My Mormon Polythieism

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Nope. Just that others believe the same but according to Scripture there can be only one.

[Anakin7]

(Storm Rider)

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

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):

(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. 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):

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:

Response - THE ANCIENT HEAVENLY DIVINE ASSEMBLY COUNCIL which a # of Real non LDS Professors/Scholars/Theologians show. Also I understand that Anchient Israelites were not always "Monotheistic".

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited January 20, 2012 by Anakin7

[Pahoran]

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.

And thus we've been jaybeared again.

For your argument to work, the accepted definition of "Christian" would have to include something like "one who has received a valid baptism."

Are you using such a defintion, Jaybear? Because we're not.

And I'm pretty sure the EV's are not. They are the ones crying Quelle horreur! at the idea that Jesus might have actually meant what he said about baptism being essential to salvation.

The definition of "Christian" amounts to no more than "A follower of Jesus Christ." Not a perfect follower; not someone who is in a formal covenant relationship; not someone who subscribes to any creeds or councils; not someone who passes arbitrary man-made tests of theological purity; and not someone who has received the right baptism, but simply someone who follows Jesus Christ.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

And thus we've been jaybeared again.

For your argument to work, the accepted definition of "Christian" would have to include something like "one who has received a valid baptism."

Are you using such a defintion, Jaybear? Because we're not.

And I'm pretty sure the EV's are not. They are the ones crying Quelle horreur! at the idea that Jesus might have actually meant what he said about baptism being essential to salvation.

The definition of "Christian" amounts to no more than "A follower of Jesus Christ." Not a perfect follower; not someone who is in a formal covenant relationship; not someone who subscribes to any creeds or councils; not someone who passes arbitrary man-made tests of theological purity; and not someone who has received the right baptism, but simply someone who follows Jesus Christ.

Regards,

Pahoran

In your pathetic zeal to insult me ("jaybeared"), you utterly missed the point.

Let me spell it out for you.

I was not addressing generally the definition a "christian", but more specifically the meaning of the term "true Christian" as the term was used by Storm Rider.

Here is how Storm Rider used the term: "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?"

But thank your for sharing your personal definition of term "Christian".

.

[Aka_me]

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

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

the issue with henotheism... is that it turns Heavenly Father into "a dime a dozen" hummel figurine.

as opposed to an uncreated, unmanifest, transendent God which the Abrahamic religions including Christianity believe in.

[Pahoran]

In your pathetic zeal to insult me ("jaybeared"), you utterly missed the point.

I agree. Jaybearing is insulting.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

the issue with henotheism... is that it turns Heavenly Father into "a dime a dozen" hummel figurine.

Which is at least better than being a dime a dozen ideologue.

But if that's what you think henotheism entails, then Latter-day Saints are clearly not henotheists by your definition. There is nothing remotely "dime a dozen" about God in Mormonism.

as opposed to an uncreated, unmanifest, transendent God which the Abrahamic religions including Christianity believe in.

You mean, which thinkers within those traditions who have been most influenced by aristotelian thought believe in.

Because in reality, all three of those traditions have always had strands of transcendence and immanence in them, sometimes competing and sometimes coexisting.

But hey; anything to support the old canard that "Mormonism isn't Christian," right?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

Response - THE ANCHIENT HEAVENLY DIVINE ASSEMBLY COUNCIL which a # of Real non LDS Professors/Scholars/Theologians show. Also I understand that Anchient Israelites were not always "Monotheistic".

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Hope you don't mind me pointing this out, but there's no "h" in "ancient".

That's been driving me nuts for a while now

[Anakin7]

Hope you don't mind me pointing this out, but there's no "h" in "ancient".

That's been driving me nuts for a while now

Got some OCB going ?. Thanks for the reminder.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[mfbukowski]

Got some OCB going ?. Thanks for the reminder.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Uh, that would be "OCD".

Not really, it is just that in my posts I try to spell correctly because it damages credibility in my opinion to have many typos and mispellings.

Just my opinion. It's hard for me to take anyone seriously who constantly misspells stuff. Just my opinion. Maybe myopia too.

Edited January 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Anakin7]

Uh, that would be "OCD".

Not really, it is just that in my posts I try to spell correctly because it damages credibility in my opinion to have many typos and mispellings.

Just my opinion. It's hard for me to take anyone seriously who constantly misspells stuff. Just my opinion. Maybe myopia too.

You can have it both ways OCD = obsessive compulsive disorder OR obsessive compulsive behavior [i used to teach at a rehab center in my home town].

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[volgadon]

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

I have a printed source stating just that.

[Damien the Leper]

I have a printed source stating just that.

Could you provide that source? I would like to read it since Trinitarianism has never really made sense to me. I once heard someone in passing that it is another form of monolatry.

[volgadon]

Could you provide that source? I would like to read it since Trinitarianism has never really made sense to me. I once heard someone in passing that it is another form of monolatry.

I'll translate it as well as providing the link. It was written by Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel, chief rabbi of Tel-Aviv in the 30s and a very original thinker who wasn't afraid of discussing even German philosophers such as Nietsche. Amiel never minced words.

[Damien the Leper]

I'll translate it as well as providing the link. It was written by Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel, chief rabbi of Tel-Aviv in the 30s and a very original thinker who wasn't afraid of discussing even German philosophers such as Nietsche. Amiel never minced words.

That would be awesome, Volgadon. Thanks.

[coolrok7]

In visions, dreams etc. what one is seeing in not necessarily the reality of the thing/person being represented. What is being communicated can be either from God or possibly lying angels appearing in a form that can be seen as with our natural eyesight, also ones’ mind.

Mormonism is founded upon the following (the claimed experience of Joseph Smith) not really Biblical teaching in which Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (although an appeal to the Bible is made in this instance it is a negative):

. . .this is the pivotal thing of our story. Every claim we make concerning divine authority, every truth that we offer concerning the validity of this work, all finds its roots in the First Vision of the boy prophet. Without it we would not have anything much to say. . .This becomes the hinge pin on which the whole cause turns. If the First Vision was true, if it actually happened, then the Book of Mormon is true. Then we have the priesthood. Then we have the Church organizations and all of the other keys and blessings of authority which we say we have. If the First Vision did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is that simple. (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p.237)

During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness. . . .I often said to myself: “What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or are they wrong altogether? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it? . . .for how to act I did not know, . . .for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. . . .

Like Joseph Smith, you are all ignoring the following and listening to him who has most of it wrong when it comes to his renderings of critical Biblical teaching (Jesus didn’t become a God, He already was). Some of his teaching I have no problems with (it doesn’t say a “plurality of Gods” as the “us” are the Godhead of Father, Son, Holy spirit, from Matthew 28):

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. . . . And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:1-2, 25-28)

Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. (Psalm 90:1-2)

Note that in each instance of God (elohim, which is the Father, Son, Holy Spirit) it is translated in the singular, God, not god or gods as in other cases where for example the false deities of pagan nations are being mentioned (an Old/New Testament example of this):

So now you intend to resist the kingdom of the LORD through the sons of David, being a great multitude and having with you the golden calves which Jeroboam made for gods for you. “Have you not driven out the priests of the LORD, the sons of Aaron and the Levites, and made for yourselves priests like the peoples of other lands? Whoever comes to consecrate himself with a young bull and seven rams, even he may become a priest of what are no gods. (2 Chronicles 13:8-9)

However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those, which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? (Galatians 4:8-9)

In John 1:1-2, 14 the following is stated:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. . . .And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-2, 14)

The above in the Greek in no way can be made to stretch this supposed translation from Joseph Smith:

In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God. (from John chapter 1, JST, Joseph Smith translation of the Bible)

The above leads to this which is not even close to first century Christianity:

As shown in this chapter our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now, capable of physical death. By obedience to eternal gospel principles, he progressed from one stage of life to another until he attained the state that we call exaltation or godhood. In such a condition, he and our mother in heaven were empowered to give birth to spirit children whose potential was equal to that of their heavenly parents. We are those spirit children. . . .It is this fact that makes marriage in a temple of God such an important step in our eternal progression. Elder Bruce R. McConkie has written this: “Celestial marriage is a holy and an eternal ordinance;. . .The most important things that any member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever does in this world are: 1. To marry the right person, by the right authority; and 2., to keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and perfect order of matrimony--thus assuring the obedient persons of an inheritance of exaltation in the celestial kingdom.” (Mormon Doctrine, p.118) (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, Salt Lake City: Church Education System, 1976, p.132)

. . .God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, . . . (History of the Church, Joseph Smith Jr., April 1844, 6:305)

“As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be”— Lorenzo Snow

The first principles of men are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. . . . (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.354)

The Gospel of the Son of God that has been revealed is a plan or system of laws and ordinances, by strict obedience to which the people who inhabit this earth are assured that they may return again into the presence of the Father and the Son. (quoted in the pamphlet entitled, BRIGHAM YOUNG PROPHET STATESMAN PIONEER, 11/81; JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 13:233, Brigham Young)

Our Heavenly Parents have through aeons of time and a multitude of experiences gradually become acquainted with and applied in their lives an untold number of these everlasting laws. As they learned these verities and how to operate them, these laws thereby became subject unto Elohim and henceforth were His laws—or, in other words,

the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.4)

Jesus became a God and reached His great state of understanding through consistent effort and continuous obedience to all the Gospel truths and universal laws. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.51)

The Mystery Religions, pagan rivals of Christianity, taught emphatically the doctrine that “men may become Gods.” Hermeticism, which had its rise in Egypt in the second or third centuries B.C., was a prominent religion in the Mediterranean world during the period of the rise of Christianity. Its literature, The Corpus Hermeticum, professes to be revelations to Hermes from his divine father and teacher. Hermes declared: “We must not shrink from saying that a man on earth is a mortal god, and that God in heaven is an immortal man.” This thought very closely resembles the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and of President Lorenzo Snow. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.110)

This is the Biblical Gospel:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

[altersteve]

In visions, dreams etc. what one is seeing in not necessarily the reality of the thing/person being represented. What is being communicated can be either from God or possibly lying angels appearing in a form that can be seen as with our natural eyesight, also ones’ mind.

Um, okay?

Mormonism is founded upon the following (the claimed experience of Joseph Smith) not really Biblical teaching in which Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (although an appeal to the Bible is made in this instance it is a negative):

Anyone who has read the Book of Mormon or studied the Church at all will know that it is in fact founded upon Jesus Christ and His teachings, hence its name. It's not The Church of Joseph Smith of Latter-day Saints, or The Church of the First Vision of Latter-day Saints, it's The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and it is based entirely around Him. We emphatically declare to the world that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Like Joseph Smith, you are all ignoring the following and listening to him who has most of it wrong when it comes to his renderings of critical Biblical teaching(Jesus didn’t become a God, He already was).

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not teach or suggest that Jesus Christ was ever anything less than our Lord and Savior, nor was He ever anything less than God, the Everlasting Father of those who follow Him.

Some of his teaching I have no problems with (it doesn’t say a “plurality of Gods” as the “us” are the Godhead of Father, Son, Holy spirit, from Matthew 28):

If there are three persons who can be called God, would it not logically follow that there are three deities (i.e., "Gods")? Hence, a plurality of them? Evangelical Christians always try to avoid this question, but I'm being serious. Can the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost each be referred to as "a God" or not? Above you stated that Jesus "already was [a God]," so wouldn't that imply that the Father and the Holy Ghost are "Gods" also? If not, why not? Please don't avoiding answering this.

Note that in each instance of God (elohim, which is the Father, Son, Holy Spirit) it is translated in the singular, God, not god or gods as in other cases where for example the false deities of pagan nations are being mentioned (an Old/New Testament example of this):

Latter-day Saints believe what Paul said about other beings "that are called gods," and about how "there be gods many, and lords many," both "in heaven and in earth" (and there are no false idols or pagan deities in heaven). You are free to believe otherwise if you so choose.

The above in the Greek in no way can be made to stretch this supposed translation from Joseph Smith:

While some parts of the JST were indeed intended to be actual "translations," most of it was simply an inspired revision, intended to clarify and expand biblical teaching in light of modern revelation.

The above leads to this which is not even close to first century Christianity:

False. Many ancient Christians, including some of the early Church Fathers, believed in theosis.

This is the Biblical Gospel:

In other words, Christ died for our sins. Yep, sounds like the gospel to me, even as Latter-day Saints define it.

Edited January 23, 2012 by altersteve

[LeSellers]

In other words, Christ died for our sins. Yep, sounds like the gospel to me, even as Latter-day Saints define it.

I'm sure you meant "especially as Latter-day Saints define it."

Lehi

[altersteve]

I'm sure you meant "especially as Latter-day Saints define it."

Lehi

Yes, thank you for that correction.

[supersnail]

The objections to the mention of how Jews and Muslims have used the word "polytheism" miss the point. Nobody is making some kind of argument from the authority of Jews and Muslims that non-Mormon Christianity is polytheistic because those Jews and Muslims say so, much less that Mormon Christianity and non-Mormon Christianity are both polytheistic. Rather, Jewish and Muslim use of the word "polytheism" isn't limited to what the Macmillan Dictionary, for example, says, "the belief that there is more than one god." Jewish and Muslim thinking about idolatry and polytheism isn't necessarily correct in every specific, but it does show that "polytheism" has a larger meaning or a range of meaning and that the procedure used to classify Mormonism as polytheistic in contrast with Trinitarian Christianity is internal to Trinitarianism, in which the assertion of consubstantiality is sufficient and necessary to establish monotheism if the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are accepted. Trinitarians don't yet have a monopoly on the meanings of "monotheism" and "polytheism." This isn't to argue here that Trinitarianism actually is polytheistic, just that it would be difficult for anyone who doesn't presuppose that Trinitarianism is monotheistic to arrive at the conclusion that Mormon doctrine on the Godhead is polytheistic relative to Trinitarianism. The difference between three beings as one God in purpose and harmony, and three persons as one God in substance, as supposed evidence of Mormon polytheism, is significant only from the standpoint of a particular variety of Platonism. Furthermore, the ways in which Trinitarians have insisted on the monotheistic status of Trinitarianism in the face of issues raised about the doctrine reveals, behind a facade of a simplicity, a more complex understanding of "monotheism" than suggested by strict adherence either to the Merriam-Webster definition interpreted in the most literal way (belief in the existence of only thing the alleged believer calls "god") or to a less nominally focused definition like belief in the existence of only one divine being of any kind.

There is no argument from authority here against Trinitarianism. Critics of Mormonism are, however, arguing from the authority of Macmillan, or misunderstanding the nature of dictionary definitions, when they ignore or minimize the American Heritage, Collins and Oxford definitions of "polytheism." Otherwise, it is hard to understand why critics would equate the Macmillan definition of "polytheism" and the definitions of the Oxford and other dictionaries--which *are* different, and if anyone can't see that, they ought to study the topic of polytheism in more depth to understand why "polytheism" has always had at least a connotation of worship or potential worship of idols by the same or different people. And it's becoming clearer that the argument by dictionary is based partly on a historical amnesia regarding the reality that Christians, Jews and Muslims have found idolatry and polytheism in the others' religions and cultures for centuries. Of course, that isn't to say that there should be silence about idolatry or that one shouldn't critique idolatry in one's own culture. I'll say it again: Anyone who purports to believe in the one true God and now debases language and concepts in such a way that polytheism is a frivolous accusation not based on anything to do with idolatry or worship are implicated in idolatry themselves and deserve criticism from Jews and Muslims (as well as Christians) as being idolaters. (Possible exceptions are Christians who aren't involved in any evangelization or missionary activity, but such Christians might not make a big deal about the alleged polytheism of Mormonism in the first place.) It's clear with some commentators (speaking generally, not just in reference to this message board) that the issues of avoiding idolatry and keeping God's commandments have taken a back seat to highly abstract considerations of "belief" that have nothing to do with worship or even faith.

I see that some are, in the name of unity, coexistence or cooperation between non-Mormon Christians, Jews, and Muslims, willing to sacrifice Mormonism to the wolves by claiming that non-Mormon Christianity, Judaism and Muslim are all truly monotheistic while Mormonism is somehow polytheistic. It would be more reasonable to say that Christianity including Mormonism is monotheistic or that Mormonism is more true to monotheism in its actual meaning than some Christian churches that don't explicitly teach that the members of the Godhead are distinct beings--unless we are to understand "monotheism" to mean something no more or less than the kind of thing sun worship or worship of a single volcano as god are. What some selected authorities, who weren't addressing the monotheistic or polytheistic status of Mormonism, may have said for public relations or diplomacy reasons related to 9/11, coexistence in Jerusalem, the Holocaust, Kashmir, Palestine, foreign policy or political campaigns doesn't change how Christians, Jews and Muslims have long used the word "polytheism." And it is regrettable and more than a little bit distasteful that efforts to bring about peace and unity--which can be difficult and may in some circumstances call for a softening of language and a blunting of terms and polemics--can be twisted into something used to justify defaming Mormonism globally. Accusing Mormonism of polytheism can have real consequences. I don't think all those accusing Mormonism of polytheism realize the gravity of doing so. Anyone who thinks they can unite non-Mormon Christians, Jews and Muslims against Mormonism as a minority religion is mistaken.

Drawing a distinction between polytheism and belief in multiple idols *before* accusing someone of polytheism could be an example of a possibly commendable, but politically motivated definition intended to cause less offense or intolerance--a definition that doesn't change how Christians, Jews and Muslims have used the word in the past. (I refer to use of the English word "polytheism," leaving aside issues of translation. Regardless, Jews, Muslims, and non-English speaking Christians have discerned idolatry and errors comparable to polytheism in the others' religions for reasons that have nothing to do with stated belief in the existence of more than one god.) It's interesting that some nonetheless consider Christianity polytheistic (if not idolatrous), despite an intended neutral meaning of "polytheism." If it can be said that so-called orthodox non-Mormon Christianity or some large portion thereof is polytheistic even if polytheism is defined as not necessarily being idolatrous, what does that still show about how the application of "monotheism" is not straightforward even with churches claiming to believe that there is only one God, who is absolute, infinite etc.? Latter-day Saints, most non-LDS Christians, Jews and Muslims all claim to be monotheists and reject "polytheism" in application to themselves. One can put non-Mormon Christianity, Islam and Judaism in an artificial "monotheistic" category from which Mormonism is sharply excluded as polytheistic only by gutting monotheism of its anti-idolatrous content, forgetting or downplaying the three religions' own critiques of each other (including those critiques making a special distinction between polytheism and idolatry), and elevating to the most important level a mere, imaginary technicality--which is even more strange because it is the "technicality" that is supposed to be the reason for bringing together the big three "Abrahamic religions" in a universalist or pluralistic spirit.

From what I can tell, Mormons don't spend a lot of time talking or thinking about whether Trinitarianism is polytheistic. They spend much more time worshiping God and thinking about whether there is idolatry in their own life (though they don't always call it "idolatry") and nonreligiously manifested idolatry in their own society or surroundings. (By that I mean idolatry that has little or nothing to do with certain words in another church's doctrine.) That is how things should be. Mormonism is a particularly strong force against idolatry, but most of the idolatry in the world isn't outwardly religious and can't be reduced to a particular church, denomination, or doctrine. That is to say, Mormonism is necessary, but naming other churches as polytheists is not as necessary. Anyone who publicly accuses Mormonism of polytheism shouldn't be surprised when their own beliefs and practices are critiqued. And it's not just Mormons who are going to notice and be concerned when Mormonism is accused of polytheism.

I get the impression that a few think this whole conversation is a joke or not worth having. The topic of idolatry isn't trivial, but I will accept that the latter is the case when those who have accused Mormonism of polytheism here clarify that they aren't accusing Mormonism of idolatry and explain why Mormonism isn't idolatrous or isn't more idolatrous than other Christian denominations, if they can do so sincerely. I'm not holding my breath. Many critics of Mormonism know full well that this is more than just about a word or two words.

It's not my intention to tar with the same brush all those considering Mormonism polytheistic. Feel free to disown anything I've talked about. And stop doing it as convenient. Stop the fallacious arguments by dictionary. Stop selective use of dictionaries. Stop using "polytheism" to insinuate that Latter-day Saints worship idols. Cease the uninformed or pseudoscientific use of "henotheism," a concept that has nothing to do with thinly described, rarely referenced, theoretical, abstract, nameless gods that have never been worshiped and never will be. Quit caricaturing and distorting LDS doctrine in anti-Mormonism books and condemning Mormonism for a polytheism that you invented. Stop writing postmodernist essays suggesting that Mormonism is polytheistic without distinguishing what you're doing from how "polytheism" is used conventionally in rigorous discourse.

Edited January 26, 2012 by supersnail

[Anakin7]

The objections to the mention of how Jews and Muslims have used the word "polytheism" miss the point. Nobody is making some kind of argument from the authority of Jews and Muslims that non-Mormon Christianity is polytheistic because those Jews and Muslims say so, much less that Mormon Christianity and non-Mormon Christianity are both polytheistic. Rather, Jewish and Muslim use of the word "polytheism" isn't limited to what the Macmillan Dictionary, for example, says, "the belief that there is more than one god." Jewish and Muslim thinking about idolatry and polytheism isn't necessarily correct in every specific, but it does show that "polytheism" has a larger meaning or a range of meaning and that the procedure used to classify Mormonism as polytheistic in contrast with Trinitarian Christianity is internal to Trinitarianism, in which the assertion of consubstantiality is sufficient and necessary to establish monotheism if the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are accepted. Trinitarians don't yet have a monopoly on the meanings of "monotheism" and "polytheism." This isn't to argue here that Trinitarianism actually is polytheistic, just that it would be difficult for anyone who doesn't presuppose that Trinitarianism is monotheistic to arrive at the conclusion that Mormon doctrine on the Godhead is polytheistic relative to Trinitarianism. The difference between three beings as one God in purpose and harmony, and three persons as one God in substance, as supposed evidence of Mormon polytheism, is significant only from the standpoint of a particular variety of Platonism. Furthermore, the ways in which Trinitarians have insisted on the monotheistic status of Trinitarianism in the face of issues raised about the doctrine reveals, behind a facade of a simplicity, a more complex understanding of "monotheism" than suggested by strict adherence either to the Merriam-Webster definition interpreted in the most literal way (belief in the existence of only thing the alleged believer calls "god") or to a less nominally focused definition like belief in the existence of only one divine being of any kind.

There is no argument from authority here against Trinitarianism. Critics of Mormonism are, however, arguing from the authority of Macmillan, or misunderstanding the nature of dictionary definitions, when they ignore or minimize the American Heritage, Collins and Oxford definitions of "polytheism." Otherwise, it is hard to understand why critics would equate the Macmillan definition of "polytheism" and the definitions of the Oxford and other dictionaries--which *are* different, and if anyone can't see that, they ought to study the topic of polytheism in more depth to understand why "polytheism" has always had at least a connotation of worship or potential worship of idols by the same or different people. And it's becoming clearer that the argument by dictionary is based partly on a historical amnesia regarding the reality that Christians, Jews and Muslims have found idolatry and polytheism in the others' religions and cultures for centuries. Of course, that isn't to say that there should be silence about idolatry or that one shouldn't critique idolatry in one's own culture. I'll say it again: Anyone who purports to believe in the one true God and now debases language and concepts in such a way that polytheism is a frivolous accusation not based on anything to do with idolatry or worship are implicated in idolatry themselves and deserve criticism from Jews and Muslims (as well as Christians) as being idolaters. (Possible exceptions are Christians who aren't involved in any evangelization or missionary activity, but such Christians might not make a big deal about the alleged polytheism of Mormonism in the first place.) It's clear with some commentators (speaking generally, not just in reference to this message board) that the issues of avoiding idolatry and keeping God's commandments have taken a back seat to highly abstract considerations of "belief" that have nothing to do with worship or even faith.

I see that some are, in the name of unity, coexistence or cooperation between non-Mormon Christians, Jews, and Muslims, willing to sacrifice Mormonism to the wolves by claiming that non-Mormon Christianity, Judaism and Muslim are all truly monotheistic while Mormonism is somehow polytheistic. It would be more reasonable to say that Christianity including Mormonism is monotheistic or that Mormonism is more true to monotheism in its actual meaning than some Christian churches that don't explicitly teach that the members of the Godhead are distinct beings--unless we are to understand "monotheism" to mean something no more or less than the kind of thing sun worship or worship of a single volcano as god are. What some selected authorities, who weren't addressing the monotheistic or polytheistic status of Mormonism, may have said for public relations or diplomacy reasons related to 9/11, coexistence in Jerusalem, the Holocaust, Kashmir, Palestine, foreign policy or political campaigns doesn't change how Christians, Jews and Muslims have long used the word "polytheism." And it is regrettable and more than a little bit distasteful that efforts to bring about peace and unity--which can be difficult and may in some circumstances call for a softening of language and a blunting of terms and polemics--can be twisted into something used to justify defaming Mormonism globally. Accusing Mormonism of polytheism can have real consequences. I don't think all those accusing Mormonism of polytheism realize the gravity of doing so. Anyone who thinks they can unite non-Mormon Christians, Jews and Muslims against Mormonism as a minority religion is mistaken.

Drawing a distinction between polytheism and belief in multiple idols *before* accusing someone of polytheism could be an example of a possibly commendable, but politically motivated definition intended to cause less offense or intolerance--a definition that doesn't change how Christians, Jews and Muslims have used the word in the past. (I refer to use of the English word "polytheism," leaving aside issues of translation. Regardless, Jews, Muslims, and non-English speaking Christians have discerned idolatry and errors comparable to polytheism in the others' religions for reasons that have nothing to do with stated belief in the existence of more than one god.) It's interesting that some nonetheless consider Christianity polytheistic (if not idolatrous), despite an intended neutral meaning of "polytheism." If it can be said that so-called orthodox non-Mormon Christianity or some large portion thereof is polytheistic even if polytheism is defined as not necessarily being idolatrous, what does that still show about how the application of "monotheism" is not straightforward even with churches claiming to believe that there is only one God, who is absolute, infinite etc.? Latter-day Saints, most non-LDS Christians, Jews and Muslims all claim to be monotheists and reject "polytheism" in application to themselves. One can put non-Mormon Christianity, Islam and Judaism in an artificial "monotheistic" category from which Mormonism is sharply excluded as polytheistic only by gutting monotheism of its anti-idolatrous content, forgetting or downplaying the three religions' own critiques of each other (including those critiques making a special distinction between polytheism and idolatry), and elevating to the most important level a mere, imaginary technicality--which is even more strange because it is the "technicality" that is supposed to be the reason for bringing together the big three "Abrahamic religions" in a universalist or pluralistic spirit.

From what I can tell, Mormons don't spend a lot of time talking or thinking about whether Trinitarianism is polytheistic. They spend much more time worshiping God and thinking about whether there is idolatry in their own life (though they don't always call it "idolatry") and nonreligiously manifested idolatry in their own society or surroundings. (By that I mean idolatry that has little or nothing to do with certain words in another church's doctrine.) That is how things should be. Mormonism is a particularly strong force against idolatry, but most of the idolatry in the world isn't outwardly religious and can't be reduced to a particular church, denomination, or doctrine. That is to say, Mormonism is necessary, but naming other churches as polytheists is not as necessary. Anyone who publicly accuses Mormonism of polytheism shouldn't be surprised when their own beliefs and practices are critiqued. And it's not just Mormons who are going to notice and be concerned when Mormonism is accused of polytheism.

I get the impression that a few think this whole conversation is a joke or not worth having. The topic of idolatry isn't trivial, but I will accept that the latter is the case when those who have accused Mormonism of polytheism here clarify that they aren't accusing Mormonism of idolatry and explain why Mormonism isn't idolatrous or isn't more idolatrous than other Christian denominations, if they can do so sincerely. I'm not holding my breath. Many critics of Mormonism know full well that this is more than just about a word or two words.

It's not my intention to tar with the same brush all those considering Mormonism polytheistic. Feel free to disown anything I've talked about. And stop doing it as convenient. Stop the fallacious arguments by dictionary. Stop selective use of dictionaries. Stop using "polytheism" to insinuate that Latter-day Saints worship idols. Cease the uninformed or pseudoscientific use of "henotheism," a concept that has nothing to do with thinly described, rarely referenced, theoretical, abstract, nameless gods that have never been worshiped and never will be. Quit caricaturing and distorting LDS doctrine in anti-Mormonism books and condemning Mormonism for a polytheism that you invented. Stop writing postmodernist essays suggesting that Mormonism is polytheistic without distinguishing what you're doing from how "polytheism" is used conventionally in rigorous discourse.

supersnail A BIG HUG and THANK YOU for your thoughts on the above post's.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited January 27, 2012 by Anakin7

[coolrok7]

You had stated Alter Steve:

If there are three persons who can be called God, would it not logically follow that there are three deities (i.e., "Gods")? Hence, a plurality of them? Evangelical Christians always try to avoid this question, but I'm being serious. Can the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost each be referred to as "a God" or not? Above you stated that Jesus "already was [a God]," so wouldn't that imply that the Father and the Holy Ghost are "Gods" also? If not, why not? Please don't avoiding answering this.

The answer is no due to Joseph ignoring the KJV translation (which became the “official” translation of the Mormon Church) in certain areas which refutes his views God (elohim) or LORD (JHVH/YHWH) is always that way when in reference to the God of Biblical Revelation, not the others referred to as little ”g” with an “s” gods who are not true Deity at all:

So now you intend to resist the kingdom of the LORD through the sons of David, being a great multitude and having with you the golden calves which Jeroboam made for gods for you. “Have you not driven out the priests of the LORD, the sons of Aaron and the Levites, and made for yourselves priests like the peoples of other lands? Whoever comes to consecrate himself with a young bull and seven rams, even he may become a priest of what are no gods. (2 Chronicles 13:8-9)

However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those, which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? (Galatians 4:8-9)

It is declared in the Psalms:

Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. (Psalm 90:1-2)

Paul stated (Jesus’ birth in the incarnation was not His beginning as He is eternal with no beginning as in from, “everlasting to everlasting”):

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (Colossians 1:12-23)

As to the way the following is interpreted in Mormonism (i.e.- an actual plurality of g(G)ods which doesn’t fit the context of what is being stated by Joseph Smith misrepresenting both the Biblical/Trinitarian view):

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)

. . .I will preach on the plurality of Gods. . . .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. . . .Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. . . .All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster. (Joseph Smith)

In the [a God] designation noted earlier, I should have used quotation marks (the corrected version in part of the above statement you quoted from me is below). The reason is that Joseph Smith changed the Biblical teaching in his own so-called “Scripture” that he claimed was from the God (elohim) of Biblical Revelation but in reality is not.

The Trinitarian view is that the three mentioned in Matthew which are the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, the Godhead, which are the one God (by nature spirit), not a plurality of gods. According to Jesus—“The Lord our God is one Lord”, quoting from the Old Testament:

Like Joseph Smith, you are all ignoring the following and listening to him who has most of it wrong when it comes to his renderings of critical Biblical teaching (Jesus didn’t become “a God”, He already was God but not the Father, Holy Spirit). Some of his teaching I have no problems with (it doesn’t say a “plurality of Gods” as the “us” are the Godhead of Father, Son, Holy spirit, from Matthew 28)

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)

I had the following in mind when I stated what I did:

Jesus became a God and reached His great state of understanding through consistent effort and continuous obedience to all the Gospel truths and universal laws. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.51)

Again, this is part of the “Mormon gospel”, not the Biblical Gospel:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

The first principles of men are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. . . . (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.354)

The Gospel of the Son of God that has been revealed is a plan or system of laws and ordinances, by strict obedience to which the people who inhabit this earth are assured that they may return again into the presence of the Father and the Son. (quoted in the pamphlet entitled, BRIGHAM YOUNG PROPHET STATESMAN PIONEER, 11/81; JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 13:233, Brigham Young)

Our Heavenly Parents have through aeons of time and a multitude of experiences gradually become acquainted with and applied in their lives an untold number of these everlasting laws. As they learned these verities and how to operate them, these laws thereby became subject unto Elohim and henceforth were His laws—or, in other words, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.4)

Jesus came in the flesh to suffer death to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (the Gospel) not so that He could become “a God” as in the Mormon eternal progression doctrine (death is the separation of the spirit from the body):

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (Hebrews 2:9-16)

There is no Biblical reference to heavenly parents procreating spirit children (which includes angels) before they come to an earth to gain physical bodies in order to become Gods the way “Heavenly Father” and mother did:

Joseph Smith refers to this as “the great secret.”(Times and Seasons 5:613 (Aug. 1844). See also Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.345) The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance with eternal principles , “for he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.” (D&C 88:22.). . .By definition, exaltation includes the ability to procreate the family unit throughout eternity. . . .His marriage partner is our mother in heaven. We are their spirit children, born to them in the bonds of celestial marriage. The Lord would have all his children attain exaltation, but men must have their agency. Only those who subscribe by ordinance and by faithful adherence to covenant are worthy of “a continuance of the seeds forever and ever.” (D&C 132:19)

As shown in this chapter our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now, capable of physical death. By obedience to eternal gospel principles, he progressed from one stage of life to another until he attained the state that we call exaltation or godhood. In such a condition, he and our mother in heaven were empowered to give birth to spirit children whose potential was equal to that of their heavenly parents. We are those spirit children. . . .It is this fact that makes marriage in a temple of God such an important step in our eternal progression. Elder Bruce R. McConkie has written this: “Celestial marriage is a holy and an eternal ordinance;. . .The most important things that any member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever does in this world are: 1. To marry the right person, by the right authority; and 2., to keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and perfect order of matrimony--thus assuring the obedient persons of an inheritance of exaltation in the celestial kingdom.” (Mormon Doctrine, p.118) (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, Salt Lake City: Church Education System, 1976, 1992, pp.129, 132)

For some contrast in the “a g(G)od” idea, the Jehovah’s Witnesses translation of John 1:1-2 and how they use it in their explanation of Who Jesus is (a created being according to Charles Taze Russell and those who succeeded him in the organization):

In (the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in (the) beginning with God. (John 1:1-2, NWT- New World Translation)

Our Lord Jesus Christ is a God. . .still the united voice of the scriptures must emphatically assert that there is but one Almighty God, the Father of all. (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol.V, p.55)

This one was not Jehovah God, but was existing in the form of God. . .he was a spirit person...he was a mighty one although not Almighty as Jehovah God is; . . .He was a God, but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah. (Let God Be True, pp.34, 35)

At the time of his beginning of life he was created by the everlasting God, Jehovah, without the aid or instrumentality of any mother. In other words, he was the first and direct creation of Jehovah God. . .He was the start of God’s creative work. He was not an incarnation in flesh but was flesh, a human Son of God, a perfect man, no longer a spirit, although having a spiritual or heavenly past and background. (The Kingdom Is At Hand, pp.46, 47, 49)

Jehovah’s Witnesses are of the Arian heresy (Jesus is a created being who had a beginning, which makes Him, a god not God according to them) and accuse Trinitarians of being modalists as Mormons do, in part a reason for the wording of the Nicene Creed which was defending the Deity of Jesus—very God of very God, begotten not made” (a reference to His becoming flesh in the incarnation). Jesus is God from “everlasting to everlasting”, He didn’t become one:

The Oneness of the Father and the Son: There has been much misunderstanding regarding the oft-repeated statement that Jesus and his Father are one. A careful reading of the seventeenth chapter of John should clarify this matter fully. As Jesus was about to be offered up, he prayed unto his Father and thanked him for his apostles, saying, “that they may be one, as we are.” (John 17:11). . .Now it is very apparent that Jesus was not speaking of oneness of personage, but oneness of purpose, . . .(John 17:24). . .Again it is evident that the oneness referred to has no reference to oneness of personage, for if Jesus and his Father were one in person, how absurd to think that Jesus would pray unto himself, . . . (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.22)

If Jesus were the Almighty God, he would not have prayed to himself, would he? Since Jesus prayed to God, . . .the two could not be the same person (You can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, p.39).

[Storm Rider]

I don't think LDS or the LDS Church accuse you of being medalists, we just think you are non-biblical in your teaching of the Trinitarian heresy. If is a false teaching that was created by man in order that Jesus could be considered divine and yet still not violate their faulty understanding of one God.

More important, no one understands the Trinitarian doctrine because it is incomprehensible. Somehow three, but then there is this catch about Substance which makes them one. Substance or essence is a philosophical construct of man and nothing more. Jesus did not teach it and nor did the apostles.

Of course, then you have to open the concept of scriptures, which you are using a much smaller Bible than the Catholics and Orthodox. You guys deleted books from the scriptures and, as you teach, must be condemned to hell for doing so. Sorry for that, but when you live by the sword you die by it also.

Then again you have not Tradition like the majority of Christians resulting in a misunderstanding of so many teachings such as authority among others. See, you have no leg to stand on. None of your churches have any authority of God to exist. One day old Martin woke up and said I will start my own church, Then John did the same thing. Before you knew it every Tom, ****, and Harry had started their own church until today we have over 36,000 different Christian denominations in the world today. All of them use the Bible (some smaller and the majority larger) and teach as many conflicting doctrines as you can shake a stick at. More importantly, none of the Protestants have make no claim to have authority....unless of course if you believe the scriptures that make it very clear that the authority is needed. Some of you have created your own man-made doctrine of the priesthood of the believer, but that is the dang doctrine that messed up the whole caboodle in the first place. You feel like it? Do it. They felt like it and they did it.

That finger you enjoy pointing a the LDS Church and its members; every time you do that you have three more pointing right back at you. More importantly, you don't have a biblical verse to stand on for your church's existence other than some Tom just wanted his own church. Cheers,

[coolrok7]

I don't think LDS or the LDS Church accuse you of being medalists, we just think you are non-biblical in your teaching of the Trinitarian heresy. If is a false teaching that was created by man in order that Jesus could be considered divine and yet still not violate their faulty understanding of one God. . . .

I’m assuming you meant modalists which is the idea that there are three modes of the same being, God, which is not what the Trinity is. Three persons in the Godhead (spiritual in their essence or nature) of Father, Son, Holy Spirit (Matthew 28) are as Jesus quoted:

The Lord [JHVH or YHWH] our God [elohim] is one Lord

Numerically speaking it is 1x1x1= the one God Who is Father, Son, Holy Spirit. 1+1+1= 1 is not what is being said as that is a mathematically false statement.

And yes we are classified in modalistic language by both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses as I quoted before (both use the same reasoning and both are wrong):

The Oneness of the Father and the Son: There has been much misunderstanding regarding the oft-repeated statement that Jesus and his Father are one. A careful reading of the seventeenth chapter of John should clarify this matter fully. As Jesus was about to be offered up, he prayed unto his Father and thanked him for his apostles, saying, “that they may be one, as we are.” (John 17:11). . .Now it is very apparent that Jesus was not speaking of oneness of personage, but oneness of purpose, . . .(John 17:24). . .Again it is evident that the oneness referred to has no reference to oneness of personage, for if Jesus and his Father were one in person, how absurd to think that Jesus would pray unto himself, . . . (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.22)

If Jesus were the Almighty God, he would not have prayed to himself, would he? Since Jesus prayed to God, . . .the two could not be the same person (You can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, p.39)

[Storm Rider]

I’m assuming you meant modalists which is the idea that there are three modes of the same being, God, which is not what the Trinity is. Three persons in the Godhead (spiritual in their essence or nature) of Father, Son, Holy Spirit (Matthew 28) are as Jesus quoted:

Numerically speaking it is 1x1x1= the one God Who is Father, Son, Holy Spirit. 1+1+1= 1 is not what is being said as that is a mathematically false statement.

And yes we are classified in modalistic language by both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses as I quoted before (both use the same reasoning and both are wrong):

Yup, that was a typo. Thank you for pointing it out. Some do confuse modalism with Trinitarian doctrine, but then again so do many Trinitarians. Strange how that is; when you don't understand it, it is easy to get confused.

The problem is that the Trinitarian doctrine is a teaching of man and has nothing to do with the Bible, the teachings of Jesus, or his apostles. It remains a philosophical construct just as it was intended to be when it was invented . It was impossible to admit that Jesus was divine and not come up with more Gods than one. Viola, out comes the Substance teaching and all is well. They are seperate and distinct, but the same in essence or substance. Of course, this is complete gibberish, but it has worked for 1670 years to pacify those who want to believe that Jesus is divine, the Son of God, but not another god, not a godhead, but a Trinity.

Life is grand when we just create doctrines without any scriptural support. Yes, don't try to show me John 1 or the other versus; Jesus makes it clear that he is separate from the Father and that he prays to God the Father just as we should, and yet he taught he was the Son of God. One Godhead, One Father, One Son, One Holy Spirit; three that are one in in purpose, in manner, and in mission. Such a simple teaching, completely in accordance with the New Testament, and yet lost by men with itching ears that chose philosophy over the teachings of Christ and the witness of the Holy Spirit.