Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[lax16]

Lax16,

I have been specific about the words I have used to express my beliefs, and RJ has misquoted them as have you.

Parker -

I have no intention of misquoting you - so you don’t believe that there are gods in other universes?
You don’t believe that when faithful mormon men die they become a god of their own universe?
You don’t believe that God was once a man whose father was a god in another universe?

 

[lax16]

Miriam,

In the sense expressed in John 6, I do “eat His flesh” and “drink His blood” and thus have life through Him, through His atoning grace.

But His atoning grace means it is possible to become “perfected in Him”, and that requires repentance and believing in Him as the living Son of God and the Good Shepherd who is the Master Teacher. It means I believe in continuous change toward “be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”

Parker - For you, it also means getting married in a temple and believing JS was a prophet.

Christians know about Jesus and His Goodness - we know how to access Him.

Mormons believe it is through (pagan) rituals and heretical beliefs about His Father.

None of what you have said answers the question:
If God was once a man as we are now who were his parents? Were they human or divine?

Please answer since this thread is almost coming to a close and I know and you know that The One True Religion cannot promote the belief that there is more than one God.

Let’s face it - JS was soooooo busy trying to be different from all “apostate” religions that he really backed himself into a corner with this one. If he was truly a prophet, as you say, then his teachings would be perfectly logical and consistent.

Please - here and now - prove to all of us how the LDS can explain how God had parents but there is only one God.
Were they divine - making them gods as well?
Were they human - begging the question “where did they come from?”

Read the Catholic teaching on this - it really is bullet proof.

 

[rock17]

Well we have almost used up our 1,000 posts and i don’t really think that we have gotten a straight forward answer,

ParkerD, Once and for all answer these questions please, Do you believe that there are more than one divine beings that are seperate from God? Does God have parents and if so does not that mean that there are more than one God or are they mortal? Who is the begining of all things if God is not the begining and the end because someone created cannot have always exsited. maby that is alittle to logical? And why do you refuse to use words that come from Greek?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Well we have almost used up our 1,000 posts and i don’t really think that we have gotten a straight forward answer,

ParkerD, Once and for all answer these questions please, Do you believe that there are more than one divine beings that are seperate from God?

How would you answer that as a Catholic?

Is Jesus a divine being? Yes.

Is Jesus separate from God? Jesus is God.

Are there other beings that are God? Depends what you mean by beings. God includes three Persons. We agree on that, right?

Are Persons beings? That’s a semantic mangle.

Would you like to rephrase your question in a way not calculated to elicit nonsensical answers, even if posed to a Catholic?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Parker -

I have no intention of misquoting you - so you don’t believe that there are gods in other universes?
You don’t believe that when faithful mormon men die they become a god of their own universe?
You don’t believe that God was once a man whose father was a god in another universe?

Some mormons believe that. It’s not doctrine, according to President Hinckley.

What is doctrine is the somewhat enigmatic statement: what Man is, God once Was. What God is, man may become.
Some mormons interpret that statement like you said, others, like myself, think of it as what the Eastern Orthodox call “deification.”

When you think about it, it’s not much different than what Anasthasius said:

God became Man, so that Man might become God.

God became Man (or as Man is, God once Was) refers to Jesus taking on flesh and walking among us, right?

So that Man might become God (as God is, man may become) refers to deification, i.e. that we may become one in mind with God (see the intercessory prayer which you perversely refuse to address despite Parker’s patient efforts) and know God “as we are known” (see 1 Cor chapter 13).

Does that mean we shall build worlds? Does it matter? What we do, we will do in service to God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Did you just call Lax16 perverse?

 

[rock17]

Some mormons believe that. It’s not doctrine, according to President Hinckley.

What is doctrine is the somewhat enigmatic statement: what Man is, God once Was. What God is, man may become.
Some mormons interpret that statement like you said, others, like myself, think of it as what the Eastern Orthodox call “deification.”

When you think about it, it’s not much different than what Anasthasius said:

God became Man, so that Man might become God.

God became Man (or as Man is, God once Was) refers to Jesus taking on flesh and walking among us, right?

So that Man might become God (as God is, man may become) refers to deification, i.e. that we may become one in mind with God (see the intercessory prayer which you perversely refuse to address despite Parker’s patient efforts) and know God “as we are known” (see 1 Cor chapter 13).

Does that mean we shall build worlds? Does it matter? What we do, we will do in service to God.

Well hello, i guess i will use one of our last posts to reply,
Does God have parents or is that not mormon doctirne? I guess you did not read ParkerD’s comment about Greek culture so that is not important to you, or his comments about logic and philosohpy so that is also of no importance, but what is important is that someone make clear if there are more than one divine beings in the mormon world. and you get the last post. so make it good.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Parker - You don’t believe that God was once a man whose father was a god in another universe?

"Pete:

Some mormons believe that. It’s not doctrine, according to President Hinckley.

What is doctrine is the somewhat enigmatic statement: what Man is, God once Was. What God is, man may become.
Some mormons interpret that statement like you said, others, like myself, think of it as what the Eastern Orthodox call “deification.”

When you think about it, it’s not much different than what Anasthasius said:

God became Man, so that Man might become God.

God became Man (or as Man is, God once Was) refers to Jesus taking on flesh and walking among us, right?

So that Man might become God (as God is, man may become) refers to deification, i.e. that we may become one in mind with God (see the intercessory prayer which you perversely refuse to address despite Parker’s patient efforts) and know God “as we are known” (see 1 Cor chapter 13)

Did you just call Lax16 perverse?

No.

I thought you plural behaved perversely by asking shallow angel-dancing-on-pins questions while ignoring Parker’s serious question about the Lord’s intercessory prayer.

If Jesus is really all that important to you, then how can you in conscience ignore the last full sermon He gave in his mortal ministry?

If you are the continuation of the church that the Lord founded through Peter, your disinterest in the Lord’s intercessory prayer has to embarrass the First Apostle.

Now you can take that as a personal attack, which it isn’t, or you can take it as strong encouragement to examine the intercessory prayer.

Does God have parents or is that not mormon doctirne?

Not doctrine. That’s a theory propounded by Joseph Smith in a funeral discourse. Some mormons believe so. I don’t think it matters any more than whether the gates of heaven roll or swing. It’s kind of a nonsensical question to begin with, since God is three persons, and one of those persons is the Son.

 

[rock17]

No.

I thought you plural behaved perversely by asking shallow angel-dancing-on-pins questions while ignoring Parker’s serious question about the Lord’s intercessory prayer.

If Jesus is really all that important to you, then how can you in conscience ignore the last full sermon He gave in his mortal ministry?

If you are the continuation of the church that the Lord founded through Peter, your disinterest in the Lord’s intercessory prayer has to embarrass the First Apostle.

Now you can take that as a personal attack, which it isn’t, or you can take it as strong encouragement to examine the intercessory prayer.

Not doctrine. That’s a theory propounded by Joseph Smith in a funeral discourse. Some mormons believe so. I don’t think it matters any more than whether the gates of heaven roll or swing. It’s kind of a nonsensical question to begin with, since God is three persons, and one of those persons is the Son.

it matters alot because it means either God was created or not

 

[RebeccaJ]

One of ParkerD’s usual diversions I’d guess. I didn’t read all of his posts. He usually goes in circles and I gave up following his nonsensical circles long ago. So, point out the post, I’ll read it.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

One of ParkerD’s usual diversions I’d guess. I didn’t read all of his posts. He usually goes in circles and I gave up following his nonsensical circles long ago. So, point out the post, I’ll read it.

I only saw his repeated requests that you read it, and I know what he’s talking about. Here’s a non KJV version of it, since it appears that folks on this forum seem think the KJV is anti-Catholic (something I never heard in years of living in Catholic communities …)

christianity.about.com/od/prayersinthebible/qt/christintprayer.htm

Most notably:

"I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are – I in them and you in me, all being perfected into one. Then the world will know that you sent me and will understand that you love them as much as you love me. Father, I want these whom you’ve given me to be with me, so they can see my glory. You gave me the glory because you loved me even before the world began!

If anyone can point me towards a specifically Catholic Bible, I’d prefer to get the quotes from there. The Catholic church fathers understood the doctrine of deification far better than the Protestants understand it, and perhaps better than we Mormons understand it … Anasthasus has given me great insights.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

it matters alot because it means either God was created or not

Actually, no it doesn’t. Not in LDS theology. Having a father does not make one a created being. It only makes a difference if you try to mishmash LDS and Catholic doctrine.

I’m happy to go to Catholic theology, or Protestant theology, or Jewish theology, even, to fill in the gaps where established LDS doctrine doesn’t provide a clear answer. But to actually contradict established LDS doctrine? That would be silly.

 

[rock17]

am i not going to get a response?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormonism is relative about God, unless it is referring to itself.

Hello, you’re on a Catholic website. Heretical beliefs about God are important to expose, especially since Mormons target Catholics and other Christians, using this relativistic approach. It is deceptive.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I only saw his repeated requests that you read it, and I know what he’s talking about. Here’s a non KJV version of it, since it appears that folks on this forum seem think the KJV is anti-Catholic (something I never heard in years of living in Catholic communities …)

christianity.about.com/od/prayersinthebible/qt/christintprayer.htm

Oh my heck, you are full of diversions. I like the KJV, there are problems with it, the first being, it is missing books. The second is, the translation is in Elizabethan English, and so, difficult to understand. But I am comfortable using it as long as I can look to a good modern translation to clarify the English that I don’t speak.

If anyone can point me towards a specifically Catholic Bible, I’d prefer to get the quotes from there.

There is a Bible button when you are creating a post. It’s a cool little feature.

The Catholic church fathers understood the doctrine of deification far better than the Protestants understand it, and perhaps better than we Mormons understand it … Anasthasus has given me great insights.

We’ve been down this road, the latest was fairly recent. You should realize you are dealing with Catholic documents written by Catholics, and proof-texting isn’t going to cut it.

I’m reading your link, which yes, it is from John which I am very familiar with. Still don’t know the point being made.

 

[rock17]

Actually, no it doesn’t. Not in LDS theology. Having a father does not make one a created being. It only makes a difference if you try to mishmash LDS and Catholic doctrine.

I’m happy to go to Catholic theology, or Protestant theology, or Jewish theology, even, to fill in the gaps where established LDS doctrine doesn’t provide a clear answer. But to actually contradict established LDS doctrine? That would be silly.

Please give an example of a noncreated being that has a literal father. Not sure what you meant by the second paragraph but i would hope that we can stick to catholic and lds doctrine becuase that is what the thread is about.

 

[lax16]

Some mormons believe that. It’s not doctrine, according to President Hinckley.

What is doctrine is the somewhat enigmatic statement: what Man is, God once Was. What God is, man may become.
Some mormons interpret that statement like you said, others, like myself, think of it as what the Eastern Orthodox call “deification.”

When you think about it, it’s not much different than what Anasthasius said:

God became Man, so that Man might become God.

God became Man (or as Man is, God once Was) refers to Jesus taking on flesh and walking among us, right?

So that Man might become God (as God is, man may become) refers to deification, i.e. that we may become one in mind with God (see the intercessory prayer which you perversely refuse to address despite Parker’s patient efforts) and know God “as we are known” (see 1 Cor chapter 13).

Does that mean we shall build worlds? Does it matter? What we do, we will do in service to God.

Hello Cowboy Pete (or BYU Chem Alum, is that you?)

Who are the parents of God?

 

[lax16]

No.

I thought you plural behaved perversely by asking shallow angel-dancing-on-pins questions while ignoring Parker’s serious question about the Lord’s intercessory prayer.

If Jesus is really all that important to you, then how can you in conscience ignore the last full sermon He gave in his mortal ministry?

If you are the continuation of the church that the Lord founded through Peter, your disinterest in the Lord’s intercessory prayer has to embarrass the First Apostle.

Now you can take that as a personal attack, which it isn’t, or you can take it as strong encouragement to examine the intercessory prayer.

Thanks for the advice.

Not doctrine. That’s a theory propounded by Joseph Smith in a funeral discourse. Some mormons believe so. I don’t think it matters any more than whether the gates of heaven roll or swing. It’s kind of a nonsensical question to begin with, since God is three persons, and one of those persons is the Son.

So…who are the parents of God?

 

[NewSeeker]

No.

Not doctrine. That’s a theory propounded by Joseph Smith in a funeral discourse. Some mormons believe so. I don’t think it matters any more than whether the gates of heaven roll or swing. It’s kind of a nonsensical question to begin with, since God is three persons, and one of those persons is the Son.

I’ll bet Joseph Smith would be shocked that modern Mormons think this is just a theory. It sounds to me that he believed he was speaking as a prophet, in fact he staked his prophetic credentials on the truthfulness of what he taught during this funeral discourse:

“I approach a matter of the greatest importance and the most solemn of any that can occupy our attention…I want your prayers and faith, the instruction of Almighty God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, that I may set forth things that are true and easily comprehended and that will carry the testimony to your hearts…My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and if I should be the man to comprehend him and to explain or convey his principles to your hearts so that the spirit seals it upon you, let every man and woman henceforth put his hand on his mouth and never say anything against the man of God again. But if I fail, it becomes my duty to renounce all my pretensions to revelations and inspirations…I want you all to know God, to be familiar with him. And if I can bring you to him, all persecutions against me will cease; you will know that I am his servant, for I speak as one having authority.” - from Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse

The Prophet of the Restoration clearly laid out his prophetic credentials during this sermon and specifically linked the validity of those credentials to the truthfulness of what he was teaching. Yet modern Mormons (citing Gordon B. Hinckley) doubt him? How can this be? Mormons - which prophet, speaking as a prophet, is correct? Joseph Smith or GBH? Except, maybe GBH wasn’t speaking as a prophet when he said “I don’t know that we teach that”. He was being interviewed, not standing before the body of saints as the prophet, saying things like “I am his servant, for I speak as one having authority.” It sounds to me like GBH was the one expounding a theory.

Joseph Smith would be rolling in his grave at what has become of his doctrine that God is “a man like one of you”.

NS

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I’ll bet Joseph Smith would be surprised that modern Mormons think this is just a theory. It sounds to me that he believed he was speaking as a prophet:

"I approach a matter of the greatest importance and the most solemn of any that can occupy our attention…I want your prayers and faith, the instruction of Almighty God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, that I may set forth things that are true and easily comprehended and that will carry the testimony to your hearts…

OK – he asks for prayers so that he might set forth things that are true, and you see that as being certain that he’s right?

He doesn’t even claim that his translations from Hebrew were inspired – they were based on his personal studies of Hebrew.

Look, jump back to 180 years after the apostles were alive, and look at the various sects of Christianity. The very founder of Orthodox Theology, Origen, without whom the entire Catholic Church might not have emerged the same – you excommunicated him post-mortem because some of his speculations weren’t Orthodox. Well in the LDS view, that’s not reasonable. Just because someone doesn’t get everything right, doesn’t mean we run off, declare them anathema, and burn their books. As I see it, Origen did his best according to his lights, and you owe him better than you gave him. As mormons see things, you can disclaim some of his wackier theories without declaring him anathema. But that’s not a doctrinal difference, that’s a cultural and procedural difference between us.