Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[ParkerD]

Yes, but you have to add, “as far as THIS earth or THIS universe is concerned”. The way you state this belief, it misleads one to think that Mormons believe the same as the vast majority of Christians, that there has been and always will be ONLY ONE GOD. God of ALL creation, no other God before Him or after Him. And this IS NOT your true belief. Mormons believe that there were other gods before Him, gods of other universes. The god of this earth progressed from plain and simple man into a God who now has his own universe to be a God of.

Rainman10,

My point continues to be that the teachings of Joseph Smith are that God the Father dwelt on an earth, just as Jesus Christ Himself did, and that situation is not “plain and simple man” at all. It is entirely different than “plain and simple man”. It is “perfectly perfect Man of Holiness dwelling on an earth”.

The words “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” are certainly true, and are not in any sense not believed by Latter-day Saints. They are believed more strongly by Latter-day Saints than by anyone else whose beliefs I have read about.

 

[rainman10]

Rainman10,

My point continues to be that the teachings of Joseph Smith are that God the Father dwelt on an earth, just as Jesus Christ Himself did, and that situation is not “plain and simple man” at all. It is entirely different than “plain and simple man”. It is “perfectly perfect Man of Holiness dwelling on an earth”.

The words “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” are certainly true, and are not in any sense not believed by Latter-day Saints. They are believed more strongly by Latter-day Saints than by anyone else whose beliefs I have read about.

Ok, so God the Father dwelt on an earth. And before He dwelt “on an earth” where did he come from? Was He created or begotten (or whatever terminology you wish to use) by some other god who was a god of another planet or universe? Furthermore, when he dwelt on that earth, did he not eventually progress to full godhood and then became a god of this planet and universe that we live in? Hmm, that raises a question in my mind. Was this god and all previous gods, Mormons?

 

[ParkerD]

Ok, so God the Father dwelt on an earth. And before He dwelt “on an earth” where did he come from? Was He created or begotten (or whatever terminology you wish to use) by some other god who was a god of another planet or universe? Furthermore, when he dwelt on that earth, did he not eventually progress to full godhood and then became a god of this planet and universe that we live in? Hmm, that raises a question in my mind. Was this god and all previous gods, Mormons?

Rainman10,

Jesus was God with us when He dwelt on an earth. That would mean that God the Father was God when He dwelt on an earth, and was perfect, and didn’t have the same kinds of experiences that mortal men have but had life in Himself and resurrected Himself through the power He had to do that.

The word “Mormon” comes from the Book of Mormon, which has to do with this particular world since it has to do with a group of the House of Israel who came to the American continent and had prophets among them.

It might be well to have a larger picture in mind of “God” than some narrow religious connotation. He is God over all mankind, and loves all, and does not have the narrowness that people ascribe to Him of needing to be referred to as “God” of this group or that group or having some differentiating word association such as “a Mormon” or “a Catholic”.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach,

I realize that it’s not possible according to the belief that two Beings cannot be in complete and total agreement on everything, but that then goes against what Jesus prayed about and taught about concerning being “One” with His Father and our being able to become “One” with Them. It is certainly not humanly possible, nor humanly thinkable because we just aren’t going to grasp that there can be that kind of unity within the hearts and minds and wills of more than One Being.

Omnipotence coupled with perfect love, if I think about those meanings, would logically proceed toward the omnipotence being shared, being entrusted to others, because the perfect love would absolutely mean there is a yearning to share, and a yearning to provide the fullness of joy.

It remains that it is a logical impossibility that there are two separate beings with unlimited power. In traditional Christian theology this is not a problem. “We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible,” no gods before or after Him or in any other “multiverses”. The three Persons of the Trinity share one Being and therefore one Will; the Son took on a human nature and because of this another will which is at all times in complete conformity with the Will of God.

If God is given to giving us attributes that, prior to the 1820s, had never thought to possibly be given to man (within Christianity), does He give us His other attributes? Do we become One, Truth itself, Omnipotent, Omniscient, etc.? God created us to enjoy His love, not to be gods ourselves. That kind of thinking is what got Adam and Eve thrown out of the Garden of Eden.

I really don’t like to re-post your question because of the disrespect in the words, but I left it as is.

Well I can honestly say that I’m sorry if I’ve offended you. I didn’t mean to, I’m just trying to understand Mormonism’s place within Christianity or possibly without. I don’t understand how you can’t say Mormonism is not polytheistic or at least henotheistic.

Answer to question 2, "not right–wrong, completely. Jesus was the Only Begotten Son while in the spirit world and was in the “bosom of the Father”, and we simply don’t know the “how” of how He is the Only Begotten Son in that sphere, but know that He is the Only Begotten Son in this earthly sphere. There is no implication of “relations” that brought about a spirit body, for Him or for us. We don’t know what the organizing process was. We know that He is the Firstborn in the spirit and the preeminent One by an infinite magnitude of preeminence over all the other spirits.

OK, so Mormonism does not teach that God has a goddess wife who He procreated our spirit forms with?

I have said several times that there is at least a two paragraph answer to that question, so a “yes” or “no” answer doesn’t suffice–it doesn’t provide context and so it is absolutely misleading to answer with a “yes” or a “no”.

I myself, who you are having this conversation with, understand the context. We are only concerned with this God and is all that should be important to us. I get it. Now, a yes or no does suffice because I know the context. You just seem unwilling to admit that Mormonism teaches there are more gods besides the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit. Are there? Yes or no.

John had his vision where he knew for sure that there those who become joint heirs with Christ, who have “power over the nations” and inherit “all things”. To you, that can mean whatever it means within the connotation you give it. To me, it means that when Jesus prayed that we and all His disciples could be “one” with Him and with His Father, that He knew what He was praying about and knew what His mission was and knew that He had a specific mission to be our Advocate, so He was advocating for us at that time, that if we choose we could be “one” with Them. That means to inherit by being a “joint heir” that power, that glory, that He inherits by His perfection and by His being the Only Begotten Son. So with that, you fill in the blank of how you want to describe being “One” and having “power” and inheriting “all things”.

Yes, it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, but that doesn’t make every interpretation equally true. The Catholic faith has existed for around 2000 years. The Mormon interpretation came about sometime in the 19th century. The Church’s interpretation of these passages is historically and biblically based.

I’ll give you that the Mormon interpretation would be attractive to many people. Not just in the sense that you get to become a god and rule over planets and people, but because you believe you will actually share God’s powers which would allow someone to be very close to God. But, to me, the fact is that it’s not true.

 

[ParkerD]

… I don’t understand how you can’t say Mormonism is not polytheistic or at least henotheistic.

Zach,

The word “polytheistic” is more of a mythology term than a religious term, and usually would have the connotation of some kind of competing interests or divided competencies and special gifts. So it is not a word that reflects the concept of Oneness. The word “henotheistic” doesn’t sound correct either because of the absolutely essential component that must be in place within a word context for describing the belief in “One God” through Oneness as in what Jesus prayed about and prayed for, for us to have as a gift from Him and His Father, in His intercessory prayer. There is no word that fits the connotation in the English language, other than to say “One God”.

OK, so Mormonism does not teach that God has a [divine, heavenly companion with Him] who He procreated our spirit forms with?

No–not using the word “procreated” in the human use of the word. We don’t know how we are Their spirit children in detail, but since spirits are not physical in an earthly sense, then it definitely is not through the process whereby children are conceived and carried within the womb of the mother. Again, we don’t know the “how” of it.

I myself, who you are having this conversation with, understand the context. We are only concerned with this God and is all that should be important to us. I get it. Now, a yes or no does suffice because I know the context. You just seem unwilling to admit that Mormonism teaches there are more gods besides the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit. Are there? Yes or no.

Within the context of Christ’s intercessory prayer, there is One God in the universe. Anyone who joins as a joint heir with Them through Christ’s intercession, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, will have become One with Them. They can be called a “god” because they become “kings and priests” unto God and are One with Them, and are a joint heir with Christ, and inherit all things which thus can be described as “a god” because “all things” includes knowledge and omnipotence with Them.

It is a completely mistaken notion to think that there is a motivation about ''rule" or about “omnipotence” as a desire for power. One who entertains that simply either doesn’t understand the Savior’s teachings about being the servant of all, or doesn’t believe Him when He taught that. The quintessential quality of the Oneness that is part of being a joint heir, is love. It means to have become so completely unselfish that personal desires are absolutely not part of the picture. It means being totally other-centered, eternally, joyfully.

The comments such as is commonly provided about the temptation in the garden of Eden always show a misunderstanding, in that the serpent wanted to deceive in whatever way he could, and did deceive and continues to deceive, and has been allowed to do so in such a way that free will choice is preserved for anyone so that they need to work at a relationship with God before they are going to move past thinking Satan instigated the notion of anyone wanting to be like Christ. When that thinking happens, then one ought to be able to guess who originated the thought because of the rejection it shows of the teachings of the Savior and of the epistle and vision of John.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Parker,

There are some serious holes in your explanation. In fact, the material you posted flatly contradicts a great many of your earlier assertions.

Cradle to Grave,

Also, just as Jesus was always perfect, Heavenly Father was and is that same way, so “perfected Him” is an incorrect view…

That’s not an incorrect view according to Elder Bruce McConkie:

Here is a great statement by Elder Bruce R McConkie in 1969:

Now we have had revealed to us knowledge about God and his work and his ministry. We understand that he is a personal being in whose image man is created; that he is glorified, perfected, and exalted; that he has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; that he has progressed and advanced through an infinite period until he has become the Creator of the universe and all things therein.

McConkie uses the same word that I used: “perfected.” This language describes a changing God, not an eternal one. A God that can be “added to” (and, therefore, subtracted from, which makes him the opposite of omnipotent.) McConkie even speaks later on in the same quote about all the things that God has “acquired.” The God that Catholics pray to cannot “acquire” anything, and no half-serious Catholic theologian, much less a prominent one, would ever suggest that He can. He is perfect, complete in and of Himself.

Now, I can already see you typing, “Well, ‘perfected’ doesn’t really mean ‘perfected’ and ‘acquire’ doesn’t really mean ‘acquire.’” But this view, this changing, “perfected” God that McConkie describes, a God who somehow became Himself via a process outside Himself is referred to in even more starkly transitory terms by Joseph Smith in the KF Discourses:

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.
…
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,

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.

."

“… how God came to be God.” “… the same as all Gods have done, by going from one small degree to another.” Smith is clearly teaching, in no uncertain terms and despite your assertions to the contrary, that the “Heavenly Father” of this universe was not a perfect being from the beginning. Smith, like McConkie, is describing a being who was was “perfected” by a process - he “began at the bottom of the ladder” and then progressed “from one small degree to another,” until he “came to be God” “the same as all Gods have done.” This is the same idea McConkie expressed earlier: the notion of a “Heavenly Father” who was created imperfect and became “perfected.” McConkie’s notion of an “acquiring” God is also reflected in Smith’s “when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my father so that he obtains kingdom after kingdom.”

And despite your assertion that the LDS church “has never taught ‘equal to’ God,” that concept is, again, as plain as day in the King Follett discourses: “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.” That is clearly a promise of becoming equal to God.

And here is the problem with the logic of this theology: If we will still be “reliant upon” Heavenly Father (and the Son and the Holy Spirit) after we have been “perfected” by them, then Heavenly Father is still reliant on whatever being “perfected” him (via the process “by which all Gods become Gods”) then Mormons do not worship an eternal, omniscient God. They worship a transitory, subordinate God. (Remember, Heavenly Father went through the same “process by which all Gods become Gods.” And Smith is clearly teaching that we can learn and undergo this process ourselves.)

On the other hand, if Heavenly Father is not “reliant upon” the being that “perfected him” via “the process by which all Gods became Gods,” then Heavenly Father is equal to the being that “perfected” him and we can “inherit the same (non-subordinate) glory, the same (non-reliant) power and the same (completely equal) exaltation” when we become “perfected” ourselves. Boom: polytheism.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Parker,

There are some serious holes in your explanation. In fact, the material you posted flatly contradicts a great many of your earlier assertions.

That’s not an incorrect view according to Elder Bruce McConkie:

McConkie uses the same word that I used: “perfected.” This language describes a changing God, not an eternal one. A God that can be “added to” (and, therefore, subtracted from, which makes him the opposite of omnipotent.) McConkie even speaks later on in the same quote about all the things that God has “acquired.” The God that Catholics pray to cannot “acquire” anything, and no half-serious Catholic theologian, much less a prominent one, would ever suggest that He can. He is perfect, complete in and of Himself.

Now, I can already see you typing, “Well, ‘perfected’ doesn’t really mean ‘perfected’ and ‘acquire’ doesn’t really mean ‘acquire.’” But this view, this changing, “perfected” God that McConkie describes, a God who somehow became Himself via a process outside Himself is referred to in even more starkly transitory terms by Joseph Smith in the KF Discourses:

“… how God came to be God.” “… the same as all Gods have done, by going from one small degree to another.” Smith is clearly teaching, in no uncertain terms and despite your assertions to the contrary, that the “Heavenly Father” of this universe was not a perfect being from the beginning. Smith, like McConkie, is describing a being who was was “perfected” by a process - he “began at the bottom of the ladder” and then progressed “from one small degree to another,” until he “came to be God” “the same as all Gods have done.” This is the same idea McConkie expressed earlier: the notion of a “Heavenly Father” who was created imperfect and became “perfected.” McConkie’s notion of an “acquiring” God is also reflected in Smith’s “when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my father so that he obtains kingdom after kingdom.”

And despite your assertion that the LDS church “has never taught ‘equal to’ God,” that concept is, again, as plain as day in the King Follett discourses: “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.” That is clearly a promise of becoming equal to God.

And here is the problem with the logic of this theology: If we will still be “reliant upon” Heavenly Father (and the Son and the Holy Spirit) after we have been “perfected” by them, then Heavenly Father is still reliant on whatever being “perfected” him (via the process “by which all Gods become Gods”) then Mormons do not worship an eternal, omniscient God. They worship a transitory, subordinate God. (Remember, Heavenly Father went through the same “process by which all Gods become Gods.” And Smith is clearly teaching that we can learn and undergo this process ourselves.)

On the other hand, if Heavenly Father is not “reliant upon” the being that “perfected him” via “the process by which all Gods became Gods,” then Heavenly Father is equal to the being that “perfected” him and we can “inherit the same (non-subordinate) glory, the same (non-reliant) power and the same (completely equal) exaltation” when we become “perfected” ourselves.

Good to have you here
Very good
In Christ Jesus
Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[catholic-rcia]

It is good to know God as the very essence of our lives. (Father, Son and the Holy Spirit) What a gift He has given us. I am thankful for Him for my life, with all the joy along with all of the struggles. Loosing more of those I have loved in this life at an early age than most loose in an entire lifetime. I don’t look for blessings or blame my God for the trials of this life. I feel as if He is with me in the good times as well as the bad times and this gives me such hope for this life as well as the next. I am so grateful for my Catholic faith that has allowed me to place my focus on Him rather than on any other human being. With all the good and the bad in my church as well as in me I cannot think of a better place that accepts me as I am, a sinner in transition who can understand the sins of others because Christ through his Church has given me this insite. We are all loved by Him, He is for all and no one can fail Him if they know how much they are loved even with such odds against them. His Mercy is indeed unending. Thank God every day for our Catholic Faith. Thank God for Confession. Thank God for the Holy Eucharist.

A bit mushy…you bet!!!

 

[stokemeister]

To an independent observer I would suspect Catholicism would appear to be a polytheistic religion considering the mystery of the Trinity and the praying to and veneration of saints.

How is that so different than the Hindus who pray to multiple gods but see them as all being forms or manifestations of one supreme God?

How do Catholics deal with the increasing consensus of Ancient Israel and Old Testament scholars regarding the apparent evolution to monotheism from polytheism in ancient Israel? Including El and Yahweh having female counterparts such as laid out in Dever’s popular book?

 

[RebeccaJ]

To an independent observer I would suspect Catholicism would appear to be a polytheistic religion considering the mystery of the Trinity and the praying to and veneration of saints.

How is that so different than the Hindus who pray to multiple gods but see them as all being forms or manifestations of one supreme God?

How do Catholics deal with the increasing consensus of Ancient Israel and Old Testament scholars regarding the apparent evolution to monotheism from polytheism in ancient Israel? Including El and Yahweh having female counterparts such as laid out in Dever’s popular book?

Hello, saints are not divine in nature. They are not gods.

Catholicism may appear to the casual observer as polytheistic, however, if the casual observer delves into what is taught and believed, it doesn’t take long to understand that it is not polytheistic.

Mormonism on the other hand, wants to appear monotheistic to the casual observers, but it doesn’t take long to understand that it is polytheistic. This isn’t a criticism, it just is.

Catholics don’t get wrapped up in what the Hebrews called God. We understand God comes to us where we are.

Justin Martyr’s writings contain a lengthy dialogue with Trypho, that covers some of what you are asking, I recommend it.

 

[dcana]

Parker, could you please answer a question for me? Very early on in this thread someone mentioned that Mormons do not worship Jesus Christ.

I want to hear your answer. The question is very simple, and I will not accept any answer other than “Yes” or “No.”

Do you worship Jesus Christ?

God Bless you.

 

[dcana]

I guess I’ll have to wait until tomorrow for your answer - have a good night’s sleep!

Sorry to ask the question in such a stark way. If you want to ask me any question and demand a yes/no response, go right ahead! I like such questions because they are very easy to answer.

Thank you,
David

 

[rock17]

To an independent observer I would suspect Catholicism would appear to be a polytheistic religion considering the mystery of the Trinity and the praying to and veneration of saints.

How is that so different than the Hindus who pray to multiple gods but see them as all being forms or manifestations of one supreme God?

How do Catholics deal with the increasing consensus of Ancient Israel and Old Testament scholars regarding the apparent evolution to monotheism from polytheism in ancient Israel? Including El and Yahweh having female counterparts such as laid out in Dever’s popular book?

well we don’t pray to ask them to pray for us first off. and the mystery of the Trinity is what makes us monotheistic.
And about the polythesim I have not read anything to that so I can not answer.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, could you please answer a question for me? Very early on in this thread someone mentioned that Mormons do not worship Jesus Christ.

I want to hear your answer. The question is very simple, and I will not accept any answer other than “Yes” or “No.”

Do you worship Jesus Christ?

God Bless you.

David Cana,

Yes.

Thank you. God Bless you also.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

…
That’s not an incorrect view according to Elder Bruce McConkie:

“…that he is glorified, perfected, and exalted; that he has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; that he has progressed and advanced through an infinite period until he has become the Creator of the universe and all things therein.”

McConkie uses the same word that I used: “perfected.” This language describes a changing God, not an eternal one. A God that can be “added to” … McConkie even speaks later on in the same quote about all the things that God has “acquired.” …

Now, I can already see you typing, “Well, ‘perfected’ doesn’t really mean ‘perfected’ and ‘acquire’ doesn’t really mean ‘acquire.’” But this view, this changing, “perfected” God that McConkie describes, a God who somehow became Himself via a process outside Himself is referred to in even more starkly transitory terms by Joseph Smith in the KF Discourses:

“… how God came to be God.” “… the same as all Gods have done, by going from one small degree to another.” Smith is clearly teaching, in no uncertain terms and despite your assertions to the contrary, that the “Heavenly Father” of this universe was not a perfect being from the beginning. Smith, like McConkie, is describing a being who was was “perfected” by a process - he “began at the bottom of the ladder” and then progressed “from one small degree to another,” until he “came to be God” “the same as all Gods have done.” This is the same idea McConkie expressed earlier: the notion of a “Heavenly Father” who was created imperfect and became “perfected.” McConkie’s notion of an “acquiring” God is also reflected in Smith’s “when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my father so that he obtains kingdom after kingdom.”

Cradle to Grave,

A student of the Bible is familiar with Luke 2:52 which says, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”

When I think about Jesus being “perfect” as a child, I am thinking about the knowledge that He was sinless as a child, although He had the years to go through in which He “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” By “perfect” I meant “sinless”, not “omniscient” or “omnipotent” during His childhood and youth.

I don’t view Jesus as at any point being “imperfect”, but I do view Him as having “acquired” wisdom during His youth.

Joseph Smith said that Jesus “treads in the tracks of His Father”, so if Jesus “increased in wisdom” then before this universe we are in was created, then I think it is proper based on what Joseph Smith said (and consistent with what Bruce R McConkie said about “perfected” and “acquired”) that at some point in that far distant past before this universe, the Father “increased in wisdom”. That doesn’t mean He was “imperfect”. It means He could increase in wisdom–that He could acquire increased wisdom during a period of time prior to this universe’s creation. It means during that time, He could “grow grace for grace” until He had the fullness.

So I do understand that this acquiring of wisdom is totally different than what Catholics believe about God the Father since of course I understand that Catholics view Him as “outside of time and space”, and I haven’t seen any statement that explains what Catholics do believe about the meaning of Luke 2:52 with regard to Jesus Christ while He was living on this earth as a child and as a youth.

And despite your assertion that the LDS church “has never taught ‘equal to’ God,” that concept is, again, as plain as day in the King Follett discourses: “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.” That is clearly a promise of becoming equal to God.

I disagree that it means becoming “equal to God”. It means being granted the power of God and the knowledge God has that would of course be required to use that power. It means there is a source of the power and the knowledge, which are dependent upon God and dependent upon His timetable for being entrusted with those attributes and gifts. If you only mean “equally omnipotent”, then I guess that could be viewed as a correct view so long as that entrusting is understood and the continued guiding influence of the Savior is understood.

And here is the problem with the logic of this theology: If we will still be “reliant upon” Heavenly Father (and the Son and the Holy Spirit) after we have been “perfected” by them, then Heavenly Father is still reliant on whatever being “perfected” him (via the process “by which all Gods become Gods”)

I don’t view Jesus as having been “perfected” by the Father other than that He learned from the Father and gained wisdom from the Father. I don’t view the statement of Joseph Smith as meaning the Father needed a Savior when He was a man living on an earth before He was resurrected, particularly since Joseph Smith said that Jesus laid down His life and took it up again just like the Father laid down His life and took it up again. (was resurrected through His own power to do that)

then Mormons do not worship an eternal, omniscient God.

If a person is looking at what happened before this universe was created, then during that prior time period that would be correct if that word “eternal” is intended to mean that prior time period, since there is a belief in “acquiring wisdom” during that past time period. (not through a mortal imperfect probationary process, though). Through a process like Jesus’ childhood and youth, and like Jesus’ pre-mortal life.

 

[lax16]

To an independent observer I would suspect Catholicism would appear to be a polytheistic religion considering the mystery of the Trinity and the praying to and veneration of saints.

How is the Trinity polytheistic?

How is that so different than the Hindus who pray to multiple gods but see them as all being forms or manifestations of one supreme God?

Are you comparing the Catholic belief with Hinduism? Because Catholics believe in the communion of saints does not mean they are on par with God.

How do Catholics deal with the increasing consensus of Ancient Israel and Old Testament scholars regarding the apparent evolution to monotheism from polytheism in ancient Israel? Including El and Yahweh having female counterparts such as laid out in Dever’s popular book?

I don’t understand the question - obviously the Israelites (and others) moved from polytheism to monotheism. That is what separated them from all others making them God’s chosen people.
That is why God said to worship only Him and made it a commandment because people were doing otherwise.

Here is a book review for Dever’s book “Did God Have a Wife?”:
www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4910_6305.pdf

Are you trying to say that there were/are multiple gods as evidenced by ancient folk art thereby supporting lds belief in multiple gods?

 

[Miriam1947]

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909fea4.asp

Mormon Teachings on Jesus Christ

The Son Was Made by a Divine Man and Woman

According to Mormons, Jesus Christ is their elder brother, since he was the firstborn in the spirit world. That is, God the Father and one of his heavenly wives begot Christ’s spirit at some point in the eternity before earthly creation. This was made possible because the Father, who had previously lived, died, and was resurrected in some other world, had finally attained divinity for himself. As part of the blessings of godhood, he was given an eternal wife or wives with whom to procreate spirit children.

The Son-and All Created Things-Pre-Existed from All Eternity

The Mormon church correctly teaches that the Son exists from all eternity. It makes two mistakes, however. First, it holds that the Son’s pre-existence was only as vague, unformed matter until his heavenly parents begot his spirit. Second, Mormons believe that his pre-existence-as they define it-is the pattern for all created beings. Thus, for Mormons, every person has existed from eternity; each spirit came into being in heaven by the union of God the Father and one of his heavenly wives. That spirit is eventually placed into the human body created by earthly parents.

Jesus Christ can be called the “firstborn” only because his was the first “spirit body” formed by his heavenly parents. There then followed the “spirit bodies” of all other rational beings.

Yet Scripture clearly states the Son created all things and is himself uncreated: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (Col. 1:16-17).

Mormons admit Christ became God before he took on a mortal estate. Sometimes, though, their terminology is reminiscent of Greek or Roman mythology. One Mormon writer phrased his view this way:

"Mary, heavy with child, traveled all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give birth to a half-Deity. No other man in the history of this world of ours has ever had such an ancestry-God the Father on the one hand and Mary the Virgin on the other. . . . Jesus lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth half-Divine and half-mortal" (The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, 10).

Contrast this with the Catholic belief that Jesus Christ is fully divine (Col. 2:9) and fully human (Heb. 4:15).

Read the whole thing.

 

[Miriam1947]

David Cana,

Yes.

Thank you. God Bless you also.

Not only does Mormon theology teach Christ’s inferiority to the Father, it insists he be excluded from the honor accorded the Father, the supreme God. Therefore, all prayers, whether personal or public, are to be addressed to the Father only. No one is to pray to the Son or the Holy Ghost. Though his picture adorns most Mormon homes and chapels; though he is referred often in the Book of Mormon; though every prayer and testimony is concluded “in the name of Jesus Christ,” Mormons are forbidden to pray to him.

Mormon theologian Bruce McConkie informed an audience at Brigham Young University: “We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the Scriptures say about worshiping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense-the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to Him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator”(“Our Relationship with the Lord,” BYU Devotional, a March 2, 1982 monograph).

He may know “perfectly well” what the Scriptures say, but his interpretation of them is deficient. The Greek proskunéo refers to adoration or worship. As such, it is used in reference to God the Father throughout the Bible. But it is used in reference to the Son as well. See, for example, Matthew 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 28:9; 28:17; John 9:38; and Revelation 5:14.

Yet McConkie proclaimed a subordinate Christ to the BYU student body: “Though Christ is God, yet there is a deity above him, a deity whom he worships. . . . All of us, Christ included, seek to become like the Father. In this sense the Firstborn, our Elder Brother, goes forward as we do” (6-7). In other words, the Son worked out his own salvation, in part, by worshiping the Father.

from:

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909fea4.asp

 

[dcana]

David Cana,

Yes.

Thank you. God Bless you also.

Thank you for your response. I’m glad to hear it.

It would seem that Bruce McConkie, as quoted in post #198, if asked the same question, would admit that he does not worship him.

If I may ask a few more follow-ups:

1. Does Jesus worship “Heavenly Father?”
2. Did Jesus ever worship “Heavenly Father?”
3. Do you, Parker, pray to Jesus?
4. Do you worship Jesus in the same way, to the same degree, with the same worship and adoration you give “Heavenly Father?”
5. If you were to complete the process of exaltation, after this life, and reach perfection, would you still worship “Heavenly Father?”

Again, yes/no please, and thank you.

David

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Cradle to Grave,

A student of the Bible is familiar with Luke 2:52 which says, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”

…

So I do understand that this acquiring of wisdom is totally different than what Catholics believe about God the Father since of course I understand that Catholics view Him as “outside of time and space”, and I haven’t seen any statement that explains what Catholics do believe about the meaning of Luke 2:52 with regard to Jesus Christ while He was living on this earth as a child and as a youth.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Christ’s soul and his human knowledge

471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”, and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person. "The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God. Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father. The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p1.htm#IV