Talk:Monolatry

Untitled

The gods that he/she... feels membership with... This needs rephrasing—feels an affinity to, or of whose people he/she considers himself/herself a member. To feel membership with a person or god isn't an English phrase.—Copey 2 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Definition

As a former student of Comparative Religion I would like to offer an alternative definition for Monolatry and Monolatrous. These are rarely used terms but I have always used them and heard them used (or so it seemed) in another sense.

Monolatrism (Alternative Definition) is the belief that one singular supreme diety is represented by and acts through several lesser dieties. One example would be Hinduism where all gods are manifestations of Atman.

A better example (and the only one I can find a citation to support my useage) might be Ancient Egypt, where all gods were acting on behalf of Netjer and bore the title "names of Netjer".

[1]

-- But this is not 100% historically verifiable, it is a belief system which Kemetic Orthodoxy has chosen to support. --

If I am not mistaken, "Monolatrism" is not a word; the correct term is "Monolatry," which means the belief that although other gods exist, only one particular god is to be worshipped. Evidence of the pre-monotheistic character of early Hebrew religion can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, in e.g. the Ten Commandments' Second Commandment: "You may not worship other gods before Me." 66.108.145.155 12:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

If we had some dictionary citations to back up the change, it would be very easy to move the article to Monolatry. -Acjelen 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked several dictionaries at work (a public library). The results clearly support having monolatry as the word. The OED 2nd ed. (1989) gives monolatry and not monolatrism, as do the second editions of the New Oxford American Dictionary (2000) and the Random House Dictonary of the English Language (1987). The fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (2005) gives neither. Webster's Third and the second edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion both have a see reference at monolatry and do not give monolatrism.

If we want to move to Monolatry, we'll have to request a move or get an admin to do it. -Acjelen 19:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Thou art God alone." How does that prove existence of othergods?I believe it contradicts it.New Babylon.

The "Thou art God alone" actually comes later in the Hebrew Bible where the monolatry of the people has transitted or is in the transition to a fully realized monotheism. The texts of the 10 Commandments do clearly show that the earliest Israelites do have some form of monolatry. This can also be called henotheism as mentioned below. --

To the student of comparative religion: Would that not be a form of henotheism or polytheism, even? What about those who believe there is more than one deity but that deity is supreme above all others and have little to no connection to the rest of them?

Monolatrism in early Hebrew belief

Acknowledging other people worshipped other gods, as the early Hebrews did, is not necessarily an endorsement of those faiths or a belief in their gods. The rhetorical character of the translated passages can be argued either way, and this should be reflected in the article. Abe Froman 15:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Early Hebrew belief is such a good example if you want to explain the term monolatrism or monolatry (I think you put -ism in the end of religious words too often in English) and how it differs from henotheism. If only this was more wikified with more sources, it would work excellent in the article. Monolatry is distinguished from monotheism, which asserts the existence of only one god, and henotheism, a religious system in which the believer worships one god alone without denying that others may worship different gods with equal validity. Moses and his brother Aron wore monolatrists, and so was his successors Joshua, Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, etc., who fought the kings of Canaan and conquered their cities, and who then had to argue that God was stronger and truer than eg Ammonites gods Baal and Asherah. "The Lord is stronger", it is said in several passages in the Old Testament. This is to speak like a monolatrist. A monotheist would say: "The Lord is the only one". A henotheist would say "The Lord is the only god for us", and would try to negotiate with other people rather than start a war. The article must also try to explain when the Hebrew people became monotheists. --Caspiax 23:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspiax (talk • contribs)

merge proposal

Is there any difference between monolatry and henotheism? If, as it seems, the meaning is the same but they're used in different contexts, I think we should merge the two. Any comments? --Εξαίρετος (msg) 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that is a good idea, because henotheism is a neologism coined by a contemporary scholar. Abe Froman 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally see how it could be a problem. According to this article, and comparing it to henotheism, monolatry may even be a younger word than henotheism. Aside from this, henotheism describes monolatry as an aspect of henotheism. 74.77.124.236 01:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. I was thinking the same thing! Whichever word is newer, they both appear to describe the same thing. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added merge proposals to Henotheism and Monolatrism. If there is a significant distinction between the two, it is not apparent; asserting that one is "distinguished" from the other is not enough. (By the way, the cited article from the 1916 Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics uses "henotheism," which demonstrates it was not coined recently. Rather, I would suspect "monolatrism" of being a neologism) Lusanaherandraton (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Support merger. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose As the articles describe, they are two different concepts. Monolatry admits the existence of other gods but only describes one as worthy of adoration. Henotheism admits the existence of other gods and doesn't judge the worthiness of each for worship although believers choose one god to worship as compared to pantheism. This is basic, undergrad-level world religions stuff and I'm amazed you remain ignorant of the difference. There's already too much content for an effective merger. One concept would end up being UNDUE coverage on the article about the other. Creating an article like Monolatrism and Henotheism is going to result in a lot of OR because the two are different subjects entirely. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Support While they are slightly different concepts, if we accept Chris Troutman's definition then Monolotry is a subcategory within henotheism. I would recommend having a section on monolatry within an article on henotheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.73.99 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose These are two related but different concepts, per WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't comment on a merge proposal made over a decade ago but apparently the last two years have seen user trying to add (supporting or opposing) votes to that. I don't think this is a valid mode of dealing with such questions. Don't have such "votes" have deadlines?

Nevertheless, without attempting to cast a vote, I'd like to add my two cents to it. The merge between the two articles would be wrong because "Monolatry" and "Henotheism" are two different concepts. They do overlap and might often be encountered together but they're not the same:

1. As somebody else pointed out: monolatry refers to the practice of worshipping, while henotheism refers to a belief system. Worshipping might be linked to this or that belief system (see no. 2). The belief system usually entails worship but that isn't always the case (see no. 3).
2. Monolatry is the worship of one god. Theoretically this is compatible with "monotheism" (belief in one god), though "monolatry" is more often used in contradistinction, i.e. worshipping one god while not denying the existence of others. Reasons for why people worship only one (out of many) gods differ. Henotheism is one - maybe the most common reason: people consider their particular god the supreme one. But that's not the only reason: people might exclusively worship their city/tribal god without any claim to supremacy, they might worship one god that serves as a contact or gate-keeper to the divine realm or they might do it out of individual piety.

• Henotheism, the belief in one god being supreme among many gods, is actually quite young concept (historically speaking) deriving from a narrowing of the term "monotheism", which didn't always insist on "denying other gods even existing". The earlier parts of the Bible certainly didn't insist on that nor do other forms of monotheism found in Roman-Greek philosophy (e.g. Neoplatonism) or in Hinduism. Because of this narrowing, scholars came up with another term for the less-exclusive monotheism. Note that Neoplatonist or some Hindus acknowledge a supreme deity but do not think it approachable by worship.

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose the topics are too different in my view. Rather I think it would be more helpful to improve the explanation in both articles of what the differences actually are.

And perhaps a sub-section in one or both articles about the discussion about one being a sub-set of the other or not would be in order linking to the other article for more information? Luredreier (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

two sections

While the article has seen great improvements lately, the sectons In ancient Israel and In Judaism need to be combined as they cover the same topic. -Acjelen 07:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, actually the two are related but do not refer to the same. The former is the very early stages of a development that would lead, among other things, to the latter. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

1 Cor 8:5 - two versions

I was just reading the article today and saw that the Mormonism section and the Christianity section both quote 1 Cor 8:5, but they read differently. The LDS version is the King James Version of the New Testament; what is the other?

Also, we should never quote scripture and assume that everyone interprets the verse the same way; i.e. do not use primary sources. This current situation is a perfect example. What is needed in both sections is a quote from a reliable source that provides an interpretation for both sections. Thoughts?--Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Or at least a citation for each thought. Misty MH (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Psalm 82:1; Psalm 138:1; Judges 11:24; 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. Egon20 (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

LDS section moved here

I have moved the following section here until such time as there is something that makes it of value:

"The Apostle Paul indicated that although there are gods many and lords many, to Christians there is but one god (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6). This appears to be a proclamation of monolatry rather than monotheism."

"Jews at the time of Jesus were not monotheists, that is, only believed in the existence of one god, but were instead involved in monolatry, that is, the worship of one god. The distinction is important. In many places, the Bible tacitly acknowledges the existence of more than one deity, but does not sanction the worship of more than one god."

First of all, the editor has quoted a book review. The book review is not a statement about LDS beliefs, but a critique of an article that a critic of the LDS Church attempts to describe the concepts of Christology in the Book of Mormon, part of the LDS canon. Second, it seems unhelpful to quote the article, but then say nothing; as if the quotes are self explanatory. I find them insufficient. Third, the topic is monolatrism and this section should explain why it belongs or how it is applicable to the topic. Does anyone have any ideas? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Citing the book itself would seem better. However, since Monolatrism is in contrast to Monotheism and others, I see no reason to question its value to the article. In fact, I think these are pretty significant vs. the Monotheism that is tended to be taught today among many Christian groups. I'd like to see this information put back in but with citations of the original maybe backed up by the review. Misty MH (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The amount of discussion of Mormonism is arguably disproportionate to its relevance to monolatry. The insinuation that Mormonism is monolatrist is contentious. Statements are made to give the impression that Mormonism is monolatrist without openly arguing such. What would be more appropriate is to summarize and cite research on the question and note that the inclusion of Mormonism in this article is controversial. Contributors shouldn't assume that their point is self-evident from the selected bits of info given. Biogenicsilica (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Rashi and the Shema ?

I think it's absolutely relevant to explicitly look in the article at whether the Shema, the most prominent declaration in Jewish practice of the Oneness of God, is compatible with Monolatry rather than out-and-out Monotheism.

But at the moment I am not clear what exactly thesis Rashi's comment

The Lord, who is now our God and not the God of the other nations-He will be [declared] in the future “the one God,” as it is said: “For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language that all of them call in the name of the Lord” (Zeph. 3:9), and it is [also] said: “On that day will the Lord be one and His name one” (Zech. 14:9).

is being used to support.

A quote in the article claims "there is no clear and unambiguous denial of the existence of gods other than Yahweh before Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century B.C." Then we blithely continue "This was recognised by Rashi..."

But as somebody wrote above, "Acknowledging other people worshipped other gods, ... is not necessarily an endorsement of those faiths or a belief in their gods. The rhetorical character of the translated passages can be argued either way, and this should be reflected in the article".

Different readings I guess are:

"YHVH is our God, YHVH alone"

"YHVH is our God, YHVH is the only [God]"

"YHVH is our God, YHVH is unlike any other" ?

I'm not sure that Rashi is incompatible with (2).

IMO it would indeed be good to look at this example more closely, and at what various commentators (particularly those not necessarily just "teaching the party line") have had to say about the Shema, if [[WP:RS]s can be found. Jheald (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In ancient Israel

"However, due to lack of understanding of the original text, most points are considered invalid and not congruent with Jewish teachings."

This sentence is biased, because it looks like it implies that the points are considered invalid because they are incompatible with Jewish teachings.

Considered invalid by whom? By Jewish teachings? Of course they are. Biblical criticism is a scientific approach, Jewish teaching is a religion.

I think the author should add WHO considers those points invalid and also separate that from the fact that they are incompatible with Jewish techings.

Yingele (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This article misses the point...

Monolatry is being treated as one of the -isms. It is NOT and the correct article should be at Monolatry, not monolatrism. The 'isms' all deal with belief, not practice. So if the opposite of theism is atheism, then one could say the opposite of monolatry is idolatry . So to say that someone who practices monolatry worships only one god, but believes in te existence of more than one god is reading more into the statement than is there. Consider the examples below:

• Adam believes in one god and worships him (or her).
• Brian believes in more than one god, but worships only one.
• Charlie isn't sure if there is a god, but worships God out of faith.
• David believes in God, but really doesn't practice any faith.

So given the examples above, Adam, Brian, and Charlie all practice monolatry (that is they all worship one god) even though Adam is monotheistic, Brian is henotheistic, and Charlie is some sort of theistic agnostic. David; like Adam, is monotheistic but doesn't practice monolatry because he is irreligious.

Bottom Line: Monolatry = single worship greek: mono(single) + latreia(worship). I do acknowledge that monolatry is often used to refer to those who believe there may be (or are) more than one god (because monolatry is a 'weaker' term than monotheism), but this article needs to acknowledge the differences. VictorianMutant (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are getting at, and what is the real quibble. If Monolatry is the worship of one, it might also imply a belief or major belief in one. But that's fine if you think that someone can BELIEVE IN maybe more than one while worshiping only one. Was it reworded at some point to reflect this? Apple Dictionary defines it as: "monolatry... the worship of one god without denial of the existence of other gods." I thought the article now indicates that in the first line. Maybe it was changed after your comment. :) Misty MH (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Christian section

Why is there a random section on Christianity? It doesn't really add anything to the article on monolatry. Shouldn't really be there. ArdClose (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And why is there even a random section on Egypt and Israel? Why no Asian religious beliefs? The Christianity section ONLY discusses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which is barely mainstream Christianity. If this article is even on Wikipedia, then Catholicism and mainstream protestant beliefs should be included. Frankly I'm not sure why this page exists. Seems it is taking an opportunity for a little bit of proselytizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnigfreitag (talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I take offense to your definition of "mainstream Christianity."

Many early writings from the time just after Christ have been lost, and many things have been interpreted in ways that are unproven and indeed, non-provable as to the degree to which he (Jesus Christ) would agree. There's a problem with making claims about which group is "mainstream", when the earliest writings we have that quote Jesus were written **THIRTY** years after he was crucified. The Athanasian and Nicean councils didn't take place until 362 and 325 CE respectively. If we define what is mainstream by things that happen hundreds of years after an event, then I guess I can say that certain things supersede councils of men.

The comments about the Jehovah's Witnesses and the New World Translation indicate a stong POV that is unencyclopedic. 75.201.3.191 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I second the above. There needs to be a flag inserted there indicating that a citation is needed. --Sierkejd (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I came onto this talk page solely to see what was up with that JW section. I'll be bold and delete it--even if it's true, the article gives us no reason to believe such. Discuss here. --Mrcolj (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The current iteration of the "In Christianity" section refers to Monolatry and Monotheism but, in my opinion, is from a personal POV interpretation without citation. It argues for a certain interpretation of a translation that is already a translator's or publisher's interpretation. While I do think it's important to include Christian ideas in the article, there is very little there. Some early Christians believed in varying kinds of theism, or even something not exactly like theism. Some Gnostics might have, for example, believed in good gods vs. evil gods; some might not have thought of some (or all?) of them as "gods" at all. There is a LOT of history there missing. I have seen some references to this in other articles, but which those were are not coming to mind at the moment, or I might include some of that here myself. Today, there are a bazillion different permutations of theism among those who call themselves Christian. Relatively few might be Monolatrists, but are some. I'd like to see references to actual Monolatry within Christianity throughout the ages. :) Misty MH (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Christianity is a monotralous religion (according to the verses Psalm 82:1 and 82:6-7; Psalm 86:8; Psalm 95:3; Psalm 138:1; Judges 11:24; 1 Corinthians 8:5-6; Deuteronomy 10:17; Exodus 15:11; Daniel 2:47). In 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 it is says: even though there are so-called gods in heaven and on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, but for us there is only one. Egon20 (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"Errors on the page"

It is clear the bible dopes not refer to any "other Gods" It speaks on the topic clearly by saying "gods" to refer to the blindness induced by sinfullness. It uses it as a sort of distinguisher between the one true God, and those which are a figment of mans sinful puzzle-lie formations. TO say that ancient Israel supported many gods as in the same category of the one true God is incorrect. The topic is discussed by the Apostle Paul as well as by Moses and the word of God himself in the Old testament.</ref>http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/8-6.htm</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.65.78 (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Monolatrism → Monolatry – As has been suggested earlier (under #Alternative Definition), this article should be moved to the more common term.

• While google searches are not a perfect way to measure how common a term is (let alone how correct it is), it at least gives some broad indications if the numbers are vastly apart. Searching for "monolatrism" yields 55,200 results, while searching for [searching for monolatry] yields 112.000 results, more than double the first search. However, some pages (mostly thanks to this article being mirrored) has both terms side by side. If we search for "Monolatry" and exclude "monolatrism" it still gets 107,000 results.
• Consulting the most-respected dictionaries
  • Searching Merriam-Webster for monolatrism will result in "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.", with "monetarism" and "monotreme" suggested. Searching for monolatry will explain it as a synonym for henotheism (not quite accurate but close enough. And at least the word exists.
  • I cannot access the OED right now but, if I may quote User:Acjelen above:
    "The OED 2nd ed. (1989) gives monolatry and not monolatrism, as do the second editions of the New Oxford American Dictionary (2000) and the Random House Dictonary of the English Language (1987). The fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (2005) gives neither. Webster's Third and the second edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion both have a see reference at monolatry and do not give monolatrism."

So it's obvious that "monolatry" is the more common term. Hence, this page should be moved to "monolatry". Str1977 ^(talk) 16:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this article on Wikipedia the main source using "monolatrism" on the Internet? I'm not sure if another dictionary survey is needed more than 11 years after that first one. I still support moving this page to Monolatry. The one concession I will give to the other side is that -latry is an outmoded suffix. Generally in English today, belief systems are given -ism suffixes. Can someone review Wikipedia articles with ending forms other than -ism? One example is Heathenry (new religious movement). Acjelen (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I never encountered the term "monolatrism" before stumbling upon this article. I don't think we need another dictionary search but if anyone wants to undertake one, I'm pretty sure that "monolatry" would still come out on top. Right now, there is scant evidence for "monolatrism". At best, it can be included as an alternative term.

"latry" might an outdated morpheme but "monolatrism" doesn't make any sense as it retains half of the outdated morpheme and than latches the (ill-suited) suffix "ism" unto it. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and WP:CONSISTENCY (with Idolatry, etc.). The -trism construction is actually inaccurate. If you combine the -try and -ism suffixes, you end up with an -ism about the -try; it's a different and non-notable topic (if it really exists at all): an organized religio-philosophy that is about monolatry. This article is about the practice of monolatry.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monolatry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061106075405/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/god/Overview_About_God/God_Monotheism_Tigay.htm to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/god/Overview_About_God/God_Monotheism_Tigay.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Not happy with the Move to Monolatry from Monolatrism

I am not happy with the MOVE to "Monolatry" from "Monolatrism".

Monolatry smacks of reference to the word idolatry, and therefore seems like some religion's preferred term to dismiss other forms of theism.

When I first encountered this article, I just took the word monolatrism to refer to a theological word for another form of theism, comparable to the words monotheism or pantheism, etc. Now, as monolatry, it seems more like an opinion that relegates the belief or practice to a form of idolatry.

Don't like it at all.

We are not likely to find the finer distinctions (or words) like this in TYPICAL dictionaries. They aren't theological dictionaries! And as we see from the discussion in October 2017,† each of these words might not even be found in such a dictionary! Both words were missing from some!

† I just today read the short Discussion, which only included a few editors, no discussion among theologians, and no references whatsoever to theological dictionaries (that I noticed in the discussion). Everyday dictionaries aren't good enough on this topic.

Whether intended or not, the move – to what is being taken here as the same word in a different form – seems to be a move to a more sectarian designation, possibly referring by sectarians to idolatry, rather than a theological word referring to an important type of theism.

I strongly urge that this word be changed back until we (or someone) can do further research among theological dictionaries and such, rather than relying on everyday-dictionaries.

Please.

Suggestions for theological dictionaries are welcome. But let's move the page back for now (someone who knows how to do that).

The move details from View History: "10:57, November 6, 2017‎ Jenks24 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (19,535 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Jenks24 moved page Monolatrism to Monolatry: per requested move discussion, see talk) (undo | thank)"

Misty MH (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Monolatry vs. henotheism: mystery!

The lead states that "monolatry is distinguished from henotheism", but I think the article completely fails to show how the two are distinct from each other. Who can work that out? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hum from what I understand a Henotheist only worship one god, believes there are others and are ok with others worshiping those other gods (in other words, those other gods are not evil incarnate, just not their god, but those other gods are equally valid for others to worship. :Monolatry on the other hand is believing that there's more then one god out there but worshiping another god is wrong.

At least that's what I understand from the answer to this question on Quora, that said, we'll need a proper source before we can say that for sure... Luredreier (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing has been done yet. Guessing or applying to Quora is not ideal ;) Still needs to be clarified/reworded with the DIFFERENCES put into focus. Arminden (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Some more potential sources?

I saw this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Kpkp2vxX3I That kind of addresses this topic. And sure, it can't be used as a source, and heck, its sources are books etc that can't be used as a source either directly. But perhaps someone digging deeper can find more sources about this topic by going down that rabbit hole? Things like online references to the books used as sources or even the books themselves being online somewhere? Or perhaps there's something else that would qualify as a source? Anyway, just thought I should let you all know about the video and the sources mentioned in the description field as it might be a good starting point for beefing up the source section of this article a bit if anyone is willing to go to the effort of looking through it all. Luredreier (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Definition of henotheism

In this article one reads about henotheism, a religious system in which the believer worships one god without denying that others may worship different gods with equal validity., whereas in the article Henotheism it says: Henotheism (from Greek ἑνὸς θεοῦ (henos theou) 'of one god') is the worship of a single, supreme god while not denying the existence or possible existence of other lower deities..

This seems like an open contradiction. Which article is right? --♦ Xarioti (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

LDS section OR

My intent is to delete the entire LDS section in its current state per my edit summary my detailed edit summary. @Nathantibbitts13579: reverted me and posted on my talk page with summaries and comments that reinforce my point, that the section cites no sources mentioning monolatry in any sense, that it cites almost entirely WP:Primary sources, and that its extrapolation of monolatry is WP:Original research.

As there are not many people watching this page, and this seems like a brick wall argument, I am referring this to the No original research noticeboard. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)