Do LDS openly acknowledge that their religion teaches the belief of multiple gods?

[Janet1983]

I love how you folks pull things out of no where. The church does not believe in multiple Gods. I believe those of you are former Mormons, who make the outrageous statements that it is taught in the church. WRONG!!!WRONG!!!

Relative to Joseph Smith, saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision ---- HE DID NOT SEE MULTIPLE GODS!!!

I recognize you hate the church and what truthfully profess, not the continuous recycled garbage that gets spread regularly here on the forums, etc.

Mormon Texts tend to baffle me over and over, especially in cases in which they are very contradictory and hard to understand…
Looking at your theology I do not understand why you try to ridicule the asker…

Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, page 5 (1844)… it’s about the center of the right column if you want to look for it…

In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people in it.

Earlier in the text ist is actually even more radical… the bottom of page 4:

It read first, “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.” That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God.

Joseph Smith also wrote the following in History of the Church, Volume 6, Page 474, 1844… It’s the 2nd parapgraph on the page if you can get a hold of the book…

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregation when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by Elders for fifteen years.

He goes on to declare that The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the “distinct” and “separate” Gods. (And yes he uses those words.) “We have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural.”

I think I know where all the bad blood is coming from… On page 478 of the same book, J. Smith is ranting about the CC…

Anyhow… the Seer also declares that there was a god before our God… who is to tell that Elohim’s siblings did not reach godhood? That would constitute plural gods too…
Orson Pratt, The Seer, Page 132, 1853, center, left column

We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive worlds, and as a last resort, we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first father was begotten.

Well giving that lineage there could be more gods than stars to count…

Disclaimer: If there are any spellings that are not quite like the original (I just corrected a spelling mistake) then it might be because I literally typed it all… I did not copy and paste and I do not know where to find these documents on the internet.

 

[Marie5890]

Mormon Texts tend to baffle me over and over, especially in cases in which they are very contradictory and hard to understand…
Looking at your theology I do not understand why you try to ridicule the asker…

Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, page 5 (1844)… it’s about the center of the right column if you want to look for it…

Earlier in the text ist is actually even more radical… the bottom of page 4:

Joseph Smith also wrote the following in History of the Church, Volume 6, Page 474, 1844… It’s the 2nd parapgraph on the page if you can get a hold of the book…

He goes on to declare that The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the “distinct” and “separate” Gods. (And yes he uses those words.) “We have three Gods andyhow, and they are plural.”

I think I know where all the bad blood is coming from… On page 478 of the same book, J. Smith is ranting about the CC…

Anyhow… the Seer also declares that there was a god before our God… who is to tell that Elohim’s siblings did not reach godhood? That would constitute plural gods too…
Orson Pratt, The Seer, Page 132, 1853, center, left column

Well giving that lineage there could be more gods than stars to count…

Please…make no mistake. Mormons do believe in the plurality of gods, even if they only worship one god.

They do believe in more than what they would call an exhaulted being (IE a god)

Mormons do believe that there are more than simply one god. They just worship one of them.

Let keep our integrity and honor and honesty about this.

Mormons DO believe that there is more than just “one” god in all of eternity.

I would be completely disappointed if Mormoms claimed otherwise.

 

[Marie5890]

Mormon Texts tend to baffle me over and over, especially in cases in which they are very contradictory and hard to understand…
Looking at your theology I do not understand why you try to ridicule the asker…

Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, page 5 (1844)… it’s about the center of the right column if you want to look for it…

Earlier in the text ist is actually even more radical… the bottom of page 4:

Joseph Smith also wrote the following in History of the Church, Volume 6, Page 474, 1844… It’s the 2nd parapgraph on the page if you can get a hold of the book…

He goes on to declare that The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the “distinct” and “separate” Gods. (And yes he uses those words.) “We have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural.”

I think I know where all the bad blood is coming from… On page 478 of the same book, J. Smith is ranting about the CC…

Anyhow… the Seer also declares that there was a god before our God… who is to tell that Elohim’s siblings did not reach godhood? That would constitute plural gods too…
Orson Pratt, The Seer, Page 132, 1853, center, left column

Well giving that lineage there could be more gods than stars to count…

Disclaimer: If there are any spellings that are not quite like the original (I just corrected a spelling mistake) then it might be because I literally typed it all… I did not copy and paste and I do not know where to find these documents on the internet.

Janet…make no mistake…Mormons DO believe in a plurality of gods…but only worship one of them…

For them its called “reaching exhaultation”…

They DO believe in all of the universe there is more than just one god…

 

[Janet1983]

I would be completely disappointed if Mormoms claimed otherwise.

They will if they have to, because today they are trying to keep up a Christian facade… why else would they deny some of their old teachings? (Well that is pure speculation on my part and plain explanation on my husbands part… he is a former Mormon as of today… we got the letter.)

 

[Marie5890]

They will if they have to, because today they are trying to keep up a Christian facade… why else would they deny some of their old teachings? (Well that is pure speculation on my part and plain explanation on my husbands part… he is a former Mormon as of today… we got the letter.)

Dont ever discount your husband’s understanding or experience when it comes to Mormonism…

Mormonism, as other sects, will succeed or fail on its own merits…

Christ and His bride will also stand or fall on its own merits…

I would rather stand on Christ’s side personally…

(and from the information I have been given, Greg Dodge is receiving an incredible amounts of resignation letters each day)

 

[why_me]

I need documentation of the dogmas…not the myths.

Thank you !!!

I do believe people should be held in accountability of research!!!

Thank you in advance

The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (Against Heresies 2.22): “Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God — infants, children, and youths” (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (On the Soul, Book III) says “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.” A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Epistle 28) reads:“Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ,” St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."

From the Newadvent website.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

 

[PaulDupre]

thecourt:

Relative to Joseph Smith, saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision ---- HE DID NOT SEE MULTIPLE GODS!!!

This guy really doesn’t know his religion…

“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.”
(Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith p. 370).

 

[why_me]

…

(and from the information I have been given, Greg Dodge is receiving an incredible amounts of resignation letters each day)

I need documentation about this. I do believe in research!!! Can you provide me with your source?

Now the mormons took a hit over Proposition 8 where many wishywashy mormons resigned because the mormon church opposed same sex marriage. I knew that. But what was your source for your claim.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, Mormonism completely reject the idea of original sin. They simply dont believe in it so, for them, there is no reason for infant baptism.

For them baptism only comes into play when a child can distinguish between right an wrong (accountability)

Other Christians believe in original sin, hense the need for infant baptism. The wiping out of original sin committed by Adam and Eve.

Mormons REJECT original sin completely (IE no need for infant baptism)
Most traditional Christian believe in it. (hence the need for infant baptism)

Again…radically different prism of spiritual reality…

Ok, I understand if the question is positioned as: Is there a need for infant baptism? I can now understand why a Mormon would say, “no.” I had been thinking about it from the somtimes rabid attacks from Mormons on the practice of infant baptism. So my question was more like: Why not? I just don’t see anything in Mormon doctrine that would make them reject it. I can now understand why they don’t do it (no need) but I don’t understand why they attack the Catholic practice.

 

[spockrates]

Joseph Smith never taught that there was a time when God did not exist.

I find Mormonism fascinating, Dian. I have a relative who is mormon, but rarely get to see her. It would be great if you will answer a question or three for me!

I’m wondering what LDS believe about God. I mean, when you say Joseph Smith never taught that there was a time when God did not exist, do you mean he believed God’s always existed? or do you mean he believes that the gods of this earth always existed?

 

[Janet1983]

Dont ever discount your husband’s understanding or experience when it comes to Mormonism…

I don’t… I just don’t have any proof, but him as a witness…

 

[why_me]

This guy really doesn’t know his religion…

The concept is in the bible dictionary which accompanies the KJV that the mormons issue. It is well known. I tend to think that thecourt was not mormon at all. And so, the mormons openly ackowledge the concept. But this thread has a life of its own.

 

[why_me]

Ok, I understand if the question is positioned as: Is there a need for infant baptism? I can now understand why a Mormon would say, “no.” I had been thinking about it from the somtimes rabid attacks from Mormons on the practice of infant baptism. So my question was more like: Why not? I just don’t see anything in Mormon doctrine that would make them reject it. I can now understand why they don’t do it (no need) but I don’t understand why they attack the Catholic practice.

Attack is the wrong word…I think that the word agree is more suitable. Mormons do not attack the catholic position on infant baptism. But they don’t agree with it either. But I can understand why you can not use more neutral words. Much better to use loaded words that convey negative connotations if one is stressing to paint the mormon church in a negative light.

 

[Janet1983]

But this thread has a life of its own.

Well let’s take it back on-topic… I answered to the first answer to the original post (and the first post thereby) just a few posts before this one… here.

By the way… it seems to occur commonly that a thread about the LDS church end up becoming about the RCC… like them having issues that can be debated would change the fact that the LDS church has issues that can be debated…

 

[Marie5890]

Ok, I understand if the question is positioned as: Is there a need for infant baptism? I can now understand why a Mormon would say, “no.” I had been thinking about it from the somtimes rabid attacks from Mormons on the practice of infant baptism. So my question was more like: Why not? I just don’t see anything in Mormon doctrine that would make them reject it. I can now understand why they don’t do it (no need) but I don’t understand why they attack the Catholic practice.

There is an older teaching that the Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon” mentioned in the dream of Lehi (Book of Mormon).

I am not sure what present day Mormonism teaches when it comes to the Catholic Church.

I do know that when I was a member that the teaching was that each person would be judged based on their own actions and not the actions of other (ie Adam and Eve and hence Original Sin)

Like I have said and will always say…Mormons are not typical nor traditional Christians…

very different spiritual views…very different world world views…very different dogmatic views…

For the most part you will never see Mormon dogmatic views in traditional Christianity…

Radically different…

 

[PaulDupre]

Ok, I understand if the question is positioned as: Is there a need for infant baptism? I can now understand why a Mormon would say, “no.” I had been thinking about it from the somtimes rabid attacks from Mormons on the practice of infant baptism. So my question was more like: Why not? I just don’t see anything in Mormon doctrine that would make them reject it. I can now understand why they don’t do it (no need) but I don’t understand why they attack the Catholic practice.

Because the Book of Mormon tells them to:

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
• • •
20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.

• Moroni 8: 14, 20

 

[Marie5890]

It is so very important to understand that Mormonism under JSmith and BYoung is NOT the same Mormonism under GHinckly and TMonson…

Please…PLEASE do extensive research…

They ARE different in everyday dogma…

DO the RESEARCH…USE the intellect that GOD gave you!!!

THANKS!!

 

[Stephen168]

Attack is the wrong word…I think that the word agree is more suitable. Mormons do not attack the catholic position on infant baptism. But they don’t agree with it either. But I can understand why you can not use more neutral words. Much better to use loaded words that convey negative connotations if one is stressing to paint the mormon church in a negative light.

I like the word attack because I believe that what it is. There doesn’t seem to be a rational reason why Mormons could not baptize infants according to their own doctrines about sin and what happens at baptism. I understand now why they choose not to (no need), but there is nothing reasonable stopping them. There is no rational reason why a Mormon should ‘care’ about ‘when’ someone is baptized, but we hear about it a lot. If Mormons just disagreed because there simply is no need, then we wouldn’t hear about it ever. Mormon’s believe there was a ‘great apostasy.’ There is absolutely no proof of this at all, except Mormons reject Catholic teaching, they think they are right, therefore there was an Apostasy. Baptizing infants is on every Mormons list of ‘changed’ doctrines; usually around number two on the list. Yes, changed but there is no reason why Mormon’s believe it was necessary and of course no prove it was actually changed. Yes, I like the word, ‘attack.’

 

[Marie5890]

I like the word attack because I believe that what it is. There doesn’t seem to be a rational reason why Mormons could not baptize infants according to their own doctrines about sin and what happens at baptism. I understand now why they choose not to (no need), but there is nothing reasonable stopping them. There is no rational reason why a Mormon should ‘care’ about ‘when’ someone is baptized, but we hear about it a lot. If Mormons just disagreed because there simply is no need, then we wouldn’t hear about it ever. Mormon’s believe there was a ‘great apostasy.’ There is absolutely no proof of this at all, except Mormons reject Catholic teaching, they think they are right, therefore there was an Apostasy. Baptizing infants is on every Mormons list of ‘changed’ doctrines; usually around number two on the list. Yes, changed but there is no reason why Mormon’s believe it was necessary and of course no prove it was actually changed. Yes, I like the word, ‘attack.’

Stephen…your critical thinking skills serve you well…

 

[zaffiroborant]

Back in the day, it was a little different and more severe. Many mothers and fathers suffered if their babies died before baptism because of the fate of their babies soul. I remember hearing about no merciful god when I was a boy.

Of course, now it is different and right it should be different. The mormon concept of infant death is much more uplifting. Those who die before the age of accountability were choice spirits in the preexistence and as such they did not have to go through the temptations that life has to offer. Rather, they were brought right to the arms of the father and are now doing marvelous work for Him in eternity.

Back in what day?