Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[Jay53]

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.

But you’re NOT in agreement if you don’t believe in the Trinity. Again, Jesus DID NOT teach a concept of multiple gods. I’m not even sure WHAT you believe now, Parker. Sometimes it sounds like you actually believe in the Trinity, but you just seem to object to the word “Trinity” because you associate it with Catholics or something.

Your earlier statement said that Jesus taught a belief in “more than one God” - it doesn’t matter at what point - whether He was talking to a high priest or not. You are still incorrect - Jesus NEVER taught this.

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

 

[zach_dunn]

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”.

So it “could be so” that God is not omnipotent? Mankind’s reality would be the same if He weren’t? I disagree.

 

[ParkerD]

So it “could be so” that God is not omnipotent? Mankind’s reality would be the same if He weren’t? I disagree.

Zach,

Definition of OMNIPOTENT

2 having virtually unlimited authority or influence

I would replace the word “virtually” with the word “completely” and the word “or” with the word “and” for the correct meaning about God’s omnipotence. God is omnipotent, period.

 

[rmcmullan]

I’m still not clear on whether or not Catholicsm is also polytheistic in the same sense that Mormons are. Doesn’t that theosis concept teach just about the same thing? It’s called deification, what does that mean if it doesn’t mean becoming like Jesus?

I think there’s a problem with words here. If there is a problem with concepts, I haven’t been able to get around it yet. If a person becomes perfected, do we call him a god? I don’t think so. Also, what do perfected people do in the afterlife? We don’t know. So if the gods do stuff that is different than what perfected people do, we’ll probably never know. So I’m not sure if we even disagree on this one. If so, please give me the conflicting concepts.

 

[xzereus]

I think the biggest difference between Mormonism and Catholicism seems to be that Catholicism and Mormonism both teach that you can reach perfection, but Mormons hold this equivalent to god-hood. Catholics, on the other hand, consider the singular essence of the Father, Son, and Spirit to be the only form of God-hood.

Regardless of any amount of perfection, no other being can ever reach this state, simply because their essence, even if derived from this same essence, has taken on a form of its own and exists separately from that essence. An argument would be made that Jesus’ essence was separate from the Father’s, rendering him perfect but not God by this standard. The obvious difference is, of course, that has been ancient Christian believe that Jesus was simply another facet of the same God, begotten, not made.

The Bible states that “All things were made by him,” in reference to the Jesus (the Word). Of course, by my understanding, both Catholics and Mormons affirm that God the Father created all things. If Jesus also did, it bears to reason that Jesus IS the same God as God the Father.

We could try, of course, to complicate things with arbitrary definitions of union and existence which allow for perfect unity between Jesus and the Father, allowing them to act as one, and yet they still be separate. It’s been tried before - only a couple hundred years after Jesus. It’s called Arianism, and it was deemed heresy.

Just a thought.

P.S. - Regarding the constant stabs at Mormons for their “blood sacrifices” - let Catholics not forget our heritage of flagellation and the shedding of the blood of others. Catholics have also been persecuted, of course, but we also did a fair share of the persecution. If you would judge the Mormons by this standard, then expect to be judged by the same.

 

[rmcmullan]

Discussions such as these to tend to drift into philosophy and away from gospel teachings. It’s hard to say if Mormon god-hood is different than the singular essence of Catholic godhood. But in both religions, these are not gospel principles like repentance, obedience and so on. I think this is just a fuzzy subject that stirs up more trouble rather than a genuinely useful teaching to help humble followers of Christ.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Zach,

Definition of OMNIPOTENT

2 having virtually unlimited authority or influence

I would replace the word “virtually” with the word “completely” and the word “or” with the word “and” for the correct meaning about God’s omnipotence. God is omnipotent, period.

Parker, this is getting crazy. You absolutely would not replace the word “virtually” with “completely.” You would replace the word “virtually” with “possibly.” If it is possible that “Heavenly Father” was created by another “Heavenly Father,” or that there are other “multiverses” where different “Heavenly Fathers” reign, then you are not at all saying that the “Heavenly Father” of this universe is “omnipotent, period.” You are saying that he is “omnipotent, possibly… or possibly not, if he was created by a different HF who reigns in a separate universe than ours.”

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Discussions such as these to tend to drift into philosophy and away from gospel teachings. It’s hard to say if Mormon god-hood is different than the singular essence of Catholic godhood. But in both religions, these are not gospel principles like repentance, obedience and so on. I think this is just a fuzzy subject that stirs up more trouble rather than a genuinely useful teaching to help humble followers of Christ.

Um… I’m certainly no theologian. But I’m pretty sure that the nature of God is, to paraphrase Ron Burgundy, “Kind of a big deal.”

 

[xzereus]

I never meant to say that this is the most important of the teachings. Although Jesus did emphasize the importance of his Unity with the Father, he also emphasized other things equally - we should work toward following these teachings further as well.

My post was simply a rebuttal of the idea that Catholics and Mormons teach similarly on this issue - it is very clear that they do not. This said, while Arianism may be considered heresy, this is not an automatic condemnation by my opinion or according to common Catholic belief.

EWTN says:

“Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.”
(ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm)

 

[KathleenGee]

That is why philosophy and the use of reason go hand in hand with universal, apostolic Christianity.

The Catholic Church laid out the foundation for education, law, health care, the social sciences, and the arts. This is the progressive and regenerating power of Christ Himself at work in the Church. The other is that the Roman Catholic Church stands before the world to invite them to Jesus Christ. The Church studies culture and peoples.

There is always the veil of language…there is such a thing as the Tower of Babel…and no matter how good people’s intention, as Christianity evolved in world politics and education, so did the need to better define terms.

St. Thomas was able to prove the existence of God through metaphysics, replacing Cause and Effect with the Unmoved Mover and His effects, quoittedies (my spelling is wrong).

You should get hold of the Summa Theologicae…as he has 4 books, covering God, Christ, the people, etc.

The other point of reference is the development of faith within a given culture, and its relation to a growing and expanding faith into different regions and cultures, that always bring about more work in further defining God so…that we all have a definition that can stand up and be understood in any cultural circumstance.

So we look at a variety of references, resources…Catholicism is very holistic and universal.

It was one priest who challenged his bishop, saying Christ came after the Father…and this implies He would have a beginning and an end. Rather, the Church created a new word—consubstantiation --it exists no where else.

Christ consubstantiates, is of the same substance of God the Father and Holy Spirit…and if we could further understand and define…we would be God.

There is a point we can have definitions for everything…but in the end God is mystery, and we really have no more control over our life than what God wills. We can choose morally to do good or evil…

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, this is getting crazy. You absolutely would not replace the word “virtually” with “completely.” You would replace the word “virtually” with “possibly.” If it is possible that “Heavenly Father” was created by another “Heavenly Father,” or that there are other “multiverses” where different “Heavenly Fathers” reign, then you are not at all saying that the “Heavenly Father” of this universe is “omnipotent, period.” You are saying that he is “omnipotent, possibly… or possibly not, if he was created by a different HF who reigns in a separate universe than ours.”

Cradle to Grave,

No–it means that to be omnipotent is not exclusive to One Person. It means perfect, complete agreement at every point in time about the use of the omnipotence, because of perfect knowledge and perfect will to do the very best possible thing and know its outcome, which would be the same choice made because of the fact that there is a “one best choice” yielding the best possible good and reflecting the most loving thing to be done.

 

[RebeccaJ]

please give me the conflicting concepts.

In short, for Christians, God is God in nature and being. We are human in nature and being. Created by God, as His beloved children. We become by Grace what we are not by nature. Our nature doesn’t change from one of being human to one of being god.

For Mormons, “God” is a title, with certain godly powers befitting the title. Mormons believe their nature is that of a god. This godly nature existing currently in a non-perfected state. By how one lives a series of ordinances and correct 'principles", the Mormon god the father will reward them by perfecting the godly nature they already possess, and the giving of associated powers and the authority to use these powers (unless of course, one is female, then the associated power and authority is through that of your godly husband).

As to your comment on the idea that the Trinity is a polytheistic belief, no, it is not. God has revealed Himself as One, in three Persons. We accept by faith what God has revealed.

For my own personal observation, I see in Mormonism a difficulty to accept what they can’t wrap their own minds around…the acceptance of mystery being somehow an affront to intellect. (Which incidentally, is also an atheistic approach.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Cradle to Grave,

No–it means that to be omnipotent is not exclusive to One Person. It means perfect, complete agreement at every point in time about the use of the omnipotence, because of perfect knowledge and perfect will to do the very best possible thing and know its outcome, which would be the same choice made because of the fact that there is a “one best choice” yielding the best possible good and reflecting the most loving thing to be done.

Perhaps someday you’ll awaken inside this maze and wonder “how did I get here”.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Parker,

And to exactly how many “Persons” is this omnipotence currently distributed? Three? Six? 144,000? Ten million?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

And to exactly how many “Persons” is this omnipotence currently distributed? Three? Six? 144,000? Ten million?

Cradle to Grave,

To at least Three Persons who are One God.

That is what we need to know, and we can also know that John saw in vision and received instructions about inheriting “all things” through the Son (Revelation 21:7), but where they extend their “power over the nations” as John also described (Revelation 2:26), we don’t know. The promises are there, and are explicitly stated. The wherabouts are not.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach,

Definition of OMNIPOTENT

2 having virtually unlimited authority or influence

I would replace the word “virtually” with the word “completely” and the word “or” with the word “and” for the correct meaning about God’s omnipotence. God is omnipotent, period.

:banghead:

Tell me, how can our God have “complete unlimited authority and influence” when another god of some other universe has “complete unlimited authority and influence”, too? By definition our God would not have that because some other god has it, therefore neither of them can have it. You can’t have two beings with complete unlimited authority, that’s simply a matter of fact.

 

[jamesdm49]

There are a number of terms for it. One of those terms is henotheism - the belief that there are many gods but we should only worship one of them. This is what Mormons believe. They believe that there is an infinite number of gods, each of whom organized a world where he places his spirit children in physical bodies.

In Mormonism, the inhabitants of any given world worship only the god (their “heavenly father”) that put them on that world. The other gods are of little concern to them.

As an aside, they believe Jesus and the Holy Ghost to be gods as well, but are forbidden to worship them or pray to them even though the Book of Mormon records that the people of the ancient American continent worshipped Jesus. But then, the Book of Mormon does not accurately represent current Mormon doctrines or practices.

St. John of Damascus calls Islam the ‘heresy of the Ishmaelites’, but Mormonism is an even more radical departure from Christianity, as Mr. Dupre’s comments make clear.

David James

 

[KathleenGee]

I see Mormonism rather as the worship of man.

God was a man before he became God.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Cradle to Grave,

To at least Three Persons who are One God.

But also to “at most” Three Persons, right? Because, as you’ve previously said in this thread, although those who are truly saved “become perfect” in the afterlife and they “enter into the joy of their Lord,” the Mormon church doesn’t teach that they will “be equal to” Christ (and, presumably, to "Heavenly Father), yes? There will still be some kind of “reliance” on Christ (and, presumably, on “Heavenly Father”), even in the Mormon conception of the afterlife?

 

[ParkerD]

But also to “at most” Three Persons, right? Because, as you’ve previously said in this thread, although those who are truly saved “become perfect” in the afterlife and they “enter into the joy of their Lord,” the Mormon church doesn’t teach that they will “be equal to” Christ (and, presumably, to "Heavenly Father), yes? There will still be some kind of “reliance” on Christ (and, presumably, on “Heavenly Father”), even in the Mormon conception of the afterlife?

Cradle to Grave,

Correct. To be entrusted and to be “like the Son” (see also 1 John 3:1-3) is to still rely on the Son, as John showed in his writings and as he was told by Christ and by an angel. So that is certainly not “equal to”, but it is to “enter into” a relationship that is being entrusted, just as the parable of the talents declares. “Thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things…” (Matthew 25:23)