Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?


MaryJehanne
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Not in any meaningful sense. It would be Baal worship, or Zeus worship, or pine stick worship. The fact that we call our totem "God's brother" is utterly meaningless. There is only one God, and Latter-day Saints worship him. This is true whether or not Mary Jehanne recognizes the fact.

I believe that was clear in the sentence you didn't quote. But people have worshiped Baal, Zeus, and pine sticks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, zil said:

Yes, but I don't even think agency comes into play here - I think we simply have no option - there is no other God in this sphere, and even if we had knowledge of another God in another sphere, we could not choose to go there and worship him instead - this is our sphere and God is its God.

What I was getting at is if there is no ability to choose--no agency possible--then the contention is that monotheism is achieved, regardless of what might be out there in unreachable realms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe this is just coming at the idea on another plane...

plane.jpg.5eb360628c68121115d9a6ea6cbcb919.jpg

There've been way too many posts in this thread!  Took way too long to get to this.  But: Graf von Faber-Castell Olive Green in Sailor Pro Gear Slim, F; Sailor Sei-Boku in Pilot Stargazer, F; Waterman Audacious Red in Pilot Vanishing Point Decimo, EF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I read Jeff Lindsey's site, and he seems to make the same argument--that whatever may be out there in unreachable realms is irrelevant to our universe, where there is only one God to be worshipped. That helps me understand the church's perspective. I'd just repeat that most of us traditionalists simply cannot accept that there are any other divine beings in existence.

I'm not sure who Jeff Lindsey is (I guess I should have checked before replying! :) ), but an "unreachable realm" means it is no more accessible or reasonable to the honest speculator, once he gives it some thought, than to the traditionalist. Our God is reachable in every respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, prisonchaplain said:

What I was getting at is if there is no ability to choose--no agency possible--then the contention is that monotheism is achieved, regardless of what might be out there in unreachable realms.

But this isn't accurate. We can choose to worship whatever/whoever we want. But there is only one name whereby salvation cometh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zil said:

plane.jpg.5eb360628c68121115d9a6ea6cbcb919.jpg

There've been way too many posts in this thread!  Took way too long to get to this.  But: Graf von Faber-Castell Olive Green in Sailor Pro Gear Slim, F; Sailor Sei-Boku in Pilot Stargazer, F; Waterman Audacious Red in Pilot Vanishing Point Decimo, EF.

I'd like you to redraw my plane as an F16 please.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I believe that was clear in the sentence you didn't quote. But people have worshiped Baal, Zeus, and pine sticks. 

My point is that worshipping "God's brother" in any meaningful sense means knowing (1) that God has a brother and (2) how to worship him. Even false "worship", if the term is to have any meaning, must abide by this. Otherwise, it's just "worshipping" a made-up word, not an actual being. I maintain that we cannot "worship" God's "brother", assuming such a being even exists. This is similar to the reasoning that leads me to say that it is impossible to "worship" our heavenly Mother, a perfect and divine being whom we know exists. But we cannot "worship" her in any meaningful sense. We can worship an idol or we can worship the true and living God. Those are our only choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What you're saying isn't true. We CAN, indeed, choose to worship God's theoretical brother if we wanted to. It would not lead to our salvation though.

Yeah, but if God's brother were real and had his own realm, I don't think we could choose to move there instead of staying in God's realm.

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think I see where PC's agency comment stems from here.

What you're saying isn't true. We CAN, indeed, choose to worship God's theoretical brother if we wanted to. It would not lead to our salvation though.

Actually I was just trying to repeat/understand/paraphrase what I am hearing--that since church members CANNOT worship any God but Heavenly Father, in that whatever other deities might be cannot be in our universe, then there is no agency--no free will--possible. Thus, the church's teaching, practically speaking, is monotheistic. Am I getting this right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zil said:

plane.jpg.5eb360628c68121115d9a6ea6cbcb919.jpg

There've been way too many posts in this thread!  Took way too long to get to this.  But: Graf von Faber-Castell Olive Green in Sailor Pro Gear Slim, F; Sailor Sei-Boku in Pilot Stargazer, F; Waterman Audacious Red in Pilot Vanishing Point Decimo, EF.

How come TFP gets a dual-engine jumbo jet an I get a single-engine prop plane?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

This helps tremendously. I suppose it comes down to a belief that if there is no other possible God in this universe, that's monotheism, whereas us traditionalists cannot accept that there would be any other gods in any universe. Agency in your church is an even bigger doctrine than it is for us free-will types, right?

If one believes in the trinity, this therefore cannot be.  They believe in THREE separate Deities.  These Deities are of the same substance, but unless one is a Modalist, they believe similar to some Hindu sects where you have three separate Deities, which are consubstantial.  They are of the same substance, even if three distinct and separate beings.  (and as I noted previously, there are also Hindu that have a more modalistic view of their three deific entities as well).

Thus, a true Trinitarian will NOT be a Modalist, but will specify that The Father and the Son, even if of the same substance, are distinctly and entirely separate, being three different beings and yet one. 

We do not consider those Hindu's who also believe in a three in one as being Monotheistic, and thus, we could not hold a Trinitarian as Monotheistic.

[I should note for clarities sake, the three in one idea is about the ONLY similarity a Trinitarian may have to some Hindu sects, their three deities are MUCH DIFFERENT than Christianities and are entirely different in concept and action.  In addition, Hinduism allows for multiple OTHER deific figures that abound into the millions for many of their sects].

True Monotheism only believes in ONE God.  That would be the belief of Judaism (or most of them, there are other sects out there) and most Islam (who believe ONLY in Allah).

A Trinitarian trying to claim they are Monotheistic is in the SAME boat (if they believe in the New Testament) as a Mormon, ironically.  It is always ironic when a Trinitarian tries to argue against themselves in regards to what others would understand or perceive.

I do NOT know what your particular sect believes though.  It may be that they are Modalist or some other group that most Trinitarians do not share a belief with.  The traditional Christian belief (descended from Catholicism) is NOT monotheistic in the strict sense that other Monothestic religions are, simply because instead of ONLY ONE and ONE ONLY Deity, they believe in THREE separate deities, even if those Deities are also of the same substance (and thus also only ONE, which one can comprehend and yet uncomprehendable).

The fact that other world religions (Buddhist also have a similar idea of this in some of their sects) share this idea that you can have Deity or something greater from the same substance should only give evidence to the Trinitarian that theirs is the true belief that others have twisted over time to their own religions.

It is evidence to a Jew or Muslim that Christians CANNOT be correct because to them, the Trinitarian belief ascribes something far different than true Monotheism.

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, prisonchaplain said:

Actually I was just trying to repeat/understand/paraphrase what I am hearing--that since church members CANNOT worship any God but Heavenly Father, in that whatever other deities might be cannot be in our universe, then there is no agency--no free will--possible. Thus, the church's teaching, practically speaking, is monotheistic. Am I getting this right?

I think we fail when we put it into terms of who we can worship or not. We can worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster if we want. It's not meaningful if we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zil said:

Yeah, but if God's brother were real and had his own realm, I don't think we could choose to move there instead of staying in God's realm.

True. This may lead to a broader discussion with PC on our understanding of agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'd like you to redraw my plane as an F16 please.

:D

Sorry, my doodley skills are limited.  Maybe next time - if I can find a picture that makes it look easy. :unsure:

(and apparently, every time I post in this thread now, that picture is coming with it, even when I delete the picture from the editor window!)

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But this isn't accurate. We can choose to worship whatever/whoever we want. But there is only one name whereby salvation cometh.

We're discussing the speculation that comes from ideas such as eternal progression (that Heavenly Father has/had a wife, has a Heavenly Father himself, etc.). Others here have suggested that any deities that may exist are either one in purpose with Heavenly Father (and thus part of the Godhead), or they are outside of our realm/sphere etc., and thus, for church members, there really is only one God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

My point is that worshipping "God's brother" in any meaningful sense means knowing (1) that God has a brother and (2) how to worship him. Even false "worship", if the term is to have any meaning, must abide by this. Otherwise, it's just "worshipping" a made-up word, not an actual being. I maintain that we cannot "worship" God's "brother", assuming such a being even exists. This is similar to the reasoning that leads me to say that it is impossible to "worship" our heavenly Mother, a perfect and divine being whom we know exists. But we cannot "worship" her in any meaningful sense. We can worship an idol or we can worship the true and living God. Those are our only choices.

I agree...if you put in "meaningful" then we cannot. We cannot meaningfully worship any being but God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Actually I was just trying to repeat/understand/paraphrase what I am hearing--that since church members CANNOT worship any God but Heavenly Father, in that whatever other deities might be cannot be in our universe, then there is no agency--no free will--possible. Thus, the church's teaching, practically speaking, is monotheistic. Am I getting this right?

From what I've read in this thread and understood others to say, I'd say then answer to your question is...

YES...

but I don't consider Traditional Christianity to be Monotheistic in the traditional sense.  I would group Mormons among them in this.

I consider Judaism and Islam Monotheistic in the traditional sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

How come TFP gets a dual-engine jumbo jet an I get a single-engine prop plane?

I thought the bi-wing was kinda cool (didn't know how to draw a bi-wing from that perspective, but that's what it is - think Snoopy and the Red Baron).  I'll attempt fighter jets next time. :)

[and here's that doodle again] :rolleyes:

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

From what I've read in this thread and understood others to say, I'd say then answer to your question is...

YES...

but I don't consider Traditional Christianity to be Monotheistic in the traditional sense.  I would group Mormons among them in this.

I consider Judaism and Islam Monotheistic in the traditional sense. 

An understandable view. One reason many Trinitarians react so against your church's understanding, is that the rejection of trinitarian monotheism stings. We very much consider ourselves monotheistic, and believe that accepting that the three persons are physically distinct crosses the line definitively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

We're discussing the speculation that comes from ideas such as eternal progression (that Heavenly Father has/had a wife, has a Heavenly Father himself, etc.). Others here have suggested that any deities that may exist are either one in purpose with Heavenly Father (and thus part of the Godhead), or they are outside of our realm/sphere etc., and thus, for church members, there really is only one God.

Yes...though I don't believe that any reasonable LDS person with any understanding of the Godhood would  include Heavenly Father's father/wife in it. That's flatly wrong per very plain LDS doctrine.

Honestly any explanation any one gives you about other gods is speculative. We worship our Heavenly Father. His son and the Holy Ghost are one with Him (in purpose)...or rather, they do His will. We worship Christ in that regard, but our worship of Him is worship of the Father -- as they are one in purpose. We don't, per se, worship the Holy Ghost, but one could content that our worship of the Father included the Holy Ghost. But we worship God the Father.

Any other "gods" we have nothing to do with and very little information about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

whatever other deities might be cannot be in our universe, then there is no agency--no free will--possible.

 

15 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

YES...

Well...no free will possible...yes. No agency possible...no. Lack of free will does not mean lack of agency. We cannot fly like Superman. We cannot turn magically invisible. We cannot walk through walls. Etc., etc. We don't lose our agency because we are incapable of things. We are accountable for the things we can choose. That requires choice, yes...but does not mean that we must have all choice and be able to choose anything at all in order to have agency. We have agency in that we do have choices, and we are accountable for what we do with that ability to choose.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
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