Learning about the Church from LDS.net

[beefche]

thews, do you not understand what the LDS believe regarding the Godhead (God the Father, God Jesus Christ, and God Holy Spirit)? Or is it that you want to pin down the LDS beliefs into a one word definition (monotheism, henotheism, etc.)?

[prisonchaplain]

I believe it's Stephen Robinson, a professor at BYU, who uses the word henotheism for LDS teaching--in contrast to polytheism. His suggestion is that since the Church teaches the ultimate exaltation of the faithful, then it's reasonable to say LDS believe there are many gods, but worship only one. Granted, a BYU professor is not an official spokesperson of the church. Nevertheless, explained that way, it does make sense to me. The word does not need to be pejorative.

[Guest]

I believe it's Stephen Robinson, a professor at BYU, who uses the word henotheism for LDS teaching--in contrast to polytheism. His suggestion is that since the Church teaches the ultimate exaltation of the faithful, then it's reasonable to say LDS believe there are many gods, but worship only one. Granted, a BYU professor is not an official spokesperson of the church. Nevertheless, explained that way, it does make sense to me. The word does not need to be pejorative.

Okay, so I may not understand henotheism then. Because, my understanding of henotheism is that you may worship other gods but there is one supreme god of all. Well, this is not LDS teaching. Because, even if you become a god, PC, there is no way I'm worshipping you. Not that there's anything wrong with you...

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess...my wife just shouted AMEN! LOL. Henotheism simply means that you believe there may be many gods (or even a few), but that you only worship one God. For more information, I recommend the book co-authored by Stephen Robinson (BYU) and Craig Blomberg (Denver Seminary), entitled How Wide the Divide: a Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation. It's available through Deseret Books, Christianbooks.com, and Amazon. Amazon's cheapest. :-)

[bytebear]

I think the difference is how these "gods" interact. They are not competing gods like Greek or Roman gods. We don't believe there are competitors to God. In fact, we become one with God, hence, we may become gods, but there is still only one God.

[Maxel]

Anatess...my wife just shouted AMEN! LOL. Henotheism simply means that you believe there may be many gods (or even a few), but that you only worship one God. For more information, I recommend the book co-authored by Stephen Robinson (BYU) and Craig Blomberg (Denver Seminary), entitled How Wide the Divide: a Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation. It's available through Deseret Books, Christianbooks.com, and Amazon. Amazon's cheapest. :-)

How Wide the Divide? rocks! I see it mentioned and I have to post something praising it.

So... yeah, it's awesome. Totally. PC-tested, Maxel-approved.

[rameumptom]

Personally, I agree that LDS are henotheists: we do believe in multiple gods, but only worship God the Father. But I still do not think that Trinitarians are strict monotheists, as are Jews and Muslims. They do not have to go through acrobatic loops to define the distinct persons and then tie them back together into one substance.

[prisonchaplain]

Ram, you have Islam and Judaism on your side with your assessment, but trinitarians adamantly affirm that we are monotheists. We'd cite the schema ("Here O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one,") with the same passion an Orthodox Jew would. The three persons are essentially the one true and living God.

[Justice]

Yep, How Wide the Divide is an awesome read. :)

[jadams_4040]

A while back a couple of sister missionaries came to my house and asked, "So, what have you heard about our church?" Here's everything I learned from LDS.net. Please note this is arranged as "before and after," so don't jump to conclusions. :)

1. What had I heard about LDS soteriology? (Beliefs about salvation)

I had heard that LDSs believe in three heavens, that only married LDSs get into the highest heaven, that all sincere religious people get into the 2nd heaven, and that those that were not very righteous or god-fearing, but who had not been truly wicked would be assigned the 3rd heaven. Only the truly evil persons, like Hitler would be damned to the outer darkness.

How has my understanding changed? I’ve come to understand the importance for LDSs of temple work on behalf of the dead, so that many who might not be LDSs in this life, still might embrace the restored gospel in the afterlife–though many would suggest that only those who did not have a good opportunity to embrace LDSism in this life would be afforded such an opportunity. Furthermore, it is not the only truly wicked who go to the outer darkness, but those who had a testimony and knowledge of the truth, but abandoned it, or even opposed it.

2. What had I heard about LDS beliefs about the nature of God?

I had heard that LDSs are polytheist–that they believe that God was once a man, and that LDS men are trying to become gods. Also, that God has a physical body, and lives on a planet near KOBOL. That God is limited and changing in nature.

How has my understanding changed? I’ve come to understand that LDSs consider themselves Trinitarians and monotheists. They believe that God is three in one, but that these three are not only distinct personalities, but distinct beings. Furthermore, while LDSs may believe there are other gods, they only worship the God of the Bible, and further believe that while they may become gods, they will always worship the God of the Bible for all eternity. Finally, they do not believe God has changed, because they argue that both God and humanity are immortal. Thus, even if God was once a man, he always was, is, and always will be.

3. What had I heard about the LDS restored gospel?

I had heard that Joseph Smith claimed that all Christian churches, preachers and professors were apostate, and an abomination to God, and that only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true Christian church today.

How has my understanding changed. I now understand that Joseph Smith, and modern LDSs, were most enraged by what they saw/see as the elevation of creeds and Greek theological definitions over the plain truths of Scripture. It is this insistence on flawed interpretation–especially the use of such against LDS distinctives that Smith and the Church considered abominable. Many progressives now consider Christians, especially evangelical Christians, to simply be wrong, and in need of greater truth (as was Apollos, in the New Testament). Some LDSs are still wary of the level of goodness in evangelicalism, especially in light of the many evangelical anti-LDS organizations and initiatives.

4. What had I heard about LDS views of authority?

I add this question, because my answer is, "Not much." I only knew that LDSs had two priesthoods, the Aaronic and Melchezidek (sp?) orders, and that the latter was for more mature members.

What have I learned? That for the members who have wrestled with the intellectual appeal of LDS teachings, this issue is quite often the crux of their decision to follow the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The teaching is that after the apostles, the church fell into apostasy, and never really came out of it until the Latter Day truths were revealed to Joseph Smith, and the true gospel was restored. As such, only the LDS have the ultimate authority from God to represent Christ and carry out his work. While there are some significant differences, this teaching is not as strange as it first sounds to evangelical ears, because Roman Catholics also teach the apostolic succession, and claim that only the Roman church has the ultimate spiritual authority.

Conclusion: As an outsider, not sufficiently versed in LDS Scriptures, I’m sure I still explain LDS ideas with a good deal of clumsiness and imprecision. However, I’ve probably garnered a better understanding than I might have had I read the totality of anti-cult or specifically anti-LDS material that is out there.

Thanks to all that have helped me grow in understanding here, and blessings to you that have taken the time to engage my inquiries, as well as my explanations of my own faith tradition.

Hi chap! i just felt to say to you that when one speaks of the preisthood and as to where the authority lies; First off the apostolic authority was taken from the earth the Bible tells us this; it also tells us "all" things will be restored; how can "all" things be restored if not to have been removed in the first place? and i relize and respect Catholic beleifes; but the problem i find is when the first Catholic preist or pope or whomever it was, saint???/ anyway took over; was not john the beloved still alive and the true and real prophet on earth at that time? So how could another take the place of someone whom was still doing the job? SSSooo, according to Catholic beleifes, the "succession" of authority had never come to an end as the bible tells us it was going to?. Maybe you can help me with this?:)

[rameumptom]

Ram, you have Islam and Judaism on your side with your assessment, but trinitarians adamantly affirm that we are monotheists. We'd cite the schema ("Here O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one,") with the same passion an Orthodox Jew would. The three persons are essentially the one true and living God.

My point is that it all becomes a matter of perception. I agree that Trinitarians believe themselves to be monotheists. And that is fine that they believe it.

It is on the same level as Mormons or anyone else claiming they are Christian. To the individual, it is as they see it; while others may perceive something entirely different (such as Mormons and others are not Christian).

[prisonchaplain]

Ram...I see that point clearly. What remains ambivalent to me is whether or not your theology claims to be monotheist or not. Some here say yes, others are willing to claim the middle ground of henotheism, and I've even had a poster suggest that his fellow LDS openly embrace the polytheism implied in the doctrine of exaltation. Since even secular scholars of religion recognize that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the word's three great monotheistic religions, and this is an area of question, even on the basis of self-perception...this discussion may be crucial indeed.

[prisonchaplain]

Hi chap! i just felt to say to you that when one speaks of the preisthood and as to where the authority lies; First off the apostolic authority was taken from the earth the Bible tells us this;

There is an irony in the discussion of priesthood. IMHO, the Catholic church was wrong to elevate clergy to priesthood, and not the laity (everyone else). That your males serve in the two orders of priesthood is definitely a move in the right direction. From the Protestant perspective, and particularly the evangelical one, Paul's letters declare that the entire church has become "a holy nation, a royal priesthood." So, for us, the authority lies not in church hierarchy, but in the name of Jesus.

So, I'm not sure where in the Bible we are told that the authority found in the name of Jesus for Christians would be removed. The Apostles of course died off--as they were the witnesses of Jesus living ministry on earth. However, we who follow Christ are all apostolic--we continue in the Apostles' teachings.

it also tells us "all" things will be restored; how can "all" things be restored if not to have been removed in the first place? and i relize and respect Catholic beleifes; but the problem i find is when the first Catholic preist or pope or whomever it was, saint???/ anyway took over; was not john the beloved still alive and the true and real prophet on earth at that time? So how could another take the place of someone whom was still doing the job? SSSooo, according to Catholic beleifes, the "succession" of authority had never come to an end as the bible tells us it was going to?. Maybe you can help me with this?:)

Catholics believe that Peter, not John, was the first pope. As for me, again, I'm not clear that the authority of Jesus' name was ever completely removed from Christian people.

[rameumptom]

Ram...I see that point clearly. What remains ambivalent to me is whether or not your theology claims to be monotheist or not. Some here say yes, others are willing to claim the middle ground of henotheism, and I've even had a poster suggest that his fellow LDS openly embrace the polytheism implied in the doctrine of exaltation. Since even secular scholars of religion recognize that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the word's three great monotheistic religions, and this is an area of question, even on the basis of self-perception...this discussion may be crucial indeed.

But of the three, only one began as truly monotheistic: Islam. Bible scholars will agree that Judaism began as a henotheistic religion, as well. And many early Christians physically separated the Father and Son, making the son subordinate to the father. It wasn't until a century after the Nicene Creed that the Trinity creed was established as supreme in the Christian world.

[prisonchaplain]

But of the three, only one began as truly monotheistic: Islam. Bible scholars will agree that Judaism began as a henotheistic religion, as well. And many early Christians physically separated the Father and Son, making the son subordinate to the father. It wasn't until a century after the Nicene Creed that the Trinity creed was established as supreme in the Christian world.

I'd contend that Judaism proper was monotheistic from the get-go. There is no doubt, though, that Israel struggled with henotheism, and worse. It's people were repeatedly seduced by false gods. But formal Judaism began with the Books of Moses, in which the proclammation that there is but one God is central. Further, when other "gods" are mentioned, it is in mocking of the "gods of wood, clay and metals."

As for Christianity, it began as a sect with Judaism. By definition, they were monotheists.

The History of Monotheism - Chassidic Masters - Parsha

Amazon.com: The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context (9780252034183): James F. McGrath: Books

Edited September 27, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Hemidakota]

I very much enjoyed reading your post. I take you as a straight shooter, PC.

With the sole intent of furthering you along in your understanding of LDS teachings, I'd like to make 2 corrections from what I've read:

KOBOL should be KOLOB. :)

We don't believe there are 2 Priesthoods, but there is one Priesthood with a lesser and greater division. The lesser teaches and points to the higher, much like the Law of Moses (especially the animal sacrifices of) taught and pointed to the coming higher law and the great and last sacrifice. It is one law with a lesser and greater portion. The Priesthood is the same, and in fact the lesser portion of the Priesthood was instituted when the lesser portion of the law was given. A lesser portion of the law required a lesser portion of the Priesthood. :)

Priesthood - one is temporal and the other is eternal.

[Maxel]

What I heard: Most LDS are people who are white, live in Utah and S. Idaho, vote Republican, eat green jello with carrots on the bottom (and consider such a dessert!!! ), who live life decaffeinated, who's men have short haircuts with no facial hair, and who still wear dress clothes to their churches.

What I've learned: I was mostly right.

I avoid jello with carrots like the plague. Jello with cottage cheese, however, isn't bad...

[prisonchaplain]

I avoid jello with carrots like the plague. Jello with cottage cheese, however, isn't bad...

Maxel, I want you to know that I would never stoop so low as to attempt to win you over to Protestantism by mentioning our substitute for green jello--dark, rich, freshly ground coffee and warm, gently glazed donuts.

Edited September 28, 2009 by prisonchaplain
re: added some seductive adjectives for effect

[pam]

Make that creamy hot chocolate with whipped topping...and I'm there.

[JohnnyRudick]

Three persons who are one being.

I think there is also another definition of such a person:rolleyes:

[Dravin]

Maxel, I want you to know that I would never stoop so low as to attempt to win you over to Protestantism by mentioning our substitute for green jello--dark, rich, freshly ground coffee and warm, gently glazed donuts.

The donuts are temping the coffee not so much, ice cold milk however...

[Maxel]

Maxel, I want you to know that I would never stoop so low as to attempt to win you over to Protestantism by mentioning our substitute for green jello--dark, rich, freshly ground coffee and warm, gently glazed donuts.

I tried coffee when I was three (my non-LDS grandma gave it to me). The memory is enough to turn me away from it forever (I HATED it and can still clearly remember the instant when I drank it).

However, the glazed donuts sound good... Maybe we can have an inter-faith potluck and swap delicacies?

[JohnnyRudick]

Being an Ex-Truck driver I drank it from time to time to keep awake.

I hated the after taste.

Many times it smelled good but always after drinking no matter how I prepared it,

(Cream and Sugar, Lots of cream and sugar, Lots of Cream and lots of sugar, Cream and lots of sugar, No cream no sugar, Cream, Sugar. . .)

it left a taste in my mouth like - as I imagined - I may have licked out the bottom of an ashtray:yuck:

I went to chewing caffeine pills instead.

[prisonchaplain]

Like I said...I'd never try to seduce LDS folk into drinking coffee. And yes, I believe that a three year old might be forever scarred by a too early taste of bad coffee. Likewise, a trucker, probably weened on "old school" gas station coffee (yesterday's three-hour-on-the-burner tar extract), might develop a distate for the after taste. But, I emplore you to be kind to your newbies, who've known the joys of fresh, well-prepared coffee, prepared using quality beans, fresh clean water, and a clean machine. Withdrawal can be truly painful for such folk.

Ah well...enjoy the donuts and :::cough::: milk/hot chocolate...

[Maxel]

Like I said...I'd never try to seduce LDS folk into drinking coffee. And yes, I believe that a three year old might be forever scarred by a too early taste of bad coffee. Likewise, a trucker, probably weened on "old school" gas station coffee (yesterday's three-hour-on-the-burner tar extract), might develop a distate for the after taste. But, I emplore you to be kind to your newbies, who've known the joys of fresh, well-prepared coffee, prepared using quality beans, fresh clean water, and a clean machine. Withdrawal can be truly painful for such folk.

Ah well...enjoy the donuts and :::cough::: milk/hot chocolate...

Doughnuts and milk = instant win. You'll have to try it at our interfaith potluck.