Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, MaryJehanne said:

Huh... That sounds like the Catholic God. That isn't what I've read about LDS doctrine from even LDS resources... Do you have the places where this teaching is found?

I'd call this interpretation just that. What is official canonized LDS doctrine about the nature of gods and their one-ness is pretty sparse. The idea that we're all absorbed into one big hive-like god-being is NOT a typical LDS view (though you do see, here and there, individuals who seem to see it that way).

[MaryJehanne]

15 minutes ago, Fether said:

I think the church is just as concerned about the title of polytheism as a America is worried about the island of Tonga declaring war on us. It just isn’t on the radar of the church.

If it did, I imagine the response would be something to the sort of “it doesn’t matter, what matters is that we focus our lives on the life of a Christ and we do what is necessary to reach Heaven.” The church isn’t afraid of anything, it’s just such a minute philosophical point that really doesn’t need to be addressed. 

Okay! Isn't it best to be prepared when confronted with it, though? It seems that even if it's not important to LDS people, it's important to those trying to ask questions about what you believe... Again, I think it's important because it radically changes the nature of the religion, one way or the other, but I'm glad to hear you're not really afraid of the label or anything!

 

 

And to everyone, I'm getting a little confused and backed-up with replying to posts, so if I miss yours, just remind me. I probably just didn't see it.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Okay! Isn't it best to be prepared when confronted with it, though? It seems that even if it's not important to LDS people, it's important to those trying to ask questions about what you believe... Again, I think it's important because it radically changes the nature of the religion, one way or the other, but I'm glad to hear you're not really afraid of the label or anything!

Actually the practical difference between LDS view of God and Athanasian one is pretty much none.   It comes a little bit into play with afterlife views, but for today day-to-day not at all.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Fether]

2 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Isn't it best to be prepared when confronted with it, though? It seems that even if it's not important to LDS people, it's important to those trying to ask questions about what you believe

I’ll be honest with you. Having served a 2 year mission and been an active on this forum for about a year, the only people to have ever brought the question up to me have been people that absolutely hate our church and you . We are too busy preparing ourselves to help people with questions that deal with Christ, repentance, temples, work for the dead, Law of a chastity, Word of a wisdom,  Book of Mormon and other more prominent issues that have more to do with our salvation. After that we begin studying and worrying about the more interesting parts of our gospel. The philosophy of polytheism falls deep down at the bottom of the list behind “Did Joseph speak to a salamander” and “Are we going to built a space ship and fly to another planet?”

[Just_A_Guy]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think it's a bit dishonest to refuse to admit that claiming Latter-day Saints are monotheistic (which we do) requires some wordplay on what monotheistic and polytheistic mean.

The problem is, @MaryJehanne, is that polytheistic is typically viewed as religions like old Greek/Roman gods, Hinduism, or some of the Polynesian views, etc. And the Latter-day Saint view has nothing in common with those and much, much more in common with traditional Judeo-Christian views of monotheism, but with, as @MarginOfError points out, nuances.

This.  It’s also worth noting that Jews and Muslims tend to get a pretty good chuckle at the mental gymnastics *all* Christians go through to try to paint themselves as monotheists whilst simultaneously hailing Jesus of Nazareth (party of the first part) as a son of the Living God (party of the second part); and all these ancient creeds of “Three.  But one.  But three, and one.  But one, and not three.  But three, and not one.  But one in three, and three in one, and both one and three, but neither three nor one”, seem rather like an old Abbott and Costello routine.

As Mormons, we probably have better things to do than to grammatically bootstrap ourselves into the semantical world of “monotheism”.  But as long as the rest of Christianity is running around claiming to be monotheists, I don’t see any convincing reason why we Mormons shouldn’t be allowed to join in the fun.  😛 

[Larry Cotrell]

I think that the confusion about the word polytheism (or more specifically henotheism/monolatry) comes not from Athanasian Trinity vs. LDS Godhead, but from the belief in other gods outside of our world.  

“If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds.”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 345, February 18, 1855

I am not trying to label or call people names (I know you all get tired of being called names), but to clarify where the confusion is for most "Traditional" Christians, as we are called. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Larry Cotrell

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

This is probably a bit of an unusual question, but...

I've wondered, since some of the earliest encounters I've had in this topic with Latter-Day Saint believers, why the identity of "polytheism" is shied away from. In debates and arguments online, I see Latter-Day Saints being angry and upset at being identified as polytheistic, while I'm sitting there thinking, but why is that a problem? If that's what you believe, shouldn't you love it and want people to know about it? Shouldn't they just tell the person they're debating that that's not a problem for them and that, yeah, that's what they think?

I even see Latter-Day Saints who begrudgingly accept that they're not polytheistic, but henotheistic... which is polytheism, just a specific type of polytheism. (polytheism doesn't require that you worship other gods, just that you believe there are other gods)

I'm monotheistic, and I love my monotheism. But, I would only imagine that if I were polytheistic, if I really thought that was the truth and the good, that I wouldn't push away the label, be ashamed of it, or reject it, but embrace it.

Is this a universal thing in Latter-Day Saint circles? Why does it happen? How do you react to and respond to people who say that Latter-Day Saints are polytheistic... and why?

Is there something I haven't taken into the equation?

 

Thank you, guys! And God bless.

Please describe your earliest encounters; it seems to me that anything entailing provocative debate and argument is not going to facilitate much of a good faith discussion.

The first important piece of information that is most immediately extended in identifying members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the "Jesus Christ" in their name, so I would think that would inform any other consideration about what they believe.

[estradling75]

Let walk through this by bringing up a point that is used against Catholics and see if we can not generate some empathic understanding.

The LDS Church gets dinged by outsiders for being Polytheistic for having the Father Son and Holy Spirit be three distinct personages.

The Catholic Church gets digned by outsiders for being Idol-worshipers for there veneration of Saints.

Both Churches deny the charges and yet still get repeatedly attacked on these grounds.

So @MaryJehanne how would you respond to someone that came along and said "Why doesn't the Catholic Church just accept the fact that they are Idol-worshipers?"  Or "Why aren't the lay Catholic church member ready at the drop of a hat discuss in detail the nuances and give long drawn out answers on why the veneration of Saints is not Idol-worshipping?"

Whatever answer you choose to come up with to defend the Catholic Church and respond to these questions are going to work  in a similar matter for the LDS Church.

Namely that the scriptures are clear that there is ONE God and Idol-worshiping is a sin and forbidden.  So to accuse any one that calls themselves Christian a polytheistic or an Idol Worshipper is to pick a fight.   

 

[MaryJehanne]

15 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I'd be curious to hear your explanation about how the differences between Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian Christianity affect the day-to-day practices of each...and the contrast between the two.

Okay!

I said I wasn't going to get off topic, but I guess one side note won't hurt.

By saying I think it's important, I do think it impacts the day-to-day way we approach and practice our religions, but more than that... It doesn't matter if it doesn't change the motions. "How a person functionally practices their religion" isn't what's of real importance. To use an extreme example, lets say we have two people, functionally practicing their religion in the same way: they are kneeling and praying. But, one is praying to God, and one is praying to a rock they claim is god. Does it matter?

Knowing whether you are praying to the eternal Origin of all or someone who became a god and arranges matter changes your fundamental understanding of who God is an what the universe is. To pray to the Origin God, you can give yourself entirely over to a being who designed all that you are, on who you depend on for existence at every moment of your life, who is more important than anything or anyone else, who is all-loving, has always been all-loving, and will never cease to be all-loving.

If this is not the case, such union is impossible. If God did not design you, but rearranged you from what already exists, he is not the intimate designer and lover of your soul. If God is not the ultimate of all, if something came before Him, if something can be like Him, then he's not more important than anything. And if He is not all-powerful, then I can't rely on Him.

That was really brief and spotty, but I'd have to go down specific examples of Catholic practice and show how a lack of one God would undermine them... which I can do, later on, if you wanted.

 

 

[zil]

41 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Huh... That sounds like the Catholic God. That isn't what I've read about LDS doctrine from even LDS resources... Do you have the places where this teaching is found?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/7.7?lang=eng&clang=eng#p6.

Quote

7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

Edited September 24, 2018 by zil

[MaryJehanne]

46 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Sorry, if I sound hostile.  I don't mean to @MarginOfError or @MaryJehanne.  I'm actually 100% ok talking about thing with folks who honestly want to talk about stuff.

Oh, good! Thanks, Jane_Doe.

[Jane_Doe]

14 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

I think that the confusion about the word polytheism (or more specifically henotheism/monolatry) comes not from Athanasian Trinity vs. LDS Godhead, but from the belief in other gods outside of our world.  

“If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds.”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 345, February 18, 1855

I am not trying to label or call people names (I know you all get tired of being called names), but to clarify where the confusion is for most "Traditional" Christians, as we are called. 

And they are all ONE God.

It actually directly comes back to "is God ONE through consubstantaion or unity?"

PS- you'll never actually see that quote in active LDS discussion.  The "Journal of Discourses" has zero canonical standing, and some of the sayings of Orson Pratt are problematic-- there was actually big arguments/grudges about that back in the 1800's.   The ONLY time I've ever seen that quote come up is either 1) an anti-Mormon misrepresenting things, or 2) somebody unknowingly got information from such an anti-Mormon.

[MaryJehanne]

47 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think it's a bit dishonest to refuse to admit that claiming Latter-day Saints are monotheistic (which we do) requires some wordplay on what monotheistic and polytheistic mean.

The problem is, @MaryJehanne, is that polytheistic is typically viewed as religions like old Greek/Roman gods, Hinduism, or some of the Polynesian views, etc. And the Latter-day Saint view has nothing in common with those and much, much more in common with traditional Judeo-Christian views of monotheism, but with, as @MarginOfError points out, nuances.

That is true! But even if we do agree on a lot of issues (which we do!), that doesn't impact the point that mono- and polytheism address. I can believe in solid, traditional family values and read the Bible and be able to agree about these things with, for instance, an Eastern Orthodox person. But, I can also claim to be a polytheist.

The only thing mono- and polytheism deals with is: one God or more than one? Not what our other values are... So, even if there are examples of polytheism in the past that are distasteful to some people, that doesn't impact the fact of what the objective religious framework is. 😕

[zil]

24 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Knowing whether you are praying to the eternal Origin of all or someone who became a god and arranges matter changes your fundamental understanding of who God is an what the universe is. To pray to the Origin God, you can give yourself entirely over to a being who designed all that you are, on who you depend on for existence at every moment of your life, who is more important than anything or anyone else, who is all-loving, has always been all-loving, and will never cease to be all-loving.

If this is not the case, such union is impossible. If God did not design you, but rearranged you from what already exists, he is not the intimate designer and lover of your soul. If God is not the ultimate of all, if something came before Him, if something can be like Him, then he's not more important than anything. And if He is not all-powerful, then I can't rely on Him. 

Just because you personally are not able to comprehend how we can see God in all the ways you personally see God (in terms if his creating us, loving us, always existing, all powerful, more important to us than anything or anyone else, who will never cease), does not mean we are not able to see him in those ways.  I know you are never going to accept this - you are and have been far too adamant on this point - but your acceptance or lack thereof does not limit our ability to understand and worship our creator - who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, who is the one and only God we have ever had or ever will have - and whom we worship and will worship - worlds without end.

Edited September 24, 2018 by zil
No time to work up the long version. Go read the scriptures.

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

Trinitarian Christianity is, by definition, monotheistic.  

I understand this, but I have also seen some outside of Christianity (Muslims or Jews) who have accused Trinitarianism as also being polytheistic, so it seems that there are some who do not "define" Trinitarianism as monotheistic. I cannot speak to the deep theological and philosophical arguments that get made. I suspect, MaryJehanne, if you can understand why Catholics and Protestants bristle when Muslims or Jews accuse them of being polytheistic, you can kind of understand why Mormons bristle when traditional Christians accuse us of being polytheistic.

[MrShorty]

accidental duplicate

Edited September 24, 2018 by MrShorty

[MaryJehanne]

54 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Thank you for your understanding of how some people are... unkind, and how this can cause bitterness for those that are subjected to that treatment.  It means a a lot.

You're very welcome!

56 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Which brings the total number of Gods up to: 1.  

We don't replace God or become some other "rival".  Rather we become one with God.  We take on all of God's attributes: His kindness, mercy, justice, power, knowledge, etc.

OH! I think I understand what you mean! (Unless this is a false breakthrough )

You're referring to "God" more as a position, not a nature? As in, there's one person who is called "God", while others have divine (godly) natures, but do not achieve "God"?

[Jane_Doe]

16 minutes ago, zil said:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/7.7?lang=eng&clang=eng#p6.

Other good verses:

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.  

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20

{This is Christ speaking}   27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11

I'm skipping the Bible ones cause I figure @MaryJehanne already knows those ones

 

[MaryJehanne]

55 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'd call this interpretation just that. What is official canonized LDS doctrine about the nature of gods and their one-ness is pretty sparse. The idea that we're all absorbed into one big hive-like god-being is NOT a typical LDS view (though you do see, here and there, individuals who seem to see it that way).

Ohhh, okay. Thank you. I was really confused, because I've seen LDS teaching and bits of speeches from Mr. Smith, etc., that don't view it that way. This helps!

[Larry Cotrell]

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

PS- you'll never actually see that quote in active LDS discussion.  The "Journal of Discourses" has zero canonical standing, and some of the sayings of Orson Pratt are problematic-- there was actually big arguments/grudges about that back in the 1800's.   The ONLY time I've ever seen that quote come up is either 1) an anti-Mormon misrepresenting things, or 2) somebody unknowingly got information from such an anti-Mormon.

 

Well, then perhaps I have been misinformed. My apologies. I was not trying to misrepresent things, nor was my source anti-Mormon. The error comes from misunderstanding, not ill intent. 

[MaryJehanne]

55 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Actually the practical difference between LDS view of God and Athanasian one is pretty much none.   It comes a little bit into play with afterlife views, but for today day-to-day not at all.

I think that depends on your definition of practical... If God is not my Origin, Divine Lover, perfection from eternity, who dwells inside me, who I can seek a mystical non-physical union with, that completely changes my day-to-day interaction with Him. 😕

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

That is true! But even if we do agree on a lot of issues (which we do!), that doesn't impact the point that mono- and polytheism address. I can believe in solid, traditional family values and read the Bible and be able to agree about these things with, for instance, an Eastern Orthodox person. But, I can also claim to be a polytheist.

The only thing mono- and polytheism deals with is: one God or more than one? Not what our other values are... So, even if there are examples of polytheism in the past that are distasteful to some people, that doesn't impact the fact of what the objective religious framework is. 😕

To clarify, I was meaning that the Latter-day Saint view of God has much, much more in common with Judeo-Christian views than it does polytheistic cultures and religions. To simply say Latter-day Saints are polytheists and leave it at that would be to miscommunicate SEVERELY.

[goor_de]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

who is without beginning of days or end of years

that can not be, if he also has a father.
without beginning is only the universe and the urstoffe

however, the father consists of urstoff

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, MaryJehanne said:

You're very welcome!

OH! I think I understand what you mean! (Unless this is a false breakthrough )

You're referring to "God" more as a position, not a nature? As in, there's one person who is called "God", while others have divine (godly) natures, but do not achieve "God"?

The word "nature" doesn't really convey into LDS thought (we've talked about this before).

God is 100% Perfect, Just, Merciful, Wonderful, Powerful, Knowledgable, etc.  We can take on all of these qualities and become ONE with Him through Christ's atonement: 

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

1 minute ago, MaryJehanne said:

while others have divine (godly) natures, but do not achieve "God"?

Folks that don't fully accept Christ and His atonement are not exalted and do not become like God.  Rather, they live with a lesser glory (which is still beyond-mind-boggling for us and beyond-comprehenable-happy).

[MaryJehanne]

52 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’ll be honest with you. Having served a 2 year mission and been an active on this forum for about a year, the only people to have ever brought the question up to me have been people that absolutely hate our church and you . We are too busy preparing ourselves to help people with questions that deal with Christ, repentance, temples, work for the dead, Law of a chastity, Word of a wisdom,  Book of Mormon and other more prominent issues that have more to do with our salvation. After that we begin studying and worrying about the more interesting parts of our gospel. The philosophy of polytheism falls deep down at the bottom of the list behind “Did Joseph speak to a salamander” and “Are we going to built a space ship and fly to another planet?”

Ha ha!  

Huh, interesting! So, really, the only people who bring it up are the people who are definitely not interested in joining? Investigators don't care?