I was asked to comment on an article written by the “Fair Mormons”.
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_How_is_Mormon_belief_compatible_with_Isaiah
Some Christians 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.
The author assumes theosis and deification are about polytheism. It historically is a more eastern theological idea about “experiencing God” through the “divine energies”. The verses they mentioned should be dealt with one by one because they may assert different things.
These scriptures in Isaiah clearly are meant to assert the supremacy, authority, and superiority of Yahweh over not only over false idols but over all else, including real gods.
The passages in Isaiah cannot be called upon to disprove LDS beliefs in separate divine beings in the Godhead or theosis. Their main point is to encourage Israel to stop worshiping other divine beings or idols but to worship Yahweh alone (see Isaiah 41:29, Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 43:10,12,24, Isaiah 44:8,9,10,17,19, Isaiah 45:9,12,16,20,22.
Any other use of these passages distorts Isaiah’s meaning and intent.
Isaiah 44:6 reads:
- Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Passages such as Isa 44:6,8 and 45:5,21 that read “no God beside me” or a variation of that phrase are traditionally interpreted by mainstream anti-Mormons as meaning that other than Yahweh no form of deity exists at all, including exalted men. This type of interpretation at first seems obvious, but after considering similar passages in other parts of scripture it is clear that this interpretation is incorrect.
For example, Isaiah 47:8-10 depicts the city of Babylon as saying:
- Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:
- For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.
These passages use the exact same phrase as Isa 44 and 45, yet they certainly do not exclude the existence of any city other than Babylon. The city of Ninevah would be very upset if this were the case, as Zephaniah depicts Ninevah in Zephaniah 2:15 as saying:
- This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.
The author is watering down what is asserted about Yahweh. It isn’t merely that Yahweh has “supremacy, authority, and superiority of Yahweh over not only over false idols but over all else, including real gods”. It is tied to his attributes and roles. He is the supreme Creator of all things and no one is like him in terms of what he is.
They try to undermine the Biblical language by appealing to verses that apply the same phrases to cities. The statement isn’t made to deny existence but rather to assert superiority. This response has problems. They are ignoring the fact that the statement is to be understood as utterly blasphemous. The point of the passage in Isaiah is that the cities claims about itself are incompatible with God’s statements about himself. The phrase God uses for himself a city now applies to themselves. Thus putting themselves above God. The point is they can’t utter those statements because it can only apply properly to God. Further, it does deny the existence of any city that finds itself to be of the same genus as Babylon. Babylon is of a class itself with no competitors. The issues are that God shows them that they are no different than any other city. They were never really in a class all their own as God is. He is ontologically superior to everything. Third, they ignore the other passages in their particularity. Isaiah 43:10 makes a polemical point about forming gods that were all common to ANE myths. That is because Yahweh is eternal and never comes into being. I covered that here:
http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2018/09/04/a-god-not-formed/
The article goes on to appeal to Psalms 82 and 86 to prooftext polytheism. Hays already wrote about this in his article about Kwaku-White debate:
He cited Ps 82 as a prooftext for polytheism, but that was never discussed. He admitted that Elohim can denote angels. One problem is that Elohim has a wide semantic range. The meaning is context-dependent. It usually refers to Yahweh but in pagan settings it can denote something else (e.g. 1 Sam 28:13). Regarding Ps 82, one noted commentator takes the position that
The psalmist used the word “gods” to refer both to human judges and the supernatural powers behind them A. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms (Kregel 2013), 2:725.
On that interpretation (shared by Tate), this is not even a prima facie prooftext for a divine pantheon.
The Council 