Polytheism

[Tarski]

My question is, why do LDS reject the polytheistic label, and why do they consider that label offensive?

It is a matter of public relations and undesirable conotations.

Mormonism as taught by its founder and many founding leaders, and as I have always understood it, posits many Gods in the fullest sense. To say that one is the "top God" is also wrong since Elohim apparently had a Father who likewise had a Father ad infinitum.

All one can do to avoid this is to play word games and indeed this is exactly what we see: word games.

[USU78]

It is a matter of public relations and undesirable conotations.

Mormonism as taught by its founder and many founding leaders, and as I have always understood it, posits many Gods in the fullest sense. To say that one is the "top God" is also wrong since Elohim apparently had a Father who likewise had a Father ad infinitum.

All one can do to avoid this is to play word games and indeed this is exactly what we see: word games.

But remember, boys and girls, it's only the wicked Mormons' word games that matter. The fact that they are reacting to an unfair and probably malicious obfuscation and word game is of no consequence.

Just keep track of who's wearing what uniform so you know what team to root for: The Mormons ALWAYS have black hats.

[Libs]

That is the simple dictionary definition which doesn't convey the sense anthropologists use when speaking of polytheism. For example, in polytheism there are spheres of influnce such a God of the sky, a God of the underworld, a God of the sea, a God of fertility, a God of travelers, etc. and they each have their own sub classes of devotees and rituals. Not like LDS theology at all.

Well, yes, I guess it does depend on how you define the word. But, the "simple" definition (from Webster's) does appear to include LDS doctrine.

I do understand why LDS wouldn't want the label. I never thought of the religion as polytheistic, when I was active. And, in a way, I can see how the critics have used this to try and further distance the LDS Church from Christianity...when, really, their beliefs could be described as polytheistic, as well.

Appreciate all of the other comments from everyone.

[volgadon]

Well, yes, I guess it does depend on how you define the word. But, the "simple" definition (from Webster's) does appear to include LDS doctrine.

I do understand why LDS wouldn't want the label. I never thought of the religion as polytheistic, when I was active. And, in a way, I can see how the critics have used this to try and further distance the LDS Church from Christianity...when, really, their beliefs could be described as polytheistic, as well.

Appreciate all of the other comments from everyone.

The "simple" definition would also encompass trinitarians, but as you've noted, they would disagree. Argument by dictionary, as supersnail put it, is a terrible way to go about things.

[Libs]

lol @.argument by dictionary!

But, words do have official definitions, so I'm not sure we can completely throw out the dictionary.

I'm thinking, though, that, sometimes, words are used to denigrate (as in this case)..and once that starts happening, the word becomes polluted with meanings that no longer apply. If there were no value judgments put on the word "polytheism", it might be accurate. But, once people start attaching meanings to it that are intended to devalue someone's faith, then that word doesn't work anymore, as a true definition of that faith.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Libs

[TAO]

My question is, why do LDS reject the polytheistic label, and why do they consider that label offensive?

Generally, we try and reject it because of the connotation it brings. When people think of Polytheistic, they think of Hinduism, or Greek Mythology. While, technically the LDS position is polytheistic, it is not very much like those other polytheistic religions, that people relate the word polytheistic to.

It's also simpler because alot of people are very worried about being 'strict' monotheists, and since we technically can also be considered monotheists in a certain sense (that they all work together, and can be called God together), it sometimes works better that way.

No I'm not offended. It's just more practical, than to have to explain to people all the little details that make up the full idea.

Edited August 29, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

But, words do have official definitions, so I'm not sure we can completely throw out the dictionary.

Official definition... no. Socially accepted definitions, yes. There isn't really anything objective or official about the normally used definitions. They are just pracitcal to communicate with since most other people use them.

I'm thinking, though, that, sometimes, words are used to denigrate (as in this case)..and once that starts happening, the word becomes polluted with meanings that no longer apply. If there were no value judgments put on the word "polytheism", it might be accurate. But, once people start attaching meanings to it that are intended to devalue someone's faith, then that word doesn't work anymore, as a true definition of that faith.

Exactly. This is indeed the problem... there are so many implications tied to words. To every word, probably, though some are rather small, whereas others are rather large. You have to be careful with how you describe yourself because of that. It's important to control the implications, as well as the wording =).

[Libs]

Generally, we try and reject it because of the connotation it brings. When people think of Polytheistic, they think of Hinduism, or Greek Mythology. While, technically the LDS position is polytheistic, it is not very much like those other polytheistic religions, that people relate the word polytheistic to.

Since you are the second person who has mentioned Hinduism as being polytheistic, I have to say that many sects of Hinduism are not. Some (I think "most") believe in One God expressing itself through many deities..and through all of us. We are all One at the soul level. (Sorry, just had to get that out of my system )..

It's also simpler because alot of people are very worried about being 'strict' monotheists, and since we technically can also be considered monotheists in a certain sense (that they all work together, and can be called God together), it sometimes works better that way.

No I'm not offended. It's just more practical, than to have to explain to people all the little details that make up the full idea.

Thanks for the comments, TAO. LDS doctrine is certainly not simple, when you really start examining the beliefs. This is just one example of many. But, the thing is, calling it Monotheistic can also create confusion, for anyone who has more than a basic understanding.

[altersteve]

It's just a label. So I really don't care.

[Libs]

Do you believe it's an accurate label? Or is it more like namecalling?

[altersteve]

Do you believe it's an accurate label? Or is it more like namecalling?

Like I said, I don't care. And I don't think God cares much either.

[mapman]

I'll just say that I don't think that trying to classify religions as monotheistic or polytheistic is very useful. Every religion has its own view of what deity is and how the word "god" is defined. Trying to put religions together in these groups inevitably leads people to make bad assumptions about what people think. We may be polytheists according to the way the word is usually used, but when you get down to it, we have very different understandings of what "God" means than most people. All the different understandings of deity are just so numerous that it seems silly to me to try to put religions into only two groups. Also, the monotheism/polytheism dichotomy is a really Western idea. Obviously elsewhere people don't use the word "god" and when words from their language and religion are translated as "god" it often distorts things more than it clarifies. For example, from what I understand, Mesoamericanists usually call any supernatural being a "god" even if we would think of them as being more like angels or spirits. Anyways, Mormonism doesn't fit into the ideas that Western people have about religions and so it gets distorted when it is labelled with Western labels. It emerged from traditional Christianity, but by the end of Joseph Smith's life, revelations changed the Mormon conception of Godhood towards something entirely unique to its place and time.

(Incidentally, I'd say this is a perfect example of how our human tendency to categorize, while essential to functioning and communicating, tends to cause us to simplify and distort. Our use of human language will always result in some bias because words are used to categorize ideas and objects according to preconceived notions.)

Edited August 29, 2012 by mapman

[TAO]

Since you are the second person who has mentioned Hinduism as being polytheistic, I have to say that many sects of Hinduism are not. Some (I think "most") believe in One God expressing itself through many deities..and through all of us. We are all One at the soul level. (Sorry, just had to get that out of my system )..

Okay, that sounds good. Let's just leave it with Greek Mythology as an example then.

Thanks for the comments, TAO. LDS doctrine is certainly not simple, when you really start examining the beliefs. This is just one example of many. But, the thing is, calling it Monotheistic can also create confusion, for anyone who has more than a basic understanding.

It definitely can, but, I don't think it always will. Then again, I've also heard my Muslim friends say the exact same thing about the Trinity; I don't think this dilemma is unique to Mormonism in any regard. Monotheism is looked upon differently by different people.

[Maidservant]

"Polytheism" and "monotheism" are theological, and therefore, academic terms. They cannot be properly applied as doctrine, meaning to me that you will never find the word polytheism or monotheism in the scriptures. And therefore (in my opinion), there is no need to "play the game" of these words.

You do have this, however:

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:" and this chant, this truth, must be understood by some way.

The nut of the question is: does "one" mean "the count of one" or "one" as in "unity"?

I personally don't conceive of my relationship to God nor to my heavenly Father as one of worship, at least in the traditional sense that involves obeisance (I'm actually somewhat interested and somewhat in the middle of exploring what worship really ever is, was and meant to be). I am not "theism" at all. He is my father. I am his daughter. We are a family.

So what is the term for that?

Well, it's "family" .

[altersteve]

"Polytheism" and "monotheism" are theological, and therefore, academic terms. They cannot be properly applied as doctrine, meaning to me that you will never find the word polytheism or monotheism in the scriptures. And therefore (in my opinion), there is no need to "play the game" of these words.

You do have this, however:

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:" and this chant, this truth, must be understood by some way.

The nut of the question is: does "one" mean "the count of one" or "one" as in "unity"?

I personally don't conceive of my relationship to God nor to my heavenly Father as one of worship, at least in the traditional sense that involves obeisance (I'm actually somewhat interested and somewhat in the middle of exploring what worship really ever is, was and meant to be). I am not "theism" at all. He is my father. I am his daughter. We are a family.

So what is the term for that?

Well, it's "family" .

Perfect. Well said.

[Libs]

"Polytheism" and "monotheism" are theological, and therefore, academic terms. They cannot be properly applied as doctrine, meaning to me that you will never find the word polytheism or monotheism in the scriptures. And therefore (in my opinion), there is no need to "play the game" of these words.

You do have this, however:

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:" and this chant, this truth, must be understood by some way.

The nut of the question is: does "one" mean "the count of one" or "one" as in "unity"?

I personally don't conceive of my relationship to God nor to my heavenly Father as one of worship, at least in the traditional sense that involves obeisance (I'm actually somewhat interested and somewhat in the middle of exploring what worship really ever is, was and meant to be). I am not "theism" at all. He is my father. I am his daughter. We are a family.

So what is the term for that?

Well, it's "family" .

Nice post, Maidservant. I would agree that the "One" in that verse means unity. I do believe we are all One, at the very core, which does make us all related, in a very real way.

I started this thread after reading the most recent FAIR article on Ben Witherington and his accusation that Mormonism is not Christian. The author of the article made a statement about Ben "poisoning the well" by characterizing Mormonism as polytheism, so I just kind of wondered why that was considered "poisoning the well", if Mormonism actually could be characterized as "polytheism". It has, also, always been a "go to" for critics, so I was thinking, why not just own it, if it's true? But, after reading here and thinking about it, I understand a little better, why it might be offensive...and inaccurate.

[Robert F. Smith]

But the Nephites are said to have believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were literally one God. They were modalists, and therefore far more monotheistic than modern Mormons.

Hi Cobalt,

The words "literal(ly)" and "modal(ists)" do not occur in the Book of Mormon, nor in the Bible. Perhaps you could show us what you mean by quoting key indicative texts, and then explaining how the various denominations err in interpreting them so broadly and differently that it took councils, creeds, and executions to enforce the dominant view at particular times and places. In other words, how are we to interpret what the Nephites believed if we bring our preconceived notions to the text?

[Robert F. Smith]

Since you are the second person who has mentioned Hinduism as being polytheistic, I have to say that many sects of Hinduism are not. Some (I think "most") believe in One God expressing itself through many deities..and through all of us. We are all One at the soul level. (Sorry, just had to get that out of my system )..

Jan Assmann, along with most Egyptologists, takes this same view of one Deity expressed through a wide variety of forms. Whether the average Hindu or ancient Egyptian actually saw it that way is another question.

[Libs]

Jan Assmann, along with most Egyptologists, takes this same view of one Deity expressed through a wide variety of forms. Whether the average Hindu or ancient Egyptian actually saw it that way is another question.

Well, I don't know about anciently, but I do know (and have worshiped with) many contemporary Hindus and I know, first hand, that his is their belief.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

The problem of using just the dictionary definition of polytheism is that it would include all of Christianity. Something the Christians have fought against for the last 2000 years. We(the LDS) reject the term when applied to us, as a means to exclude us from Christianity.

[Zakuska]

Well, yes, I guess it does depend on how you define the word. But, the "simple" definition (from Webster's) does appear to include LDS doctrine.

I do understand why LDS wouldn't want the label. I never thought of the religion as polytheistic, when I was active. And, in a way, I can see how the critics have used this to try and further distance the LDS Church from Christianity...when, really, their beliefs could be described as polytheistic, as well.

Appreciate all of the other comments from everyone.

Bingo... and looking through the anti-nicean church fathers one will find the early christians using the exact same proof texts Mormons do, interpreting them in the same ways and being charged with being Polytheists as well.

Take this for example...

Chapter LXII.—The words “Let Us make man” agree with the testimony of Proverbs.

“And the same sentiment was expressed, my friends, by the word of God [written] by Moses, when it indicated to us, with regard to Him whom it has pointed out,21732173 Justin, since he is of opinion that the Word is the beginning of the universe, thinks that by these words, “in the beginning,” Moses indicated the Word, like many other writers. Hence also he says in Ap. i. 23, that Moses declares the Word “to be begotten first by God.” If this explanation does not satisfy, read, “with regard to Him whom I have pointed out” (Maranus). that God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: ‘Let Us make man after our image and likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creeping things that creep on the earth. And God created man: after the image of God did He create him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them, and said, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and have power over it.’21742174 Gen. i. 26, 28. And that you may not change the [force of the] words just quoted, and repeat what your teachers assert,—either that God said to Himself, ‘Let Us make,’ just as we, when about to do something, oftentimes say to ourselves, ‘Let us make;’ or that God spoke to the elements, to wit, the earth and other similar substances of which we believe man was formed, ‘Let Us make,’—I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being. These are the words: ‘And God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil.’21752175 Gen. iii. 22. In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us,’ [Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy21762176 Heresy or sect. which is said to be among you21772177 Or, “among us.” Maranus pronounces against this latter reading for the following reasons: (1.) The Jews had their own heresies which supplied many things to the Christian heresies, especially to Menander and Saturninus. (2.) The sect which Justin here refutes was of opinion that God spoke to angels. But those angels, as Menander and Saturninus invented, “exhorted themselves, saying, Let us make,” etc. (3.) The expression διδάσκαλοι suits the rabbins well. So Justin frequently calls them. (4.) Those teachers seem for no other cause to have put the words in the angels’ mouths than to eradicate the testimony by which they proved divine persons. is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God, who has also declared this same thing in the revelation made by Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). Listen, therefore, to the following from the book of Joshua, that what I say may become manifest to you; it is this: ‘And it came to pass, when Joshua was near Jericho, he lifted up his eyes, and sees a man standing over against him. And Joshua approached to Him, and said, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And He said to him, I am Captain of the Lord’s host: now have I come. And Joshua fell on his face on the ground, and said to Him, Lord, what commandest Thou Thy servant? And the Lord’s Captain says to Joshua, Loose the shoes off thy feet; for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. And Jericho was shut up and fortified, and no one went out of it. And the Lord said to Joshua, Behold, I give into thine hand Jericho, and its king, [and] its mighty men.’ ”2178

http://www.ccel.org/...ii.iv.lxii.html

Justin is speaking of God the father and another person/being/god his son Jesus Christ.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

lol @.argument by dictionary!

But, words do have official definitions, so I'm not sure we can completely throw out the dictionary.

I'm thinking, though, that, sometimes, words are used to denigrate (as in this case)..and once that starts happening, the word becomes polluted with meanings that no longer apply. If there were no value judgments put on the word "polytheism", it might be accurate. But, once people start attaching meanings to it that are intended to devalue someone's faith, then that word doesn't work anymore, as a true definition of that faith.

But dictionaries are quite solvent.

eg. Gay 2012 vs Gay 1950

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Sorry, in my post, I meant to say modalists, not monolatrists. The conclusion the Nephites were roughly Trinitarian, or more technically modalists, is independent of whether or not the Nephites were real or fictional.

Alexander, 1980, pp. 24-25

Kirkland, 1984, p. 37

Kirkland, 1986, p. 77

Lindgren, 1986, pp. 72-73

The really bizarre thing is that I'm so used to the Book of Mormon being described as modalist that I actually read that as what you'd written, and thought that's what I wrote when I responded to you. I almost did a spit-take when I reread the conversation. *laugh* Brains are weird things. (To correct my previous statement: I actually think a better case can be made for monolatry than modalism in the BoM, but that's a whole other discussion.)

Anyway, sorry it took so long to read the essays you cited.

The thing is, the issue of historicity does matter, like it or not, because if we assume that the book is a purely 19th-century document, then naturally we'll be looking to Joseph's environment for a more accurate reading, rather than an ancient environment which was then translated using the terms available in Joseph's time.

I'm not convinced by articles like these which don't seem willing to separate the superficial terminology of a document translated in the 19th century from the underlying concepts the terminology is employed to convey. As I've said before, it's like noting the existence of the word "adieu" in the Book of Mormon and then launching into an expose on Joseph Smith's obvious French influences, when that particular word is obviously just an artifact of translation conveying specific information to a specific audience.

The assumption is that these concepts (or concepts similar enough that the terms used would get the basic idea across) were not thought up before his time. If they were, then in translating them to what was then a modern audience, Joseph would have used the modern terminology to express the underlying ancient idea. But there's no reason why such concepts could not have existed before Joseph's time; after all, Calvinism and Arminianism and all the other sects (and stuff like Masonry, for that matter) were themselves responding to more ancient historical controversies.

In other words, we can label a doctrine "Calvinist" or "Arminian" (or "Pauline" or "Trinitarian", for that matter) because it is using their specialized terminology, and if the document was not a translation of an older historical document,we'd perhaps be correct to detect doctrinal "influence" from that quarter. But if the document was, in fact, translated from an ancient source, then all we've pointing out is where the translator's terminology has descended from; we haven't proved that the underlying concept is not ancient.

I'm just not seeing the problem when Pauline language shows up in the translation of a document composed before Paul existed but which was given by a later translator who was profoundly influenced by Pauline phraseology. What difference does it make that the Father, Word, and Spirit verse is found in later texts? Joseph's translation is perfectly legitimate if he used it to describe a concept on the plates, since his language was influenced by the KJV. It's all very circular.

Alexander, for one, assumes that I assume continuity and consistency. I don't; I have no problem with theological development - the D&C practically requires it. (Since I personally view the Holy Spirit of Wisdom as the "personal" Goddess Lady Wisdom, I'm a Modern Mormon who is certainly not consistent with, say, Parley P. Pratt's -- once "modern"! -- view of the Spiritual Fluid of the Holy Spirit. *grin* But I think I am being more consistent with the ancient context of the Wisdom literature I see preserved in the Book of Mormon, even if not every Prophet of the Restoration has had access to the "best books" which I believe demonstrate my position. Since we're all fallible human beings, it's not like that's a big deal.)

The thing is, later Mormon doctrinal development from the 19th century onwards is a separate issue from the ancient context, and if the ancient context is polytheistic, then Joseph's polytheistic "Nauvoo theology" is actually catching up to (a more accurately-read) polytheistic ancient Book of Mormon. But again, this depends entirely on the idea that the book was in fact a translation.

There is thus still development, but it's along different lines; namely, a convergence. Of course early Church members were still interpreting things through the lenses of their own "modern" preconceptions and the views of the previous Churches they had belonged to; Joseph said that all creeds have at least some truth to them, even if he didn't subscribe to the limiting effect such creeds could sometimes have on theological progression. If Christian Perfectionism or the Apostle's Creed had some truth in it, why not use that terminology so that people would understand the concept, rather than laboring under Bloom's Anxiety of Influence to be completely independent from the past?

As Nibley wrote (probably with a nasty grin towards those who dismissed his own methodology out of hand):

Parallelomania has recently been defined as the double process which "first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connections flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction." It isn't merely that one sees parallels everywhere, but especially that one instantly concludes that there can be only one possible explanation for such.

From the beginning the Book of Mormon has enjoyed the full treatment from Parallelomaniacs. Its origin has been found in the Koran, in Swedenborg, in the teachings of Old School Presbyterians, French Mystics, Methodists, Unitarians, Millerites, Baptists, Campbellites, and Quakers; in Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, Gnosticism, Transcendentalism, Atheism, Deism, Owenism, Socialism, and Platonism; in the writing of Rabelais, Milton, Anselm, Joachim of Flores, Ethan Smith, and the Early Church; in Old Iranian doctrines, Brahmin mysticism, Free Masonry, and so on.

Now a person who has read only Milton, or Defoe, or Rabelais would have an easy time discovering parallels all through the Book of Mormon, or any other book he might read thereafter. It is not surprising that people who have studied only English literature are the most eager to condemn the Book of Mormon.

In which case, the Lectures on Faith, etc., naturally read the usual Omni's and First Cause arguments back into the Book of Mormon, until they were thrown out after later development such as Brigham Young's Adam-God stuff and Talmage's harmonizing and all the rest of it. But that development in the modern age is separate from the ancient context, though of course it would have influenced the way people interpreted the Book of Mormon. (Note that in one of his personal prayers, Joseph himself uses the usual -- unbiblical -- formulation common to his time of an "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent" God, while the Book of Mormon contains no such teaching.)

I think preexistence is affirmed in the Book of Mormon, and I simply don't see the Original Sin stuff that Alexander does, nor the inherent depravity Lindgren does, but that's a rather involved tangential discussion. The point is that a lot of these are simply idiosyncratic interpretations; Lindgren calls the Book of Mormon "pessimistic", which I certainly see; on the other hand, I also see the Book of Mormon containing a sharp undercurrent of hope and optimism and the possibility of eternal progression! So it's all about which parts one chooses to emphasize, and very few of Lindgren's assertions about what "we" do hold true -- for me, at least.

The crux of it all is expressed well by Kirkland: "Today, Mormons who are aware of the various teachings of LDS scriptures and prophets are faced with a number of doctrinal possibilities. They can choose to accept the Book of Mormon theology, which varies from biblical theology, as well as from Joseph Smith’s later plurality-of-gods theology."

This is exactly where the problem is for Kirkland and those who presume that doctrinal developments in Nauvoo are incompatible with their interpretation of the Book of Mormon. He calls attempts to find Nauvoo theology in the Book of Mormon to be mere "harmonizing" (and in many cases I agree with him), but I think much of the confusion over all the various names simply disappears when we consider newer paradigms such as Margaret Barker's, with El, Jehovah, and Lady Wisdom. (Kirkland's second article makes way too many flawed assumptions, such as Christ as a "new" subordinate deity, or the Spirit of Wisdom as a new introduction to religious thought in the New Testament, rather than Christ's attempt to Restore the earlier Wisdom tradition from First Temple theology.) (Though of course I agree that McConkie and other Mormons haven't made the best interpretations either.)

I've always thought of the Occam's Razor mentioned in Lindgren's essay as, frankly, a rather uselessly tautological way of reaffirming our own preconceptions. McMurrin can quip all he likes that "you don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles", but that's simply a statement of his own not-particularly-original paradigm.

(These articles seem to me to be fairly representative of the kinds of issues being debated in the 80s, but there has been a lot of good work since then -- seriously, Gardner's 2003 paper alone deals with all of these issues quite ably, for instance - the "Mother of the Son of God" stuff, the "Father vs. Son" controversy, etc., and his other work goes a long way towards establishing the Native American chronology Lindgren is looking for, etc..)

Edited August 29, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, I don't know about anciently, but I do know (and have worshiped with) many contemporary Hindus and I know, first hand, that his is their belief.

I was thinking of the proverbial man in the street. I have worshiped with well-educated Hindus, including a very sophisticated yogi of the Ramakrishna Mission (Vedanta), so that I agree with you. But did you interview the vast throngs of the poorly educated Hindu folk, who may not see things quite the way their more sophisticated brethren do? The same applies to Buddhism. Archaeologists assert that in ancient Israel, just as an example, the common people had a folk religion which did not comport with the religion of the priests and kings.

[Robert F. Smith]

The really bizarre thing is that I'm so used to the Book of Mormon being described as modalist that I actually read that as what you'd written, and thought that's what I wrote when I responded to you. I almost did a spit-take when I reread the conversation. *laugh* Brains are weird things. (To correct my previous statement: I actually think a better case can be made for monolatry than modalism in the BoM, but that's a whole other discussion.)

Anyway, sorry it took so long to read the essays you cited.

The thing is, the issue of historicity does matter, like it or not, because if we assume that the book is a purely 19th-century document, then naturally we'll be looking to Joseph's environment for a more accurate reading, rather than an ancient environment which was then translated using the terms available in Joseph's time.

I'm just not seeing the problem when Pauline language shows up in the translation of a document composed before Paul existed but which was given by a later translator who was profoundly influenced by Pauline phraseology. What difference does it make that the Father, Word, and Spirit verse is found in later texts? Joseph's translation is perfectly legitimate if he used it to describe a concept on the plates, since his language was influenced by the KJV. It's all very circular.

Alexander, for one, assumes that I assume continuity and consistency. I don't; I have no problem with theological development - the D&C practically requires it. (Since I personally view the Holy Spirit of Wisdom as the "personal" Goddess Lady Wisdom, I'm a Modern Mormon who is certainly not consistent with, say, Parley P. Pratt's -- once "modern"! -- view of the Spiritual Fluid of the Holy Spirit. *grin* But I think I am being more consistent with the ancient context of the Wisdom literature I see preserved in the Book of Mormon, even if not every Prophet of the Restoration has had access to the "best books" which I believe demonstrate my position. Since we're all fallible human beings, it's not like that's a big deal.)

The thing is, later Mormon doctrinal development from the 19th century onwards is a separate issue from the ancient context, and if the ancient context is polytheistic, then Joseph's polytheistic "Nauvoo theology" is actually catching up to (a more accurately-read) polytheistic ancient Book of Mormon. But again, this depends entirely on the idea that the book was in fact a translation.

There is thus still development, but it's along different lines; namely, a convergence. Of course early Church members were still interpreting things through the lenses of their own "modern" preconceptions and the views of the previous Churches they had belonged to; Joseph said that all creeds have at least some truth to them, even if he didn't subscribe to the limiting effect such creeds could sometimes have on theological progression. If Christian Perfectionism or the Apostle's Creed had some truth in it, why not use that terminology so that people would understand the concept, rather than laboring under Bloom's Anxiety of Influence to be completely independent from the past?

In which case, the Lectures on Faith, etc., naturally read the usual Omni's and First Cause arguments back into the Book of Mormon, until they were thrown out after later development such as Brigham Young's Adam-God stuff and Talmage's harmonizing and all the rest of it. But that development in the modern age is separate from the ancient context, though of course it would have influenced the way people interpreted the Book of Mormon. (Note that in one of his personal prayers, Joseph himself uses the usual -- unbiblical -- formulation common to his time of an "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent" God, while the Book of Mormon contains no such teaching.)

I think preexistence is affirmed in the Book of Mormon, and I simply don't see the Original Sin stuff that Alexander does, nor the inherent depravity Lindgren does, but that's a rather involved tangential discussion. The point is that a lot of these are simply idiosyncratic interpretations; Lindgren calls the Book of Mormon "pessimistic", which I certainly see; on the other hand, I also see the Book of Mormon containing a sharp undercurrent of hope and optimism and the possibility of eternal progression! So it's all about which parts one chooses to emphasize, and very few of Lindgren's assertions about what "we" do hold true -- for me, at least.

The crux of it all is expressed well by Kirkland: "Today, Mormons who are aware of the various teachings of LDS scriptures and prophets are faced with a number of doctrinal possibilities. They can choose to accept the Book of Mormon theology, which varies from biblical theology, as well as from Joseph Smith’s later plurality-of-gods theology."

This is exactly where the problem is for Kirkland and those who presume that doctrinal developments in Nauvoo are incompatible with their interpretation of the Book of Mormon. He calls attempts to find Nauvoo theology in the Book of Mormon to be mere "harmonizing" (and in many cases I agree with him), but I think much of the confusion over all the various names simply disappears when we consider newer paradigms such as Margaret Barker's, with El, Jehovah, and Lady Wisdom. (Kirkland's second article makes way too many flawed assumptions, such as Christ as a "new" subordinate deity, or the Spirit of Wisdom as a new introduction to religious thought in the New Testament, rather than Christ's attempt to Restore the earlier Wisdom tradition from First Temple theology.) (Though of course I agree that McConkie and other Mormons haven't made the best interpretations either.)

(These articles seem to me to be fairly representative of the kinds of issues being debated in the 80s, but there has been a lot of good work since then -- seriously, Gardner's 2003 paper alone deals with all of these issues quite ably, for instance - the "Mother of the Son of God" stuff, the "Father vs. Son" controversy, etc., and his other work goes a long way towards establishing the Native American chronology Lindgren is looking for, etc..)

Thanks, Jeremy, for calling the Gardner paper to my attention.

I'd be very interested in your views on polytheism in the Book of Mormon, as well as the possibility of eternal progression in the BofM.

In what way do you see attempts at harmonizing being made when reading Nauvoo theology back into the Book of Mormon? Where do you part company with Kirkland? Where do you agree? Beyond what you have said here.

I'm trying to understand Book of Mormon theology as a stand-alone theology.