NOM

I have been doing some reading about the origins of religion. Some of the books I have been reading have discussed how early religions had a supreme being but generally the supreme been was removed and aloof. Lesser gods were developed as a way to answer life's pressing questions. A guy named Denis Baly wrote,

"Belief in only one God does not, it would seem, come easily to the human mind, for it is attended by serious intellectual problems, notably the problem of evil, and one of the marked characteristics of a monotheistic God is his tendency to retreat into the infinite distance, and there to be completely lost to sight."
-The geography of monotheism-

On the surface, Christians and Mormons don't have a polytheistic system, but we do have a problem with a God that seems to be aloof. There are all kinds of ways we justify this and excuse God from being uninvolved, some are convincing, some aren't, but most seem to fall flat for many.

It is interesting to think of Jesus as a response to the need for a closer and more involved God. And by extension, do we use the prophets and apostles and substitutes for those lesser gods that felt closer and more relevant to the ancients?

If this is at all the case, why couldn't we end up with an apostle who could be a substitute for Dionysus?

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:06 pm On the surface, Christians and Mormons don't have a polytheistic system, but we do have a problem with a God that seems to be aloof. There are all kinds of ways we justify this and excuse God from being uninvolved, some are convincing, some aren't, but most seem to fall flat for many.

It is interesting to think of Jesus as a response to the need for a closer and more involved God. And by extension, do we use the prophets and apostles and substitutes for those lesser gods that felt closer and more relevant to the ancients?

This has been a historical criticism of Christianity. They declared the Roman Gods to be pagan and eventually ended reverence towards them when when St. Ambrose convinced Emperor Theodosius to make it official for the empire. Catholic saints continue to be venerated for specific duties. It's not hard to find a Catholic who retains an icon of St. Christopher who watches over travellers. It would be another thousand years before Protestants broke from Catholicism and finally removed saints from direct veneration.

You can still indulge in your latent pagan inclinations by putting up pictures of Book of Mormon prophets in the bedrooms of your children. I removed the picture of the First Presidency from the walls of my house when my wife was out of town some time ago. It was creeping me out and luckily she seems to have forgetten about it.

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:06 pm If this is at all the case, why couldn't we end up with an apostle who could be a substitute for Dionysus?

We did have several good candidates, but Brigham's well-stocked liquor cabinet is not mentioned in polite conversation. J. Golden Kimball is mentioned in a faux-scandalous way, but he was only a Seventy. A modern apostle would not do such things.

Early polytheism arose out of what appears to be the natural inclination of humans to create a simplified understanding of the natural world. If you took your time machine back to the Paleolithic Era you would meet early animists who discussed the gods in charge of weather, game animals, fertility, and other external forces. Suppose you explained to them how charged particles in the air are responsible for lightning then show that lightning heats the air and that thunder results from this heated air rushing into colder air. That might replace one of their deities of the natural world, but it would not necessarily replace all the other animist deities. Gods were early explanations of individual phenomena.

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:06 pm It is interesting to think of Jesus as a response to the need for a closer and more involved God. And by extension, do we use the prophets and apostles and substitutes for those lesser gods that felt closer and more relevant to the ancients?

I'd argue that Mormons are polytheistic, even if they don't see themselves that way. I hadn't thought about using church leaders as substitutes for lesser gods before, but it makes sense. After all, we're all immature gods in training, right?

"Whether by my own voice of the voice of my servants,it is the same."

Apostles and Prophets speak for God....as though they are God...

Joseph Smith was ordained king of the world, and was referred to in more than one place as a god...even the personal who controls who will and will not get into heaven from this generation.

They are treated as gods by many. The don't talk of Christ,...they talk and brown-nose each other.

Most of Christianity (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicans, and some Lutherans) do have a form of elevated status for those to look to for a more personal touch in their religion. While some forms of Christianity (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) do practice veneration (bowing a crossing themselves before the icon) Anglicans and Lutherans generally do not specifically do this.

My patron saint is Saint Cecilia. When you enter my apartment, immediately upon opening the door is my icon of Saint Cecilia. As I am not a Catholic or Orthodox, I do not bow and cross myself in front of this. However, I do like to think of her as looking down upon me, especially as she is often depicted as an organist, while I play the piano. I also have a bust of St. J.S. Bach on my home organ console, although he is not a patron saint (and is not a saint recognized by Catholicism or Orthodoxy). While I don't literally believe that they (Cecilia and Bach) are looking down on me, for some reason it makes things a bit more....I don't know....personal?

Oh, and you better believe that we celebrate St. Bach's feast day in my house. Lots of organ music and a nice dinner with my kids.

Mormonism vehemently rejects practiced veneration. However, they absolutely do venerate people in their religion much in the same way that St. Cecilia and St. Bach are venerated by me, in some cases more so. In two cases, Mormons role-play those that they consider great humans: the first is Trek, where children role-play the sacrifices of past saints and pull handcarts and the second is when Mormons role-play Adam and Eve in the temple drama, taking on the role as if they were them. Heck, in much the same way that I have an icon of St. Cecilia and a bust of St. Bach many of my Mormon friends have large framed pictures of the first presidency on the wall of their home.

Anywho, Christianity and Mormonism both present a God that lays a path that cannot be followed. While many Mormons would vehemently disagree with me on this, Mormons don't follow Christ's path: they follow that of Adam and Eve. They are to become gods, not sacrifice themselves for the world. So they look to those who are like us who have done great things. Christians cannot follow Christ's path, because Christ is God. So, they look to those around them, living or dead, for guidance and inspiration. They venerate the dead, even if they don't physically bow as a form of worship.

This brings a quite abstract religion to something more attainable and achievable. We kind of have to do it, otherwise there wouldn't be much of a religion.

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:26 am Gods were early explanations of individual phenomena.

I suppose I did not realize just how much we fell into that model. When we cant explain things with God, we bring in Jesus and the Atonement. When that is not relevant to our problem we bring in Joseph and his revelations. When that doesnt cut the mustard, we bring in modern Prophets with stuff like the proclamation on the family. I used to think these were God's communiques about changing problems. Problems have changed for us in America and developed countries, but its our response to them that have not changed. we go search for an explanation that lies beyond our control, thus we "pass the buck" off onto someone/something else that explains it to us.

It is interesting to me that in days of yore, we may have created Gods to explain why the crop failed or got destroyed this year. There was a God who was not placated enough. We may have created this God to allow us the ability to feel like we can do something about it, i.e. give more offerings, do more dances etc...
Now however, we have created Gods that allow us to feel like we have no ability to control phenomena, i.e. we can shut off a little girls mic because God made the rules, and we just have to follow. We can feel like the situation is out of our control, and therefore feel better about our actions.

document wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:25 am This brings a quite abstract religion to something more attainable and achievable. We kind of have to do it, otherwise there wouldn't be much of a religion.

I guess this is where mental gymnastics begin. Abstract ===> Concrete is not easy to do without leaving holes all over.

I guess this is where mental gymnastics begin

Absolutely.

So, document, where does the Feast of St. Sebastian Bach come in the liturgical calendar?

This is an interesting discussion.

It ties into the idea that when the Catholic Church went into Ireland, rather than discouraging worship of the pagan gods and goddesses, the church just declared them Saints, and that Jesus was sort of head God above the saints. The Catholics did the same thing in South America according to my son who went on his mission to Brasil. It was much easier to convert them if the church didn't have to unconvert them first. Rather than fighting the pagan gods, they co-opted them. You can still pray to Zeus, as long as you ask him to intervene for you when he talks with God.

alas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:41 pm You can still pray to Zeus, as long as you ask him to intervene for you when he talks with God.

Cool! Zeus is the coolest of all the toga-wearing gods, in my useless opinion.