I think monolatrism of a sort would actually be an adequate description, for Joseph’s belief in particular. Supposing a “Hie to Kolob” type of infinite regress, then God the Father, as our father, is our tribal/ethnic god, while we have no truck with the rest. Maybe patriarchal monolatrism?

EVs and Catholics also believe in a non-gendered God.

Does this accurately reflect what you are saying?

Thus, God the Father has never been alone. He has always had the glory arising from being in such a relationship. In every moment where these three could freely agree with each in unity, they have done so. It is because of this shared love that they are fully divine. Because the fulness of divine nature emerges from this relationship, divinity strongly supervenes on this relationship in the sense that none of the divine persons would be fully divine outside the relationship. However, the Father is preminent for the reasons stated and even if, per factum contrarium, he were all alone we would still be called to relationship with him because of his pre-eminence and superior love and intelligence. We would be called to worship him because he calls us to a relationship of shared divinity. So as a matter of fact we never worship the Father alone; but if he were alone we would be called to relationship and worship to give rise to divinity in us. Thus, the first and second statements are not inconsistent as far as I can see (and it is possible I’ve got a blind spot).

Does that clear it up at all?

I’m a bit confused. In comment #40, you state:

“I believe that the Most High God is worthy of worship and it is a relation with the Most High God, the Father, that is deifying … The Father could be and would be (subjunctively) worthy of worship; but as a practical matter it never occurs that the Father is all alone.”

Then, in comment# 48, you state:

“I would assert that the Father isn’t seperately worshipped either — he is worshipped as the one who is fully divine in the Godhead who is in relation with us and because of that relation of love with the other members of the Godhead. If the Father didn’t have such loving relations he would not be God at all. The Father isn’t worthy of worship as an isolated individual. Thus, we will never be seperately worthy of worship either.”

The confusion that arises for me is this: Is the Father (the individual) worship-worthy because of his relation of love with the other members of the Godhead, or is the actual, practical relationship of love incidental to his worship-worthiness? Your comment #40 seems to assert the latter , but comment #48 the former.

To put my question another way: Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that no individuals had yet chosen to share the Father’s indwelling love. Would he nonetheless be worship-worthy? Or is he worship-worthy by virtue of his relationship of love with other beings? If he would be worship-worthy even absent the relationship of love, then the question is: would it ever be possible for us to become similarly worship-worthy, even (hypothetically) absent the relationship of love? If not, why not? (Here is where the sense of ontological distinction in your arguments seems to arise, as it appears that the Father is essentially fully God, while all other beings are only accidentally fully God. I’m also not sure how this played out during the Father’s mortal experience, if he kenotically emptied himself of the fulness of Godhood.)

If, on the other hand, the Father is worship-worthy because of the relationship of love, then how (and why) would we differ from him in worship-worthiness after entering into that same relationship?

I’d be interested to hear what implications, if any, you feel there not being a mother in heaven has on women, theologically speaking.

Richard: I choose to clarify your points about how my views play among the more traditional creedalists. I think that you are correct that rejecting a Mother in Heaven doctrine and adopting the view that the Father is eternally divine is more in alignment with creedal teachkngs. If someone is touched by LDS scripture and committed to follow as a result — wonderful. However, I don’t believe it is either a point in favor of or against any view because creedalists believe it. Their views are beside the point of anything as far as I’m concerned.

We ought to base our views on what is best supported by the evidence, has the most powerful vision of all that we know and can discover, and sings the sweetest songs in our hearts. If an argument is more sound, more persuasive because it opens up vistas to our view, or feels so sweet to us that we are drawn to it, then that is a good reason to accept such a view (as you can tell I’m a pragmatist). That a view satisfies popular opinions among the populace is a poor reason to accept any view — see e.g., my response to Ronan on Cheney.

Ooooh. That sounds good. Feel free to fire up a version of that discussion at the Thang any time!