Do Mormons beleive there were/are gods before God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MattofTexas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rebecca,

I have some much respect for you. What a journey that you’ve had. I still do not understand what is and is not LDS doctrine which is one reason why I ask the questions that I do. I attended this week’s LDS - Catholic Dialogue Conference at Notre Dame on Friday. Maybe I should start a thread and share my notes? One of the LDS speakers, a Richard Bushman, from Columbia University made the following points which were very honest and worthy of reflection.
Code: 
-Mormons are lonely (my paraphrasing: being isolated from Christianity, lacking support and understanding from Christian faiths)
-Mormons are ill at ease in talking about their faith
-Love their religion but don’t know how to talk about it comfortably
-Began with a prophet that cut himself off from all others (no creeds, dogmas etc)
-Mormonism was extension of the protestant reformation, connected to biblical history but leapt over Christian history
-Human history has been the enemy of Mormon belief
-Sorting out where Mormonism stands is a problem (example: are the Catholics apostate?)
-Hears the criticism of LDS: blind faith without reason
-I see dialogue with Catholics as way to get back into Christian history
-I for one need help with the gold plates, subject of my current research
The last speaker of the day was Brad Gregory from ND. Some of his key points were:
  • Theology entails engagement with different types of truth claims
  • Christianity has done so since the beginning ie, Greek philosophers, The renaissance, new people found in the new world.
  • That engagement can not be done with internal references to prophesy
  • We can both appeal to the Spirit? What do we do when it says different things?
  • Until you have a theology you can’t have an implemented theology, ie Catholic Social teaching
  • You can’t have a sacramental theology w/out a fundamental theology
  • You have to ask about the nature of being
  • The Mormon God is a being within creation
  • It doesn’t deal with the radical ontological question.
Interesting day. Our dialogue here on this thread is at the heart of Gregory’s last point. One has to deal with the radical ontological question(s) of God. Per our thread, is he really a married man living on another planet with the ability to travel by light beams throughout the universe? Just how does a bodily person travel on a light beam? One God, three persons in one being or billions of God’s that never had a beginning? How is that possible??

PnP
 
rmcmullan said:
  1. Hopefully it’s not a surprise that we are created in His image.
  2. The way you are saying this is quite different than the scripture in the Pearl of Great Price. You should see that, I can’t really agree with your wording.
  3. He is capable of travel yes, I can’t say much but his range or velocity.
  4. If you refer to the gospel of John, you will here Him claim unambiguously to be the Son of God.
  5. I know of no such scripture.
  6. I know of no such scripture.
  7. I know of no such scripture.
Click to expand...
When you say “I know of no such scripture”, are you referring to the Standard Works? Is the LDS Church a “Standard Works-only” Church?

What we do know is that various latter day prophets and apostles, LDS Church manuals and other publications, etc, have taught:

-God the Father was once a man that progressed to/achieved Godhood
-God the Father is married to Heavenly Mother (LDS prophets and apostles have referred to this idea in General Conferences, in official proclamations, in various manuals, etc, mostly referring to the belief that we are all children of “Heavenly Parents”)
-we are all literal spirit children of Heavenly Parents (i.e. Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother), and that there are more spirit children still waiting in the pre-mortal existence to be born here on earth.
 
Porknpie said:
Rebecca,

I have some much respect for you. What a journey that you’ve had. I still do not understand what is and is not LDS doctrine which is one reason why I ask the questions that I do. I attended this week’s LDS - Catholic Dialogue Conference at Notre Dame on Friday. Maybe I should start a thread and share my notes? One of the LDS speakers, a Richard Bushman, from Columbia University made the following points which were very honest and worthy of reflection.
Code: 
-Mormons are lonely (my paraphrasing: being isolated from Christianity, lacking support and understanding from Christian faiths)
-Mormons are ill at ease in talking about their faith
-Love their religion but don’t know how to talk about it comfortably
-Began with a prophet that cut himself off from all others (no creeds, dogmas etc)
-Mormonism was extension of the protestant reformation, connected to biblical history but leapt over Christian history
-Human history has been the enemy of Mormon belief
-Sorting out where Mormonism stands is a problem (example: are the Catholics apostate?)
-Hears the criticism of LDS: blind faith without reason
-I see dialogue with Catholics as way to get back into Christian history
-I for one need help with the gold plates, subject of my current research
The last speaker of the day was Brad Gregory from ND. Some of his key points were:
  • Theology entails engagement with different types of truth claims
  • Christianity has done so since the beginning ie, Greek philosophers, The renaissance, new people found in the new world.
  • That engagement can not be done with internal references to prophesy
  • We can both appeal to the Spirit? What do we do when it says different things?
  • Until you have a theology you can’t have an implemented theology, ie Catholic Social teaching
  • You can’t have a sacramental theology w/out a fundamental theology
  • You have to ask about the nature of being
  • The Mormon God is a being within creation
  • It doesn’t deal with the radical ontological question.
Interesting day. Our dialogue here on this thread is at the heart of Gregory’s last point. One has to deal with the radical ontological question(s) of God. Per our thread, is he really a married man living on another planet with the ability to travel by light beams throughout the universe? Just how does a bodily person travel on a light beam? One God, three persons in one being or billions of God’s that never had a beginning? How is that possible??

PnP
Click to expand...
Thanks PnP, I am always still learning. 🙂 But will forever compare to my Mormon upbringing. That comparison used to incite anger, in the form of, “you taught me WHAT and I believed WHAT?” By the grace of God, I don’t get angry very often any longer. 😃

I would love to hear more about the Notre Dame event.

Richard Bushman has a book that I have not read, but those who have, both LDS and non LDS, give it good reviews. “Rough Stone Rolling” is its title.

I agree with his points from your notes, but not with his idea of Mormon loneliness, as though Mormons never wanted to be isolated from Christianity. That was Smith’s schtick, so either you believe it and accept the consequences or you don’t. Of course the Catholic Church is apostate, from a Mormon POV. When has a Mormon leader ever taught otherwise?

That’s the thing with dialogue with LDS, they will always hide what they teach and believe, in order to build trust, which has the sole intent of turning Christians from their faith.

As for LDS speculations, as a teenager I found them entertaining, but never found them to be rational. It was the late 70’s, science fiction genre was popular. This same Sunday school teacher mixed science fiction fantasy with LDS beliefs on a regular basis. I thought it was a hoot, but there were people listening to him who thought he had fantastic insights of the spirit because he was a patriarch (position of providing revelation for others).

Mormons take themselves seriously, I’m sorry, but I cannot take Mormonism seriously. I see it as all made up, from top to bottom, so trying to flesh out rationality is like trying to squeeze orange juice out of the ice that is covering my driveway. Could be a fun exercise, but nothing will come of it. That is the obstacle that LDS face, not loneliness.
 
If heavenly father and heavenly mother are having spirit children, and the other LDS are doing the same. Who gets to be put on earth in earthly form? Seems like the spirit children of the heavenly father and mother would have more status.

How is it decided what family gets who???
 
I won’t deny that there has been much speculation on the subject but I also know the difference between speculation and official doctrine.
 
So if it comes out of the mouth of a prophet, seer and revelator, is it speculation or official doctrine?
 
rmcmullan said:
I won’t deny that there has been much speculation on the subject but I also know the difference between speculation and official doctrine.
Click to expand...
Here is the difference: Speculation - Unsure, Investigating, Inconclusive Ideas, etc.
Official Doctrine - Ideas established OFFICIALLY as Truth, Unchangeable, etc.
One excellent example that comes to mind is the Adam-God doctrine.
Many Mormons will (either out of ignorance or intentional deception) say that it was mere-
ly a speculative idea no longer believed in, but never official doctrine, while Brigham Young
declared it as Official Doctrine, a True Revelation.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Richard Bushman has a book that I have not read, but those who have, both LDS and non LDS, give it good reviews. “Rough Stone Rolling” is its title.

I agree with his points from your notes, but not with his idea of Mormon loneliness, as though Mormons never wanted to be isolated from Christianity. That was Smith’s schtick, so either you believe it and accept the consequences or you don’t. Of course the Catholic Church is apostate, from a Mormon POV. When has a Mormon leader ever taught otherwise?
Click to expand...
Rebecca, Bushman’s point was more along the line that Joseph Smith isolated the LDS Church from the rest of Christianity and in doing so from dialogue. That has resulted in his view, a lack of understanding and “knowing”. That is a classical sense of loneliness, “no one knows me”. He clearly said that the issue of the (missing) golden tablets bothered him. It will be interesting to see in the future, to read the results of his “research”.

I give the LDS attendees credit. They initiated the dialogue and supported the conference, despite it being at Notre Dame. Some of the other LDS attendees included:
-Kathleen Flake (U. of Virginia)
-Philip Barlow (Utah St)
-Thomas Wayment (BYU)
  • Patrick Mason (Claremont)
  • Jeremiah John (S. Virginia U)
The question at the end of the conference is “where do we go from here?” Its a good question and an appropriate one. Whereas Protestant - Catholic dialogue, particularly Lutheran - Catholic dialogue has a goal of reunification, that is not true with the LDS. It is still an unanswered question. While this “first” dialogue reflected more on what was common between the two faiths, the second one, IMHO needs to focus on the nature of God and the different views between LDS and Christianity.

Anselm’s definition of theology is “faith seeking understanding”. Mormon’s need to ask and answer the intellectual questions that are so problematic of its beliefs. In doing so, like you have done, they will develop an understanding that there is One God, three persons in one Being who has always existed and never was created. At at no time was there ever an apostasy in the Church, let alone a “great apostasy”. Christ promised to lead his Church to all truth and to be with it, protecting it from error on faith and morals until the end of time.

(also, Brad Gregory recommended that LDS read the “The Experience of God” by David Hart)

PnP
 
Thanks.

I still see LDS as wanting to be separate. “In the world but not of it”, is how LDS teach it. One of the LDS posters here in the Mormon temple thread described the LDS temple as a place separate from the world.

One of the attractions of Jesus, and His Church, is the accessibility. A sacred place to retreat to is fine, but it not necessary to know God, or for God to know you. God meets us where we are. That is something Catholics say a lot, but it is a foreign idea to Mormons. The Mormon God retreats, and retreats often, even from His own Church. In a frame of mind like that, you must keep yourself separate from the world in order for your God to not abandon you.

Bushman is a rarity, but not expressing a Mormonism I’ve ever known of.
 
You know this: our God simply IS. He’s Truth and in knowing him the Truth will set you free. We drift from him but he never moves. He waits for us to return to him and he instills in us, by our nature, the desire to get to know him. We do so through Revelation, Philosophy, his created world and by the use of reason. He never, ever abandons us although we can turn from him.

A speculation on my part but not without some rationale behind it based on his words is that Dr. Bushman may have some doubts. On of the other comments during the day is that Mormonism is a “peoples”, beyond simply a religion. As such, I’ve heard it said on CAF that many Mormon’s have doubts but can not bring themselves to leave their church because of the integration of church & family life. Yet Christ calls us to leave everything behind and follow him. The reward is so great to swim the Tibor and to meet and receive him at Mass.

PnP
 
The LDS Church changes its doctrines. While that has its problems, it does allow for a whole people to be led, ever so slowly, towards Truth. I do believe God never stops calling to all and Mormons have something a lot of people don’t have: a desire to know God and Truth. When their leaders are saying they want to be accepted by Christianity, I am a skeptic. There is always a singular goal to remove Christians from their faith. But my experience is, God takes the smallest of openings, and pulls people through to Him.
 
Porknpie said:
-Love their religion but don’t know how to talk about it comfortably
Click to expand...
It always seemed to me that Mormons are very comfortably talking about their faith, as long as it is a one way conversation and they are free to talk. It seems the uncomfortable part starts when they are asked to defend their faith.
If he meant that ‘talking’ was having a conversation about it then I guess I would agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top