Mormonism is polytheistic?

[Madalch]

Correct. Being sealed in a temple is a requirement (amongst others).

My Mormon friend keeps talking about being sealed in the temple. It seemed like a great idea for devout Mormons, but then I found out that they do get let out eventually.

 

[RobRoy]

My Mormon friend keeps talking about being sealed in the temple. It seemed like a great idea for devout Mormons, but then I found out that they do get let out eventually.

It's better to let them out. They're great at parties. You always have a designated driver!

 

[MattusMaximus]

It's better to let them out. They're great at parties. You always have a designated driver!

It's true - I can vouch for that!

 

[aggle-rithm]

I don't think so.

It's by no means unique to Mormonism but yeah. And why not? What is a god and given a billion or trillion years or more why couldn't humans acheive a status of god?

The waiting lists are hell, but it's good work if you can get it.

 

[tsig]

Ummmm . . . It's not my religion, and it doesn't bother me to explain it. Sorry for any confusion

If you are trying to imply that I made a mistake, you're right.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I was once a Catholic and was NEVER taught or even expected to see the saints as demi-gods in any way. They were presented as people we could hope to emulate or ask for intercession if we wished. They were meant to be inspirations, not considered gods or demi-gods. And I was in college when I became Catholic. Where did you hear that demi-god thing?

I've heard that the saints were snuck in as replacements for the local gods worshipped by the rurual Pagans in the early church. Thus, the god of bad weather became the patron saint of bad weather, the god of chocolate became the patron saint of chocolate, and so on.

That way they could be Christian without completely giving up their local culture.

 

[RobRoy]

If you are trying to imply that I made a mistake, you're right.

No worries. I have generally more information about the LDS church than I really should have, even though I am not now nor have I ever been a member of that faith. It can easily come across that I am LDS, which is why someone suggested my title under my avatar to help correct this.

Doesn't always work, but I don't mind. I've been called worse things. Once, someone called me a right-wing conservative. I cried myself to sleep for days.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Its possible for a follower of a faith to have almost no idea what its about.
I was a Catholic, and honestly never knew what it was about.
Priests mutter something; you kneel.
Dip you fingers in the bowl, and make a zig-zag motion on your chest.
The meaning behind the gestures, I suspect, is incomprehensible by design.

Kneeling shows reverence during the most sacred parts of the liturgy. It may have served as a marker to uneducated churchgoers that didn't understand the Latin liturgy and had to be told to get in an appropriate position for what was going on.

The bowl of water is a diminuation of a baptismal tub that churchgoers once dunked their bodies into in order to cleanse them of the fillth of the outside world before going into the church. It's logistically a little more practical to symbolically "dunk" yourself by just getting a little bit on your fingers.

The zig-zag motion is the sign of the cross. Priests also do it on their foreheads.

These gestures are not purposefully incomprehensible, it's just that the traditions are so lost in antiquity that they appear that way to our modern eyes.

 

[RobRoy]

Kneeling shows reverence during the most sacred parts of the liturgy. It may have served as a marker to uneducated churchgoers that didn't understand the Latin liturgy and had to be told to get in an appropriate position for what was going on.

More simple than that. Kneeling has almost always been a sign of submission.

The bells used during the celebration of the mass are more in keeping with letting the uneducated masses know where things were at.

These gestures are not purposefully incomprehensible, it's just that the traditions are so lost in antiquity that they appear that way to our modern eyes.

I'm not even certain that's true. You were able to figure out most of them just by thinking it through, without the need to cite a reference. I'd agree with where you went. Give a little thought to the ceremony, and it makes sense where it originated.

 

[quarky]

Am I being too cynical too suggest that possibly the majority of followers of a faith simply go through the motions of the ceremonies, without any connect to their underlying meaning? And that said theists can be considered as legitimate?

Isn't the main thing to just show up? And you get full credit? At least in the eyes of others?

As a sinful child, i had to say a boat load of "Hail Mary's". It meant nothing to me. The point was to do it as fast as you could. The underlying theme, to me, was punishment.
A nun told me that we wouldn't need to go to church, if it wasn't for Adam and Eve's blunder.

I got out, but lots of my peers kept it up. I know those guys. It never made a lick of sense to them, either, and likely still doesn't. There is no passion in it for them.
Theism is simply another one of life's unpleasantries, like washing the dishes or going to school... a fact of life, without regard to its factuality. If you say the "Hail Mary's", no one will ask if you were sincere, or if you care about the meaning.

Theism is like oppressed atheism in this regard.
Nobody wants to kneel down and bow their head. Its a subserviant gesture, often painful. (Catholics in the 50's had to do a lot of kneeling, and you weren't supposed to lean your butt against the seat.)

 

[Delvo]

I was once a Catholic and was NEVER taught or even expected to see the saints as demi-gods in any way. They were presented as people we could hope to emulate or ask for intercession if we wished.

Wouldn't Satan technically be a god?

I've heard that the saints were snuck in as replacements for the local gods worshipped by the rurual Pagans in the early church... That way they could be Christian without completely giving up their local culture.

Another bit of the history of the polytheistic Christianity idea is that the Jews' ancestors long ago had a pantheon before they picked one of them as the favorite and started elevating him above the rest, relegating the rest to the level of "angels".

But regardless of the history of how it got that way (and even if the historical explanation is wrong), it's entirely reasonable to call modern Christianity, most especially Catholicism, polytheistic, just based completely on how they practice their religion themselves today... it's just that they don't call it that themselves.

They don't CALL their angels or saints, or Jesus or Mary, "gods", but those entities' alleged traits and the way the religious relate to them is just like the traits of polythesisms' gods and how those religions' followers relate to them. Similarly, they don't CALL their endless supply of alleged relics and rosaries and little palm-size crosses and such "idols" or "talismans" or "fetishes", but the roles the objects play and how they're treated are exactly the same. They don't CALL their prayers "incantations" or "attempted magick", but there's no practical difference in how they're done or what they're for. They don't CALL their vestments the exact equivalent of a witch doctor's big painted mask with all the animal hair or straw sticking out of it, but it is.

Such denialist word games are the only way they can claim to somehow be different and not doing the silly awful primitive things those OTHER people do, while still actually carrying on in precisely the same multi-godded, spell-casting, idol-worshipping manner. They can call it something else if they want to, but it's still really just the same old thing in a different costume.

 

[RobRoy]

Am I being too cynical too suggest that possibly the majority of followers of a faith simply go through the motions of the ceremonies, without any connect to their underlying meaning? And that said theists can be considered as legitimate?

Sure. For example, and much to my wife's joy, I could easily become a member of the LDS faith by simply going through the motions. It would, on the matter of religion, ease my life with her. But my hypocrisy, and my desire to wear un-supportive underwear, only go so far.

Isn't the main thing to just show up? And you get full credit? At least in the eyes of others?

Sure, and for some faiths, that's all that's required. Other faiths require just a touch more. For example, the LDS whom we have been discussing, require a bit more than just showing up. A member in good standing is expected to hold a service position ("calling") within the church. They are expected to pay their full 10% tithe. If they marry (to get full credit) they have to marry another member in good standing in a temple. They must perform certain efforts, including their own geneology which assists the temple work of Baptisms for the Dead. And so forth.

I got out, but lots of my peers kept it up. I know those guys. It never made a lick of sense to them, either, and likely still doesn't. There is no passion in it for them.
Theism is simply another one of life's unpleasantries, like washing the dishes or going to school... a fact of life, without regard to its factuality. If you say the "Hail Mary's", no one will ask if you were sincere, or if you care about the meaning.

I would wager it's cultural for them as well. Whether this is in regards to their parents or their peers doesn't really matter. Nothing says pressure like your entire family condemning an action of yours.

(Catholics in the 50's had to do a lot of kneeling, and you weren't supposed to lean your butt against the seat.)

Still do and still aren't.

 

[GreNME]

Another bit of the history of the polytheistic Christianity idea is that the Jews' ancestors long ago had a pantheon before they picked one of them as the favorite and started elevating him above the rest, relegating the rest to the level of "angels".

Not meant as a derail here, but how prevalent is this claim? I keep seeing it pop up every now and then, and have never found any strength in basis for it. As far as I'm aware, the closest any historical ancestors of Jews came to polytheism is that they often assimilated themselves into nearby culture, often for survival purposes. The actual religious stories (as far as can be told, considering the heavy oral tradition) still shows them as being monotheistic, even if it's a monotheism that their god is mightier and more 'real' than the others (who were called false gods). The entire story of the Hebrew people is one that basically revolves around them agreeing that this single god is the One True Deity and all others are false-- it's practically the only defining factor separating them from the other people of the Arabian/Mesopotamian region, since DNA evidence shows them to be pretty much the same people.

I mean, I suppose it could be said that the predecessors to the Hebrews were polytheistic, but mostly in a weak manner and they weren't what we could accurately call "the Hebrews." Frankly, though, most of those peoples in ancient times wouldn't necessarily fall clearly into one designation or another. Even those in Archaic and Hellenistic Greece wouldn't clearly fall into one or the other-- they usually recognized many gods, but worshipped mainly one.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Mormons believe that if you are a good mormon then your reward, rather than going to heaven, is to be given your own cosmos to be God in. So there's still only one God per cosmos, but there is more than one God overall, at least in principle. Not sure whether that counts as polytheism.

Am I correct in understanding that "you", in this sentence, means "you, as long as you're a dude"? Or can women also become gods?

 

[RobRoy]

Am I correct in understanding that "you", in this sentence, means "you, as long as you're a dude"? Or can women also become gods?

Nopers. Men and women can both become gods. Women still remain subserviant to men though. Don't want those uppity women running a better world than their men-folk!

 

[drkitten]

The actual religious stories (as far as can be told, considering the heavy oral tradition) still shows them as being monotheistic, even if it's a monotheism that their god is mightier and more 'real' than the others (who were called false gods).

My sister is a vegetarian.

Well, her actual diet still shows her as being vegetarian, even if it's a vegetarianism that vegetables are "better" than all the rest of the food that she eats like cheeseburgers and roast beef. But those are just "false foods."

There's actually a word for the theological position that our god is uniquely better than all the others who nevertheless exist -- "monolatrism" or "henotheism". I'm not sure I accept either as being "monotheistic."

 

[Jackalgirl]

Nopers. Men and women can both become gods. Women still remain subserviant to men though. Don't want those uppity women running a better world than their men-folk!

But if a woman was god in her own universe, wouldn't she be the top dog/god there? Or is there still some kind of relationship between gods? Do they talk to one another? Can one god order another god to handle his or her universe in a certain way? (In other words, how does a female god be subservient to a male god, once she's a god?)

 

[Hokulele]

But if a woman was god in her own universe, wouldn't she be the top dog/god there? Or is there still some kind of relationship between gods? Do they talk to one another? Can one god order another god to handle his or her universe in a certain way? (In other words, how does a female god be subservient to a male god, once she's a god?)

And now I have a mental image of gods acting passive-agressive at each other.

Urp.

 

[RobRoy]

But if a woman was god in her own universe, wouldn't she be the top dog/god there?

Nopers. There isn't one planet per god. It's a joint effort, especially since that planet needs to be populated, and those will be the offspring of the god-couple. Becoming a god requires that you marry in a temple, and only if your husband is a good Mormon do you get to go on to the Celestial kingdom and potential god-hood. You spend eternity together, and you rule together. But the man is still master of all he surveys, and the woman is still subservient.

Or is there still some kind of relationship between gods? Do they talk to one another? Can one god order another god to handle his or her universe in a certain way? (In other words, how does a female god be subservient to a male god, once she's a god?)

Yes, there remains a relationship between the gods. God the Father is always God the Father, and he rules over everyone else. If you're a good, faithful, true follower then you have the potential to progress to god-hood yourself. But you would still be subservient to God the Father.

I'm not certain what the relationship between two human sets of gods would be, but I'm guessing some sort of binding arbitration to work out issues. <shrug>

 

[GreNME]

My sister is a vegetarian.

Well, her actual diet still shows her as being vegetarian, even if it's a vegetarianism that vegetables are "better" than all the rest of the food that she eats like cheeseburgers and roast beef. But those are just "false foods."

There's actually a word for the theological position that our god is uniquely better than all the others who nevertheless exist -- "monolatrism" or "henotheism". I'm not sure I accept either as being "monotheistic."

If you're orthodox about labels then your logic applies. However, in the case of history there isn't always a 1::1 comparison for the boxes each culture may or may not fit in. The assumption that there must always be a 1::1 comparison are often at the root of many misunderstandings of history-- the comparisons in the CT film Zeitgeist are a good example of this application taken to extremes (and getting it awfully wrong).