Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[PaulDupre]

To PaulDupre and DCNBill:

No! No! No! Not Mormon Doctrine! Really, Paul, you gotta come into the 21st century of LDS scholarship. Mormon Doctrine isn’t even published any more.

I think I acknowledged that in my post. I clearly said “they used to have a book called Mormon Doctrine”. My point was that at the time I was LDS (1975 - 1986), Mormon Doctrine was the closest thing the Mormons had to a catechism. Now they have nothing but a slew of books by non-General Authorities all giving speculative opinions on all kinds of stuff.

I think the reason why the 1960s and 1970s were a “golden age” of Mormonism was because of the doctrinal unity and doctrinal honesty resulting from most members owning a copy of Mormon Doctrine.

Now it seems that every individual Mormon cobbles together a set of beliefs loosely based on Mormonism and calls it “Mormonism”. We see that on this forum all the time. None of the Mormons believe the same things as the other Mormons.

No wonder Mormons are leaving the LDS church in droves. There is no doctrinal certitude in Mormonism. If the LDS want to hold on to their members, they need to publish a catechism so your members will know what they are supposed to believe and can get authoritative answers to their questions.

But we all know that will never happen, because LDS doctrine morphs so quickly that any catechism published would be full of “false doctrine” in a few years. In order to change doctrines and practices as the fashions of the time dictate and to publically claim one belief while privately teaching something different, the leaders need the wiggle room provided by the lack of any published exposition of LDS doctrine.

 

[DCNBILL]

I think I acknowledged that in my post. I clearly said “they used to have a book called Mormon Doctrine”. My point was that at the time I was LDS (1975 - 1986), Mormon Doctrine was the closest thing the Mormons had to a catechism. Now they have nothing but a slew of books by non-General Authorities all giving speculative opinions on all kinds of stuff.

I think the reason why the 1960s and 1970s were a “golden age” of Mormonism was because of the doctrinal unity and doctrinal honesty resulting from most members owning a copy of Mormon Doctrine.

Now it seems that every individual Mormon cobbles together a set of beliefs loosely based on Mormonism and calls it “Mormonism”. We see that on this forum all the time. None of the Mormons believe the same things as the other Mormons.

No wonder Mormons are leaving the LDS church in droves. There is no doctrinal certitude in Mormonism. If the LDS want to hold on to their members, they need to publish a catechism so your members will know what they are supposed to believe and can get authoritative answers to their questions.

But we all know that will never happen, because LDS doctrine morphs so quickly that any catechism published would be full of “false doctrine” in a few years. In order to change doctrines and practices as the fashions of the time dictate and to publically claim one belief while privately teaching something different, the leaders need the wiggle room provided by the lack of any published exposition of LDS doctrine.

It would appear that Paul is correct here, after looking up Blake Ostler and his works and credentials it would appear that he has no authoritative representation for the LDS faith, what I am seeking is the book from the competent authority that lists the definitive beliefs of the Mormons.

 

[PaulDupre]

And given the history of theological controversies and changes in Catholic dogma over the centuries, are you really meaning to throw the rocks of “Mormon changes” from the glass house in which you live? C’mon. “Double standard” doesn’t even begin to describe that kind of game.

First, I challenge you to find any Catholic Dogma that has changed - ever.

Second, though the sophistication and vocabulary of Catholic understanding of the final and complete revelation of God, which is Jesus Christ, has grown over the millenia, the Catholic Church has never reversed herself or contradicted herself on any point of doctrine - ever.

Contrast that with Mormonism:

There is only one God (The Book of Mormon and the Holy Bible).
No, there are two Gods (the Lectures on Faith).
No wait! There are three Gods (D&C and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith).
Hold on, there are Gods without number (later in the D&C and later in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith).

God is a spirit (the Book of Mormon and the Holy Bible).
The Father is a personage of spirit while the Son is a personage of tabernacle, while the Holy Ghost is the “shared mind” of the Father and the Son (the Lectures on Faith).
No, the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (D&C).

God is not a man (the Holy Bible).
God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith).

God has always been the same unchangeable God from all eternity to all eternity (*The Book of Mormon *and the Holy Bible).
Heavenly Father became God. God the Father was once a man like us and lived on an earth. He progressed to godhood by obedience to his god (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith).

And on and on and on…

I defy you to find any such doctrinal reversal and confusion in Catholicism. The Catholic Church has always taught the faith delivered once and for all from Jesus to his apostles.

Waiting for your response…

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[Miriam1947]

PaulDupre;8197385

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Paul, I have deleted pretty much all of this quote because I LOVE your sig and I wanted to concentrate on that.

I am so happy for you that you are a HAPPY Catholic.

I have gone onto ex-Mormon sites and it is so sad to see so many who no longer believe at all.

It breaks my heart.

Your testimony is so important. Your finding the Truth and being happy and fulfilled is such a gift.

 

[ParkerD]

… what I am seeking is the book from the competent authority that lists the definitive beliefs of the Mormons.

DCNBILL,

You can go online and read Latter-day Saint lesson manuals, Ensign articles, the Bible dictionary, the Doctrine and Covenants, and glean the “definitive beliefs”.

You could also find a way to read the books by Elder James E Talmage who was an apostle when asked to write Jesus the Christ and The Articles of Faith. Those are very good sources for “definitive beliefs”.

One interested in definitive Latter-day Saint beliefs would want to also read Rough Stone Rolling for historical context about Joseph Smith; the Pearl of Great Price (a short read, online); and if one really is interested in gaining understanding about the subject, then if they haven’t read the Book of Mormon they will never really significantly approach understanding Latter-day Saint beliefs.

 

[Telstar]

The biggest problem with Mormon ‘doctrine’ is that it is always changing, at least to the eyes of the world. But, I’m not so sure that it has ever really changed at all. Since they firmly believe in the concept of “lying for the lord”, it may all just be a ‘smoke and mirrors’ act, to deceive ‘outsiders’ and ‘unbelievers’ from ever knowing the real truth of all of their beliefs.

When we, as Christians, consider the true source of all deception, it isn’t difficult for those of us who strive to live by the truth, to understand where this belief of “lying for the lord” comes from, or where it leads. All we can do is hope and pray that Mormons will, someday, figure out that you can’t really claim to believe in the truth when you’ve been taught, all your life, to lie about your faith to everyone outside the LDS church. Lies will always beget more lies. The truth never has to cover itself from the eyes of the world, because there is no shame in the truth. It’s time for someone in the LDS church to step up and tell the whole truth. At this point, however, I’m not so sure that anyone would really believe them, even if they did.

JMHO

 

[PaulDupre]

The biggest problem with Mormon ‘doctrine’ is that it is always changing, at least to the eyes of the world. But, I’m not so sure that it has ever really changed at all. Since they firmly believe in the concept of “lying for the lord”, it may all just be a ‘smoke and mirrors’ act, to deceive ‘outsiders’ and ‘unbelievers’ from ever knowing the real truth of all of their beliefs.

Maybe it is just the lies that keep changing…

 

[twopekinguys]

Why does the phrase “Nailing Jello to a wall” come to mind?

 

[PaulDupre]

Why does the phrase “Nailing Jello to a wall” come to mind?

 

[ParkerD]

Honestly, I think this the big lesson I’m taking from this thread. I’m completely comfortable with a wide range of theologies; I certainly don’t spend most of my time with hard-core, practicing Catholics. And I get that pretty much any theology looks flat-out crazy to an outsider. So I have no issue with members of the LDS faith believing whatever they want to believe. Different strokes and all that.

But for the life of me, I cannot understand the thinking behind being so intentionally vague that you cross the line into deception. “Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate beings.” “‘Separate’ is not a word I’d use.” “Bruce McConkie says they’re ‘separate’ and distinct’ and I agree fully.” “I’ve never been taught that someday I can populate a planet with my spirit children.” Whoops, just kidding, here’s Paul Dupre linking to and quoting LDS teaching manuals that themselves cite Doctrine & Covenants.

(Cue Parker chiming in to say that he uses the word “Doctrine” differently, and it doesn’t really mean doctrine and here’s a link to a Joseph Fielding Smith speech… that turns out to say, “‘Doctrine’ means 'doctrine.”)

What’s the big deal w/ the secrecy?! Why not just come out and say, “Yes! You can become exactly like God! You get a planet! And a whole separate universe of people worshipping you! It’s awesome! Jump on board!” Who friggin’ cares if it sounds crazy?! ALL theology sounds crazy to an outsider.

Cradle2Grave,

Since your post here seems to have been directed toward me to some extent, I’ll respond.

First, you seem to have gotten “speeches” mixed up, and what I wrote mixed up.

The Bruce R McConkie speech I referred to was about “worship” meaning “pray to”, which I have clarified. It was not about the word “doctrine”. It was about one specific meaning of the word “worship” which also has other meanings as the dictionary provides, and as an article I linked by Elder McConkie also shows. If a person gets stuck on one meaning for English words, they ought to go back to grade school and learn about dictionaries and different meanings for the same word.

The reason I responded to SteveVH about the two words “separate gods” is that those words together create their own connotation. A person can study this as a use of the English language where the word “separate” combined with the word “gods” connotes division, dividedness, disunity, disharmony, and also connotes disrespect for the divine and thus disrespect for God. It was silly (that’s the best word I can come up with to describe it) of SteveVH to use those words and expect me to agree with the thought conveyed by those two words, and attempt to place words into my mouth or into my writing in such a way as that.

The Savior prayed for Oneness. That is not separateness. It means what it says, exactly. Oneness.

The term “separate and distinct” is used because Catholics have their own definition for the word “person” and therefore that word by itself does not convey the meaning of “individuality”. It is an attempt to help someone understand that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost have individuality, and at the same time have complete and perfect unity and therefore are One–which is what the Savior consistently conveyed in all His teachings and in His intercessory prayer.

Joseph Fielding Smith didn’t write “you get a planet”, nor did he write the other item you associated in the next sentence. He wrote, “have jurisdiction over worlds”, which is another way of saying what John wrote and what the Savior taught, “be a ruler over many things” and “give power over the nations”. The words have meaning beyond some small patch of heaven where someone takes charge of something that they are placed in charge of.

When Abraham received the Abrahamic covenant and promises, they included having posterity numbering the sands of the sea and the stars of the sky. That means numberless posterity.

 

[Telstar]

Maybe it is just the lies that keep changing…

That’s a given, isn’t it?

 

[Telstar]

Why does the phrase “Nailing Jello to a wall” come to mind?

Green jello, of course.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

If Bennet insists McConkie’s work was all inerrant doctrine, he either very naive, or playing stupid to strengthen his argument

McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine was presented as authentic Mormon doctrine to me, and to Bennett. This article from Mormon Matters relates to the withdrawal of Mormon Doctrine which occurred only in May, 2010. If the book was so wrong, why was it used in other official publications for so long? Why wasn’t it immediately suppressed? Why wasn’t McConkie corrected and censured? Hmmmm? Now Mormonism is trying to clean up its image in order to appear more Christian, and a lot of its earlier teachings are being suppressed.

QUOTE: (underscore added)
The Death of McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine
May 20, 2010
By Bored in Vernal

Last night on KUTV in Utah, an announcement was made which signals the end of an era. It was reported that Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine will no longer be published by the Church, and that it will not be sold by Deseret Book. Since I didn’t see the newscast, I’m not sure what reasons were given, but one viewer stated, “Why? For tighter correlative control, because of the book’s embarrassing clarity, and because of some controversial assertions in the book.” He also said that the publisher asserted the book was withdrawn because of poor sales.

Sandra Tanner was interviewed on the 5:30 segment of the news, with her collection of every edition of McConkie’s book. She provided me with her view of the decision:

I believe the main reason McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” was taken out of print was due to its candid discussion of LDS doctrines that the church is now trying to hide. Such teachings as God once being a man, his wife–Heavenly Mother, and Jesus being the literal, physical son of God are just a few of the doctrines that are being minimized in current manuals. If the LDS Church felt “Mormon Doctrine” presented a faulty compilation of their doctrines, why haven’t they issued an authorized compendium of their beliefs? Mormons often say to me, “That’s not official doctrine” as though there was some place to look up the official teachings. Where is the official systematic theology of Mormonism?

Interestingly, KUTV has posted their news stories from last night online, omitting any mention of this segment. There is speculation that it was held due to criticism of the way it was reported. We will update you here as more details become available.

Written in 1958, Mormon Doctrine has served as a reference book for members of the Church for over 50 years, but has recently gone out of vogue. References to McConkie’s work were taken out of the Gospel Principles manual when it was reissued this year for use in Priesthood and Relief Society classes. Now it seems it is being further phased out. It is only surprising that this has not been done before, since Mormon Doctrine has not enjoyed the support of every member of the highest Church Councils over the years.

I’d like to hold a little “In Memoriam” session here at Mormon Matters for Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine. It was the first book I ever purchased when a brand-new convert in 1979, in the authoritative-looking black-and-gold binding. It was the perfect place for a convert to go for a source of Church teachings in a pre-internet age. Thus, it shaped much of my early thinking about the Church. This was the third edition, having been revised to be “more moderate” in 1966, and then again in 1978 after the Priesthood revelation. Much of the Bible Dictionary in our current editions of the LDS scriptures come directly from Mormon Doctrine. McConkie himself described it as “the first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the kingdom” and “the first extensive compendium of the whole gospel—the first attempt to publish an encyclopedic commentary covering the whole field of revealed religion.” Its teachings have had a major impact upon several generations of Latter-day Saints.

END QUOTE

 

[RebeccaJ]

DCNBILL,

You can go online and read Latter-day Saint lesson manuals, Ensign articles, the Bible dictionary, the Doctrine and Covenants, and glean the “definitive beliefs”.

You could also find a way to read the books by Elder James E Talmage who was an apostle when asked to write Jesus the Christ and The Articles of Faith. Those are very good sources for “definitive beliefs”.

One interested in definitive Latter-day Saint beliefs would want to also read Rough Stone Rolling for historical context about Joseph Smith; the Pearl of Great Price (a short read, online); and if one really is interested in gaining understanding about the subject, then if they haven’t read the Book of Mormon they will never really significantly approach understanding Latter-day Saint beliefs.

Well if you’re going to recommend Talmage, why not add in that wonderful anti-Catholic work of his, “The Great Apostasy”?

 

[SteveVH]

The reason I responded to SteveVH about the two words “separate gods” is that those words together create their own connotation. A person can study this as a use of the English language where the word “separate” combined with the word “gods” connotes division, dividedness, disunity, disharmony, and also connotes disrespect for the divine and thus disrespect for God. It was silly (that’s the best word I can come up with to describe it) of SteveVH to use those words and expect me to agree with the thought conveyed by those two words, and attempt to place words into my mouth or into my writing in such a way as that.

Well forgive me for putting words into your mouth. It is not I that disrespect God. What I disrespect is the misrepresentation of his very being by those who do not understand his nature as revealed to us by his Son. If you prefer “separate and distinct” gods to “separate” gods I can live with that. I don’t really see the difference, it is still polytheism whether you have separate and distinct gods or simply separate gods. You still have “gods”.

The term “separate and distinct” is used because Catholics have their own definition for the word “person” and therefore that word by itself does not convey the meaning of “individuality”.

Are you trying to tell me that the word “person” does not convey “individuality”? That is exactly what it conveys. It certainly does not mean plurality.

It is an attempt to help someone understand that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost have individuality, and at the same time have complete and perfect unity and therefore are One–which is what the Savior consistently conveyed in all His teachings and in His intercessory prayer.

But you don’t believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have “complete and perfect unity”. You believe they are united only in purpose. That is a far stretch from complete and perfect unity. We know what Christ meant when he spoke of unity with the Father: “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”.

 

[ParkerD]

…
(1) Are you trying to tell me that the word “person” does not convey “individuality”? That is exactly what it conveys. It certainly does not mean plurality.

(2) But you don’t believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have “complete and perfect unity”.

SteveVH,

(1) I am not sure if you are saying that the Catholic belief is that God the Father and God the Son have individuality. Is that what you are saying, since if I have understood the descriptions given, then I have seen the use of the word “Persons” but yet I haven’t seen a description that conveyed “individuality”?

(2) Yes, we do.

 

[zaffiroborant]

To PaulDupre and DCNBill:

No! No! No! Not Mormon Doctrine! Really, Paul, you gotta come into the 21st century of LDS scholarship. Mormon Doctrine isn’t even published any more. And given the history of theological controversies and changes in Catholic dogma over the centuries, are you really meaning to throw the rocks of “Mormon changes” from the glass house in which you live? C’mon. “Double standard” doesn’t even begin to describe that kind of game.

DCNBill, if you really want to read a current book on LDS theology that is written from from a purely philosophical view, you might consider Blake Ostler’s excellent treatments in Exploring Mormon Thought - The Attributes of God. Just to give you a sense of his approach, the first chapter of the book contains the following subsections:

What Does “God” Mean in Mormon Discourse?
Attribute and Essence
Is “God” a Title or a Name?
God and Monotheism
The Divine Thou
Subordinate “Gods”
Apotheosis: Human Gods
“God” as a Relationship of Unity Among a Plurality of Persons
God and Perfection
God and Possible Worlds

In the book he also discusses LDS views on the definitions of God that resulted from the early councils. So there are sections on Divine Simplicity, Pure Actuality, Immutability, Timless Eternity, Impassibility, Aseity, etc. It’s a big book (531 pages), and is the first of a 3-volume set by Ostler that discusses other aspects of Mormon theology. But it represents first-rate LDS scholarship the kind of which is studiously avoided by our critics who post here (somewhat) and on Evangelical anti-Mormon websites (a LOT).

How sweetly ironic, it is better to learn about LDS teachings from a lawyer and part time apologist than from a person chosen by God to be one of The Twelve Apostles.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

(1) I am not sure if you are saying that the Catholic belief is that God the Father and God the Son have individuality. Is that what you are saying, since if I have understood the descriptions given, then I have seen the use of the word “Persons” but yet I haven’t seen a description that conveyed “individuality”?

We believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons in relationship. The Father is eternally the Father to his eternal Son. The Son is eternally the Son to his eternal Father. The eternal love between the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit. But they are eternally one God in essence and in being. Is it a mind blower? Absolutely. Can we wrap our minds around this great mystery? Hardly. We believe what has been revealed to us. This God, this Trinity of divine Persons, unique in being from every other being is the one and only God. He alone is the Creator, everything else, including us, is a creature. His nature is divine. Our nature is human. We are not God, we will never be God. By grace and mercy we will share in His divine life through adaption, not exaltation.

(2) Yes, we do.

Not from what I have read on these threads. One in purpose just doesn’t cut it.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Parker,

Sorry, I was confused. When I said “Bruce McConkie,” I meant President Gordon B. Hinkley. Here’s the post where you linked to Hinkley’s speech, it’s #334 of this thread:

SteveVH,

I totally concur with the description and beliefs presented by President Hinckley that can be read in the following link:

lds.org/new-era/2005/07/articles-of-faith-the-father-the-son-and-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng&query=three+believe

Are you with me? You “totally concur” with the following beliefs. Now… let’s go to the speech:

"I believe in Him as an individual, separate and distinct from His Father. "

(And later…)

"They are distinct beings…"

Okay. So you “totally concur” with that. And yet…

Cradle2Grave,

The reason I responded to SteveVH about the two words “separate gods” is that those words together create their own connotation. A person can study this as a use of the English language where the word “separate” combined with the word “gods” connotes division, dividedness, disunity, disharmony, and also connotes disrespect for the divine and thus disrespect for God. It was silly (that’s the best word I can come up with to describe it) of SteveVH to use those words and expect me to agree with the thought conveyed by those two words, and attempt to place words into my mouth or into my writing in such a way as that.

So when Steve VH uses the phrase “separate gods,” he’s being “silly” and “connoting disrespect for the divine and thus disrespect for God.” And yet, you “totally concur” when Gordon B. Hinkley says that Jesus is “separate and distinct from His Father” and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “distinct beings.”

Again, that’s “separate gods” = silly. But “distinct beings” = “totally concur.”

This is nonsense, Parker. Nonsense. And it’s all part of the deliberately misleading nonsense you’ve been posting for 30+ pages now. I’ve tried to meet you with an open mind. I’ve tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I’ve even defended you to others in this very thread. And you still persist with this deliberately misleading nonsense.

Honestly, you should have just quit about 17 pages ago, like you said you would:

Hi, David Cana and others,

This is to let you know that I feel like I should spend time on other things at this point, and that I have explained answers already as thoroughly as I could, and appreciate the kindnesses in many of the comments. Peace to all readers and to all who interacted with me.

 

[Telstar]

The Bruce R McConkie speech I referred to was about “worship” meaning “pray to”, which I have clarified. It was not about the word “doctrine”. It was about one specific meaning of the word “worship” which also has other meanings as the dictionary provides, and as an article I linked by Elder McConkie also shows. If a person gets stuck on one meaning for English words, they ought to go back to grade school and learn about dictionaries and different meanings for the same word.

worship [wur-ship] noun, verb, -shiped, -ship·ing or (especially British) shipped, -ship·ping.
noun

1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: (They attended worship this morning.)
3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
5. (initial capital letter) British. a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually preceded by Your, His, or Her).
   verb (used with object)
6. to render religious reverence and **homage **to.
7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
8. to render religious reverence and homage, as to a deity.
9. to attend services of divine worship.
10. to feel an adoring reverence or regard.

Hmmm… that’s odd. There’s not one word in all of those definitions of ‘worship’ about it meaning ‘pray to’ or even ‘prayer’.

It never ceases to amaze me that common words are never common words to LDS. They have to ‘interpret’ every word by substituting meanings, so they can all understand each other, but no one else on earth can interpret any of their ‘buzzword’ meanings. For some reason, they think it’s cool to talk gibberish that almost sounds like normal speech, but it’s just a ‘secret code’ of phrases composed of common words.