My Mormon Polythieism

[Anakin7]

Met with my Baptist Minister friend again while waiting for my wife while she was working. [To let you all know he portrays a christlike charitable attitude, not the street preacher mentality]. He still believes we are polytheists [He pulled out his dictionary and read/said the meaning of "a belief in multiple gods"]. And he stated since LDS believe [As with Joseph Smith's statement] that God The Father has a Father which goes back adinfinentum with no end] we are polytheists. I read to him the F.A.I. R wiki article - http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Polytheism . He read it and stated from what I remember that we were re defining polytheism and it shifts the meaning within the article.Any thoughts about this ?. Thanks in advance. Any comments links would be welcomed. Christlike posts please because I may share this with him. Thank you in advance.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[The Nehor]

Tell him that a Jew or Muslim would (correctly) call him a polytheist.

[bluebell]

Tell him that a Jew or Muslim would (correctly) call him a polytheist.

Because the doctrine of the Trinity can also be described as merely a 'redefinition of polytheism'.

[Anakin7]

Tell him that a Jew or Muslim would (correctly) call him a polytheist.

I did but did not give much a reaction to that stating that traditional christianity always believed in "One God".

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[The Nehor]

I did but did not give much a reaction to that stating that traditional christianity always believed in "One God".

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Yet I assume he believes in the Trinity. Problem is they've repeated the Three in One doctrine so much they don't seem to realize that no one has ever made any sense out of it despite the best minds of the last 2000 years hammering away at it.

Ask him is he believes the Father is god, Jesus is god, the Holy Ghost is god. If he tries to argue they are one ask him if he is a modalist. In the end (assuming he is rational) he should realize that they are in some sense one and in some sense three. So he is in some sense a polytheist.

[Anakin7]

Yet I assume he believes in the Trinity. Problem is they've repeated the Three in One doctrine so much they don't seem to realize that no one has ever made any sense out of it despite the best minds of the last 2000 years hammering away at it.

Ask him is he believes the Father is god, Jesus is god, the Holy Ghost is god. If he tries to argue they are one ask him if he is a modalist. In the end (assuming he is rational) he should realize that they are in some sense one and in some sense three. So he is in some sense a polytheist.

He claims not to be a polytheist/modalist thou each are God but they are of the same essense/substance which makes them one God.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[The Nehor]

He claims not to be a polytheist/modalist thou each are God but they are of the same essense/substance which makes them one God.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

But is he denying the creed that also makes them (in some sense) three?

[Maidservant]

Tell him that the idea that Heavenly Father has generations of forefathers and that we will become gods in the same way Heavenly Father is . . . is not doctrine of the church and not taught in the Book of Mormon or in any standard work. Many (not all) LDS accept this idea as a natural outgrowth of certain teachings, but it is not a teaching of salvation. (I personally accept it, for example, but I don't need others to, and I'm willing for my mind to be changed if I understand more.) Please refer him to the articles of faith, the Book of Mormon, and even ask him to read the Doctrine & Covenants, and that if any of those three places he can find what he is worried about, that you will discuss specific passages with him. "We believe in God, the Eternal Father; and in his Son, Jesus Christ; and in the Holy Ghost." THAT is the teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and there is no other. We do teach that we may return to live with our Father in heaven, and that we may become like him, and that we are joint-heirs with Christ (a highly NT doctrine), BUT these things may be understood without recourse to the concept of generations of gods either forwards or backwards.

Another thing is that you can remind him that the words "monotheism" and "polytheism" are no where in scripture and cannot properly be discussed as truth or doctrine either. The scriptures do NOT condemn polytheism, because, again, that word is no where there. What we have is, in the Old Testament, teachings given to Abraham (for example) and to Moses, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:" AND the first commandment that says that we may not have any gods before him . . . is not meant to be a number count of those beings that are god or represent god or are part of god, but to call people back from the Adversary (who is not god and should not be worshipped as God) . . . such as is in Luke 16:14 "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." and 1 Nephi 14:10: "And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." So again, to say that there is one God is not a number count, but to call people back from serving the adversary, and to only serving God; and indeed, to unify into one all those parts that may be god or godly into one God (so the very saying that there is one God serves to conceive of several parts that may exist, that are unified into one).

Remind him that there is theosis with God in the NT, and that the NT conceives of many parts (many humans) being one with the one God. It's simply not that big of a problem. John 17:21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

Edited January 7, 2012 by Maidservant

[TAO]

He claims not to be a polytheist/modalist thou each are God but they are of the same essense/substance which makes them one God.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

You should probably ask him to describe to you what essence/substance is.

Edited January 7, 2012 by TAO

[thesometimesaint]

He is laboring under a misconception.

[Maidservant]

The Trinity doctrine is an attempt to salvage a "one God" by bringing parts (=polytheism) into a unity. I actually don't have a problem with the trinity as an attempted solution, except that I think that, in the end, it is incorrect and unscriptural. But those who subscribe to this conceptual salvage perhaps ought not to take exception to others who also have conceptual salvages (the LDS view) even if differing from theirs (and equally or more so substantiated by the scriptural record).

There is only one God. Evangelicals believe this. LDS believe this. Many or most other religions believe this by some manner or another. Our interpretations differ as to how that can be defined, but we all agree that God should be served and not idols or the adversary.

[supersnail]

I have been visiting with a Baptist Minister on occassion while I have been taking my wife to work this past month. He is a Southern Baptist minister and we have been having discussions with each other. I wish to note that he is very caring and non agressive in his meetings with me. He is passionite regarding about what he obseves as polythieism in LDS doctrine. I told him we believe in the Biblical term "Godhead" and a phrase I use in Theological terminology - "Anchient Monarch Eastern Economic Social Godhead Trinity". I believe he see's the later as a smoke screen to hide our supposed polythieism. He asked me how many universes there were, I told I did not have an exact # but asked me if it were in the billion or billions and pressed me about my belief. I stated possibly a billion. He then said that if each universe had 1 God that meant there were billions of Gods and not 1 God of Reality [Which to me sounds like a philosophers statement]. I had stated to him that members of the Godhead/Trinity are one in Godhood/Nature/Love/Covenant/Power/Authority and spiritualy interpenitrate one another and they know each others thoughts. He then stated that if that was the case all the billions of gods throughtout the billions of universes were in that room we were in because they all interinterpenitrate one another and all [Gods in Billions of other universes] knew of our conversation in that room , and asked me if I believed that billions of Gods were in that room which he stated if I did believe that I was no different that a Buddist/Hindu or pagan and that The Apostle Paul would be greatly offended and set me straight.

I also told him of Anchient Heavenly Assembly/Council and gave him Gen:1-2, Duet 32: 8-9, Job 1:6, Isaiah 40-48 [ But did not remind him this was from 2nd Isaiah and not written by Isaiah himself]. I did state to him in the Isaiah passages that it was a courtroon phraseology scene statements and the "only God" "I know not any" before me after me were exclucivity of a swettheart in anchient middle east thought. He stated that he was going to ask an individual from the middle east if that was the case or if the passages meant no other gods period.

I would ask that your posts be Christlike and with love as I will be sharing these thoughts from you with him.Thank you for your time and thoughts. Any links/material would be of value. May True Grace be with you all.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

I did state to him that I would start a thread on this and get thoughts from you all LDS JEDI KNIGHT MASTERS and share with him in our next encounter.

Was going to reply in the other thread. I'll reply here.

This is a good example of how the terms "monotheism" and "polytheism" have become degraded to the point where we forget what was wrong with polytheism in the first place and even what polytheism has meant besides dictionary definitions that ignore the details and history of the concept. If you have the time, my posts regarding monotheism at http://www.mormondia...listic-deities/ might be of use to you.

The problem with polytheism is not that there's a belief more than one thing called "god" exists. The issue is whether one is worshiping or going to worship something other than Heavenly Father. According to LDS doctrine, the Christian Godhead alone is to be worshiped. Heavenly Father presides over the Godhead. Heavenly Father is to be worshiped in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit. All glory belongs to Heavenly Father. Platonic Christians seem to worship words like "consubstantial," most without understanding what the words mean.

Even if another universe or a planet light years away had its own local or specially related god below Heavenly Father in a hierarchy, the inhabitants' name for the god they are actually worshiping might still be translated as "Heavenly Father." There would be no practical or other difference between those people and ourselves as far as the object of worship. "Heavenly Father" doesn't necessarily mean a local deity. We would all be worshiping the same god.

It's hard to believe anyone really thinks Mormons are worshiping or even revering billions of gods. The fact that you couldn't tell the minister a definite number shows that these other gods remain an abstraction in Mormon thinking, which is how things should be. It's hard to idolize a god that is unidentified and that you're saying possibly doesn't exist. You could have just as easily said a million or a trillion. If a million, then 999 million of the hypothetical number you discussed might not exist. If you started coming up with names for gods for different star systems, named some of these millions of exalted beings, associated some of these gods with aspects of or things in reality, or identified these gods with the whole of nature or reality, then there might be a problem.

Mormonism names and emphasizes three divine beings, not millions: Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. They each have special importance. It's questionable whether any of the deceased who should be exalted to eternal life have already been exalted, let alone millions, so in one sense the question of do Mormons worship a billion gods shouldn't come up in the first place. Even if Abraham has already actually undergone theosis, how could it be claimed that Mormons worship him? Simply because of the use of the word "exaltation" or "throne"? The King Follett discourse or the issue of beings present with God in the pre-existent world may complicate things, but since there still is no real possibility of worshiping a god of another world or universe or worshiping any god other than Heavenly Father, there is no question of polytheism.

LDS doctrine is clear that we are to pray to Heavenly Father, not to Jesus Christ. Because of this, some critics emphasize the alleged non-Christianness of Mormonism, rather than alleged non-monotheism. That Mormons don't revere Jesus Christ exactly the same way they revere Heavenly Father is considered evidence of non-Christianity. On the other hand, because it is taught that the Godhead consists of three distinct beings, many critics allege polytheism. Not because worshiping Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is a crime in their view. Their basis for claiming that Mormonism is polytheistic is that Mormons don't accept the Platonic so-called solution to how three persons can be one unitary being and yet constitute the Trinity. This "solution" is one that the Platonic Christians rarely understand themselves. It's important to realize how the vast majority of Platonic Christians (the majority of people calling themselves Catholics and Protestants) actually assent to that supposedly monotheistic belief. What they are actually believing in is the authority of those teaching a doctrine their followers never come to understand. What they are actually worshiping is words like "infinite," "absolute," "incomprehensible," "three subsistences," and "one substance."

They make such words into an idol that they revere with their mouths, perhaps once a week, claim that they are therefore saved, and when they aren't putting on a friendly face they say Mormons are damned.

If Platonic Christians aren't worshiping the words of their confessions or creeds, then what else are they are worshiping, and who are the real polytheists?

Mormons disagree with Platonic Christianity on a number of points, not just the issue of whether God is three persons of one substance. Platonic Christians who fixate on Mormon disagreement with "one substance" show that their criticism of Mormonism is itself based on an idolatry. The difference between the LDS Christian doctrine of the Godhead and the Platonic Christian conception of the Godhead IS significant and has important consequences--make no mistake about it--but the use of extremely simplistic dictionary definitions, or pointing to a lack of belief in a very peculiar unbelievable trinitarian doctrine, to accuse Mormonism of polytheism trivializes the matter and makes the charge of polytheism against Mormonism incredible. It is as if Mormons were polytheists just because they don't repeat some Trinitarian creed.

Edited January 7, 2012 by supersnail

[BCSpace]

He read it and stated from what I remember that we were re defining polytheism and it shifts the meaning within the article.Any thoughts about this ?

I think you could make the case that anthropologists, who actually make real and scientific use of these definitions, consider forms and modes of worship in polytheism not extant in the basic dictionary definition. For example, in polytheism, one might make offerings (pray to) the various gods depending on the circumstances:

In the Spring, one might make offerings to the the god of fertility. In the the Fall, to the god of the harvest. When traveling across the sea, to the god of the oceans. And when a relative dies, to the god of the underworld. Etc.

There is nothing like that at all in the LDS theology of the plurality of Gods so we are certainly not polytheists by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are we henotheists I would also argue.

But no matter what you call it, the LDS doctrine of the plurality of Gods is completely Biblical and also supported in early Christian doctrine by the ECF as one would expect. The fact also of the deification of man being a Bible doctrine shows the plurality of Gods as Theosis is the only method mentioned whereby Gods are made.

Edited January 7, 2012 by BCSpace

[CQUIRK]

Have you tried telling him we're actually henotheists? Because technically, we are.

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

[mfbukowski]

You should probably ask him to describe to you what essence/substance is.

[altersteve]

You should probably ask him to describe to you what essence/substance is.

No evangelical Christian has ever given me an adequate definition of "substance" in this context.

[Acris Venator]

One good way to address it without convicting your friend by his own intellectual dogmas would be to tell him that the dictionary's definition of polytheism is incomplete.

Belief in multiple gods and the worship of multiple gods are two different things. This is why you won't find any Mormons worshiping Jesus' grandfather or great-grandfather, or the 'Messiah' that reason infers would have redeemed God the Father when he was a mortal as Brigham Young asserted.

In a strict sense, we are polytheists because we do believe that both the Father and the Son are separate gods. But we are not polytheists in the way most interpret the word or its implementation.

[mfbukowski]

He read it and stated from what I remember that we were re defining polytheism and it shifts the meaning within the article.Any thoughts about this ?

That's the problem. You are arguing about definitions, and it just depends on how you look at it. Three Persons, One Essence, whatever that means, or Three Persons One Purpose.

At least I know what "purpose" means. My wife and I are one in purpose similarly, and that purpose is raising the kids. We are not perfectly unified in how to do that- but God is. So that's the purpose the Godhead has, but they do it in perfect unity; they also "raise the kids": us!

"This is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the eternal life and immortality of man" In other words, "raise the kids".

I have no clue what "essence" means- do you? Does he? Have him explain it to you. It's an invented term which explains nothing.

It is a "virtus dormitiva" http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_principle

How does opium induce sleep? By virtue of it's sleep inducing essence, nature, substance, whatever. What does that explain? Nothing.

What is the essence nature or being a human? It is "humanness". The nature/essence/being of a dog is "dogginess".

What does it mean to be "one being" in three persons? I really don't know and neither does anyone else.

Three people doing one job and being one in purpose- now that makes sense!

[supersnail]

Met with my Baptist Minister friend again while waiting for my wife while she was working. [To let you all know he portrays a christlike charitable attitude, not the street preacher mentality]. He still believes we are polytheists [He pulled out his dictionary and read/said the meaning of "a belief in multiple gods"]. And he stated since LDS believe [As with Joseph Smith's statement] that God The Father has a Father which goes back adinfinentum with no end] we are polytheists. I read to him the F.A.I. R wiki article - http://en.fairmormon..._God/Polytheism . He read it and stated from what I remember that we were re defining polytheism and it shifts the meaning within the article.Any thoughts about this ?. Thanks in advance. Any comments links would be welcomed. Christlike posts please because I may share this with him. Thank you in advance. In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS JEDI KNIGHT

I am an investigator.

Writing in the 1600s and discussing Islam, Henry More defined monotheism as "worshipping one God." "Whence it is manifest that it is not for nothing the Prophet has pitched upon this Name Abaddon . . . and why he would interpret it . . . to point at the Saracens' hypocritical Ostentation of Monotheism or worshipping one God, which they do mainly in Envy and Opposition to the Christians' Profession of the Trinity, while themselves in the mean time are under the Destroyer, and are still as truly Pagans as the Assyrians and Greeks that worshipped Adad and Apollo."

I don't think there's been a shift in scholarly use of the words "monotheism" and "polytheism," or that FAIR is diverging from the scholarly use of "polytheism." It's just that common simplistic dictionary definitions don't represent how rigorous commentators have been using the words. Anyone who approaches the history of religion or comparative religion with the notion in mind that polytheism is just belief that more than one god exists, and that monotheism is belief that only one god exists disconnected from questions about morality and worship, will find themselves handicapped in their inquiries and lost. Should Christianity be put in the same category as volcano worship where one considers only one volcano divine or one is unaware of the existence of other volcanoes?

Of course, the English word "monotheism" hasn't existed for thousands of years. However, even Henry More's writing shows how current dictionary definitions of "monotheism" like "the belief that there is only one god" miss the point that religious leaders throughout history have made concerning worship of more than one entity and idolatry. The idea that Mormonism is polytheistic because of its doctrine of theosis, and its use of the word "gods" in certain contexts, while other religions or denominations are monotheistic because they call their gods "angels" or something else, would be ludicrous if it weren't harmful to spiritual development.

Let me put it this way: How can these critics of Mormonism expect their listeners to worship the one true God when they encourage them to believe that polytheism is just about a factual or taxonomical issue of whether more than one thing that may be called "god" exists.

Edited January 8, 2012 by supersnail

[BCSpace]

You should probably ask him to describe to you what essence/substance is.

No evangelical Christian has ever given me an adequate definition of "substance" in this context.

Related to this is Hebrews 1:3 where we see that the essence/substance/Godhood of the Son is an exact COPY or REPLICA of the Father's. The upshot being that the Bible says there are two separate individual Gods.

Edited January 7, 2012 by BCSpace

[cdowis]

Have you tried telling him we're actually henotheists? Because technically, we are.

http://en.wikipedia....sm#Christianity

May I suggest that one does not use wiki to define our doctrine. "The Church's doctrine on the subject is best described as monolatrism, a subtype of henotheism. A monolatrist worships only one God (although others may exist), while the henotheist may worship any within a pantheon."

We worship Christ, as well as the Father. The Trinity is not a pantheon. This is yet another attempt to use philosophical, theological constructs terms in a pitiful attempt to describe our beliefs.

If anyone is interested... I use the terms: "patrimony" (joint heirs) and "power of attorney" ("one God") as Christ described it. These constructs are beyond the concepts of the theologians and using their language to descibe our doctrine is vey silly.

Just my opinion, of course, and I have been known to be wrong. I remember one Christian theologian who boldly declared "we know more about the nature of God than the biblical prophets", referring, of course, to their philosophical discources.

Edited January 7, 2012 by cdowis

[CQUIRK]

One good way to address it without convicting your friend by his own intellectual dogmas would be to tell him that the dictionary's definition of polytheism is incomplete.

Belief in multiple gods and the worship of multiple gods are two different things. This is why you won't find any Mormons worshiping Jesus' grandfather or great-grandfather, or the 'Messiah' that reason infers would have redeemed God the Father when he was a mortal as Brigham Young asserted.

In a strict sense, we are polytheists because we do believe that both the Father and the Son are separate gods. But we are not polytheists in the way most interpret the word or its implementation.

Obviously you didn't read my last post.

[CQUIRK]

May I suggest that one does not use wiki to define our doctrine.

No, but its in the inner ballpark this time.

[Acris Venator]

Obviously you didn't read my last post.

I did read it, friend. I'm not sure I can get with Henotheism, tho. Technically we are commanded to pray to the Father in the name of the Son, but in practice we worship them both. Henotheists worship one god only while acknowledging the divinity of other Gods. It seems more related to a sort of political compromise between overlapping belief systems that would otherwise be competitors in a given religious ecology.

Mormons really worship two gods. One is the perfect example of the way to ascend to Heaven from the earth, and the other is the perfect progenitor waiting to receive us.

A mediator is essentially a veil worker. Though Christ is in Heaven now, he will eventually return and 'marry' the 'bride'. The resultant kingdom will (as it is now) be an apparatus for bringing individuals through that veil. On the other side of the veil, perpetually, is God the Father. This is why, IMO, we worship them both and cannot accurately be deemed Henotheists.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Acris Venator

[Scott Lloyd]

I did but did not give much a reaction to that stating that traditional christianity always believed in "One God".

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Tell him that Mormons believe in "one God" as well. The Book of Mormon states more than once that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God.