God, gods, and Mormonism: A question of definitions

[Lehi]

How many gods are there?

One of the challenges that plagues LDS/Trinitarian discussion of this subject is the equivocation of the word “god”. In other words, the word “god” is used to designate different ideas at different times, places, and by different people. I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately.

What exactly is a “god”? If you and I define that word differently, but we never point it out, we will forever be talking past each other. For example, if I tell you that my neighbor is an alien, you might assume that my neighbor is a small green man from Mars. In reality, my neighbor is just from a different country. We have equivocated on the word “alien”, changing the meaning of the word between us.

I think that is what is happening often when we talk about “gods”. When Isaiah declares that YHWH is the only “god”, what exactly does that mean? What is a “god” to Isaiah? Apparently Isaiah means to say that YHWH is the only one who has power to create, save, and foresee the future. If that is the meaning of “god” I have no reason to disagree with Isaiah! Mormonism teaches that only one “god” can do those things.

The word “god” is used in a variety of ways in LDS literature. Depending on context, the word “god” in LDS literature and discourse can mean any of the following:

1. Any member of the class of beings that are genetically related to God the Father (including Jesus, you, me, Oprah Winfrey, and every other pre-mortal and post-mortal spirit child of God the Father).
2. An individual who has joined himself to God the Father in a relationship of perichoresis, knowing what God knows, doing what God does, and participating in God’s plans. This person has achieved this status through grace, and has no power in himself to be this way alone. His power is actually God the Father’s power working through him.
3. Any object or idea which is worshipped, whether that object is real or not, and no matter how much power it actually wields.
4. The person God the Father, who alone has the power within himself to create, save, foresee, and accomplish all things.
5. The Godhead, including the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who operate in perfect unison as “one god” for the salvation of man.

Those are 5 different ways in which the word “god” is used in LDS literature and discourse. I’m sure we could come up with other ways.

When Trinitarians claim that there is only one “god”, which of the above definitions for “god” are they using? They are generally using something close to #4 or #5, though of course with their own unique Trinitarian take on it. Well, when LDS declare that there is only one “god” (and we do declare it), we also are defining “god” according to #4 or #5.

But what about when LDS claim that there are other gods? Well, it should be obvious by now that in those cases we are using definitions #1, #2, or #3. When we speak of man’s potential to be a “god”, we are using #2.

So, it doesn’t help to run around demanding that there is only one god unless it is carefully explained what exactly that means. When a Catholic says that there is only one god, the question ought to be asked, “What definition are you using for ‘god’?”

That same question should be asked for Moses, and Isaiah, and Paul, and Jesus, and for Joseph Smith. They all claim that there is only one god, yet they all also refer to multiple gods. It is clear that many definitions of the word “god” exists. Unfortunately, this leads to confusion and difficulty in LDS/Trinitarian dialogue.

Sincerely,
Lehi

 

[Rocket_Man]

How many gods are there?

One of the challenges that plagues LDS/Trinitarian discussion of this subject is the equivocation of the word “god”. In other words, the word “god” is used to designate different ideas at different times, places, and by different people. I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately.

What exactly is a “god”? If you and I define that word differently, but we never point it out, we will forever be talking past each other. For example, if I tell you that my neighbor is an alien, you might assume that my neighbor is a small green man from Mars. In reality, my neighbor is just from a different country. We have equivocated on the word “alien”, changing the meaning of the word between us.

I think that is what is happening often when we talk about “gods”. When Isaiah declares that YHWH is the only “god”, what exactly does that mean? What is a “god” to Isaiah? Apparently Isaiah means to say that YHWH is the only one who has power to create, save, and foresee the future. If that is the meaning of “god” I have no reason to disagree with Isaiah! Mormonism teaches that only one “god” can do those things.

The word “god” is used in a variety of ways in LDS literature. Depending on context, the word “god” in LDS literature and discourse can mean any of the following:

1. Any member of the class of beings that are genetically related to God the Father (including Jesus, you, me, Oprah Winfrey, and every other pre-mortal and post-mortal spirit child of God the Father).
2. An individual who has joined himself to God the Father in a relationship of perichoresis, knowing what God knows, doing what God does, and participating in God’s plans. This person has achieved this status through grace, and has no power in himself to be this way alone. His power is actually God the Father’s power working through him.
3. Any object or idea which is worshipped, whether that object is real or not, and no matter how much power it actually wields.
4. The person God the Father, who alone has the power within himself to create, save, foresee, and accomplish all things.
5. The Godhead, including the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who operate in perfect unison as “one god” for the salvation of man.

Those are 5 different ways in which the word “god” is used in LDS literature and discourse. I’m sure we could come up with other ways.

When Trinitarians claim that there is only one “god”, which of the above definitions for “god” are they using? They are generally using something close to #4 or #5, though of course with their own unique Trinitarian take on it. Well, when LDS declare that there is only one “god” (and we do declare it), we also are defining “god” according to #4 or #5.

But what about when LDS claim that there are other gods? Well, it should be obvious by now that in those cases we are using definitions #1, #2, or #3. When we speak of man’s potential to be a “god”, we are using #2.

So, it doesn’t help to run around demanding that there is only one god unless it is carefully explained what exactly that means. When a Catholic says that there is only one god, the question ought to be asked, “What definition are you using for ‘god’?”

That same question should be asked for Moses, and Isaiah, and Paul, and Jesus, and for Joseph Smith. They all claim that there is only one god, yet they all also refer to multiple gods. It is clear that many definitions of the word “god” exists. Unfortunately, this leads to confusion and difficulty in LDS/Trinitarian dialogue.

Sincerely,
Lehi

Many of you like to tell us that the truths of Mormon theology are self-evident upon a fair reading of the scriptures. Yet the fact that you have to invoke the DVA (The doctrine of divine investiture of authority: one person in the Godhead speak as an other)

en.fairmormon.org/Nature_of_God/Elohim_and_Jehovah#Divine_investiture

to make sense of certain scriptures should serve as pretty clear evidence that your proof-texting ducks really aren’t in a row. DVA works as a “Get-Out-of-Scriptural-Bind” card, and, at least as I’ve observed it used, has no limiting principle. Why grapple with the precise words of the text, if you know that you can always just fall back on DVA when your preferred Godhead reading doesn’t work and the going gets tough. Divine Investiture of Authority is a doctrine with no clear scriptural basis, and indeed an idea that makes God a deceiver.

Why would God the Father routinely instructs other entities to speak and act as if they were in fact the Father, when they weren’t? Also Why represent oneself as the Father, if one is not in fact the Father?

 

[Lehi]

You are more than welcome to disagree with the doctrine of DVA…in a thread about DVA. This one is about definitions and talking past each other when we speak of “gods”.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Mormons are henotheists – i.e., they believe there are many gods (or Gods), but that there is only one Earth God. One thing is certain: they’re not monotheists. Other gods (or Gods) have their own planets.

"WHAT IS EXALTATION?

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life that God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become [capital G] Gods like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation." Gospel Principles, published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Salt Lake City, Utah, 1988, p. 289-90.

Their double-speak makes them appear to be Christian, but they are not.

Example: They refer to the Trinity. But they do not mean what a Christian means by “Trinity.” They believe that Jesus is a spirit-child of the Heavenly Father and his Goddess wife. “We needed a savior . . . Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, ‘Here I am, send me’” … (Op Cit, pp. 15-16). Satan, the “brother of Jesus Christ” was also willing to go to Earth.

And it goes on . . . “Because our Heavenly Father chose Jesus Christ to be our Savior, Satan became angry and rebelled. There was a war in heaven. Satan and his followers fought against Jesus and his followers” (Op Cit, p.16).

So Jesus is not the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, but the brother of Satan, who was sent to Earth to save us. By Trinity, Mormons mean three distinct “gods”: the Heavenly Father and two “spirit-children” called the Son and the Holy Ghost. These are united in one “Godhead” – a term implying unity of understanding and purpose (A Tale of Two Cities, The Mormons - Catholics, Rev. William Taylor, The Little Red Hen, Inc., Pocatello, ID, 1980, p. 17).

Need I say, this is not Christianity?

 

[Lehi]

Hello Jim. I don’t agree with your assessment that Mormonism is not a form of Monotheism. It most certainly is.

What exactly is monotheism? Who decided? Leading NT scholar Larry Hurtado writes:

Definitions of monotheism must be formed on the basis of the beliefs and practices of those who describe themselves in monotheistic terms. This means that there will likely be varieties within and among monotheistic traditions, and that it is inappropriate for historical purposes to impose one definition or to use one definition as a standard of “strict” or “pure” monotheism in a facile manner.

“What do we mean by First Century Jewish Monotheism?” Larry Hurtado, Society of Biblical Literature paper, 1993.

There can be variation within “monotheism”. The ancient Israelites referred to many other beings in the heavens besides YHWH as “gods” (and I don’t refer to false, non-existent gods) and yet we hold them up as the standard for monotheism.

And, FYI, it isn’t any sort of official or semi-official belief of Mormonism that the universe is filled with gods who are co-equal in power and authority to God the Father, each ruling over his own planet. That is a caricature of Mormonism, one I don’t believe in.

 

[utunumsint]

How many gods are there?

One of the challenges that plagues LDS/Trinitarian discussion of this subject is the equivocation of the word “god”. In other words, the word “god” is used to designate different ideas at different times, places, and by different people. I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately.

What exactly is a “god”? If you and I define that word differently, but we never point it out, we will forever be talking past each other. For example, if I tell you that my neighbor is an alien, you might assume that my neighbor is a small green man from Mars. In reality, my neighbor is just from a different country. We have equivocated on the word “alien”, changing the meaning of the word between us.

I think that is what is happening often when we talk about “gods”. When Isaiah declares that YHWH is the only “god”, what exactly does that mean? What is a “god” to Isaiah? Apparently Isaiah means to say that YHWH is the only one who has power to create, save, and foresee the future. If that is the meaning of “god” I have no reason to disagree with Isaiah! Mormonism teaches that only one “god” can do those things.

The word “god” is used in a variety of ways in LDS literature. Depending on context, the word “god” in LDS literature and discourse can mean any of the following:

1. Any member of the class of beings that are genetically related to God the Father (including Jesus, you, me, Oprah Winfrey, and every other pre-mortal and post-mortal spirit child of God the Father).

How are we genetically related to the Father?

1. An individual who has joined himself to God the Father in a relationship of perichoresis, knowing what God knows, doing what God does, and participating in God’s plans. This person has achieved this status through grace, and has no power in himself to be this way alone. His power is actually God the Father’s power working through him.

It would seem that only Christ alone has this kind of knowledge.

1. Any object or idea which is worshipped, whether that object is real or not, and no matter how much power it actually wields.

Agreed.

1. The person God the Father, who alone has the power within himself to create, save, foresee, and accomplish all things.

Debatable, depending on how you see the Father in relation to the Holy Spirit and the Son.

1. The Godhead, including the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who operate in perfect unison as “one god” for the salvation of man.

Who share the same nature as well, not just the same operation.

Those are 5 different ways in which the word “god” is used in LDS literature and discourse. I’m sure we could come up with other ways.

OK. I see that you are speaking only about LDS.

When Trinitarians claim that there is only one “god”, which of the above definitions for “god” are they using? They are generally using something close to #4 or #5, though of course with their own unique Trinitarian take on it. Well, when LDS declare that there is only one “god” (and we do declare it), we also are defining “god” according to #4 or #5.

But what about when LDS claim that there are other gods? Well, it should be obvious by now that in those cases we are using definitions #1, #2, or #3. When we speak of man’s potential to be a “god”, we are using #2.

Agreed, but this is different from the way Christ participates in God, since he shares God’s nature.

So, it doesn’t help to run around demanding that there is only one god unless it is carefully explained what exactly that means. When a Catholic says that there is only one god, the question ought to be asked, “What definition are you using for ‘god’?”

That same question should be asked for Moses, and Isaiah, and Paul, and Jesus, and for Joseph Smith. They all claim that there is only one god, yet they all also refer to multiple gods. It is clear that many definitions of the word “god” exists. Unfortunately, this leads to confusion and difficulty in LDS/Trinitarian dialogue.

Sincerely,
Lehi

True. But the difference is very simple based on my understanding. LDSs are materialists. They do not believe in spiritual (non material) entity. Am I not correct?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Lehi]

True. But the difference is very simple based on my understanding. LDSs are materialists. They do not believe in spiritual (non material) entity. Am I not correct?

God bless,
Ut

Well, in a sense. We definitely believe that all things are composed of matter, including spirit. It is simply a more refined matter, not visible to our mortal eyes.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Hello Jim. I don’t agree with your assessment that Mormonism is not a form of Monotheism. It most certainly is.

“There are three Gods – the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – who, though separate in personality, are united as one in purpose, in plan, and in all the attributes of perfection” Mormon Doctrine, p. 387.

What exactly is monotheism? Who decided? Leading NT scholar Larry Hurtado writes:

Hurtado says monotheism can be redefined to mean whatever one wants it to mean, which makes the term meaningless.

There can be variation within “monotheism”. The ancient Israelites referred to many other beings in the heavens besides YHWH as “gods” (and I don’t refer to false, non-existent gods) and yet we hold them up as the standard for monotheism.

Judaism was a thousand years old before the first word of what we now call the Old Testament (a name given to these writings by the New Israel, the Catholic Church) was written, and another thousand years passed before the OT was completed. You are misinterpreting the OT Scriptures. They were written by Israelites, for Israelites (Jews). And the Jews are monotheists. That’s why they were “chosen” – to maintain the revelation that there is but one God and His laws. The ancient Israelites were surrounded by polytheists.

Mono = one, single, lone.
Poly = many, much

And, FYI, it isn’t any sort of official or semi-official belief of Mormonism that the universe is filled with gods who are co-equal in power and authority to God the Father, each ruling over his own planet. That is a caricature of Mormonism, one I don’t believe in.

Joseph Smith wrote: “In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people in it.” Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 349.

Smith also taught, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, the same as all God(s) have done before you.” Journal of Discourses, Vol. VI, p. 4

Peace be with you.

 

[utunumsint]

Well, in a sense. We definitely believe that all things are composed of matter, including spirit. It is simply a more refined matter, not visible to our mortal eyes.

The ancients pointed out that composite beings are destructible, and the more complex a being is, in the sense of matter, the more fragile its existence is. Also, a being that is created is dependant on what or who created it.

So from what I understand of Mormon theology, there are an infinite number of gods, each one creating other human offspring who themselves become gods, and so one, and so forth. One never gets to a truly uncreated and eternal being who is truly called creator of all space, time, matter, and in short, all being. Matter, from a mormon prespective, is coeternal with an infinite number of God, and in a very real sense, is more foundational.

From a philosophical point of view, I can’t see how this makes sense. Or is there a mormon answer to this objection?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Lehi]

“There are three Gods – the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – who, though separate in personality, are united as one in purpose, in plan, and in all the attributes of perfection” Mormon Doctrine, p. 387.

Again, I return to my initial posting here. We can’t know what it means to say that there are “three gods” unless we’ve defined the word “god.” If I say that there are three gods, but I don’t mean the same thing as when you say there are three gods, then we have talked past each other.

So, what is a “god”?

Hurtado says monotheism can be redefined to mean whatever one wants it to mean, which makes the term meaningless.

I disagree. Hurtado isn’t saying that at all. Hurtado is simply pointing out that a group who identifies themselves as “monotheist” have some say in defining what it means. I am more than willing to allow you to have some say in defining the word “Catholic” or the word “Pope”, as these are institutions you believe in. I’m not going to come up with an arbitrary definition for those words and then tell you if you meet the criteria. You get to make the criteria.

Same with “monotheism.” I identify myself as a monotheist, and therefore my variation of monotheism is indeed monotheism.

And the Jews are monotheists. That’s why they were “chosen” – to maintain the revelation that there is but one God and His laws. The ancient Israelites were surrounded by polytheists.

I agree the Jews were monotheists. But, I’m not defining “monotheism” the same way that you are. Instead, let us take a hard look at what the Jews really believed, and when we discover what it is, then that will be our definition for “monotheism.” If it doesn’t match our preconceptions of what monotheism should be, then we need to adjust our paradigm.

Perhaps we should open a thread discussing whether the Jews identified other “deities” besides Yahweh. I say that they absolutely did.

Mono = one, single, lone.
Poly = many, much

Monotheism is the worship of only one “god”. It doesn’t require the denial of the existence of other gods who are not worshiped.

Joseph Smith wrote: “In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people in it.” Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 349.

Smith also taught, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, the same as all God(s) have done before you.” Journal of Discourses, Vol. VI, p. 4

I again refer you to my initial post. What is the definition of “god” that Joseph Smith has in mind when he speaks this word? I assure you it is not “an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect and eternally righteous being.”

Peace be with you.

And with you.

Lehi

 

[dianaiad]

Again, I return to my initial posting here. We can’t know what it means to say that there are “three gods” unless we’ve defined the word “god.” If I say that there are three gods, but I don’t mean the same thing as when you say there are three gods, then we have talked past each other.

So, what is a “god”?

I disagree. Hurtado isn’t saying that at all. Hurtado is simply pointing out that a group who identifies themselves as “monotheist” have some say in defining what it means. I am more than willing to allow you to have some say in defining the word “Catholic” or the word “Pope”, as these are institutions you believe in. I’m not going to come up with an arbitrary definition for those words and then tell you if you meet the criteria. You get to make the criteria.

Same with “monotheism.” I identify myself as a monotheist, and therefore my variation of monotheism is indeed monotheism.

I agree the Jews were monotheists. But, I’m not defining “monotheism” the same way that you are. Instead, let us take a hard look at what the Jews really believed, and when we discover what it is, then that will be our definition for “monotheism.” If it doesn’t match our preconceptions of what monotheism should be, then we need to adjust our paradigm.

Perhaps we should open a thread discussing whether the Jews identified other “deities” besides Yahweh. I say that they absolutely did.

Monotheism is the worship of only one “god”. It doesn’t require the denial of the existence of other gods who are not worshiped.

I am enjoying this exchange…but your definition of ‘monotheism’ is actually the classic definition of ‘henotheism.’ Which, I contend, is more a subgroup of monotheism than it is polytheism.

…just inserting a comment. Carry on…

I again refer you to my initial post. What is the definition of “god” that Joseph Smith has in mind when he speaks this word? I assure you it is not “an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect and eternally righteous being.”

And with you.

Lehi

 

[Lehi]

The ancients pointed out that composite beings are destructible, and the more complex a being is, in the sense of matter, the more fragile its existence is. Also, a being that is created is dependant on what or who created it.

I don’t have a response to that off hand. I’d need to look into it a bit. It isn’t a subject I’ve researched much. You might consider emailing FAIR and asking the apologists there. They won’t bite your head off.

So from what I understand of Mormon theology, there are an infinite number of gods, each one creating other human offspring who themselves become gods, and so one, and so forth.

That is probably the most the most popular belief among Mormons. But, I quickly point out that it is not the only view, nor is it any sort of official or semi-official view. The LDS Church doesn’t have an official doctrine about that, because God hasn’t revealed anything about it.

One never gets to a truly uncreated and eternal being who is truly called creator of all space, time, matter, and in short, all being. Matter, from a mormon prespective, is coeternal with an infinite number of God, and in a very real sense, is more foundational.

It is true enough that one never gets to a truly uncreated and eternal being. We reject creatio ex nihilo, and therefore we don’t cleave the universe according Creator/creator. I’m not sure I’d say that matter is more foundational than God, but at any rate God is the master of matter and has total control over it.

From a philosophical point of view, I can’t see how this makes sense. Or is there a mormon answer to this objection?

Like I said above, this isn’t a subject I’ve done much research on. I am interested in it though. LDS philosopher Blake Ostler probably has a decent approach to this, but I haven’t asked him and I only own one volume of this three volume series. You can probably get in touch with him easy enough through his website www.blakeostler.com.

Sincerely,
Lehi

 

[TheosisM]

Monotheism is the worship of only one “god”. It doesn’t require the denial of the existence of other gods who are not worshiped.

Just to address this point: Monotheism is the belief in only one God, and therefore denies the existence of other gods. Monolatry is the worship of only one God, but not denying the existence of other gods who are not worshipped. The ending “latry” comes from “latreia/latria”, which is adoration/worship.

 

[Lehi]

I am enjoying this exchange…but your definition of ‘monotheism’ is actually the classic definition of ‘henotheism.’

…just inserting a comment. Carry on…

Thanks Dianaiad. I’m glad you mentioned it. As I understand it, “henotheism” and “monolatry” are words that scholars came up with to describe two different variations in monotheism. They took a hard look at ancient Israelite “monotheism” and they realized that it simply isn’t the “monotheism” preached by Hellenistic philosophers.

I prefer the following designations:

Metaphysical Monotheism (MM): The belief that the species “god” exists in only one instance. The holy Trinity is that instance. All other things that exist in any way are not a part of this species.

Kingship Monotheism (KM): The belief that more than one instance of the species “god” exists, but that one (1) of these instances is superior to all other instances. God the Father is that superior instance. The obvious analogy is to a king ruling over his kingdom. The members of his kingdom are the same fundamental species, but the king is superior to them all.

I believe that mainstream Trinitarian Christianity embraces MM, while ancient Israelites, 2nd Temple Jews, the earliest Christians, and now Mormons embrace KM.

 

[Lehi]

Just to address this point: Monotheism is the belief in only one God, and therefore denies the existence of other gods. Monolatry is the worship of only one God, but not denying the existence of other gods who are not worshipped. The ending “latry” comes from “latreia/latria”, which is adoration/worship.

I disagree. Monolatry is a subset of the umbrella of “monotheism”. The ancient Israelites were certainly monolatrists, yet we still refer to them as monotheists. Monolatry and henotheism are two kinds of monotheism.

 

[dianaiad]

I disagree. Monolatry is a subset of the umbrella of “monotheism”. The ancient Israelites were certainly monolatrists, yet we still refer to them as monotheists. Monolatry and henotheism are two kinds of monotheism.

Yet true monotheists (your 'Monolatry" folks) look at the Trinity and see that it crosses the line from true monotheism into a sort of polytheism.

I for one see the thing as a spectrum–and where the line is drawn varies according to the bias of the viewer:

Monotheism (One God, only one instance of ‘God,’ no other coming even close…)
|
|
Henotheism (One God to worship…other gods MAY be present, but are not considered nor worshiped)
|
|
your Kingship monotheism (One God to worship…other gods may exist but are not equal to, nor worshiped to the same extent as, the One on top)
|
|
True polytheism (the worship of many gods with equal authority within their own spheres, none having ascendency over the other.)

I think that almost all religions fall somewhere short of either extreme on this spectrum.

 

[utunumsint]

It is true enough that one never gets to a truly uncreated and eternal being. We reject creatio ex nihilo, and therefore we don’t cleave the universe according Creator/creator. I’m not sure I’d say that matter is more foundational than God, but at any rate God is the master of matter and has total control over it.

I suppose my problem with this understanding is also historical. I can’t find any evidence in early Christianity for this kind of belief. Pretty much all of the early church fathers call God without beginning, and eternal in the full sense of the word. And how can God be master and controller of matter if he can’t create it? And how come the early church fathers, and the bible itself say that God had no beginnning?

Then there is the description of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7.

Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

Without beginning of days… and again

23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Now if Jesus is truly a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, then he has no beginning of days, and he lives forever.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Lehi]

Yet true monotheists (your 'Monolatry" folks) look at the Trinity and see that it crosses the line from true monotheism into a sort of polytheism.

I for one see the thing as a spectrum–and where the line is drawn varies according to the bias of the viewer:

Monotheism (One God, only one instance of ‘God,’ no other coming even close…)
|
|
Henotheism (One God to worship…other gods MAY be present, but are not considered nor worshiped)
|
|
your Kingship monotheism (One God to worship…other gods may exist but are not equal to, nor worshiped to the same extent as, the One on top)
|
|
True polytheism (the worship of many gods with equal authority within their own spheres, none having ascendency over the other.)

I think that almost all religions fall somewhere short of either extreme on this spectrum.

Not bad. I’d probably adjust the spectrum a little, maybe something like this:

Metaphysical Monotheism

Kingship Monotheism/Monolatrism

Henotheism

True Polytheism

I placed Kingship Monotheism/Monolatrism ahead of Henotheism because in Henotheism one can consistently worship only one god, while accepting that other people/nations can legitimately worship a different god. Not so with Monolatrism.

 

[Lehi]

I suppose my problem with this understanding is also historical. I can’t find any evidence in early Christianity for this kind of belief. Pretty much all of the early church fathers call God without beginning, and eternal in the full sense of the word. And how can God be master and controller of matter if he can’t create it? And how come the early church fathers, and the bible itself say that God had no beginnning?

Then there is the description of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7.

Without beginning of days… and again

Now if Jesus is truly a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, then he has no beginning of days, and he lives forever.

God bless,
Ut

Hello Ut.

I probably ought to clarify a bit about what I believe. I believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit have each existed eternally. There was never a time when one of them did not exist, as the person that they are.

I also believe that they are composed of matter. Therefore, the matter that they are composed of is likewise eternal. I don’t separate the matter from the person who is composed of the matter. We can’t say that the matter preceded God, or that God preceded the matter, because God is the matter.

I hope you won’t incorrectly conclude that I am pantheistic or something like that. I don’t believe that God is in all matter. But, the finite amount of matter of which God is composed of is God, and therefore it isn’t possible to say that the matter precedes or is more foundational to God.

As for Early Christian beliefs on the matter (pun intended), I’m not expert on this issue either. Perhaps I can satisfy you by copying a pasting two brief paragraphs from an LDS apologetic source:

The earliest Christians, as Hatch intimates, believed the Jewish doctrine81 of creation from chaos. For instance, Justin Martyr wrote, "And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man’s sake, create all things out of unformed matter . . . ."82 Peter himself echoed the picture presented in Genesis 1:1-2 of a watery chaos from which the world was created. The New English Bible translates these passages in the following way: “In the beginning of creation . . . the earth was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters.” (Genesis 1:1-2 NEB) “There were heavens and earth long ago, created by God’s word out of water and with water . . . .” (2 Peter 3:5 NEB)

Young also lists Athenagoras, Hermogenes, and Clement of Alexandria among the early Christian writers who explicitly taught creation from chaos. For example, in his Hymn to the Paedagogus, Clement rhapsodized: "Out of a confused heap who didst create This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass Of matter didst the universe adorn . . . ."83 Indeed, in the third century Origen complained that he could not understand how so many learned people could have held this opinion: "And I cannot understand how so many distinguished men have been of [the] opinion that this matter . . . was uncreated, i.e., not formed by God Himself, who is the Creator of all things, but that its nature and power were the result of chance."84

81 The Jewish Apocryphal book of Wisdom preaches creation from formless matter, as well: “For thy almighty hand, which created the world out of formless matter, was not without further resource.” (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 NEB) It should be remembered that many Jewish apocryphal books, including Wisdom were accepted as inspired by Christians in the first two centuries after Christ. ECD 54. Consider also the same doctrine in some other ancient Jewish texts. “He formed substance from chaos and made it with fire and it exists, and he hewed out great columns from intangible air.” Sefer Yesira, quoted in Hayman, “Monotheism-A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?,” 2. “R. Huna said, in the name of Bar Qappara: 'If it were not written explicitly in Scripture, it would not be possible to say it: God created the heaven and the earth. From what? From the earth was chaos. . ., etc.” Bereshit Rabba, quoted in Hayman, “Monotheism-A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?,” 2. ECD 54.

82 Justin Martyr, First Apology 10, in ANF 1:165.

83 Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3:12, in ANF 2:296; cf. Excerpts of Theodotus 2, in ANF 8:43.

84 Origen, De Principiis 2:1:4, in ANF 4:269, brackets in original. Origen complained in another passage that “very many, indeed” had held this opinion:

fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap03.html#enloc82

 

[utunumsint]

Hello Ut.

I probably ought to clarify a bit about what I believe. I believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit have each existed eternally. There was never a time when one of them did not exist, as the person that they are.

So these are not created beings, but have eternally existed? Is this official LDS beliefs? Can you give me a source?

I also believe that they are composed of matter. Therefore, the matter that they are composed of is likewise eternal. I don’t separate the matter from the person who is composed of the matter. We can’t say that the matter preceded God, or that God preceded the matter, because God is the matter.

OK. This matches up with what I understand about LDS teachings.

I hope you won’t incorrectly conclude that I am pantheistic or something like that. I don’t believe that God is in all matter. But, the finite amount of matter of which God is composed of is God, and therefore it isn’t possible to say that the matter precedes or is more foundational to God.

So what you have three eternal gods who are localized in time and space, composed of matter, shaping a world out of preexisting matter. Is this correct?

And you also hope to become as they are, God’s of your own planets? Is this also true? But unlike them, you would not be eternal… or perhaps it would be better described as aviternal? Correct?

As for Early Christian beliefs on the matter (pun intended), I’m not expert on this issue either. Perhaps I can satisfy you by copying a pasting two brief paragraphs from an LDS apologetic source:

Here, maybe I should clarify a couple of things.

Abraham lived in a polytheistic world. There were other competing Gods around, but for him, he worshipped only one God, and this God entered into a relationship with him, and his offspring. It would be anachronistic to impose on Abraham, theological revelations provided to later generations, such as the revelation of God’s name of Moses. So there was a progression in the understanding of the people of God concerning God’s nature, the nature of other so called Gods, the power of God over creation, and his continued relation to creation.

For example, what was revealed during the exodus was the total power of Yahweh over other so called Gods, especially Pharaoh, who was believed to be a God in those days.

Next came the Baals, and the Asherahs attacked in the period of Amos and Hosea. The close you get to the exile, the higher the monotheistic thought and revelations in the prophets.

Again these are progressive revelations, and the insights of every generation do not simply become unapplicable. Genesis 1 and 2 are always relevant. God created (bara) out of chaos (toho bohu), but this does not invalidate the future progressions in revelation, for example, 2 Macabees 7

28 I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things; and in the same way the human race came into existence.

and Hebrews 11

3 By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

Throughout the entire bible, the conception of God’s dominion and power over nature, man, evil, the entire cosmos becomes more and more pronounced, until we reach these ideas where God is the source of all time, space, matter, and in short, all that is visible.

The early church fathers new this.

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9204frs.asp

That is not to say that the tendency to fall into a dualistic theology did not manifest itself from time to time, but it was certainly not the norm and was vigorously rejected by the church, its councils, and the magisterium.

God bless,
Ut