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

[Xavierlives]

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?

Well, they believe in a council of gods.

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 it. When we begin to learn in this way, we begin to learn the only true God and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach him and how to ask so as to receive an answer. * Journal of Discourses 6:5*

They also believe they can become a part of the council of gods

Here, then, is eternal life - to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, - namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one, - from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me. * Journal of Discourses 6:4*

And rule as God

These are thy who will receive honour of the Father, with glory, exaltation, and eternal lives. They shall reign over kingdoms, and have power to be Gods, even the sons of God. * Journal of Discourses 6:322*

They believe they can become gods because they are the same as God

The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; * Journal of Discourses 6:6*

 

[rinnie]

Okay you claim JS was not a self-proclaimed prophet. Okay then explain this scripture.

Acts 1:20-22 Let someone else take over his office. Out of the men who have been with us the whole time that the wrod of the Lord Jesus was living with us. From the time when John was baptising until th eday whenhe was taken up from us one must be appointed to seave with us as a witness to his resurrection.

Titus 1:5 appoint presbyters in each town, as I directed you.

St Athanasius (360AD) Let us note that the very tradition teaching and faith of the CC from the beginning which the Lord gave was preached by the Apostles and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the the Church founded and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ourht to be called Christian.

Matt 22 Chair of Moses observe whatever they tell you.

Now I could go on and on to show you that Jesus told us to stick by the teachings of the Early Fathers and not stray from the Church.

Now do you agree that JS departed from the teachings of the Early Church?

Now according to Jesus the gift of the Holy Spirit was conferred with the laying of hands. You must either deny this scripture or deny that JS had this gift of the HS. How do you make these 2 scriptures work together with JS?

 

[rinnie]

Well, they believe in a council of gods.

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 it. When we begin to learn in this way, we begin to learn the only true God and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach him and how to ask so as to receive an answer. * Journal of Discourses 6:5*

They also believe they can become a part of the council of gods

Here, then, is eternal life - to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, - namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one, - from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me. * Journal of Discourses 6:4*

They believe they can become gods because they are the same as God

The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; * Journal of Discourses 6:6*

Yes, I understand that. But why deny it then. Why not admit what you are taught and what you believe?

 

[Xavierlives]

Yes, I understand that. But why deny it then. Why not admit what you are taught and what you believe?

I am not Mormon. I have never been Mormon. I am not a god. I will never be a god. There is but one true God and I will worship Him on the throne for eternity.

 

[rinnie]

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.

In 14:6 Lets start here, when was a angel considered a Prophet first of all? A angel is a messenger of God. Now in this scripture its says that the angels will proclaim the good new that the eternal rein is about to begin. THere is nothing in the scripture what so ever thats say God will be sending a New Prophet. THats it. There are no more prophets. Jesus came, he will come again in glory thats it. Again in Glory to Judge the Living and the End. His kingdom will have no end.

 

[rinnie]

I am not Mormon. I have never been Mormon. I am not a god. I will never be a god. There is but one true God and I will worship Him on the throne for eternity.

Now Now calm down there big fellow. I didn’t mean you. I agree with what you are saying, I was just saying to you that wonder why they deny this? See what I mean? We do not deny our faith. You are Protestatant I am Catholic, We may disagree on alot of things. But at least we do not deny something if we believe in it. See what I mean?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Rinnie,
1–I agree. It also [SIGN]shows that prophets were called by God when they were needed[/SIGN], 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.

But why is a Prophet needed. We got the Living Christ the Church that is led by him. You are saying you agree that the Holy Spirit can guide us then why Joseph Smith. If you believe that there is no need for him. Joseph Smith did not agree with the teachings of the CC. He taught opposite of the Church.

 

[ParkerD]

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)

Rinnie,
I respect you also, and I appreciate your having written those words. Thank you.

You may or may not know that Joseph Smith didn’t personally write the “Lectures on Faith.” They were used in classes he helped teach, but were not written by him.

I think of the “Lectures on Faith” as a text that could be compared with something someone might write in Junior High School, then later in their life the fact that they might write something more refined and more understandable and even with different expressions of understanding and meaning, just shows that they have gone to high school and college and learned how to express their ideas better and actually have learned something beyond what they knew in Junior High School.

I think the concept written in that text about the “mind of God” is just such an example.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
I respect you also, and I appreciate your having written those words. Thank you.

You may or may not know that Joseph Smith didn’t personally write the “Lectures on Faith.” They were used in classes he helped teach, but were not written by him.

I think of the “Lectures on Faith” as a text that could be compared with something someone might write in Junior High School, then later in their life the fact that they might write something more refined and more understandable and even with different expressions of understanding and meaning, just shows that they have gone to high school and college and learned how to express their ideas better and actually have learned something beyond what they knew in Junior High School.

I think the concept written in that text about the “mind of God” is just such an example.

Parker you know I love you to death and you are my favorite Mormon in the world. But here is what I don’t understand. I am confused here. Okay if JS did not teach these two things I apologize and got my infor wrong. Alot of it comes from this site also. Check it out.

Now I can fly with you on the high school jr high thing. You can even take me for example how much more of my faith I have learned just in the last 3 years. But here is where you have to see my problem with the HS JRHS thing. We are not talking about us here. Its like us saying he told Abraham one thing then another. Thats not possible.

The bible tells you nothing we learn must disagree with the teachings of God. Jesus only beats one drum. Now if he called JS to be a true prophet thats it. One teaching, and it would tie into the bible 100%. Just like the OT and the NT ties in. It has to, to be the word of God.

Now what you need to do is be honest and find out if he did contradict himself. I never want to hurt you or your belief, I know its just as importatant as mine. But please check out what I found. If its a lie I will be the first to admit I got bad info. God Bless Parker.

 

[Xavierlives]

Now Now calm down there big fellow. I didn’t mean you. I agree with what you are saying, I was just saying to you that wonder why they deny this? See what I mean? We do not deny our faith. You are Protestatant I am Catholic, We may disagree on alot of things. But at least we do not deny something if we believe in it. See what I mean?

A little man sits at the other end of the screen.

And yes, I was just re-emphasizing that I worship but one God, I was not coming down on anybody.

They deny because to admit is to show variance from Christianity and they are so desperate to be called Christians. Now why they want to be called Christian is the million dollar question.

 

[ParkerD]

(1) Okay you claim JS was not a self-proclaimed prophet. Okay then explain this scripture.

Acts 1:20-22 Let someone else take over his office. Out of the men who have been with us the whole time that the word of the Lord Jesus was living with us. From the time when John was baptising until the day when he was taken up from us one must be appointed to serve with us as a witness to his resurrection.

Titus 1:5 appoint presbyters in each town, as I directed you.

St Athanasius (360AD) “Let us note that the very tradition teaching and faith of the CC from the beginning which the Lord gave was preached by the Apostles and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the the Church founded and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called Christian.”

(2) Matt 22 “Chair of Moses observe whatever they tell you.”

Now I could go on and on to show you that Jesus told us to stick by the teachings of the Early Fathers and not stray from the Church.

(3) Now do you agree that JS departed from the teachings of the Early Church?

(4) Now according to Jesus the gift of the Holy Spirit was conferred with the laying of hands. You must either deny this scripture or deny that JS had this gift of the HS. How do you make these 2 scriptures work together with JS?

Rinnie,
These are important concepts you have brought up. I think we can learn from the Bible through the questions you have asked.

1–When Matthias was chosen as the apostle to replace Judas Iscariot, the other apostles drew lots after they had prayed and asked for God to reveal His will because He would know the hearts of all men. I think it is clear that they received inspiration that God would reveal whom He had chosen by the means of drawing lots. That inspiration would be the Holy Spirit suggesting to their minds how they should proceed to choose the new apostle.

There are plenty of New Testament verses that show that men called into callings by the apostles were not always faithful in those callings, and needed to either be taught and brought back to a correct understanding, or needed to be ignored by the people because they had gone off on their own. But that is not to say they weren’t called by an apostle with authority. It means the person who strayed did that on their own, and the apostles warned the others against following such a person who had strayed.

Just because Athanasius says he believes the CC preserved the doctrines preached by the apostles, does not make it so. Particularly would this be evident when an apostle was still alive when the CC has said that someone else besides that apostle (John) was leading the church on earth. That clearly says to me that someone, somewhere got off track. John wrote the Book of Revelation while that “someone else” was supposedly the leader of the church on earth, and that just does not comply with the authority the apostles had by which they preserved the true and pure doctrines. John even saw in his vision that the offshoots from the true church were happening, and warned against them.

2–I have no idea what you might be referring to from Matthew 22. I love that chapter of Matthew, and find that the teachings there are all very clear.

3–Joseph Smith found that the teachings of the “early Fathers” contradicted the Bible. Of course he would depart from those contradictory teachings as he received direction from God and authority from God directly through John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John.

4–In the first place, the people on the Day of Pentecost had the manifestation of the Holy Spirit before they received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

In the second place, after the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored by Peter, James and John so that the laying on of hands would be by authority, then Joseph Smith did receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. So he had both–the manifestation of the Holy Spirit guiding him, and later the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[ParkerD]

In 14:6 Lets start here, when was a angel considered a Prophet first of all? A angel is a messenger of God. Now in this scripture its says that the angels will proclaim the good new that the eternal rein is about to begin. THere is nothing in the scripture what so ever thats say God will be sending a New Prophet. THats it. There are no more prophets. Jesus came, he will come again in glory thats it. Again in Glory to Judge the Living and the End. His kingdom will have no end.

Rinnie,
If you’re saying that there were no more prophets after Jesus Christ, then you have contradicted several verses in Acts and the epistles.

I didn’t write that an angel is considered a Prophet. I wrote that if an angel appears, based on Biblical precedence he will appear to a newly called prophet or to an existing prophet–especially when that angel’s specific assignment and mission is “having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,”

and when such an angel comes to earth, I would think it would be important for people to begin listening to the message of that angel. I think John would have wanted people to get the message that there was an event they needed to be watching for.

 

[dianaiad]

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?

I don’t know about him, but I sure do.

do you not beleive that Christ was the Only Begotten Son of God, born of a virgin (Mary) in the flesh?

Does your belief in the virgin birth mean that you believe that Christ is a 'secondary inferior god?"

…???

Then why would our belief in that same virgin birth mean that WE believe He is a 'secondary inferior god?" What in the world has His birth as a mortal man got to do with His place as the Second Member of the Godhead?

We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh, the second Member of the Godhead, equal to the Father, co-eternal…through Whom God created all things that were created.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker you know I love you to death and you are my favorite Mormon in the world. But here is what I don’t understand. I am confused here. Okay if JS did not teach these two things I apologize and got my infor wrong. Alot of it comes from this site also. Check it out.

Now I can fly with you on the high school jr high thing. You can even take me for example how much more of my faith I have learned just in the last 3 years. But here is where you have to see my problem with the HS JRHS thing. We are not talking about us here. Its like us saying he told Abraham one thing then another. Thats not possible.

The bible tells you nothing we learn must disagree with the teachings of God. Jesus only beats one drum. Now if he called JS to be a true prophet thats it. One teaching, and it would tie into the bible 100%. Just like the OT and the NT ties in. It has to, to be the word of God.

Now what you need to do is be honest and find out if he did contradict himself. I never want to hurt you or your belief, I know its just as importatant as mine. But please check out what I found. If its a lie I will be the first to admit I got bad info. God Bless Parker.

Rinnie,
What a kind thing to write about me. Thank you.

What would be important for you to understand is that just as the New Testament confirms and establishes the truth of the Old Testament and shows that prophecies of the Old Testament are indeed going to be fulfilled, yet the Pharisees generally did not believe Christ’s message even though they had the writings to study that became the basis of the Old Testament, the Old Testament confirms that prophets will be among the people in the latter days on the earth, and that the tribes of Ephraim and his fellows as well as the tribe of Judah will be gathered from all parts of the earth where they have been scattered.

The Book of Mormon confirms that those gatherings are taking place, and that that angel whom John saw has indeed come to the earth “having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,” so that the gatherings of Israel and the Gentiles prophesied by Isaiah and Ezekiel and Hosea and Moses can indeed take place and all of the righteous descendants of Israel and righteous Gentiles can unite in worshipping the King of Israel, Shiloh, the root and offspring of David, the King Immanuel, the Good Shepherd who gathers His sheep and they know His voice.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, they believe in a council of gods.

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 it. When we begin to learn in this way, we begin to learn the only true God and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach him and how to ask so as to receive an answer. * Journal of Discourses 6:5*

They also believe they can become a part of the council of gods

Here, then, is eternal life - to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, - namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one, - from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me. * Journal of Discourses 6:4*

And rule as God

These are thy who will receive honour of the Father, with glory, exaltation, and eternal lives. They shall reign over kingdoms, and have power to be Gods, even the sons of God. * Journal of Discourses 6:322*

They believe they can become gods because they are the same as God

The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; * Journal of Discourses 6:6*

Xavier, I am coming to like and respect you…you try.

but…

Dang, man.

What if I got a collection of speeches given by several different leaders of the Catholic church; Cardinals, bishops…even a pope or two…that they had given at various meetings. Perhaps sermons given after a Mass, or addresses given to groups of priests or monks; whatever, they are a collection of such speeches, taken down and published without the (name removed by moderator)ut of the speakers.

Now; what if I used THAT collection of speeches to prove that Catholic doctrine was this thing, or that thing…and when a Catholic told me that the proper place to find Catholic doctrine was in the Holy Scripture, the Holy Tradition and the catechism, I completely ignored him and went on using this collection of speeches to ‘educate’ others about Catholic beliefs?

Now, mind you, I know what happens if I am unwise enough to use Papal BULLS to establish Catholic doctrine and teachings, and at least those bulls are (supposedly) proofread and approved by the Pope who wrote them. We are talking now about a collection of speeches that were published without the permission or (name removed by moderator)ut of the speakers.

Please, Xavier, attempting to illustrate Mormon Doctrine by quoting the Journal of Discourses is just plain…well, dumb. Rather like me trying to establish Catholic Doctrine by quoting Abelarde and Heloise. As interesting as those letters are, as enthralling as their story is, and as intelligent and vibrant as their opinions remain, they do not establish doctrine. Even if they DID both ‘marry the church’ in their later lives.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, I understand that. But why deny it then. Why not admit what you are taught and what you believe?

Rinnie, we neither deny what we are taught nor what we believe.

The problem is that you seem to think we are taught, and thus believe, something we aren’t and don’t.

 

[why_me]

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.

I called my cousin who is 11 years older than me and attended catholic school from the age of 5 to 18. I asked the following question: What were you taught about an infant who wasn’t baptized? She answered: they went to limbo and limbo was not a nice place. She then told me a family story about one of my cousins. It seems that her grandmother baptized her because she was afraid that she wasn’t going to make it and her soul would be in danger.

I then asked her about mercy and whether or not she was taught about god’s mercy for unbaptized infants. She said no way. I also remember those times too well. There was no mercy in my parish and many moms suffered because of it. And that wasn’t right. Now, everything is about mercy. Great. But this is definitely something new for this generation. My generation was all about hell. Hell if you ate meat on Friday. Hell if you died in sin etc. Heck, it kept me eating fish on friday and I hate fish. And it kept me in confession once a month with the other line of people waiting to say their confession. I have no regrets. But it is the whitewash that you are trying to pull that bothers me. Your whitewash negates all the suffering by women who lost their unbaptized babies that occured when I was a child.

This 10 year old catholic child knew that if they sinned and died before going to confession, I was going to hell, especially if it were a mortal sin. No mercy.

 

[Stephen168]

Your whitewash negates all the suffering by women who lost their unbaptized babies that occured when I was a child.

Are you suggesting none of the Fathers suffered or if the babies were baptized no one suffered?

 

[Stephen168]

I This 10 year old catholic child knew that if they sinned and died before going to confession, I was going to hell, especially if it were a mortal sin. No mercy.

Which has nothing at all to do with baptism.

 

[Stephen168]

Heck, it kept me eating fish on friday and I hate fish.

Your Mom doesn’t sound very nice, making you eat something you hated. I would never do that to my kids, I did make them try something first before they could say they hated it.