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

[Xavierlives]

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

but…

Dang, man.

I’m only trying to understand. Only trying.

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?

Well I am not Catholic so if you could put together some speeches that form what you believe to be Catholic doctrine, then post them and lets hear what the Catholics have to say.

As a defense of my posting, though, the only addition or insertion was the Brigham Young (6:322). And that was what I “edited.” I struggled as to whether I should mix prophets’ words (and I still do). My only justification is if they speak for the Church, then should their words not sing in chorus? If you don’t think so, we can delete BY to discuss the meat. The other quotes were were from Joseph Smith and from all in the same sermon (as far as I read it).

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.

Oh? My mistake. I thought these were published sermons given by the prophets as a way to disseminate doctrine and I thought Journal of Discourses was connected to the Church? Maybe I didn’t read it at the LDS site.

What are the four corners of your doctrine that we might debate, fair lady?

 

[PaulDupre]

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.

So then you are saying that the “shepherds keeping watch over their flocks by night” were prophets? And of course the Blessed Virgin Mary was a prophet, too, by your definition.

I doubt that your organization would agree with you on this one.

 

[ParkerD]

So then you are saying that the “shepherds keeping watch over their flocks by night” were prophets? And of course the Blessed Virgin Mary was a prophet, too, by your definition.

I doubt that your organization would agree with you on this one.

Why not? The shepherds glorified and praised God and “made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.” That would be the testimony they gained of this holy Child, Jesus, of whom the angels bore witness. “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Mary gave some of the most beautiful language in the New Testament in her testimony as recorded in Luke 1:46-55. There are such terms in the Bible as a prophetess, and with that testimony, she qualifies, one would think, as was Anna.

I think my organization would agree, actually.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Why not? I think my organization would agree, actually.

Yes, anyone can be a prophet including Brigham Young but D&C 43: 1-7 seems to utterly destroy the idea that Joseph Smith had any successor as Mr. Young other than possibly one of his sons. Consider verses 3-7:

And this ye shall know assuredly –— that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me. But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead. And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments; and this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me. For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

Note especially this phrase: “none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him.” This passage seems to command them to disregard all commandments and revelations given by anyone not explicitly ordained by Joseph Smith to give commandments and revelations. Most of Smith’s succession claimants based their argument in some instruction or ordination given by Smith, but really only his son, Joseph Smith III, claimed to have been ordained and appointed in this way by his father. The other arguments, based on position in the First Presidency (Rigdon), assignment to establish Zion in Texas (Wight), angelic ordination combined with letter of assignment (Strang), position in the Quorum of the Twelve combined with temple ordinances (Young), etc., are all poor fits for this requirement.

One might work around this based on the phrase, “until he be taken,” although I’m not entirely sure whether this works. On the one hand, the grammar of the D&C is often confusing, and it could be the case that the sentence beginning with “But verily, verily, I say…” has an implied qualification limiting its applicability to the period up to Smith’s death. Yet that opening phrase is so sweeping and emphatic that it seems to point away from this possibility and requiring Smith to appoint and ordain his successor, whether Smith’s departure from office is due to death or to apostasy.

So was Brigham appointed and ordained by Smith or can we charge Mormonism with the same aposatasy claims they spew regarding the early church?

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

I’m beginning to see this family of yours in the same light I see all the priests and nuns you purportedly hang around with. By the way where are all the pearls of wisdom, the ones that had Catholic clergy and consecrated pooh-poohing Catholic beliefs. You were always dropping little comments from these people, I’ve noticed you don’t bring them up anymore since you’ve gone “happy go lucky”. Why is that? Your posts about Catholics have lent a certain credence to what I’ve read on FLAK, PostMormon and NOM.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, anyone can be a prophet including Brigham Young but D&C 43: 1-7 seems to utterly destroy the idea that Joseph Smith had any successor as Mr. Young other than possibly one of his sons. Consider verses 3-7:

And this ye shall know assuredly –— that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me. But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead. And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments; and this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me. For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

Note especially this phrase: “none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him.” This passage seems to command them to disregard all commandments and revelations given by anyone not explicitly ordained by Joseph Smith to give commandments and revelations. Most of Smith’s succession claimants based their argument in some instruction or ordination given by Smith, but really only his son, Joseph Smith III, claimed to have been ordained and appointed in this way by his father. The other arguments, based on position in the First Presidency (Rigdon), assignment to establish Zion in Texas (Wight), angelic ordination combined with letter of assignment (Strang), position in the Quorum of the Twelve combined with temple ordinances (Young), etc., are all poor fits for this requirement.

One might work around this based on the phrase, “until he be taken,” although I’m not entirely sure whether this works. On the one hand, the grammar of the D&C is often confusing, and it could be the case that the sentence beginning with “But verily, verily, I say…” has an implied qualification limiting its applicability to the period up to Smith’s death. Yet that opening phrase is so sweeping and emphatic that it seems to point away from this possibility and requiring Smith to appoint and ordain his successor, whether Smith’s departure from office is due to death or to apostasy.

So was Brigham appointed and ordained by Smith or can we charge Mormonism with the same aposatasy claims they spew regarding the early church?

Rocket Man,
Brigham Young was chosen as an apostle by the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, and they were appointed to that responsibility by Joseph Smith through revelation to Joseph Smith. It was thus “through him” that the apostles were chosen, and they were ordained by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery who had received the apostolic keys from Peter, James, and John.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

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.

Distinctive Beliefs of the Mormon Church
The Gods of the Mormon Church
Mormon Stumpers
Mormonism’s Baptism for the Dead
Problems with the Book of Mormon

 

[why_me]

I’m beginning to see this family of yours in the same light I see all the priests and nuns you purportedly hang around with. By the way where are all the pearls of wisdom, the ones that had Catholic clergy and consecrated pooh-poohing Catholic beliefs. You were always dropping little comments from these people, I’ve noticed you don’t bring them up anymore since you’ve gone “happy go lucky”. Why is that? Your posts about Catholics have lent a certain credence to what I’ve read on FLAK, PostMormon and NOM.

What would be the point? In the past, when I said that I was going to Adoration and or on Retreats and that I knew Nuns and priests, people like you would mock and bash away and claim that I am lying.

But I will ask them…it will be interesting to get their response.

 

[TheosisM]

I’m beginning to see this family of yours in the same light I see all the priests and nuns you purportedly hang around with. By the way where are all the pearls of wisdom, the ones that had Catholic clergy and consecrated pooh-poohing Catholic beliefs. You were always dropping little comments from these people, I’ve noticed you don’t bring them up anymore since you’ve gone “happy go lucky”. Why is that? Your posts about Catholics have lent a certain credence to what I’ve read on FLAK, PostMormon and NOM.

Why Me is absolutely hilarious. I hope he doesn’t think that I actually buy his stories. And I’m sure the actual Catholics, Mormons, etc. on this forum (and not Catho-Mormons or Happy Go Luckies, or whatever he is these days) know that I “whitewash” nothing about Catholicism. His words only show that he has absolutely no clue about Catholic theology, as well as the context of the various theologoumenon from theologians throughout the centuries. Sad.

 

[why_me]

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.

I liked two types of fish. Tuna with a lot of mayo and fish and chips. The fish was deep fried in a fish an chip shop and I couldn’t taste the fish. We couldn’t eat meat on friday but pasta was okay.

 

[TheosisM]

Distinctive Beliefs of the Mormon Church
The Gods of the Mormon Church
Mormon Stumpers
Mormonism’s Baptism for the Dead
Problems with the Book of Mormon

Ugh, I personally don’t like those articles, they aren’t completely accurate in their portrayal of Mormonism. There are better critical Mormon websites available online. Okay start, but look to the source material to compare.

 

[why_me]

Why Me is absolutely hilarious. I hope he doesn’t think that I actually buy his stories. And I’m sure the actual Catholics, Mormons, etc. on this forum (and not Catho-Mormons or Happy Go Luckies, or whatever he is these days) know that I “whitewash” nothing about Catholicism. His words only show that he has absolutely no clue about Catholic theology, as well as the context of the various theologoumenon from theologians throughout the centuries. Sad.

You can talk to my cousin…she will give you quite a tongue lashing. We remember what we remember. Here is your problem: you are very book learned but are clueless with what was going on back then. But like I said, I had no problem back then with limbo and little infants. But to tell me it never happened, well…that is a stretch for my generation who were taught about limbo and many other things…

My whole point: like the mormon church, the catholic church has evolved to where it is today: much talk of mercy. And it continues to evolve. Nothing wrong in that.

 

[why_me]

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

Fathers also suffered, you are right. And if the baby was baptized, the mother and father suffered from the death but not for the soul.

I had no problem back then with the reason why infants were baptized. But to have certain posters deny the actual reason why parents wanted to baptize their babies as soon as possible, well, that is very disrespectful to the parents back then and to those parents who were taught limbo and denial of beatific vision. That is my point.

 

[TheosisM]

You can talk to my cousin…she will give you quite a tongue lashing. We remember what we remember. Here is your problem: you are very book learned but are clueless with what was going on back then. But like I said, I had no problem back then with limbo and little infants. But to tell me it never happened, well…that is a stretch for my generation who were taught about limbo and many other things…

My whole point: like the mormon church, the catholic church has evolved to where it is today: much talk of mercy. And it continues to evolved. Nothing wrong in that.

Now go back and point out the post where I said “it never happened”, when I clearly stated that it was a widely taught theologoumenon (and is even found in a catechism). And one does not have to experience something to know history, this is basic. I too have discussed this and other issues with my family members, as well as university professors (I attended a major Catholic university) so try again. I suggest you read my posts slowly, instead of trying to degrade the Catholic Church, or presenting your skewed understanding of Catholic teaching and theological speculation as the actuality, when it is clear what the truth is.

And if you thought that you were going to Hell for eating fish on Friday and not confessing, LOL, and my 84 year old grandmother is LOLing with me. Absolute joke.

 

[TheosisM]

Fathers also suffered, you are right. And if the baby was baptized, the mother and father suffered from the death but not for the soul.

I had no problem back then with the reason why infants were baptized. But to have certain posters deny the actual reason why parents wanted to baptize their babies as soon as possible, well, that is very disrespectful to the parents back then and to those parents who were taught limbo and denial of beatific vision. That is my point.

Here we go again with this “actual reason” business. Your understanding of the “actual reason” why infants are baptized is not the real “actual reason”, no matter how much you want to appeal to emotion.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Rocket Man,
Brigham Young was chosen as an apostle by the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, and they were appointed to that responsibility by Joseph Smith through revelation to Joseph Smith. It was thus “through him” that the apostles were chosen, and they were ordained by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery who had received the apostolic keys from Peter, James, and John.

Joseph Smith did not choose Bringham Young, period. If he had, case closed, and there wouldn’t had been the fall out with the RLDS and other splinter groups.

Rather, some Mormon historians reading of the succession period are persuaded that, out of Joseph Smith’s circle of confidantes and subordinate leaders, Brigham Young and the Twelve saw themselves as having to assume leadership primarily to assure that plural marriage would not be discarded as a doctrine and practice. Many of these men were convinced that it was God’s will and because many of them had polygamous wives that they presumably didn’t want to abandon. Loyalty to polygamy and, by extension, to the priesthood and temple rituals that had developed in the wake of the practice, seems to have been the decisive issue of succession for people “in the know.”

Maybe you can explain how your “through him” plays out so we can use the same theory to defend the succession in the early church.

 

[why_me]

Now go back and point out the post where I said “it never happened”, when I clearly stated that it was a widely taught theologoumenon (and is even found in a catechism). And one does not have to experience something to know history, this is basic. I too have discussed this and other issues with my family members, as well as university professors (I attended a major Catholic university) so try again. I suggest you read my posts slowly, instead of trying to degrade the Catholic Church, or presenting your skewed understanding of Catholic teaching and theological speculation as the actuality, when it is clear what the truth is.

And if you thought that you were going to Hell for eating fish on Friday and not confessing, LOL, and my 84 year old grandmother is LOLing with me. Absolute joke.

My cousin and I were taught about hell as very real indeed. And yes, if I sinned as a boy, I was heading to hell if I didn’t confess my sins. Why else would I be in line at confessional once a month on a saturday? And who is degrading the catholic church? Me? I am telling you what I was taught and my cousin confirmed it. And if my understanding is skewed then the nuns who were teaching me were also skewed. I certainly didn’t get it from thin air. And in terms of speculation…well, you can certainly now tell those mothers and fathers who lost babies then, that limbo was all speculation and not actual doctrine…they will be glad to hear it.

Whether you realize this or not, much was said to us children to keep us line by the nuns. And I have no problem with that at all. It kept me in line and I benefited from it. Oh and by the way, back in the day, it was a sin to attend a protestant church. I remember that quite well since I wanted to visit a baptist church because of the Waltons. As a youngster, I would not even think of going into a noncatholic church.

Now maybe I was taught wrong…but I don’t think so.

 

[why_me]

Joseph Smith did not choose Bringham Young, period. If he had, case closed, and there wouldn’t had been the fall out with the RLDS and other splinter groups.

Rather, some Mormon historians reading of the succession period are persuaded that, out of Joseph Smith’s circle of confidantes and subordinate leaders, Brigham Young and the Twelve saw themselves as having to assume leadership primarily to assure that plural marriage would not be discarded as a doctrine and practice. Many of these men were convinced that it was God’s will and because many of them had polygamous wives that they presumably didn’t want to abandon. Loyalty to polygamy and, by extension, to the priesthood and temple rituals that had developed in the wake of the practice, seems to have been the decisive issue of succession for people “in the know.”

Maybe you can explain how your “through him” plays out so we can use the same theory to defend the succession in the early church.

Here is what confirmed Brigham Young as second leader of the lds church. First, sidney rigdon spoke on why he should be joseph’s successor. Then, when it was brigham’s turn, he began his short talk and as he was speaking suddenly his voice began to sound as the voice of Jospeh Smith and Brigham took on Joseph Smith’s appearance. For the audience in attendance, this was the confirmation that they needed to be convinced that it was to be Brigham to lead the church. And that miracle has been documented by those in attendance.

 

[why_me]

Here we go again with this “actual reason” business. Your understanding of the “actual reason” why infants are baptized is not the real “actual reason”, no matter how much you want to appeal to emotion.

If you say so. I just know that every couple was to schedule the christening as soon as possible if the baby was healthy. No need to take chances. Now I don’t think that a six day old baby needs god’s mercy at all. Nor does a four year old child. They just need god’s love and if I remember the teachings of jesus, he would agree with me. For christ always taught that we adults need to be like little children to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And saint therese would agree since her little way is the way of the child.

 

[rinnie]

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.

So then you are saying that you agree that there is no time that the son did not exist as i ndicated in John l:l-3?