With the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ current membership surpassing 10 million (approx. 60,000 of which are full-time proselytizing missionaries)¹ it is a virtual certainty that every Christian who is actively involved in “contending for the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3)” will encounter Mormonism first-hand. In such encounters it is vital for the Christian to have a firm grasp on the LDS doctrine of eternal progression, the philosophical, biblical, and scientific problems inherent to this doctrine, and the way in which to lovingly point out these problems in sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What is Eternal Progression?

Former Mormon “apostle,” Bruce R. McConkie, defines the doctrine of eternal progression as follows:

Endowed with agency and subject to eternal laws, man began his progression and advancement in the pre-existence, his ultimate goal being to attain a state of glory, honor, and exaltation like the Father of spirits. During his earth life he gains a mortal body, receives experience in earthly things, and prepares for a future eternity after the resurrection when he will continue to gain knowledge and intelligence. (D&C 130:18-19.) This gradually unfolding course of advancement and experience - a course that began in eternity past and will continue in ages future - is frequently referred to as eternal progression.²

It should be noted, however, that McConkie himself is not the originator of this doctrine; it stretches directly back to the founder and first “prophet” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Joseph Smith. While it is uncertain exactly when in the time-line of LDS doctrinal development Smith added eternal progression, it can be well ascertained that this doctrine was intact by April of 1844 when Smith made the following declaration:

I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is......

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! ....

...for I am going to tell you how God became God. We have imagined and supposed that he was God from all eternity. I will refute this idea and take away the veil so that you may see...He was once a man like us…

...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.....³

In these revealing statements Smith clearly lays down the fundamental tenants of eternal progression. Smith’s “prophetic” successor, Brigham Young, later echoed this doctrinal vein in asserting, “Gods exists and we had better be prepared to be one of them.”⁴ Yet perhaps it was “prophet” Lorenzo Snow who summed up the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression most concisely with his famous couplet, “As man is, God once was: as God is man may become.”⁵

As evidenced in the words of the LDS “prophets,” there are three key pieces in the Mormon doctrinal puzzle of eternal progression: 1) the infinity and eternality of the universe, 2) the plurality of gods, and 3) the potential deification of man. A thorough examination of eternal progression warrants an in-depth analysis of each of these three doctrinal components.

The Infinity and Eternality of the Universe

The Mormon doctrine of eternal progression is only coherent within the constructs of an infinite and eternal universe. As Mormon scholar Parley Pratt remarked,

There has always existed a boundless infinitude of space...Intermingled with this space there exist all the varieties of the elements, properties, or things of which intelligence takes cognizance; which elements or things taken altogether compose what is called the Universe...The elements of all these properties or things are eternal, uncreated, self-existing. Not one particle can be added to them by creative power. Neither can one particle be diminished or annihilated.⁶

Pratt was right in-line with Joseph Smith who stated,

The elements are eternal. That which has a beginning will surely have an end; take a ring, it is without beginning or end -- cut it for a beginning place and at the same time you will have an ending place....⁷

Yet there are some fatal problems biblically, philosophically, and scientifically speaking with the Mormon view of the boundless and beginning-less universe in which eternal progression is said to occur.

Biblical Problems. Scripture teaches that God is eternal and transcends time by his very nature (Ps.90:2; Job 36:26; 2 Pet. 3:8; Rev, 1:8; cf. 4:8). He created the universe and all that is within it (Gen. 1:1; Is. 66:1-2; Ps. 33:6-9; Jn. 1:3; Acts 4:24; 17:24-25; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:2). In other words, God is eternal and the universe is not. Yet, in commitment to his view that “the elements are eternal,” Joseph Smith conjectures that God merely organized pre-existing materials “the same as a man would organize materials to build a ship.”⁸ Mormon apologist, Richard R. Hopkins sums the LDS view up tersely in stating, “Creation was a change, not a start.”⁹ In other words, God is unable to create anything ex nihilo (out of nothing) because all elements are beginning-less. However, Scripture clearly teaches that time itself had a beginning in declaring that God’s promise of eternal life and Christ’s grace was given to believers “before the beginning of time. (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:3)” These passages are completely incoherent within the LDS construct of an beginning-less universe. Furthermore, how can the Mormon account for Christ’s miraculous feeding of the five thousand from five loaves and two fish (Lk. 9:12-17), which doubtlessly required the ex nihilo creation of matter? The answer is simple -- they can’t. The infinite and eternal cosmos of Mormonism cannot be reconciled with the creative activity of the eternal God as plainly revealed in the Bible.

Philosophical Problems. The Mormon concept of an infinite and eternal universe also fails to hold up under honest philosophical scrutiny? In understanding the philosophical shortcomings of the Mormon universe it is vital to grasp the distinction between an actual infinite and a potential infinite. Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland points out that, “an actual infinite is a timeless totality which neither increases nor decreases in the number of members it contains….” On the other hand, “a potential infinite increases its number through time by adding new numbers to the series.”¹⁰ Another way of explaining this distinction is that an actual infinite is a beginning-less whole, whereas a potential infinite has a beginning and increases indefinitely from its point of origin. So how does this philosophical distinction play into the Mormon concept of an infinite and eternal universe? The LDS claims as examined above assert that 1) time, 2) energy, space, and matter, 3) and souls exist as actual infinites. However, the existence of actual infinites in the universe is a logical impossibility.

Consider what an actual infinite amount of time would be like in reality. An actual infinite amount of time in the past, or as McConkie refers to it “past eternity,”¹¹ would by its very definition require an infinite amount of time to transpire. Therefore, the present and future could never take place because an infinite amount of past events would have to occur prior to their coming about. Imagine trying to reach the top of a building if there were an infinite amount of steps to climb. A week, a year, even a billion years of climbing would result in no progress whatsoever. Or consider attempting to count sequentially up to infinity. No matter how many years are spent counting, infinity will always remain an infinity away. This is what is known in philosophical terms as “the impossibility of traversing an infinite,”¹² and is a serious thorn in the side of Mormon theology. The Mormon is forced to simultaneously affirm the following two logically contradictory propositions: 1) the universe is a beginning-less eternality (as affirmed by the LDS “prophets”), and 2) the present moment is happening and the future will occur. To resolve this dilemma and maintain internal consistency the Mormon must either reject the authority and doctrines of the LDS “prophets” or conclude that the present and the future are mere illusions (as do many eastern religions that hold an internally consistent view of an eternal universe). In contrast to the LDS view, a biblical and philosophically sound concept of time is that it exists as a potential infinite in the universe; that is, time was created at Genesis 1:1, increases quantitatively as moments transpire, and will continue for all eternity.

Philosophy also levels a fatal blow to the position promulgated by LDS prophets that space, matter, and energy exist as actual infinites. What would an actual infinite look like in the physical universe? Imagine a library with an actual infinite amount of books.¹³ As noted above, an actual infinite set can neither be added to nor subtracted from with any alteration to its total quantity. Therefore, someone could check out several books and the sum of unchecked books in the library would remain constant. Furthermore, a blazing fire could ravage its way through the library consuming shelf after shelf of books, yet the library would still contain the exact same amount of books -- infinity. In reality, of course, the checking out or burning of books does result in a library with fewer books. The utter absurdity of above scenario highlights the philosophical fact that actual infinites cannot exist in the physical universe (i.e., energy, space, and matter).

Lastly, the LDS view concerning the eternality of man’s soul crumbles under the weight of honest philosophical critique. According to the “prophet,” Joseph Smith,

….the soul - the mind of man - the immortal spirit…Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better…..

The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end.
That is good logic….

There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.¹⁴ (see also D&C 130:18-19)

Smith’s major problem here is that he also affirms the ability of man’s spirit to advance in knowledge. Why is this a problem? If “the intelligence of spirits had no beginning” and we possess the “power to advance on knowledge”¹⁵ then any and all possible knowledge would have already been acquired. A beginning-less spirit would have had all of eternity past to learn everything that could possibly be known; surely an actual infinite amount of time would be enough to accomplish this. The Mormon is well aware of his or her lack of omniscience and it is this very lack that attests to the philosophical folly in the LDS position that human souls are eternal.

Scientific Problems. A final nail in the casket of the Mormon view of an infinite and eternal universe is the evidence from modern science. Science contributes two major factors in this issue: 1) The Second Law of Thermodynamics, and 2) Big Bang Cosmology.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (or the law of entropy as it is otherwise known) asserts that the universe is running out of usable energy towards a state of equilibrium. Yet if the universe is eternal then all usable energy would have already dissipated and equilibrium would be achieved by now because it would have had an infinite amount of time to do just that. The necessary conclusion, therefore, is that the universe began. As scientist Fred Heeren puts it,

…we know that the universe cannot be eternal; it could not have been dissipating forever. If it had been eternally dissipating, it would have run down long ago…..Working backwards, the [second law of thermodynamics] clearly points to a beginning.¹⁶

The conclusive evidence from the Second Law of Thermodynamics stands in direct contradiction to the Mormon concept of an eternal universe.

Big Bang Cosmology has also got much to say in this regard. In the early 20th century, with the groundbreaking scientific advances of Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubbell, and others, physicists came to understand that the universe is expanding outward from a single point much like the expanding shrapnel of a detonated grenade.¹⁷ This led Einstein to acknowledge the “necessity for a beginning.”¹⁸ Riding the crest of Big Bang Cosmology in the late 60’s, British astrophysicists, Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Perrose discovered what is called the space-time theorem of general relativity. This theorem essentially proves that time also sprung into existence along with space, matter, and energy at the big bang.¹⁹ As Hawking himself stated, “time itself must have a beginning.” ²⁰ The scientific evidence, of course, directly lines up with the Bible, which teaches that time itself began (see 2 Tim. 1:9 and Tit. 1:3). Dr. Wayne Grudem contributes a fitting summation to this matter, 

The study of physics tells us that matter and time and space must all occur together: if there is no matter, there can be no space or time either…Therefore, when God created the universe he also created time….Time, therefore does not have existence in itself, but, like the rest of creation, depends on God’s eternal being and power to keep it existing.²¹

Thus, the LDS view of an infinite and eternal universe by which God is chronologically bound and within which eternal progression is said to occur fails the threefold test of the Bible, philosophy, and science.

Axiomatic to the doctrine of eternal progression is the Mormon belief in the plurality of Gods or polytheism. Although many Mormons today are oblivious to the LDS position regarding the plurality of Gods, the “prophets” make their position abundantly clear. According to Joseph Smith,

I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods.

The doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine.²²

Parroting this polytheistic statement, Brigham Young declares, “Gods exist, and we had better be prepared to be one of them.”²³ As will be demonstrated below, the Mormon doctrine of polytheism as clearly articulated by LDS prophets is problematic from both a biblical and a philosophical perspective.²⁴

Biblical Problems. As Dr. Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute, points out, “The Bible is particularly adamant in its declaration that God recognizes the existence of no other deities.”²⁵ Indeed Scripture is overtly monotheistic as seen in the following passages:

• “You are my witnesses declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me” (Is. 43:10).
• “I am the first and the last; apart from me there is no God….Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” (Is. 44:6, 8).
• “I am the LORD, and apart from me there is no other; apart from me there is no God. (Is 45:5)”

These passages are words of Yahweh Himself declaring unequivocally that He alone is God (see also Duet. 6:4; Ps. 86:10; Is. 45:18,21,22; Gal. 4:8; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5; John 17:3). At this juncture the Mormon will typically follow the pattern of Joseph Smith of imposing unwarranted qualifications upon the plain biblical text. In reference to the above passages Smith adds, “to us there is but one God - that is pertaining to us. (emphasis in original)”²⁶ In other words Yahweh is merely the only God of this particular planet. However, the text knows nothing of such interpolations. Two principles of biblical hermeneutics bring Smith’s misinterpretation to light: 1) the literal principle, which states that a text is to be taken in its most literal sense unless the context dictates otherwise, and 2) the principle of Scriptural uniformity, which states that individual passages must always harmonize with the whole of Scripture (i.e., Scripture interprets Scripture).

Smith violates the literal principle by appealing to the existence of other beings who function as the “only” Gods of other planets - a concept entirely foreign to the Bible. As a result Smith pours entirely different meanings into the terms “only,” “one,” “no,” “any,” and “no one else” in the aforementioned verses. However, Smith’s redefinition of terminology runs contrary to the natural and literal flow of the text. No amount of semantic stretching can diminish the clarity of God’s proclamation that “before me no God was formed nor will there be one after me. (Is. 43:10)” Creative though Smith’s interpretations may be, they have nothing to do with the literal meaning of the Biblical text.

Furthermore, Smith ignores the Scriptural harmony principle in his erroneous assertions. Suppose that Smith’s premise is granted that God, a mere man who ascended the ladder of exaltation to achieve Godhood, is declaring in the above passages that He is the only God of our planet. To maintain Scriptural consistency, Smith would have to banish the following passages from his Bible:

• ….from everlasting to everlasting you are God. (Ps.90:2)
• “I the LORD do not change. (Mal. 3”6)”
• Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Tim. 1:17)
• Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Heb. 13:8)

These passages reveal that God is the immutable (unchanging) God who has been, is, and always will be God (see also James 1:17; Rom. 1:20; Ps. 102:25-27). Yet this directly contradicts Smith’s claim that God ascended from exaltation to exaltation, somehow achieved Godhood as did other deities before Him, and is now this planet’s only God. Since Scripture interprets Scripture, as the Scriptural harmony principle asserts, either the above passages must be de-canonized and torn from the Bible or Smith’s conjectures are to be discounted.²⁷

Also in relation to his doctrine of the plurality of Gods, Smith adds, “In the beginning, the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth.”²⁸ However, Isaiah 44:24 definitively declares, “I am the LORD who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself. (emphasis added)” Once again, it is God’s Word versus that of Joseph Smith. As the evidence manifests, the LDS view of the plurality of Gods is completely contrary to Scripture. Dr. Martin hit the nail right on the head when he referred to the Mormon position as a “polytheistic perversion of the gospel of Christ.”²⁹

Philosophical Problems. In his discourses Brigham Young offered the following commentary on the plurality of Gods:

How many Gods are there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. That of course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity.³⁰

Likewise, Joseph Smith comments,

God the Father of Jesus had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?³¹

With these statements and others like it as referenced above, Mormon doctrine again finds itself in serious philosophical jeopardy. If there have always been Gods as Young states and every deified Father was once an son as Smith proposes, then an honest philosophical question to pose to the Mormon is, “When did the process of deification begin among the plurality of Gods?” The LDS answer in conjunction with their view that time stretches into eternity past is that the process of deification never began. Once again LDS doctrine is caught in the viscous cycle of infinite regress, which reduces the present and future to mere illusions. A fair follow-up question to ask the Mormon is, “Why have you not yet achieved God-hood as the Gods have before you?” Surely an infinite amount of time is more than enough to progress to the level of deity. As Christian philosopher Francis Beckwith aptly states, “If the past series of events in time is infinite, we should have already reached our final state by now.”³² The very fact, which Mormons acknowledge, that they have not yet reached their intended state God-hood proves that the eternal regress of Gods in a polytheistic universe as asserted by the “prophets” is a logical impossibility. Thus, the Mormon view of the plurality of Gods is undermined both Biblically and philosophically.

The Potential Deification of Man

The final component of the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression is man’s ability to progress to Godhood (which has already been touched on above). As Joseph Smith urges, “you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves.” He continues, “…inherit the same power, the same glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god.”³³ The LDS doctrine of man’s potential deification as articulated by the “prophets” is sufficiently undermined by Scripture alone.

Biblical Problems. Mormon apologists will commonly cite several de-contextualized passages in support of their view that man can achieve God-hood. For example, in John 10:34 Jesus refers to the judges of Israel as “gods” in reference to Psalm 82. Do these texts prove that man can achieve God-hood? The answer to this question is a Biblically based and emphatic “No!” As demonstrated above, Scripture definitively teaches monotheism. In the context of John 10:34, Jesus is reasoning with the Jewish leaders (who were avid monotheists) that if corrupt human judges were called “gods” insofar as they exercised god-like jurisdiction over the people, then how much more is He, the very Son of God, worthy of the true title of God-hood. As Christian apologist, Ron Rhodes, thoughtfully observes,

The judges were called “gods” not because they were actual deity but because they pronounced life-and-death judgements against people.

Looking at the context of Psalm 82, it is clear that the Lord, through Asaph, is speaking in irony in this verse. He is saying in effect, ‘I have called you “gods,” but in fact you will die like the men you really are. (Emphasis in the original)³⁴

Furthermore, the fact that the Lord uses the present tense verb in stating, “you are gods” in reference to the judges precludes the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression, which asserts that Godhood is attained in the afterlife. Mormons only injure their case in referencing John 10:34 and Psalm 82 in defense of their doctrine of man’s deification.

There are other biblical passages frequently cited by Mormons that make reference to “gods” (Psalm 97:7; 1 Cor. 8:5) but as Dr. Martin notes,

The “gods” mentioned in Scripture are never gods by either identity or nature; they are “gods” by human creation or acclamation….

This, then, is a far cry from comparison with the one true living God…”³⁵

In addition, the God of Scripture categorically states that there will be no Gods after Him (Is. 43:10). The unique and eternal office of God, who alone is worthy of all glory honor, power, and praise (Rev. 4:11; Ps. 148:13), is filled and He does not intend to resign. The LDS view that man can attain Godhood runs contrary to every fiber of Biblical truth.

As proven above, the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression, which hinges on an infinite and eternal universe, the plurality of Gods, and the potential deification of man, shatters under the force of biblical, philosophical, and scientific evidences. At this juncture, however, it is common for the Mormon to respond by making an appeal to mystery. The Mormon may say something like, “Just because you or I do not understand how the doctrine of eternal progression works doesn’t mean that its false; it just means that it’s a mystery to us.” Yet, the doctrine of eternal progression is not a mystery, its a logical impossibility. A mystery, by definition, is a truth that is logically possible but transcends our current realm of knowledge. A logical impossibility on the other hand is something that can never be true regardless of how much we know, such as the existence of a square-circle. It is logically impossible. Thus, the Mormon appeal to mystery fails. The verdict is clear - the doctrine of eternal progression is a biblical, philosophical, and scientific impossibility -- and the honest Mormon cannot escape this fact.

Segway to the Gospel

The doctrine of eternal progression not only fails in the realms of the Bible, philosophy, and science, but it fails in the personal realm. Deep down, Mormons are intrinsically aware of the fact that they fall far short of the perfection requisite for exaltation to God-hood. It should, therefore, be the Christian’s goal in discussing eternal progression with Mormons to remove the layers of doctrinal deception and expose the core truth that they, along with the rest of humanity, are depraved sinners in dire need of God’s sufficient and saving grace.

When confronted with these truths the Mormon may find him or herself somewhat overwhelmed by the tension between their held beliefs (upon which they have likely built their personal, familial, and social life) and the external and internal evidences. Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer made a powerful statement that bears much relevance to discussing the issue of eternal progression and sharing truth with a Mormon. He said,

I need to remind myself constantly that this is not a game I am playing. If I begin to enjoy it as a kind of intellectual exercise, then I am cruel and can expect no real spiritual results. As I push the man off his false balance, he must be able to feel that I care for him. Otherwise I will end up only destroying him and the cruelty and ugliness of it all will destroy me as well.³⁶

There comes a point when it is imperative for the Christian to stop driving home what is already a well-taken point, and to embrace the Mormon with sincere and genuine empathy in communicating the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather than an ‘I’m right-you’re wrong-so there!’ attitude, the Christian ought to humbly see and treat the Mormon with the love and respect that they rightfully deserve. Why? Because every Mormon is a unique individual created specially by God to know the true salvation that comes by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Eph. 2:8-9); and they need someone to intelligently and lovingly let them know just that.³⁷

--Thaddeus Williams, earned his BA in Biblical Studies, summa cum laude, from Biola University and is currently a Masters of Philosophy of Religions and Ethics candidate at Talbot Seminary in La Mirada, CA. He has worked in counter-cult ministry for 3 years, in youth ministry for six years, and frequently teaches apologetics seminars for teenagers.

1 Statistics taken from the official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints website (www.lds.org) Nov. 1999.
2 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine: second edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1981), 238.
3 History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (Salt Lake City: Desert Book Co., 1978) 6:305-306.
4 qtd. in Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults: revised&updated, edt. Hank Hanagraaff (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1997) 220.
5 qtd. in Ibid.
6 Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology (Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon & Sons Co., 1891) 44.
7 Richard C. Gilbraith, Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Desert Book Co., 1993) 205.
8 Ibid., 395.
9 Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology (Bountiful, UT: Horizon Publishers, 1994) 61.
10 J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997) 21, 22.
11 Mormon Doctrine, 238.
12 Scaling the Secular City, 28.
13 This analogy is cited by Moreland (23) though slightly modified here.
14 Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 396-397
15 Ibid., 397-398.
16 Fred Heeren, Show Me God: What the Message From Space is Telling Us About God (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications, 1995) 103.
17 Hugh Ross, Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995) 52.
18 qtd. in Ibid.
19 Ibid., 73.
20 Ibid.
21 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994) 169.
22 History of the Church, 6:474.
23 qtd. by Martin, 220.
24 Science, by its very definition, is the study of the material universe and its functions.  Therefore, the question of polytheism is one which rightfully falls into the realms of the theology and philosophy.
25 Kingdom of the Cults, 218.
26 HC, 6:474.
27 It should also be noted that Smith’s promulgation of the plurality of Gods runs contrary to the testimony of the Book of Mormon, which he himself allegedly translated (see Alma 11:22-31, 38; Moroni 8:18; Mosiah 3:5-8; 7:27; 15:1-5).
28 Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 419.
29 Kingdom of the Cults, 224.
30 qtd. in Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with a Mormon (Eugene: Harvest House, 1995) 224-225.
31 HC, 6:476.
32 Francis Beckwith, “Philosophical Problems with the Mormon Concept of God”, Christian Research Journal: Spring, 1992.
33 HC, 6:306.
34 Reasoning from the Scriptures with a Mormon, 252.
35 Kingdom of the Cults, 219.
36 Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1968) 127.
37 Other great resources on this topic (especially regarding the philosophical problems of Mormon doctrine) include Francis Beckwith and Stephen Parrish’s The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991), and See the God’s Fall: A New Approach to Christian Apologetics (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993).