My Mormon Polythieism

[altersteve]

Mosiah 15

Yes, I've read it several times. What about it?

[Storm Rider]

When one chooses to argue based on what Jews and Muslims say, they are both guilty of rejecting Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, a place of standing I choose not to be a part of. I choose to believe as a Christian that Jesus is the one that saves me and all believers as God (only the Son) in the flesh:

LDS also believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven and he is our Savior. If he saves us, doesn't that mean we are Christian? Or are you saying that Jesus saves Christians and non-Christians alike? I am not sure I understand your last phrase. However, LDS believe that Jesus as God on earth; if not, he could not have raised himself from the dead.

[altersteve]

We can count too. They claim to be monothiests which is one God, which implies there is no other true God. The Trintarian view is stated the same way, one God with no other true God or G/gods but with further revelation as recorded in the New Testament, the Father, Son, Holy Spirit as in the baptismal statement used in the last command of Jesus to His disciples in the procedure of making other disciples.

Do you believe the Father is God? Do you believe the Son is God? Do you believe the Holy Spirit is God? If so, can't they each be considered a God? If not, why not?

I would also remind you that Joseph Smith in the BofM quotes directly from the above so-called abominable creed above using the "very God" term which was defending the Deity of Jesus in which Arius of Alexandria. He was denying the eternal nature of Jesus before His birth as a man in order to suffer death.

So because the Book of Mormon uses the phrase "very God" to describe Jesus Christ in a completely different context than the Nicene Creed's use of the phrase, it "quotes directly" from your creed? You can't be serious.

Spirits don't die or have bodies of flesh and bone as Jesus claimed to have in the resurrection in Luke 24 (Jesus took on a human form in the incarnation in order to suffer death. God is spirit- John 4:24 without the importation of the whole father/mother God in heaven having spirit babies teaching of Mormonism in the eternal progression teaching which Biblical Christians reject based on Biblical teaching/understanding in context.

What does any of this have to do with anything? All of this is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[supersnail]

I encourage everyone to read in full the Adele B. McCollum essay quoted above to understand the peculiar way the author uses the word "polytheism." That anybody would use that essay to try to disprove what has been said in this thread about LDS worship is odd. Again, whether Mormons believe that more than one divine being exists (particularly that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are distinct beings) or can exist, and the fact that some dictionaries define polytheism as belief that more than one god exists, is not in dispute. (I do have a dictionary in front of me, though, the New Oxford American Dictionary, that defines polytheism as "the belief in or worship of more than one god." Think about why whoever wrote this definition found it necessary to include the word "worship" and why it would have been inadequate to say "the belief in more than one god." So not only do some critics of Mormonism selectively engage in argument-by-dictionary against Mormonism, they are selective in which dictionary they use. And no, the Oxford definition isn't belief in more than one god. It is belief in or worship of more than one god. For a critic to point to the Oxford definition after the incompleteness of the Merriam-Webster definition was pointed out is strange. If the meanings of "monotheism" and "polytheism" were so simple, words like "henotheism" and this other dictionary definition of "polytheism" wouldn't arise or be necessary.)

The impression was given in this thread that the McCollum essay was somehow endorsed by Latter-day Saints or that here is a Latter-day Saint of some kind of authority saying that Mormonism is polytheistic--as if that proved anything in this conversation about the applicability of a technical term. When I first started reading I thought about whether that was actually the case since not everything published by BYU is written by individuals claiming to be LDS, and I know BYU to publish alternative viewpoints and non-LDS viewpoints in the spirit of dialogue, but more importantly, the essay is mistaken. At least the author has the integrity to distinguish between "polytheism" and "new polytheism," perhaps sensing that the term "polytheism" as used by other scholars doesn't fit Mormonism. The author distinguishes between Mormonism's "monotheistic worship" and its supposedly polytheistic theology, which are viewed as complementary. As it is left unexplained how "polytheistic" theology necessarily leads to "monotheistic" worship, the essay could be interpreted as admitting that Mormonism's so-called polytheism has nothing to do with Mormon worship apart from a so-called polytheistic theology being necessary in the "pluralistic culture" of contemporary society to "survive." The existence of "monotheistic worship" is contingent on a "polytheistic theology" under pluralistic circumstances. The essay doesn't deny that monotheistic theology suited monotheistic worship at another time. Of course, one could have a fine unmistakably "monotheistic" theology, but be idolatrous in practice, but the author's separation of questions of worship and theology and declaration that Mormon theology alone is polytheistic is a clue that LDS doctrine isn't polytheistic at all--and that religions with "monotheistic" doctrines may actually be polytheistic.

The book, The New Polytheism, that McCollum seems to be excited about views monotheism as having something to do with "fascism" and polytheism as related to "democracy." McCollum defines monotheism as one-centeredness. McCollum critiques monotheism, and when she suggests Mormonism is polytheistic, that doesn't represent a negative value judgment for her. McCollum notes that Mormons believe in the existence of more than one god and highlights Joseph Smith's vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Read the essay carefully, though, and you'll see that McCollum's claims are based on ideas such as that "polytheistic" means "real, taking place in the lived reality of people, rather than in the false unity of the abstractions of Greek philosophy." Ultimately, it may be that monotheism cannot really exist, the essay implies, that it has existed only as a stifled or suppressed polytheism. McCollum speaks of Mormonism's "monotheistic worship and practice" in ironic juxtaposition with its "polytheistic theology," but it would be just as true to McCollum's own discussion, viewed as a whole, to say that McCollum is interested in Mormonism's "polytheistic" practice or result that has less to do with Mormonism's belief in the existence of more than one god and more to do with Mormonism's telling stories "instead of stale theoretical formulations." McCollum quotes David L. Miller on "the very disparateness of the multifaceted self" as if the disparateness ought to be preserved and is preserved by Mormonism.

I agree with McCollum that there's a problem with Greek philosophy as it has been incorporated in Christianity, but McCollum seemingly equates monotheism with Platonic monotheism. McCollum is right that there's something limiting about Trinitarianism and Platonic Christianity more generally, and that there are important differences between Mormon Christianity and non-Mormon Christianity related to Greek philosophy. It is important, though, to understand that strict adherence to "the abstractions of Greek philosophy" isn't characteristic of the big three religions that have been considered monotheistic. The limited adherence by Christians has resulted in contradictions, which theologians have attempted unsuccessfully to resolve. And the idea that monotheism is just what a particular dictionary says, belief in the existence of more than one god--a definition perhaps itself influenced by Platonism--is at odds with how the word "monotheism" has been used in practice, to identify religions that assert the worship of one god against the worship of idols, called "god" or not, previously worshiped or worshiped by others, without ruling out the existence of all other conceivable divine beings that aren't worshiped, have never been worshiped, and aren't meant to be worshiped. It is alien to the understanding of monotheism expressed in Theodore Parker's early 19th century statement, "Monotheism is the worship of one Supreme God. It may admit numerous divine beings superior to man, yet beneath the Supreme Divinity, as the Jews, the Mahometans, and the Christians have done; or it may deny these subsidiary beings, as some philosophers have taught."

The idea that there's only one divine being (in a way that isn't just a matter of what the worshiper is calling "god" or not)--not just Trinitarianism--is in its most rigorous form actually a philosophical contrivance that doesn't really define even Christianity as a whole, Judaism, and Islam, though many have labored to find it in those religions. At the same time, some of the things considered good that are supposed to set Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, apart from other religions, may be found in Mormon Christianity--restored Christianity--to a greater degree in comparison with other Christian denominations. This is why it can be said both that Mormonism is the most monotheistic Christian religion and that critics are promoting a misunderstanding of how "monotheism" has long been used in the scholarly setting and in religious disputation. Non-Mormon Christian churches' conception of God as a personal God was incoherent in the first place, before "monotheism" was applied to those churches because of those churches' apparent belief in one personal God among other reasons. The idea of one personal God had to be extricated from the Greek philosophy that didn't originate it, but with which it became entangled. Despite (and, in a way, partly because of) the corporeal appearance of both the Father and the Son, Joseph Smith's First Vision was a harbinger of the restoration of monotheism itself in the Christian world. Churches claiming to believe in the one true God as the Trinity had failed to progress from that idea to obeying God's commandments. Petty things had taken precedence over actually worshiping the one true God.

McCollum confuses Platonic monotheism and monotheism in general. Things that could be considered evidence of monotheism are regarded as belonging to polytheism. For McCollum, defining monotheism so narrowly and polytheism so broadly, the ideas of "individual revelation and free agency" in Mormonism are manifestations of polytheism, whereas I'd argue that those are manifestations of a belief in a personal God expecting His children to accept His plan of salvation by choosing to follow His commandments. To say that we have agency implies the need for morality, not just a recognition of difference. Without agency, monotheism would be a theoretical triviality of no meaningful consequence.

Finitism may have something to do with our ability to have a relationship with God, but Mormonism's finitist view of God isn't polytheistic. (The idea of uncreated matter, for example, isn't inherently polytheistic, unless we are to consider matter to be treated as a god with properties such that worship of God stands to be diluted, which Mormonism doesn't. I suppose some critics of Mormonism will respond, "So Mormons worship matter." But that would be to admit to a definition of polytheism more complex than belief in the existence of more than one god, and is false anyway.) McCollum seems to oscillate between two understandings of "polytheism," one where literal belief in the existence of more than one "god" qualifies as polytheism and another where "narrative theology," as opposed to "theoretical theology," is enough to establish polytheism because it allows us to "speak to what is real and concrete." (For that matter, McCollum alternates between different understandings of "monotheism," too, at some points equating monotheism and worship of one god, which isn't quite precise, but reveals the complexity of monotheism and shows that monotheism and polytheism aren't simply inverses of one another on the question how many gods are believed to exist.)

McCollum's essay is creative and poetic, and I agree with McCollum that there's something unique about Mormonism and that it offers the means to better apprehend and address the real and concrete. But being unfamiliar with McCollum's other work, I wonder what the author of such an essay might have to say about the idolatry of contemporary society, if anything. Reading the essay, one gets a sense that polytheism as an analytical category of idolatry has been lost and that one cannot speak critically of idolatry without opposing democracy. Unless the essay is saying that we as humans have always had "diversity" and a "pluralistic situation"--and it isn't clear that it is saying that, because then how does one account for the persistence of religions with a "monotheistic" "theoretical" theology over hundreds of years--the essay seems to reify the perspectives of individuals in modern society and, indeed, deify the transitory things of that society. The discussion of the "real" as if it were particular to modern society is ironic. Treating things as though they had more reality than they actually do is indicative of idolatry, which is not to say that some of the things worshiped don't have some existence. Wooden idols exist, but they are false and impermanent.

To speak as if there should be an accommodation with "diversity" is disturbing when one considers that much of the difference that exists in the world today may be due to things like malnutrition and a lack of potable water. The multiple experiences that matter most are multiple experiences of the same evils. Such experiences should be overcome, not glorified. It is curious that McCollum talks about the concrete without actually mentioning anything that is clearly concrete. McCollum harks back to a time "when the gods were finite and inhabited time and space," but is silent about things that exist visibly in time and space today. In an unexpected way, McCollum is right that there's something polytheistic about the way we in the West as individuals approach many things, but McCollum is, I believe, mistaken in her suggestion that Mormonism is harmonious with that polytheism. The dual experience of indifference and sympathy in the face of hunger *is* polytheistic and does replace worship of the true God. It is idolatrous. There are indeed different facets of the self, but in reality this is mainly a cause for repentance and returning to the one true God.

The King Follett discourse doesn't show that Mormonism is polytheistic or henotheistic. Without making any claim about the status of the King Follett discourse or committing to an interpretation of the text(s), it is obvious that we as humans aren't in a situation where we could come in contact with the culture of another planet or universe. Neither God the Father nor "Head of the Gods," nor an unnamed present or future exalted god spoken of only abstractly, is anything like a family, tribal or national deity. There is absolutely nothing temporary, tentative or unstable about Latter-day Saints' worship of the Father, to whom endless gratitude is owed for His Son. Nothing in LDS theology suggests the possibility of the divided or successive worship of gods. There is no sense of a rivalry with other actually existing gods or that the Father has to be continuously elevated above other gods that are supposed to exist. There is no subsumption of other gods held to exist and to have particular qualities suitable for apportioned worship or preferential worship as with some examples of henotheism. Mormonism is simply unrecognizable in John England's early 19th century remark in the context of worship in North America: "The best evidence of polytheism is the undetermined contest between deities, or the victory of one over the other. They who believe in such a contest or such a victory must be polytheists."

The only way to make that comment fit Mormonism, with a shoehorn and amputating a toe, is to say that Satan is a kind of deity for Mormons and just a metaphor for non-Mormon Christians. Of course, that would be false, though it is true that many non-Mormon Christians are in denial about the reality of Satan. Satan is obviously not a candidate for worship alongside the Father. Belief that there is more than one divine being in the Godhead, united in purpose, is no more evidence of polytheism than belief in the existence of Satan as an influential fallen spirit opposed to God's purpose.

The Godhead presided over by God the Father is one God for all individuals, families, tribes, nations, peoples, ethnicities, and languages. God is a personal God, and there is no other. There are no gods with conflicting, particular or provincial interests. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate in terms of being distinct beings, but have a definite relationship that isn't open to change, they operate in perfect unity with a single purpose and a single imperative. Nobody is excluded from the Father's plan of salvation. We can only exclude ourselves. An insidious dictatorship of idolatry--not democracy, not fascism, not real monotheism--interferes with our relationship with the one true God, with following, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Father's commandments as His Son shows us to and preparing for the return of His Son, Jesus Christ.

[mfbukowski]

Next thing you know, he'll be pretending he actually lived there.

Nah, even he wouldn't go that far.

[mfbukowski]

For what it's worth, my official position on whether we are monotheists or polytheists is as follows:

It's a quibble over words.

I know you all couldn't wait to find that out.

[coolrok7]

(Storm Rider post #177)

LDS also believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven and he is our Savior. If he saves us, doesn't that mean we are Christian? Or are you saying that Jesus saves Christians and non-Christians alike? I am not sure I understand your last phrase. However, LDS believe that Jesus as God on earth; if not, he could not have raised himself from the dead.

The above bolded/underlined is at the crux of the matter between Mormons and Christians. It’s at this point there is a major disagreement in the Mormon eternal progression teaching and what that entails.

This from a Biblical Christian perspective becomes a denial of what we would refer to as Salvation from an eternal punishment in hell (gehenna not sheol or hades) that Jesus identifies in the following (there are only two groups of people, the sheep and the goats):

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:41-46)

I believe that here is a major redefinition that takes place in the Mormonism of Joseph Smith using almost the same terminology at points with some key distinctions:

What is Eternal Punishment?

If preaching to the spirits, bringing them to a knowledge of the truth, and being baptized for them releases them from their prison, It logically follows that there must be an end to future punishment. We hear the question: “Do not the scriptures say that it is ‘eternal punishment’ and ‘everlasting punishment’?” Yes, but let us not put a private interpretation on these terms. Let us correctly understand their meaning. Eternal punishment is God’s punishment; everlasting punishment is God’s punishment. In other words, it is the name of the punishment God inflicts, he being eternal in his nature. Whosoever, therefore, receives God’s punishment, whether it is endured one hour, one day, one week, one year, or an age. . . . (PLAN OF SALVATION, pamphlet, p.25)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not judging the individual Mormon believer here and their Salvation as I’m not the one that Judges that, Jesus will on Judgment day for all people who have ever lived. I’m just trying to clarify some differences with using some of the same terminology with different meanings between us.

[Anijen]

Just my personal opinion and I know I will have members and non members disagree with me.

It is my opinion that Christianity is polytheistic. There is no way one can convince say a Muslim that a Christians view of the trinity is monotheistic. Sorry three in one is still three in one.

[altersteve]

For what it's worth, my official position on whether we are monotheists or polytheists is as follows:

It's a quibble over words.

I know you all couldn't wait to find that out.

[/thread]

[mfbukowski]

[/thread]

Did I miss something?

[altersteve]

Did I miss something?

It was such a good post that this thread doesn't need to continue.

[frankenstein]

For what it is worth I am attending aseminar on terrorism. We were shown a video of a Saudi imam encouraging terrorism and jihad refers to western diplomats as polythiest.

Edited January 17, 2012 by frankenstein

[altersteve]

For what it is worth I am attending aseminar on terrorism. We were shown a video of a Saudi imam encouraging terrorism and jihad refers to western diplomats as polythiest.

You have yet to respond to me how you think Mosiah 15 has anything to do with the Trinity.

[coolrok7]

(Anijen, post #183)

Just my personal opinion and I know I will have members and non members disagree with me.

It is my opinion that Christianity is polytheistic. There is no way one can convince say a Muslim that a Christians view of the trinity is monotheistic. Sorry three in one is still three in one.

By the way Anijen, there are Muslims that do become Christian.

The issue is that it is your opinion (incorrect opinions do not usurp Biblical teaching) which is your right to have.

It’s the same relative problem with Mormons, Witnesses, etc., in that their present belief gets in the way of the truth as it is in the Biblical Jesus! This in part is caused by other so-called “Scripture” and people’s incorrect opinions.

Regardless of what Muslims and non-believing Jews say in regards to Jesus being the Son of God and God the Son in the flesh, Christianity is not a violation of the Hebrew Monotheistic God (elohim) of the Old Testament—the Hebrew Schema:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Yahweh/Jehovah] our God [elohim] is one LORD: (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phillipians 2:5-11)

Jesus Himself gave the command to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit:

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:(Mark 12:28-32)

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:18-20)

The Muslim (Jew or anyone else) unless by the Holy Spirit, won’t be persuaded because you can’t get them to acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God even while still acknowledging the Virgin conception of Jesus (Isa) as that is teaching from the Qur’an. What they then accept through Muhammad then is not for Salvation as that is in Jesus:

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10-12)

According to the true teachings of Islam, God is not to be conceived in an anthropomorphic way…Since He is one and the only One, a Muslim cannot invoke Him in the name of the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. . . .The Qur'an explicitly states: ‘No son did Allah beget nor is there any god along with Him.’ This is the point where Muslims and Christians painfully part company. The issue is deeply theological and anthropological. The Christian view of incarnation seems to compromise God’s transcendence and sovereignty while at the same time exalting a mere man to God-like status. By denying the incarnation, Islam is really affirming both the absolute transcendence of God and the rightful status of man as the servant and khalifa of God on earth. . . .(Islam and Christianity, pp.88, 132)

The important role bestowed on the Prophet Isa (PBUH) did not make him ‘Son of God’ or single him out as the only saviour for mankind. . . .The Christian witness that man is forgiven because of the crucifixion of Jesus is not in line with the Muslim belief. The end of the Prophet Isa (PBUH) on earth is blanketed in mystery, . . .On this issue the Qur'an tells us: That they said (in boast); We killed Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of God! But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them; and those who differ, therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow. For surety, they killed him not. Nay Allah raised him unto Himself; and Allah is ever Mighty wise (Qur'an 4:157-58). . . .Islam does not identify with the Christian conviction that man needs to be redeemed. The Christian belief in the redemptive sacrificial death of Christ does not fit the Islamic view. (Islam and Christianity, pp.140-41)

[altersteve]

Jesus Himself gave the command to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit:

That's because saying "in the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" is grammatically incorrect. Notice also what it says in the King James Version and other translations: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." They're clearly defined as distinct and separate.

Edited January 18, 2012 by altersteve

[supersnail]

Made a mistake above. It is the Macmillan and Dictionary.com definitions that don't include worship in the definition of "polytheism." The Merriam-Webster and Oxford definitions both include "worship," as do the American Heritage and Collins dictionary definitions. So, multiple dictionaries show that the meaning of "polytheism" can't be reduced to belief, particularly if "belief in" is defined as "belief in the existence of" (which isn't the only meaning of "belief in," and this is yet another issue).

Also consider Webster's 1828 definition: "The doctrine of a plurality of gods or invisible beings superior to man, and having an agency in the government of the world." The idea that there are multiple gods with competing or particular interests or loyal constituencies isn't found in Mormonism.

[Anijen]

(Anijen, post #183)

By the way Anijen, there are Muslims that do become Christian.

The issue is that it is your opinion (incorrect opinions do not usurp Biblical teaching) which is your right to have.

My "incorrect opinion" is probably the opinion of the majority of non Christians.

Spin it anyway you want, three is not one. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are Three in the trinity, simply put it is not monotheistic, the same as Vishnu,Brahma, and Shiva are in the Hindu triumvirate is not monotheistic.

Oh and I did not realize Muslims ever converted to Christianity, thanks for that bit of info...

[Anijen]

To add;

Because we believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost are separate but one in purpose does not mean we are not Christian either. I have challenged many to find that definition of "Christian" in the scriptures, all who have tried have failed.

Just to rub salt in it. I find the doctrine of eventually becoming like my Father in Heaven beautiful.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Anijen

[mfbukowski]

It was such a good post that this thread doesn't need to continue.

Oh I get it now- I guess that post of yours means "end thread" !

Duh. Sorry I am such a computer dummy!

Thanks!

[Storm Rider]

(Storm Rider post #177)

The above bolded/underlined is at the crux of the matter between Mormons and Christians. It’s at this point there is a major disagreement in the Mormon eternal progression teaching and what that entails.

This from a Biblical Christian perspective becomes a denial of what we would refer to as Salvation from an eternal punishment in hell (gehenna not sheol or hades) that Jesus identifies in the following (there are only two groups of people, the sheep and the goats):

I believe that here is a major redefinition that takes place in the Mormonism of Joseph Smith using almost the same terminology at points with some key distinctions:

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not judging the individual Mormon believer here and their Salvation as I’m not the one that Judges that, Jesus will on Judgment day for all people who have ever lived. I’m just trying to clarify some differences with using some of the same terminology with different meanings between us.

The issue is not hell; the issue is the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Is Jesus able to save Latter-day Saints or not. If he can save them, then are they not true Christians?

The allegation of same words different defintions is a non-starter for me. It is a game critics play. There is but one Jesus; he who hung on the cross, was raised from the dead and sits on the right hand of the Father. He either is the Savior of mankind or he is not. He either saves those who believe in him or he does not. LDS have chosen to follow Jesus and his Grace is sufficient for them to be saved.

[Jaybear]

The issue is not hell; the issue is the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Is Jesus able to save Latter-day Saints or not. If he can save them, then are they not true Christians?

Evangelicals don't accept the validity of a mormon baptism. So in that sense you could say others don't see Mormons as "true" christians.

Likewise, Mormons don't accept the validity of any non-mormon baptism. So in that sense you could say Mormons don't see others as "true:" christians.

Unless, of course, you don't beleive that baptism is necesarry for salvation.

Is that your point? And, what does this have to do with poytheism?

Edited January 19, 2012 by Jaybear

[thesometimesaint]

Ephesiians 4:5. One faith, one Lord, one baptism.

[Jaybear]

Ephesiians 4:5. One faith, one Lord, one baptism.

I don't understand your point. Are you disputing the fact that Mormons don't accept baptisms performed by other faiths?

[coolrok7]

(Storm Rider)

The issue is not hell; the issue is the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Is Jesus able to save Latter-day Saints or not. If he can save them, then are they not true Christians?

My point was (in the context of Mormon polytheism vs. Judaism’s and Christianities' monotheism):

. . .This from a Biblical Christian perspective becomes a denial of what we would refer to as Salvation from an eternal punishment in hell (gehenna not sheol or hades) that Jesus identifies in the following (there are only two groups of people, the sheep and the goats):

I believe that here is a major redefinition that takes place in the Mormonism of Joseph Smith using almost the same terminology at points with some key distinctions:

Judaism is monotheistic not polytheistic (Christianity isn’t polytheistic either as the thread op is, “My Mormon Polytheism” in which I would say, speak for yourselves in that context).

In the passage below the “LORD” is the YHWH or the JHVH name of God in the Old Testament. The term, “God” (or elohim) is not a name per se but a noun (God the Father/Holy Spirit are not human but spirit, Jesus is both God and human but was spirit/God before the incarnation, the unique only begotten Son in the flesh):

Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Yahweh/Jehovah] our God [or elohim] is one LORD [Yahweh/Jehovah] (Deuteronomy 6:4)

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:(Mark 12:28-32)

And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:16-18)

(altersteve)

That's because saying "in the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" is grammatically incorrect. Notice also what it says in the King James Version and other translations: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." They're clearly defined as distinct and separate.

I understand that each is distinct from each other but that doesn’t make them a “plurality of Gods” which is a statement peculiar to Joseph Smith. The only name actually used though is Jesus (not in that context but it is Jesus speaking the words). Jesus (Yeshua) is the name given to Him as the angel directed (which means Jehovah or Yawheh is salvation):

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. (Luke 1:30-33)

There are multiple points being made concerning the monotheistic God of Judaism (which is their claim, that there is only one God). I don’t disagree at all.

I’m pointing out that it is inconsistent for Mormons that do to deny the polytheism of Joseph’s later teaching on the “plurality of Gods”. Joseph said that it was taught for fifteen years which is not true and inconsistent with Biblical teaching:

. . .I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. . . .The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. . . .The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. . . . (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

[altersteve]

I understand that each is distinct from each other but that doesn’t make them a “plurality of Gods” which is a statement peculiar to Joseph Smith.

If there are three distinct persons that can each be called God, then there are three "Gods" (deities), right? Hence, a plurality of them.

Not that hard to understand.

The only name actually used though is Jesus (not in that context but it is Jesus speaking the words). Jesus (Yeshua) is the name given to Him as the angel directed (which means Jehovah or Yawheh is salvation):

What does that have to do with anything?

Edited January 19, 2012 by altersteve