Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[Crdl2Grv]

Cradle to Grave,

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.

If the “omnipotence” granted by the HF in the afterlife requires “the continued guiding influence” of another being, then it is objectively not “the same power, the same glory, the same exaltation” that the HF holds. Unless, of course, the HF is, himself, dependent upon and under the “guiding influence” of another deity. And we’re right back to my earlier proposition. It’s either A) LDS theology teaches an ascending hierarchy of God-like beings, of whom the “Heavenly Father of this universe” is but one of many. In which case, boom: polytheism. Or B) LDS theology teaches that mortal men can become Gods and “inherit” the “same power, same glory, same exaltation” and become equal to God himself, with a universal kingdom all their own. In which case, boom: polytheism. Or C) both A & B. In which case: boom: polytheism.

 

[SteveVH]

If the “omnipotence” granted by the HF in the afterlife requires “the continued guiding influence” of another being, then it is objectively not “the same power, the same glory, the same exaltation” that the HF holds. Unless, of course, the HF is, himself, dependent upon and under the “guiding influence” of another deity. And we’re right back to my earlier proposition. It’s either A) LDS theology teaches an ascending hierarchy of God-like beings, of whom the “Heavenly Father of this universe” is but one of many. In which case, boom: polytheism. Or B) LDS theology teaches that mortal men can become Gods and “inherit” the “same power, same glory, same exaltation” and become equal to God himself, with a universal kingdom all their own. In which case, boom: polytheism. Or C) both A & B. In which case: boom: polytheism.

Nicely summarized. There is really no way around this other than playing word games. When one refuses to acknowledge objective truth there is little room for coherent discussion. I’m very impressed with your thought process and knowledge and glad to see you on this forum.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

Parker, just curious. Who do you believe spoke the words "“Thou shalt have no other gods before me”? Notice that the comandment begins with “I am the Lord, your God”, not “We” are the Lord, your God. The entire idea of an ascending progression requires a god that was prior to the god who is ascending which directly condtradicts the first commandment. There must be “other gods before” the god who progressed from a man.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Nicely summarized.

Thank you, Steve. And thank you, as well, Rich. It’s good to be here, although I can already tell that I’m going to have to start putting a timer on myself when it comes to this place, lest I start to neglect my real life.

I should also say that despite our disagreement, I appreciate the patience Parker displays in all these threads. As I said earlier, I know from experience what it’s like to be the only believer “behind enemy lines” so to speak. Parker, you’re dealing with the all the slings and arrows that come with being a mostly solo voice much better than I would.

 

[ParkerD]

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

David,

The talk you referred to was given by Elder McConkie to deal with an idea that he had become aware of that there was a belief by some that if someone had a really close relationship with Jesus Christ, they would begin praying to Him rather than to Heavenly Father in their own private prayers. He specified the word “worship” as meaning “prayer”, which indeed is one of its singular meanings but he also noted that the word worship has a more general meaning which is what I had responded about in answer to your general question that asked for no clarification or context or explanation.

1. He did during His life on earth, as shown very often, even at the point in time just before His death. What matters to us is what example He gave to us while living on this earth, and that is the example we should follow. As far as “yes” or “no”, then I would say “I don’t particularly know.”
2. Yes, as I explained in 1. The Intercessory prayer is a very evident example of that, and should be familiar to every Bible student.
3. No.
4. If you hold the distinction about “prayer”, then no. If you allow for a distinction between “prayer” and other forms of adoration and worship and awe, then “yes”.
5. Yes, I have no doubt that I would, joyfully and gratefully for eternity.

As far as praying to Heavenly Father as Jesus taught us to do, then John 15:16 and John 16:23-24 and 26 (using the KJV) declare very specifically His teachings on the subject of prayer, that His disciples should ask of the Father in Jesus’ name.

 

[1voice]

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

What I dont understand is why a theologian would ignore the clear meaning of a word that has a clear, specific, repeated application. The result being that the interpretation supports LDS claims about Jesus and his relationship to God the Father but clearly has no basis in standards of exegesis.

 

[stokemeister]

Lax16

How is the Trinity polytheistic?
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.

My main point in the first two questions about the Trinity and the example of Hinduism was to make us all think about how we interpret each others’ beliefs and our tendency to tell people of other faiths what they believe or that they can or cannot use certain words to define themselves. Mormons do it as well distancing themselves from “fundamentalist Mormons” for example, hoping they won’t describe themselves are Mormons or Latter-day Saints without the qualifier of fundamentalist.

In this forum a Catholic posed the question, Mormons have answered that they do not consider themselves or their doctrine or their style of worship to be polytheistic yet the debate goes on somewhat heatedly. The same things happens when the question is “are Mormons Christian?” The goal does not seem to be understanding or an ability to agree to disagree but has to go further to be ‘you are wrong’ or ‘you don’t understand your own beliefs.’

I picked an extreme example of Hinduism, a religion that most in the Western world would say fits very nicely to a classic definition of polytheism and idol worship. It is the first item listed of modern examples of polytheism in the Wikipedia article for example. But the crowd-sourced wikipedia article also clarifies later on that leaders of Hinduism consistently and adamantly argue that they believe in one essence or god but multiple manifestations.

In that similar vain I think Catholics would adamantly say that they are monotheistic and do not worship graven images. Yet if you explained the Trinity to a Hindu and described your beliefs and practices regarding sacred relics then you might find that you both think quite similarly about your beliefs/practices. Or in that philosophical hypothetical of an alien dropping out of outer space, a completely independent observer with no preconceived notions and simply observed Catholicism and heard the explanation of the Trinity and then read the definition of polytheism I think it could be a logically and an understandable conclusion for such an observer to believe that the Trinity is a type of polytheism or belief in multiple gods, that would be incorrect according to the way Catholics view the Trinity but at face value it is defensible position.

Regarding ancient Israel folk religion, first that was an excellent review and I agree with the reviewer regarding the thought provoking nature of Dever’s work and his clear expertise yet frustrating in his unnecessary sideswipes and tone. The thought provoking aspect is how quickly did that shift from polytheism to monotheism occur and who controlled the textual edits as that was the source from which all of Judeo-Christian faith systems emerged. And the reality might be that the transition was slow and/or that there are other Gods but for the House of Israel it is Yahweh or the highway…which isn’t too far from what Mr. Parker is arguing, that there may be other Gods and systems within systems yet for us there is only One that matters.

For example ‘polytheism’ or multiple gods is blatant in the Hebrew of Genesis, Elohim being plural, “let us” make man in our own image, male and female (multiple). Or as an example of editorial influence perhaps suppressing an early understanding of multiple gods: the ability to see the face of God is strong in Genesis and Exodus but the school of the Deuteronomists clearly sought to argue against that literal interpretation.

Mormons don’t point to Dever and say, see that supports our belief or we should now worship Asherah. But Mormon cosmology is expansive in these regards as to not be threatened by such findings or more accurately the implications of such findings.

In conclusion Mormons feel just as strongly about obeying the commandment of “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” They approach the issue of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being three but still obeying the commandment of having no other gods before him with different logic than Catholics but both approaches can and have been defended from the text of the Bible. I personally find those the key issues, definitions of polytheism or monotheism and categorizing complex belief systems into those pigeonholes doesn’t really interest me.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

**Originally Posted by 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.

David Cana,

ParkerD replied:

Yes.

From Inside Mormonism by Isaiah Bennett, a former Catholic priest who converted to Mormonism, studied and taught it for two years in Salt Lake City, then returned to Rome after concluding Mormonism is a fraud:

“One of the most difficult adjustments I had to make in converting to Mormonism was ceasing to pray to Jesus” p. 296.

Bennett notes two conflicting teachings on the question. B.H Roberts. member of the Quorum of Seventy (1877 - 1933) said, “Jesus Christ is to be worshipped by men and angels. . .” Apostle Bruce McKonkie (1972-1985) says: 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."

For Mormons, Jesus is a physical son of God (aka Heavenly Father), conceived for his earthly life during an act of sexual intercourse between Heavenly Father and his spirit-daughter, Mary. Mormons now deny ever having taught this, even though it was taught recently by Prophet Ezra Taft Benson (1985-1994). In his pre-existent life, before he came to earth, Jesus was a spirit child, conceived during an act of sexual intercourse between Heavenly Father and one of his many goddess wives.

It’s no surprise, considering that in Mormonism Jesus is subordinate to Heavenly Father, that one Mormon authority says He is to be worshipped, another that He is not.

Bennett writes that he was taught not to worship Jesus.:nope:

ParkerD writes that he worships Jesus.:yup:

:whacky::whacky::whacky:

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

.

In this forum a Catholic posed the question, Mormons have answered that they do not consider themselves or their doctrine or their style of worship to be polytheistic yet the debate goes on somewhat heatedly. The same things happens when the question is “are Mormons Christian?” The goal does not seem to be understanding or an ability to agree to disagree but has to go further to be ‘you are wrong’ or ‘you don’t understand your own beliefs.’

. . .

For example ‘polytheism’ or multiple gods is blatant in the Hebrew of Genesis, Elohim being plural, “let us” make man in our own image, male and female (multiple). Or as an example of editorial influence perhaps suppressing an early understanding of multiple gods: the ability to see the face of God is strong in Genesis and Exodus but the school of the Deuteronomists clearly sought to argue against that literal interpretation.

**. . . **

In conclusion Mormons feel just as strongly about obeying the commandment of “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” They approach the issue of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being three but still obeying the commandment of having no other gods before him with different logic than Catholics but both approaches can and have been defended from the text of the Bible. I personally find those the key issues, definitions of polytheism or monotheism and categorizing complex belief systems into those pigeonholes doesn’t really interest me.

The OT is not a systematic instruction book in Judaism. It is the written record of the spiritual life of the People of God called Israel. Judaism was a thousand years old before the first word of the OT was written; then it took another thousand years to complete it shortly before the birth of Christ. It follows the evolution of Jewish life and thought.

Neither is the NT a systematic instruction book in Christianity. The NT is a collection of 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings, which were not collected and canonized until the Church was nearly 400 years old. The Church most certainly didn’t teach polytheism, because the Apostles didn’t teach it.

Mormonism teaches that there are THREE separate gods, united in purpose – Heavenly Father (who is an exalted man), Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (who is material). Everything is material, matter is all there is. That defines the Mormon religion as polytheistic materialism, and therefore not Jewish and not Christian. The Catholic Church is the fulfillment of Judaism. Mormon is not. Further, Mormonism teaches that Mormon males can be ‘exalted’ and become gods and rule over their own kingdoms and that their wives who are “sealed” to them can become godesses That further establishes the polytheistic nature of Mormonism.

“Let us make man in our own image” is plural perhaps because the One God is a Trinity of Persons. Joseph Smith has twisted both the Jewish and Christian Scriptures to make them fit his novel doctrines. Explain why the Jews for 4,000 years have been MONOTHEISTS, if multiple gods are taught in the Jewish Scriptures. Ludicrous. The One and Only God chose the Jews to maintain their belief in Him and only Him – they were surrounded by polytheists – and to teach the rest of the world. Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord.

But in 1831 et seq., Joseph Smith, whose occupation was treasure digger aided by magic peep stones, twisted the Scriptures to make them say there are multiple gods.

Oy veh!

Jim Dandy

 

[Stephen168]

Lax16

How is the Trinity polytheistic?
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.

My main point in the first two questions about the Trinity and the example of Hinduism was to make us all think about how we interpret each others’ beliefs and our tendency to tell people of other faiths what they believe or that they can or cannot use certain words to define themselves. Mormons do it as well distancing themselves from “fundamentalist Mormons” for example, hoping they won’t describe themselves are Mormons or Latter-day Saints without the qualifier of fundamentalist.

In this forum a Catholic posed the question, Mormons have answered that they do not consider themselves or their doctrine or their style of worship to be polytheistic yet the debate goes on somewhat heatedly. The same things happens when the question is “are Mormons Christian?” The goal does not seem to be understanding or an ability to agree to disagree but has to go further to be ‘you are wrong’ or ‘you don’t understand your own beliefs.’

I picked an extreme example of Hinduism, a religion that most in the Western world would say fits very nicely to a classic definition of polytheism and idol worship. It is the first item listed of modern examples of polytheism in the Wikipedia article for example. But the crowd-sourced wikipedia article also clarifies later on that leaders of Hinduism consistently and adamantly argue that they believe in one essence or god but multiple manifestations.

In that similar vain I think Catholics would adamantly say that they are monotheistic and do not worship graven images. Yet if you explained the Trinity to a Hindu and described your beliefs and practices regarding sacred relics then you might find that you both think quite similarly about your beliefs/practices. Or in that philosophical hypothetical of an alien dropping out of outer space, a completely independent observer with no preconceived notions and simply observed Catholicism and heard the explanation of the Trinity and then read the definition of polytheism I think it could be a logically and an understandable conclusion for such an observer to believe that the Trinity is a type of polytheism or belief in multiple gods, that would be incorrect according to the way Catholics view the Trinity but at face value it is defensible position.

Regarding ancient Israel folk religion, first that was an excellent review and I agree with the reviewer regarding the thought provoking nature of Dever’s work and his clear expertise yet frustrating in his unnecessary sideswipes and tone. The thought provoking aspect is how quickly did that shift from polytheism to monotheism occur and who controlled the textual edits as that was the source from which all of Judeo-Christian faith systems emerged. And the reality might be that the transition was slow and/or that there are other Gods but for the House of Israel it is Yahweh or the highway…which isn’t too far from what Mr. Parker is arguing, that there may be other Gods and systems within systems yet for us there is only One that matters.

For example ‘polytheism’ or multiple gods is blatant in the Hebrew of Genesis, Elohim being plural, “let us” make man in our own image, male and female (multiple). Or as an example of editorial influence perhaps suppressing an early understanding of multiple gods: the ability to see the face of God is strong in Genesis and Exodus but the school of the Deuteronomists clearly sought to argue against that literal interpretation.

Mormons don’t point to Dever and say, see that supports our belief or we should now worship Asherah. But Mormon cosmology is expansive in these regards as to not be threatened by such findings or more accurately the implications of such findings.

In conclusion Mormons feel just as strongly about obeying the commandment of “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” They approach the issue of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being three but still obeying the commandment of having no other gods before him with different logic than Catholics but both approaches can and have been defended from the text of the Bible. I personally find those the key issues, definitions of polytheism or monotheism and categorizing complex belief systems into those pigeonholes doesn’t really interest me.

To summarize: Christians are monotheist and Mormons are polytheists. I would agree.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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”, .

Could you provide a solid LDS reference for this, I have never seen any other LDS member than you say that Jesus was the only begotten son (or daughter) while in the spirit world.

 

[dcana]

David,

The talk you referred to was given by Elder McConkie to deal with an idea that he had become aware of that there was a belief by some that if someone had a really close relationship with Jesus Christ, they would begin praying to Him rather than to Heavenly Father in their own private prayers. He specified the word “worship” as meaning “prayer”, which indeed is one of its singular meanings but he also noted that the word worship has a more general meaning which is what I had responded about in answer to your general question that asked for no clarification or context or explanation.

1. He did during His life on earth, as shown very often, even at the point in time just before His death. What matters to us is what example He gave to us while living on this earth, and that is the example we should follow. As far as “yes” or “no”, then I would say “I don’t particularly know.”
2. Yes, as I explained in 1. The Intercessory prayer is a very evident example of that, and should be familiar to every Bible student.
3. No.
4. If you hold the distinction about “prayer”, then no. If you allow for a distinction between “prayer” and other forms of adoration and worship and awe, then “yes”.
5. Yes, I have no doubt that I would, joyfully and gratefully for eternity.

As far as praying to Heavenly Father as Jesus taught us to do, then John 15:16 and John 16:23-24 and 26 (using the KJV) declare very specifically His teachings on the subject of prayer, that His disciples should ask of the Father in Jesus’ name.

Thank you for your responses. IMO, Jesus cannot worship the Father, because God cannot worship God. Creatures worship God, because He is their Creator. Maybe in his humanity somehow He could worship the Father, the humanity that “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man,” etc, but the thought of the God-man, perfectly One in his humanity and divinity, worshiping God doesn’t sound right to me. I’ll leave that one for the theologians among us.

I didn’t realize I needed to give a definition of “worship.” I thought that it would be understood between us exactly what this word means. The way I see it, “praying to” somebody has nothing whatsoever to do with “worship.” The former is asking somebody for something, or, in the case of God, just communicating with Him, in one way or another. In fact, I could “pray you to get me a glass of water.” This was a common way to use the word in English before modern times, as I’m sure you are aware. Worship is adoration. It’s a bit of a difficult word to define, but I’ll try. I just gave a synonym for a definition, which doesn’t clear things up very much. But I could say that worship means to honor and revere God (as it’s not possible to truly worship anything else but God, at least by my definition) for who He is, namely our Creator and Savior, the all-holy, omnipotent Supreme being, infinitely greater than ourselves, and to acknowledge Him as having complete dominion over all things, including ourselves and our very lives, and us as His creatures, who are literally nothing without Him and who owe Him our total obedience, fidelity, and love.

Using this definition of worship, could you please answer the six questions again?

Thank you

 

[catholic-rcia]

“What is Jesus to you? A puppet of God?”
An prominent LDS man yelled this at me while trying to convert me for hours here in Utah. God rest your soul Paul Harris. I loved that man, he did not know this.

“What is Jesus to you? A puppet of God?”

I answered yes

As a man who took on the form of a slave Jesus did the will of His Father perfectly, this is where mankind failed. (We are not Gods, we have a learning curve to discover true love)Yet is did gain for us first hand knowledge of what happens when we decide to go around Gods will and try to possess it as if it were our own (Death)

Jesus shows us how to return to the garden, to God as he is our perfect example in this life. Jesus could not fail as He was not only in the fullness of God, He was and is the eternal Son of God. He had free will choice and His choice was always to do the will of His Father. He would not and could not waver from this. He was sinless. He was and is what we can be in this world through adoption, if we ourselves were without sin. Only because of Jesus can we be absorbed into this kind of surrender to the Father. This is found in the Cross of Christ. Discovered in suffering, in going down.

The Father always gave Jesus what He needed in order to redeem us. All out of love for His Son, because of His Sons love for us. When Jesus spoke the Father spoke through Him. The perfect puppet who would go nowhere, say anything without His Father. This is the same relationship Jesus calls us to, to be One with Him and His father. It is what we have been created for. If we live in Him and if we die in Him the love He and His Father have together will also be freely given to us as the ultimate Gift to creation. We as humand discover true divine love by leaving it behind.

Until we can see ourselves as prodigal sons and daughters, each seeking our own advantage apart from God we will remain lost in this world and possibly miss the next. Only by our own coherent failures, not by anything God would ever do. His love is with each of us today, we distort this love because of our fallen nature. We get glimpses of it when we empty ourselves, in heaven we will get full measure of it. Truth is found within the Holy Trinity. It is good to be lost in it. Comforting… peaceful

“Unless a grain of wheat shall fall upon the ground and die” It remains…………………

 

[xzereus]

I think this thread has gotten a bit out of hand. Catholics, please go back through this thread and ask yourselves honestly, “Am I doing this to be right and/or to show Mormons that they are wrong?”

If you are honest with yourselves, a lot of you will probably probably have to answer yes. Any person can pretend to themselves to care, but when it comes to the point of quoting over-quoted references and making over-made points and yet we insist on continuing, it becomes plainly obvious to the people we are speaking with what purpose our words truly serve. If we claim to speak out of love, and yet fail and refuse to even show the simplest form of understanding, compassion, or respect with our words, then what more do we do than to make a joke out of our faith?

Parker, or perhaps one of the other LDS posters here, said on the first page that this thread would soon be flooded with Catholics throwing references. I will not point out any specific posts, but many posts were made with no attempt at making a good point for the sake of argument; rather, these posts were blatant attacks against the LDS faith. While I am not suggesting that all in this thread must believe that LDS believers and Catholics are brothers and sisters, you must at least show them the amount of understanding and respect which you would to any other human being.

You may point out that I posted on here previously - indeed I did, but I did so in the hope of finding some common ground while at the same time making my position known. If anyone here would argue that I was being heartless or unloving in my post or just “trying to be right”, please do so and I will amend the mistakes in my post.

Unfortunately, this was typed on my mobile device so I’m not sure how coherent it will actually be - sorry if I repeat myself or seem to get off point at times.

 

[rmcmullan]

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.”

Yes but I’m not so sure it’s the nature of God that is being discussed. It’s a form of idolatry to take the simple gospel truths and wrap them up in a veil of philosophy and detach them from Biblical teachings. I think “looking beyond the mark” is the Biblical term.

To be more specific, we know somewhat of the nature of God but very little about what happens in the afterlife to His followers. How much of His nature we take on. Even if we could agree on the philosophical fine points of His nature. It’s not a “let’s agree to disagree” sort of thing, it’s more of a “let’s both shrug together.”

I don’t think Catholics discuss theosis much and I know Mormons rarely discuss eternal progression. Probably because of what I was saying above, very little is known and it’s all deductive and reasoning based on scant teachings. So why insist the Catholics and Mormons disagree on this point?

 

[catholic-rcia]

Yes but I’m not so sure it’s the nature of God that is being discussed. It’s a form of idolatry to take the simple gospel truths and wrap them up in a veil of philosophy and detach them from Biblical teachings. I think “looking beyond the mark” is the Biblical term.

To be more specific, we know somewhat of the nature of God but very little about what happens in the afterlife to His followers. How much of His nature we take on. Even if we could agree on the philosophical fine points of His nature. It’s not a “let’s agree to disagree” sort of thing, it’s more of a “let’s both shrug together.”

I don’t think Catholics discuss theosis much and I know Mormons rarely discuss eternal progression. Probably because of what I was saying above, very little is known and it’s all deductive and reasoning based on scant teachings. So why insist the Catholics and Mormons disagree on this point?

Tonight at my Parish in Utah we will be speaking together about the Holy Tirnity…God…Ironic

Who God is, probably good to get this right. For a Christian He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is not a solitude. Rather a relationship that is love itself. This is how I myself know God. I can speak to Jesus, the Father and or the Holy Spirit. When I do this I am speaking to God. I can hear God in Jesus, He touches me in this way. I can take my sufferings to Jesus, my sins to Jesus, and my joys. I can also ask Him for forgiveness, He is always willing and ready to forgive me. Only God can forgive sins. As well as God in us who gives us the power through His love to do so. I know that it was God who died for me and this is pretty big in my world. The Holy Trinity is a mystery for sure, yet I myself have such a great sense of it in my life. It is my life. No shrugging here. This alone has everyhting to do with my own conversion 13 years ago. It has everyhting to do with my life now in helping others to fall in love with Jesus. Catholics spend a year on me in this mission so that I could find Him. Be loved by Him, to know I am loved so greatly. Even inspit of my sins. Makes ya not want to sin. One of the reasons we have the Crucifix in our Churches and homes. I have chosen the Chritsian God, rather He has chosen me. Strongest during confession.
www.utahmission.com

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Yes but I’m not so sure it’s the nature of God that is being discussed. It’s a form of idolatry to take the simple gospel truths and wrap them up in a veil of philosophy and detach them from Biblical teachings. I think “looking beyond the mark” is the Biblical term.

To be more specific, we know somewhat of the nature of God but very little about what happens in the afterlife to His followers. How much of His nature we take on. Even if we could agree on the philosophical fine points of His nature. It’s not a “let’s agree to disagree” sort of thing, it’s more of a “let’s both shrug together.”

I don’t think Catholics discuss theosis much and I know Mormons rarely discuss eternal progression. Probably because of what I was saying above, very little is known and it’s all deductive and reasoning based on scant teachings. So why insist the Catholics and Mormons disagree on this point?

Well, insofar as it’s impossible for the human mind to fully comprehend the nature of God, you’re right, the nature of God has not been discussed in this thread. What has been discussed, however, is exactly what we can come to know about the nature of God through a combination of faith, reason and divine revelation.

The Catholic Church and the LDS Church have each used faith, reason and (what each claims to be) divine revelation and come up with extremely different conclusions. Discussing those vastly different conclusions is not wrapping anything in a “veil of philosophy.” In fact, it’s the opposite. It’s using deductive reasoning to clarify highly complex ideas.

The truth is that Catholics and Mormons obviously very much disagree on this point. Why insist that we don’t? Why not just say, “Our theology is very different from yours.” I don’t think anyone here begrudges you or any other Mormons believing whatever you feel like believing. More power to you.

The problem is when Mormons, or Catholics for that matter, say, “Oh, our theologies are very similar.” No. They’re not. And it is very much “bearing false witness” to say that they are.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

I think this thread has gotten a bit out of hand. Catholics, please go back through this thread and ask yourselves honestly, “Am I doing this to be right and/or to show Mormons that they are wrong?”

Isn’t that statement (“I’m right and you’re wrong”) inherent to any discussion where people hold different philosophies? If I didn’t think that LDS theology was wrong, I’d be Mormon. If I didn’t think Catholic theology was correct, I wouldn’t be Catholic. The converse of both propositions obviously applies to Parker and other members of the LDS faith who have posted in this thread.

I haven’t insulted anyone in this thread. In fact, thanked Parker for his temperament on more than one occasion. Not because I feel the need to throw him any empty compliment, but because I genuinely appreciate it.

But there have obviously been other times when there’s nothing more to say than a high falutin’ version of “I’m right. You’re wrong.” That’s pretty much bound to happen when two confident, informed believers discuss their faith. It’s not something anyone needs to apologize for.

 

[Tony888]

The truth is that Catholics and Mormons obviously very much disagree on this point. Why insist that we don’t? Why not just say, “Our theology is very different from yours.” I don’t think anyone here begrudges you or any other Mormons believing whatever you feel like believing. More power to you.
.

Personally, I’ve always felt the opposite.
The more I’ve studied both Catholic and LDS theology, the more I see similarites rather than differences.
No, I don’t think they are are same.
I do think some of the differences are fundamental, and none should be ignored.
I also think many of the differences are incidental from a salvific point of view.

 

[Stephen168]

I think “looking beyond the mark” is the Biblical term.

No it is a Book of Mormon term that seems to mean to seek reason instead of following blindly.

I don’t think Catholics discuss theosis much and I know Mormons rarely discuss eternal progression. Probably because of what I was saying above, very little is known and it’s all deductive and reasoning based on scant teachings. So why insist the Catholics and Mormons disagree on this point?

Because we do disagree.

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.