One text that some Latter-day Saints have cited in favour of the belief that the biblical authors accepted the ontological existence of other gods (cf. Gen 20:13) is that of 2 Kgs 3:27:
Then he [Mesha] took his firstborn son who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land. (NRSV)
Commenting on this passage, one LDS scholar wrote:
We know from epigraphic and archaeological evidence that each nation state had its own god. For example, Milcom was the god of Ammon, Chemosh was the god of Moab, Qos was the god of Edom and Yahweh was the god of Israel. Indeed, according to 2 Kings 3:26-27, the king of Moab was motivated by the wrath of Chemosh to turn against Israel by sacrificing his son to Chemosh. At this point, Israel's success against Moab faltered and Israel was defeated. This text actually grants power to a foreign god to inspire humans and change the course of history for God's chosen people. It is difficult to see the writer(s) of this passage as believing that Chemosh was not real, for what isn't real cannot have such causal effects in the history of the world. The Ugaritic background of this concept seems evident, for El fathered seventy sons and thereby established the number of the sons of El or sons of God. (Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], 51-52)
A few years ago, Thomas Stark (author of The Human face of God) interacted with the criticisms of his exegesis of this passage by Old Testament scholar, Richard Hess—
As Stark writes, their respective positions can be summarised as:
Hess has contended that the verse refers to the capture of the king of Edom’s son by the Moabites. The king’s son was subsequently executed publicly by King Mesha, resulting in the demoralization of the Edomite army, who then got angry with their ally Israel, and headed for home with their heads hung low.
Conversely, I have contended that the verse refers to the burnt-sacrifice of Mesha’s son to the Moabite deity Kemosh, which secured for the Moabites the aid of their deity, resulting in an onslaught of divine wrath upon the Israelite army and their subsequent departure from the battle.
LDS scholar, Daniel McCllelan, interacted with Hess’ understanding of the nature of “monotheism” during this exchange; see his interesting article here.
Hess’ position is a rather marginal position, even among those who would be considered conservatives. Even the late William Foxwell Albright would agree with Stark that the son’s death was an act of ritual sacrifice to their deity, even if they have different conclusions about the theological implications of such from the perspective of the biblical author(s):
Incidentally, II Kings 3:27 clearly indicates that Mesha's sacrifice of his own crown-prince on the wall of a Moabite capital (cir. 850 B.C.) was considered a terrible thing. The precise sense of the words "and there was (divine) wrath against Israel" is given by Jos. 9:20: "This we will do tho them, letting them live in order that there may be no (divine) wrath against us because of the oath which we swore unto them (the Gibeonites)." The efficacy of the Moabite king's solemn oath (whatever it may have been) was so enhanced by the act of human sacrifice that the besiegers were appalled by the possible consequences to themselves and superstitiously raised the siege. (William Foxwell Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2006], 164)
The exchange is very interesting, and if Stark is correct (his position has the overwhelming support of contemporary, peer-reviewed scholarship), it does provide proof that the biblical author(s), at least of this passage, held to the true (ontological) existence of other gods, something one finds as well in the theology of the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 8:4-6.