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

[ParkerD]

And as the article states, he is supporting the official teaching of the Catholic Church, and is a position similar to that of baptism of desire.

Hi, TheosisM,
I had wanted to get back to you about the subject of being the “children of God” and how that relates to a belief in Heavenly Father and our relationship to Him.

I liked the following post by a Catholic from England:

The following is just a collection of words to challenge the mind to think, and I cannot make any claims from these words.

Here is a child like and yet profound way to test the power of the greatest commandments further; when looking for a purpose for the creation of the universe and life.

Did God have a complete plan for the creation of everything, did he think ahead? Were Christ’s life, death and resurrection planned before the creation of the universe began?

To search for a deeper meaning, was Christ freely given the choice to accept his sacrifice before the creation of the universe began?

Would it mean that the Father had a purpose for man so great, that creation could not be achieved in any lesser way?

What purpose can be so great, that it would compel God to create the universe and life, knowing in advance that his son would have to die?

Would it be to forgive us our sins, or can there be something greater?

Challenge your mind to find a greatest good purpose for the creation of the universe; by searching for answers to three questions.

What greatest thing can God create?

God could create all the stars and planets of the universe; he then becomes God the builder.
God could create a whole variety of life with almost no intelligence like plants; he now becomes God the gardener’
God could create life with more intelligence but if the knowledge is limited he has now created the animal kingdom. He now becomes God the farmer.
God could create life in his own image, a life that could understand him. Can God create anything greater than life in his own image, does he now become God the Father.
Does the greatest thing that God creates, depend on the relationship that he can have with them?

What greatest purpose can God have to create children in his own image?

Could love be the greatest reason for God to create children?
Could the ultimate God be a God who loves in the greatest way?

God willingly loves all of mankind as he loves HIMSELF.

Can there be any greater reason to create children, even for God, can God love us more than he loves himself?

To find a greatest purpose for all God’s children.

What greatest purpose could God set for humanity? Would it be for everyone to turn to His kind of religion and pray the way that he stipulates, or would it be to banish poverty, gain intellectual superiority, conquer sickness and death, and subdue the universe or is there more?

If the greatest reason God could have to create mankind, is to love us, as he loves himself, then God could create mankind, with the freedom to return God’s love

All of mankind to be created with the freedom to love God the creator unconditionally, are we given the greatest commandment as a guide for this very purpose?

God willingly loves everyone as he loves himself; do we also need this same freedom to love everyone in the same way, so that the truth can be complete for God and mankind.

All of mankind, to be created with the freedom to love their neighbour; as they love themselves unconditionally; are we given the second greatest commandment as a guide?

Is this how God wants his children to be one? He wants us to love each other as we love ourselves.

In a way, God loves us more than he loves himself, because he was willing to do what was good for us but not good for him (send his Son to die). In a sort of contradicting way, God loves himself more than us, because he knows that he is the greatest thing in the universe and retains the power of heaven or hell over us.

When you ask the question; why did Christ say they are the greatest commandment, can it possibly be because God can do nothing greater?

Could the greatest commandments be a Greatest an Ultimate Truth?

If our greatest purpose for creation is to live by the greatest commandments, then this freedom to love also gives us the choice to do both good and evil.

Are the greatest commandments powerful enough, to compel God to create the universe and life, knowing in advance the costs involved?

We can marvel at the great attention to detail that is evident in everything from the tiniest single cell of life and right up to the giant structures of galaxies. Can you find any greater purpose for all this to exist? Challenge the above statements in your mind in an honest way, test them against any religious beliefs, and test them against any form of logic.

Before creation began did God want to create us in the greatest good way possible and in doing so Christ had to serve man in the greatest way possible.

It seems that not only was Christ a servant to his disciples, but he is also a servant to my needs through his death and resurrection.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

I certainly agree that we do not currently have the same “substance” as God, nor will we ever since anything we attain will always have come through an adopted “heir-ship” provided by Jesus Christ.

 

[TheosisM]

Hi, TheosisM,
I had wanted to get back to you about the subject of being the “children of God” and how that relates to a belief in Heavenly Father and our relationship to Him.

I liked the following post by a Catholic from England:

I certainly agree that we do not currently have the same “substance” as God, nor will we ever since anything we attain will always have come through an adopted “heir-ship” provided by Jesus Christ.

Thanks for posting that, and I agree with you on becoming joint-heirs in Christ.

 

[Xavierlives]

What I DO note is the intense irony of this position…that Catholics will do this to their infants without permission…that is, put an ‘indelible mark’ upon their souls…and think that this is perfectly acceptable, and then turn around and criticize Mormons for doing proxy work. I think it is an incredible double standard—and THAT I take offense at. Catholics get all bent out of shape because we OFFER a proxy baptism that has absolutely NO effect until and unless it is accepted willingly by the recipient, and is utterly meaningless if it is not…
…and they are forcing a baptism upon infants without the permission of those infants, and claim that those infants (because of course the mark is indelible) never WILL have any say in it. It’s done. That’s it, will you, nill you.

I think I agree with you.

 

[dianaiad]

Stephen168:

Maybe you can help with my understanding and problem with Mormon baptism?

Mormon baptism is for the forgiveness of sin and entrance into the covenant.They reject infant baptism because the person being baptized must be willing.They baptize for the dead, so people can enter the covenant.***BUT Just like an infant, the dead person is baptized against their will. The human soul is being baptized without permission of that soul. ***The infant soul and the dead person’s soul have to later accept the covenant of Christ.

(emphasis mine)

To which I responded:

dianaiad:

Yes, we do the proxy work for the dead…but unlike you, we do NOT believe that this work has any effect whatsoever; none, until and unless the person for whom it is done wants it to have an effect.

To which your response is:

We don’t baptize for the dead, but thanks for affirming what I said about the Mormon belief about baptizing for the dead.

Would you kindly care to explain, in words of simple and clear intent, how what I wrote CONFIRMS your claim (well, except for the fact that we do proxy baptism for the dead…and if THAT’S what you are gleefully declaring victory over, I have to wonder where you’ve been for the last, oh…century or so…)? In fact, what I wrote is a direct contradiction of your claim that we do anything to anyone without their permission. In fact, NOTHING is ‘done’ without their permission. Nothing is effective, nothing ‘sticks.’ It’s …one hand clapping. One cymbol playing…air guitar. If you do not have both things…the proxy work and the full and willing acceptance of the person for whom it is done, you have nothing at all. It is NOT POSSIBLE for us to do anything against the wills of those for whom the proxy work is done, in other words.

In spite of your dishonest portrayal of what it actually is.

 

[TheosisM]

I think I agree with you.

I agree as well. In fact, I think I mentioned on the proxy baptism thread how there is a choice in the matter in the afterlife. I think I then laughed as people kept saying “you’re making him Mormon!!!”

 

[dianaiad]

Hope you are feeling better , just a question i have for you.? If you believe so firmly in your convictions with your doctrine and being a Mormon why are you on a Catholic forum.?

Just curious

Joann

Why is it that so many new posters to CAF have to ask this? (shrug)

Well, here’s the answer:

a: because my beliefs are being attacked here, but…
b; because the attacks here aren’t quite as…impossibly verbally violent…as in most other places, so that sometimes the insults give way to actual discussion.
c: because this is the “Non-Catholic religions” subforum of the Catholic forum. Since I belong to a non-Catholic religion, this is the appropriate place for me to be.

 

[Stephen168]

In fact, what I wrote is a direct contradiction of your claim that we do anything to anyone without their permission. In fact, NOTHING is **‘done’ **without their permission.

LDS Gospel Library: Gospel Topics: Baptism for the Dead:

Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. Individuals can then choose to accept or reject what has been done in their behalf.

 

[why_me]

Why Me, I have already addressed this.

The Wikipedia article you quoted states what I have already stated: the Limbo of Infants is a hypothesis; that it has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it.(or, as I stated, a Catholic can believe in the Limbo of Infants if they want to, because it is doctrinally correct (meaning that it does not contradict anything that has already been revealed), however it is not dogma.

As another Catholic already mentioned, the Catholic Church has continuously taught the mercy of a just God, and that in this, the salvation (to Heaven) of unbaptized infants is believed. This is similar to the doctrine of baptism of desire. As Catholics, we believe that baptism is normative for salvation. However, we also believe that our merciful and just God can and does save those who, through no fault of their own, were unbaptized (and are ignorant of the Gospel), and would have accepted it if they had the chance to.

So again, a Catholic is free to believe in limbo if they want to, and I’m sure many do. Catholics are also free to believe in the official position of the Church, that we have faith in a merciful and just God to save unbaptized babies, similar to (but not the same as) baptism of desire.

Augustinian theology is not always correct, especially as it relates to original sin (and the concept of ‘original guilt’ inherited). Theologians speculate on many matters that are non-doctrinal, and it is important for everyone to realize that the ECFs were not infallible, and their words are not scripture (though they are helpful to see what the early Christians believed and taught). The same goes for theologians today.

In the 50’s and 60’s limbo was real. I remember it being taught as a real place where babies who are not baptized go. And no parent wanted their baby in limbo. But I also remember the sadness that was felt if a baby did die unbaptized. I heard about no mercy. Now of course, since now we are establishing that priests could tell a ubaptized infant’s mom basically anything: limbo, damned, mercy, no beatific vision, etc I can see the mess that the church was in about unbaptized infants. And yet, it did give very little comfort to moms who lost their unbaptized baby. And that is my point. Many mothers agonized over their dead babies soul and I think that that is unfortunate: too suffer two agonies: the death itself, and the fate of the babies soul. And in terms of Zaff and her mercy comment, well, I just think that Zaff will write anything to disagree with me. She is my contrarian.

Now, I do not believe that an infant needs to depend on mercy as to whether or not he or she sees heaven. A six day old baby does not need to depend on God’s mercy. Just on god’s love when he or she will find themselves quickly in his arms.

And the silence of my generation catholics on this issue on this thread, might show that I am correct in what was taught in the 50’s and 60’s.

 

[TheosisM]

In the 50’s and 60’s limbo was real. I remember it being taught as a real place where babies who are not baptized go. And no parent wanted their baby in limbo. But I also remember the sadness that was felt if a baby did die unbaptized. I heard about no mercy. Now of course, since now we are establishing that priests could tell a ubaptized infant’s mom basically anything: limbo, damned, mercy, no beatific vision, etc I can see the mess that the church was in about unbaptized infants. And yet, it did give very little comfort to moms who lost their unbaptized baby. And that is my point. Many mothers agonized over their dead babies soul and I think that that is unfortunate: too suffer two agonies: the death itself, and the fate of the babies soul. And in terms of Zaff and her mercy comment, well, I just think that Zaff will write anything to disagree with me. She is my contrarian.

Now, I do not believe that an infant needs to depend on mercy as to whether or not he or she sees heaven. A six day old baby does not need to depend on God’s mercy. Just on god’s love when he or she will find themselves quickly in his arms.

And the silence of my generation catholics on this issue on this thread, might show that I am correct in what was taught in the 50’s and 60’s.

Why Me, try and pay attention, I’ve already been through this. And personally, I will trust Zaff’s view on this matter (as well as what my parents and grandparents have told me, as well as what I have researched (pretty extensively) on the topic of Limbo of Infants), as an actual Catholic, over yours. The Catholic Church has always taught the mercy of God (we all need God’s mercy, we don’t deserve something from God), and Limbo of Infants was and still is a widely taught theological speculation (theologoumenon) that was never dogma. In fact, it is a particularly Latin theologoumenon, and the Eastern Catholics never had such a speculation.

Please search the multitude of threads on the subject, I will not discuss it further on this thread, since I have repeated myself a number of times.

 

[rinnie]

People can ask honest questions without it being an attack.

You are right Rebecca. I know if my religion taught something I would not deny it. Why should I. I can say one thing for the RCC if we teach it we admit it. We do not lie about anything we teach or hide anything we teach. Why would we? Why would we have to.

But I think you see what I see, that when you ask a honest question and people are being so defensive you wonder if they are hiding something. I sure do.

But in answer to the question JS did teach the doctrine of plurality of gods—polytheism as the bedrock belief of his church.

The mormon church uses the term eternal progression for this process which refers to godhood as exaltation.

check this out.

(Moroni 8:18) I know that God is not a partial God neither a changable being but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

Then check out this one:

Mormon 9:9-10 For we do not read that God is the same yesterday today and forever and in him ther is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? and now if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing thenye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God or miracles.

Same man 2 different teachings would you not agree. It does not get any more explicit then that!

 

[ParkerD]

You are right Rebecca. I know if my religion taught something I would not deny it. Why should I. I can say one thing for the RCC if we teach it we admit it. We do not lie about anything we teach or hide anything we teach. Why would we? Why would we have to.

But I think you see what I see, that when you ask a honest question and people are being so defensive you wonder if they are hiding something. I sure do.

But in answer to the question JS did teach the doctrine of plurality of gods—polytheism as the bedrock belief of his church.

The mormon church uses the term eternal progression for this process which refers to godhood as exaltation.

check this out.

(Moroni 8:18) I know that God is not a partial God neither a changable being but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

Then check out this one:

Mormon 9:9-10 For we do not read that God is the same yesterday today and forever and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? and now if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God or miracles.

Same man 2 different teachings would you not agree. It does not get any more explicit then that!

Rinnie,
I’m not sure I have understood what you seem to think are “2 different teachings”? Both of those passages say pretty much the same thing, and both emphasize that God can and will do miracles in modern days as well as He did in ancient days, and that if no miracles are happening, it is because of the unbelief of the people and not because God has changed how He does things.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
I’m not sure I have understood what you seem to think are “2 different teachings”? Both of those passages say pretty much the same thing, and both emphasize that God can and will do miracles in modern days as well as He did in ancient days, and that if no miracles are happening, it is because of the unbelief of the people and not because God has changed how He does things.

No this is not true. In his early years Smith did not believe in the law of eternal progression. He had an orthodox understanding of Gods immutable nature. But then at some point in his thrilogical odyssey he changed his teaching completely.

Smith maintained the inspiration and truth of the book of morman the same time he believed the following. God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in younder heavens. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and the great God who upholds all worlds and all things by his power was to make him visible I say if you were to see him today you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person image and very from as a man for Adam was created in the very fashion image and likeness of God and received instruction from and walked talked and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another (King Follet Discourse)

This is one of smiths more displays of double think. 14 years after penning the BOM he contradicts his earlier writings with this sermon but he doesn’'t throw waside his earlier teaching. Both are to be accepted.

How is it possible to hold both positions. Mormons believe that Christ was conceived y the Father and not by the Holy Spirit. Mormons teach that Christ is a secondary inferior god. He does not exist from all eternity. He was made in union of his heavenly parents.

 

[ParkerD]

No this is not true. In his early years Smith did not believe in the law of eternal progression. He had an orthodox understanding of Gods immutable nature. But then at some point in his thrilogical odyssey he changed his teaching completely.

Smith maintained the inspiration and truth of the book of morman the same time he believed the following. God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in younder heavens. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and the great God who upholds all worlds and all things by his power was to make him visible I say if you were to see him today you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person image and very from as a man for Adam was created in the very fashion image and likeness of God and received instruction from and walked talked and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another (King Follet Discourse)

This is one of smiths more displays of double think. 14 years after penning the BOM he contradicts his earlier writings with this sermon but he doesn’'t throw aside his earlier teaching. Both are to be accepted.

How is it possible to hold both positions. Mormons believe that Christ was conceived y the Father and not by the Holy Spirit. Mormons teach that Christ is a secondary inferior god. He does not exist from all eternity. He was made in union of his heavenly parents.

Rinnie,
I hope you will do some research on the meaning of the words Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Unconditionally Loving, and on the words Perfectly Unified. These are qualities of Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. To say that Christ would be an “inferior” under those circumstances that are attested to by Him in His teachings and in His intercessory prayer as found in the book of John, is to not understand the meaning of those words.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
I hope you will do some research on the meaning of the words Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Unconditionally Loving, and on the words Perfectly Unified. These are qualities of Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. To say that Christ would be an “inferior” under those circumstances that are attested to by Him in His teachings and in His intercessory prayer as found in the book of John, is to not understand the meaning of those words.

What I am not talking about the teachings found in the book of John for goodnes sakes we are talking about the teachings of Joseph Smith.

Are you saying that mormons do not believe that Christ was conceived by the Father and not the Holy Spirit. (journal of discourses 2:268) Are you denying that Mormaon teach that Christ is a secondary inferior god? That he did not exist from all eternity?

 

[ParkerD]

What I am not talking about the teachings found in the book of John for goodnes sakes we are talking about the teachings of Joseph Smith.

Are you saying that mormons do not believe that Christ was conceived by the Father and not the Holy Spirit. (journal of discourses 2:268) Are you denying that Mormon teach that Christ is a secondary inferior god? That he did not exist from all eternity?

Now Rinnie,
Would your dad (RIP) want you to come across as accusing anyone of believing Jesus is “inferior”? If you have children, do you think they are “inferior” to your husband because your husband lived before they lived on this earth? Just because God the Father was “ahead” of Jesus in the eternal realm of time, which we don’t understand as mortals in our limited dimensions and understanding, does not mean that Jesus is “inferior” (my goodness and that word is distasteful every time I even write it). It is a ridiculous assertion you have made.

Have a good day, though. Peace to you.

 

[rinnie]

Now Rinnie,
Would your dad (RIP) want you to come across as accusing anyone of believing Jesus is “inferior”? If you have children, do you think they are “inferior” to your husband because your husband lived before they lived on this earth? Just because God the Father was “ahead” of Jesus in the eternal realm of time, which we don’t understand as mortals in our limited dimensions and understanding, does not mean that Jesus is “inferior” (my goodness and that word is distasteful every time I even write it). It is a ridiculous assertion you have made.

Have a good day, though. Peace to you.

No because that would not be the truth, And my Dad never taught the JS did.

Now does the LDS church teach or do you deny that it teaches that all men must pass through mortality in human bdies befroe they can reach godhood? Yet their third separate god called the Holy Ghost has not yet received a moral body even though he is considered to be another god. How does your theology address this contradiction.

And is it true that the LDS does not believe that the Father, the son and the Holy Ghost are the only 3 gods there are?

 

[rinnie]

The only Joseph’s teachings my Father followed was Joseph Ratzinger

Not Joseph Smith thats for sure.

THe bible told us to stay away from self-proclaimed prophets. Jesus said he would return the same way he left. And until that time the HS would guide us to the fullness of the Truth. The Holy Spriit came upon the Apostles at pentecost. If you believe in the HS by the way why would a self-prclaimed prophet be needed anyway. Do you deny the HS. are you saying it failed the CC?

 

[ParkerD]

No because that would not be the truth, And my Dad never taught the JS did.

Now does the LDS church teach or do you deny that it teaches that all men must pass through mortality in human bodies before they can reach godhood? Yet their third separate god called the Holy Ghost has not yet received a mortal body even though he is considered to be another god. How does your theology address this contradiction.

And is it true that the LDS does not believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are the only 3 Gods there are?

Rinnie,
Thanks for leaving out the word that was so offensive.

Jesus was God the Son in pre-mortal life as well as in this life, so please understand that just because there is a teaching that Jesus makes it possible for humankind to gain divine attributes and qualities through the power He has as an omnipotent Being who atoned for our sins and thus made it possible for us to be “cleansed” and “perfected”, does not mean that Jesus and the Holy Spirit had those same limitations. Jesus is Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. The Holy Spirit is completely Unified with the Father and the Son also. Those Three are One God in purpose, in omnipotence, in omniscience, in unity, in love, in knowing all that it is possible to know in the Universe.

It would be disregarding John 17 and Revelation 21:7 and Revelation 3:21 to say that humankind have not been enabled through Christ to attain what He promised that they could attain. That promise is to indeed be a joint heir, to inherit a joint throne, to be One with Them.

 

[rinnie]

You are missing my whole point, Either I am not getting in across good enough, or you are doing it on purpose. Now I respect you very much Parker you know that. Here is my point. I am asking. THis is what I am taught.

Did Joseph smith originally acknowledge only 2 divine persons and did he not refer to the Holy Ghost merely as the mind of the two. (lectures on faith 48-9)

 

[ParkerD]

(1) The Bible told us to stay away from self-proclaimed prophets.
(2) Jesus said he would return the same way he left. And until that time the HS would guide us to the fullness of the Truth.
(3) The Holy Spriit came upon the Apostles at Pentecost.
(4) If you believe in the Holy Spirit by the way why would a self-proclaimed prophet be needed anyway?
(5) Do you deny the Holy Spirit?
(6) Are you saying it failed the CC?

Rinnie,
1–I agree. It also shows that prophets were called by God when they were needed, and shows that another angel was to come to the earth as in (Revelation 14:6): “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,”
so of course that angel would come to a newly called prophet. That is how God does these kinds of things. Joseph Smith was absolutely not a “self-proclaimed prophet.”

2–I agree.
3–I agree.
4–A newly called prophet would be needed to fulfill Revelation 14:6.
5–Absolutely not.
6–The Holy Spirit provides specific, individual guidance to those who ask, are worthy, and understand spiritual communication. I can’t speak for any Catholic past or present about whether they have individually had the Holy Spirit, or not. They would know that within their own heart, and it would be an unmistakeable conviction within their own heart and soul. I am familiar with that kind of spiritual communication, and it always comes individually and never comes “collectively” other than that individuals who are together can each feel that same divine guidance and divine presence, and rejoice together as that happens, as it happened on the Day of Pentecost.