MORMONS, MEET YOUR FELLOW MORMONS – A MOVIE REVIEW
by Michael Barker
I saw the much-hyped movie (of course this is a tongue-in-cheek comment, because it’s only hyped-up by Mormons), Meet the Mormons, with my twelve year old daughter. Based upon speaking with those who saw its screening in Utah, I was not planning on seeing it. Then, I thought, “What the heck! Let’s go for it!”
Let me say upfront, I liked the movie – a lot. I cried. But you know what? I am not the target audience – at least according to the movie’s title. Non-Mormons are the target audience. I would go so far as to say conservative Protestants are the target audience. With that as my underlying premise, let’s get to the nitty-gritty.
Meet the Mormons is my church’s attempt to say, “Hey!!! We aren’t weird. We are just like you!” As I see it, this is an extension of the church’s attempt to assimilate into American culture that began with the abandonment of polygamy in the early 20th century (via the Joseph F. Smith’s Second Manifesto).
With the counter-culture movement of the 1960s, the Church fought back, and married itself with conservative American politics. This marriage was then consummated in the late 1970s and early 1980s when the conservative evangelicals came back into the political arena and the Republican Party saw them as indispensable allies.
An extension of this marriage has been a protestanization of our theology. We are trying to look and act like American Protestant Christianity and we simply are not Evangelical Christians, Methodists, or Presbyterians. Mormonism is none of these.
Mormonism is a radical departure from traditional Christianity.
We have an open canon of scripture – “… He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God”(Article of Faith 9).
W have extra-Biblical scripture – “…we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God…”(Article of Faith 8).
We have embodied male and female deities – “The Father [and Mother] has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s…” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).
We are not monotheists. How could we be with three members of a God Head that have separate bodies? Then we add a fourth with Heavenly Mother. We are either polytheist, monolatrists, or maybe even henotheists. But we are not monotheists, that’s for sure. This is a radical departure from traditional, creedal Christianity.
“In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted [prepared] a plan to create the world and people it” (Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844, King Follett Sermon. See also Doctrine and Covenants section 130:22).
The family and our relationships to it and our Heavenly Parents are central to our theology – “…The family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His [and Her] children” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World).
Our Heavenly Parents did not create ex nihilo, but rather organized out of matter that already existed:
“Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end” (Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844, King Follett Discourse).
As constructed in Mormonism, our Heavenly Parents are not omnipresent (present everywhere) – how could they be with a body that takes up space? One could argue that “the Holy Spirit” as constructed by Joseph Fielding Smith, does allow our Heavenly Parents to be omnipresent.
Our Heavenly Parents are not omnipotent – how could they be if they if they are bound by some law that exists outside of themselves? “…if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God” (Alma 42:22).
Our Heavenly Parents are not omniscient (know everything) -How can we claim they are omniscient if they are still progressing?
How could our Heavenly Parents be omnipotent if they not immutable (never change)? You cannot claim the immutability and omnipotence and omniscience of our Heavenly Parents if they are still progressing?
“…We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see…you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power…My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation” (Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844; King Follett Discourse. Of note, Eugene England did address how God is both omnipotent while still progressing. Click here to read Eugene England’s essay, Progression and Perfection, Two Complementary Ways to Talk About God.)
Our Heavenly Parents are not impassable (without passions/emotions) – they weep with us as found in the story of the Prophet Enoch in the Book of Moses2;
28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?
29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?
30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;
31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep? (Moses 7:28-31)
We reject creeds – Joseph Smith wrote: “The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds”.1
We are a covenantal religion, not a creedal religion. A covenantal religion defines itself based on what it expects its people to do or not do. These are the stipulations of a covenant, where a covenant is a set of mutual obligations reinforced by conditions.
By contrast a credal religion is defined by beliefs (Credo = “I believe”). Historically, Mormonism has been much more concerned by what its members do, than by what they believe (see above Joseph Smith quote).
We do not have a systematized theology. The most famous attempt to systematize our theology was done by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in his book, Mormon Doctrine, which Deseret Book no longer publishes.
Shall I go on?
Instead of watering down our theology and attempting to look like everyone else, how about we do a better job of explaining it?
Dr. Terryl Givens tells the story of when he was invited to New York City to deliver a paper at Bonneville Communications Conference. Dr. Givens’ task was to speak about how Mormons have been represented in the public sphere. According to Givens, Mormons have long suffered “The Purgatory of the Amish.” Dr. Givens said:
“I call it Mormonism’s horse and buggy problem. Ask 100 Americans about Amish theology, and they will all freely admit that they only know the Amish people travel by horse and buggy.”
In this conference, were many employees of the LDS Church that worked in branding, advertising, etc. and they asked Dr. Givens what he meant by “The Purgatory of the Amish”. Dr. Givens answered that the media is obsessed with things like Kolob and magic underwear because we don’t give them anything more substantial to talk about.
We need to raise the level of discourse. One of the things that our culture tends to do is to dumb things down. Our culture is impatient with having to study. It’s impatient with having to do critical thinking. It’s just, “Give it to me, give it to me, fast, quick, quick, quick! And I want it simple.” Keep it simple stupid is the principal; the KISS principal you know. I believe we don’t need to water down our theology. We need to boil up our people. If we are going to be educated in all kinds of other fields, why should we not be educated about our faith? When we are educated about our faith, we can then articulate it to those not of our faith and provide more substantial information about our theology. And I would say it is the obligation of any thinking Mormon to be able to articulate their faith at a level of discourse that could challenge the basic cultural assumptions.
Why are we interested in making Mormonism palatable to conservative Christians anyway?
I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t be interested in doing ecumenical work with evangelicals and assimilating ourselves into the broader Christian “Body of Christ”, but why this way? Why are we trying to do it by watering down our unique contributions to Christian discourse? Why don’t we try to appeal to more liberal Christian communities such as Episcopalians and Methodists?
As my twelve year old daughter and I were walking to the car afterwards, I asked her, “What was the name of the movie?”
“I don’t know.”
I showed her the ticket and asked, “Who was the movie for?”
“Um, people that aren’t Mormon?”
“Ya.”
“Well, that’s funny because there were only Mormons at the movie.”
Bingo.
A better title would have been, Mormons, Meet Your Fellow Mormons. The movie, although claimed to be for those who aren’t LDS, had another audience -me and you.
I wonder how the movie would have been different if we were trying to appeal to political liberals instead of the politically conservative? What if we had tried to appeal to the disenfranchised – the margins of society?
My good friend Fatimah Salleh shared this with me:
“Theology must be viewed and taught from the margins.”
“I think we forget, as Gentiles, that we were the outsiders, listening in on a very private and intimate conversation between Jesus and the Jews. We, Gentiles, were on the margins, outsiders.”–Dr. Willie Jennings, Duke Divinity
______________________________________________
*this is an edited title from a funny tweet I saw come across my Face Book account.
1Letter from Joseph Smith to Isaac Galland, Mar. 22, 1839, Liberty Jail, Liberty, Missouri, published in Times and Seasons, Feb. 1840, pp. 53–54; spelling and grammar modernized.
2For a historical overview of Mormonism’s use of the traditional “omnis” read Chapter Six of Signature Books’, Line Upon Line, edited by Gary James Bergera. The following quote comes from chapter six and deals spedcifically with Mormonism’s departure from the classic definition of “omniscience.”
“This same point was made by LDS church leader B. H. Roberts, perhaps the most perceptive of “official” Mormon theologians, when he wrote in the fourth-year manual of The Seventy’s Course in Theology that “the ascription of the attribute of Omnipotence to God” is affected by what “may or can be done by power conditioned by other external existences—duration, space, matter, truth, justice… . So with the All-knowing attribute Omniscience,” Roberts continued, “that must be understood somewhat in the same light … not that God is Omniscient up to the point that further progress in knowledge is impossible to him; but that all knowledge that is, all that exists, God knows.”
If you wold like to read the all of chapter six (written by Kent Robson), click here.
I wanted to put the following quotes from movie real movie-reviewers, but could not figure out how to work them into the body of my post. Enjoy:
LA Times:
“The film operates under the assumption that the average Joe associates Mormonism more with “Sister Wives” than Mitt Romney, so the film will be an eye-opener only for subscribers to such stereotypes.”
NYT:
“The narration promises surprises (“This story may challenge what you think you know about the roles men and women play in Mormon homes”), but the movie might have started by examining its straw-man conception of the audience.”
AZ Central:
“You’d learn a lot more if you went out and, well, actually met a Mormon. “
Miguel Barker-Valdez
Miguel is a Guatemalan-American Mormon living in the Northwest with his family. He is one of the proprietors of the Rational Faiths blog.
All posts by Miguel Barker-Valdez
Seems to me there are a lot of “We believes…” in the 13 Articles of Faith. Do these not count as examples of a creed?
Brent,
You could make a strong argument that the 13 AoF are Creedal Statements; heck they are even canonized. They are definitely treated as a creed, which I think Joseph would cringe at (even though they were kind of written by him (you know they were later redacted so I don’t need to go into that with you, Brent)). The thing is, they aren’t used as a measuring-stick for whether or not one is held in full fellowship of the Church. Furthermore, they aren’t said as part of our liturgy like the Nicene Creed is in a Catholic Mass, or the Westminster Creed is used in Protestants services.
A stronger argument for an LDS creed would actually be the temple interview questions. But even then, only a few deal with belief. Most have to do with how Mormons are expected to act.
I tend to disagree somewhat about “full fellowship” in that if you don’t accept Article of Faith number one, that is accept the three-ness of the Godhead, then you reject a fundamental tenet of Mormonism. If you don’t recognize the need for faith, repentance, and baptism, then you will not be accepted into the fold. If you don’t remain chaste, you may lose your membership in the Church. If you don’t recognize the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture, you will not be accepted as a converted member. If you become a member, you must accept and then live the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. In order to perform the said ordinances you must have authority from on high… So maybe the 13 Articles of Faith really are a set of creedal affirmations that guide the direction and set the structure of the church’s organization.
Repeat as liturgy or creed? Heck, I remember memorizing all 13 articles as a primary child, and then repeating at least one of them in opening exercises each and every week.
You see though Brent, all those particular AoFs that you point out, are in the temple questions, but stuff like “literal gathering of Israel” is not. See what I’m saying?
To be honest though, I don’t really give a crap whether it is or isn’t a creed.
Brent, faith and repentance are actions (arguably), baptism and chastity are covenants we make, as is priesthood. So I agree that we can’t fully separate specific beliefs from the covenantal aspects of belonging, but the covenantal aspects are definitely stroger.
Well done, Mike! You were up late last night, weren’t you? I appreciate your thoughtfulness and your willingness to articulate these perspectives. Your viewpoints help me enlarge my understanding of the faith I cherish. I’ve met the Mormons and I love us!
Melody,
I’m looking forward to your Feminist-critique of the movie and listening to the Rational Faiths podcast review of this movie – which has you as a contributor.
I have to disagree with you a little bit on this. What’s interesting is that on Rationalfaiths, you seek to promote the idea that gays, women, feminists are just like the rest of us and should be treated accordingly. I think that’s a worthy goal. We don’t ignore the fact that there are biological differences between men and women, just as there are differences between gay and straight couples. But aren’t we all alike unto God? Are they not still our brothers and sisters? Of course!
So why shouldn’t the Mormons seek to have the same acceptance in the Christian community as gays and feminists do in the LDS community? We don’t ignore the fact that we are different in our beliefs, but our values and principles are the same. We all worship the same God. I haven’t seen the movie but I don’t disagree with the objective of seeking to be accepted by those who don’t agree with our beliefs.
As for Republican politics you brought up. The adopting of Republican politics occurred when the Republican party become the pro life party following Roe vs Wade in the 70’s. JFK, a Democrat, was pro life- and Dems and Republicans use to have common beliefs on social issues. The parties took different positions on specific social issues in the 70’s and 80’s, and the LDS community and religious community largely sided with the GOP.
“Meet the Mormons is my church’s attempt to say, “Hey!!! We aren’t weird. We are just like you!”
“Mormonism is a radical departure from traditional Christianity.”
We are still Christians by the literal definition so why shouldn’t we say, hey, we aren’t weird, we are Christians too.
I haven’t seen the movie but I don’t think we are running away from our uniqueness, our unique beliefs. Not at all. In fact, as you know, we send missionaries around the world to share our “weird, unique” beliefs with the Christian world. But although we and every Christian faith have our own unique beliefs and doctrine, we are all still Christian. I know evangelicals who don’t agree with other evangelicals. It happens. But I don’t fault the church for asking to be seen as mainstream in the Christian community any more than I don’t fault gays, feminists, progressive, and Mormons with unorthodox views from seeking to be accepted in the LDS community. We should be a big tent religion just as the Christian community should also be a big tent, allowing us and Catholics a seat at their table.
Don’t get me wrong either. I agree with most of your post- I just disagree with those assertions.
Wholeheartedly agree about the more applicable title in terms of the theater release but I found that element wonderful – I came out wanting to be a better Mormon myself. Whether that was worth the price tag the Church paid for the distribution…debatable, but I think there will be great value for members and the growth of the church if all members saw and soaked in the culture and ideals it portrayed.
I also don’t think it matters if it flops in the theaters. It is a movie that was built for Legacy Theater and not the local cineplex but by going through that distribution channel I would suspect it would open up NetFlix and Hulu options where people will potentially watch out of curiosity or boredom or thinking it is a comedy like “Meet the Parents” and be touched in the end.
In terms of spreading the restored gospel, it’s a PR piece that hopefully opens the possibility of a theology discussion. I would love to see a well done documentary that really captures the unique elements of Mormonism that makes it so compelling and challenging but part of me thinks that the % of the population that cares about or even has the capacity to appreciate the differences in theology is so small that a documentary or book focused on theological differences would not succeed in mass distribution, maybe as a uniquely American creation – Ken Burns-esque on PBS but I don’t know.
I just have to say this because it’s driving me crazy-
I don’t know where the Netflix rumor got started, but you do not have to have a certain amount of ticket sales to get on Netflix. There are certain requirements to make sure the movie isn’t just something you shot in your backyard, but there’s not some set threshold of ticket sales that guarantees distribution. There are lots of movies with little to no major theatrical distribution that are on Netflix right now. It just depends on the distribution deal you work out.
Michael – I’ve missed hearing from you. Good to see you back.
Very interesting perspective, Michael. Thank you!
Michael – I agree that the Mormon belief in Godhead (three personages that are united in will and purpose) is different from the creedal Christian doctrine of Trinity (one soul that shares three hypostases [i.e. corporeal entities]). However, Mormons are monothiests. Polytheists worship multiple gods that have different wills, purposes and attributes, and that require different things from their adherents. That is not what Mormons believe.
Mormons worship and follow one God, God the Father. We pray only to God the Father. All that Christ did was in obedience to his father’s will and to glorify Him. Everything the Holy Ghost teaches is in testimony of God the Father or to reveal his will to His children.
It appears that you would agree with Michael that we could be considered monolatrists or henotheists.
As we know from other reviews, the title, “Meet the Mormons” actually came from President Monson, current prophet of the Church. I do not think there is anything particular “hokey” about the title. In 1967, the Church supported a book with the exact title, which was to help introduce the world to people of our faith. I have no doubt that this was a deliberate full circle decision.
I served a mission in the UK. People believe some crazy things about our theology, doctrine, and practices. Yes, we are different, but we have more in common with every other Christian faith based congregation, than we do differences. We love our families, we embrace differences (most, not all of us, that is…), we love our Savior, and we strive to be like Him.
This weekend, with just 317 theaters nationwide, showing, “Meet the Mormons”, Hollywood is wondering about our success. As members of the church, we, (at least most of us) are quite proud of being part of a world-wide church. For years, we have taken a beating from former ex-members of the Church, from media (who do not truly, with a conviction, know what we believe, much less prayed about it to know for themselves, or even read the Book of Mormon), all from those who would rather “hate” than love just because they “can”. Yes, maybe I live in an idealistic world, but I know what it means to try and be better everyday, to be a disciple, and to keep trying even though my efforts could definitely be better. I am a happier person, even with the trials and hardships that come from everyday life and just because I am a human being. Mormons are not immune from this, obviously. I see pain, I see unhappiness, I have experienced hatred both towards me and towards those who believe as I do, and believe differently than I do. You know what? It is ALL OKAY. I have found enough similarities with those who spread the negativity and I love them anyway. Isn’t that the point of Christianity, to be more like Jesus Christ? Find the common ground. All of us want to be happier people. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints essential teaches that. Once you deeply KNOW you are a child of God, it changes you. Nobody has to take my word for it, as that is what we also teach, but we do need to love as He loves. You can’t argue with the First Commandment…or can you?
I’m trying to understand what you’re trying to say in relation to the post. The success of the film has been from members, not non-members, and that doesn’t surprise me. Some stakes were more adamant than others in trying to get their members to see the film, but there was a huge drop-off Sunday since non-Mormons weren’t seeing the film.
But you know what? I’m OK with that. It’s a good film for us to see as members of what we can be. It’s a good film for those who are already interested in the Church but need some reassurance that we don’t actually sacrifice goats or live in a commune or practice polygamy or whatever else they’ve heard.
Non-members may be mildly interested, but we need to remember they come from a very different place and not expect them to run to the theaters like Mormons do. When a non-Mormon friend of mine heard the title he started laughing so hard he fell over because it sounded like an episode of “Leave it to Beaver” to him. He wasn’t mean about it, but it was an honest response, and if our goal really is to reach others, we’ll have to listen to them and their thoughts and feelings instead of telling them what ours are over and over.
True, I get passionate, and get wordy. I am not a scholar, just a girl with solid convictions to help people find happiness. I am curious what is wrong with the success of the film coming from members verses non-members? Success is success. It was not originally intended to be a big theater release. It was created to be shown at the Legacy Theater on Temple Square, as others have been shown for the last several years. Test audiences gave the Church something to think about. I think it definitely goes to show Hollywood that members of the Church appreciate uplifting films and want to be inspired to be better people…even if it is from the example of others of the same faith. Six stories made a difference this weekend. There were many stories they had to choose from, and I have a feeling we may see more in the future. Maybe someday this film will cross over and be available in other media markets, (international, online maybe?) and who’s to say that curiosity will not be peaked by a few, or many? The purpose is not to convert, obviously there are doctrinal discussions that would need to take place, along with commitments, but rather, to give information and show common ground. Right now, there is a LOT more misinformation out there than there is correct information. The naysayers have quite the voice out there, this is just a powerful one that corrects the misconceptions. Its a tool. I personally, did not love the title of the film when I first heard it either. It peaked curiosity and I was pleasantly surprised at how good it turned out. See it! Definitely worth your time.
I guess I wasn’t surprised by the success from members, and I do think there’s a lot of good being done in allowing us all to see it in different locations instead of just the Legacy. However, to be totally honest, this is such a new thing that even if the movie had been bad, I still expect we’d have turned out in droves. My husband and I work in media, and when an under-served audience starts getting films aimed at them, they’ll usually attend in high numbers even if the film isn’t that great. (I’m not saying Meet the Mormons is bad, I’m just stating a general fact.) In the 70s there were several successful movies that starred and were aimed at African-Americans. Suddenly Hollywood was all “Black people see movies that star black people!? CRAZY! Let’s create a new genre and market the **** out of it!” We’re actually seeing this with the evangelical Christian movement like the Left Behind series and Biblical movies. Hollywood finally remembered that they can make money off Christian audiences, too 🙂 I just don’t know if it’s enough to make them want to market to Mormons just yet since the ticket sales are going to drop off after opening weekend, but for us as a people it was a good thing in general.
Actually…I’m not sure I’d WANT Hollywood to start marketing to Mormons. When they find out that this film was successful because Church leaders were encouraging their congregations to go, they’ll probably try to go the same route and that’s just icky to me.
I am planning on seeing it and expect I will have a great experience with it, but I have grown more cynical of media and distribution over the years, so that colors my outlook a bit. ;P
Michael,
What, exactly, in the movie “water[ed] down our theology?” You repeat this claim 3X, but the best example of “watering down our theology” is…saying that we are Christians?
AofF,3: “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”
Temple Recommend question, 2: “Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and his role as Savior and Redeemer?”
I don’t understand what you saw that lead you to think we want to be protestants. Was it because Elder Armstrong didn’t quote the King Follett discourse enough? Did you expect the MMA fighter from Costa Rica to settle Gene England and Bruce McConkie’s differences about the nature of God? Did you want to hear the candy bomber testify how the divine feminine inspired him to give chocolate to poor kids in Berlin?
Apparently so.
You missed the intention of the movie, Michael. The intent wasn’t hard to find- it was placed front and center by Jenna Kim Jones in the first 5 minutes: to clear the desks of common misperceptions about Mormonism (polygamy was one stated example). You can choose to think that this stated intention was a lie, but I take it for face value.
You can’t accuse the movie of watering down our theology because it didn’t tackle Mormon theological disputations.
Devin,
I appreciate your thoughtful response. Would you be interested in writing a review of the movie for Rational Faiths? We would want it to be a movie review, rather than a response to my review.
If interested, click the “contact” button towards the top of the blog’s home-page.
– Mike
No I do not.
Henotheism is the worship of one god chosen from an acceptable buffet of deities. Mormons do not accept the existence of other equally valid deities.
Monolatrism is a term that creates a distinction that would render the term monotheism meaningless for what it was intended to describe:
– Monolatrism = worship of one god, acknowledge the existence of other gods (not equally valid for worship)
– Monothiesm = worship of one god, denies the existence of all other gods
By this distinction anyone that believes the Ten Commandments are monolatrists, including all Jews, creedal Trinitarian Christians and Mormons, as the admonishment “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3) is an acknowledgement that there are other gods. These biblical scriptures are among those that also acknowledge the existence of other gods:
– Deuteronomy 10:17, “For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God.”
– 1 Corinthians 8:5, “as there be gods many, and lords many”
– 2 Corinthians 4:4, “the god of this world” a reference to Satan
Since monotheism is the term that was created to distinguish Hebrew and Christian worship of one true God from polytheistic paganism, then this is the best term to continue to use describe the worship of Jews and Christians (including Mormons).
Or as Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote of Mormons, “true saints are monotheists. Professing Christians consider themselves monotheists.”
Bill,
So Christ isn’t a God? The HG isn’t either? How do you reconcile scriptures in the BoM that also state they are one God? There is nothing that says they are less than Gods, so what are they then of not a God? Or is God made up of different beings together?
Furthermore, this means Heavenly Mother is not a God and the potential of women is in fact less-than men.
I think our theology is ever-evolving, and it’s quite possible for all kinds of radical notions given our theology.