Mormons are Monotheistic

[Sargon]

I like this, it is a good explination of how I view it. The only thing I would change is that we are not monthesitic in the sense that there are more Gods/gods we only acknowledge one of them. Hence Henotheistic is probably a better term, but in the interest of this thread we are monothestic for the same reason other chirstians are monothesistic and that is because we choose to define our selves as such at times.

I don't like the term "Henotheism". If one is a henotheist it means you worship only one god, but recognize that other gods are worth worshipping. This doesn't describe the LDS.

A closer variation would be monolatrism, which is the belief that other gods exist, but only one is worth worshipping. Monolatrism is a form of monotheism, and a better term for it, in my opinion, is "Kingship Monotheism." See Blake Ostler's 3rd volume.

[maklelan]

Christ himself was a "Monotheist", yet he also is "God", and he was also a man who even in the Bible said that he wasn't "good, but only the Father was good".... God the Father is the only God we worship in the strict sense, thus we are Monotheistic. Christ himself also worshiped the Father. So, Christ being revealed in vision with the Father, since after all he is the intermediary between us and the Father doesn't somehow makes us "not" monotheistic.

Strictly speaking, it does exactly that. If you want to define monotheism as "that which Christianity is," then that's fine. Just say that, but don't try to argue that Christianity qualifies as strictly and literally monotheistic. It is anything but.

Don't use the flawed thinking that Muslims use to claim Christians "aren't" monotheistic because of the Tinity.

Actually that was the Greek and Jewish criticism well before the Trinity was ever developed as a doctrine (and it's what catalyzed the doctrine). The existence of angels, demons, Satan, cherubim, and all those other divine beings still preclude a strict monotheism in Christianity.

Further, a child becoming himself a Father does not make the first Father any less than the Father of the generations.

This is irrelevant to the question of monotheism and points more towards monolatry (or henotheism).

And in the case of man and Israel, God the Father is our only Father. It's the same in Judaism, Christianity, and Mormonism. Remember, even Judaism believes in Christ, just not the one that lived, they are still looking for a later version. So, are they somehow not monotheistic because they believe in Christ also?

They are not strictly monotheistic because they believe in angels, demons, etc. Their messiah, however, is not generally thought to be a god (or even divine in many traditions).

[maklelan]

I don't like the term "Henotheism". If one is a henotheist it means you worship only one god, but recognize that other gods are worth worshipping. This doesn't describe the LDS.

A closer variation would be monolatrism, which is the belief that other gods exist, but only one is worth worshipping. Monolatrism is a form of monotheism, and a better term for it, in my opinion, is "Kingship Monotheism." See Blake Ostler's 3rd volume.

The academic definitions of these terms are actually pretty fluid. There has been no universal agreement concerning what they really mean, and most scholars who address monotheism use the words interchangeably.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't like the term "Henotheism". If one is a henotheist it means you worship only one god, but recognize that other gods are worth worshipping. This doesn't describe the LDS.

A closer variation would be monolatrism, which is the belief that other gods exist, but only one is worth worshipping. Monolatrism is a form of monotheism, and a better term for it, in my opinion, is "Kingship Monotheism." See Blake Ostler's 3rd volume.

I agree. I think you are right, I think I might be participating in too many threads. I will have to look at Kingship Monothesim. THanks./

[Sargon]

The academic definitions of these terms are actually pretty fluid. There has been no universal agreement concerning what they really mean, and most scholars who address monotheism use the words interchangeably.

I recognize that. The words aren't synonyms, though. They must represent different concepts even if those concepts are similar. A cursory google search yields various sources that vaguely define it the way I have above.

[Sargon]

This is how all Judeo-Christian traditions qualify as monotheistic, since the existence of angels and Satan and cherubim and other divine beings all absolutely preclude literal monotheism. Rather than "monotheism" defining Judaism and Christianity, those religions provide the colloquial definition of the word "monotheism." Mormonism is thus only another definition of the word.

I don't know what you mean by "literal monotheism." It seems to suppose that there is such a thing as "non-literal monotheism", and that we are a part of the latter. Again, we should advocates a policy of simply abandoning all notions of what "monotheism" has to mean and allow those who consider themselves to be "monotheists" (like the LDS) dictate the meaning.

This will invariably result in a spectrum of ideas, and that might frustrate some people. Oh well.

[thews]

We're not hiding anything. It's quite open as it is written in the scriptures for all to see. Hurtado's "Kingship monotheism" and "Metaphysical monotheism" seems logical to me. We have one God. We do not worship any other gods that happen to have their own galaxies or worlds to tend to. If you cannot seperate the different forms of monotheism, broaden your knowledge, don't try to limit ours.

Just to clarify... mono means one. Joseph Smith taught there were "two personages" and the Book of Abraham clearly teaches that there are many Gods (regardless of who one worships). I can't understand how any LDS member can claim to be a montheist without denying what Joseph Smith taught, and if Joseph Smith is the Mormon prophet, then the entire Mormon doctrine hinges on what he taught. This isn't a question of what Christianity is or encompasses, but rather what Mormon theology encompasses, which is not monothestic (anything but). Would you agree?

Also, how does Jesus Christ fit into your definition of who is worshiped, when Mormon theology claims he is not the Highest God? (two personages)

[thews]

Christ himself was a "Monotheist", yet he also is "God", and he was also a man who even in the Bible said that he wasn't "good, but only the Father was good".... God the Father is the only God we worship in the strict sense, thus we are Monotheistic. Christ himself also worshiped the Father. So, Christ being revealed in vision with the Father, since after all he is the intermediary between us and the Father doesn't somehow makes us "not" monotheistic.

Then by your logic you do not worship Jesus Christ?

Don't use the flawed thinking that Muslims use to claim Christians "aren't" monotheistic because of the Tinity. Further, a child becoming himself a Father does not make the first Father any less than the Father of the generations. And in the case of man and Israel, God the Father is our only Father. It's the same in Judaism, Christianity, and Mormonism. Remember, even Judaism believes in Christ, just not the one that lived, they are still looking for a later version. So, are they somehow not monotheistic because they believe in Christ also?

I don't see how attempting to define Muslims and Christians changes what Mormons believe. Joseph Smith taught of plural Gods and the first vision clearly states "two personages". Mormonism embraces more than one God per Joseph Smith, which is not monothestic. That's my point. Do you agree that Joseph Smith taught of plural Gods?

[maklelan]

I don't know what you mean by "literal monotheism." It seems to suppose that there is such a thing as "non-literal monotheism", and that we are a part of the latter. Again, we should advocates a policy of simply abandoning all notions of what "monotheism" has to mean and allow those who consider themselves to be "monotheists" (like the LDS) dictate the meaning.

"Literal monotheism" would be a belief system that adhered to a literal definition of the word, which is one divine being. Since the Judeo-Christian heavens have many divine beings (angels, demons, Satan, cherubim, seraphim, sons of El, etc.), it is not strictly monotheistic. There are innumerable divine beings in that worldview, but one supreme divine being (which is technically monolatry). Monotheism technically began in 5th and 4th century BCE Greek philosophy with Xenophanes and a few others who insisted "god" means the superlative, and of the superlative there can be only one. The idea did not exist prior to then (the Hebrew Bible is no exception). The Judeo-Christian appropriation of the term (around the second century CE for both) is a bit of a twist on the original and literal meaning of the word.

I agree that we would all be better off letting those who want to claim monotheistic theologies do so, but I am responding in this thread primarily to those who insist Trinitarian Christianity needs no such concession, or that it is more monotheistic than Mormonism. I am correcting that misapprehension.

[Sargon]

"Literal monotheism" would be a belief system that adhered to a literal definition of the word, which is one divine being. Since the Judeo-Christian heavens have many divine beings (angels, demons, Satan, cherubim, seraphim, sons of El, etc.), it is not strictly monotheistic. There are innumerable divine beings in that worldview, but one supreme divine being (which is technically monolatry). Monotheism technically began in 5th and 4th century BCE Greek philosophy with Xenophanes and a few others who insisted "god" means the superlative, and of the superlative there can be only one. The idea did not exist prior to then (the Hebrew Bible is no exception). The Judeo-Christian appropriation of the term (around the second century CE for both) is a bit of a twist on the original and literal meaning of the word.

I agree that we would all be better off letting those who want to claim monotheistic theologies do so, but I am responding in this thread primarily to those who insist Trinitarian Christianity needs no such concession, or that it is more monotheistic than Mormonism. I am correcting that misapprehension.

Thank you Maklelan. I see where you are coming from now.

I wonder if Trinitarians and other mainstream Christians consider themselves to be monotheistic in a "literal" sense due to the fact that they see angels, demons, cherubim, etc. to be different species from God. The word "divine" is sort of ambiguous. Should "mono-theism" be literally translated as "one-god" or "one-divinity"?

If "one-god" is the preferred meaning, then one must come up with an arbitrary definition for what a "god" is. Mormons can do that too.

[Calm]

I seriously do not understand why some are comfortable with saying that three persons are one God but three personages are not.

Note: I am not criticizing the view that three persons can be one Being or that Catholics define themselves as monotheists on this basis, I just truly don't understand why they see this as significantly different enough that they (at least some on this basis) exclude LDS from being allowed to define themselves as monotheists as well.

[wenglund]

I am not sure LDS beliefs about God can rightly be shoe-horned into philosophical or theological pigeon-holes like monotheism (of various sorts), henotheism, polytheism, etc., and this because, as the venerable Lou Midgley has intimated in the past, the restored gospel isn't so much philosophical or theological or ological (meaning scientific study) in nature, as it is historical or story-cal in nature.

At the very least I don't see much if any value derived from attempting such pigeon-holing. Not only do we unavoidably lose aspects of the infinite and divine through finite human categorizations (man making God in his image and likeness), but I strain to see how it would lend itself to the gospel's and God's intended purpose (God making man in his image and likeness). After all, many a humble soul has spiritually and temporally feed the hungry, clothed the naked, healed the sick, brought comfort and peace to those who are troubled, and involved themselves in other aspects of pure and undefiled religion, without having the least clue of how to theologically categorize their beliefs about God.

Now, I am not suggesting that such discussions as this aren't interesting nor entirely unuseful. Rather, I am simply advising caution about waxing too dogmatic about such things or concerning yourselves too much about them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[maklelan]

Thank you Maklelan. I see where you are coming from now.

I wonder if Trinitarians and other mainstream Christians consider themselves to be monotheistic in a "literal" sense due to the fact that they see angels, demons, cherubim, etc. to be different species from God. The word "divine" is sort of ambiguous. Should "mono-theism" be literally translated as "one-god" or "one-divinity"?

The Hebrew Bible uses the word 'elohim to describe angels and even dead kings in a couple of instances, so it's hard to assert they are not considered "divine." Conservative Christians I think will continue to argue that the Trinity preserves the monotheistic outlook, but once you point out that the plurality of divine beings undermines that, they generally respond that only God is worshipped. This, of course, is exactly what monolatry is, and the conversation rarely gets past that point.

I think the most accurate translation of "monotheism" would be "belief in one deity," and I think there's quite a bit of overlap between the lexical values of "god" and "divinity."

If "one-god" is the preferred meaning, then one must come up with an arbitrary definition for what a "god" is. Mormons can do that too.

Very true.

[Sargon]

The Hebrew Bible uses the word 'elohim to describe angels and even dead kings in a couple of instances, so it's hard to assert they are not considered "divine." Conservative Christians I think will continue to argue that the Trinity preserves the monotheistic outlook, but once you point out that the plurality of divine beings undermines that, they generally respond that only God is worshipped. This, of course, is exactly what monolatry is, and the conversation rarely gets past that point. /quote]

In my experience the conservative Christian will rather suggest, probably in different words, that while angels, spirits, demons, etc are "divine", they are a different species from God. Furthermore, and more importantly, they lie on the creation side of the Creator/creation gap. Thereby they insist that they are "literally" monotheistic.

A good bible debate is in order once that happens, but at that point all minds seem to be made up already.

Thanks Mak.

(p.s. did you or did you not join the FAIR list? I had heard you did.)

[Calm]

edited as I really don't want it to be read as anything but teasing and know too well that's impossible to control in this media....

[Mudcat]

Thank you Maklelan. I see where you are coming from now.

I wonder if Trinitarians and other mainstream Christians consider themselves to be monotheistic in a "literal" sense due to the fact that they see angels, demons, cherubim, etc. to be different species from God. The word "divine" is sort of ambiguous. Should "mono-theism" be literally translated as "one-god" or "one-divinity"?

If "one-god" is the preferred meaning, then one must come up with an arbitrary definition for what a "god" is. Mormons can do that too.

Bold mine, I would say that I would recognize that I am literally monotheistic.

I think as Maccubus(sp?) pointed out and Maklelan seemed to also infer, that a case could be arguably be made for LDS perceptions could be categorized as monolatrism instead of monotheism.

[BCSpace]

Mormons believe in more than one God. Why try to hide what you really believe?

Henotheism and polytheism imply elements of worshiping the other Gods that is not extant in our religion. Therefore, monotheism is the closest fit.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

Not necessarily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism

The LDS are not strictly Monotheistic in the same way as Muslims are.

[Tanyan]

From my lights LDS are Anchient Monarch Eastern Economic Social Godheadians/Trinitarians.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[maklelan]

Henotheism and polytheism imply elements of worshiping the other Gods that is not extant in our religion. Therefore, monotheism is the closest fit.

I've never seen a definition of "henotheism" that indicates worship of more than one deity.

[Calm]

BCSpace:

Not necessarily.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Henotheism

The LDS are not strictly Monotheistic in the same way as Muslims are.

Neither are the Trinitarians, unless one defines the Trinity as does a modalist.

[orion88]

The Bible is not monotheistic. Post-biblical Christian theology asserts monotheism and has to ignore much of the Bible to do it, but there is no formal monotheism in the Bible.

See Isaiah 43:10. "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my

servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and

understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed,

neither shall there be after me."

Tony

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

See Isaiah 43:10. "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my

servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and

understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed,

neither shall there be after me."

Tony

So is God a God of false gods then?

As you seem to think that that verse of scripture is saying that there is only one God in all of existance, which is not what that verse is sayng.

[maklelan]

See Isaiah 43:10. "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my

servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and

understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed,

neither shall there be after me."

Tony

By way of rebuttal, see my blog post. One of the greatest travesties of modern conservative exegesis is refusing to recognize rhetoric when it's clearly being used.

[Maya]

God is the only Divinity of monotheism.

So monoteists do not/cannot believe that Jesus was /is a God!