue that the Father may well have played a role in providing salvation to other mortals, in the same way that Jesus did:

God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible...What did Jesus say?...The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.^[3]

Thus, since Jesus laid down His life as part of an atoning act, some have seen the Father in a similar role. Such ideas are perhaps plausible and consistent with the Prophet's teachings, but necessarily remain speculative.

Stance #2 has the advantage of accounting for another common theme in Joseph Smith's teaching (as well as LDS scripture) which emphasizes that there is a Most High God over all other beings called "gods," and this is identified as the Father. (See, for example, DC 121:32. Abraham 3:19). This accords well with Joseph's remarks in the Sermon in the Grove about the Sons of God giving glory to the Most High God:

I believe in these Gods that God [i.e., the Father] reveals as Gods—to be Sons of God & all can cry Abba Father–Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods even from before the foundation of the world & are all the only Gods I have a reverence for– John said he was a King. Jesus Christ who hath by his own blood made us Kings & Priest to God. Oh thou God who are Kings of Kings & Lord of Lords...^[4]

Advocates of Stance #1, in reply, point out that references to a Most High God might instead apply only from our perspective, and not to the greater "multiverse" envisioned by Stance #1.

Teachings after Joseph Smith

Brigham Young seemed to believe in a backward chain of divine beings. This teaching was linked to the so-called "Adam-God" theories advanced by Brigham. Given that the meaning of these ideas is not clear, and have never been adopted into LDS thought or accepted as doctrine, proponents of stance #2 have argued that Brigham's speculations on this point ought likewise to be disregarded.^[5]

Would multiple deities threaten the sovereignty of God?

If stance #2 is adopted, then all divine beings are subject to the Godhead of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Ghost, and this is a non-issue.

If stance #1 is adopted, some Christians have feared that this perspective threatens the sovereignty of God, since some other divine being could attempt to over-rule God the Father, or even seek to usurp His power. In LDS thought, this possibility is of no concern, because a divine being, by definition, is engaged a unity of love and holiness with other divine beings. The Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost retain their individuality as persons, but are totally united in love, will, and their goals. For one member of the Godhead to threaten this unity is unthinkable. Believers who receive divinization through divine grace are likewise invited into this same unity and love (see John 17:.)

Likewise, any other divine beings with whom the Father has a relationship would likewise be utterly united in love, justice, mercy, and Their goal to maximize the blessings and progress of God's children. In LDS thought, a 'conflict' between divine beings is almost a contradiction in terms, since divine beings are united by choice and nature with all other divine beings.

Infininite regress?

Thus, the idea of "infinite regression" of divine figures is not necessarily an issue for all members of the Church. However, even if one accepts stance #1 above, this does not necessarily cause problems for Latter-day Saint thinkers.

Those who attack the Saints on these grounds often make the mistake of confusing various ideas about infinity. They may take principles that apply to finite things, and improperly extrapolate them to infinite things. Trans-finite mathematics and some aspects of the calculus deal with infinities, and show that such concepts are not irrational, nor do they share all our intuitive ideas of what infinities must involve. (The issue of infinities is an ancient one in western philosophy, going at least as far back as Zeno's paradox.)

An excellent reply to those who use a variation of the "infinite regression" argument against LDS theism can be found in Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review of Books 8/2 (1996): 99–146. off-site PDF link

It should be noted too that the problem of an infinite past is also an issue for any believer in God. Anyone who believes that God has existed forever, and created the universe ex nihilo out of nothing must also confront similar difficulties about infinite past, infinite regression, and the like. An improper or unsophisticated approach to infinities could also make the idea of a God that existed "forever" seem illogical. Critics are often quick to see their own stance as "reasonable," while believing that the Latter-day Saint view is incoherent.

Conclusion

Not all Latter-day Saints accept the ideas which suggest a regression of divine beings. LDS doctrine on this point is not clear, and mostly speculative. It does not play much of a role, one way or the other, in LDS worship or thought.

Objections based on the infinite regression problem usually rely on a misunderstanding of the properties of infinities, and require that the critic improperly apply finite properties to infinities. These problems are not unique to LDS theism, but must be confronted in some form by all believers in the existence of God.

Endnotes

1. [note]  Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, compiled by Clyde J. Williams, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 1–2. ISBN 0884945170. The first citation of the couplet can be found in Lorenzo Snow, Deseret News Weekly x/y (3 November 1894): z. Reprinted in Lorenzo Snow, "Glory Awaiting the Saints," in Brian H. Stuy (editor), Collected Discourses: Delivered by Wilford Woodruff, his two counselors, the twelve apostles, and others, 1868–1898, 5 vols., (Woodland Hills, Utah: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987–1989), 4:162. [Discourse given on 6 October 1894 [main text gives date in error as 5 October].] See also Lorenzo Snow, "?," Millennial Star 56 no. ? (3 December 1894), 771–773. The letters in square brackets have been added for clarity in the discussion that follows.
2. [note]  See Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought Vol. 2: The Problems With Theism And the Love of God (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2006), 451, footnote 28. ISBN 1589580958. ISBN 978-1589580954.
3. [note]  Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought Vol. 2: The Problems With Theism And the Love of God (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2006), 444–445. ISBN 1589580958. ISBN 978-1589580954. Citation is from Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 343. ISBN 087579243X. off-site
4. [note]  Bullock report of Sermon in the Grove, 16 June 1844. off-site Available in Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of Joseph Smith, 2nd Edition, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996), 378–381. ISBN 0910523398 GospeLink (requires subscrip.)
5. [note] Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 345–346. ISBN 087579243X. off-site GL direct link off-site

Mormonism and the nature of God

Characteristics of God

• Unchanging—Does the Book of Mormon refute Joseph Smith on the nature of God? Critics point out that the Book of Mormon never says God was once a mortal. In fact, it teaches that God was always God. Take for instance Moroni 8:18. It says God is "unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." Joseph Smith, however, taught, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and take away the veil so that you may see." (Link)
• Was God once a sinner?—If God was once like us, do Mormons believe that God was once a sinner? (Link)
• Corporality—Critics attack the LDS doctrine of God the Father and Jesus Christ being corporeal beings—i.e., having physical bodies. They claim that this doctrine is not Biblical. (Link)
• Elohim and Jehovah—Some critics assert that Elohim, Jehovah, Adonai and other similar Old Testament Hebrew names for deity are simply different titles which emphasize different attributes of the "one true God." In support of this criticism, they cite Old Testament scriptures that speak of "the LORD [Jehovah] thy God [Elohim]" (e.g., Deuteronomy 4:2; 4:35; 6:4) as proof that these are different titles for the same God. (Link)
• Foreknowledge—Most Latter-day Saints hold to unlimited foreknowledge. This has been the traditional view of most Christians since the post-New Testament period, and it is one doctrine that Joseph Smith didn't seem to question, as there are no revelations that address it. Indeed, it appears that most LDS leaders and scholars simply haven't questioned its veracity. (Link)
• "God is a man"—Critics object to the LDS position that God has a physical body and human form by quoting scripture which says that "God is not a man" (e.g. Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Hosea 11:9). (Link)
• God is a Spirit?—Critics object to the LDS position that God has a physical body by quoting John 4:24: "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (Link)
  • Lecture of Faith 5 teaches the Father is "a personage of spirit"—Lectures on Faith, which used to be part of the Doctrine and Covenants, teach that God is a spirit. Joseph Smith's later teachings contradict this. More generally, critics argue that Joseph Smith taught an essentially "trinitarian" view of the Godhead until the mid 1830s, thus proving the Joseph was "making it up" as he went along. (Link)
• Hinckley downplaying the King Follett Discourse—Critics claim that, in an effort to appear more "mainline" Christian, the Church is downplaying the importance of some doctrines taught late in Joseph Smith's lifetime. Prominent among these is the doctrine of human deification. To bolster their argument, critics usually quote from a 1997 Time magazine interview with President Gordon B. Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it." Critics have claimed that this means that President Hinckley has admitted to altering LDS doctrine, or discarding a teaching from the past. (Link)
• "Celestial sex"—Critics claim that Latter-day Saints believe in a practice called "Celestial sex," and that this is the manner in which "spirit children" are formed. (Link)

Early teachings about God in the Book of Mormon, from Joseph Smith, and among Church members

• Joseph Smith's early conception of God—Critics claim that Joseph Smith initially taught standard Nicene trinitarianism. The early documents tell a different story, however. (Link)
• Modalism in the Book of Mormon?—Critics claim that the Book of Mormon teaches the trinitarian heresy of modalism or Sabellianism. This reading misinterprets some Book of Mormon verses, and ignores Book of Mormon texts which clearly contradict this reading. (Link)
• Lecture on Faith 5 and the nature of God the Father—Lectures on Faith, which used to be part of the Doctrine and Covenants, teach that God is a spirit. Joseph Smith's later teachings contradict this. More generally, critics argue that Joseph Smith taught an essentially "trinitarian" view of the Godhead until the mid 1830s, thus proving the Joseph was "making it up" as he went along. (Link)
• Early LDS beliefs about God—Critics attempt to show that the LDS idea of deification is unbiblical, unchristian and untrue. They seem to think that this doctrine is the main reason why the LDS reject the Psychological Trinity. (Link)

Exaltation of Man

• Deification of man—Critics claim that the doctrine of human deification is unbiblical, false, and arrogant. Related claims include: 1) Mormons believe they will 'supplant God', 2) Belief in theosis, or human deification, implies more than one "god," which means Mormons are "polytheists," 3) The Mormon concept of "human deification" is a pagan belief derived from Greek philosophy. (Link)
  • Gods of their own planets—Critics claim that Mormons believe that they can push themselves higher in a type of 'celestial pecking order.' This is often expressed by the claim that Latter-day Saint men wish to become "gods of their own planets." (Link)

Understanding of God

• Trinity—A collection of articles that address the Latter-day Saint view of the concept of the Trinity. (Link)
• Theodicy—This page discusses the problem of evil—can one believe in a good, just, loving God when one considers all the suffering and evil in the world? (Link)
  • Noah's flood—Would a good, just God destroy children, such as in Noah's flood? (Link)
• Holy Ghost—Articles which discuss the third member of the trinity. (Link)

• Adam-God—Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. Latter-day Saints have struggled to know the meaning of President Young's remarks, and a variety of approaches have been taken by faithful LDS to interpret his words. Regardless of which approach the reader prefers to accept, the Church's official position on Adam-God is clear: as popularly understood, Adam-God (i.e., "Adam, the first man, was identical with Elohim/God the Father") is not the doctrine of the Church. (Link)

Worship of God

• Graven images—Critics claim that the Church violates the Biblical command against "graven images" because it displays sculptures of Christ, statues of the angel Moroni on the spires of our temples, or paintings showing scriptural scenes, within temples, chapels, visitors' centers, and publications. (See Exodus 20:3-4.) (Link)
• Heavenly Mother—Do Latter-day Saints believe in a female divine person, a "Heavenly Mother" as counterpart to God, the Heavenly Father? Are we allowed to pray to our "Heavenly Mother?" Critics claim that LDS belief in a "queen of heaven" is a pagan belief, and that the concept of a "Heavenly Mother" has no support in LDS scripture. (Link)

Multiplicity of Gods

• Infinite regress of Gods—Is it true that LDS doctrine teaches a "genealogy of gods," in which God the Father had/has a God, and this God had a God, and so forth? If so, how does LDS doctrine deal with the problem of an "infinite regress" of "great-great-grandfather Gods"? (Link)
• Polytheism—Some non-LDS Christian claim that Latter-day Saints are polytheists because we don't believe the Nicene Creed. Others say Mormons are polytheists because they believe humans can become gods. Is this an accurate characterization of LDS belief? (Link)
• "No God beside me"—Mainstream Christian critics claim that the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead and belief in theosis are not compatible with multiple statements in Isaiah that "beside [the Lord] there is no God." These passages include Isaiah 43:10-11; Isaiah 44:6,8; Isaiah 45:5-6; Isaiah 45:21-22; and Isaiah 46:9-10. (Link)

Interaction with God

• No man has seen God—Critics claim that the Bible teaches that God cannot be seen by mortals, and so claims by Joseph Smith and others to have seen God the Father or Jesus Christ must be false. The most commonly used Biblical citation invoked by the critics is probably John 1:18, which reads “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (Link)

Repudiated concepts

• Adam-God theory—Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. Since this teaching runs counter to the story told in Genesis and commonly accepted by Christians, critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet. Also, because modern Latter-day Saints do not believe Brigham's "Adam-God" teachings, critics accuse Mormons of either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of prophets they find uncomfortable or unsupportable. (Link)
  • Ancient of Days—If the Adam-God doctrine isn't true, how come DC 27:11 calls Adam the Ancient of Days which is clearly a title for God in Dan. 7: (Link)

FAIR web site

God FAIR articles on-line

• FAIR Topical Guide: Deity FAIR link
  
• FAIR Topical Guide: Mormonism as a 'cult' FAIR link
  
• Barry R. Bickmore, "The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man," in Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (FAIR publication, 1999)chapter #3.Direct link

Corporeality

• Barry R. Bickmore, "Does God Have a Body In Human Form?" FAIR link
• Roger Cook, "God's 'Glory:' More Evidence for the Anthropomorphic Nature of God in the Bible" FAIR link

Trinitarian issues

• FAIR Topical Guide: Trinity FAIR link
  
• Mormonism 201: Trinity FAIR link

External links

God on-line articles

• Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign 19 (January 1989), 27–33. off-site
• Gordon B. Hinckley, "In These Three I Believe," Ensign (July 2006), 3. off-site
• William O. Nelson, "Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?," Ensign (July 1987), 56. off-site

Corporeality

• Jacob Neusner, "Conversation in Nauvoo about the Corporeality of God," Brigham Young University Studies 36 no. 1 (1996–97), 7–30. off-site
• David L. Paulsen, "The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives," Brigham Young University Studies 35 no. 4 (1995–96), 6–94. PDF link
• David L. Paulsen, "Divine Embodiment: The Earliest Christian Understanding of God," in Noel B. Reynolds (editor), Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2005),239–293. ISBN 0934893020. off-site off-site

Infinite regress of Gods?

• Geoff J. et al., "Yes, God the Father does have a Father," www.newcoolthang.com, blog post and discussion of 25 May 2006. off-site
  This post and subsequent discussion demonstrates a wide range of approaches to the question of whether God the Father has a God "above" Him.
• Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review of Books 8/2 (1996): 99–146. off-site PDF link

LDS doctrine and primary sources

• Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 209. PDF link
• Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text"," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 193. PDF link
• Joseph Smith, Jr., "Sermon in the Grove," (16 June 1844): all versions available off-site

Trinitarian issues

• Barry R. Bickmore, "Not Completely Worthless (Review of: "Christ," In The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism)," FARMS Review of Books 12/1 (2000): 275–302. off-site PDF link
• Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths (Review of: Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution)," FARMS Review of Books 13/2 (2001): 109–169. off-site PDF link
• Jeffrey R. Holland, "The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent," Ensign (November 2007), 40–42. off-site (Key source)
• Russell C. McGregor and Kerry A. Shirts, "Letters to an Anti-Mormon (Review of Letters to a Mormon Elder: Eye Opening Information for Mormons and the Christians Who Talk with Them)," FARMS Review of Books 11/1 (1999): 90–298. off-site PDF link
• Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review of Books 8/2 (1996): 99–146. off-site PDF link
• David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review of Books 11/2 (1999): 221–264. off-site PDF link
• Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site
• Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993). off-site FAIR link

Printed material

God printed materials

Corporeality

• Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier, "In Defense of Anthropomorphism," in Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 155–173. ISBN 0884943585.
• Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen, "Augustine and the Corporeality of God," Harvard Theological Review 95/1 (2002): 97–118.
• James L. Kugel, The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible (Free Press, 2003), xi–xii, 5–6, 104–106, 134–135.
• David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83/2 (1990): 105–116.
• Daniel C. Peterson, "On the Motif of the Weeping God in Moses 7," in Revelation, Reason, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen, ed. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002), 285–317. ISBN 0934893713.
• Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Baker Academic, 2001), 33–34.
• Roland J. Teske, "Divine Immutability in Saint Augustine," Modern Schoolman 63 (May 1986): 233.

LDS doctrine and primary sources

• Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought Vol. 1: The Attributes of God (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2001). ISBN 1589580036. ISBN 978-1589580039.
• Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought Vol. 2: The Problems With Theism And the Love of God (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2006). ISBN 1589580958. ISBN 978-1589580954.

Reviews of Beckwith and Parrish

• James E. Faulconer, "review of The Mormon Concept of God, by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," Brigham Young University Studies 32 no. 1–2 (1992), 185–195.
• Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review of Books 8/2 (1996): 99–146. off-site PDF link
• David Paulsen and Blake Ostler, “F. J. Beckwith and S. E. Parrish, The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 35/2 (1994): 118–20.
• L. Shane Hopkins, “Assessing the Arguments in The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis” (honors thesis, Brigham Young University, 1999).

Trinitarian issues

• Timothy W. Bartel, "The Plight of the Relative Trinitarian," Religious Studies 24/2 (June 1988): 129–155.
• Jean Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, trans. John A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964).
• Jean Daniélou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture, trans. John A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973).
• E. Feser, "Has Trinitarianism Been Shown to Be Coherent?," Faith and Philosophy 14/1 (January 1997): 87–97.
• Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, trans. Neil Buchanan, 7 vols. (New York: Dover, 1961).
• Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church (1914; reprint, Gloucester, Mass.: Smith, 1970).
• James L. Kugel, The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible (Free Press, 2003), xi–xii, 5–6, 104–106, 134–135.
• Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Baker Academic, 2001), 33–34.
• James Shiel, Greek Thought and the Rise of Christianity (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1968).
• Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
• Harry A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, vol. 1, rev. 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970).