My Mormon Polythieism

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Nope.

See Approaching Mormon Doctrine

http://newsroom.lds....mormon-doctrine

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
  

Plus it must be submitted to the Church in General Conference. The Proclamation no matter how accurate, and worthy it is has not been through that process. I eagerly await that happening. Maybe next GC.

Edited January 9, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

From quote above:

This doctrine resides in .......official declarations and proclamations.

Does not "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" count as an official proclamation?

Plus it must be submitted to the Church in General Conference

Does it say this in the quote you give above? Edited January 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[Jaybear]

Lehi:

Nope.

See Approaching Mormon Doctrine

http://newsroom.lds....mormon-doctrine

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
  

Plus it must be submitted to the Church in General Conference. The Proclamation no matter how accurate, and worthy it is has not been through that process. I eagerly await that happening. Maybe next GC.

What am I missing here?

You just cited an definition of doctrine ("Doctrine resides in ... official declarations and proclamations") that completely undermines your assertion that the Proclamation is not doctrine, then claimed to win the argument.

[mfbukowski]

Lehi:

Nope.

See Approaching Mormon Doctrine

http://newsroom.lds....mormon-doctrine

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
  

Plus it must be submitted to the Church in General Conference. The Proclamation no matter how accurate, and worthy it is has not been through that process. I eagerly await that happening. Maybe next GC.

Let me tell you how I read that, just to show there can be other opinions.

...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture...

In my opinion, "establish" here means "establish interpretations" of doctrine. make sense.

How can you "establish" doctrine which "resides" in the Standard Works? You can't. But you CAN "establish interpretations" which are to be "proclaimed".

So as I see it, if it's not in the Standard works, it is interpretation. Extremely informed interpretation, of course- we are talking about the prophet himself and the first presidency etc's interpretation- but on the other hand, we know that these interpretations change from time to time, as they should in a living gospel.

That's the way I see it. Otherwise there is total confusion about what is and what is not doctrine.

Of course I may be wrong, and if a priesthood leader calls me in and tells me so, I will salute and say "Yes Sir" but as far as I am concerned, that statement has all the "due respect" it deserves as what it is- a Press Release from the First Presidency which is rather ambiguously worded. I think perhaps the ambiguity was intended, since what is and is not doctrine, for us, might be a thorny issue.

Edit: So yes, proclamations are "Official Doctrine", stories in Ensign are not necessarily.

Edited January 9, 2012 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

I appreciate your ideas. I really do. I know I'm a stickler, but to me unless it has been sustained by the general assembly of the Church in General Conference. It isn't doctrine. That doesn't mean it is not true. In fact I hope it is true. I like the idea. I would just like more revelation about our Mother-in-Heaven before I accept her as doctrine.

Edited January 9, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

I appreciate your ideas. I really do. I know I'm a stickler, but to me unless it has been sustained by the general assembly of the Church in General Conference. It isn't doctrine. That doesn't mean it is not true. In fact I hope it is true. I like the idea. I would just like more revelation about our Mother-in-Heaven before I accept her as doctrine.

Cool, but what then do you do about the statement which says pretty clearly that Proclamations ARE doctrine? To me, that seems to be about the only clear statement in that press release.

So do you throw it away?

[thesometimesaint]

Sorry I wasn't more clear. I'm willing to accept Heavenly Mother as doctrine when it is sustained by the Church. For me until that time it is true, but not doctrine. Kinda like we have no doctrine on the Pythagorean Theorem, but it is still true.

As a personal matter I'd like more information(That can only come by Revelation) before then.

[LeSellers]

Hymns does not establish] doctrine.

I have never claimed it "established doctrine". What I have claimed is that it reflects (or affirms) doctrine.

You do know, I'm sure, that the hymns are chosen precisely because they are doctrinal. Not the "source" of doctrine, but they teach doctrine. We don't sing the songs of Zion because they're pretty, we sing them because they're true.

When the Brethren chose the (what?) 301 hymns in our hymnal, they didn't just say, "Well, I like that one." It was a matter of choosing hymns that would build the faith and testimonies of the Saints. Some, many, in fact, have had the original words modified to reflect LDS doctrine and teachings (which are not synonyms). "Praise to the Man" has undergone at least two significant changes. We no longer sing, "the world has no use for the drone." When we sing "How Great Thou Art", it's "rolling thunder", but Protestants have a different adjective. All this so the words of our hymns will be doctrinal.

Lehi

[BCSpace]

Cool, but what then do you do about the statement which says pretty clearly that Proclamations ARE doctrine? To me, that seems to be about the only clear statement in that press release.

Anything published by the Church is established doctrine. Proclamations, Ensign, Hymns, etc.

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications

The Church does not proclaim or teach anything in it's publications that is not considered to be doctrine unless specified.

[Tarski]

This semantic weasel wording is hilarious.

To respond that one is a henotheist upon being (rightfully) accused of being a polytheist is about like responding that one is a tall man after being accused of being a man.

If Mormons believe what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught on the issue then they believe that there exist more than one being having all the attributes necessary and sufficient for being a GOD in the highest and fullest sense available within Mormon theology. Mormons may not like the sound of it this is polytheism. It may also be henotheism but that is a trivial afterthought.

Polytheism is a type of theism. Within theism, it contrasts with monotheism, the belief in a singular God. Polytheists do not always worship all the gods equally, but can be Henotheists, specializing in the worship of one particular deity. Other polytheists can be Kathenotheists, worshipping different deities at different times.

wiki Edited January 9, 2012 by Tarski

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

Long time no see.

I have no problem with multiple God(s), or at least becoming one myself through Christ. But there is only one God who I(we/LDS) have anything to do with.

[Anakin7]

“My Mormon Polytheism”—Anakin7

Joseph Smith (belief in a plurality of Gods is polytheism, whether worshipped or not):

We are already are aware of that coolrok, your not telling us anything we are not aware of,Its how you define "Belief In" and I see this plurality of god's as a reference to The Anchient/Heavenly Assembly/Council in Heaven. Do you believe that this took place ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[supersnail]

1) The topic of henotheism arose because of the misguided inclusion of the "Mormon Church" in the Wikipedia henotheism entry. Wikipedia isn't an LDS source, and anyone can edit it.

2) Not all dictionary-style definitions are bad. Numerous examples can be produced of non-LDS scholarly publications in which polytheism is succinctly, but more correctly characterized as worship of more than one god. I'm not just talking about Henry More, who used the English word "monotheism" the first and only two times in the 17th century in the context of...worship. Belief in the existence of three divine beings isn't the same thing as making all of them objects of worship.

Latter-day Saints don't worship Joseph Smith. They don't worship Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. They don't worship Heavenly Mother. They don't worship unnamed gods. They worship Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit; they worship one Godhead presided over by Heavenly Father. They don't worship the Holy Spirit, but most non-Mormon Christians wouldn't say they "worship the Holy Spirit" either.

The accusation that Mormonism is polytheistic by the definition that polytheism is *belief in the existence* of more than one god is fundamentally deceptive, because the effect--whether one realizes it or not--is to spread the idea that Mormons *worship* more than one god or are worshiping something other than what non-Mormon Christians worship. So the accusation is trying to have it both ways--a dictionary definition and another definition that touches on the meat of the topic. Polytheism obviously has connotations of worship, and if anyone genuinely can't see that, may I suggest putting down the collegiate dictionary and actually cracking open a book on the topic. Even the common dictionary definition, "belief in one God," has a significance seemingly unnoticed by those throwing dictionaries at this issue. The capitalization of "God" implies a particular kind of deity. In a very real sense, Mormons believe in one God as I discussed in earlier posts. Things like morality and idolatry may be considered "semantics" by some, however.

An analysis of a religion's beliefs and practices is necessary to figure out if it is monotheistic or polytheistic. So just for starters, one can see that many non-Mormon Christians say they pray to God the Father, Jesus Christ, and even "the Trinity." They pray to the Father, the Son, and in some cases the Holy Spirit, individually, but also to the Trinity. They often claim to worship two persons, but not the third, of the Trinity.

On another level, a church claiming strict adherence to monotheism in words may nonetheless have rituals and practices suggesting otherwise. To classify people who worship various idols as monotheists because of a Platonic creed of theirs (itself a syncretization resulting in a confusion of ideas and weakened worship practices) may be useful for some secular purposes, but isn't particularly elucidating. For others, idolatry is a real issue.

Scholars working with the polytheism/monotheism binary in historical, sociological, anthropological and theological contexts should recognize where Mormonism truly belongs. Even those who utilize more specific classifications should understand for the reasons I've brought up that it is conceptually inappropriate to place LDS doctrine in the polytheism category or a subcategory of polytheism.

[Tarski]

I have no problem with multiple God(s), or at least becoming one myself through Christ. But there is only one God who I(we/LDS) have anything to do with.

Would that be Jehovah or Elohim?

By the way, grandfathers might feel bad if their grandkids didn't want anything at all to do with them (get it?).

[TAO]

Okay, let's just settle this:

We are as polytheistic as mainstream Christianity is.

That pretty much describes it all =P.

[Tarski]

They worship Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit;

you worship by the power of a third being. What does that mean?

they worship one Godhead presided over by Heavenly Father.

Mormons worship a Godhead? They worship an abstract mereological union of three individuals but do not worship 2 of the 3 personal members?

This doesn't sound right to me.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Tarski

[mfbukowski]

Anything published by the Church is established doctrine. Proclamations, Ensign, Hymns, etc.

Did you read post 54? Or were you just asserting your position without responding to it?

[coolrok7]

You opened the thread with the title of, "My Mormon Polytheism" which Joseph Smith taught using the terminology of a "plurality of Gods". Your Baptist minister friend in discussion with you observed, as it related to your sharing the FAIR article with him, that there was an attempted redefining of the term if I read that correctly.

I wasn't finished yet, just an opening comment.

Edited January 10, 2012 by coolrok7

[coolrok7]

From the FAIR website:

Are Christians monotheists? Any discussion with Jews or Muslims will quickly demonstrate no Christian is, strictly speaking, a monotheist. One of the chief objections by Jews and Muslims is Christians are polytheists. Most brands of Christians insist on the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, the very word those who crafted the great ecumenical creeds used to describe the deity of Jesus, his Father and the Holy Spirit is "trinity," meaning three. Additionally, they insisted the three Persons should not be confounded, as such would be deemed modalism (one of the primary heresies that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds and various confessions). Modalism often insists the one God merely appears to us in three different ways (i.e., as Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and this is exactly what the creeds deny. (; Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism)

The answer to your question is no, I don't believe Joseph's council of the Gods interpretation.

Edited January 10, 2012 by coolrok7

[ERayR]

“My Mormon Polytheism”—Anakin7

Joseph Smith (belief in a plurality of Gods is polytheism, whether worshipped or not):

So?

[coolrok7]

So?

Polytheism is not monotheism.

[altersteve]

Would that be Jehovah or Elohim?

The Father and the Son are one God. We worship Them, as does every other Christian.

[volgadon]

Polytheism is not monotheism.

Then why do you continue to refer to yourself as a monotheist?

[Acris Venator]

I'm not convinced that we don't worship Christ. I know what the doctrine says. But in practice, I don't think anyone can conclusively make the argument that we don't worship him. I don't want to "dictionary" anybody to make my point, but I don't have to, really. The proof is in the pudding just as much as it's in the definition of certain words. We worship Jesus whether we're ready to admit it or not.

I don't really have a problem with this truth about our situation, either. He is a god, after all. Yes, he said "glory be to the Father", but he also received a "fullness of the glory of the Father". Do we really defer to the Father in all we say and do in Christ's name? I know we're supposed to. But do we really do it? And when we confuse them along the way, is it some sort of transgression or sin that needs correction?

There is an abstraction at work within the church having to do with the "oneness" of the Father and the Son. And it's not just the one in purpose thing either. Jesus says that they are in each other. I think this is part of why we often conflate these two individuals in myriad situations when we utilize the term "Lord".

Again, I'm not talking about doctrine or ordinances. I'm speaking descriptively here of what actually happens to faithful Mormons. Joseph asked the question to one God, and these two hombres showed up, essentially dressed and groomed the same, to the sacred grove and rocked Smith like the mother of all Doublmint Gum commercials. And now Mormons claim a similar monotheism to the rest of Christianity? I just don't buy it.

Christ's words, his acts... we're pretty saturated in that stuff. The hymns and scriptures reference him more than they do the Father. The Church is named after the guy. We assert that we are Christians every fifteen minutes.

He's a god, right? Do we really not worship him? Is his godhood intended to be beside the point in our worship of the Father? Seriously?

[altersteve]

According to President Hinckley, we do worship Christ. I can't believe some Latter-day Saints actually try to avoid saying that. It's unbelievable to me.