The following is an exegesis of some texts provided by a questioner that, in his view, may be problematic to Latter-day Saint theology. I am reproducing it here in the hope that it will help some people who may have similar queries about these and related texts.
That all the people of the earth may know that the Lord if God, and that there is none else. (1 Kgs 8:60)
This is a prayer to God by Solomon as part of the temple liturgy; not a revelation of God. while this may reflect Solomon's understanding, it may have also been altered (this passage is not extant among any of the Dead Sea Scrolls, so such cannot be verified one way or another). Notwithstanding, allowing this to reflect accurately what was uttered by Solomon, it is within the context of worship, which was to go to God and none else, without touching upon the ontological existence of being that can be called "gods" (cf. Psa 29:1; 82:6, etc).
Another possibility is that that the Chronicler, whose Hebrew source texts seem to have close affinities with the Qumran texts of the Bible, gives us a different rendition of this prayer and blessing of Solomon, as can be seen in 2 Chron 6, a rendition which appears to omit the blessing of Solomon one finds in 1 Kgs 8:60.
See know that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. (Deut 32:39-40)
The earliest texts of Deut 32 are less "strictly monotheistic" in the surrounding context of this passage, and refer to various gods in the presence of God. In that state, we should understand this passage (and others like them), not to refer to the non-ontological existence of (true) gods, but there is no other god to be put on the same level with God. The following comes from Deut 32:8, 43 from the NRSV, as it accurately translates the sense of the Hebrew idioms of these verses from Qumran:
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; . . . . Praise, o heavens, his people, worship him, all you gods! . . .
This issue also raises another one--that is the transmission of the text. if Deuteronomy had been so modified (deliberately) from its original, what is the likelihood that such occurred with other texts of the Bible? The combined textual evidence suggests the likelihood is very high, and if/when further textual discoveries are made, more startling discoveries will sure be discovered. Until then, I suggest the volume by Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed.)
But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith. (Rom 16:26)
Textual evidence (see below) calls the authenticity of this doxology into question. The oldest textual witnesses do not agree as to the placement or the context, and some very old manuscripts show evidence lack this passage completely. Further, even allowing for it to be authentic, which is doubtful, it does not really address the issue, unless one will read a Unitarian view into such as the person of the Father is called θεος, and it distinguished from the person of the Son (cf. 1 Tim 2:5; John 17:3).
On the textual transmission issue of Rom 16:25-27, a full discussion of this issue can be found on pp. 477-81 of a work I highly recommend (alongside the Tov volume I cited above), New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Tyndale, 2008) by Philip W. Comfort. Here is what the NET Bible has to say on the issue of the textual integrity (or lack thereof) of this pericope (while they come down on its authenticity, they do a good job at summarising the manuscript evidence):
There is a considerable degree of difference among the MSS regarding the presence and position of the doxology of Rom 16:25-27. Five situations present themselves from the ms tradition. The doxology is found in the ancient witnesses in three separate locations: (1) here after Rom 16:23 (î61 א B C D 81 365 630 1739 2464 al co), (2) after Rom 14:23 (Ψ 0209vid Û), or (3) after Rom 15:33 (î46). The situation is further complicated in that some of the MSS have these verses in two places: (4) after Rom 14:23 and after Rom 16:23 (A P 33 104 2805 pc); or (5) after Rom 14:23 and after Rom 15:33 (1506). The uncertain position of the doxology might suggest that it was added by later scribes. But since the MSS containing the doxology are so early and widespread, it almost certainly belongs in Romans; it is only a question of where. Further, the witnesses that omit the doxology are few: F G 629 Hiermss. (And of these, G has a blank space of several lines large enough for the doxology to belong there.) Only two positions (after chapter Rom 14 only and at the end of the letter only) deserve particular notice because the situation of the MSS showing the doxology in two places dates back to the 5th century. Later copyists, faced with the doxology in two different places in the MSS they knew, may have decided to copy the doxology in both places, since they were unwilling to consciously omit any text. Because the textual disruption of the doxology is so early, TCGNT 472 suggests two possibilities: either (1) that Paul may have sent two different copies of Romans - a copy lacking chapter Rom 16 and a copy with the full text of the epistle as we now have it, or (2) Marcion or some of his followers circulated a shortened form of the epistle that lacked chapters Rom 15 and Rom 16. Those MSS that lacked chapters Rom 15-16 would naturally conclude with some kind of doxology after chapter Rom 14. On the other hand, H. Gamble (The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans [SD], 123–32) argues for the position of the doxology at Rom 14:23, since to put the doxology at Rom 16:25 would violate Paul's normal pattern of a grace-benediction at the close of the letter. Gamble further argues for the inclusion of Rom 16:24, since the MSS that put the doxology after chapter Rom 14 almost always present Rom 16:24 as the letter's closing, whereas most of the MSS that put the doxology at its traditional position drop Rom 16:24, perhaps because it would be redundant before Rom 16:25-27. A decision is difficult, but the weight of external evidence, since it is both early and geographically widespread, suggests that the doxology belongs here after Rom 16:23. For a full discussion, see TCGNT 470–73.
I do hope that I have written helps you in your continued studies of “Mormon” theology.
Robert Boylan