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

[crazzeto]

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.

This didn’t come from no where, it came from mormon converts. Journey Home had an interview with a Mormon Bishop who converted, he affirmed just this if I am remembering correctly. Of course he did acknowlege that Mormon teachings are in fact, ever changing, ever evolving there for he can’t be sure the church is still teaching that. He said it was certainly true when he was there.

 

[Stephen168]

The question of homoousia is a very important one. Not only does it render orthodox Christians monotheists in the technical sense, but it has further consequences for how we see God.

Seeing as the Three Persons are of one single divine substance, this means that they are co-eternal, equally divine and equally worthy of worship. Whereas the LDS church, denying homoousia , leaves space open for the Son to be seen as a “created thing”, made not begotten, and likewise with the Holy Spirit. This also permits the Son to be less than equal in divinity, not having been so from the beginning.

with God.

**The createdness of the Son in LDS theology is probably what opens the door for the peculiar LDS doctrine of human deification. The Son is not essentially anything different than creation, although he is “God”. There is nothing stopping human beings from becoming other “Sons” in the very same sense. **

You are quite right. There is not…but here you have a fundamental misunderstanding of LDS doctrine. We also believe that WE have always existed; eternal.

We do not believe that we are ‘creations’ of God, but rather, His offspring.

Thus the singularity of Christ appears to be [ultimately] abolished.

It can not be legitimately called “one God”, when that God has different “parts”, ontologically distinct, some of whom existed at a time when others did not.

Only if you concede that humans are created beings who have not also always existed. We don’t.

Joseph Smith taught, when god came into existent there was already material here for him to organize. He can not be eternal if something existed before he did.

"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.”

“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. “

If you are the offspring of god, you can not be eternal, either.

 

[wmscott]

If you really want to find out more about Mormonism, I think you are going the wrong ways about it. The best way is to get hold of a copy of the Book of Mormon and read it. After you have read it, if you are still interested in finding out more, you can read more of the sacred literature of the Church, or if you prefer attend Church a couple of times, preferably with a Mormon friend who can show you around, introduce you to people, and explain to you what the different lessons and meetings mean.

Thanks but no thanks. Peace

 

[dianaiad]

Do you have examples of polygamy practiced right? Somewhere a woman wrote in her (published) diary how happy she was that her husband took another, younger, prettier wife. How happy she was that he wasn’t with her every evening? How much she loved taking care of the children of her husband’s other wives?

I actually gave you one in one of my earlier posts, describing one of my great grandparent’s family, where the women divided the work so that the wife who loved homemaking did that part, another wife was a teacher and writer, a third was a physician (whose education was financed by Brigham Young) and the fourth was studying law before their family was torn apart when the feds came in.

How many times, published info only please, was polygamy practiced right, where the husband took a much older wife?

Why be snide? It is published fact that Brigham Young, for instance, was ‘sealed’ to several women far older than he was.

I only ask because of the numerous books and writings of women that felt they were set aside for the younger wife.

Ok, where, in any of my posts, did I deny that there were abuses? In fact, I remember rather clearly saying that practicing polygamy right is HARD, and not many can do it. Men can’t do it. They have to give up too much control. I remember stating rather clearly that polygamy as it is practiced NOW is not practiced right.

So giving me a whole bunch of examples of it being practiced WRONG isn’t taking a side I don’t already agree with, y’know. I remember also stating that I believe the biggest reason it was stopped is BECAUSE it wasn’t practiced correctly…because men, especially, couldn’t handle the humility required. I mean, think of it. In order to practice this thing right, the man has to take the back seat in almost everything but religion…and far too often in that. His wives have to be free to explore their own talents, whether those talents are canning food and raising children—or opera singing. The women have to have equal say in family matters (including who is invited in) and of course the man can’t get rid of a wife he doesn’t like. He doesn’t have control…and men do not like that.

So go ahead and list all the examples you can think of where polygamy didn’t work, or was a bad idea. I say…you are quite right. All those things happened.

I agree. Which is, AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID SEVERAL TIMES NOW, probably why we no longer practice it.

 

[dianaiad]

Joseph Smith taught, when god came into existent there was already material here for him to organize. He can not be eternal if something existed before he did. If you are the offspring of god, you can not be eternal, either.

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

 

[dianaiad]

Joseph Smith taught, when god came into existent there was already material here for him to organize. He can not be eternal if something existed before he did. If you are the offspring of god, you can not be eternal, either.

Yes you can. After all, I am the offspring of my physical parents; I was born, have grown older, and will die. However, my spirit existed before my physical birth and will exist after my physical death. That I existed in a form OTHER than mortal before my birth does not mean that I am NOT my mother’s daughter.

 

[twopekinguys]

I look forward to the day when monogamy is practiced properly!

–kc

You said a mouthful there!!!

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks but no thanks. Peace

William,

You do what you need to do. However, I’ll leave you with this one last thought: you went, first, to people who hate us, who have presented our beliefs in about as inaccurate and negative a manner as I have seen (well, I HAVE seen worse, but the language used in the ‘worse’ stuff isn’t generally acceptable in moderated groups).

Now you have decided that you want nothing more to do with us. Your choice, of course. I would only ask you this: if the only exposure you have to any belief system is hate literature by its enemies, and defense AGAINST that literature by the believers, do you really think you have an unbiased, objective idea of the beliefs of that system?

You have, right now, absolutely no way of knowing if anything you have learned about us so far is accurate or not, and so–have no basis for making any sort of reasonable judgement.

…and you made me curious. What ABOUT Kolob?

 

[MrZetterlund]

Christians believe in only one God and that He is the only God that exists.

Can it be summed up that Mormons believe in multiple Gods existing while they only worship the one god that they believe created our world? So, while they worship only one god - they believe in multiple ones?

The main reason I am asking is that I am confused as to how the LDS reconcile all of the mentioning in the Old and New Testaments of their only being one God with the teachings of Joesph Smith.

I know a young man who is about to go on his LDS mission trip in the near future and he couldn’t really answer this for me. (He says he hasn’t taken all the classes yet.)

Thank you and please keep it polite.

Om, Well actually, it is possible there may be more than one God. Though they are false gods, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. god said “You shall have no other gods before Me.” -doesn’t that mean that there is other gods that are possible to have over Him? Also, I was reading the book of Enoch, and the angels refered to the God as "Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, and God of the ages.

 

[wmscott]

William,

You do what you need to do. However, I’ll leave you with this one last thought: you went, first, to people who hate us, who have presented our beliefs in about as inaccurate and negative a manner as I have seen (well, I HAVE seen worse, but the language used in the ‘worse’ stuff isn’t generally acceptable in moderated groups).

Now you have decided that you want nothing more to do with us. Your choice, of course. I would only ask you this: if the only exposure you have to any belief system is hate literature by its enemies, and defense AGAINST that literature by the believers, do you really think you have an unbiased, objective idea of the beliefs of that system?

You have, right now, absolutely no way of knowing if anything you have learned about us so far is accurate or not, and so–have no basis for making any sort of reasonable judgement.

…and you made me curious. What ABOUT Kolob?

Dianaiad, it is not that I want nothing more to do with you. Yes, I originally went to ex-Mormon sites that may have depicted Mormons in a negative light. This is why I came into this thread and asked the questions that I did. I hope that I was not disrespectful in my questions. However, you and others have rebutted the ex-Mormon claims, provided me with what you believe to be the truth, and I take you and the others at their word.
As I stated earlier I fully recognize and respect each person’s right to worship the way they choose and I would never want to denigrate or disrespect any one of you. That would not be very Christian like would it?

You state, “You have, right now, absolutely no way of knowing if anything you have learned about us so far is accurate or not, and so–have no basis for making any sort of reasonable judgment.”

However, I am basing my assessment on what I have learned based on the LDS and Mormon official web sites and what you and the other Mormon posters have shared with me here. Your beliefs are your beliefs and I will never come to terms with them, but that is OK. As I have stated, I have learned a few new things, and the things that I chose to believe what Mormons believe are from your own words and the others that posted here. I do not have to believe in them, I do not have to like them, but I do respect your right to believe in them not matter how much I feel your are in error. You are an intelligent person and I am sure you know what Catholics believe. Therefore, it is obvious that our beliefs are incompatible to say the least. As I said, I feel if I continue it would start to disintegrate and turn inflammatory and I really do not want to go there. Peace

 

[why_me]

Therefore, it is obvious that our beliefs are incompatible to say the least. As I said, I feel if I continue it would start to disintegrate and turn inflammatory and I really do not want to go there. Peace

I believe that she was referring to the fact that you went to read about the temple ceremony, found out something about kolob and decided to have nothing to do with the mormon faith. My guess is that the sites that had the temple ceremony were not lds. In fact, the only sites that would publish such information would definitely be antimormon because they have published the temple ceremonies in most likely a very unflattering light.

If I were interested in the mormon faith, I would definitely look at their scriptures and skim through them. Also, I would go to promormon blogs and read what the mormons are saying about their faith. I may go to the mormonapologetic site and read what their amatuer apologists are saying etc. Then, I can make a more balanced judgement.

 

[Marie5890]

From what Wmscott said I get the impression that people need to keep in mind something.

He is looking at Mormonism thru the prism of traditional Christianity.

Mormonism isnt traditional Christianity as we all can agree to. So its comes off as very odd to those who use the traditional prism of Christianity. For them Mormonism makes no sense.

Mormons see their faith thru the prism of non-traditional Christianity so it’s not odd to them at all. For them it makes complete sense.

For Mormons, the prism of traditional Christianity is odd. To them it makes no sense.

JMO

 

[why_me]

From what Wmscott said I get the impression that people need to keep in mind something.

He is looking at Mormonism thru the prism of traditional Christianity.

Mormonism isnt traditional Christianity as we all can agree to. So its comes off as very odd to those who use the traditional prism of Christianity. For them Mormonism makes no sense.

Mormons see their faith thru the prism of non-traditional Christianity so it’s not odd to them at all. For them it makes complete sense.

For Mormons, the prism of traditional Christianity is odd. To them it makes no sense.

JMO

You were going good until the last sentence. Traditional christianity does make sense for most mormons. But Mormonism goes beyond traditional christianity by expanding it in other directions. So, traditional christianity is not odd for most mormons…but it is incomplete.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad, it is not that I want nothing more to do with you. Yes, I originally went to ex-Mormon sites that may have depicted Mormons in a negative light. This is why I came into this thread and asked the questions that I did. I hope that I was not disrespectful in my questions. However, you and others have rebutted the ex-Mormon claims, provided me with what you believe to be the truth, and I take you and the others at their word.
As I stated earlier I fully recognize and respect each person’s right to worship the way they choose and I would never want to denigrate or disrespect any one of you. That would not be very Christian like would it?

You state, “You have, right now, absolutely no way of knowing if anything you have learned about us so far is accurate or not, and so–have no basis for making any sort of reasonable judgment.”

However, I am basing my assessment on what I have learned based on the LDS and Mormon official web sites and what you and the other Mormon posters have shared with me here. Your beliefs are your beliefs and I will never come to terms with them, but that is OK. As I have stated, I have learned a few new things, and the things that I chose to believe what Mormons believe are from your own words and the others that posted here. I do not have to believe in them, I do not have to like them, but I do respect your right to believe in them not matter how much I feel your are in error. You are an intelligent person and I am sure you know what Catholics believe. Therefore, it is obvious that our beliefs are incompatible to say the least. As I said, I feel if I continue it would start to disintegrate and turn inflammatory and I really do not want to go there. Peace

OK, then…

It’s true, I know more about the Catholic faith ( a LOT more) than I did six months ago. That’s mostly because I came here first, and to anti-Catholic sites never.

But as to whether 'I know what Catholics believe…" Well, “more than six months ago,” isn’t exactly the same as “knowing everything.” For one thing, words get very much in the way; the definitions of them do, anyway. So I’ll be using words one way, they will be using them another, and the concepts might not translate. Trust me, I will never claim that I know 'everything that Catholics believe." and will always stand willing to be corrected when I goof.

 

[dianaiad]

I believe that she was referring to the fact that you went to read about the temple ceremony, found out something about kolob and decided to have nothing to do with the mormon faith. My guess is that the sites that had the temple ceremony were not lds. In fact, the only sites that would publish such information would definitely be antimormon because they have published the temple ceremonies in most likely a very unflattering light.

If I were interested in the mormon faith, I would definitely look at their scriptures and skim through them. Also, I would go to promormon blogs and read what the mormons are saying about their faith. I may go to the mormonapologetic site and read what their amatuer apologists are saying etc. Then, I can make a more balanced judgement.

Nah, Why Me…that bit about Kolob was an after thought. I was just curious. I have heard so many weird things about it from the anti’s that I was wondering what he had heard.

 

[dianaiad]

From what Wmscott said I get the impression that people need to keep in mind something.

He is looking at Mormonism thru the prism of traditional Christianity.

No, Marie, he wasn’t. he was looking at it through a prism of anti-Mormonism. At least at first he was.There is a HUGE difference. True, ‘traditional’ Christianity can contain anti-Mormonism…but to the credit of traditional Christianity, I would not call the standard evangelical counter-cult Protestant movement “traditional.” These are the folks who are as anti Catholicism as they are anti-Mormons. I recognized the rhetoric.

Mormonism isnt traditional Christianity as we all can agree to. So its comes off as very odd to those who use the traditional prism of Christianity. For them Mormonism makes no sense.

Well, that’s fair; "traditional’ Christianity doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, either.

Mormons see their faith thru the prism of non-traditional Christianity so it’s not odd to them at all. For them it makes complete sense.

For Mormons, the prism of traditional Christianity is odd. To them it makes no sense.

JMO

…and there you go.

I will admit that Mormonism, to me, makes FAR greater logical internal sense than traditional Orthodox Christianity

 

[dianaiad]

You were going good until the last sentence. Traditional christianity does make sense for most mormons. But Mormonism goes beyond traditional christianity by expanding it in other directions. So, traditional christianity is not odd for most mormons…but it is incomplete.

Well, WhyMe…here’s one Mormon who keeps running into logical missteps in traditional Christianity.

 

[wmscott]

I believe that she was referring to the fact that you went to read about the temple ceremony, found out something about kolob and decided to have nothing to do with the mormon faith. My guess is that the sites that had the temple ceremony were not lds. In fact, the only sites that would publish such information would definitely be antimormon because they have published the temple ceremonies in most likely a very unflattering light.

If I were interested in the mormon faith, I would definitely look at their scriptures and skim through them. Also, I would go to promormon blogs and read what the mormons are saying about their faith. I may go to the mormonapologetic site and read what their amatuer apologists are saying etc. Then, I can make a more balanced judgement.

Actually, from what I read about the Temple ceremonies I did not see any anti-Mormon statements, at least at the ones I looked at, it was just a description of the ceremony, its flow and processes. I did go to LDS.org and Mormon.org to check things out and if you read my explanation, you will see that I take LDS at their word for what they say they believe on what they rebutted and posted here. It is based on this, that I have formulated my opinions.

 

[why_me]

Well, WhyMe…here’s one Mormon who keeps running into logical missteps in traditional Christianity.

Maybe, but I don’t think that you find traditional christianity odd. Most mormons who came from other christian backgrounds do not find their former faith odd, but incomplete. But I could be wrong.

 

[twopekinguys]

No, Marie, he wasn’t. he was looking at it through a prism of anti-Mormonism. At least at first he was.There is a HUGE difference. True, ‘traditional’ Christianity can contain anti-Mormonism…but to the credit of traditional Christianity, I would not call the standard evangelical counter-cult Protestant movement “traditional.” These are the folks who are as anti Catholicism as they are anti-Mormons. I recognized the rhetoric.

Diania,

Aren’t you doing the same thing you accuse others of doing?

It can be seen that way.

You are telling HIM what HE believes.