Mormons: Henotheists or Polytheists?

[BDawg]

I’m sure you spent a lot of time and effort on your essay. However, Mormonism is not the result of the “restoration” of the original Christian doctrine. There is not a shred of evidence to support that view. Hence, you proceed from a false assumption.

Hi MelanieAnne,

I take issue with this statement, given that I quoted a number of passages from the Bible, early Christian Fathers, and modern historians (not Mormons) (whereas you did not support your assertions at all.) Remember that “evidence” is not the same as “absolute proof.” I presented a decent amount of evidence for my position. It may be that you can reinterpret that evidence within another framework, but it is clearly compatible with my position. And therefore, it is “evidence” for my position. If you can dig up other facts that don’t seem to you to fit with my position, but instead seem to fit with yours, that would count as “evidence” for your POV.

A real discussion takes real work, marshaling facts that seem to fit with your POV. Labeling takes no more work than opening your mouth, and thus throughout your post your only “argument” seems to be “Mormons are polytheists no matter what you say!!!” Well, put it on a bumper sticker if you want, but don’t expect me to take this kind of intellectual laziness seriously.

 

[RebeccaJ]

“Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.”

- Alma 36:18​

Granted, he was a Nephite, not LDS, but you get the idea.

Mormons tell me this is an exception…so no, LDS NEVER pray this prayer or anything like it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

BDawg, you clearly don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Maybe start with your own advice and learn what it is that every Christian believes, rather than not.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Hi MelanieAnne,

I take issue with this statement, given that I quoted a number of passages from the Bible, early Christian Fathers, and modern historians (not Mormons) (whereas you did not support your assertions at all.) Remember that “evidence” is not the same as “absolute proof.” I presented a decent amount of evidence for my position. It may be that you can reinterpret that evidence within another framework, but it is clearly compatible with my position. And therefore, it is “evidence” for my position. If you can dig up other facts that don’t seem to you to fit with my position, but instead seem to fit with yours, that would count as “evidence” for your POV.

A real discussion takes real work, marshaling facts that seem to fit with your POV. Labeling takes no more work than opening your mouth, and thus throughout your post your only “argument” seems to be “Mormons are polytheists no matter what you say!!!” Well, put it on a bumper sticker if you want, but don’t expect me to take this kind of intellectual laziness seriously.

This is not about intellectual laziness. It is about redundancy. This subject has been explored in depth repeatedly on these fora. If you’re interested in the in depth support it is freely available.

Unlike you, I do not choose to issue personal attacks. Is that how all Mormons deal with opinions they don’t like?

 

[BDawg]

BDawg, you clearly don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Maybe start with your own advice and learn what it is that every Christian believes, rather than not.

I’m sorry, Rebecca. What is it that I don’t understand?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m sorry, Rebecca. What is it that I don’t understand?

The doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Shall we start with this:

“Note that the word “simple” is a technical philosophical/theological term meaning “completely homogeneous” or “without parts.” If this is what God is, then the Trinity must be a single Being, a single spritual “substance.” But since the New Testament clearly presents them as three “persons,” the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must somehow all exist as distinct persons within an spiritual “substance” that has no parts. It’s supposed to be a mystery that is not accessible by human reason.” ?

 

[BDawg]

This is not about intellectual laziness. It is about redundancy. This subject has been explored in depth repeatedly on these fora. If you’re interested in the in depth support it is freely available.

Unlike you, I do not choose to issue personal attacks. Is that how all Mormons deal with opinions they don’t like?

So you’re saying that it’s even too much work to search the forum and post a link to whatever posts you think torpedo everything I said? I have no idea which posts you think definitively prove that Mormonism is “polytheistic” in unqualified sense, no-matter-what-I-say-about-oneness-of-purpose-SO-THERE.

Also, I don’t think I personally attacked you. I said I think labeling instead of discussing complex issues is intellectually lazy. I also said that I think you were indulging in labeling instead of discussing–i.e., you were being intellectually lazy. If it makes you feel better, I think that most people (including myself) tend to be intellectually lazy in many instances.

 

[BDawg]

Shall we start with this:

“Note that the word “simple” is a technical philosophical/theological term meaning “completely homogeneous” or “without parts.” If this is what God is, then the Trinity must be a single Being, a single spritual “substance.” But since the New Testament clearly presents them as three “persons,” the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must somehow all exist as distinct persons within an spiritual “substance” that has no parts. It’s supposed to be a mystery that is not accessible by human reason.” ?

Please do start with this. What was wrong with it?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Hostile behavior is not the sort of thing that makes someone have a discussion about anything at all, much less a complex topic. Goodbye.

 

[ibkc]

On the other hand, Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate Beings, whose spirits are human in form, and that physical bodies actually clothe the bodies of the Father and Son (1 Nephi 11:11; D&C 130:22). Furthermore, Mormons believe that men can become “gods” (D&C 132:20). Although it isn’t in our scriptures, Joseph Smith also taught the doctrine that God the Father was once a man like us, who has a Father, and who was exalted to be God (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345).

And that, my friend, is polytheism. It may “smack” of the terminology of the old pagans, but it is what it is. It cannot be what it is not.

Take pride in what you are.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Please do start with this. What was wrong with it?

“It’s supposed to be a mystery that is not accessible by human reason.”

 

[BDawg]

And that, my friend, is polytheism. It may “smack” of the terminology of the old pagans, but it is what it is. It cannot be what it is not.

Take pride in what you are.

I do take pride in what I am. I just recognize that I don’t have to accept your naive labels of “what I am.”

And I don’t really care what labels you place on my beliefs, as long as they don’t cause confusion. Many people just call Mormon theology “polytheistic” without explaining the nuances I did above, which causes people to have false ideas about what we believe. On the other hand, I took the time to explain our beliefs in some detail, and list some reasons in support of them. Personally, I think that approach is likely to promote much more understanding and discussion among people than a label war.

If you have a problem with what I wrote, in terms of it being dishonest or inaccurate, please let me know. That wasn’t my intention. But if you agree that what I wrote is a fair description and explanation of Mormon beliefs, why bother continuing to insist on the label of your choice? How does that advance anything? Is the goal of this thread to help the original poster and others apply the proper label to LDS beliefs, or to understand those beliefs? No matter what your goal is, I’ll go with the latter.

Rebecca, for instance, thinks I botched my description of the mainstream Trinity doctrine. I don’t think I did, but at least she seems willing to advance the discussion by picking out an issue that is substantive.

 

[BDawg]

“It’s supposed to be a mystery that is not accessible by human reason.”

Isn’t it?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Isn’t it?

The dogma of the Trinity is known, reasoned, by what God has revealed. These revelations, we call Mysteries.

 

[ibkc]

I do take pride in what I am. I just recognize that I don’t have to accept your naive labels of “what I am.”

Not naive. I was a polytheist myself, an honest and open one, for many years. I know polytheism when I see it.

Many people just call Mormon theology “polytheistic” without explaining the nuances I did above, which causes people to have false ideas about what we believe.

The nuances you described are beneficial in that they provide a window onto the Mormon thought process, yet still, they do not alter the fact the Mormon belief system is naked polytheism.

On the other hand, I took the time to explain our beliefs in some detail, and list some reasons in support of them. Personally, I think that approach is likely to promote much more understanding and discussion among people than a label war.

Yet your essay was rife with character attacks and snide comments aimed at Christians who refuse to go along with labeling polytheism as something other than what it is.

If you have a problem with what I wrote, in terms of it being dishonest or inaccurate, please let me know. That wasn’t my intention.

I do not think you, or any other member of a cult like the LDS church, is guilty of intentional dishonesty. I think you guys are fervently convinced that you have the truth, and that all the thousands of glaring inconsistencies in your belief system don’t matter or shouldn’t matter. You get angry when non-believers won’t go along with that premise.

But if you agree that what I wrote is a fair description and explanation of Mormon beliefs, why bother continuing to insist on the label of your choice? How does that advance anything? Is the goal of this thread to help the original poster and others apply the proper label to LDS beliefs, or to understand those beliefs? No matter what your goal is, I’ll go with the latter.

In a setting other than an forum designed for inter-religious debate, you can be sure I would let such claims slide, and simply pray for the claimant. But since we are where we are, I won’t sit by and let you try to obfuscate the issue with pretty-sounding words.

Rebecca, for instance, thinks I botched my description of the mainstream Trinity doctrine. I don’t think I did, but at least she seems willing to advance the discussion by picking out an issue that is substantive.

Great, I’m glad you approve of Rebecca’s approach. Now let me ask you how you advanced the discussion. The question of this thread is “Mormons: Henotheists or Polytheists???” Your answer was to say “Why is this being asked? People that ask this question and expect a concrete answer are silly poopie-heads.” Only you very craftily fluffed out that answer using a lot of red herrings about what you think the Trinity is, among other things. The only thing it demonstrated was that the dishonest techniques of post-structuralist “scholarship” are now being used by cultists to “explain” why they aren’t what they are.

 

[BDawg]

The dogma of the Trinity is known, reasoned, by what God has revealed. These revelations, we call Mysteries.

Hi Rebecca,

I did not say that Catholics think the Trinity doctrine is unreasonable. I said that a certain point about it is inaccessible to human reason. Catholic believe:

1. that God is a completely “simple” essence. “Simple” means “without parts.”
2. that there are Three Persons who are this single essence.

So the problem is, how can something completely “without parts” have any kind of “Threeness”?

It’s not just me thinking this kind of thing is “beyond human reason.” For instance, a Catholic ex-Mormon friend of mind gave me Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma as a good exposition of basic Catholic doctrines. It has all the “Nihil Obstats” and “Imprimaturs” in the front matter, so I assume it’s a reasonably good source? Anyway, Ott has a nice section on “The Relation of the Trinity to Reason” on pp. 74-75. His concluding sentence is, “Human reason cannot fathom the Blessed Trinity even after the dogma has been revealed by God (sent. fidei proxima).” (I have no idea what the Latin stuff at the end means, but it seemed impressive.)

St. Augustine put it this way. “What three? human language labors altogether under great poverty of speech. The answer, however, is given, three ‘persons,’ not that it might be [completely] spoken, but that it might not be left [wholly] unspoken.” (Augustine, On the Trinity 5:9, in NPNF Series 1, 3:92, brackets in original.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Bdawg, looking through the rest of what you wrote, it is an essay with the intent of supporting Mormon doctrine. Fine and dandy, I don’t see a problem with expressing what you believe. Though, you may want to tone down the rocks you’re throwing at Christians. Up to you, of course. At any rate, I have no interest in pulling it apart, piece by piece.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,

I did not say that Catholics think the Trinity doctrine is unreasonable. I said that a certain point about it is inaccessible to human reason. Catholic believe:

1. that God is a completely “simple” essence. “Simple” means “without parts.”
2. that there are Three Persons who are this single essence.

So the problem is, how can something completely “without parts” have any kind of “Threeness”?

It’s not just me thinking this kind of thing is “beyond human reason.” For instance, a Catholic ex-Mormon friend of mind gave me Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma as a good exposition of basic Catholic doctrines. It has all the “Nihil Obstats” and “Imprimaturs” in the front matter, so I assume it’s a reasonably good source? Anyway, Ott has a nice section on “The Relation of the Trinity to Reason” on pp. 74-75. His concluding sentence is, “Human reason cannot fathom the Blessed Trinity even after the dogma has been revealed by God (sent. fidei proxima).” (I have no idea what the Latin stuff at the end means, but it seemed impressive.)

St. Augustine put it this way. “What three? human language labors altogether under great poverty of speech. The answer, however, is given, three ‘persons,’ not that it might be [completely] spoken, but that it might not be left [wholly] unspoken.” (Augustine, On the Trinity 5:9, in NPNF Series 1, 3:92, brackets in original.)

And I say, and the Catholic Church teaches, that it is accessible to humans, by reason that God has revealed it.

But maybe addressing your question is a good starting point?

“So the problem is, how can something completely “without parts” have any kind of “Threeness”?”

I don’t believe the Catholic or Mormon doctrines are at odds in saying that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. Do you agree with that premise?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Not naive. I was a polytheist myself, an honest and open one, for many years. I know polytheism when I see it.

The nuances you described are beneficial in that they provide a window onto the Mormon thought process, yet still, they do not alter the fact the Mormon belief system is naked polytheism.

Yet your essay was rife with character attacks and snide comments aimed at Christians who refuse to go along with labeling polytheism as something other than what it is.

I do not think you, or any other member of a cult like the LDS church, is guilty of intentional dishonesty. I think you guys are fervently convinced that you have the truth, and that all the thousands of glaring inconsistencies in your belief system don’t matter or shouldn’t matter. You get angry when non-believers won’t go along with that premise.

In a setting other than an forum designed for inter-religious debate, you can be sure I would let such claims slide, and simply pray for the claimant. But since we are where we are, I won’t sit by and let you try to obfuscate the issue with pretty-sounding words.

Great, I’m glad you approve of Rebecca’s approach. Now let me ask you how you advanced the discussion. The question of this thread is “Mormons: Henotheists or Polytheists???” Your answer was to say “Why is this being asked? People that ask this question and expect a concrete answer are silly poopie-heads.” Only you very craftily fluffed out that answer using a lot of red herrings about what you think the Trinity is, among other things. The only thing it demonstrated was that the dishonest techniques of post-structuralist “scholarship” are now being used by cultists to “explain” why they aren’t what they are.