Are there three Gods within the LDS Faith, or is Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry making three specific category errors? He appears to contend that Latter-day Saint theology contains three types of gods. Yet, his conclusion seems to depend entirely on misunderstandings, inaccuracies in reading LDS sources, and the imposition of post-Nicene metaphysics onto texts that do not utilize them.

When we scrutinize Slick’s assertions, it becomes apparent that they stem from misrepresentations of key doctrinal points. The Latter-day Saint understanding of God emphasizes a singular divine nature, with a clear distinction between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who are unified in purpose but distinct in being. This understanding challenges Slick’s insistence on a concept of multiple gods existing in separate categories, which does not align with LDS beliefs as how we interpret our scriptures and teachings.

By examining the categories he uses and applying a proper lens through which to analyze LDS doctrine, one may ultimately see that Slick’s arguments significantly falter. His framework seems to force the doctrine into a misunderstanding of the term ‘God,’ failing to account for the context and nuances within Latter-day Saint theology.

His claims not only misrepresent what Latter-day Saints uphold but also create contradictions within his argumentation regarding what he purports they teach. This is not merely a disagreement over religious interpretation; it represents a profound mischaracterization that undermines genuine discourse.

Today, I wish to respond to this critique with clarity, doctrinal precision, and integrity, standing firm in the belief that the truth of Latter-day Saint doctrine deserves to be presented honestly. It is vital that we engage with those who misunderstand or misrepresent our beliefs with a spirit of boldness and respect—exhorting and convincing the gainsayer (Titus 1:9) through proper correction and thoughtful rebuke (2 Timothy 3:16). By addressing these misunderstandings directly, we can foster a more accurate understanding of Latter-day Saint teachings and encourage meaningful dialogue that respects differences while seeking common ground.

Brief Review of Matt Slicks Claims

Let’s take a brief moment and summarize Matt Slick’s arguments and claims.

Does Mormon theology support the idea of three different kinds of gods? It would appear so. Remember, in Mormonism, there is the teaching that people can become gods. There is god the Father who is a God. Jesus is a God. The Holy Ghost is a God. And faithful Mormons can become gods. The following three categories overlap and show at least three categories of god-types in LDS theology.

This seems to be his overall argument.

Claim 1 — LDS theology teaches three categories of gods

He asserts that LDS doctrine contains the following problem: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end (D&C 20:28). Yet the Holy Ghost does not have a body. Therefore, there is an eternal God who has a body of flesh and bones, and another eternal god that does not have body of flesh and bones. That is two categories of god.

Claim 2 — These categories contradict each other

He argues that because the Holy Ghost lacks a body, embodiment cannot be essential to godhood, which “undermines the entire exaltation progression”

Problem: Since the Holy Ghost does not have a body of flesh and bones, then this means that having body is not essential to godhood. This means that the ultimate nature of ‘godness’ is not restricted to having a body of flesh and bones. This undermines the entire exaltation progression.

Normal Exaltation Process: This is a brief explanation of LDS exaltation. First there must be intelligences that are not created or made (D&C 93:29; Abraham 3:22). These intelligences must be chosen and organized before birth (Abraham 3:23). Must be born in a body to participate in celestial marriage sealed by the LDS priesthood (D&C 132:19). They are then exalted to godhood (D&C 132:20) and have eternal continuation (D&C 76:95; 132:20).

What gainsayers do here is they articulate what they think we believe and then promote this as a convincing argument that Latter-day Saints actually hold to this idea and doctrine. It is half-truths, eisegesis of scripture, and basing everything on their own presuppositional bias viewpoint. A gotcha the way the Pharisees and Sadducees attempted to use scripture as gotcha’s on Christ.

Claim 3 — Exaltation contradicts God’s eternality

He claims that humans becoming gods contradicts Moroni 8:18 and D&C 20:17, which call God “unchangeable”

D&C 132:20, “Then shall they be gods (those who enter into celestial marriage, sealed by LDS priesthood, per verse 19), because they have no end; therefore, shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.” These are beings who were not gods and become gods.

Claim 4 — Joseph Smith contradicted D&C 20

He cites the King Follett Sermon and Lorenzo Snow’s couplet to argue that Joseph Smith taught God became God, contradicting D&C 20:17, 28

According to LDS sources outside the four-standard works, God the Father became a God by going through the process of exaltation. But this would contradict the idea that God the Father has always been God, as stated in D&C 20:17, 28.

Joseph Smith, the Founder of Mormonism. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”  Was Joseph Smith wrong? If so, why does the official teaching of the LDS church not say so?

Lorenzo Snow, the Church’s fifth President, coined a well-known couplet: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”

“Joseph Smith preached that long before the world was formed, God found “himself in the midst” of these beings and “saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself” and be “exalted” with Him.”

“Joseph told the assembled Saints, ‘You have got to learn how to be a god yourself.'”

What we see happening here is that Matt Slick provided the following conclusion regarding his assessment and claims:

LDS theology produces three incompatible categories of gods: an eternal God with a body, an eternal God without a body, and humans who become gods. Since no unified definition of godhood emerges from these three, the term god becomes meaningless, and the exaltation process collapses under its own inconsistency.

Now that we understand his precise arguments and claims – let’s take a moment and steelman his position:

Steelman Version

• LDS scripture teaches that God the Father is embodied and eternal.
• LDS scripture teaches that the Holy Ghost is eternal but not embodied.
• LDS scripture teaches that humans can become gods through exaltation.
• If “godhood” includes both embodied and unembodied beings, and includes beings who were not always gods, then “godhood” appears to be a broad, inconsistent category.
• If God the Father was once not God (per King Follett), this contradicts LDS scripture calling Him unchangeable.
• Therefore LDS theology appears internally inconsistent.

This is the strongest possible version of his argument.

Since we have his claims, reviewed and summarized what he appears to articulate through steelmanning his position, let’s look at the logical fallacies employed.

Logical Fallacies Employed

The first fallacy committed is the category error fallacy. He conflates nature, role, and embodiment into a single category called “godhood.” For example:

“This proves that there are at least two gods in the LDS godhead: an eternal god with a body and an eternal god without a body.”

He assumes “body vs. no body” defines kind of being, which LDS theology does not teach.

The second fallacy is known as equivocation on the word “God”. Here, he treats “God” as a univocal metaphysical essence and then imposes that definition onto LDS texts. For example:

“Three categories of gods mean there is no unified definition of what a god is.”

But LDS theology uses “God” in three distinct senses:

1. Godhead (unity of purpose/authority)
2. God the Father (title, role, relationship)
3. Exalted beings (status, not species)

He collapses all three into one.

A third fallacy, which is quite common among our gainsayers, is the Strawman fallacy: What he does here is making a claim of LDS doctrine regarding how an embodiment is essential to godhood and then uses the Holy Ghost to refute such an idea. Consider this example:

“Since the Holy Ghost does not have a body… this undermines the entire exaltation progression.”

But LDS doctrine never teaches that embodiment is essential to godhood—only to exaltation. The Holy Ghost is not an exalted being; He has a distinct role.

There is a fourth fallacy he commits, and it is called the false contradiction because he articulates how exaltation itself contradicts God’s unchangeability and immutability. Here is what he says:

“These are beings who were not gods and become gods — a direct change… This contradicts Moroni 8:18.”

But LDS doctrine distinguishes:

• God’s moral character (unchangeable)
• God’s glory, dominion, and relational status (capable of increase)

He conflates categories.

A fifth fallacy is the misuse of non-canonical sources. He attempts to treat the King Follet Discourse/sermon as binding doctrine. This occurs here:

Joseph Smith, the Founder of Mormonism. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”  Was Joseph Smith wrong? If so, why does the official teaching of the LDS church not say so?

But LDS doctrine is defined by:

• The Standard Works
• The Living Prophets
• The Proclamation and Articles of Faith

Not by 19th‑century funeral sermons.

And we come to the sixth and final fallacy here. Matt Slick does what all other gainsayers do – he begs the question. Because he assumes that post-Nicene metaphysics are the standard by which LDS Theology may need to be judged. This is how he begs the question:

Three categories of gods mean there is no unified definition of what a god is. Without a clear definition, the LDS theology becomes weak, undefined, and inconsistent.

The reason he begs the question here?

The single term ‘god,’ which then has no unified definition, becomes functionally meaningless. If you can’t define what God is, then you can’t say what it means to become a god. If the Holy Ghost is a God without a body of flesh and bones, then this casts doubt on the exultation process.

He presupposes:

• God must be immaterial
• God must be timeless
• God must be ontologically simple

None of these are LDS assumptions.

Titus 1:9 | Rebuttal – Exhort and Convince the Gainsayer

LDS Theology Does Not Teach “Three Kinds of Gods”

Slick’s entire argument can be seen as relying heavily on a redefinition of key terms within Latter-day Saint (LDS) theology. This approach may serve to create misunderstandings or misinterpretations of foundational beliefs.

The Father and the Son are embodied; the Holy Ghost is not

The distinction that Slick draws leads to a common misconception about the nature of the Godhead in LDS doctrine. It is crucial to understand that these differences do not imply the existence of three distinct deities or “kinds” of gods. Rather, they highlight the belief in three entities that serve different roles within the divine hierarchy, commonly referred to as the Godhead.

When discussing embodiment, it is essential to clarify that embodiment does not equate to different species or forms of existence. The term embodiment, in this context, reflects a functional role that each member of the Godhead fulfills. The Father and the Son, being embodied, partake in physical forms which enable them to have direct interactions with humanity and creation at large.

In contrast, the Holy Ghost’s mission necessitates a different form of existence; His non-embodiment is purposeful and integral to His role as the third member of the Godhead. According to Doctrine and Covenants 130:22, this lack of physical embodiment is not a detriment to His divine status or authority. He functions effectively as a comforter, guide, and witness of truth, providing spiritual influence without the constraints of a physical form.

Thus, the understanding of the roles within the Godhead should not be oversimplified or misrepresented as merely a matter of physical embodiment. Each member plays a vital part in the divine plan, with the Holy Ghost’s unique nature allowing for a specific type of interaction with individuals, further highlighting the complexity and unity of the Godhead in LDS belief. This nuanced understanding is vital for a comprehensive view of LDS theology and the divine relationship among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Exaltation Does Not Contradict God’s Unchangeability

Moroni 8:18 provides profound insight into the nature of God, emphasizing that His character is fundamentally unchangeable. This unchangeable quality does not imply that God is inactive or limited in His abilities. Rather, the passage teaches us that while God’s nature remains constant, His actions are dynamic and responsive to His creation.

The assertion that God can still:

• act reflects His engagement with the world and His willingness to intervene in human affairs.
• create illustrates His infinite capacity to bring new things into existence, showcasing His creativity and power.
• increase in glory highlights the notion that God’s majesty can be acknowledged and celebrated more fully, indicating a relationship with time and His creations without compromising His essence.
• enter relationships emphasizes His desire for communion with humanity, demonstrating that He is not aloof but intimately involved in the lives of His children.
• exalt His children points to God’s ultimate purpose for humanity, which is to lift and amplify His creations, fostering a loving relationship that encourages growth and progression.

Thus, when we refer to God’s unchangeable nature, it is essential to understand that “unchangeable” does not equate to being static or unmoving. Instead, it denotes a perfectly faithful, perfectly trustworthy character that consistently reflects love, justice, and mercy. This quality allows believers to trust in divine promises fully, knowing that while God’s methods may vary in response to us and our needs, His core nature and commitment remain steadfastly the same.

The King Follett Sermon Is Not Canon

Slick treats it as binding doctrine. Latter-day Saints do not.

The Church’s own essay clarifies that:

1. The couplet is not a metaphysical definition and should not be understood as such. This indicates that, rather than presenting a philosophical framework for understanding the nature of existence and divinity, the couplet serves a different purpose within the context of Latter-day Saint theology and teachings.
2. The Church does not teach infinite regress of gods. This is an important distinction that addresses critiques regarding the nature of deity within Mormon theology. By affirming that there is not a continuous chain of gods leading back indefinitely, the Church provides clarity on its position regarding the origins of the Father.
3. The Father is eternal and uncreated, reinforcing the belief that God the Father exists outside of the constraints of time and creation, thus distinguishing Him from created beings and affirming His unique, divine status.

Slick’s contradiction disappears once non-canonical sources are placed in their proper context. The understanding of these doctrines becomes clearer when one considers the Church’s official teachings in conjunction with historical and scriptural texts that inform them. This context helps reconcile misunderstandings and presents a more accurate depiction of what Latter-day Saints believe regarding the nature of God and the divine hierarchy. The integration of these perspectives is crucial for a comprehensive view of Latter-day Saint theology.

LDS Theology Has a Unified Definition of Godhood

Godhood = exalted, perfected, glorified beings in full unity with the Father and the Son.

This includes:

• Perfect Character: In LDS theology, the emphasis on perfect character is foundational. It refers to the ideal moral and ethical attributes of individuals, striving for perfection as exemplified by Jesus Christ, who embodies divine attributes.
• Fullness of Glory: This concept pertains to the ultimate state of beings who attain exaltation. In LDS beliefs, achieving the fullness of glory entails becoming like God and receiving all His attributes, which is the goal of mortal existence.
• Divine Authority: Central to LDS doctrine is the idea that divine authority is necessary for performing sacred ordinances. This authority, known as the Priesthood, is believed to be restored to the earth through revelation and is essential for guiding spiritual practice and community governance.
• Eternal Life: In this context, eternal life transcends mere existence after death; it is viewed as a continuing progression towards divine nature and union with God, offering a promise of joy and fulfillment.
• Relational Unity: This principle highlights the importance of relationships, not just among individuals but also in the context of divine relationships. In LDS belief, relational unity is paramount in building strong family connections and community ties that reflect the unity of the Godhead.

It does not require:

• Identical Embodiment: LDS theology allows for varied interpretations of what it means to be made in the likeness of God. This means that individuals may have differing physical forms or aspects while still being part of His divine plan.
• Identical Roles: The roles within the divine structure do not necessitate identical functions or responsibilities. Individuals can fulfill different purposes and still contribute to the overarching plan of salvation.
• Identical History: Each individual’s journey is unique, shaped by personal experiences and choices. LDS theology acknowledges that varied histories contribute to the richness of human experience and understanding of divinity.

Slick demands a definition LDS theology does not use. This indicates a divergence in how certain terms or concepts may be understood outside mainstream LDS interpretations, emphasizing the distinctive nature of their beliefs.

The Real Issue: He Imposes Post Nicene and Calvinistic Metaphysics on LDS Scripture

Slick’s argument only works if:

• God must be immaterial
• God must be timeless
• God must be ontologically simple
• God cannot have parts
• God cannot be relational

However, it is essential to recognize that these premises are post‑biblical philosophical constructs, which do not stem from scripture but rather emerge from later philosophical interpretations. This distinction is crucial, as it highlights the difference between theological views developed through philosophical reasoning and those rooted directly in biblical text.

In contrast, Latter-day Saint (LDS) theology is founded on a biblical interpretation that is more straightforward and plain. Key aspects of this theology emphasize the following:

• God speaks: This indicates a dynamic relationship between God and humanity, where communication plays a central role in revelation.
• God acts: The belief that God is actively involved in the world suggests that divine intervention and influence are part of the human experience.
• God appears: This points to the belief that God can manifest in a tangible form, reinforcing the idea of a personal deity who interacts with creation.
• God has a form: This challenges the notion of God as formless, affirming the belief that God possesses a physical, albeit exalted, embodiment.
• God is relational: The emphasis on relationship highlights not only the nature of God but also the capacity for individuals to have meaningful connections with the divine.
• God is Father: This paternal representation signifies a nurturing and familial approach to understanding God’s relationship with humanity, which further underscores His active role in believers’ lives.

Overall, LDS theology presents a view of God that is inherently relational, personal, and engaged with His creation, contrasting starkly with more abstract philosophical interpretations that seek to define God’s essence in ways that extend beyond biblical descriptions. This divergence invites a deeper exploration of how believers in different traditions conceptualize the divine and its implications for their faith and practice.

5. Conclusion – A Titus 1:9 Response

“Holding fast the faithful word… that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” — Titus 1:9

Matt Slick’s argument fails for several key reasons, which highlight fundamental misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Latter-day Saints (LDS) beliefs.

Firstly, he consistently misdefines LDS terms. By failing to grasp the specific meanings of concepts unique to LDS theology, Slick’s argument becomes rooted in a flawed foundation. This lack of precision leads to generalizations that do not accurately reflect the beliefs held by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Secondly, Slick misreads important LDS scripture. Texts that are central to LDS beliefs are often interpreted in a way that does not align with their intended meanings. This oversight further distorts the argument and undermines its credibility by relying on incorrect scriptural interpretations.

There is a tendency to misuse non-canonical sources. While some external writings may provide context or commentary, they cannot serve as definitive representations of LDS doctrine. Slick’s reliance on these sources detracts from an accurate understanding of the core teachings of LDS theology.

Slick also imposes Calvinist categories onto LDS beliefs, which creates an incongruity that does not exist within the framework of LDS doctrine. The theological tenets of Calvinism differ significantly from those of the LDS faith, and imposing such categories leads to erroneous conclusions.

Finally, the argument commits multiple logical fallacies. These fallacies not only weaken the argument but also detract from constructive dialogue. When examined closely, the logical inconsistencies become apparent, undermining any claims made.

When LDS doctrine is represented accurately, it reveals a coherent and consistent worldview that does not involve contradictions or the nonsensical notion of “three kinds of gods.” By accurately understanding the beliefs and practices of the LDS faith, one can engage in more meaningful discussions without the pitfalls present in Slick’s argument. A respectful and informed approach allows for a clearer understanding of the complexities within LDS theology.

There is:

One Godhead, representing the singular divine essence in which all attributes of divinity reside. This concept emphasizes the unity and oneness of God, serving as the cornerstone for various theological discussions and beliefs across different traditions.

Three divine persons exist within this Godhead, often interpreted as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each person embodies distinct roles and relationships, contributing to the richness of the divine experience. This trinitarian view offers a framework for understanding how the divine interacts with humanity and the creation, revealing profound mysteries of faith.

One eternal plan of exaltation is set forth, illustrating a divine blueprint that encompasses the purpose of creation, redemption, and the ultimate goal of eternal life for believers. This plan reflects the intentionality of the divine will, guiding humanity towards a higher state of existence.

One consistent doctrine of divine nature underpins these foundational beliefs, providing a coherent understanding of God’s attributes, character, and His relationship to the world. This doctrine serves as a touchstone for faith, emphasizing the integrity and reliability of divine truths that have endured throughout time.

And that doctrine stands firm, unwavering in the face of challenges and interpretations. It offers believers a solid foundation for their faith, encouraging a relationship with the divine that is both personal and communal, fostering unity among those who share in that belief.