Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[Crdl2Grv]

Crdl2Grv

As far as the concept of “eternal”, I look at it in a way that says everything I do today has ripple effects forever, so the atoning grace of the Savior is all the more important because if it weren’t for Him, those ripple effects could be irreparably negative so I am all the more grateful for His atoning grace, mercy, and forgiveness and the power He holds to provide those blessings in a universe of order.

That’s perfectly fine for you to look at it that way, but that’s not what the word “eternal” means. Something cannot be both eternal and transient at the same time. If there was a time - any time at all, even time that existed in another “mulitverse” - when God did not exist, then your conception of God is objectively not eternal. According to you, the “ripple effect” of Christ’s atoning grace, mercy, power, etc stops at the border of this particular universe. Sure it might ripple very far. Or very, very far. Or even very, very, very, very, very, (INSERT A MILLION MORE “VERYS”) far… but it does not go forever. It’s not eternal. So I don’t know why you would use that word.

As far as what you meant by “omnipotent,” again, something cannot be both omnipotent and limited. If there are other “multiverses” where other Gods reign, then the God of this universe is objectively not omnipotent. Those are, indeed, limits, no matter how hard you try to ignore them. So according to testimony in this thread at least, Mormons do not believe in an omnipotent, eternal God.

Which I guess brings me to my next question, which I believe others have asked. Why the intentional obfuscation? (See: your middle paragraph above.) And not just in this thread, I mean that as a sort of “global” question to all Mormons regarding theology. Why the secrecy? Why constant rhetorical sleight-of-hand? Why not just come right out and say, “This is what we believe.”

I asked the same question of two very nice Mormon missionaries who once knocked on my door. They couldn’t have been nicer, and I made a point to tell them that I admire their commitment to their faith and appreciate the courage it takes to knock on doors all day, never knowing who is going to answer. That is, frankly, more courage and commitment than I have. But I asked them why they go through all the trouble of knocking on so many doors with one hand and while they withhold information with the other? I pulled a copy of the catechism off my bookcase and said, “You want to know what Catholics believe? Here. Start reading. It’s all there. Ask me anything. I promise to tell you everything that I know about Catholic theology. Can you guys make me that same promise right now?”

Their answer: Obfuscation and rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

 

[ParkerD]

That’s perfectly fine for you to look at it that way, but that’s not what the word “eternal” means. Something cannot be both eternal and transient at the same time. If there was a time - any time at all, even time that existed in another “mulitverse” - when God did not exist, then your conception of God is objectively not eternal. According to you, the “ripple effect” of Christ’s atoning grace, mercy, power, etc stops at the border of this particular universe. Sure it might ripple very far. Or very, very far. Or even very, very, very, very, very, (INSERT A MILLION MORE “VERYS”) far… but it does not go forever. It’s not eternal. So I don’t know why you would use that word.

As far as what you meant by “omnipotent,” again, something cannot be both omnipotent and limited. If there are other “multiverses” where other Gods reign, then the God of this universe is objectively not omnipotent. Those are, indeed, limits, no matter how hard you try to ignore them. So according to testimony in this thread at least, Mormons do not believe in an omnipotent, eternal God.

Which I guess brings me to my next question, which I believe others have asked. Why the intentional obfuscation? (See: your middle paragraph above.) And not just in this thread, I mean that as a sort of “global” question to all Mormons regarding theology. Why the secrecy? Why constant rhetorical sleight-of-hand? Why not just come right out and say, “This is what we believe.”

I asked the same question of two very nice Mormon missionaries who once knocked on my door. They couldn’t have been nicer, and I made a point to tell them that I admire their commitment to their faith and appreciate the courage it takes to knock on doors all day, never knowing who is going to answer. That is, frankly, more courage and commitment than I have. But I asked them why they go through all the trouble of knocking on so many doors with one hand and while they withhold information with the other? I pulled a copy of the catechism off my bookcase and said, “You want to know what Catholics believe? Here. Start reading. It’s all there. Ask me anything. I promise to tell you everything that I know about Catholic theology. Can you guys make me that same promise right now?”

Their answer: Obfuscation and rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

Cradle to Grave,

We view words differently. I don’t know how else to explain “omnipotence” than the way I already did other than in a similar way. God being omnipotent does not mean He cannot extend that omnipotence to others whom He trusts. To me it is a simple concept. It means He is “in charge” of the authority of doing so, but that He finds whom He can trust and entrusts them, so that they can have the joy that He has. He is all-knowing, so there is no risk involved in giving that trust. Those so trusted become “One” with Him and with the Savior, as the Intercessory prayer described. It means being able to be trusted absolutely, completely, forever.

“Eternal” does not have to mean “eternally the same”, to me, so we view that word differently also. It just plain will never have a similar meaning for you as for me, because I view the words “'eternal life” as meaning “God’s life”.

Peace to you.

 

[zach_dunn]

Cradle to Grave,

We view words differently. I don’t know how else to explain “omnipotence” than the way I already did other than in a similar way. God being omnipotent does not mean He cannot extend that omnipotence to others whom He trusts. To me it is a simple concept. It means He is “in charge” of the authority of doing so, but that He finds whom He can trust and entrusts them, so that they can have the joy that He has. He is all-knowing, so there is no risk involved in giving that trust. Those so trusted become “One” with Him and with the Savior, as the Intercessory prayer described. It means being able to be trusted absolutely, completely, forever.

It would seem here that your beliefs necessarily dictate that our Father is not, in fact, omnipotent. Wouldn’t it be true, according to what you have said above, that our Father was one of the ‘trusted’ by His own god and by that god was given the ‘omnipotence’ you speak of here? I don’t see how this squares with reality.

 

[Korihor]

Cradle to Grave,

We view words differently. I don’t know how else to explain “omnipotence” than the way I already did other than in a similar way. God being omnipotent does not mean He cannot extend that omnipotence to others whom He trusts. To me it is a simple concept. It means He is “in charge” of the authority of doing so, but that He finds whom He can trust and entrusts them, so that they can have the joy that He has. He is all-knowing, so there is no risk involved in giving that trust. Those so trusted become “One” with Him and with the Savior, as the Intercessory prayer described. It means being able to be trusted absolutely, completely, forever.

“Eternal” does not have to mean “eternally the same”, to me, so we view that word differently also. It just plain will never have a similar meaning for you as for me, because I view the words “'eternal life” as meaning “God’s life”.

Peace to you.

You sound like my hardcore, TBM LDS sister in law, who once told me “we define infinite differently from everyone else.” Well, duh! When confronted with existing, narrowly-defined words that don’t fit well with your view, just redefine the words so they do fit. This is intellectually convenient - and very LDS.

Korihor

 

[KathleenGee]

Korihor…

I am praying for the Mormons…was praying for them tonight…Man is the greatest of God’s creation. But man is soiled by original sin, there is suffering and evil in spite of God’s goodness and love…

God the Father provided us a Savior and Redeemer, Who after the Walk to Emmaus, continues with us.

The great event is God coming to mankind through Christ…and Christ remaining with us to help us carry our cross, to make our burden light. He taught His companions everything they needed know about Sacred Scriptures, and finished with the sacred meal…and fish…that Christ hungers for the conversion of sinners.

Jesus is walking with you in such a strong way…I keep you in special prayers.

 

[Telstar]

Cradle to Grave,

We view words differently. I don’t know how else to explain “omnipotence” than the way I already did other than in a similar way. God being omnipotent does not mean He cannot extend that omnipotence to others whom He trusts. To me it is a simple concept. It means He is “in charge” of the authority of doing so, but that He finds whom He can trust and entrusts them, so that they can have the joy that He has. He is all-knowing, so there is no risk involved in giving that trust. Those so trusted become “One” with Him and with the Savior, as the Intercessory prayer described. It means being able to be trusted absolutely, completely, forever.

“Eternal” does not have to mean “eternally the same”, to me, so we view that word differently also. It just plain will never have a similar meaning for you as for me, because I view the words “'eternal life” as meaning “God’s life”.

Peace to you.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

Definition of ETERNAL
1 a : having infinite duration : everlasting
b : of or relating to eternity
c : characterized by abiding fellowship with God <good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? — Mark 10:17 (Revised Standard Version)>

2 a : continued without intermission : perpetual
b : seemingly endless

3 (archaic) infernal <some eternal villain … devised this slander — Shakespeare>

4 : valid or existing at all times : timeless

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

Definition of OMNIPOTENT
1 often capitalized : almighty

2 having virtually unlimited authority or influence

3 (obsolete) : arrant

This is something that I find used as a common excuse coming from many Mormons that I’ve dealt with in the past. You say that you “view words differently”, but dictionaries are really, very simple to use, and most schools, public or private, teach all of these common definitions at every level of education. But, when you change your definition of common words for your own personal (or nefarious) purposes, you cannot claim that the ones that* you* speak are the ‘same’ as the ones that you know everyone else understands as being defined according to any standard dictionary.

You also cannot claim to be innocent of the fact that you redefine terms in order to cause that kind of confusion in those who are listening to you. If you do that, then you should not be surprised when those people that you are trying to deceive by doing so, either refuse to believe, or trust, anything that you say, or, if they come right out and call you a liar and a charlatan. I find this kind of deception to be, not only underhanded, but downright unethical, especially when it’s used as a means of fooling people into believing in, or accepting, a religious faith that’s supposed to be founded on Jesus Christ, Who is Truth Incarnate.

 

[ParkerD]

It would seem here that your beliefs necessarily dictate that our Father is not, in fact, omnipotent. Wouldn’t it be true, according to what you have said above, that our Father was one of the ‘trusted’ by His own god and by that god was given the ‘omnipotence’ you speak of here? I don’t see how this squares with reality.

Zach,

As far as I’m concerned, we don’t know the answer to your question other than that “it could be so”. As far as “our reality”, we don’t know everything God knows, nor are we expected to, and mankind’s reality would be consistent if your question were answered “yes” or if it were answered “no”.

 

[ParkerD]

…You say that you “view words differently”, but dictionaries are really, very simple to use, and most schools, public or private, teach all of these common definitions at every level of education. …

Telstar,

You have the definitions I used within those lists of definition choices:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary

Definition of ETERNAL
1
b : of or relating to eternity
c : characterized by abiding fellowship with God <good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? — Mark 10:17 (Revised Standard Version)>

2 a : continued without intermission : perpetual

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary

Definition of OMNIPOTENT

2 having virtually unlimited authority or influence

You would also know that a dictionary captures usage, of course. I don’t see why someone, arriving at the “pearly gates”, will bring their dictionary with them and tell the Almighty that He needs to precisely follow their dictionary or He’s in trouble.

One of the things those who become converts to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints become familiar with right away is that the definitions that have been placed into their minds about several religious words do not hold the same connotations when the words are placed within the context of continuing revelation and the context of their own personal revelation through the Holy Ghost, wherein “man’s wisdom” is distinguished from the “language of the Spirit” (see 1 Corinthians 2) which may actually be, sometimes, without sufficient human words at all to fully describe the meaning conveyed by the Spirit.

 

[Korihor]

One of the things those who become converts to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints become familiar with right away is that the definitions that have been placed into their minds about several religious words do not hold the same connotations when the words are placed within the context of continuing revelation and the context of their own personal revelation through the Holy Ghost, wherein “man’s wisdom” is distinguished from the “language of the Spirit” (see 1 Corinthians 2) which may actually be, sometimes, without sufficient human words at all to fully describe the meaning conveyed by the Spirit.

Replace the word ‘revelation’ with redefinition and that’s a much more accurate description of what happens within Mormonism. I can’t wait until the prophet reveals - I mean redefines - something else. Perhaps a revelation will be received that redefines ‘hot drinks’ to only mean Irish Coffee and Long Island Iced Tea, since coffee and tea by themselves are now known to be extremely healthful beverages. Line upon line, precept upon precept, it’s such a blessing to have a living prophet who can redefine tricky terminology for you when the cog diss between LDS beliefs and reality becomes too great.

Korihor

Korihor

 

[KathleenGee]

We call the deflection, etc., sophistry.

May be words, ‘corrupt’ will be changed for our Catholic beliefs, and then ours will be honorable.

 

[Jay53]

Originally Posted by ParkerD
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???

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

Bumping this from earlier because I don’t recall seeing Parker’s response to it. I apologize if it has been answered - please point me to the appropriate post.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Cradle to Grave,

We view words differently.

Uh, yeah. It’s pretty clear we do.

I’m really not trying to be a jerk, here. Living and working where I do (not a whole lot of Catholics around) I frequently find myself in the position of being an unofficial papal nuncio. I have to arm myself with as much information as possible to answer questions about Catholicism and defend it from various misconceptions all the time. And it can get a little stressful sometimes. So I understand the pressure of being “behind enemy lines,” so to speak, and feeling like the slings and arrows are coming from all sides.

Unfortunately, I think we’ve reached the limits of productive discussion on this matter, for the very reason you said above. “We view words differently.” Even more unfortunately, I suspect this the fundamental problem of Mormon - Christian misunderstanding. We say, “You’re not monotheistic” and you say, “Yes we are. Here’s why…” and then you basically change the definition of monotheism. We say, “You’re not Christian” and you say, “Yes we are. Here’s why…” and you change the definition of Christ. As I said before, we’re talking about two completely different Gods. We’re also talking about two completely different Christs.

 

[KathleenGee]

And I would say the rules and words change as well…

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Is this a “Well, they do it too!!!” argument???

No, I made no comment as to the validity of ParkerD’s statement. What I am commenting on is that the very issue you are raising to ParkerD (that he is allegedly dismissing the spiritual experiences of millions of Catholics), is something that others do against Latter-day Saints (dismissing our own spiritual experiences), and others do against practically every religion besides the one that the individual belongs to.

You ask-"I have received a witness through the Holy Spirit of the Truth of the Eucharist and God’s merciful forgiveness through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, yet you summarily dismiss this as false or unimportant despite the fact that there have also been millions of others who have received this same witness and the fact that there is Biblical support for both of these Sacraments. Why do you do that??"

And I could just as validly say-“I have received a witness through the Holy Ghost of the Truth of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ is at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that through the atonement of Christ we can receive eternal life, yet you summarily dismiss this as false or unimportant despite the fact that there have also been millions of others who have received this same witness, and the fact that there is Biblical support for the restoration of the Gospel. Why do you do that??”. See how that works? Substitute the claims of adherents of any religion for your own, and you will see why I don’t think your question to ParkerD is valid, since you are doing exactly what he is doing to you.

Good attempt at deflection, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Do you have an answer for the question that was posed?

Korihor

No, there is no deflection, nor did I say that ParkerD was correct or incorrect in his statements. See above.

Well, here is one Catholic who will support your statement to some degree. Because I believe that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church and that God would not lead anyone away from His Church, it logically follows that I cannot believe that any Mormon has received a credible “witness” from the Holy Spirit leading them to the LDS church. I do believe that a “spirit” has spoken to them, but not the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for this. I would agree with your statement, of course substituting “Catholic Church” for “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”.

 

[Jay53]

No, I made no comment as to the validity of ParkerD’s statement. What I am commenting on is that the very issue you are raising to ParkerD (that he is allegedly dismissing the spiritual experiences of millions of Catholics), is something that others do against Latter-day Saints (dismissing our own spiritual experiences), and others do against practically every religion besides the one that the individual belongs to.

You ask-"I have received a witness through the Holy Spirit of the Truth of the Eucharist and God’s merciful forgiveness through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, yet you summarily dismiss this as false or unimportant despite the fact that there have also been millions of others who have received this same witness and the fact that there is Biblical support for both of these Sacraments. Why do you do that??"

And I could just as validly say-“I have received a witness through the Holy Ghost of the Truth of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ is at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that through the atonement of Christ we can receive eternal life, yet you summarily dismiss this as false or unimportant despite the fact that there have also been millions of others who have received this same witness, and the fact that there is Biblical support for the restoration of the Gospel. Why do you do that??”. See how that works? Substitute the claims of adherents of any religion for your own, and you will see why I don’t think your question to ParkerD is valid, since you are doing exactly what he is doing to you.

No, there is no deflection, nor did I say that ParkerD was correct or incorrect in his statements. See above.

Thank you for this. I would agree with your statement, of course substituting “Catholic Church” for “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”.

Fair enough - perhaps it is always Parker’s condescending tone and the way in which he dismisses anyone else witness that I have more of an objection to than the fact that he doesn’t believe anyone else’s witness. And I would contend that there is no Biblical support for a “restoration of the Gospel”.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Fair enough - perhaps it is always Parker’s condescending tone and the way in which he dismisses anyone else witness that I have more of an objection to than the fact that he doesn’t believe anyone else’s witness. And I would contend that there is no Biblical support for a “restoration of the Gospel”.

Understood

 

[KathleenGee]

The Word of God is LIving, not dead.

Only dead to people who think they need a supplement to the Bible…a new story…???

Jesus Christ IS the Eternal Word!!!

 

[ParkerD]

Bumping this from earlier because I don’t recall seeing Parker’s response to it. I apologize if it has been answered - please point me to the appropriate post.

Jay53,

He taught the very real concept of “One God” several times, but also differentiated that He is the Son of God. From the high priest’s perspective, the words shown in Matthew 26:64-65 show that the high priest ordered the crucifixion because of the threat that He was being believed by many people, and was saying He is the Son of man (ref. to Daniel 7) and that He would “sit on the right hand of power” so that departed from their traditions and teachings, and made the meaning of the words “the Son of God” and “the Christ” mean that He would sit on the right hand of God as the “Son of God”, “Jehovah,” “the Anointed One”, “the Messiah”–all of which the high priest would consider blasphemy.

From my perspective, They are One God, as Jesus taught in His intercessory prayer.

Sorry to have offended, and wishing all well.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,

He taught the very real concept of “One God” several times, but also differentiated that He is the Son of God. From the high priest’s perspective, the words shown in Matthew 26:64-65 show that the high priest ordered the crucifixion because of the threat that He was being believed by many people, and was saying He is the Son of man (ref. to Daniel 7) and that He would “sit on the right hand of power” so that departed from their traditions and teachings, and made the meaning of the words “the Son of God” and “the Christ” mean that He would sit on the right hand of God as the “Son of God”, “Jehovah,” “the Anointed One”, “the Messiah”–all of which the high priest would consider blasphemy.

From my perspective, They are One God, as Jesus taught in His intercessory prayer.

Sorry to have offended, and wishing all well.

Again, it sounds like you believe in the Trinity and you are completely contradicting your earlier statement.

 

[ParkerD]

Again, it sounds like you believe in the Trinity and you are completely contradicting your earlier statement.

No–it is that the Savior, in His intercessory prayer, showed what “Being One” means, and I am completely in agreement with Him and know that He and the Father are One. I don’t need to use the word “Trinity” to describe that Oneness.

My earlier statement was speaking from the standpoint of the high priest at the time of the crucifixion.