I challenge your thesis in its entirety. I doubt that Israel’s pre-exilic views were ever truly monotheistic — and clearly not monotheistic in the sense of metaphysical monotheism adopted by the neo- and middle Platonic philosophers after about 160 A.D. (and now the mainstay in Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought). Israel always had a belief in a king God who was God of all other gods who was surrounded by a court of gods who were sons of God. So I don’t believe that monotheism came out of the desert but out of the Academy. It is possible that something like monotheism was adopted during the exile, but as the DSS demonstrate with pellucid clarity, such a view was not stable since those at Qumran adopted the same view of a High God surrounded by sons of God or holy ones — who those who wrote the DSS expected to join as holy ones and sons of God either during this life or at death.

The Trinity may be a plurality model (the social model) or a model of metaphysical monotheism (the Latin or simplicity model) — so any discussion of the Trinity in conventional thought must be parsed more carefully than the posts here indicate it seems to me.

First, I accept the capital “God” as quoted from Elder Packer’s comments. Surely these articles are read, re-read, proof-read, and approved prior to publication. Such a seemingly important difference would surely not go overlooked.

From the definition given in the Bible Dictionary of “also a God” one should surmise that “God” when used in the application to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is a title of perfection. All three hold the title God, each are therefore God. Again, because there are three, there is a plurality of Gods, in addition to the plurality of gods spoken of in the text of the Bible.

Personally, I have no problem with the idea of polytheism in this since. I worship the Father (God), through the Son (God), and receive personal and familial revelation through the Holy Spriit (God).

Like the scripture said, there be gods many, and Lords many, but we have only one God. I defer to Elder Packer with regards to the doctrine but this looks like a typo or error in semantics. I think what he probably meant to say here is that there is a plurality of gods. That would certainly be more consistent with the scripture that Elder Packer had just cited

Furthermore, I see little evidence from the Bible text that Abraham, Moses, and their followers, disbelieved in the existence or power of their neighbors’ pagan gods. Gideon doesn’t even deny Baal’s existence — he mocks Baal’s power compared to the one true God. Just as today we do not deny the existence of other churches when we say we are part of one True Church (note how that caps thing comes into play here again). Zoroastrians are considered monotheistic even though they believe that a second evil god exists, equal in power to God. And in the traditional Christian scheme, Satan is at least as powerful as, say, Pluto was in Roman mythology.

I’d infer that Monotheism has to do with whether you revere one God, as worthy of worship, not of whether you believe in the existence or influence of different gods.

Boyd K Packer- “There is one God, the Father of all. This we accept as fundamental doctrine.

There is only one Redeemer, Mediator, Savior. This we know.

There is one Holy Ghost, a personage of spirit, who completes the Godhead.

I have emphasized the word one, in each sentence, but I have used it three times. Three is plural.

Paul used the plural many and the singular one in the same verse:

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

“But to us there is but one God, the Father.� (1 Cor. 8:5–6.)

Anyone who believes and teaches of God the Father, and accepts the divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, teaches a plurality of Gods.” Boyd K. Packer, “The Pattern of Our Parentage,â€? Ensign, Nov. 1984, 66

The problem stems from using the term “polytheism” as the pagans and ancient Greeks did, applied to gods of mythology. In that sense of the word, obviously, we are not polytheistic. However, we are in that we believe in a plurality of Gods.

If I may, I would like to quote from the Bible Dictionary in the LDS Edition of the KJV. the “LORD, is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is ALSO A God.” And “The Holy Ghost is ALSO A God…”

Members of the Church who understand accept that The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate individual beings, each being “a God”, all three comprising the Godhead.

It is true that the opening line found under “God” in the dictionary states “The supreme Governor of the universe and the Father of mankind.” We also read from the second paragraph “When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim”.

Inasmuch as we accept that each of the Godhead are “also” Gods, and we believe in each of them, we become polytheists by default.

In John 17, Jesus prayed that his disciples might be One, in the same way that Jesus and his Father are One. Our doctrine places multiple persons in one God. “Orthodox” Christianity simply turns that inside-out.

Run the census, and the numbers come out the same. Gods: 1. Persons: 3.

Hmm. I have, for almost all of my “Mormon Life” believed that we are polytheists. God, the Father; God the Son; God the Holy Spirit. Each a distinct and individual personage, each possessing the fullness of “God”.

God, being a title, refers more to the state of perfection than to the individual person. Thus, our Father in heaven, our Savior, and the Holy Ghost, each having acheived this state, are Gods. We believe in each of them, though we worship only the Father, through the Son, as being Gods.

Since there are three, which is more than one, we are polytheists, rather than monotheists.

Unless I missed something in Sunday School, or Nate’s post was so eruidite that I simply misunderstood his claim.

You do not need to be commenting here on Thursday, November 10! Don’t make me IP-ban you . . .