Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rock17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ParkerD said:
Jay53,

The reason being that any time I discuss John 6 with Catholics on this forum, they don’t seem willing to grasp that the Savior was talking to the Jews about things they were familiar with–the Bread of life representing one of their great poetic symbols from their history (Manna from heaven)–and blood representing another primary symbol of course, due to the law of sacrifice. It just is not grasped, but is passed over, which again is an example of the Savior knowing perfectly well that by using those symbols and very meaningful realities in His teaching which the Jews were familiar with, that the meaning would become changed into a literal meaning as has been done, and become a choice that people can make as to what they believe He was talking about.

I’ve gone down the road of that discussion a few times, and nothing I can write overcomes the strong desire that is in place to have John 6 be a literal meaning.
Click to expand...
So, Parker, his followers who were Jews left him because he was speaking metaphorically?

Nope. They knew exactly what Jesus was saying. That is why they left. They knew Jesus was telling them that he was the new manna from heaven. That his blood was the sacrifice.

So, why don’t we take a look at what Paul says. In the KJV.

1 Corinthians 10:16
King James Version (KJV)
16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 11:27-29
King James Version (KJV)
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

That’s some powerful stuff for a symbol. How could you possibly suffer damnation for a metaphor?
 
Pope Clement I was in charge of the Church while St. John was still living in exile on the island of Patmos in Asia Minor. This is persuasive evidence of the power of the papacy. In Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, he clearly knew he had the authority and threatened to excommunicate them if they did not shape up. He was aware that he wore the mantle of Peter, and was the ‘prime minister’ (vicar, deputy) for Christ, who was God. That is apparent in his use of the ‘royal we.’

This is evidence of the Apostles’ understanding that Peter and his successors were the head of the Church, and all matters such as the Corinthians’ rebellion were his responisibility. John was much closer to Corinth, but obviously deferred to Peter’s successor, the Bishop of Rome.

Catholics, if you haven’t read Clement’s letter (which was considered Scripture by many and was almost included in the New Testament), you’re in for a treat. See the fourth Pope – the third successor to Peter – in action. It’s a treasure. You’ll find it at newadvent.org under Church Fathers.

ParkerD, this says less about John and more about Peter’s primacy in the early Church. You know, the church you said apostasized at the end of the first century. That one. The one that is now 2,000 years old. 😛

Jim Dandy
 
Jim Dandy thank you for this. Just started reading, it’s gonna take a while. 👍
 
ParkerD said:
Jay53,

I can’t help it if you don’t see that he was being told that his job was not “to protect and preserve the church” if that word “church” means the body of the members if they were choosing some other path and some other leader(s), and that Jesus had prophesied during His mortal ministry that not only would He be killed, but that His inheritance would be impacted also and that the “kingdom of heaven” would be given to another nation.
Click to expand...
Jesus was NOT prophesizing about the Mormons here - you cannot possibly expect us to believe that!!! :eek:
John was obliged to teach, and he did, and to lead, and he did. His obligation was not to fight those who sought to take the leadership from where it had been divinely given. That would have been exactly counter to the message of the gospel–to fight, or to contend with words or arguments. He shows exactly the correct approach in his writing–showing that he knew Christ is in charge of His work, and that the church going into the wilderness was not “failure” of the church nor failure of the mission of Jesus Christ on earth and in heaven, and that it is a work of success but that success ultimately doesn’t fully come until after His glorious Second Coming.
Click to expand...
As far as John’s teachings, they lead squarely to the beliefs that are being scorned on this thread about becoming like Christ and inheriting a joint throne with Him. The Latter-day Saint beliefs along those lines simply restore that which was lost when the book of Revelation was philosophized into not meaning what the words say.
Click to expand...
John’s job WOULD have been to teach AGAINST heresy to preserve the teachings of Christ - just as Paul did in many of his letters. There is NOTHING in John’s teachings about having to be married to be exalted or plural marriage or any of the other practices unique to Mormonism. If you think there is, I’d like to see that. No one on here is scorning at all “becoming like Christ” - that is our ultimate goal. Mormons are the ones who have added in that one MUST be married to achieve the highest level of glory - again Jesus DID NOT teach that at all!!! :mad:

And Jim Dandy - thank you for your information!!! 👍
 
Miriam1947 said:
… How could you possibly suffer damnation for a metaphor?
Click to expand...
Miriam,

It is the same teaching as the teaching that what comes out of the mouth is more important than what goes into the body as food.

“Eating and drinking” damnation means that one who partakes of communion and thus shows by an outward ordinance that they agree with all their heart to a covenant with Jesus Christ, must have an inward commitment that matches their outward partaking, or they have shown hypocrisy and that ultimately leads to being stopped in one’s progress, which is damnation.
 
Miriam1947 said:
So, Parker, his followers who were Jews left him because he was speaking metaphorically?

Nope. They knew exactly what Jesus was saying. That is why they left. They knew Jesus was telling them that he was the new manna from heaven. That his blood was the sacrifice.

So, why don’t we take a look at what Paul says. In the KJV.

1 Corinthians 10:16
King James Version (KJV)
16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 11:27-29
King James Version (KJV)
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29"Eating and drinking" damnation means that one who partakes of communion and thus shows by an outward ordinance that they agree with all their heart to a covenant with Jesus Christ, must have an inward commitment that matches their outward partaking, or they have shown hypocrisy and that ultimately leads to being stopped in one’s progress, which is damnation.

That’s some powerful stuff for a symbol. How could you possibly suffer damnation for a metaphor?
Click to expand...
ParkerD said:
Miriam,

It is the same teaching as the teaching that what comes out of the mouth is more important than what goes into the body as food.

“Eating and drinking” damnation means that one who partakes of communion and thus shows by an outward ordinance that they agree with all their heart to a covenant with Jesus Christ, must have an inward commitment that matches their outward partaking, or they have shown hypocrisy and that ultimately leads to being stopped in one’s progress, which is damnation.
Click to expand...
It is the same teaching as the teaching that what comes out of the mouth is more important than what goes into the body as food.

What does that mean? It is or it isn’t the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Parker as much as you try, the words mean what they mean.

And what teaching are you talking about?

“Eating and drinking” damnation means that one who partakes of communion and thus shows by an outward ordinance that they agree with all their heart to a covenant with Jesus Christ, must have an inward commitment that matches their outward partaking, or they have shown hypocrisy and that ultimately leads to being stopped in one’s progress, which is damnation.

1 Corinthians 11:27-29
King James Version (KJV)
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

So, we agree.
 
Miriam1947 said:
It is the same teaching as the teaching that what comes out of the mouth is more important than what goes into the body as food.

And what teaching are you talking about?

“Eating and drinking” damnation means that one who partakes of communion and thus shows by an outward ordinance that they agree with all their heart to a covenant with Jesus Christ, must have an inward commitment that matches their outward partaking, or they have shown hypocrisy and that ultimately leads to being stopped in one’s progress, which is damnation.

…
Click to expand...
Miriam,

See Matthew 15:11, Matthew 15:15-19 and Luke 6:45.
 
Jay53 said:
I’ve told him before, Mormons can argue all they want about baptism, the papacy, etc etc etc - and to the unknowledgeable they even seem to have credible arguments. But for ME, it all boils down to the fact that they do not have Reconciliation or the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
For me it is the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession. Mormons have neither. All Churches with Apostolic Succession have the same history belief in the Eucharist that Christ, The Apostles , and the Early Church Fathers have taught for 2000 years. Mormonism and other man made groups do not.
 
Miriam1947 said:
Parker, even for you this is a real stretch. Come on now, get serious.
Click to expand...
Miriam,

You had asked what I meant when I commented that “eateth and drinketh damnation” is the same teaching as “that which cometh out of the mouth”. The root teaching is that damnation comes when people make an outward show but are inwardly thinking and feeling much differently than their outward show–which is hypocrisy.

It is hypocrisy if people partake of communion (which is an outward ordinance that can be seen by others and certainly by God) if their inner heart has not made a covenant with Jesus Christ, and if they aren’t repentant and seeking His healing power–the power of His atoning grace.

Those verses I cited were also teaching about hypocrisy, in that the words people speak or write are what show their inner heart, and what is in their heart is more important than “washing their hands” or what they eat or take into their body.
 
The requirement that the senior Apostles must take over the Church was an invention of Brigham Young upon the death of Joseph Smith. Young was the senior Apostle but he did not hold the keys, so he lobbied to change the rules and won the vote. The people who accepted the vote are the Brighamites; just one of many mormon groups. The requirement that the senior Apostles must take over the Church was never taught in Christianity or Mormonism until Joseph Smith dead.
 
ParkerD said:
Jay53,

The reason being that any time I discuss John 6 with Catholics on this forum, they don’t seem willing to grasp that the Savior was talking to the Jews about things they were familiar with–the Bread of life representing one of their great poetic symbols from their history (Manna from heaven)–and blood representing another primary symbol of course, due to the law of sacrifice. It just is not grasped, but is passed over,…
Click to expand...
Manna was not a symbol (exodus 16) Neither is the Eucharist in Apostolic Churches.
ParkerD said:
It just is not grasped, but is passed over, which again is an example of the Savior knowing perfectly well that by using those symbols and very meaningful realities in His teaching which the Jews were familiar with, that the meaning would become changed into a literal meaning as has been done, and become a choice that people can make as to what they believe He was talking about.
Click to expand...
To summarize: Christ used symbols and realities, so people could choose for themselves the meaning of what he was teaching.

Two problems: 1) they were not symbols and 2) his teaching would be pointless if we could choose what we wanted them to mean.
ParkerD said:
I’ve gone down the road of that discussion a few times, and nothing I can write overcomes the strong desire that is in place to have John 6 be a literal meaning.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the strong desire. Christ’s words are clear; as is the teaching of Christianity since he said them.
Miriam1947 said:
How could you possibly suffer damnation for a metaphor?
ParkerD;8158092:
Miriam,

It is the same teaching as the teaching that what comes out of the mouth is more important than what goes into the body as food.

“Eating and drinking” damnation means that one who partakes of communion and thus shows by an outward ordinance that they agree with all their heart to a covenant with Jesus Christ, must have an inward commitment that matches their outward partaking, or they have shown hypocrisy and that ultimately leads to being stopped in one’s progress, which is damnation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Parker feels free to judge people who receive the Eucharist but not able to answer the question. How could you suffer damnation for a metaphor?
 
ParkerD said:
Miriam,

You had asked what I meant when I commented that “eateth and drinketh damnation” is the same teaching as “that which cometh out of the mouth”. The root teaching is that damnation comes when people make an outward show but are inwardly thinking and feeling much differently than their outward show–which is hypocrisy.

It is hypocrisy if people partake of communion (which is an outward ordinance that can be seen by others and certainly by God) if their inner heart has not made a covenant with Jesus Christ, and if they aren’t repentant and seeking His healing power–the power of His atoning grace.

Those verses I cited were also teaching about hypocrisy, in that the words people speak or write are what show their inner heart, and what is in their heart is more important than “washing their hands” or what they eat or take into their body.
Click to expand...
These two verses mean completely different things, Parker. When Jesus teaches that it is not what enters a man’s body that makes him unclean, but rather "that which cometh out of the mouth’ he was speaking of the Hebrew dietary laws and making it clear that sin comes out of the heart and mouth of man, not from consuming some prohibited food.

Paul, on the other hand, makes it abundantly clear that eating of the bread and wine without recognizing the body and blood of Christ brings condemnation. How can one be guilty of not recognizing the body and blood of the Lord if there is no body and blood of the Lord, but rather just a symbol? This is not speaking of eating pork, or the blood of strangled animals, or not washing one’s hands, but rather partaking in the body and blood of the Lord while treating it as normal food. It is evident that Paul was speaking to those who believed in the real presence but were not treating it as such, not those who believed all along that it was only a symbol, otherwise his statement would make no sense at all.
 
SteveVH said:
…
Paul, on the other hand, makes it abundantly clear that eating of the bread and wine without recognizing the body and blood of Christ brings condemnation. How can one be guilty of not recognizing the body and blood of the Lord if there is no body and blood of the Lord, but rather just a symbol? This is not speaking of eating pork, or the blood of strangled animals, or not washing one’s hands, but rather partaking in the body and blood of the Lord while treating it as normal food. It is evident that Paul was speaking to those who believed in the real presence but were not treating it as such, not those who believed all along that it was only a symbol, otherwise his statement would make no sense at all.
Click to expand...
SteveVH,

I don’t really think it will lead to a helpful conversation, but Christ’s teachings were all about what was going on in one’s heart. “Examine himself” holds the same connotation–examine one’s own heart.

Paul’s statement makes complete sense to me, so we happen to come from completely different points of view.

If people are acting “for show”, then Christ can’t help them change, because their heart isn’t in it. It means they aren’t going to be in a position to listen to Him–the Good Shepherd. It means their heart is in a different place, away from where He can influence them. This makes the atonement ineffective for them to the extent they are acting only “for show”, and not from their inner heart and inner desires.
 
ParkerD said:
SteveVH,

I don’t really think it will lead to a helpful conversation, but Christ’s teachings were all about what was going on in one’s heart. “Examine himself” holds the same connotation–examine one’s own heart.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with you here , Parker. It is exactly what is going on in one’s heart that matters when approaching something as wonderful as the true presence of Christ, thus Paul’s admonition to recognize the body and blood of the Lord when doing so. In other words, one should be properly disposed (interiorly) before receiving the body and blood of the Lord. The fact remains that the body and the blood of the Lord are truly present, regardless of one’s interior disposition or belief, which is why he gave the warning. It is not dependent upon man’s belief, rather the body and blood are present whether you believe they are or not. If you approach the sacrament as if Christ were not present, then you have brought condemnation on yourself. Why? Precisely because he is present. How does one properly dispose himself to receive a symbol?
ParkerD said:
If people are acting “for show”, then Christ can’t help them change, because their heart isn’t in it. It means they aren’t going to be in a position to listen to Him–the Good Shepherd. It means their heart is in a different place, away from where He can influence them. This makes the atonement ineffective for them to the extent they are acting only “for show”, and not from their inner heart and inner desires.
Click to expand...
Well, first of all no man can make the atonement ineffective. Christ died once, for all. It is called the redemption. He paid the price for everyone, even those who do not believe in him. Salvation is a different matter altogether. The fact that we have been redeemed does not mean that we, necessarily, have been saved, only that the price has been paid.

In any event it occurs to me that none of this has anything to do with whether or not Mormonism is a polytheistic religion. We should probably return to the topic.

On that note, may I just ask a very simple question? Do you or don’t you believe that Heavenly Father is a god, seperate and distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit, but that they also constitute gods. Yes, I know you believe they are united in purpose and will, and that in that sense they are one, but do you not believe they are each a god in their own right; separate beings? It is puzzling to me as to why you don’t just come out and profess what you believe without trying to argue that it isn’t much different than the traditional Christian belief and doing everything in your power to align your beliefs with those of a Church that you reject as apostate.
 
SteveVH said:
I don’t disagree with you here , Parker. It is exactly what is going on in one’s heart that matters when approaching something as wonderful as the true presence of Christ, thus Paul’s admonition to recognize the body and blood of the Lord when doing so. In other words, one should be properly disposed (interiorly) before receiving the body and blood of the Lord. The fact remains that the body and the blood of the Lord are truly present, regardless of one’s interior disposition or belief, which is why he gave the warning. It is not dependent upon man’s belief, rather the body and blood are present whether you believe they are or not. If you approach the sacrament as if Christ were not present, then you have brought condemnation on yourself. Why? Precisely because he is present. How does one properly dispose himself to receive a symbol?

Well, first of all no man can make the atonement ineffective. Christ died once, for all. It is called the redemption. He paid the price for everyone, even those who do not believe in him. Salvation is a different matter altogether. The fact that we have been redeemed does not mean that we, necessarily, have been saved, only that the price has been paid.

In any event it occurs to me that none of this has anything to do with whether or not Mormonism is a polytheistic religion. We should probably return to the topic.

On that note, may I just ask a very simple question? Do you or don’t you believe that Heavenly Father is a god, seperate and distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit, but that they also constitute gods. Yes, I know you believe they are united in purpose and will, and that in that sense they are one, but do you not believe they are each a god in their own right; separate beings? It is puzzling to me as to why you don’t just come out and profess what you believe without trying to argue that it isn’t much different than the traditional Christian belief and doing everything in your power to align your beliefs with those of a Church that you reject as apostate.
Click to expand...
SteveVH,

Why should I use different language than the language of the scriptures, including the Bible? I don’t feel the need to do that, nor do I want to do that. The language of the Bible is sufficient to describe Them, Their purposes, Their Oneness, how Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father and as the Son He is the One and Only Savior and Redeemer, and how the Holy Spirit testifies of Him and of the Father. The Biblical language gives the ample description–nor am I “trying”…“to align [my] beliefs with” any other church. The change from the Biblical language illustrates the pattern that is followed in other areas also.

I love the Biblical language, using the KJV which I consider inspired sufficiently for being introduced to revelatory knowledge through the Holy Spirit to testify of all things, and bring all things to our remembrance.

If you want me to point out the Biblical verses specifically, let me know. Then, you’ll have my beliefs about God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
 
SteveVH said:
On that note, may I just ask a very simple question? Do you or don’t you believe that Heavenly Father is a god, separate and distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit, but that they also constitute gods.
Click to expand...
ParkerD said:
…The language of the Bible is sufficient to describe Them, Their purposes, Their Oneness, how Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father and as the Son He is the One and Only Savior and Redeemer, and how the Holy Spirit testifies of Him and of the Father. …

If you want me to point out the Biblical verses specifically, let me know. Then, you’ll have my beliefs about God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
Click to expand...
Parker is that a yes or a no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top