Questions for Mormons

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Not only that, but what is polytheism and is Mormon theology really polytheistic? For that matter, what about trinitarianism?

Mormon theology is much better described as henotheistic rather than polytheistic. Henotheism is the devotion to one god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities. We accept the existence of other gods in both a metaphorical sense - ie the "worship" of money or material possessions - and in a literal sense - ie that God the Father (Elohim) and God the Son (Jesus Christ/Yahweh) are both seperate and distinct beings and both gods, as well as that we too can someday achieve godhood. However in accepting the existence of these other metaphorical and literal gods, we offer our devotion and worship to only one godhead, which is God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

You may find a lot of people who disagree on the application of the term "henotheistic" to mormons, and in general practice we are monotheistic. Henotheism is more applicable to say the ancient greeks in Athens, for example, who accepted the greek pantheon but were particularly devoted to Athena. In any case, I don't claim to know it all (as much as I might like to look like I do), and I suspect the majority of mormons don't know either, or at least don't think about it much.

One final note... The wikipedia article on henotheism has a small section devoted to mormons that states that "Though not mentioned in canonical LDS scripture, some Latter Day Saints infer the possible existence of other gods and goddesses." This is, in fact, false. The D&C does explicitly state that Abraham, among others, has achieved exaltation and godhood. See D&C 132:37.

[Brother Dorsey]

More and more, I tire of the "Questions for Mormons" threads that are full of pot shots, innuendo, and the type of questions that seem more appropriate for political negative advertising then respectful faith dialogue. I hope these off-the-cuff concerns prove more thoughtful and useful.

That's what I like about you PC. **** you'd make a good Mormon....can I interest you in Baptism?

Actually I would like to just answer one of your questions with a question:

8. Modern prophecy is not hard to accept. Christians often claim to have seen angels, dreams, and visions. But an open canon?

The question:

Throughout the Bible the Lord has added to the canon of His church....teaching line upon line, precept upon precept. Do you believe that God has stopped revealing truths to us regarding Him and His Gospel?

[prisonchaplain]

2. Could the church have really been apostate for 1800 years?

The Jewish faith and tradition was true for several thousand years. When Christ came, the Law of Moses was fulfilled and anyone who held on to that old truth became apostate, and thus we see that Jews have been apostate for 2000 years. But somehow that's not so hard to believe?

The idea that modern Judaism has been in apostasy for 2000 years is an intriguing and valuable response. Thank you.

3. Could the church have gotten so many doctrines so wrong for so long?

By "church" I assume you mean the Roman Catholic church.

Non-catholics, especially members of restorationist churches, tend to focus a lot on everything that the Catholic church got wrong, but we fail to see/understand/accept all the things that it got right as well. A comparison of early accepted apocryphal church writings with other contemporary writings of the time, especially gnostic texts, can show you how great of a division in doctrine there was very early on, even in the first century AD. Without direct revelation from God in these circumstances, it's easy to see how things could start to get sidetracked.

I actually had in mind non-LDS Christian churches in general. I see your point about apostasy not being a total dismissal, though.

5. Can the Bible really be reconciled with polytheism?

Yes. There are many scriptural references, even in the very beginning in Genesis, that refer to more than one god. My personal favorite is in Psalm 82 verse 6: Psalms 82

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

Can't get much plainer than that.

I'm pretty sure this is the one in which "gods" would be better translated "judges." "god" is often used in the OT to refer to false idols, and sometimes simply to powerful people. But Judaism, if nothing else, is stridently monotheistic. Here O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Duet. 6:4. This is called the schema, and is repeated by memory, every day, by religious Jews five and over.

6. Are we really eternal essences?

Jeremiah Chapter 1 verse 5

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

Verses like this are often used in the pro-life movement to prove that life begins at conception, as opposed to at birth. I'm not sure it can be used to prove eternal premortal existence.

7. I can understand the ban on drinking, smoking, gambling...but coffee?

Again Elgama touched on this one pretty well. When you look at the news with companies putting all sorts of addictive and unhealthy ingredients into their products, it's no wonder that we're commanded to be careful what we eat. While the world's answer to these mounting concerns is the new "organic" craze, the Mormon answer came 100 years before the problem even existed in the form of the "Word of Wisdom".

You offer a substantive answer to my one light-hearted question. If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then it would not be hard to accept the prohibition on coffee.

8. Modern prophecy is not hard to accept. Christians often claim to have seen angels, dreams, and visions. But an open canon?

Let me ask you a question. If we assume that the scriptural canon is closed, when was it closed and who closed it?

And let me be bold with a suggestion. At the end of the Old Testament is a single statement "The End of the Prophets". Let me suggest that this statement is NOT scripture. How does that change things?

I concur with Professor Craig Blomberg, in his dialogue with Stephen Robinson (BYU), who basically said, we see it as closed because there were no revelations after John's for over 200 years, before the NT canon was compiled, and clearly none for 1500 years after that.

So...no, there is no definitive closure to the NT...but John's apocalypse does indeed seem an appropriate close. And indeed, the Triple mostly runs within the same years as the Bible, not so much that comes afterwards, right? If I understand correctly, these three are seen more as "lost books" than latter day revelations.

9. Is there room in the New Testament writings for an element of faith practice that is so sacred it is kept from outsiders (Temple rituals)?

Most of the inner ceremonies in the Old Testament temples are not written in the Old testament and nobody but the Masons claim to have any clue what those ceremonies and rituals were, but we know they existed through Jewish tradition and ancient (non-canon) Jewish writings about them. Several times in Jesus' ministry he would perform a healing or a miracle, but he would ask those involved to not speak of it to anyone. Suppose this was because the ordinance he used to perform these miracles was something sacred?

Most Christians are well aware that OT Temple rituals were mostly viewed only by priests. We just don't see much of that in the NT. Further, the "keep quiet" commands of Jesus seem meant to keep a handle on the crowds. Jesus was both popular and controversial. When one healed person went ahead and spread the news, Jesus was forced to stay out in the countryside, and have people come to him.

10. Did Jesus really mean for a single, highly structured and hierarchical church organization to dispense spiritual authority (Catholics have no issues with this one)?

Catholics and Mormons agree that Christ left leadership of the institution known as the church in the hands of Peter. Papal decrees on doctrine will sometimes come "from the seat of Peter" (except in Latin), as the Pope is believed to have inherited that responsibility. Whether or not this is really what Christ meant to do is entirely up to speculation, since we have no record of his personal thoughts and motivations. But the archeological and scriptural evidence that such an organization existed even from the moment of Christ's death suggests that it was the case that Christ intended such an organization to exist.

Alternatively, if we (appropriately) think of Christianity as a branch of Judaism, Judaism had a highly structured and hierarchal organization as set forth in the Law of Moses in the book of Leviticus. It makes sense that the same god who instituted that organization would continue with a similar organization after that law was fulfilled.

I'd simply suggest that while I do see prophets, apostles, overseers (bishops/pastors), teachers, missionaries...yes there is some organization, it does not seem to form much above the level of the ward or congregation, in the NT. Other than the Acts 15 council, we do not see much of a role for church leaders that oversee the leaders of congregations.

Of course, most churches have them--but they do not insist that there be one organizational unity for the church universal. While it'd be nice, I'm not sure that such is required, prior to the 2nd coming.

[prisonchaplain]

But would this not have been done in anticipation of the $5 cup at Starbucks or else in sympathy of the lady who was scalded at McDonalds and was able to sue for millions?

Besides, think of those beatnik poets and their guitars in coffee houses at the time when Ezra Taft Benson was helping to uncover communist plots involving civil rights, coffee beans and rock n' roll. 'Nuff said.

Thank you for responding to this question in the spirit with which it was given (though with your own liberal-socialist taint...LOL)

[prisonchaplain]

Mormon theology is much better described as henotheistic rather than polytheistic. Henotheism is the devotion to one god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities.

Henotheism is an appropriate term. However, I'd apply the term polytheism in the broad sense, since most of the Christian world, the Jewish world, and the Islamic world, argue that God is absolutely one, and one other truly exists. So, if one allows for other gods to exist, but devotes to only one, s/he is still a polytheist. Henotheist might be more technically accurate, but is too obscure a term for most.

[skalenfehl]

You know...the more I read what I last wrote, particularly the last part, the more I feel like it didn't come out right. I hope you didn't take it that way. I really need to work on expressing myself better. I know you have a lot of faith and you cherish what you believe. Thank you for indulging me.

[prisonchaplain]

Skal, I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but I went back and note that your previous posts were well received, and even got "thanks" points. So...is there something you wanted to clarify even better than you already have?

[Moksha]

Thank you for responding to this question in the spirit with which it was given (though with your own liberal-socialist taint...LOL)

Happy to oblige. :):):) BTW, that taint is hard to wash off, but is does allow one easy access to Barnes and Noble.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

The idea that modern Judaism has been in apostasy for 2000 years is an intriguing and valuable response. Thank you.

I admit, I pulled that one out of my hat improv :)

I'm pretty sure this is the one in which "gods" would be better translated "judges." "god" is often used in the OT to refer to false idols, and sometimes simply to powerful people. But Judaism, if nothing else, is stridently monotheistic. Here O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Duet. 6:4. This is called the schema, and is repeated by memory, every day, by religious Jews five and over.

I found this site which is really a fantastic resource: Psalms Chapter 82 - Parallel Hebrew Old Testament however I can't find any documentation on where they get their Hebrew, whether it's "original" or not. I did cross-reference Psalm 82:6 with St John 10:34 where Jesus quotes the psalm, and the original greek ( Greek Bible ) word is Theos, capitalized, definitely meaning God(s).

In addition, ancient Hebrew culture accepted a pantheon of gods, with Yahweh/El(Elohim) as the head (there's a short blurb on this in the Wiki article on henotheism, but there's better sources for more detailed information). Elohim itself is a plural form. While archeologically and historically this is true, modern interpretations find ways of working around this and making it monotheistic. In the end there will always be alternative interpretations for scripture, it's up to you to decide which ones you'll accept.

Verses like this are often used in the pro-life movement to prove that life begins at conception, as opposed to at birth. I'm not sure it can be used to prove eternal premortal existence.

Here's a list Topical Guide: Man, Antemortal Existence of but again as I said above, there are always alternative interpretations...

You offer a substantive answer to my one light-hearted question. If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then it would not be hard to accept the prohibition on coffee.

Oops. I guess I need to work on my sense of humor.

I concur with Professor Craig Blomberg, in his dialogue with Stephen Robinson (BYU), who basically said, we see it as closed because there were no revelations after John's for over 200 years, before the NT canon was compiled, and clearly none for 1500 years after that.

That depends. There were many many people who claimed to have received visions or revelations, but most (all?) were denied because the "canon" was closed. Joan of Ark is one example, I'm sure I could come up with more if I had more time.

Most Christians are well aware that OT Temple rituals were mostly viewed only by priests. We just don't see much of that in the NT. Further, the "keep quiet" commands of Jesus seem meant to keep a handle on the crowds. Jesus was both popular and controversial. When one healed person went ahead and spread the news, Jesus was forced to stay out in the countryside, and have people come to him.

Yet again, the differing interpretations of Jesus' "keep quiet" verses is among those that you'll either accept or deny according to your own beliefs, both interpretations I think have equal merit from a scholarly standpoint. The exception being following verses where it's said that the people disobeyed him and spread it far and wide - IMO most of these seem to be commentary written in by later translators rather than the original writing of the gospel authors. There are numerous places in biblical scripture where translator commentary is painfully obvious, so this theory isn't too far-fetched to me.

I'd simply suggest that while I do see prophets, apostles, overseers (bishops/pastors), teachers, missionaries...yes there is some organization, it does not seem to form much above the level of the ward or congregation, in the NT. Other than the Acts 15 council, we do not see much of a role for church leaders that oversee the leaders of congregations.

Of course, most churches have them--but they do not insist that there be one organizational unity for the church universal. While it'd be nice, I'm not sure that such is required, prior to the 2nd coming.

A thorough study of the ancient christian church as portrayed in scripture and later writings definitely suggests a very loose organization of seperate congregations, however the epistles of Paul (and others) give a fair reason to assume that these congregations did accept a distinct and comprehensive leadership. Whether or not Christ set this up during his ministry is completely ambiguous in the accepted 4 gospels.

[skalenfehl]

Skal, I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but I went back and note that your previous posts were well received, and even got "thanks" points. So...is there something you wanted to clarify even better than you already have?

Thank you. I was referring to my delivery. I just don't want to come off as self absorbed or self righteous. I really try to explain things from the heart and not just try to be "right", but be moved by the Spirit to express what I need to say so that it comes out right. In other words, I didn't want to imply that you never took any leaps of faith. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive in this case.