Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[Telstar]

Freddo,

I was not disagreeing about this kind of statement. This statement says nothing about “how”, and Ezra Taft Benson would surely say Mary was a virgin before she conceived the Savior, when she conceived the Savior, and when He was born from her womb. Thus, she became “great with child” through a miraculous means whereby the Holy Ghost "shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy [child] which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" [meaning the Son of God the Father] (Luke 1:35).

This means that the cells that comprised the body of the baby Jesus in Mary’s womb began cell division and had whatever the genetic components would be from a mother who was mortal and from a Father who was the Highest, and when Jesus talked about His relationship with the Father, it was a literal relationship and neither Joseph nor the Holy Ghost were His Father, and He knew it.

I couldn’t help but notice that in your quote from Luke, you have the word “child” shown in brackets. That usually means that the writer (you, in this case) is not using the literal translation of that word, but a word that might be easier for the reader (your target audience) to understand as its meaning. I remember reading in a previous post where that particular line from Luke was written in an LDS discussion, but it didn’t use the word “child” at all. So, I went digging to find it because it really bothered me when I first read it. (Ironically, it was originally posted by Peter John in response to one of your posts.)

From your use of those brackets, I have to assume that you are using the word “child” to show the ‘understood’ meaning, and to replace the literal word that you fear might not be ‘understood’ by your readers (i.e. to CYA). From the quote of an LDS institute manual shown below, we can see why you chose to bracket the word “child”. Apparently, LDS teaching is that Jesus was not really considered to be a “child” at all, but a “thing”.
Peter John in: LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?:

from an lds institute manual

JESUS IS LITERALLY THE SON OF THE ETERNAL FATHER
(3-6) Because God Was His Father, Jesus Had Power Over Life and Death
When Gabriel came to Mary with the announcement that she would be the mother of the Lord, Mary was troubled. She had not as yet consummated her marriage to Joseph. She was sure of her virgin condition, and her question to Gabriel was as if she had said: “How can I be the mother of a son when I am yet unmarried?” The angel’s explanation to Mary is the clearest explanation of the fatherhood of God and the divine sonship of Christ available in holy writ. Gabriel declares: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” ( Luke 1:35 .) This statement, clear enough as it stands, does not say Jesus was the son of the Holy Ghost, but he was the Son of God the Father. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie has explained, Jesus was the “‘Son of the Highest’ ( Luke 1:32 ), and ‘the Highest’ is the first member of the godhead, not the third.” ( DNTC, 1:83.)

I have to say that I find that extremely distasteful and quite telling of what seems to be the real view held by LDS about the true nature and worth of Jesus. According to LDS teaching, it appears that Jesus Christ, our Lord & Savior, the true Son of God, Who is literally God, the great I AM, is referred to as merely a “thing”, not even worthy of being called a “child”. But, Luke refers to Him as “the Holy”, period. In my view, Luke uses the much more accurate description of Him as being holy, as only God can be Holy (as noted by his use of the capital ‘H’).

This is the exact quote from the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is a little more revealing of the reverence used by the original author, in his own wording, to describe that Holy Child.

                [[35]](http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=1&l=35#x)  And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon  thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And  therefore also **the *Holy*** which shall be born of thee shall be called the  Son of God.

Is this version of Luke (in the LDS manual) from the KJV or the JS version of the Bible?

 

[TheExorcist]

Is this version of Luke (in the LDS manual) from the KJV or the JS version of the Bible?

KJV. There would be a footnote if it referred to the JS version

 

[Telstar]

I think it’s going to take me a while to figure out how the quoting system works on this forum, and, why it sometimes adds ‘code’ variables to a post when you try to edit it.

 

[ParkerD]

…
Trinity is a word to describe the nature of God. This nature is revealed as ONE GOD, Three Persons. This is clear in scripture…

The clear verse(s) that say this specifically without needing to be explained or added to, please, and that is completely consistent with the Savior’s Intercessory prayer to His Father.

 

[ParkerD]

Alright; so if Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are not three separate gods in the way Set, Ra, and Osiris are gods (no, I am not saying your Trinity is made up of Set, Ra, and Osiris), what on Earth ARE they to you?

They are not as a shamrock to you, three persons in one. But they are not three separate plants, either. So please tell us what kind of plant or plants the Trinity are, then? And provide Old and/or New Testament Scripture, and History, if you can, to back up your claims, if you please.

Tarkan,

I would never use a comparison with a plant or a shamrock, so I won’t join you in that kind of analogy.

One God means One in power and omnipotence, One in holiness, One in will, One in purposes, One in omniscience, perfectly loving, perfectly compassionate, perfectly just, completely in agreement at all moments in time and eternity. They are One beyond our ability to express that degree of Oneness because it is perfect Oneness which mortals don’t grasp because we haven’t experienced it in mortality. They are One, but are Three Persons with distinct Identities.

An excellent description of Their separate Identities is given in the vision Stephen had just before his martyrdom. “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,”…(Acts 7:55, also read 56)

An excellent description of Their Oneness is given by the Savior during His Intercessory prayer, found in John 17 that should be read in its entirety. It would of course be better if we could hear His words in their original language and understood them, but the sense of Oneness is conveyed even in the English translation.

 

[rock17]

What about John Chapter 1 verse 1-6? John explains the trinity very well i think.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The clear verse(s) that say this specifically without needing to be explained or added to, please, and that is completely consistent with the Savior’s Intercessory prayer to His Father.

ParkerD, begin with God revealing Himself as One. Simple isn’t it? One does not mean more than one. One means one. It is your LDS teaching that adds to One, creating three gods (at least).

And pray, that God protects you from what is false.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, begin with God revealing Himself as One. Simple isn’t it? One does not mean more than one. One means one. It is your LDS teaching that adds to One, creating three gods (at least).

And pray, that God protects you from what is false.

RebeccaJ,

My response to the last sentence is that God does that as I do my part, which is to seek the Holy Ghost and to read the scriptures (including the Bible being central to that study) with a humble, willing-to-learn heart and mind, and I have done that and feel far more protected than I have seen any Catholic express that they are protected “from what is false”.

It is false protection if the person feels forced or feels other people are forced or feels the need to force others and thus deprive free will choice in their decision making, particularly about religious choices. That is the kind of force one finds expressed after the council of Nicea, that the most powerful or persuasive group carried the day and now everyone is forced to follow them. I don’t feel any sense of needing to follow such thinking or logic, at all–not in the slightest, not remotely. It is diametrically opposite of the way Christ taught that the gospel and the Holy Spirit work in people’s lives for their good.

 

[ParkerD]

What about John Chapter 1 verse 1-6? John explains the trinity very well i think.

Thanks, Rock17,

I understand that “the Word was God” can be confusing, but Christ being the Son of God from the beginning means that He was God at that point in time–God the Son. Christ was “with God”, and Christ “was God”, and Christ was the Creator–all true.

 

[ParkerD]

Then why in the world did YOU state that Jesus taught a belief in more than one God???

Jay53,

Because of the different uses of the expression “multiple gods” to which I had responded to Freddo.

Your later expression clarified by saying:

Yes, Jesus IS the Son of God and distinct from God the Father. But there is STILL only ONE God and Jesus NEVER taught a belief in multiple gods. Never!!!

You used the words "distinct from God the Father, and then used the expression “still only One God”, which is precisely something I agree with–so with the clarification I said that I agreed.

You also used the same kind of connotation with the words “multiple gods” that would tie to the title of this thread, which I have clarified is incorrect and misleading. So it is correct that Jesus NEVER taught that kind of belief, nor anything close to it.

 

[ParkerD]

Telstar,

I was glad to learn that the Douay Rheims does not use the words “Holy thing”, because I have never liked that expression in the KJV (which preceded the LDS church by over 200 years, by the way) and that is why I used [child] since I we don’t call a “child” a “thing” in modern English. Obviously, the words “holy thing” were not written in modern English and held a different connotation than a person reading that with a modern English view would grasp correctly without further study or pondering of its use. Just saying “Holy” sounds better to me.

 

[Korihor]

RebeccaJ,

That is the kind of force one finds expressed after the council of Nicea, that the most powerful or persuasive group carried the day and now everyone is forced to follow them. I don’t feel any sense of needing to follow such thinking or logic, at all–not in the slightest, not remotely. It is diametrically opposite of the way Christ taught that the gospel and the Holy Spirit work in people’s lives for their good.

ParkerD - I asked Heavenly Father for confirmation of my belief that beer is not included in the Word of Wisdom and my belief that the Book of Abraham is not scripture. I received a witness through the sweet whisperings of the Holy Spirit that I am correct on both points. After my prayer, I felt so peaceful and was filled with the pure love of Christ. Yet, the bishop still won’t give me a temple recommend because I continue to assert that I received a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost that goes counter to the mainstream view. The Church, through the bishop, is forcing me to toe the line in an un-Christlike way, ignore the witness I received, and follow the most powerful and persuasive group (the Brighamites) that emerged after Joseph Smith’s death.

Korihor

 

[zach_dunn]

Thanks, Rock17,

I understand that “the Word was God” can be confusing, but Christ being the Son of God from the beginning means that He was God at that point in time–God the Son. Christ was “with God”, and Christ “was God”, and Christ was the Creator–all true.

How can you say you believe Jesus is God when you believe that He is a spirit child like the rest of us? Maybe my Mormon theology is a bit rusty.

 

[zach_dunn]

ParkerD:

Do you believe that there are more gods than the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit?

 

[ParkerD]

How can you say you believe Jesus is God when you believe that He is a spirit child like the rest of us? …

Zach,

Jesus is the Firstborn. We knew Him as the Firstborn, and as God the Son when first we knew Him in the pre-mortal world. We knew His unfailing love, His perfect example, and His Oneness with the Father in the pre-mortal world when we first knew Him. His knowledge and the Light of His intelligence far surpassed ours. We observed His perfect meekness and humility also, even when the Father asked, “Whom shall I send?” and He offered Himself in a voluntary act of perfect love, and became the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world through that voluntary act of responding, “Here am I; send me.”

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD:

Do you believe that there are more gods than the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit?

Zach,

Not if the Intercessory prayer and the Oneness described there are not taken into account or understood, such as the question that heads this thread presents as a question.

 

[ParkerD]

1. But according to Moroni, no congregation of believers was correct at that time. Not one of them was guided by the Holy Spirit. In other words, none of the Churches at the time of Joseph Smith were, according to Moroni, protected by the Holy Spirit.
2. If that were true, how could the gates of Hell prevail against a then non-existent congregation of believers, since all congregations had some degree of incorrectness? Not merely incompleteness. Wrongness.
3. Maybe I am missing something? Moroni said all Churches had “errors”, correct? Not that they were merely incomplete?

TarkanAttila,

1. The protection by the Holy Spirit comes for a person through their righteousness, repentance, and faith in Jesus Christ, and their desires to have understanding by means of the Spirit’s guidance. This was so at the time of the apostles as they sent forth the message of repentance and of Christ’s redeeming love and His divine mission and His resurrection. It continued to be so, whether people followed the requirements or not. There was no guarantee, nor is there a guarantee today, because free will choice is paramount.
2. Jesus’ words explained the simple requirement that would place a person onto the foundation, the Rock, that meant they were part of His congregation of believers. The requirement was that they know in the same way Peter knew, which pattern was “by revelation” from Heavenly Father, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

As they had that knowledge, no buffeting from Satan or from the fallen angels who follow him, no storm of life, no words of harassment or questioning or jarring or belittling or intellectual reasoning without the Spirit present in the reasoning, will place the member of that congregation of believers in a position of falling from the foundation, because they are founded upon the Rock and they know it and recognize what their foundation is. It is a sure foundation bringing with it the peace that surpasses understanding and is joyful, filled with light and hope.

Without that simple requirement being in place, then a dislodging could occur for a believer without that foundation, but even so there is a rescue offered through Him, which will continue to be offered even in the spirit world, and the gates of hell shall not prevail because He does indeed rescue, fulfilling the promise of Isaiah 61:1-3.

1. OK. The errors in some of the teachings did not change the conditional requirement, which is the reason for the need for a restoration in fulfillment of Revelation 14:6-7. The key components were and are repentance and faith, personal heartfelt prayer to God, desire, acting in righteousness through free will choice, understanding by revelation; and knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God by revelation, then continuing in faith and repentance and heartfelt prayer so that He can be the constant Leader, the Good Shepherd that He promises to be.

A wish of peace to you. It all works out–we choose what we desire, and God gives us what we desire, ask for, and live for.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Zach,

Jesus is the Firstborn. We knew Him as the Firstborn, and as God the Son when first we knew Him in the pre-mortal world. ."

Here is another word you are using Parker that has a completely different meaning to you, to the LDS than it has for Christians.

“Firstborn”

Here is a great read on the difference between how Mormons use the word firstborn compared to how Christians Catholic and or Protestant would use the same word regarding our Jesus.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909fea4.asp

If you do not understand Mormonism this is a must read before you continue on with this particular conversation. If you need to know your 2000 year old Catholic Apostolic faith better this will help tremendously.

 

[zaffiroborant]

RebeccaJ,

My response to the last sentence is that God does that as I do my part, which is to seek the Holy Ghost and to read the scriptures (including the Bible being central to that study) with a humble, willing-to-learn heart and mind, and I have done that and feel far more protected than I have seen any Catholic express that they are protected “from what is false”.

It is false protection if the person feels forced or feels other people are forced or feels the need to force others and thus deprive free will choice in their decision making, particularly about religious choices. That is the kind of force one finds expressed after the council of Nicea, that the most powerful or persuasive group carried the day and now everyone is forced to follow them. I don’t feel any sense of needing to follow such thinking or logic, at all–not in the slightest, not remotely. It is diametrically opposite of the way Christ taught that the gospel and the Holy Spirit work in people’s lives for their good.

What was it you said about actually reading others posts again? Oh I remember this:

Z,

I do sometimes skip over some of the comments.

It seems you not only skip what people say about how they feel, you fill it what you skipped with what you imagine they feel.

BTW I find it ironic to state ones humility while at the same time declaring how much better you have done at something than some one else and telling them how they must feel.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,

Because of the different uses of the expression “multiple gods” to which I had responded to Freddo.

Your later expression clarified by saying:

You used the words "distinct from God the Father, and then used the expression “still only One God”, which is precisely something I agree with–so with the clarification I said that I agreed.

You also used the same kind of connotation with the words “multiple gods” that would tie to the title of this thread, which I have clarified is incorrect and misleading. So it is correct that Jesus NEVER taught that kind of belief, nor anything close to it.

Sorry, Parker, but you are making absolutely no sense to me!! In this post you seem to be saying that you agree with the Trinity - which I didn’t think any LDS did. And now you’re saying that Jesus did not teach a belief in multiple gods when that is a complete contradiction to your earlier statement. What then, did you mean by your earlier statement?? And are you now retracting that statement???

Originally Posted by ParkerD
Jesus taught very plainly a belief in more than one God, and was killed for that by being horribly crucified.