Mormons: Henotheists or Polytheists?

[BDawg]

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.

On the contrary, I think it is intellectually lazy to rely solely on labeling, without nuanced explanation. I don’t reject the use of labels in any circumstance. If you want to insist on a certain label, I’m fine with that, but I ask that you accompany that with a fair explanation of how we view the Divine Unity. It’s been my experience that many people develop misunderstandings about us when all they hear is the label. Wouldn’t you agree?

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.

So you agree with Rebecca that I botched my description of the mainstream Trinity doctrine? How so?

 

[BDawg]

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

Maybe I’m just not understanding what you mean by this? Do you disagree with Ott’s assessment that I posted?

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?

So far, so good.

 

[BDawg]

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.

Hi Rebecca,

That’s fine if you don’t want to dissect it. I posted it to help people understand Mormonism better. However, I’m not sure what you think of as the “rocks” in my post. I made some comments about people being “intellectually lazy” when they rely solely on labeling to argue their case, but I see Mormons doing the same thing all the time. It’s sort of a general human trait, if you ask me. Was there anything else? (I’m asking because it’s very hard to post on the internet with the proper “tone.” Sometimes I get annoyed and I mean to be snide and sarcastic–like with hosemonkey–but most of the time I don’t mean to.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Maybe I’m just not understanding what you mean by this? Do you disagree with Ott’s assessment that I posted?

“Human reason cannot fathom the Blessed Trinity even after the dogma has been revealed by God (sent. fidei proxima).”

Yes, I agree. But I think you are reading it as is is impossible, as a human with perfectly good reasoning capabilities, to accept.

sent. fidei proxima = " A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church. (“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, Ott, Dr. Ludwig)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,

That’s fine if you don’t want to dissect it. I posted it to help people understand Mormonism better. However, I’m not sure what you think of as the “rocks” in my post. I made some comments about people being “intellectually lazy” when they rely solely on labeling to argue their case, but I see Mormons doing the same thing all the time. It’s sort of a general human trait, if you ask me. Was there anything else? (I’m asking because it’s very hard to post on the internet with the proper “tone.” Sometimes I get annoyed and I mean to be snide and sarcastic–like with hosemonkey–but most of the time I don’t mean to.)

The mentally lazy Monotheism Police…comes across as anyone who disagrees with Mormonism are mentally lazy autocrats.

 

[MelanieAnne]

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.

This touches on a point that frequently crops up when the subject is Mormonism. There always seems to be (at least) 2 tracks ~

One one hand, Mormon theology starts out by poking a finger in the eye of the Christian world by saying that all of them are wrong and are apostates. And indeed some of us are accused of a grand coverup centuries ago. For years Mormons took pains to distinguish themselves from other faiths. Now it seems they want to be “mainstream”, hence differences are ignored or played down, similarities are emphasized. So it’s gone from “we are nothing like you, you are all wrong” to “we’re just like you except for a few unimportant things that we don’t really need to talk about”.

On one hand, Mormons will say they are proud of their church and who they are. But they hide much of their doctrine from prospective converts, not exactly a sign of pride and confidence.

One one hand many Mormons will claim indifference to the opinions of others, yet will fuss over some description or another if it is thought to be unflattering. Why should that be so? If the Mormon church is “true” as its adherents claim, the opinions of the rest of the world don’t matter. What matters is the truthfulness of the faith.

 

[ibkc]

On the contrary, I think it is intellectually lazy to rely solely on labeling, without nuanced explanation. I don’t reject the use of labels in any circumstance. If you want to insist on a certain label, I’m fine with that, but I ask that you accompany that with a fair explanation of how we view the Divine Unity. It’s been my experience that many people develop misunderstandings about us when all they hear is the label. Wouldn’t you agree?

I would indeed, however, I don’t see that as happening in this thread. Re-read the first page, if you will, and you will see that several of us explained why the label of polytheism fits nicely.

So you agree with Rebecca that I botched my description of the mainstream Trinity doctrine? How so?

Honestly, BDawg, you botch most of your descriptions of orthodox Christianity in some way or other. That is because you approach it from the premise that the LDS church is true and all other belief systems are false. It’s like reading an atheist’s description of religion in general, or a young-earth creationist’s explanation of the theory of evolution. Before you say, “Ah-HAH! You all do the exact same thing with the LDS church and all non-Catholic churches!” I will concede that this is true, but since we’re all about “nuance” here, we should also concede that this tendency varies with the level of personal experience any individual has with another belief system, and the level of objectivity being applied to any given question.

A label such as “polytheism” applied to the Mormon belief system can objectively said to be accurate. If you describe the Mormon notion of divinity to a disinterested 3rd party who knows nothing about Mormons, using your description in the essay you posted above, the reasonable and expected answer is “that’s polytheism.” That is a neutral response based on the bare information given. Now, any value judgment attached to that response veers off the path of objectivity. But the question asked in the title of the thread doesn’t ask for value judgments.

 

[BDawg]

Yes, I agree. But I think you are reading it as is is impossible, as a human with perfectly good reasoning capabilities, to accept.

No, I didn’t mean that. Thanks for the Latin translation.

 

[BDawg]

The mentally lazy Monotheism Police…comes across as anyone who disagrees with Mormonism are mentally lazy autocrats.

Ok, maybe that was a little over the top. But I wasn’t talking about “anyone who disagrees with Mormonism.” I was talking about people (including Muslims who criticize YOUR doctrine on similar grounds, BTW) who argue solely through labeling, and cannot brook any kind of nuanced discussion.

 

[BDawg]

Honestly, BDawg, you botch most of your descriptions of orthodox Christianity in some way or other. That is because you approach it from the premise that the LDS church is true and all other belief systems are false. It’s like reading an atheist’s description of religion in general, or a young-earth creationist’s explanation of the theory of evolution. Before you say, “Ah-HAH! You all do the exact same thing with the LDS church and all non-Catholic churches!” I will concede that this is true, but since we’re all about “nuance” here, we should also concede that this tendency varies with the level of personal experience any individual has with another belief system, and the level of objectivity being applied to any given question.

So you’re saying that my description of the doctrine was botched because I disagree with the doctrine? That makes no sense.

Honestly, I don’t mean to describe your doctrines inaccurately. If you would point out what exactly I botched, I might change my ways. So far Rebecca has said that I botched it when I said that a certain part of the Trinity doctrine was inaccessible to human reason, but I thought (and I still think) this was a standard way for Catholics to talk about it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So you’re saying that my description of the doctrine was botched because I disagree with the doctrine? That makes no sense.

Honestly, I don’t mean to describe your doctrines inaccurately. If you would point out what exactly I botched, I might change my ways. So far Rebecca has said that I botched it when I said that a certain part of the Trinity doctrine was inaccessible to human reason, but I thought (and I still think) this was a standard way for Catholics to talk about it.

The Trinity doctrine is not inaccessible to humans. Not even a part of it. What is inaccessible to humans, now, is an immediate knowledge of God. We can obtain now a mediate knowledge of God. That mediate knowledge is obtained by all that God has revealed, and most especially, the Revelation of God as Man.

Catholics say the Trinity is a Mystery, not an inaccessibility.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ok, maybe that was a little over the top. But I wasn’t talking about “anyone who disagrees with Mormonism.” I was talking about people (including Muslims who criticize YOUR doctrine on similar grounds, BTW) who argue solely through labeling, and cannot brook any kind of nuanced discussion.

That intent doesn’t come through, as your essay is squarely aimed at Trinity vs Mormon doctrine.

 

[MelanieAnne]

That intent doesn’t come through, as your essay is squarely aimed at Trinity vs Mormon doctrine.

The conclusion also doesn’t leave room for the possibility that some posters may not be “intellectually lazy” but instead find the topic tiresome. It is not necessarily the case that posters described as those who “argue solely through labeling” (which is subjective in itself) are unwilling to “brook any kind of nuanced discussion”. Instead, it may be that the Mormon arguments have been made and refuted over and over. Yet the OP was unwilling review the archives, instead demanded that others do the work. And then when they decline THEY are described as “intellectually lazy”

 

[BDawg]

The conclusion also doesn’t leave room for the possibility that some posters may not be “intellectually lazy” but instead find the topic tiresome. It is not necessarily the case that posters described as those who “argue solely through labeling” (which is subjective in itself) are unwilling to “brook any kind of nuanced discussion”. Instead, it may be that the Mormon arguments have been made and refuted over and over. Yet the OP was unwilling review the archives, instead demanded that others do the work. And then when they decline THEY are described as “intellectually lazy”

If you find the topic so “tiresome,” then why did you bother with your post? Did it add anything to the discussion? No, you just swept away all the documentation I provided with a simple “not a shred of evidence” proclamation, and then pronounced that Mormons are polytheists no matter what I say. And what did you offer as “evidence”? Under duress, you finally copped out by saying that others had already covered this. Where? When? Did they deal with the kind of evidence I presented? I have no idea. Even ibkc at least pointed to part of my description of LDS belief and said that, in his book, that equals polytheism. Fine. At least he referenced SOMETHING besides his own mental processes.

 

[BDawg]

That intent doesn’t come through, as your essay is squarely aimed at Trinity vs Mormon doctrine.

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I’ll tone it down before I annoy you again by reposting it when the subject comes up again.

 

[MelanieAnne]

If you find the topic so “tiresome,” then why did you bother with your post? Did it add anything to the discussion? No, you just swept away all the documentation I provided with a simple “not a shred of evidence” proclamation, and then pronounced that Mormons are polytheists no matter what I say. And what did you offer as “evidence”? Under duress, you finally copped out by saying that others had already covered this. Where? When? Did they deal with the kind of evidence I presented? I have no idea. Even ibkc at least pointed to part of my description of LDS belief and said that, in his book, that equals polytheism. Fine. At least he referenced SOMETHING besides his own mental processes.

You have no idea what has gone before because you haven’t bothered to look. Instead you insist others do your work for you and if the don’t you call them names. And yet you have the temerity to call those who refuse to do your work for you “lazy”.

We are called to proclaim the truth. We refute error. Even when the arguments are tiresome.

 

[BDawg]

The Trinity doctrine is not inaccessible to humans. Not even a part of it. What is inaccessible to humans, now, is an immediate knowledge of God. We can obtain now a mediate knowledge of God. That mediate knowledge is obtained by all that God has revealed, and most especially, the Revelation of God as Man.

Catholics say the Trinity is a Mystery, not an inaccessibility.

Hi Rebecca,

I still don’t understand what you make of statements like those of Ott and Augustine that I posted. You said you thought I was saying that a reasonable person could not accept the Trinity doctrine, but I clarified that I did not mean that. You seemed to be starting some line of reasoning by getting me to agree that all of us think the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. I’d like to see where you’re going, because I’m still convinced that Catholics say that certain parts of the Trinity doctrines are beyond human reason.

As I understand it, the RCC says that Reason based on Revelation tells them that God is a single, unique, eternally unchanging and simple essence, and that Three distinct Persons are God. How exactly this can be the case is a “Mystery” that humans can’t fully comprehend.

 

[BDawg]

You have no idea what has gone before because you haven’t bothered to look. Instead you insist others do your work for you and if the don’t you call them names. And yet you have the temerity to call those who refuse to do your work for you “lazy”.

We are called to proclaim the truth. We refute error. Even when the arguments are tiresome.

Why is it MY job to find the evidence for YOUR point? I don’t even have a clear idea what to look for in the thousands and thousands of posts on this forum. You are the one who claims this has all been settled before, with gobs of evidence, rather than just the usual assertions. Wouldn’t it be nice to live in your world, where it’s everyone else’s job to do your work?!

I’m fine with you “proclaiming the truth” as you see it, but where, exactly, did you ever “refute” anything? I just looked at Dictionary.com to find the definition of “refute,” and got this:

1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
2. to prove (a person) to be in error.

It seems to me that “refuting” something at least requires that you provide some evidence for your position, no? You even say that you refute error “Even when the arguments are tiresome.” I thought you were just claiming that you didn’t have to provide any evidence, because the argument was tiresome to you.

But anyway, have at it. Refute away.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Why is it MY job to find the evidence for YOUR point? I don’t even have a clear idea what to look for in the thousands and thousands of posts on this forum. You are the one who claims this has all been settled before, with gobs of evidence, rather than just the usual assertions. Wouldn’t it be nice to live in your world, where it’s everyone else’s job to do your work?!

I’m fine with you “proclaiming the truth” as you see it, but where, exactly, did you ever “refute” anything? I just looked at Dictionary.com to find the definition of “refute,” and got this:

1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
2. to prove (a person) to be in error.

It seems to me that “refuting” something at least requires that you provide some evidence for your position, no? You even say that you refute error “Even when the arguments are tiresome.” I thought you were just claiming that you didn’t have to provide any evidence, because the argument was tiresome to you.

But anyway, have at it. Refute away.

I didn’t say I refuted it in the post I wrote. I didn’t claim to have provided the scholarly argument you say you are looking for. I said it had been refuted. Endlessly. On these fora.

And I declined to do your work for you. I still do. Even if I were to do so, what would be the purpose? To what end? So that I can be treated to yet another of your oh-so-gracious posts? I think not.

 

[BDawg]

I didn’t say I refuted it in the post I wrote. I didn’t claim to have provided the scholarly argument you say you are looking for. I said it had been refuted. Endlessly. On these fora.

And I declined to do your work for you. I still do. Even if I were to do so, what would be the purpose? To what end? So that I can be treated to yet another of your oh-so-gracious posts? I think not.

No problem. Catholics who find it too tiresome to support their points make less work for me.