Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?


MaryJehanne
 Share

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

Really just looking at LDS doctrine and then seeing "polytheism" described, but for some reason never labeled and not accepted by individual LDS!

Okay! But I think a person can still say they believe in Jesus and then also say the believe there are other gods that exist!

 

(And on that note I actually have to step away for a while to get some work done. :P Thank you to everyone who's answered, and hopefully I'll be able to get back to this soon!)

Edited by MaryJehanne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

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. :)

Don't worry Larry, I know you have zero bad intentions and I very much enjoy your posts.  Honestly, I suspected your source got the info from a well-intetioned another source, which got it from well-intetioned another source, which got it from well-intetioned another source, down the chain to the anti-Mormon guy who 'conveniently' 'forgot' to mention the complete lack of authority or LDS use of the Pratt quote.    

One of the reasons I myself am such a HUGE fan of interfaith dialogue and getting things straight from the horse's mouth is to combat such a misinformation train.  For that reason alone I applaud your presence here @Larry Cotrell.  Let alone the fact that I do just really like your posts and hearing your perspectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

Ironically, Trinitarianism is closest to HINDUISM, NOT a monotheistic religion.  If Trinitarians were Monotheistic they would hold views closer to either Judaism's view or Islams view.  Very few Christian religions actually fall under Monotheistic belief.

This is why they are called Trinitarian.

Hindu varies between sects (just like Mormons).  Their main deific characters, however, are a trinity.  They are three separate beings, but each, though separate, is also a different aspect or being of the same being.  In some beliefs (or sects), they are three separate distinct beings, but generated of the same substance (sound familiar?).  Trinitarian Christians do NOT believe in Modalism (though some Hindu sects also believe in Modalism in their deific three) typically, and thus believe that there are three separate individual Deities (even if they are consubstantial).

Latter-day Saints believe very similarly, however, they do not believe that the three in one are consubstantial, or so Mormons claim.

IRONICALLY, if we get to what consubstantial actually means, the gap between Mormons and Trinitarians becomes far closer. 

Consubstantial is almost normally utilized exclusively to the trinity...and people just accept it without asking what it means.

One other term that is used regularly and from which it springs is Homoousion.  This is used to indicate that the Son is generated of the same substance as the Father, but not necessarily of the same essence as the Father.

What is this substance than? 

The creed holds that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit too) are Distinct personages (NOT monotheistic) that are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial (from Homoousion in the Greek).

Modalists believe more on what the Sabellius promoted who was a splinter group of the Athanasians, which was that the trinity is actually ONE individual acting in different roles.

Mormons on the otherhand, believe that the Father and the Son are distinct personages, but are not necessarily co-equal (this does not mean they are not co-equal either, Mormons have that they have different roles or purposes).  They believe that the Father is head of all things and THE GOD, while the Son is the Son of God (and thus also a God as a son is made of the same type of stuff his father is, for example, I am human and my son is human, thus Jesus as the Son of God is also a God).  We also believe the Son created the Earth and all there is, but under the command/direction of the Father, thus the Son is also the Father of creation.  In the bible we believe that when it says Jehovah, this is form of Jesus Christ before he condescended to be born of Mary.  The Father is a separate individual.

They are both sects of Christianity, and the views are very similar, yet each sect feels they are different enough to be exclusive to their own set of beliefs.

I would say the Trinity is just as polytheistic in it's belief as Mormonism.  Only Modalists could really claim to be Monotheistic.

The claim that Mormons are polytheistic because they believe that the Saints can become Deities themselves, I find is rubbish.  We do not hold that we replace God, or that we become him.

Instead we get our information from verses like this in the New Testament

John 10 25-39

Quote

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

And Romans 8 13-25

Quote

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

So you can see the context of what was spoken and how it was spoken (KJV).

We, thus, do NOT believe we replace the Father, but that we are the Children of God and as such, Joint Heirs with Christ (and what was Christ the Heir of?).

Thus, to me, the claim that we are polytheistic because we believe this is not a valid claim, however the claim that we are polytheistic similar to a claim that Trinitarians are polytheistic holds more truth.

If a Trinitarian claims to be monotheistic, than the same would apply to a Mormon in my estimation.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

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?

I would say that >95% of the time this comes up it's because someone (falsely) told the person that LDS are polytheists.  Some times the person I'm talking to is Christ like and willing to listen and get their facts straight (examples: @MaryJehanne and @Larry Cotrell).   Other times...not so much.  

For those people who don't have that false perception being told to them, >95% of them don't ever think to ask it because, they clearly see that we're monotheists. For the small remainder, it's the usual "wait how can Christ and the Father both be God" question (a question Catholics are well familiar with too). 

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Don't worry Larry, I know you have zero bad intentions and I very much enjoy your posts.  Honestly, I suspected your source got the info from a well-intetioned another source, which got it from well-intetioned another source, which got it from well-intetioned another source, down the chain to the anti-Mormon guy who 'conveniently' 'forgot' to mention the complete lack of authority or LDS use of the Pratt quote.    

One of the reasons I myself am such a HUGE fan of interfaith dialogue and getting things straight from the horse's mouth is to combat such a misinformation train.  For that reason alone I applaud your presence here @Larry Cotrell.  Let alone the fact that I do just really like your posts and hearing your perspectives.

3

Yes, that is exactly why I'm on the forum, to clear about misconceptions I have about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and hopefully clarify common misconceptions about "traditional" Christianity as well.

Edited by Larry Cotrell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Larry Cotrell I feel confident that mods will remove that link and I won't repeat it here... But that site is about as anti-mormon as you can get -- which is why it shouldn't be posted here. So maybe remove it yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Thank you, it is much appreciated. The specific source was [link removed], in case you were curious. 

FYI: that's site is a prime example of anti-Mormon folks knowing and intentionally lying on absolutely every single page.  An absolutely horrible source.

4 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

And yes, that is exactly why I'm on the forum, to clear about misconceptions I have about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and hopefully clarify common misconceptions about "traditional" Christianity as well.

*Thumbs up!*

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

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?

I wish I had command over the English language so I could explain what I’m thinking. I’ll have to stick with analogies.

to your first question, yes, the only people I have heard bring it up are he people who are looking for reasons why our church is wrong. 

To your second question, it isn’t that they don’t care, they just don’t know. We talk about it just as often as NBA players discuss the musical tone of the basketball hitting the backboard and how it resonates with the squeak of the shoes. 

MaryJehanne... I can’t explain this well enough,  the topic just doesn’t come up cause no one cares to discuss it. When I first heard it, this was my thought process “hmmm... ya I guess technically we are polytheistic” and then I went back to doing whatever it was I was doing. I’m not afraid of it, I just have as much cause to discuss it as an Astrophysicist has a cause to explain why the earth is round and not flat.

It just isn’t anything anyone cares about XD 

It is killing me cause I can’t describe how pointless this topic is to members of the church xp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@Larry Cotrell I feel confident that mods will remove that link and I won't repeat it here... But that site is about as anti-mormon as you can get -- which is why it shouldn't be posted here. So maybe remove it yourself?

Sincere apologies! I did not realize it was, as it did not seem to be. I have edited the comment to remove the name of the website and will be far more careful about this in the future.

20 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

FYI: that's site is a prime example of anti-Mormon folks knowing and intentionally lying on absolutely every single page.  An absolutely horrible source.

*Thumbs up!*

So, you were right. Sincere apologies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

polytheism

While the technical definition may be simply belief in the existence of multiple gods, in everyone's mind is the idea of worshiping multiple gods - and therein lies the reason for:

28 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

never labeled and not accepted by individual LDS!

We worship one God, and only one God, from eternity to eternity - there will never be another God we worship.  If people were willing to make a distinction between "acknowledging existence of" and "worshiping", the conversation would go easier, perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Sincere apologies! I did not realize it was, as it did not seem to be. I have edited the comment to remove the name of the website and will be far more careful about this in the future.

So, you were right. Sincere apologies!

Honestly: I'm happy you brought it up so we could get it sorted out for you.  Lairs and anti's seldom announce themselves as being such.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, zil said:

While the technical definition may be simply belief in the existence of multiple gods, in everyone's mind is the idea of worshiping multiple gods - and therein lies the reason for:

We worship one God, and only one God, from eternity to eternity - there will never be another God we worship.  If people were willing to make a distinction between "acknowledging existence of" and "worshiping", the conversation would go easier, perhaps.

When I die, I want zil writing my biography. It might not be a flattering portrayal, given the source material she'd be working from, but at least I can rest easy knowing it would be accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Sincere apologies! I did not realize it was, as it did not seem to be. I have edited the comment to remove the name of the website and will be far more careful about this in the future.

That's their gimmick. "We're righteous faithful Mormons who are just trying to help people."

Yeah...help people right out of the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Vort said:

When I die, I want zil writing my biography. It might not be a flattering portrayal, given the source material she'd be working from, but at least I can rest easy knowing it would be accurate.

HERE LIES OLD VORT THE GRAND POSTER

HE DIED WHEN HE FELL OFF A 'COASTER

WE ALL FEEL SO SAD

HIS POSTS WEREN'T TOO BAD

BUT VORT MISSES VORT'S POSTS THE MOST, SIR

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

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?

Others have answered for church members so lets address investigators...

For the LDS faith conversion is a Revelatory process not an Argumentative one.  Namely we ask investigators to read and pray, asking God for direction and guidance.  Generally speaking we do not use/depend on use of Logical/Rational arguments and persuasion.

The very first thing we ask Investigators to do is to Read and Pray about the Book of Mormon and ask God if it is True.   They Study, they Ponder, they Pray, and God answers.  It is between the investigator and God.  With the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon established then it becomes the foundation to Pray about if Joseph Smith was a prophet. They Study, they Ponder, they Pray, and God answers.  It is between the investigator and God.  With the truthfulness of Joseph Smith as a Prophet established then it becomes the foundation to Pray about if the Church is True/Authoritative. They Study, they Ponder, they Pray, and God answers.  It is between the investigator and God.  With the truthfulness of the Church established then it becomes the foundation for everything else. 

Thus the investigators established for themselves from God the Authority of the Church to give answers.  Thus if they have a question about the nature of God (or something else) there is no real need to debate or convince them... The Church simply tell them and they accept.

Thus it never really needs to be brought up in any kind of discussion sense... Although it can be a quick question and answer type because that is all they need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Others have answered for church members so lets address investigators...

For the LDS faith conversion is a Revelatory process not an Argumentative one.  Namely we ask investigators to read and pray, asking God for direction and guidance.  Generally speaking we do not use/depend on use of Logical/Rational arguments and persuasion.

The very first thing we ask Investigators to do is to Read and Pray about the Book of Mormon and ask God if it is True.   They Study, they Ponder, they Pray, and God answers.  It is between the investigator and God.  With the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon established then it becomes the foundation to Pray about if Joseph Smith was a prophet. They Study, they Ponder, they Pray, and God answers.  It is between the investigator and God.  With the truthfulness of Joseph Smith as a Prophet established then it becomes the foundation to Pray about if the Church is True/Authoritative. They Study, they Ponder, they Pray, and God answers.  It is between the investigator and God.  With the truthfulness of the Church established then it becomes the foundation for everything else. 

Thus the investigators established for themselves from God the Authority of the Church to give answers.  Thus if they have a question about the nature of God (or something else) there is no real need to debate or convince them... The Church simply tell them and they accept.

Thus it never really needs to be brought up in any kind of discussion sense... Although it can be a quick question and answer type because that is all they need.

Let me add that conversion is a rational process, but not a logical process. By that, I mean that those looking into the Church are expected to keep their wits about them and not grope blindly forward, but by the same token, they are not "converted" by a process of logical argumentation. Such a "conversion" would be short-lived indeed, and would crumble the first time the person encountered an idea that seemed to argue against the gospel and that he could not refute. The far safer course is to learn to hear God's voice in your heart, mind, and spirit, and then follow that voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 

Thus it never really needs to be brought up in any kind of discussion sense... Although it can be a quick question and answer type because that is all they need.

I have the impression that a discussion is not welcome.
Now I know the reason.
a certificate can be confused with emotion
for example. a scene in the movie or book

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&C 121:28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest.

We are not upset about it at all.  

It will eventually be manifest.  Apparently as of yet it has not been manifest.  

Final Word.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

Really just looking at LDS doctrine and then seeing "polytheism" described, but for some reason never labeled and not accepted by individual LDS!

Okay! But I think a person can still say they believe in Jesus and then also say the believe there are other gods that exist!

 

(And on that note I actually have to step away for a while to get some work done. :P Thank you to everyone who's answered, and hopefully I'll be able to get back to this soon!)

But I don't even say that :) -- why would I? Why would anyone say that about someone else to that "someone else"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Vort said:

Let me add that conversion is a rational process, but not a logical process. By that, I mean that those looking into the Church are expected to keep their wits about them and not grope blindly forward, but by the same token, they are not "converted" by a process of logical argumentation. Such a "conversion" would be short-lived indeed, and would crumble the first time the person encountered an idea that seemed to argue against the gospel and that he could not refute. The far safer course is to learn to hear God's voice in your heart, mind, and spirit, and then follow that voice.

That's an interesting idea. I don't know that I totally agree. I consider my belief that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be the true and correct living church on the earth entirely logical. My spiritual witnesses are as logical to believe, in my mind, as the things I've witnessed with my eyes. A witness is a witness. I have had communication from God. I know I have. Denying it because others don't see it or believe it or because it is moderately uncommon would be illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MaryJehanne  @Larry Cotrell and others that believe in monotheism.  I am a polytheist because the scriptures reference G-d in plural not singular.  The Hebrew word for one being is "Yahed".  But the term always use to designate "one" G-d in scripture is "Ehad" - I would point out that there is not a single exception.  This is the same term is used to refer to a man and woman being "one" flesh.  But there are two beings in a marriage - this is because when referencing persons the term is plural and means many united by a single covenant.    The problem is that despite claims - few if any traditional Christians understand covenant or why those in a covenant are referenced as one - or one by covenant.

If anyone can provide a scripture that states unequivocally that there is only one single g-d being regardless of any covenant - I would be very interested if it was demonstrated that the reference to one is yahed and not ehad in covenant.  Otherwise - I hope you understand that prophesy of Isaiah has been fulfilled which is a time of Apostasy during which (among other things) ordinances are changed, the everlasting covenant broken (meaning oneness with G-d) and the law transgressed.

BTW I can give many examples in scripture that those that are "one" with G-d will be like G-d.  For example - Jesus was accused of making men into G-ds - he referenced that this was a doctrine established in scripture - he did not deny to any degree that it was a false doctrine (man becoming g-d).

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's an interesting idea. I don't know that I totally agree. I consider my belief that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be the true and correct living church on the earth entirely logical. My spiritual witnesses are as logical to believe, in my mind, as the things I've witnessed with my eyes. A witness is a witness. I have had communication from God. I know I have. Denying it because others don't see it or believe it or because it is moderately uncommon would be illogical.

I did not mean to suggest that the conversion process is illogical or (to coin a term) alogical, only that logic per se is of only limited usefulness in acquiring a testimony from God. People with very little familiarity with formal logic can nevertheless receive a testimony from God, while people with impressive logical abilities can and often do completely miss the boat when it comes to receiving revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

I did not mean to suggest that the conversion process is illogical or (to coin a term) alogical, only that logic per se is of only limited usefulness in acquiring a testimony from God. People with very little familiarity with formal logic can nevertheless receive a testimony from God, while people with impressive logical abilities can and often do completely miss the boat when it comes to receiving revelation.

Hmm. Maybe this is just coming at the idea on another plane...but it seems to me that acquiring a testimony of God from God is the very core, most basic, most common denominator of logic that there is. This therefore that. Even small children have this level of "formal" logic. The alogic (borrowing your made up term) is those who claim they can reason out God without God revealing God to them. Like (borrowing the analogy) trying to figure out what salt tastes like without tasting the salt. Want to know what salt tastes like? -- how much more logical a process can their possibly be than, "well, taste the salt then." 

If you want to know God -- go to God. That, in my view, is pure, unadulterated, sweet, blissful, how-obvious-can-something-be logic.

Or as McConkie so eloquently put it, "God stands revealed or he remains forever unknown, and the things of God are and can be known only by and through the Spirit of God."

Logic!

spock-headshot.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share