Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[SteveVH]

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?

Crdl2Grv, what Parker is telling you is absolute baloney. They do not believe in one God by any stretch of the imagination. “One in purpose” and “one in will” is no different than you and I entering a business adventure together for same purpose and then calling ourselves “one”. They reject the Trinity altogether and believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three seperate gods, their “oneness” not being in essence or being, but rather in purpose or will. It is the same old tired attempt to aline themselves with Chrisitanity by using the same Christian words. It is dishonest; an attempt at deception in order to draw “Christians” into their ranks.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

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)

Then it stands to reason that the “Heavenly Father” of this universe is not “equal to” and still has “some reliance on” whatever being created and perfected him, yes?

 

[ParkerD]

Then it stands to reason that the “Heavenly Father” of this universe is not “equal to” and still has “some reliance on” whatever being created and perfected him, yes?

Cradle to Grave,

I don’t view the situation in that way, at all.

I don’t view Jesus as having the kind of reliance on Heavenly Father that would be similar in any way to our reliance upon Him, and upon Them.

Also, just as Jesus was always perfect, Heavenly Father was and is that same way, so “perfected Him” is an incorrect view of the idea that the Son is like unto His Father (both always perfect) and that we become entrusted through the merits of Christ and through being faithful to covenants (only becoming perfect through Christ and the law of mercy and grace provided by the Father in His plan of salvation).

 

[zach_dunn]

Cradle to Grave,

I don’t view the situation in that way, at all.

I don’t view Jesus as having the kind of reliance on Heavenly Father that would be similar in any way to our reliance upon Him, and upon Them.

Also, just as Jesus was always perfect, Heavenly Father was and is that same way, so “perfected Him” is an incorrect view of the idea that the Son is like unto His Father (both always perfect) and that we become entrusted through the merits of Christ and through being faithful to covenants (only becoming perfect through Christ and the law of mercy and grace provided by the Father in His plan of salvation).

How can a created being be equal to God?

 

[ParkerD]

How can a created being be equal to God?

Zach,

If you’re talking about the Only Begotten Son, then He was begotten, not created.

Also, omnipotence does not preclude any action–not an inkling of inability to perform any action that is willed.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach,

If you’re talking about the Only Begotten Son, then He was begotten, not created.

Also, omnipotence does not preclude any action–not an inkling of inability to perform any action that is willed.

If we were all brought into being in the same way as Jesus by the Heavenly Father and His goddess wife, why is it that we are not also “begotten”?

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Cradle to Grave,

I don’t view the situation in that way, at all.

Well, does the Mormon faith view the situation that way? Because, according to your witness in this thread, the Mormon faith at least leaves open the possibility that the “Heavenly Father” of this universe was created by another “Heavenly Father.” Others have said that the Mormon faith definitively teaches that. You have not corrected them, but only said that whether the “Heavenly Father” of this universe has a Father from a different universe is irrelevant.

Is that seriously Mormon doctrine? A paraphrasing of the Wizard of Oz? “Pay no attention to that other Heavenly Father behind the curtain?”

And if being “perfected” by another being is not the correct way to view how the “Heavenly Father” of this universe was created, what exactly is the correct view, according to Mormon doctrine? Did he spring forth from another “Heavenly Father” as a fellow, perfectly created being? Or was he an “exalted man,” as Joesph Smith apparently taught?

 

[ParkerD]

Well, does the Mormon faith view the situation that way?

Cradle to Grave,

Answer: no.

Because, according to your witness in this thread, the Mormon faith at least leaves open the possibility that the “Heavenly Father” of this universe was created by another “Heavenly Father.”

Not “created”. Possibly “begotten”, just as Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of Heavenly Father, and Jesus is just like His Father.

Others have said that the Mormon faith definitively teaches that.

I don’t consider myself in any way in charge of correcting speculation nor certainly correcting those with scorn in their approach to items on these threads. If there is sincerity with a question and it seems appropriate, I have made an effort to answer those kinds of questions based on my understanding and based on the scriptures.

You have not corrected them, but only said that whether the “Heavenly Father” of this universe has a Father from a different universe is irrelevant.

The uppermost question we always ought to ask is, "What does God want me to know, and is there something I don’t know that He wants me to know and that I should ask Him, since the Savior said, “Knock, and it shall be opened.”? I think if there are questions we may desire to speculate about, that we should seek the inspiration to know whether that is in our best interest, or not. So, I would consider that an irrelevant question and a distracting question and in fact a negative faith kind of question, which thus decreases faith just as Peter’s faith decreased when he lost focus on the Savior when they were walking on the water.

And if being “perfected” by another being is not the correct way to view how the “Heavenly Father” of this universe was created, what exactly is the correct view, according to Mormon doctrine? Did he spring forth from another “Heavenly Father” as a fellow, perfectly created being? Or was he an “exalted man,” as Joseph Smith apparently taught?

Jesus is an “exalted Man”, Man of Holiness, Son of Man and Son of God. Jesus was always perfect and is perfect. Jesus is like His Father. That should answer your question, while noting that the word is “begotten” and not “created”. We don’t know other than a glimpse of information in the King Follett Discourse in 1844, so question two is “we don’t know.”

 

[PJM]

=rock17;8090983]I recently had a conversation and it was brought up that the LDS believe that God has a father and he has a father and one is the god of the other. but only our God is our father and is the God of us. It seems like there are many gods and some are above the other almost making a Greek style mythology with diety fathers having human children. This is not Christian I don’t know what to call it.

The Polytheistic understanding is that meeting ceretain criteria, they themselves become gods. [Small “G”]. And yes they do have have gods somewhat similar to the Greeks. It is for these and other similar beliefs that they are not members of any Christian community or set of beliefs.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Answer: no.

Well you might want to run that by BYUChemAlum, because in the “LDS Beliefs about Christ…” thread, he posted:

**I think that Latter-day Saint theology can entertain a belief that God the Father, when He was on an earth somewhere, was perhaps subordinate to another God, so sure. **I think that Latter-day Saint theology can also validly entertain the belief that God the Father, even when He was on an earth somewhere, was Divine, just like Jesus Christ was during His incarnation. As far as in relation to our own progression, God the Father will always be our Father, and will always be over us. Belief in exaltation does not make us equal to God and mean that we no longer need Him.

And if LDS theology “can entertain a belief that God the Father” was on “an earth somewhere” and that He was “subordinate to another God,” then the following statement is flatly untrue.

Not “created”. Possibly “begotten”, just as Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of Heavenly Father, and Jesus is just like His Father.

Regardless of which one of you is accurately describing LDS theology, I think it points to a couple of pretty big problems with your final statement.

The uppermost question we always ought to ask is, "What does God want me to know, and is there something I don’t know that He wants me to know and that I should ask Him, since the Savior said, “Knock, and it shall be opened.”? I think if there are questions we may desire to speculate about, that we should seek the inspiration to know whether that is in our best interest, or not. So, I would consider that an irrelevant question and a distracting question and in fact a negative faith kind of question, which thus decreases faith just as Peter’s faith decreased when he lost focus on the Savior when they were walking on the water.

I cannot disagree with the bolded statement more. The idea that a desire to know the nature of God can somehow diminish one’s faith is absurd. I believe it is an article of both the Catholic and Mormon faith that the desire to know (and, subsequently,love) God is implanted in the soul of every human being, whether they realize it or not. I believe Joseph Smith taught that, “It is the first principle of the Gospel ** to know for a certainty the Character of God.”** I realize that the King Follett discourse is not a theologically binding document for Mormons, but that statement is not particularly controversial and I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a good reason to completely disregard its sentiment.

I’m starting to suspect that you’re not being entirely truthful in your answers regarding Mormon belief in the nature of “Heavenly Father.” I was being facetious when I said that LDS theology sounds like, “Pay no attention to the other Heavenly Father behind the curtain,” but your response appears to be exactly that. I find it hard to believe that someone as intellectually curious as you appear to be would be okay with hearing, “God doesn’t want you to know that, so stop asking.”

 

[ParkerD]

Well you might want to run that by BYUChemAlum, because in the “LDS Beliefs about Christ…” thread, he posted:

And if LDS theology “can entertain a belief that God the Father” was on “an earth somewhere” and that He was “subordinate to another God,” then the following statement is flatly untrue.

Regardless of which one of you is accurately describing LDS theology, I think it points to a couple of pretty big problems with your final statement.

I cannot disagree with the bolded statement more. The idea that a desire to know the nature of God can somehow diminish one’s faith is absurd. I believe it is an article of both the Catholic and Mormon faith that the desire to know (and, subsequently,love) God is implanted in the soul of every human being, whether they realize it or not. I believe Joseph Smith taught that, “It is the first principle of the Gospel ** to know for a certainty the Character of God.”** I realize that the King Follett discourse is not a theologically binding document for Mormons, but that statement is not particularly controversial and I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a good reason to completely disregard its sentiment.

I’m starting to suspect that you’re not being entirely truthful in your answers regarding Mormon belief in the nature of “Heavenly Father.” I was being facetious when I said that LDS theology sounds like, “Pay no attention to the other Heavenly Father behind the curtain,” but your response appears to be exactly that. I find it hard to believe that someone as intellectually curious as you appear to be would be okay with hearing, “God doesn’t want you to know that, so stop asking.”

Cradle to Grave,

I have just a couple of minutes to start a reply to your comments here, so what I would like to do is go ahead and post the statements from the King Follett Discourse that are pertinent to this conversation, and then I will be able to go into those later when I have more time, to answer your comments.

Here are the paragraphs as compiled through the notes of listeners that day in 1844:

"If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary they should understand the character and being of God; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. [That he was not is an idea] incomprehensible to some. But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel-to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible.

I wish I had the trump of an archangel; I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, elder Rigdon!) Jesus said, “As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power.” To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious–in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it.

Here, then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves–to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done–by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.

…although the earthly tabernacle shall be dissolved that dear one shall rise in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more but shall be God’s heirs and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? It is to inherit the same glory, the same power, and the same exaltation until you ascend the throne of eternal power the same as those who are gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before. It is plain beyond disputation.

Thus you learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said. When you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and go on until you learn the last principle; it will be a great while before you have learned the last. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it is a great thing to learn salvation beyond the grave. …
…
When we begin to learn in this way, we begin to learn the only true God and what kind of a being we have got to worship. When we know how to come to him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us and tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to him, he is ready to come to us…
…

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and because he was greater, he saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself–that they might have one glory upon another and all the knowledge, power, and glory necessary to save the world of spirits."

 

[zach_dunn]

ParkerD, I’m still waiting on an answer to my posts #136 and #146.

Also, I asked this earlier and never got an answer to it. I would like a yes or no answer: does Mormonism teach that there are more gods than just the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit?

 

[1voice]

Their posts show that they aren’t “knowledgeable” in terms of knowing LDS doctrines, but they are “knowledgeable” in appearing so. To each their own.

One could find lds.org and read the Gospel Principles manual (available online) by linking from the link to “manuals”.

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.

Catholicism seems to have been unable to break away from allowing that those Jews who rejected Jesus did so because they believed in “One God” (not in the same way as Catholics) and those Jews did not believe that Jesus could possibly be Him, nor of course that He was the Great I Am, the God of Israel, nor that He was the one and only Savior, nor that He is the very Christ, the Anointed One prophesied by Isaiah.

So the path for the disbelief in a true Only Begotten Son was pointed out, direction-wise, by the Jews who were rejecting Him in His very presence.

How does the concept of “multiverse” fit into LDS theology? What is the purpose of the concept? I mean, why is it needed? What theological purpose would it serve?

It is a foreign concept to me that God the Father or “Heavenly Father” as you call him would himself have a father. Is that belief part of LDS theology?

 

[ParkerD]

Well you might want to run that by BYUChemAlum, because in the “LDS Beliefs about Christ…” thread, he posted:

Cradle to Grave,

It’s going to be a little complicated, but here I go trying to reconstruct our conversation on this topic. Here is what I had written in answer to your question about whether Heavenly Father had “some reliance on” another Heavenly Father:

"I don’t view the situation in that way, at all.

I don’t view Jesus as having the kind of reliance on Heavenly Father that would be similar in any way to our reliance upon Him, and upon Them.

Also, just as Jesus was always perfect, Heavenly Father was and is that same way, so “perfected Him” is an incorrect view of the idea that the Son is like unto His Father (both always perfect) and that we become entrusted through the merits of Christ and through being faithful to covenants (only becoming perfect through Christ and the law of mercy and grace provided by the Father in His plan of salvation)."

If you read the entire King Follett Discourse, or at least all the paragraphs I posted after your latest post from that sermon in 1844, then you will read where I was obtaining that conclusion. “Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father”. “Jesus does what He had seen His Father do”.

And if LDS theology “can entertain a belief that God the Father” was on “an earth somewhere” and that He was “subordinate to another God,” then the following statement is flatly untrue.

I hadn’t written to describe the two divergent views that are taken on this subject–I had written the view that is most consistent with the King Follett Discourse itself, and that many LDS hold (not all hold, primarily because of the simple couplet statement by Lorenzo Snow when he was a youth in the presence of Joseph Smith). I have discussed this subject with a good friend who meets almost daily with many General Authorities, and he said that conclusion I draw from the King Follett Discourse is widely believed, and makes sense to him. BYU-ChemAlum was correct in saying that either view is held by some Latter-day Saints.

Regardless of which one of you is accurately describing LDS theology, I think it points to a couple of pretty big problems with your final statement.

I cannot disagree with the bolded statement more. The idea that a desire to know the nature of God can somehow diminish one’s faith is absurd. I believe it is an article of both the Catholic and Mormon faith that the desire to know (and, subsequently,love) God is implanted in the soul of every human being, whether they realize it or not. I believe Joseph Smith taught that, “It is the first principle of the Gospel ** to know for a certainty the Character of God.”** I realize that the King Follett discourse is not a theologically binding document for Mormons, but that statement is not particularly controversial and I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a good reason to completely disregard its sentiment.

I remember having that kind of a question on my mind as a youth, starting at perhaps age ten or so as I thought about Heavenly Father and “where He came from”. Supposing I had insisted that I couldn’t just put that question “on a shelf” and move on with learning the gospel in its many things to learn. There is no definitive statement that answers that question beyond the paragraphs in the King Follett Discourse, and the paragraph that says:

“God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and because he was greater, he saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself–that they might have one glory upon another and all the knowledge, power, and glory necessary to save the world of spirits.”

does not lead one to necessarily draw a conclusion about what the situation was when Heavenly Father dwelt on an earth “just like Jesus Christ Himself did”.

I think since Joseph Smith didn’t write in more detail, and a person who has studied the topic thoroughly such as Bruce R McConkie has written that the answer is that “we don’t know” and don’t need to know, then I draw the conclusion that Heavenly Father desires that we focus our minds, our hearts, our energy, and our faith on what the scriptures provide so that we aren’t distracted by questions that aren’t answered. I shouldn’t expect Heavenly Father to answer a personal question in greater detail than He already answered others who had greater reason to expect a personal answer if it was needful to know, than I have. So that was the reason for my statement–also, with the idea in mind that Marion G Romney used to teach that “the thing we should most often pray for, is to know what we should most often pray for.” Meaning we should pray and ponder to know the will of God, and if we “pray for what is right, believing that ye shall receive, then it shall be given unto you.” So what we should be trying to do in our prayers is to pray in such a way that we are asking the will of God, and not our own will.

A wish of peace and good will to you.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, I’m still waiting on an answer to my posts #136 and #146.

Also, I asked this earlier and never got an answer to it. I would like a yes or no answer: does Mormonism teach that there are more gods than just the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit?

Zach,

I felt like I had answered those questions in my conversation. For us to arrive at gaining exaltation through what Christ offered us, means at some point being granted “omniscience” and “omnipotence” but only after we have proven ourselves completely, absolutely trustworthy and “at one” with Heavenly Father and the Savior. It means being in complete agreement at all times forever, meaning of course no “power struggle” or any sense of comparison about “power” or “knowledge” or “who loves the most”. It is reaching the pinnacle that is obtainable–there is nothing beyond that pinnacle. It means the “power” (omnipotence) is jointly held because of being entrusted with it by Them and being in complete agreement at all times about its use, purposes, and the love that it embraces and holds as its source and its effects.

So the above answers your last question also.

 

[ParkerD]

How does the concept of “multiverse” fit into LDS theology? What is the purpose of the concept? I mean, why is it needed? What theological purpose would it serve?

It is a foreign concept to me that God the Father or “Heavenly Father” as you call him would himself have a father. Is that belief part of LDS theology?

1Voice,

If you read the conversation about this with “Cradle2Grave”, then see the long quote I posted from the King Follett Discourse by Joseph Smith (but a transcription from notes, so not necessarily word perfect of what he said).

“Multiverses” is a term used in some writings by scientists. I don’t have the scientific background to understand the ramifications, but simply put it is about either “string theory” for universes or about “black holes” and what they might be, or the conclusion that energy equations dealing with our universe don’t make sense unless there is some hidden entity and force field or gravitational pull or super-orbit energy relationship that makes the equations balance.

That term isn’t used as a part of “LDS theology”. I think it can be used, based on current scientific inquiry about our universe, to understand in our thought processes how it could be possible that there could be enough “space” in the universes that there could be millions of “earths” that are habitable like our earth, and that the possibility of being entrusted with “rule over the nations” as John was inspired to write in Revelation, and “ruler over many things” as the Savior said in His parable of the talents, could relate to other universes besides this one we are familiar with.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Joseph Smith didn’t have ParkerD’s problem of double-talk about his teachings, which are, of course, the teachings of the LDS Church which he founded in 18931. He says it plainly.

QUOTE:

i will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations where I have preached on subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural, and who can contradict it?

…]

Hence the doctrine of the plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine.

…]

Many men say there is one God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. I say that is a strange God anyhow – three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. . . I learned it [the plurality of Gods] by translating the papyrus which is now in my house.

END QUOTE

Teaching of the Prophet, Joseph Smith, Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1976, pp. 370 - 373

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

QUOTE:

In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods**;** and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it . . .

Now, I ask all who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is that they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost; they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow, and He is within me, and comprehends more than all the world and I will associate myself with Him.

END QUOTE

From Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, cited previously, pp. 349-350

Megalomania?

Smith goes on to say that God didn’t create out of nothing**;** He “organized elements” which are matter**;** everything, including the Spirit, is matter. We just can’t see it at this time. (For more on this, see my thread on “All Spirit is Matter,” currently active.)

Yes, Mormonism is a polytheistic religion. They claim not**;** there are other Gods, but they are only concerned with the Earth God, so that makes them monotheists. It makes them henotheists at best.

They redefine words, and deny old doctrines and invent new ones, to make their religion appear Christian.

Jim Dandy

 

[rainman10]

Parker:

According to Mormon mythology (mythology is not necessarily false), isn’t it true that an angel, Moroni, appeared to Joseph Smith?

And didn’t that angel say that Joseph needed to start a new Church because all other Churches were in error?

How do Mormons know that the angel Moroni wasn’t just giving his opinion, or that Joseph Smith wasn’t just giving his opinion when he told everyone about what Moroni supposedly told him? Didn’t they have “free will choice”? For that matter, how do Mormons know that Jesus wasn’t merely giving His opinions when he spoke? Didn’t He have “free will choice”?

 

[rainman10]

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.

Shouldn’t you also add “as far as this earth or this earth’s universe is concerned”? I don’t think He could be omnipotent over another god’s universe, because that would not be omnipotent. He would be sharing his omnipotence with another god.

True Christians believe that God is omnipotent over ALL, everything that ever was and ever will be, period. No exceptions.