Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[Jay53]

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.

This is a blatantly false assertion - or you don’t interact with enough Catholics!! Catholics are most definitely “protected from what is false” - particularly through the sacraments of the Church. I certainly do not feel forced or feel a need to force others - or deprive free will choice. There certainly was no force after that council of Nicea - there was simply a clarification of what Christ taught and what the Apostles believed. Others are certainly free to choose to believe falsehoods and to follow false prophets - as many do even today.

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??

 

[BYUChemAlum]

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??

Interestingly, various Catholics (and others of course) do the same to people of other religions as well, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

zach dunn wrote to Parker D

Originally Posted by zach dunn
ParkerD:

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

Parker D replied:

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.

This is the Mormon tapdance to avoid saying, truthfully, ‘YES, I believe there are many gods, countless gods. Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the non-spiritual Spirit are three separate gods. And I expect to become a god (or goddess) myself and rule over my own kingdom and have endless spirit children with my goddess wives - plural - (or my husband-god).’

Jim Dandy

 

[RebeccaJ]

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”.

You block yourself from truth, because your heart is not open. It is closed to anything that does not fit the comfort of your Mormon thoughts or beliefs.

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.

You are always so weird with your ideas of free will. You use free will as shackles, like no one I have ever seen. It is for you a wall, that you have built very high around you.

You are not free ParkerD.

 

[Jay53]

Interestingly, various Catholics (and others of course) do the same to people of other religions as well, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

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

 

[SteveVH]

Interestingly, various Catholics (and others of course) do the same to people of other religions as well, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

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.

 

[Telstar]

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.

I’m very glad that we can at least agree on this one small point, if not on most of all the rest that we choose to believe as individuals. I suppose it’s at least a small step in the right direction.

BTW… I’m not sure if it was you that claimed there was no free version of a Catholic Bible available for you to read (I think it was you), but here is a link to the complete Douay-Rheims Version, free to all, online. It is the English version that all modern versions are based upon, including the KJV. You’ll also notice that the full Latin Vulgate Version is also available through that link.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

Parker, who was “forced” to believe anything after the Council of Nicea? To state a creed, and then to clarify that creed; the most basic beliefs of what it means to be Christian, given by the only Christian Church in existence at the time, forces no one to believe it. How can this possibly interfere in one’s ability to either believe it or not believe it? It is just a statement. I agree with Rebecca, you have an obsession with this particular term: “free will choice”. God gave us free will, period, just as He gave us arms and legs. It is how we were created. Free will, by its nature means that we have a choice in what we choose to believe or not believe. Not even a gun pointed at my head can take that away from me or anyone else.

 

[Telstar]

Parker, who was “forced” to believe anything after the Council of Nicea? To state a creed, and then to clarify that creed; the most basic beliefs of what it means to be Christian, given by the only Christian Church in existence at the time, forces no one to believe it. How can this possibly interfere in one’s ability to either believe it or not believe it? It is just a statement. I agree with Rebecca, you have an obsession with this particular term: “free will choice”. God gave us free will, period, just as He gave us arms and legs. It is how we were created. Free will, by its nature means that we have a choice in what we choose to believe or not believe. Not even a gun pointed at my head can take that away from me or anyone else.

Exactly!

It’s perfectly clear that if most Christians of that time were being coerced into believing what they did not want to believe, then they all would have chosen to abandon ship and the Church would have completely disintegrated. As it happened, some did decide to leave in order to adhere to their own personal choice of beliefs, by creating new sects. Most of those that did, quickly fell apart and those ‘religions’ completely disappeared from history. If they had been the true faith, they would not have disappeared so quickly and completely.

So, it also must be true that if those that chose (by their own free will) to follow the Council’s teachings had been wrong, then the Catholic Church would have also disappeared from historic record. Instead, it blossomed and spread across the globe like wildfire. That in itself should at least somewhat prove that the Holy Spirit still remains very active within the Church, to this day.

 

[rock17]

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.

Sorry ParkerD for me you took it to a whole new level of confusing, if you believe that Jesus is the word and then you would just replace Word with Jesus in this pasage it is very clear.

In the Begining was Jesus, and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God. The same was in the begining with God, All things were made by him and without him was made nothing that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Jesus is the Word so John shows thier oneness and the light of men is the holy spirit.

 

[zach_dunn]

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.”

I still don’t get how you can call Him the firstborn, a creation, and God at the same time. A question: was there a time where Jesus did not exist ever?

 

[zach_dunn]

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.

OK . . . could you explain that again? You believe there is some kind of “oneness” in the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit, right? Do you or do you not believe that there are other gods besides Jesus, the Spirit, and the Father?

 

[Telstar]

OK . . . could you explain that again? You believe there is some kind of “oneness” in the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit, right? Do you or do you not believe that there are other gods besides Jesus, the Spirit, and the Father?

What? You mean you can’t understand that explanation? It was as clear as mud to me!

One thing I’ve learned from my many discussions with my Mormon friends, is their special way of talking in circles, especially when you’re asking them what they believe about anything related to God, or theology in general. I think it comes from too many years of reading the BoM and other LDS scripture. I’ve attempted to read it many times (because Mormon friends were discussing how “beautiful and inspiring” it was), but after a very short period of time my head starts to hurt from trying to follow the maze of words, that always seem to ramble around in circles, repeating similar phrases over and over, again.

It’s also part of their method of never actually divulging all of what they really believe, probably because some of it is so far out of the realm of what most Christians consider to be reality, that it’s much easier for them to be vague and avoid the subject. If they get to a point where they feel backed into a corner they just claim, “That subject is too ‘sacred’ to discuss with outsiders, so I can’t really get into it.”. I think that’s probably why they don’t get into the real “meat” of their doctrine with an initiate until they’ve been baptized and commit themselves to the church for at least a year, or more.

From what I’ve gathered so far, the LDS definition of the “Oneness” of God boils down to the fact that they see it as they see a family, as in a ‘singular unit’ that consists of completely separate members. They cannot seem to grasp the fact (at least JS couldn’t) that God is actually three parts of One God, but those three are not ‘separate’ (but they are distinct), individual members as most people tend to visualize. The concept is a little easier to understand when They are seen as spiritual beings and not as if They were all “human”, even though Jesus is both fully human and, at the same time, fully God.

It’s certainly not an easy concept to understand, but I think most Christians are content just to accept that it’s true, by faith, and not try to rationalize or explain it too much. It’s complicated even further by the concept of Jesus also having a human nature. Joseph Smith was somehow compelled to define it in some way that would prove to others that he was telling the truth about his ‘vision’, but it had to be completely different from any Christian doctrine that existed up until that point, because that’s what he claimed the vision told him, that all Christian church’s doctrines were wrong.

 

[Korihor]

Interestingly, various Catholics (and others of course) do the same to people of other religions as well, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

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

Korihor

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Jay53,

They also said they believed in One God. That is why they rejected what Jesus was saying–that there could even be such a belief as the Son of God, which would indeed make Him God, and they knew that.

Respectfully, your assertion that Jews in the time of Christ could not conceive of a “Savior as the Son of God” is flatly incorrect. In Matthew 16, which you have continually cited, the High Priest does not rend his garments and scream “Blasphemy!” until Christ says, “… you will see ‘the Son of man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’” It’s important to notice the quotes within the quotes, because the High Priest and the other Jewish authorities certainly did.

Jesus was quoting the accepted Jewish holy scriptures - scriptures that very explicitly spelled out a belief in a “Savior as the Son of God.” Specifically, Jesus was quoting the Book of Daniel when he told the priests that they would soon see him “coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Daniel 7:13 - 14 -

“As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him, He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed.”

Jesus was referencing a very specific “belief in a Son of God,” a belief that was an accepted, widespread and mainstream part of Jewish theology. To say that the Jews “rejected… that there could even be a Son of God” is simply wrong.

The temple authorities did not scream “blasphemy” because Jesus was articulating an entirely new concept that stood outside the accepted Jewish understanding of the nature of God. They screamed “blasphemy” because Jesus was placing himself squarely in the middle of their concept of God. He was basically saying, “Remember the ‘Book of Daniel?’ It’s talking about me.” And as you said, that “would indeed make him God.”

In short, Jesus was absolutely not crucified for saying, “I am distinct from God,” as you are claiming he did. He was crucified for the exact opposite reason: for claiming that he was, in fact, one and the same with God the Eternal Father. In fact, distinguishing himself from God was probably the one thing that would have saved him from being crucified at all.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

As far as Heavenly Father having a Father, then if so that relationship was prior to this universe being organized (a term used in some science is “multiverses” describing more than one universe in existence), and this universe is the only universe we need concern ourselves about, and worshiping Him and His Only Begotten Son, of whom the Holy Ghost bears witness, is the true worship to which humankind would do well to devote themselves.

If a universe ever existed where the “One, Unified Omnipotence” (as you described the Mormon God) had a subordinate relationship to another being, then that “One, Unified Omnipotence” is not really omnipotent at all. And if that “One, Unified Omnipotence” was created by another being “before this universe was organized” then the created “Omnipotence” is not eternal.

That is a fundamental difference between the Mormon and Catholic conceptions of God. Catholics believe in an omnipotent, everlasting and uncreated Creator. Mormons apparently believe in a God that is pretty much omnipotent (provided he stays in his own universe) everlasting (except for the time when he didn’t exist) Creator (who was created by another being). Those are two entirely different conceptions of God.

 

[Stephen168]

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 - 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

It is not force when Brighamites do it; do it against Christ’s example and teachings.

 

[SteveVH]

If a universe ever existed where the “One, Unified Omnipotence” (as you described the Mormon God) had a subordinate relationship to another being, then that “One, Unified Omnipotence” is not really omnipotent at all. And if that “One, Unified Omnipotence” was created by another being “before this universe was organized” then the created “Omnipotence” is not eternal.

That is a fundamental difference between the Mormon and Catholic conceptions of God. Catholics believe in an omnipotent, everlasting and uncreated Creator. Mormons apparently believe in a God that is pretty much omnipotent (provided he stays in his own universe) everlasting (except for the time when he didn’t exist) Creator (who was created by another being). Those are two entirely different conceptions of God.

I think you nailed it. What is frustrating to me is the reluctance or outright refusal of Mormons to just come out and say what they believe. The word “eternal” seems to be relative to a specific “god” and his universe. The statement that they believe in “one God”, sounds very Christian until you find that the “oneness” is only in will and purpose.
There is no separation between the nature of the Creator and the created, only levels of progression. Of course, Mormonism is polytheistic, there is absolutely no way around it.

 

[ParkerD]

If a universe ever existed where the “One, Unified Omnipotence” (as you described the One God) had a subordinate relationship to another being, then that “One God” is not really omnipotent at all. And if that “One God” was created by another being “before this universe was organized” then the created “Omnipotence” is not eternal.

That is a fundamental difference between the Mormon and Catholic conceptions of God. Catholics believe in an omnipotent, everlasting and uncreated Creator. Mormons apparently believe in a God that is pretty much omnipotent (provided he stays in his own universe) everlasting (except for the time when he didn’t exist) Creator (who was created by another being). Those are two entirely different conceptions of God.

Crdl2Grv,

We do indeed have entirely different conceptions. The descriptive language I had used was not intended to replace “One God”, but was trying to explain the concept, so it might as well be forgotten as an expression at all.

I meant that omnipotence means there is such a thing as being all-powerful, with no limits other than the limits implied by being all-good, all-knowing, all-loving, and thus using power only in the most positive outcome ways. It means the Supreme Ruler of the universe trusts and entrusts the use of the power that He has, because that trust has been shown to be merited through a covenant maker having kept covenants and through the Savior ratifying through His atoning grace that the trust is being given because He has interceded, just as His intercessory prayer states that He is bringing others into “Oneness” with Him and with the Father.

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.

 

[zach_dunn]

What? You mean you can’t understand that explanation? It was as clear as mud to me!

One thing I’ve learned from my many discussions with my Mormon friends, is their special way of talking in circles, especially when you’re asking them what they believe about anything related to God, or theology in general. I think it comes from too many years of reading the BoM and other LDS scripture. I’ve attempted to read it many times (because Mormon friends were discussing how “beautiful and inspiring” it was), but after a very short period of time my head starts to hurt from trying to follow the maze of words, that always seem to ramble around in circles, repeating similar phrases over and over, again.

It’s also part of their method of never actually divulging all of what they really believe, probably because some of it is so far out of the realm of what most Christians consider to be reality, that it’s much easier for them to be vague and avoid the subject. If they get to a point where they feel backed into a corner they just claim, “That subject is too ‘sacred’ to discuss with outsiders, so I can’t really get into it.”. I think that’s probably why they don’t get into the real “meat” of their doctrine with an initiate until they’ve been baptized and commit themselves to the church for at least a year, or more.

From what I’ve gathered so far, the LDS definition of the “Oneness” of God boils down to the fact that they see it as they see a family, as in a ‘singular unit’ that consists of completely separate members. They cannot seem to grasp the fact (at least JS couldn’t) that God is actually three parts of One God, but those three are not ‘separate’ (but they are distinct), individual members as most people tend to visualize. The concept is a little easier to understand when They are seen as spiritual beings and not as if They were all “human”, even though Jesus is both fully human and, at the same time, fully God.

It’s certainly not an easy concept to understand, but I think most Christians are content just to accept that it’s true, by faith, and not try to rationalize or explain it too much. It’s complicated even further by the concept of Jesus also having a human nature. Joseph Smith was somehow compelled to define it in some way that would prove to others that he was telling the truth about his ‘vision’, but it had to be completely different from any Christian doctrine that existed up until that point, because that’s what he claimed the vision told him, that all Christian church’s doctrines were wrong.

Thanks so much for your clarification, I understand their ideas a little better now. I still believe, however, that a large part of the reason they talk around these ideas so much is that they are so obviously contradicted by the Bible and history. I feel like the only reason many people are Mormon is because they haven’t been exposed to the contradictions presented by Mormon doctrine.

I think the fact that the doctrines are VERY (understatement) rarely talked about is for the same reason. Thanks again!