My Mormon Polythieism

[saemo]

A prophet of the Lord or Constantine, an emperor trying to avoid a war?

I know which one I pick.

Oh yay I can CFR too. Please quote anything from Comstantine that defines any Christain doctrine, whatsoever, before the Council took place. Bonus points for coming up with a CFR of anyone who was present at the Council indicating they were swayed by Constantine's vast doctrinal or theological authority.

Who, where, when.

Thanks.

Edited February 4, 2012 by saemo

[volgadon]

On the other hand I have good friends and family who are LDS, and it is only because of them and their faith that I would even consider LDS individuals as the same as all Christians. Seeking Christ, and to live a Christ-like life.

By the same token, I'm glad I have Catholic friends, otherwise I'd never even consider Catholic individuals the same as all Christians...

Edited February 4, 2012 by volgadon

[Storm Rider]

Well, this is the usual anti-Catholic LDS writing I have come across, today reading more of it than I cared to. Not your fault of course. Mine, for bringing up what Mormons teach and having to read lots of anti-Catholic writings just to show Mormons what Mormons already know well among themselves.

So I'm just going to assume this is what you have been taught by Mormons, and pray that someday you have a desire to seek the truth.

Essentially what is happening here is that you are telling me what I believe and what the LDS church teaches. I am telling you what I believe and what the LDS Church teaches and you simply plug your ears, close you eyes and tell me I am wrong and misinformed. Then you cover this with me being anti-Catholic. The one thing that is absolutely clear to anyone that has read my posts on this forum is that I am anything but anti-Catholic. I often refer people to the writings of John Paul II and the writings of the early Church Fathers.

I have grown so tired of Catholics like you that deny anything I have to say because, "they know better". They know what I feel, what I think, what I believe, yet display no understanding whatsoever. I am at times angry with you kind of Christian, but mostly I just feel pity. Pity because you deny the very essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon tells me to respect all those who worship the Father; that we are one people.

If you are not prepared to compare your own religion to the exact same standard you want to use against mine, I suggest you just don't lift a finger in accusation against any other church until you are ready to remove the beam in your own eyes. May the peace of Christ surround you, may the gospel of Christ uplift you, and may you come to know the Son of God more fully and completely.

[Flyonthewall]

"What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute best."

John Taylor JD 13:225

If he was speaking about Mormons as well as Christians, then I stand corrected.

Context is everything, but seems to be lacking in your reference.

John Taylor JD 13:226

We consider, and always have since this Church was organized, that the part of Scripture I quoted before is true - namely "No man knows the things of God but by the Spirit of God". We, as Latter-day Saints understood no correct principle until it was revealed to us. I did not, nor have I ever met with anybody that did, and I have travelled very extensively over the world that we live in, and have met with all classes and grades of men in different nations. We, as Latter-day Saints are indebted to the revelations of God, given unto Joseph Smith, for the knowledge of the very first principles of the doctrine of Christ, and he could not have known it unless it had been revealed to him.

We have always maintained that we are different than Catholic and Protestant christianity, we are Latter-day Saint Christians. When we use the tern "Christian world" we are talking about non LDS christianity, especially in the early days of the church.

Now, if you wouldn't mind, please find an early leader of the church that teaches we are not Christian, in that we do not follow Christ...not that we are not Catholic or Prtestant.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Flyonthewall

[mfbukowski]

Oh yay I can CFR too. Please quote anything from Comstantine that defines any Christain doctrine, whatsoever, before the Council took place. Bonus points for coming up with a CFR of anyone who was present at the Council indicating they were swayed by Constantine's vast doctrinal or theological authority.

Who, where, when.

Thanks.

It took me about 2 minutes

Result of the debate

The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. Under Constantine's influence,^[36] this belief was expressed by the bishops in what would be known thereafter as the Nicene Creed.

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

As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a new formula, three camps evolved among the opponents of the Nicene creed. The first group mainly opposed the Nicene terminology and preferred the term homoiousios (alike in substance) to the Nicene homoousios, while they rejected Arius and his teaching and accepted the equality and coeternality of the persons of the Trinity. Because of this centrist position, and despite their rejection of Arius, they were called "semi-Arians" by their opponents. The second group also avoided invoking the name of Arius, but in large part followed Arius' teachings and, in another attempted compromise wording, described the Son as being like (homoios) the Father. A third group explicitly called upon Arius and described the Son as unlike (anhomoios) the Father. Constantius wavered in his support between the first and the second party, while harshly persecuting the third.

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

[supersnail]

Critics' claims have been addressed point by point, here and elsewhere. We seem to be going in circles now, but that's because new critics are depending on new readers' not having read earlier posts in this thread. Changing the subject and repeating previous assertions and conversation-stopping definitional statements, such as that the Trinity is the only Christian God, are other signs that the debate has already been lost on an intellectual plane.

Let's be clear about who is abusing definitions here. Critics of Mormonism have defined Christianity and monotheism in such a way as to exclude Mormonism and all other non-Trinitarian Christianity. Those defending Mormonism from the polytheism accusation have made no such argument about non-Mormon Christianity. This isn't about "attacking" non-Mormon Christianity or even refuting Trinitarianism primarily, much less arguing that Mormonism and Trinitarianism are both polytheistic. Comparisons with Trinitarianism wouldn't arise if Trinitarians weren't raising a comparison themselves to call Mormonism polytheistic. It wouldn't be clear to *any* non-Trinitarian (Christian, Mormon or non-Mormon, or non-Christian) how Trinitarianism is monotheistic if the Mormon view of the Godhead is supposed to be polytheistic, and that does matter when it comes to arguments by dictionary against Mormonism. The weakness of Trinitarian ideas *does* matter where Trinitarians are claiming that Mormonism is comparatively polytheistic. It's one thing for a Jew/Muslim to consider both Roman Catholicism and Mormonism polytheistic (whereas both are monotheistic or controversially, but arguably Mormonism is more monotheistic of the two); it is quite another for a Catholic or a Trinitarian Protestant to act as if the Macmillan Dictionary could be used to prove that Trinitarianism is monotheistic while Mormonism is polytheistic. The fact that Jews and Muslims don't agree with Christians about the New Testament does not in the least bit show that their use of "monotheism" and "polytheism" is irrelevant to the meaning of those words. Neither Aristotelians (including a few dismissive non-Christian monotheists who might call Mormonism polytheistic for simplistic reasons, but who might be generally critical of Christianity) nor Trinitarians in particular have a monopoly on the meaning of those words. Whether this or that Christian or non-Christian view of the Godhead has more scriptural support is completely beside the point. Christians, Jews and Muslims have long claimed to see polytheism in each other's religion and ironically have a shared understanding of "polytheism," not captured in the Macmillan Dictionary, that critics of Mormonism are trying to obscure.

And now one critic offers an embarrassingly sophistical argument from the etymology or morphological decomposition of "polytheism," as if it were any better than the argument by dictionary definition. This is how untenable the arguments of these critics are: show the inadequacy of the argument by dictionary definition that Mormonism is polytheistic, and they talk about the meaning of "poly"--a worse variation on the argument by dictionary. One might as well point out that three divine beings strictly speaking isn't "many." The Oxford definition is "a large number of." I don't suppose that those critics relying on dictionaries and etymology as definitive sources of meaning will admit that the Mormon view of the Godhead isn't polytheistic simply because three isn't a large number, or that "plural" by a dictionary definition only means more than one, not many.

Of course, Trinitarians have no problems with "plurality" when it involves treatment of the internally plural "Elohim" as a singular noun, which they prefer to identify with the Trinity and consider to be etymological and grammatical evidence for Trinitarianism. Use of such evidence is tautological or question-begging in trying to explain why Trinitarianism is monotheistic. The linguistic evidence from "Elohim" claimed by Trinitarians, like other clever so-called arguments (including different specious mathematical arguments like 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 or ∞ + ∞ + ∞ = ∞) for three beings' making up one being, also does absolutely nothing to elucidate why belief in the three beings in question is idolatrous. Again, if belief in the existence of those distinct beings isn't idolatrous, why the insistence on demarcating from that belief as "polytheistic." What in the critics' view is wrong with polytheism?

The critics can settle this right now. Don't change the subject. Just explain why Mormon belief in the existence of the three divine beings God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, is idolatry or leads to idolatry and explain why Trinitarianism isn't or doesn't. If you don't actually believe that belief in the existence of those three distinct beings is idolatry, just admit it so we can move on, and then explain why belief in the existence of angels or angel-like beings and heavenly mediators is or isn't idolatry.

The Bible contains the words "idol" and "idolatry," but not "monotheism" or "polytheism," whose meanings reside in a meta-religious discourse not restricted to passages of the Bible. To the extent that the concept of polytheism is reflected in the Bible, it involves graven images and other idols, or the idea that God is not the God of gods and Lord of lords, but has equals, who have been worshiped and shouldn't be worshiped, or has a portion of judgment with other beings who must be individually respected. The unique status and solitude of the Elohim of Israel was asserted in the context of idols and worship of other so-called gods in surrounding cultures. The examples of this are so numerous that it should not have to be pointed out to any discussant who purports to be historically and Biblically literate enough to insist on a classification of a religion as polytheistic relative to the assumed monotheism of the Bible, which is what non-Mormon Christians make reference to when they claim to base their ideas on scripture. Yet, you can pick up an anti-Mormonism book on a shelf today, written by a Protestant, that finds it honorable to accuse Mormonism of polytheism and not find the word "idolatry" or "idol" anywhere in the whole book or a discussion of what exactly Mormons in their "polytheism" are wrongly treating or potentially treating, or permitting others to treat, with a reverence that should be reserved for the Father. There are several such books. Some books alleging Mormon polytheism do contain the word "idol," but in quotations, or in a negative context--criticizing a Mormon statement dealing with idolatry. Some books do explicitly accuse Mormonism of idolatry, but for some reason or another involving theosis, not because of the number of gods Mormons believe to exist. Critics are hesitant to say outright that the Mormon view of the Godhead is idolatrous, though some do. This is understandable: the Godhead in Mormon doctrine is comprised of three beings identifiable with the persons of the Trinity despite the disagreement about being or substance. To some extent, also, talking about idolatry is treated as anachronistic by many non-Mormon Christians--particularly those influenced by certain doctrines concerning faith, grace, and scripture with a de-emphasis on the Old Testament, in such a way that belief in Christ, the Savior of the world, is strangely disconnected from opposing idolatry and polytheism.

Getting critics to address idolatry is like pulling teeth. Why is that? Why is it so difficult to get the critics to talk about alleged Mormon polytheism in terms of idolatry or worship? And if some critics claim that Mormons worship three beings in some manner, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Latter-day Saints describe themselves as worshiping God the Father in Jesus Christ's name, by the power of the Holy Ghost), why is that a crime in their eyes when the critics themselves supposedly worship three "persons," and many of them even pray to "the Trinity?"

We have apparently entered some bizarre realm where the issue of polytheism is disconnected from the issue of idolatry. I would say that the critics' use of "polytheism" is therefore merely academic, but that would be misleading, because the scholarly use of "polytheism" very much has to do with idolatry or worship of more than one god.

Latter-day Saints worship God the Father. Nothing in LDS scripture says that the Father's domain is limited to earth or even this universe in the midst of multiple universes. (The idea of there being more than one universe in an astronomy or physics sense isn't in LDS scripture in the first place. In relation to theology, that is something that can be talked about only hypothetically.) Nor can the idea be found that every planet or universe has its own god. Even if some hypothetical place had its own deity in some sense, giving respect to the Father, we aren't living in some science fiction fantasy where travel to other universes is possible. Even if a Mormon somehow ended up in another universe, he or she would still pray to God the Father. It's silly that we are even talking about other universes. To demonstrate Mormon "polytheism," critics have to talk about unnamed gods, which remain abstract and peripheral in the thinking of those Mormons who accept certain interpretations of particular non-canonical statements, in "alternate universes" that aren't even mentioned in the Standard Works or even the King Follett discourse. They resort to such arguments instead of contemplating the profoundly monotheistic nature of worshiping God the Father in His Son's name, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

After the Jewish and Muslim use of "polytheism" in the context of Christianity was pointed out, one apparent critic's response was to make the irrelevant observation that Muslim extremists have alleged polytheism in the West. What the critic meant by that is unclear. Maybe that was said offhand, but why stop at "polytheism." Muslim use of the word "idolatry" may be even more frequent than Muslim use of "polytheism." I guess we are supposed to throw the New Testament as well as the Old Testament in the garbage can because terrorists have also used the word "idolatry"? Maybe non-Mormon Christians would like to comment on this? Do Christian critics not notice the word "idolatry" in the New Testament, or do they just not care because making a frivolous accusation against Mormon Christianity is more important than dealing with real problems?

The Godhead presided over by God the Father is one God for all individuals, nations, tribes, families, kinship groups, peoples, ethnicities, countries, kingdoms, lands, and languages--forever. God is indeed Jealous, but it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the Father as viewed by Mormonism is in a rivalry or struggle or potential rivalry or struggle with Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, who are integral to the Father's plan and glorify the Father and lead us to embrace His plan and worship Him. Critics want to say that Mormonism is technically polytheistic--an outrageous accusation that hides behind a technicality or is interwoven with an appearance of triviality or matter-of-factness. But the actual colloquial understanding of "polytheism" (which those pointing to the Macmillan definition purport to appeal to) involves worship or potential worship of multiple gods, and the technicality the critics refer to isn't sufficient to distinguish between Trinitarianism and Mormonism as monotheistic and polytheistic. (The technicality is neither integral to the meaning of "polytheism" nor part of the thrust of the use of that word, but even if it were, Trinitarianism could be regarded as polytheistic by reference to the same technicality.) It, whether considered as sufficient or necessary to establish polytheism, also has nothing to do with the actual technical use of the term except perhaps in the most preliminary way in some cases. The scientific and philosophical use of the term has to do with more than just belief in the existence of more than one divine being and does not require belief. De facto worship of an object, believed in as a god or not, can be enough to establish polytheism.

Yes, there is a philosophical kind of monotheism in which only one divine being of any kind really exists--infinitely transcendent, incomprehensible, powerful and prior--but such monotheism isn't really characteristic of the majority of Christianity, and it isn't the only kind of monotheism. Such monotheism also presents various theological problems that make it difficult to consistently and strongly understand God as a personal and just God both available for and worthy of worship. I'm sure many educated critics of Mormonism understand what I'm talking about even though their statements are designed to persuade the less informed.

Mormonism is monotheistic and has the characteristics one would expect of a religion that is actually and organically, rather than merely "technically," monotheistic. I don't expect mainstream Protestants to fully understand why Mormonism is one of the most monotheistic Christian religions, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect those who otherwise disagree with Mormon beliefs to refrain from accusing Mormonism in a way that manages to be simultaneously trifling and defamatory. If critics don't actually mean to say that Mormonism is idolatrous and their proposition that Mormonism is polytheistic is merely a formal classification, it would behoove them to clarify their position. If they refuse to, they have little basis to be indignant when their own beliefs are critiqued.

In regard to Roman Catholic devotional use of Mary etc., I'm not one of those who are of the opinion that a Marian devotion is necessarily idolatrous. Nonetheless, it is entirely legitimate for Mormons defending themselves from accusations of polytheism by Catholics to raise questions about Catholic practices. (In fact, nobody said that Catholicism wasn't Christian, and that idea was explicitly rejected above in the context of intercessory prayer.) Divided worship is more characteristic of polytheistic religions than mere belief in the existence of more than one divine being. LDS general authorities have said both that the LDS faith is monotheistic and that "we" (and by implication everyone) are to worship God the Father in His Son's name. For any non-Mormon Christian to call Mormonism polytheistic after that opens their own beliefs and practices to be examined. If Catholic critics want to say that Mormon belief in the existence or future existence of more than one divine being leads to idolatry, they need to explain why ongoing Catholic practices in relation Mary as Co-redemptrix, for example, do not. The point is not that Catholicism is idolatrous, only that Mormons' mere belief in the existence of more than one divine being is insufficient to show polytheism. It's incredible that a Catholic can sit there with a straight face and claim that worshiping the Father in the Son's name, where the Father and the Son are considered one in purpose, power, and knowledge, but not one individual being, takes away from the worship of God, but that the idea of Mary's free and efficacious offering of Christ's suffering to God the Eternal Father, and eternal spiritual union with Christ, accompanied by devotions and calls for dogmatization, does not because of an arcane footnote about the Father and the Son being one in "substance." There is no consensus/general understanding of "polytheism" by which someone who is not already enamored with the complexity of Catholic theology could reach the conclusion that there is a significant difference between Mormonism and Catholicism making Mormonism polytheistic and Catholicism monotheistic. Instead of fostering mutual respect, critics hurl accusations of polytheism against Mormonism in particular and risk a double-edged sword cutting down the critics' own claim to monotheism.

Discussing Marian devotions is also appropriate because it has to do with the long-established meaning of "polytheism" as involving divided or competing worship. Even though what Protestants have said in regard to alleged Catholic polytheism isn't necessarily correct, Protestants have long regarded Catholicism as polytheistic for reasons unrecognizable in the Macmillan definition of "polytheism," which, like Jewish and Muslim critiques of Trinitarian Christianity, including Trinitarian Protestantism, shows that the actual meaning of "polytheism" is other than the Macmillan definition critics have used to attack Mormonism.

It is strange that a presumably Catholic critic of Mormonism writes in this thread as though Protestants have never critiqued Marian devotions as worship and that certain ideas about Mary and Catholic prayer are specifically LDS when they most certainly are not. I guess the point is Catholic-Protestant cooperation to defame Mormonism as polytheistic by covering up the history of Protestant disputation vis-à-vis Catholic devotions. Just as one poster popped up to write as if Jews and Muslims have never regarded Trinitarianism as polytheistic, I suppose now a Protestant will show up suggesting that Protestants have always held Catholicism to be monotheistic. Piercing the din of this kumbaya where Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims are all equally monotheistic (or where Catholics and Protestants are all monotheists, but Jews and Muslims somehow aren't) is the dissonant rabble-rousing rhetoric, dressed up with pontificating appeals to orthodoxy, about Mormonism being polytheistic.

Notwithstanding the literary antics of a few postmodernists who play with language in general and the offhand statements of artistic types who are insensitive to how "polytheism" is viewed outside Greenwich Village and San Francisco (no offense to anyone living there), it is my understanding that Latter-day Saints would generally consider themselves monotheists if they are familiar with the term. That technical term, however, isn't stressed in worship or teachings as far as I know. Neither is the idea that a particular other church is polytheistic. Why critics from other churches insist on raising in a simplistic way an issue that is so contentious and complicated, but not likely to be rationally resolved in their favor, is difficult to understand except as an attempt to influence uninformed individuals who are already disinclined to agree with Mormonism and might latch on to any argument against it. Preaching to the choir may have limited consequences for the most part, but in other contexts, accusing Mormonism of polytheism has a danger probably unappreciated by some of those making the accusation.

I'm open to the idea that the meanings of "monotheism" and "polytheism" are so subjective or unstable, or the boundaries are so indefinite, that the terms have limited communicational or explanatory power in interfaith contexts. Perhaps "monotheism" has one meaning among Roman Catholics, another among Evangelicals, and another among atheists. It would explain why critics of Mormonism alternate between different understandings of "monotheism" when they try to simultaneously brand Mormonism as polytheistic in public and defend their own doctrine. If that is the case, though, why raise the notion of Mormon "polytheism" in the first place as if everyone could converge on your insular meaning?

That said, I submit that there *is* already a common understanding of "monotheism" and "polytheism" different from the one claimed by critics of Mormonism. Whether we are Christians, Jews, Muslims or even atheists interested in Arabian and Mediterranean history, moral philosophy, psychology, etc., the essence of monotheism isn't mere belief in the existence of one deity and only one deity. It is a particular kind of worship and a particular relationship between the worshiped and the worshiper. It is a relationship, not a mere idea or utterance of the tongue--a relationship of prayer and keeping God's commandments and of faithfulness to God and aversion to idolatry in all its forms. The notion of a monotheism without worship or a polytheism without worship is an invention of a one-dimensional mind or a critic who wants to compare Mormonism with a standard made up, consciously or not, for the purpose of disparaging Mormonism. It is purely an abstraction and has no historical or social referent. It is without any example past or present, with the exception perhaps of the phenomenon of people claiming simultaneously to believe in God and to not be religious. As for polytheism, I suppose atheists with a sardonic sense of humor speak of "the gods" on occasion, as do some readers of the horoscope column too lazy or lethargic to do anything ostensibly religious or spiritual.

Whether they consider themselves religious or not--and whatever value one attaches to one doctrine versus another in the abstract--many so-called monotheists are actually idolaters. At the same time, the beliefs and practices of some alleged polytheists seem more repellent of idolatry than the beliefs and practices of many non-Mormon Christian denominations. Those confining themselves to simplistic abstract criteria are unable to account for this apparent discrepancy. It is possible that one doctrine, despite other things causing idolatry, does lead to idolatry less than another doctrine does, but the requisite analysis has not been done by those accusing Mormonism of polytheism, who are preoccupied with a certain quantitative question about belief in isolation from questions about worship, including doctrinal questions explicitly pertaining to worship. Critics don't just ignore what's going on in practice; they are selective in which doctrines or ideas of Mormonism they give attention to.

There is a reason why almost every major English dictionary besides the Macmillan Dictionary contains the word "worship" in its definition of "polytheism." It might be too much to expect a dictionary to give a complex definition or various particularistic definitions ("especially in Judaism," "especially in Catholicism," etc.), but at least these dictionaries reveal a tension in their own definitions and sense that polytheism cannot be collapsed to a question about belief in the existence of more than one "god" or divine being. It is regrettable that those accusing Mormonism of polytheism haven't recognized that the matter may be--just may be--more complicated than they initially suggested.

[saemo]

It took me about 2 minutes

http://en.wikipedia....uncil_of_Nicaea

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

A quote from Constantine or any of the bishops who were present. Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

A quote from Constantine or any of the bishops who were present. Thanks.

I suppose you want a video too?

[Calm]

I suppose you want a video too?

With a time stamp included.

[mfbukowski]

With a time stamp included.