In the introduction, Block says that, “In a recent book on worship, Edith Humphrey correctly identifies five maladies that plague worship in the North American church: (1) trivializing worship by a precoccupation with atmospherics/mood (it’s all about how worship makes me feel); (2) misdirecting worship by having a human-centered rather than God-centered focus (it’s all about me, the worshiper); (3) deadening worship by substituting stones for bread (the loss of the Word of God); (4) perverting worship with emotional, self-indulgent experiences at the expense of true liturgy; and (5) exploiting worship with market-driven values.” Block goes on to say, “After observing trends in worship for a half century, I agree with Humphrey completely.” (xii)

Until I picked it up again when this chain brought it to mind, I’d forgotten how I appreciated and agreed with so much of it. Some of our own comments in the Bloggernacle could be applied here, both positively and negatively.

This then causes problems for Mormons because while we’re more like the Trinity than some portray, it’s also clear we have more of a divide among the persons than Augustine would permit. Throw in our doctrine of deificiation without creation ex nihilo forming a divide the way it does for eastern Christianity and the word suddenly carries more danger than it does for Trinitarians.

It’s interesting looking how similar words were used in paganism for pretty similar behaviors that we wouldn’t call worship. And why don’t we (or the Catholics who adopted as a practical matter a lot of pagan culture during conversions of regions) call it worship? Because of the theological need to keep God distinguished from paganism. As I said it’s a game and the game is making sure just the top figure gets to have the word applied.

In terms of James’ speculation that certain forms of worship may not be all that bad directed to someone other than God, it may be enlightening to borrow from the Catholics the distinction between adoration, which is properly directed only to God, and veneration, which can be directed to others, like Mary and the saints. Both are sometimes called “worship” in English. As I understand it, the difference is basically that adoration includes an implicit acknowledgment that God is God. On the other hand, the point of the reformers that protested such veneration is that regardless of what theoretical distinctions might be made, in practice they end up being basically the same thing.

I’m not aware of any detailed discussion from church leaders of what constitutes worshipping God, but there are a number of statements by general authorities about idol worship, to the effect that whatever we devote our time/attention/devotion to is the thing we worship. In that sense, maybe worship is tied up with consecration (which would, to some extent explain in part why we call temple attendance “worship”).

In some contexts, worship seems to be closely tied up with an acknowledgment of sovereignty/expression of loyalty/obedience. This might be why some, such as Jehovah’s witnesses, won’t formally recognize the sovereignty of worldly nations such as by saluting the flag or pledging allegience.

In the old testament, worship seems to be tied up closely in sacrifice. Connect that to Jesus’ statement in 3 Nephi that the only sacrifice he will accept is that of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and it seems that worship is perhaps closely tied to repentance and an acknowledgement of Jesus’ sovereignty/power to save. Perhaps related to that is the idea of worship as participation in the sacrament. We sometimes refer to the sacrament as the replacement of the old sacrifices. If so, then perhaps worship means a willingness to recognize Jesus’ sovereignty over us (that we are willing to take his name upon us), a declaration of loyalty/allegience/obedience/repentance (that we are willing to keep his commandments), and a declaration of devotion (that we always remember him).

So what does worship mean? It’s not clear, but it seems to have a lot to do with sacrifice, devotion, acknowledgment of sovereignty, and loyalty/obedience/consecration, with perhaps some recognition of divinity thrown into the mix (maybe that’s the same thing as an acknowledgment of sovereignty). If so, then I would think that both the temple and the sacrament are properly called worship, because they are so closely connected with those concepts.

The subject of worship in the talk I linked is one he builds up to and comes back around do so I really think it pertains well to the post. The lds ensign article doesn’t convey it nearly as well.

I think we often try too hard to make Elder McConkie into something he’s not. Have a listen to that talk if the link works now, as it’s not from the bogeyman the bloggernacle makes it seem to be if you ask me. His speaking style isn’t very soft spoken, but I don’t have an issue harmonizing it with virtually anything being taught.

Artimus, thanks for the link. McConkie does address worship better than most IMO. I’m at work so I can’t listen to the talk and but fortunately it’s reprinted in the Ensign. Sadly he seems to take for granted the meaning of worship although towards the bottom he seems to tie it to devotion. He also quotes D&C 93 which is supposed to “give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship…” Yet it’s hard to figure out how to take that though. At least I can’t tell “how to worship” from that chapter.

It should be noted that Elder McConkie took a different view. From his Seven Heresies talk: “We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced.” So he saw the Godhead as three Persons, only one of whom is properly worshipped. He was even more emphatic on this point in his 1982 BYU talk, “Our Relationship With the Lord“: “We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost.”