Polytheism

[Libs]

But dictionaries are quite solvent.

eg. Gay 2012 vs Gay 1950

Yes, meanings do change over time, but I was using the current definition. And, technically, it does seem to fit.

[Libs]

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.

I, suppose, every religion has some of that, even today. There are always sub-cultures or even just plain old misunderstandings of the doctrine. I know a lot of people who call themselves Christians, who are very unfamiliar with Christian doctrine, other than the bare basics.

[volgadon]

Yes, meanings do change over time, but I was using the current definition. And, technically, it does seem to fit.

Do you know of any trinitarian that would accept for their beliefs the current definition, as it technically does seem ti fit? No. They'd fight that definition tooth and nail.

[Libs]

Do you know of any trinitarian that would accept for their beliefs the current definition, as it technically does seem ti fit? No. They'd fight that definition tooth and nail.

Yes, I agree and have said that.

[Storm Rider]

I wanted to ask this question here, because it is sincerely perplexing to me.

Critics very often accuse LDS of being polytheistic, because 1. LDS believe that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate Gods (One in Purpose); 2. Because the church teaches that members can become like their Heavenly Father, which suggests there are many "gods"; 3. The standard response, to questions about this has always been, "we only worship One God"...yet I have seen Apostles and others say that they worship Jesus Christ, as well.

Merriam Webster Definition of "polytheism":

"belief in or worship of more than one god."

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

Context is everything. Are LDS polytheists? It depends on the context of the question. We believe in a Godhead of three, separate individuals and each is God. However, we do not pray to Jesus separate from the Father; nor do we pray to the Holy Spirit separate from the Father. There is no pantheon of gods from which we may choose to pray. There is only one God to whom we pray.

A true polytheist has a choice of whom to pray among a host of different gods. LDS do not; there is but one. In this context, LDS are monotheists.

There are three distinct members of the Godhead (this is also acknowledged in the doctrine of the Trinity). We have no concept, teaching, or belief about a mysterious substance that make three separate beings one; they are three and each is God. Each is properly called a God, yet they act in unison in all things. However, they are wholly individual; only Jesus bled from every pore and hung on the cross for us; neither the Father or the Holy Spirit stood in his place. In fact, Jesus keenly felt their absence as he paid the price of sin for all. In this context, it MAY be said that we are polytheists, but I think it is not completely accurate; there is no pantheon. This same criticism applies to the allegation that we are henotheists.

LDS believe and teach that God's work is to bring us into his presence; through Christ to make us joint-heirs and become one with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this context, there will come a day when God will make man into gods. However, this becomes a question of timing. It does not exist today, but may exist in the future. In that day, who will be the only God that will be available to worship? God the Father.

LDS can appropriately be called monotheists. Yet, we worship each member of the Godhead and so we can be called polytheists....yet we teach and pray to only one God and reverence all three members of the Godhead. There is a difference in God making us gods and being God. It really depends upon what context is being used to describe the issue or topic.

[Libs]

Thanks for the comments, StormRider.

I was thinking more in terms of the fact that LDS believe there are many "gods" out there, other than the Godhead (which, as you said, are also three distinct Gods). But, of course, they do only worship one (although, some leaders have said that they also worship Jesus Christ).

I have decided that it's probably not accurate or a good idea to call LDS polytheists, mainly, because 1. they do (primarily) worship only One God, 2. the term is used, generally, to denigrate.

[Storm Rider]

Thanks for the comments, StormRider.

I was thinking more in terms of the fact that LDS believe there are many "gods" out there, other than the Godhead (which, as you said, are also three distinct Gods). But, of course, they do only worship one (although, some leaders have said that they also worship Jesus Christ).

I have decided that it's probably not accurate or a good idea to call LDS polytheists, mainly, because 1. they do (primarily) worship only One God, 2. the term is used, generally, to denigrate.

There is this huge issue over monotheism and its importance in ancient Israel. The main impetus for the creation of the doctrine of the Trinity was a response to question of Jesus' divinity. If Jesus was divine and Son of God, then that means two Gods and that destroys the perceived requirement for monotheism in the OT. How can Jesus' divinity be accepted or continued to be taught and still be one God? Viola, "substance" somehow makes three, separate, distinct beings into One God. That has always chapped me about this whole Trinity concept. It was a response to a problem, rather than a teaching of Christ or the first apostles.

Polytheism is often used to denigrate or at least to make LDS teachings appear to conflict with orthodox Christianity. We do teach that each member of the Godhead is worthy of worship. I have heard prayers where Jesus was directly addressed in the prayer.

It is my understanding that we neither acknowledge or deny the possible existence of other gods. It is a little tough to know where in the time line (which does not exist for God) is this earth. Mankind is often addressed as gods in scripture; it takes that eternal perspective in classifying humanity.

I was in a Coptic Orthodox Church last week in Cairo, El Muallaqa. I was talking with an individual there and what they believe is that Jesus did not hang alone on the cross, but it was all three: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This was a rejection of the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. I find these differences of beliefs about the Godhead to be wonderfully interesting. There is truth found in all of them. It is interesting that such differences in belief actually caused a schism, the creation of a new church over the belief that Jesus had two natures, mortal and divine, or only one nature, the Coptic belief.

These labels of monotheism, monolatrism, henotheism, polytheism, etc. are all interesting, but none of them apply completely or accurately to LDS doctrine or teaching. What is always fascinating to me is how easily and often the Early Church Fathers talked about the future godhead of mankind. However, today it is almost verboten to use the same language. The Catholic Catechism #460 states, "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." The concept of becoming gods is clearly taught by more than just LDS, yet even Catholics nearly choke to repeat either of these statements. Divinity appears to be a very unfavorable, even rejected, gift from God. If Bowman is an example of Evangelical teachings, they clearly run from the possibility that God has the ability or power to make man gods. It is so strange to me that simple Bible teachings cause so many to choke. Peace be unto you always,

[Zakuska]

These labels of monotheism, monolatrism, henotheism, polytheism, etc. are all interesting, but none of them apply completely or accurately to LDS doctrine or teaching. What is always fascinating to me is how easily and often the Early Church Fathers talked about the future godhead of mankind. However, today it is almost verboten to use the same language. The Catholic Catechism #460 states, "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." The concept of becoming gods is clearly taught by more than just LDS, yet even Catholics nearly choke to repeat either of these statements. Divinity appears to be a very unfavorable, even rejected, gift from God. If Bowman is an example of Evangelical teachings, they clearly run from the possibility that God has the ability or power to make man gods. It is so strange to me that simple Bible teachings cause so many to choke. Peace be unto you always,

I find the disdain by evangelicals and others about men becoming gods quite ironic beings how the whole purpose of the Bible is to teach men how to become "like God" (ie godly) and "Children of God" which the Bible itself calls "gods".

[Storm Rider]

I find the disdain by evangelicals and others about men becoming gods quite ironic beings how the whole purpose of the Bible is to teach men how to become "like God" (ie godly) and "Children of God" which the Bible itself calls "gods".

It has never made sense to me also. Fundamentally, they have no understanding for the purpose of creation. Why does man exist? They have no clue and don't really care to know why God desired to create this world for us. Though they have some truths, they miss so much and fight against that which they do not know. The simple teachings of the Bible are lost to them and rejected in toto.

[altersteve]

It has never made sense to me also. Fundamentally, they have no understanding for the purpose of creation. Why does man exist? They have no clue and don't really care to know why God desired to create this world for us. Though they have some truths, they miss so much and fight against that which they do not know. The simple teachings of the Bible are lost to them and rejected in toto.

I've heard some evangelicals say that the purpose of this world is for us to serve God. But if you ask me, that God sounds arrogant and desperate for attention, which is not consistent with what we learn from the Bible about His perfect nature. Why did He create us? Was He bored? Or did He just want someone to glorify Him? Or both? Those seem to me to be the only reasonable answers that evangelicals could give, but at the same time, neither of them are very "reasonable" at all.

[Tacenda]

I've heard some evangelicals say that the purpose of this world is for us to serve God. But if you ask me, that God sounds arrogant and desperate for attention, which is not consistent with what we learn from the Bible about His perfect nature. Why did He create us? Was He bored? Or did He just want someone to glorify Him? Or both? Those seem to me to be the only reasonable answers that evangelicals could give, but at the same time, neither of them are very "reasonable" at all.

I went to the Mormon Miracle Manti Pageant here in Utah a couple of years ago, and something stood out to me strongly, at the beginning of the play, I think, it was expressed how we were children of god and not lowly humans, they didn't use those words but it was made very clearly and distinctly.

Recently I've been listening to the nonlds christian and what I'm hearing is that they believe we must become children or adopted children to him. We must prove our faith first before becoming children of God.

Very interesting contrast indeed.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Tacenda

[djholmess]

I've heard some evangelicals say that the purpose of this world is for us to serve God. But if you ask me, that God sounds arrogant and desperate for attention, which is not consistent with what we learn from the Bible about His perfect nature. Why did He create us? Was He bored? Or did He just want someone to glorify Him? Or both? Those seem to me to be the only reasonable answers that evangelicals could give, but at the same time, neither of them are very "reasonable" at all.

You are close, I think a more accurate summary of the traditional Evangelical position is that we were created to display and enjoy the glory of God-the world then serves as the stage upon which the greatest display of Gods glory is revealed in the death of Jesus.

We believe He desired to overflow with his own greatness in displaying it to creatures who could enjoy that greatness for all eternity.

Now I imagine your response may be something like 'well that seems like a very self centred and conceited view of God'. To which I would respond; if God was just an exalted man and thus no different from us except from being at a higher level of exaltation it would be very conceited of him to think he was so great that everything should exist to glorify and worship him.

Let me briefly explain why to us, it is not conceited or unreasonable for this to be true of our God. In order for you to follow the reasonable of this you'll have to put yourself into the mind of an evangelical-rather than think of your concept of who God is when you read me say God

Imagine for a second that what evangelicals believe the bible to teach is true, that;

1) God is the only self existent thing is existence-everything else is creation

2) God has always existed as God in the same way he is now; his attributes are unchanging

3) Gods attributes could be described as God being perfect in Holyness, Love, Grace, Mercy, Wisdom, Justice and Goodness...

4) Man is a creation, ontologically different and inferior to God

Now if such a God did exist what would be the most just thing for him to do? Think about his love for a moment. Isn't it just and proper to love things in accordance with their lovelyness? Imagine a person standing beside the Mona Lisa and instead of spending time admiring it he pulls out a scribble he did on the back of a sweet rapper and spends 30 minutes delighting in his own doodle. Sound like something is wrong here?

If 1-4 really are true then isn't the just and reasonable thing for God to love himself and his own greatness infinitely, after all such a God is infinitely worthy of such love. A well known theologian summarized it (kinda) like this, ' if all the things in existence, all men and animals and all worlds were put on one side of a set of scales and God on the other side, the existence apart from God would be as less than a particle of dust.

So what is unreasonable with such a God delighting in himself so much that he overflows with love for himself in creating a universe that displays his glory? As the same theologian said 'it is no fault in a fountain that is prone to overflow'

Or what about showing love to his own creation? If such a God really did exist then what would be the most loving thing for him to do for man? Should he hold up a mirror to man and say watch as I allow you to better yourself? Or would the most loving thing be to give to man the greatest thing he has to give-himself!

Evangelicals do not see it as unreasonable or conceited that God created us so that we may see and enjoy his glory-we see it as the most loving and just thing God can do-and as the greatest gift we could ever want.

The hope of an evangelical is not to get God like abilities or to spend eternity with our spouses & family but to spend eternity in fellowship and worship of this great God.

I didn't write this as a critique of your view of God but rather to simply (and all to briefully) explain how being created to glorify God is 'resonable' from my perspective.

Edited August 30, 2012 by djholmess

[Tacenda]

You are close, I think a more accurate summary of the traditional Evangelical position is that we were created to display and enjoy the glory of God-the world then serves as the stage upon which the greatest display of Gods glory is revealed in the death of Jesus.

We believe He desired to overflow with his own greatness in displaying it to creatures who could enjoy that greatness for all eternity.

Now I imagine your response may be something like 'well that seems like a very self centred and conceited view of God'. To which I would respond; if God was just an exalted man and thus no different from us except from being at a higher level of exaltation it would be very conceited of him to think he was so great that everything should exist to glorify and worship him.

Let me briefly explain why to us, it is not conceited or unreasonable for this to be true of our God. In order for you to follow the reasonable of this you'll have to put yourself into the mind of an evangelical-rather than think of your concept of who God is when you read me say God

Imagine for a second that what evangelicals believe the bible to teach is true, that;

1) God is the only self existent thing is existence-everything else is creation

2) God has always existed as God in the same way he is now; his attributes are unchanging

3) Gods attributes could be described as God being perfect in Holyness, Love, Grace, Mercy, Wisdom, Justice and Goodness...

4) Man is a creation, ontologically different and inferior to God

Now if such a God did exist what would be the most just thing for him to do? Think about his love for a moment. Isn't it just and proper to love things in accordance with their lovelyness? Imagine a person standing beside the Mona Lisa and instead of spending time admiring it he pulls out a scribble he did on the back of a sweet rapper and spends 30 minutes delighting in his own doodle. Sound like something is wrong here?

If 1-4 really are true then isn't the just and reasonable thing for God to love himself and his own greatness infinitely, after all such a God is infinitely worthy of such love. A well known theologian summarized it (kinda) like this, ' if all the things in existence, all men and animals and all worlds were put on one side of a set of scales and God on the other side, the existence apart from God would be as less than a particle of dust.

So what is unreasonable with such a God delighting in himself so much that he overflows with love for himself in creating a universe that displays his glory? As the same theologian said 'it is no fault in a fountain that is prone to overflow'

Or what about showing love to his own creation? If such a God really did exist then what would be the most loving thing for him to do for man? Should he hold up a mirror to man and say watch as I allow you to better yourself? Or would the most loving thing be to give to man the greatest thing he has to give-himself!

Evangelicals do not see it as unreasonable or conceited that God created us so that we may see and enjoy his glory-we see it as the most loving and just thing God can do-and as the greatest gift we could ever want.

The hope of an evangelical is not to get God like abilities or to spend eternity with our spouses & family but to spend eternity in fellowship and worship of this great God.

I didn't write this as a critique of your view of God but rather to simply (and all to briefully) explain how being created to glorify God is 'resonable' from my perspective.

I like the last sentence, thanks for clarifying!

Edited August 30, 2012 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

Boy that sure sounds fun to me. Basking in the glow of the glory of someone else, or maybe I'll get to sit on a cloud strumming a harp for all of eternity.

(snark off)

Nothing could be any more anti-biblical.

Edited August 30, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Tacenda]

Boy that sure sounds fun to me. Basking in the glow of the glory of someone else, or maybe I'll get to sit on a cloud strumming a harp for all of eternity.

(snark off)

Nothing could be any more anti-biblical.

(Sorry Libs), if I've derailed this topic, I just need to state/ask one last thing... tss, is this the reason we have the worship services that we do, ie: no hallelujuhs etc, in our church? We don't choose to glorify Him too much?

Edited August 30, 2012 by Tacenda

[bcuzbcuz]

We believe in multiple Gods but we worship only one - that being the trinity.

Is this called "doublespeak"?

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

Even Bishops have day jobs. I fully believe LDS Theology. Tell me how I can be more like Jesus, and I'll pay attention, and try my darnedest to comply. However I can't think of anything more boring, and ultimately useless, than just singing hymns forever.

Edited August 30, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[KevinG]

(Sorry Libs), if I've derailed this topic, I just need to state/ask one last thing... tss, is this the reason we have the worship services that we do, ie: no hallelujuhs etc, in our church? We don't choose to glorify Him too much?

We choose to worship reverently in Sacrament meetings so that the still small voice of the Holy Spirit can be heard. Mormons can whoop it up at other times. The tabernacle choir has been known to perform some powerful renditions of gospel music. But for the most part we treat sacred meetings as times for teaching and solemn contemplation.

That is our thing and does not take away from the energy and devotion of places that use energetic music and preaching to stir men's souls. I enjoy a good gospel choir!

[Libs]

(Sorry Libs), if I've derailed this topic, I just need to state/ask one last thing... tss, is this the reason we have the worship services that we do, ie: no hallelujuhs etc, in our church? We don't choose to glorify Him too much?

Not a problem. I'm actually done with the topic, myself.

[DBMormon]

you say we pray to hevenly father but The God of the old testament is Jehovah.... so who were they actually praying to? who did they think they were praying to?

Edited August 30, 2012 by DBMormon

[KevinG]

Poly Theists pray to the Big Parrot in the Sky.

[USU78]

Poly Theists pray to the Big Parrot in the Sky.

You crack me up.

[altersteve]

you say we pray to hevenly father but The God of the old testament is Jehovah.... so who were they actually praying to? who did they think they were praying to?

I don't think they made that distinction. They were praying to God, plain and simple.

[altersteve]

The hope of an evangelical is not to get God like abilities or to spend eternity with our spouses & family but to spend eternity in fellowship and worship of this great God.

Wait, you "hope" for this? I thought you believed this was guaranteed to you?

[thesometimesaint]

Djhlmess:

djholmess, on 30 August 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

The hope of an evangelical is not to get God like abilities or to spend eternity with our spouses & family but to spend eternity in fellowship and worship of this great God.

Those are not mutually exclusive, plus it doesn't sound like Heaven to me to be without spouse and family.