Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?


MaryJehanne
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, estradling75 said:

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.   

 

 

Okay! :)

We don't need a long, drawn-out discussion of nuances! :P It's very simple!

There's no reason for us to accept this label, because it cannot be found anywhere in our teachings or official practice. If it was found in our teachings and was objectively what we did, then I should accept it to avoid being dishonest. But it's not.

I can point to the Catechism to show that we teach the opposite of idol-worship.

Quote

“Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.” (from CCC 2112)

“Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."” (from CCC 2114)

I could then say that there’s a difference between worship and honor, and turn to the objective matter to examine it and see what it is.

Is it an action itself or intent that changes the nature of a relationship? For instance, when someone kisses their mother, it means something very different than when they kiss their wife (or at least we should all certainly hope so).

The question, then, is do Catholics pray in front of statues of saints (etc.) with the same intent as when they pray in front of the tabernacle?

No. The prayers that may be recited do not indicate that saints are equal to God, and in no way is there anything equated to them that belongs to God alone (such as thanking them for our salvation, praising them as the creators of the universe, asking them to save our souls, etc.)

 

As I try to run these same tests on LDS belief in multiple gods, it works to confirm rather than refute the claim.

From Joseph Smith's teaching:

"I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370).

I can turn to the objective matter on the LDS side and examine that. There is God the Father. And then there is Jesus, who is called a god. And Heavenly Father was once a man like us who had to become god, so he had a god. And LDS people can progress to achieve godhood. Those are many gods.

 

It doesn’t matter if the Biblical scriptures say something different, if the individual religion teaches something else. What the Church actually teaches is what it, well, teaches. That's what I was wondering when I started the thread... the teaching describes polytheism, but then its followers seem to claim it's not polytheistic. That was my quandary, anyway.😕

Edited by MaryJehanne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zil said:

Thank you, Zil! But what about what Joseph Smith said later? When he talked on the plurality of gods? That was very definitive and pretty detailed. That seems to overrule what this is saying (from an LDS perspective)? Or at least indicate that it must have a different interpretation for LDS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MaryJehanne semantics and context are very important. It is best to use the most common understanding of a term to describe others, and allow them to define the nuances, if there are any, not impose them upon others. Using the Wikipedia definition and discussion, which I think is representative of the most common ways polytheism is understood, is the most good-faith approach in discussing the topic of polytheism and how Christianity and the various denominations reflect it or not. It is not fair to portray a Christian religion in terms of polytheism.  Our faith has only one religion and one set of rituals; we recognize no others for other gods as having been revealed or even appropriate (if you understand the Joseph Smith quote you provided). There are many other generally accepted characterizations of polytheism that our faith rejects as do other Christian faiths. It would be uncharitable to misrepresent any of them, with Catholicism being the most vulnerable, as forms of polytheism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Thank you, Zil! But what about what Joseph Smith said later? When he talked on the plurality of gods? That was very definitive and pretty detailed. That seems to overrule what this is saying (from an LDS perspective)? Or at least indicate that it must have a different interpretation for LDS?

See this reply, also from me:

We are perhaps less rigid in our definition of "God" than others.  With a capital G, it means "The Father" or "The Godhead" (all 3 members - each of whom is a God, but when used in the singular, it generally means the grouping, or Heavenly Father).  But they are indeed one, thus, as the Book of Mormon says, one God.

When you switch to lower case g, we do indeed believe there are numerous gods and we have the potential to become gods, but that will never change the fact that for us (the people of planet Earth) there always has been and always will be only one God whom we worship.  We acknowledge the existence of others, but we did not, do not, and will not worship them.

But the instant you say (without all that extra stuff), "Latter-day Saints are polytheists," the whole world instantly thinks we worship multiple gods - but we don't.

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

I can turn to the objective matter on the LDS side and examine that. There is God the Father. And then there is Jesus, who is called a god. And Heavenly Father was once a man like us who had to become god, so he had a god. And LDS people can progress to achieve godhood. Those are many gods.  

I can really see you're putting a lot of high quality thought into this @MaryJehanne!    I'll go through your comment, adding stuff in blue.  

 

"I can turn to the objective matter on the LDS side and say, okay, let's see. There is God the Father. And then there is Jesus, who is called a god (and also God), and together they are one God.  See these scripture verses:

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.”

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

 “Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen”.  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20

  “And after this manner shall ye baptize in my [Christ’s] 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

 

There is one non-canonical speech where Joseph Smith speculated Heavenly Father was once a man like us who had to become god, so he had a god.   But we don’t really know much about that.

It is known that followers of Christ can progress to achieve godhood. Those are many gods, whom are all one with the Father as Christ is with the Father (John 17:11).

23 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

It doesn’t matter if the Biblical scriptures say something different, if the individual religion teaches something else.

FWIW, I actually find the Bible to much more support the LDS view of God than the Athanasian one.  I do respect that other people see differently though.

23 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

That's what I was wondering when I started the thread... the teaching describes polytheism, but then its followers seem to claim it's not polytheistic. That was my quandary, anyway.😕

No, just different divine persons in ONE God.

Logic puzzle for you: can you go out and honor the Father will dishonoring the Son?    How about obey the promptings of the Spirit, but disobey the Father?  Can you listen to the Father but ignore the Spirit?  

NO!!!  Of course not, because they are ONE God.  Different persons, but ONE God. 

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zil said:

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.

Hi, Zil.

I'm sorry if I offended... I wasn't thinking very hard and long when I wrote that post, and I should have been more specific.

I know you believe he created you (I meant that God created me ex-nihilo), he loves you, always existed (although not always as God, the sole necessary being who was the I Am before anything), is very powerful (though in LDS belief he cannot create something from nothing), and will never cease. I wasn't sure about the more important than anything else, though... I got confused on a thread from a while ago that made me think otherwise and I can't remember if it was refuted. But I guess your post reasonably does the job! :) 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

It doesn’t matter if the Biblical scriptures say something different, if the individual religion teaches something else. What the Church actually teaches is what it, well, teaches. That's what I was wondering when I started the thread... the teaching describes polytheism, but then its followers seem to claim it's not polytheistic. That was my quandary, anyway.😕

 

It is interesting that you have brought up the subject of worship.  A concept that parallels the culture and society of an ancient Kingdom in the Near East.  I can give you references (even references written by Catholics if you like) concerning the understanding of the kingdom of G-d as symbolically referenced in Near Eastern Supreme Suzerain – Vassal covenant and law with the citizens of a kingdom.  The first heir of the Supreme Suzerain is a vassal designated as the “Son of the Suzerain” sometimes stated as the only begotten of the Suzerain.  Often it was practice that a vassal sent by the king or Suzerain would speak in the first person as the Suzerain.  An example – the vassal would say, “I am the supreme suzerain (king) and beside me there is no other Suzerain or king”

We can see recognition of this culture and understanding in the trial of Jesus before Pilate when the Jews cried out – “We have no king but Cesar.”  One would then ask – who then was king Herod?  Perhaps if we were to talk to a Catholic or traditional Christina – they may say “Herod was the manifestation of Cesar in Palestine – that in reality they are one in the same person.”   Herod was a Vassal of Cesar and was therefore not a reprehensive (vassal) of another king or kingdom.

Thus to show honor and respect for a king is like unto worship of G-d as the Suzerain of the kingdom of heaven and that would mean that the same honor and respect for the king is extended to his vassal representative.   In fact to not honor the vassal of the Suzerain was an act of treason against the Suzerain. 

However, every one of the ancient culture and society of kingdoms knew all this stuff.  And they knew that in reality the Vassal and Suzerain were not the same individual.  I would point out that Jesus was very clear that He was a Vassal sent by his Father and that the Father was in essence the Suzerain.  The confusion is in those the alter the meaning of scripture to fit another kingdom and king.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

I'm sorry if I offended...

You didn't offend - I just felt like some very strong statements of our perception were warranted (and a reminder that just because one person can't see / doesn't accept a particular view doesn't mean other people don't see it).

5 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

is very powerful

Nope, all powerful.  Omnipotent.  Your definition may be different from mine, but I think we can agree that God can do anything and everything He chooses to do.  The only thing we disagree on is whether it's even possible to create something from nothing.  (I refer you to The Sound of Music as my authority on that. ;) )

(Let's agree to skip the "Can God make a rock so heavy that He can't pick it up?" nonsense.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

 

Okay! :)

We don't need a long, drawn-out discussion of nuances! :P It's very simple!

There's no reason for us to accept this label, because it cannot be found anywhere in our teachings or official practice. If it was found in our teachings and was objectively what we did, then I should accept it to avoid being dishonest. But it's not.es polytheism, but then its followers seem to claim it's not polytheistic. That was my quandary, anyway.😕

Except I can say the exact same thing for the LDS on the nature of God...  I could explain how God is defining being ONE in the scriptures is in perfect harmony with what the LDS faith teaches, and that all our teaching are in harmony with that.  That will not matter to you because you disagree and you are more then happy to twist our teachings and practices to suit your preconceived ideas.

And you can claim all you want that the Catholic church isn't engaging in Idol worship that is not going to silence your critics. Just like you are doing they will claim that is what the Catholic church teaches and how many member practice, and they twist your teaching and practices to support their preconceived idea

And you proved my point...  You went on the defensive straightaway against the charge of Idol Worship..  You did stop and say 'you know from an outsider someone saying Hail Marys and Asking for help from the Patron Saint of Lost Causes can kind of look like worship of other Gods?' and you are totally against any kind of acknowledgement of it.  And yet you wonder why the LDS are behaving the exact same way

 

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MaryJehanne I would like you to list 5 ways Catholicism could be portrayed as polytheistic, and the 5 most important things you feel the Catholic Church has in common with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Which list would God approve of?

You may consider the first list to fundamentally false, but at least you might reconsider some of your focus on our faith as polytheistic. And I could probably improve upon your second list.

Friendly challenge accepted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

We don't like to be called that for the exact same reason you would be offended for being labeled a polytheist: cause it's GROSSLY inaccurate.  

Rather, we both believe in ONE God.  Three divine persons, but ONE God.  

Also GROSSLY inaccurate.   Again, ONE God.  Different persons, ONE God.

As am I and yes I love it.  

And what would you do if people falsely slapped the "polytheistic" label on you and persecuted you for it?

Welcome to my life.

I depends on who's asking.  

If it's a person who's honestly just misunderstanding things or misinformed, I'll talk to them about it and straighten things out.  Easy done, if they're willing to listen.

If (in the regrettably more common case), their ears are closed and they're obviously just wanting to falsely persecute me, I walk away.  I don't need to be in a toxic environment where people are going to misrepresent and mistreat me.

I haven't read forward past this post, so forgive me if these questions have been asked & answered. There are many discussions here about eternal progression (that Heavenly Father had a heavenly father). There is speculation about God the Mother. There is belief in exaltation--meaning future church members (some) will become divine (godlike...god?). There is eternity--meaning there may be an infinite number of gods out there--connected to Heavenly Father. Of course, so much of what I just said is speculative, "not official doctrine," etc. Yet, those speculations arise within the church, and almost never do in traditional Christian churches. And, from my non-member perspective, those religious wonderings feel at least henotheistic. I won't force a label on anyone who doesn't want it, but does my confusion about where this all lands seem understandable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Hi, Zil.

I'm sorry if I offended... I wasn't thinking very hard and long when I wrote that post, and I should have been more specific.

I know you believe he created you (I meant that God created me ex-nihilo), he loves you, always existed (although not always as God, the sole necessary being who was the I Am before anything), is very powerful (though in LDS belief he cannot create something from nothing), and will never cease. I wasn't sure about the more important than anything else, though... I got confused on a thread from a while ago that made me think otherwise and I can't remember if it was refuted. But I guess your post reasonably does the job! :) 

 

 

Are you saying you do not have parents?  Saying you were created ex-nihilo?  I do not believe you are thinking clearly what you are posting.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I haven't read forward past this post, so forgive me if these questions have been asked & answered. There are many discussions here about eternal progression (that Heavenly Father had a heavenly father). There is speculation about God the Mother. There is belief in exaltation--meaning future church members (some) will become divine (godlike...god?). There is eternity--meaning there may be an infinite number of gods out there--connected to Heavenly Father. Of course, so much of what I just said is speculative, "not official doctrine," etc. Yet, those speculations arise within the church, and almost never do in traditional Christian churches. 

They don't arise in Athanasian Creed holding churches because of the Athanasian Creed and it's statements on consubstantiality.  

4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

And, from my non-member perspective, those religious wonderings feel at least henotheistic. I won't force a label on anyone who doesn't want it, but does my confusion about where this all lands seem understandable?

I do understand your source of confusion and... man it is SO hard to get Athanasian Christians away from the idea of defining God as an unknowable substance!  

(I don't mean this offensively, just struggling with the best words here).

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

And, from my non-member perspective, those religious wonderings feel at least henotheistic. I won't force a label on anyone who doesn't want it, but does my confusion about where this all lands seem understandable?

The problem with "henotheistic" is that it suggests there are multiple options to choose from.  There are no other options for the children of God.  They have one God.  Even Satan and his followers, including those who will be sons of perdition after the resurrection, have no other choice - God is their one and only God.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that God has a brother, equal to him in every way.  We cannot choose to worship God's brother rather than God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I haven't read forward past this post, so forgive me if these questions have been asked & answered. There are many discussions here about eternal progression (that Heavenly Father had a heavenly father). There is speculation about God the Mother. There is belief in exaltation--meaning future church members (some) will become divine (godlike...god?). There is eternity--meaning there may be an infinite number of gods out there--connected to Heavenly Father. Of course, so much of what I just said is speculative, "not official doctrine," etc. Yet, those speculations arise within the church, and almost never do in traditional Christian churches. And, from my non-member perspective, those religious wonderings feel at least henotheistic. I won't force a label on anyone who doesn't want it, but does my confusion about where this all lands seem understandable?

Anyone's confusion is understandable, but an empathetic ear will help inform in proper context even without full agreement. Earth is the only place we can live, and no other planet in the solar system, though there are indeed othe planets in the solar system. We are no more henotheistic in our theology than the person who accepts that scientific fact for his cosmology or astronomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MaryJehanne you have created quite a stir in this portion of the internet x)

is it enough for us to say “yes, aspects of religion fit the definition of polytheism quite nicely, but we do not identify as a polytheistic religion. God is our father, Jesus is his son, and the Holy Ghost gives us that testimony.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fether said:

@MaryJehanne you have created quite a stir in this portion of the internet x)

is it enough for us to say “yes, aspects of religion fit the definition of polytheism quite nicely, but we do not identify as a polytheistic religion. God is our father, Jesus is his son, and the Holy Ghost gives us that testimony.”

In the conversation @MaryJehanne is engaging, it is only enough to say that if she agrees to say the exact same thing about Catholicism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zil said:

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that God has a brother, equal to him in every way.  We cannot choose to worship God's brother rather than God.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

Agency in your church is an even bigger doctrine than it is for us free-will types, right?

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.

(By "sphere", I do not mean "planet" - I mean it in the figurative way.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 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?

 

4 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.

(By "sphere", I do not mean "planet" - I mean it in the figurative way.)

One might speculate, for example, that there are infinite realities -- a la string theory extra spatial dimensions or the like: That's a fine and dandy theory, but until we can interact with those dimensions, it's just a theory that holds no practical meaning for us.

We only very, very loosely understand/believe that there are "infinite gods" that exist. We have very little, if any, revealed knowledge on that beyond the broad theory. Even their existence is not canon -- though commonly accepted as true.

In our "sphere" we have God and He is God. That is all.

I agree with zil. I don't think agency is related in any way. In fact, PC, I'm not sure what you're getting at with that idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 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.

(By "sphere", I do not mean "planet" - I mean it in the figurative way.)

@prisonchaplain

And to expound on this, if we were to choose to worship a God we think is there. That would be a form of idol worship. It would mean certain damnation for whoever engages in that act

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, zil said:

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that God has a brother, equal to him in every way.  We cannot choose to worship God's brother rather than God.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 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?

These come down to non-Biblical philosophies since there is no Bible reference to other universes. As the Lord told Moses, "only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them."

Yet the ten commandments, Psalms, Jesus and Paul reference "other" gods in one way or another. yet I do not consider any of these henotheistic teachings.

As you pointed out above, there are reasons we an surmise that there are other gods in other universes, but this is like saying there are other planets in the solar system; it doesn't mean they are the dust from which God made us, the dust to which we return, nor the dust from which we are resurrected.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Anyone's confusion is understandable, but an empathetic ear will help inform in proper context even without full agreement. Earth is the only place we can live, and no other planet in the solar system, though there are indeed othe planets in the solar system. We are no more henotheistic in our theology than the person who accepts that scientific fact for his cosmology or astronomy.

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.

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