Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rock17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Parker…

I am evolving…so would it be correct to say that Mormonism isn’t so much about polytheism, as more the human person becoming divinized…paralleled to Catholics entering the divine life with and in Christ?
 
god issues

In the 1980’s I went to a LDS ward meeting for ladies on interior design on a snowy January afternoon. My coworker invited me - a fallen away Catholic who did her LDS mission in the far east. I went to learn about interior design but was not prepared for what I would hear.

The lady giving the talk from Nevada made a beeline towards me at 1/2 time & zeroed in on me as a potential convert. How did she know I was NOT LDS?
  • I had walked there in the snow and was the only person out of a couple hundred women and teens WEARING JEANS!!! (= dead giveaway!)
As she discussed design principles as it relates to femininity and to the interior of the home, she said that we must be more like “HER” (in heaven). “HER” is their heavenly or eternal “MOTHER” !!!

WOW, my spiritual antennae flew up - that ELECTRIFIED me & a real CREEPY FEELING came over me; THAT I WAS IN THE WRONG PLACE & WANTED TO BOLT OUT THE DOOR.

However, prayer calmed me down! 🙂

I had read about this in my studies about Mormonism & it brought home the 180 degree u-turn and departure from the TRUTH about the GREAT MOTHER OF GOD, MARY MOST HOLY, of course!

“Heavenly Father”
  • changeable god in LDS eyes was once a man who progressed to “Godhood” and is the only one they have anything to do with
  • has a wife in their “heaven” known as the eternal or mother god (she is not worshipped)
  • has a body of flesh and bones
  • versus -
our Almighty God the Father
  • who changeth not (Malachi 3:6, & Isaiah, etc. there are no gods besides me,)
  • who is Spirit, no flesh and bones here
  • who is Holy etc, etc.
    I started praying that these women be enlightened with the TRUTH.
In order to reach the “3rd level” or highest level of heaven, the “celestial”, you have to go to the “temple of the Lord” and receive these “holy ordinances” which belong to the “Temple” so it’s “necessary” for a person be “married or sealed” for "time and eternity " there. The husband beckons the wife from her grave after he has been judged worthy and crosses the veil wearing the “holy” garments and give the grip (handshake) etc. What happens if the husband after his death dumps his wife and chooses another in eternity to be god & inhabit their own world & make spirit children for eternity? Puts monumental pressure on the MORMON wife who relies on good 'ol hubby to bail her out in eternity.

According to LDS theology, God the FATHER came down and had physical relations with Mary so that in their eyes Jesus Christ’s birth is a natural birth & therefore NOT SUPERNATURAL.

The gospel of LUKE and the ANCIENT CREED of the CHURCH say OTHERWISE.

Not only that, LDS believe Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS, Jesus had a “good” plan offering “free agency” & would set up the Church. Satan had a “bad” plan & the council of the “Gods” chose Jesus’ plan. Jesus is called “a” god and progressed to becoming a god before He was born or in the “pre-existence”. (Jehovah’s Witnesses say in John 1:1 …and the Word was “a god”.

Isn’t that an interesting PARALLEL; both groups who claim to have THE truth say the same thing about our Dear Lord: “a” god.

If I am not mistaken, LDS believe:
Jesus Christ is NOT to be PRAYED TO
Jesue Christ had a NATURAL BIRTH
Jesus Christ is NOT WORSHIPPED as GOD
Jesus Christ is our ELDER BROTHER but also the “BROTHER” of SATAN
and the list goes on
(In other circles Jesus is known “MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL” (JW))

Quite a turnaround, for example, from the Gospel of John’s 7 “I am’s”

LDS have blood atonement because the Sacrifice on Calvary because Christ cannot atone for some sins one may commit so must atone for their sins by the shedding of their OWN blood.

THAT’S QUITE A LOT OF POWER TO ATONE FOR YOUR OWN SINS BY SHEDDING YOUR OWN BLOOD;

does that make YOU a GOD or something?

A true perversion of the Gospel to be sure

They had “gods” throughout eternity & have up & coming gods on earth waiting for their turn to progress. (I remember a Mormon musical my coworkers used to talk about “My Turn on Earth”)
 
Can you knowledgeable folks recommend some reliable internet sites that list core LDS doctrines?
The LDS do not have “doctrines” so much as “principles”. To me doctrines (and to go one further dogma) are laid out definitively and plainly and in the case of dogmas, formally defined. The early LDS church leaders liked to talk (and talk and talk ans talk) and in doing so they spewed out some pretty crazy stuff which at times was treated as binding doctrine and at others reviled as the statements of men.
 
Dear ParkerD,

Ignoring for an instant the doctrines of exaltation, gods on other planets, etc. Couldn’t Mormonism technically be considered polytheistic soley due to the fact that Mormons believe the Holy Trinity is not one, but three gods, even though they act “in harmony”?
 
Parker…

I am evolving…so would it be correct to say that Mormonism isn’t so much about polytheism, as more the human person becoming divinized…paralleled to Catholics entering the divine life with and in Christ?
Kathleen,

Somewhat so, yes, except that the words “in Christ” mean quite a bit different thing to Catholics from what I have read described, than what those words mean to me.

Individuality stays when one “becomes divinized” (words I don’t use, but if that is how one wants to describe becoming “like Christ”). Continuing reliance on Him is certainly a major part of that, in adoration as well as emulation.

Thanks for trying to understand the Latter-day Saint view. I appreciate your question very much.
 
Dear ParkerD,

Ignoring for an instant the doctrines of exaltation, gods on other planets, etc. Couldn’t Mormonism technically be considered polytheistic solely due to the fact that Mormons believe the Holy Trinity is not one, but three gods, even though they act “in harmony”?
FabiusMaximus,

I think the problem for anyone reading the word “polytheistic” is that they are going to bring connotations to that word that could mean any number of things. It is a word that has no distinct meaning in today’s world, because the connotations and thus the personal meaning are only going to come when a person places their own frame of reference into the meaning of the word, for them.

Because of that, I think it’s not the correct word to use, unless it is explained in at least two paragraphs and is never used as a stand-alone description.

The Latter-day Saints are completely comfortable with the scriptural use of the words “One God”. It is the same thing as saying “One divine Will”. “One Unified Omnipotence”. Those three, being One, are united in purpose, united in judgment, united in love, united in rejoicing in the plan of salvation originated by the Father and agreed to and carried out by His Only Begotten Son, Whose love for those He knew and loved around Him impelled Him to voluntarily offer not only His life, but His infinite suffering which He freely gave in order to advance the eternal, wonderful plan of His Father.

Who can grasp the wonder of His love?–none of us can. Who can grasp the wonder of His Father’s love for Him and for us?–none of us can.
 
Jay53,

Yes, I understand that you are confused.

See Matthew 26:63-65 and understand why the word “blasphemy” is the particular word used.

See Luke 22:70-71.

See also John 8:40-42 and 58, and John 19:7.

Jesus Christ had been teaching and saying that He was the Son of God. He also spoke distinctively of His Father, who sent Him. This meant to the chief priests that He was speaking blasphemy, because of their belief in “One God” (to them, He was not their One God.) This meant to them that He was making Himself “like unto God”. He had raised Lazarus from the dead, showing that indeed He had power over death, which was a threat to their authority.

Because of these things, they had the soldiers crucify Him. He had warned them in parables, spoken lovingly to them that “before Abraham was, I Am”, but they would have none of it. They considered it all blasphemy.
 
Too bad we don’t already have faster than light travel or we could warp to the Kolob sector and talk to God in person to have him sort all of this out for us.

Korihor
 
This a reply to the" Exorcist"

I have a younger brother who married a Morman woman who converted to Catholicism so she could marry my brother in the Catholic Church. Then a few years later she left our church and returned to Mormanism. My brother is still a good Catholic and his wife attends her Mormanism church. This seems to work out for both of them and does not seem to create any problems. In fact a couple of her adult children by a previous marriage have converted to Catholicism. This is just to let you know there are ways to be in the one true church because you know the truth. God Bless you.
 
Jay53,

Yes, I understand that you are confused.

See Matthew 26:63-65 and understand why the word “blasphemy” is the particular word used.

See Luke 22:70-71.

See also John 8:40-42 and 58, and John 19:7.

Jesus Christ had been teaching and saying that He was the Son of God. He also spoke distinctively of His Father, who sent Him. This meant to the chief priests that He was speaking blasphemy, because of their belief in “One God” (to them, He was not their One God.) This meant to them that He was making Himself “like unto God”. He had raised Lazarus from the dead, showing that indeed He had power over death, which was a threat to their authority.

Because of these things, they had the soldiers crucify Him. He had warned them in parables, spoken lovingly to them that “before Abraham was, I Am”, but they would have none of it. They considered it all blasphemy.
Seriously??? Those Scriptures DO NOT in any way shape or form suggest that Jesus was teaching that there is more than one God. And He most certainly was not crucified for teaching that belief!!! Shame on you for spreading such lies!!! :mad:

Jesus indeed did have power over death - and GOD is the ONLY ONE who has that power. Jesus IS GOD - NOT “a” god!!! They considered it blasphemy because He was saying HE was God - again not “a” god of multiple gods.

Either I’m not understanding your belief, or the Mormon beliefs are more horribly twisted than I thought!!! :mad:
 
This a reply to the" Exorcist"

I have a younger brother who married a Morman woman who converted to Catholicism so she could marry my brother in the Catholic Church. Then a few years later she left our church and returned to Mormanism. My brother is still a good Catholic and his wife attends her Mormanism church. This seems to work out for both of them and does not seem to create any problems. In fact a couple of her adult children by a previous marriage have converted to Catholicism. This is just to let you know there are ways to be in the one true church because you know the truth. God Bless you.
Thanks itsaqt. Your kind, encouraging words are appreciated. I continue to pray God will touch my wife’s heart that she will see the truth or at least loosen up on my exercising my conscience.

👍
 
Seriously??? Those Scriptures DO NOT in any way shape or form suggest that Jesus was teaching that there is more than one God. And He most certainly was not crucified for teaching that belief!!! Shame on you for spreading such lies!!! :mad:

Jesus indeed did have power over death - and GOD is the ONLY ONE who has that power. Jesus IS GOD - NOT “a” god!!! They considered it blasphemy because He was saying HE was God - again not “a” god of multiple gods.

Either I’m not understanding your belief, or the Mormon beliefs are more horribly twisted than I thought!!! :mad:
👍
 
Seriously??? Those Scriptures DO NOT in any way shape or form suggest that Jesus was teaching that there is more than one God. And He most certainly was not crucified for teaching that belief!!! Shame on you for spreading such lies!!! :mad:

Jesus indeed did have power over death - and GOD is the ONLY ONE who has that power. Jesus IS GOD - NOT “a” god!!! They considered it blasphemy because He was saying HE was God - again not “a” god of multiple gods.

Either I’m not understanding your belief, or the Mormon beliefs are more horribly twisted than I thought!!! :mad:
You have to have the ‘super secret decoder ring’ upgrade, that works along with your specially monogrammed scrying stone, in order to fully understand the Mormon interpretations of all forms of scripture. It also helps to be wearing your special magical clothing that focuses the power of the stone in a direct path, along the alignment of the moon with Kolob.

Either that, or you just need to continue to completely fail 3rd grade reading comprehension classes. The effect is about the same. 😃
 
So, then, you don’t think that Jesus taught that He is the Son of God?
Yes, He did - but that’s NOT what you said.
Originally Posted by ParkerD
Jesus taught very plainly a belief in more than one God, and was killed for that by being horribly crucified.
Jesus NEVER taught a belief in **more than one god (or God). **NEVER!!! :mad:
 
Freddo,

No, that isn’t a teaching, and never was, and doesn’t need to be “disavowed” because it was never a teaching. Just because you have “talked to” a few people, does not make itself into a survey with any credibility as a survey.
You misunderstand. I talked to people to find out their thoughts and reactions on the teaching. It is/was a teaching because former LDS leaders, including prophets and apostles, taught it.
So, then, you don’t think that Jesus taught that He is the Son of God?
Well, I think most Catholics believe that. But I also don’t think that you have to believe Jesus taught about multiple gods in order to believe He is the Son of God.
 
Yes, He did - but that’s NOT what you said.

Jesus NEVER taught a belief in **more than one god (or God). **NEVER!!! :mad:
Jay53,

It is what the verses said that the chief priests were accusing Him of–that He was saying He is the Son of God, and because of that they said He was guilty of blasphemy. They also said they believed in One God. That is why they rejected what Jesus was saying–that there could even be such a belief as the Son of God, which would indeed make Him God, and they knew that.

So, I guess you’re right with respect to the fact that they crucified Him because He said He was God, but not that He said He was the Father. He said He was the Son of God, as did Peter, as did Paul, as did John. God the Son, the Son of God, separate and distinct from God the Father.
 
You misunderstand. I talked to people to find out their thoughts and reactions on the teaching. It is/was a teaching because former LDS leaders, including prophets and apostles, taught it.
Freddo,

Before going down this road with you a little ways, I’m going to introduce a concept to you called “free will choice”. Within the framework of that concept, an apostle named Orson Pratt could receive an assignment to write newspaper articles in a distant city, and could take that assignment and go off on a tangent using his own free will choice and tell his own opinions–which indeed happened. The book that was a collection of his opinions was not a “teaching” other than his own opinions, and they were never presented as “teachings” in the body of LDS church teachings. They were instead declared to contain many invalid statements.

The Holy Ghost preserves free will choice by leaving some words unsaid when a prophet speaks in certain cases under inspiration, which allows people to place judgments upon others by filling in the details themselves and drawing wrong conclusions. So when Brigham Young was quoted as saying words to the effect that Jesus was literally the Son of God the Father, then although he didn’t say “how” that happened in specific detail, the blanks are filled in by people such as yourself or others.

As to the survey you conducted, I would be interested to understand precisely the introductory statements and all the questions in their precise wording–to be able to understand whether bias was created by the wording of statements and questions.
Well, I think most Catholics believe that. But I also don’t think that you have to believe Jesus taught about multiple gods in order to believe He is the Son of God.
The Jewish high priests knew He was saying He was the Son of God, and knew that He was not saying He was God the Father, and knew also that He was speaking plainly about the relationship between Him and His Father. Jesus was a very precise user of language (the Greatest user of language ever to walk this earth), and did not need someone to come along later and restate His plain language in clouded language just so they could gain more converts or reach a consensus about how the people were to talk about their beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top