Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rock17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
About the only thing I can agree with here is your statement that the differences are fundamental. I can think of no other religion that claims to be Christian, that is more fundamentally different in their theology (maybe Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Adventist groups). About the only similarity I can find is that we agree that there is a God. Even then we don’t agree, because I think the evidence is overwhelming that you don’t believe in “a God” but rather “gods”. The Father is a god, the Son is a god and the Holy Spirit is a god, united only in purpose and will, not in being or essence. It is the foundational element of differences in theology from which all other differences are born. This extends to notions of eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, materialism, divine and human nature, the Creator and the created and on and on. These differences are certainly not incidental, even from a salvific point of view. We should know Who we worship and we do not worship the same God. The one thing we can have in common is the command to love one another, however. I just don’t think it gets us anywhere to pretend that we have really anything in common when it comes to theology because we just don’t.

Diffrerences, by their nature, pit one against the other when we defend our respective beliefs. This can be, however, a noble exercise and doesn’t have to be taken in a negative light. I certainly don’t dislike you because of your beliefs. I think it is important, if anything is important, that we all seek truth and acknowledge it wherever it is found.
 
Hi, David Cana and others,

This is to let you know that I feel like I should spend time on other things at this point, and that I have explained answers already as thoroughly as I could, and appreciate the kindnesses in many of the comments. Peace to all readers and to all who interacted with me.🙂
 
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?
Actually there is quite a bit written by people that have seen Heaven and hell and returned to relay what they saw. I am sure that you are skeptical. Look up Mary K Baxter or Choo Thomas.
Roland Buck (Buck Knife Co) Wrote in “Angels on Assignment” that when he went to Heaven God gave him a list of 80 or so things that would happen in his life … he checked every one of them off.

Recently a 4 year old boy that lapsed during surgery described his experience in Heaven and said things that confirmed that he was not hallucinating. Including meeting a sister in Heaven that was miscarried by his mother before he was born … His parents had never told him. He described his great grandfather, whom he had never met, perfectly and relayed stories told by the man that he had no way of knowing. The boy made national news not long ago. The boy is not Mormon … and not Catholic.

I have a friend that tried to commit suicide while hooked up to life support in a hospital and had such an experience. He has no doubt what hell looks like … and the saving power of Jesus. Incidentally he is Episcopalian.
 
Hi, David Cana and others,

This is to let you know that I feel like I should spend time on other things at this point, and that I have explained answers already as thoroughly as I could, and appreciate the kindnesses in many of the comments. Peace to all readers and to all who interacted with me.🙂
Parker you have explained as thoroughly as you could. And I completely understand how hard it is for you or for any of us to truly understand the Trinity. Wrapping our minds around something that is God. How can we possibly truly understand? We are just humans and we will never be God.

I think that because the Trinity is so difficult for we mere humans to understand that Mormonism tried to understand the best way it could. And so the understanding for Mormons is that somehow, some way, they too can become God or a god. That God must be three separate persons because the Trinity is too difficult. The first cause, something from nothing, is too difficult. So Mormonism has humanized God.
 
Parker you have explained as thoroughly as you could. And I completely understand how hard it is for you or for any of us to truly understand the Trinity. …
Miriam,

I have been OK with explanations about the beliefs in the Trinity. They don’t match Biblical explanations about God, and it has been explained that the Nicene Creed was needed to “explain” about God (which is an interesting approach to a definition), but I am very comfortable and satisfied with the Biblical descriptions about Him and about relationships with Him that adequately describe God, His purposes, the role of the Savior–His Only Begotten Son–and the promises available that are so very adequately and preciously described. If you ever happen to communicate with the writer you quoted, I would be pleased to answer his questions and comments directly with him through a conversation using the Bible as the basis of the discussion. But I didn’t see a point in having a third party discussion about his comments. 'Best to you.
 
There have been a few stabs at the differences between the Mormon and Catholic belief. In post #125, xzereus says
I think the biggest difference between Mormonism and Catholicism seems to be that Catholicism and Mormonism both teach that you can reach perfection, but Mormons hold this equivalent to god-hood. Catholics, on the other hand, consider the singular essence of the Father, Son, and Spirit to be the only form of God-hood.
Regardless of any amount of perfection, no other being can ever reach this state, simply because their essence, even if derived from this same essence, has taken on a form of its own and exists separately from that essence. An argument would be made that Jesus’ essence was separate from the Father’s, rendering him perfect but not God by this standard. The obvious difference is, of course, that has been ancient Christian believe that Jesus was simply another facet of the same God, begotten, not made.
This much I can grant you and it follows our differences in the belief in the Trinity. But like our belief in the Trinity, there’s way more in common than there is different. True, we do not accept the full Catholic teaching like so many Protestant churches do. But this whole thing about the divine essence and if Jesus is another facet of the same God is not that clear and churches and scholars and prophets have done their best to make it out. What we really need is a new revelation. If only there were prophets on the earth today!

Fine, you don’t accept the teaching of the Mormon prophet. But reasonable people can disagree and especially if they agree on most of the other points.
 
Miriam,

I have been OK with explanations about the beliefs in the Trinity. They don’t match Biblical explanations about God, and it has been explained that the Nicene Creed was needed to “explain” about God (which is an interesting approach to a definition), but I am very comfortable and satisfied with the Biblical descriptions about Him and about relationships with Him that adequately describe God, His purposes, the role of the Savior–His Only Begotten Son–and the promises available that are so very adequately and preciously described. If you ever happen to communicate with the writer you quoted, I would be pleased to answer his questions and comments directly with him through a conversation using the Bible as the basis of the discussion. But I didn’t see a point in having a third party discussion about his comments. 'Best to you.
Parker I don’t understand which writer you are talking about. I posted two excerpts from articles which appeared in This Rock magazine and are on this site.

I think I am confused. :confused:
 
Miriam,

I have been OK with explanations about the beliefs in the Trinity. They don’t match Biblical explanations about God, and it has been explained that the Nicene Creed was needed to “explain” about God (which is an interesting approach to a definition), but I am very comfortable and satisfied with the Biblical descriptions about Him and about relationships with Him that adequately describe God, His purposes, the role of the Savior–His Only Begotten Son–and the promises available that are so very adequately and preciously described. If you ever happen to communicate with the writer you quoted, I would be pleased to answer his questions and comments directly with him through a conversation using the Bible as the basis of the discussion. But I didn’t see a point in having a third party discussion about his comments. 'Best to you.
“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.” Colossians 2:9-10 NIV
 
Fine, you don’t accept the teaching of the Mormon prophet. But reasonable people can disagree and especially if they agree on most of the other points.
What is your basis for believing that Catholic Christians “agree on most of the other points” of polytheistic Mormonism?.

Name the points agreed upon. The points of disagreement form a very long list, indeed.

Jim Dandy
 
There have been a few stabs at the differences between the Mormon and Catholic belief. In post #125, xzereus says

This much I can grant you and it follows our differences in the belief in the Trinity. But like our belief in the Trinity, there’s way more in common than there is different. True, we do not accept the full Catholic teaching like so many Protestant churches do. But this whole thing about the divine essence and if Jesus is another facet of the same God is not that clear and churches and scholars and prophets have done their best to make it out. What we really need is a new revelation. If only there were prophets on the earth today!

Fine, you don’t accept the teaching of the Mormon prophet. But reasonable people can disagree and especially if they agree on most of the other points.
The differences are philosophical. Catholics understand God as a simple, undivided divine essence, the ground of Being, a person, who upholds and keeps all material creation (the domain of space of time) in perpetual existence by an act of loving will. Mormons understand God as a glorified, perfected man. He has a body and thus occupies space; he resides within his own material creation, or resides outside of it in his own Heavenly Father’s material creation, who in turn resides in his own material creation or in his Heavenly Father’s material creation, and so on ad infinitum. The Trinitarian God transcends space; the Mormon god does not and cannot, as he is embodied. The Trinitarian God is uncaused and the ground of being; the principle of his existence resides within Himself. He is uncaused and therefore not contingent. The Mormon god is caused by another (his Heavenly Father); the Mormon god is caused and therefore contingent. These are the reasons why Catholics call their God infinite and limitless and call the Mormon god finite and limited (even if immortal and endowed with power). The two conceptions of God couldn’t be more different. Understanding the Trinitarian God (the true God) is difficult only because we cannot imagine such a being, limited as we are by conceptualizations and images rooted in the physical universe. We cannot imagine such a Being, but we can conceive of Him. An infinite being, of a single essence, and Spirit, is not limited by the rules of the physical universe. God’s infinite and limitless nature encompasses three Persons who are the same single, divine essence. The Second Person entered the material creation, entered the domain of space and time, took on human form and became man out of loving condescension. This is Jesus, the God-Man, one with His Father and the Holy Spirit. He is God in the Flesh. This is the meaning of the Incarnation. It is biblical and also consistent with reason. An enfleshed perfected man who resides within material creation, occupies space, somewhere near Kolob, cannot at the same time transcend space and be limitless and infinite. This is a philosophical contradiction. The Mormon god thus makes no sense, no matter how comforting it might be for Mormons to stick with the easy to understand notion of a white-bearded perfect man floating somewhere “out there” in his throne in outer space.

NS
 
“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.” Colossians 2:9-10 NIV
Cor 1:12

*You know how, when you were pagans, you were constantly attracted and led away to mute idols. *
Therefore, I tell you that nobody speaking by the spirit of God says, “Jesus be accursed.” And no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the holy Spirit. There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone. To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit. To one is given through the Spirit the expression of wisdom; to another the expression of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit; to another mighty deeds; to another prophecy; to another discernment of spirits; to another varieties of tongues; to another interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he wishes. As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.

I have come to see the Holy Trinity laced throughout the entire Bible. Its everywhere.
Like those pictures you have to look at for awhile until you can see a certain object such as a flower…a Rose. Once you see it you always see it. Some try as they may just can’t seem to see it. Praying to God for help does work. But you have to open yourself up first. Be honest in the search. Really desire it. Crucifix comes to mind…the Cross.
 
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.
Crdl2Grv,

I’m sorry, I don’t think I was clear enough in my response. You, for one, have shown that you are genuinely trying to have a fair debate about your differences in beliefs. I have no problem with this. You have been fair in your statements.

I am not referring to the actual action of stating your stance - I believe this, you believe that. I’m referring to the way many people in this thread have used it as a conduit for statements along the lines of “So let me get this straight… Mormons BELIEVE this?” which are meant to degrade Mormons by saying they are wrong and nothing more. It is one thing to say “This is what I believe, and it is directly against what you believe. It does not seem you are correct” and another thing entirely to say “You are WRONG, my friend. Just wrong. I hope that one day you can be opened up to true faith.”

I am not trying to insult any individuals in this thread and thus won’t use any specific examples, but I hope from this post it is a bit more clear what I’m against now. If I’m still not making sense to anybody, please just completely disregard my posts.
This much I can grant you and it follows our differences in the belief in the Trinity. But like our belief in the Trinity, there’s way more in common than there is different. True, we do not accept the full Catholic teaching like so many Protestant churches do. But this whole thing about the divine essence and if Jesus is another facet of the same God is not that clear and churches and scholars and prophets have done their best to make it out. What we really need is a new revelation. If only there were prophets on the earth today!

Fine, you don’t accept the teaching of the Mormon prophet. But reasonable people can disagree and especially if they agree on most of the other points.
I would not necessarily say that there is WAY more in common than there is different. I don’t believe the amount of common ground actually decides whether or not we should find it, though. Even if the only thing we held in common was that Jesus is God and he is our salvation, this very truth should be enough to compel us to work to love each other.

I’m not claiming that speaking about differences means hatred - I certainly think it’s very important to discuss differences. I do believe, however, that once differences in beliefs have been stated and a small amount of points and rebuttal has gone on, we should “agree to disagree” - not because I like this idea (I, in fact, hate to agree to disagree), but because if we do not the discussion becomes useless and we come to the desperate state of “You are wrong because you must be, and I am right because I must me. This is true because I believe it to be true.”

Again, if this doesn’t make sense, disregard it.

Thanks.
 
There is certainly a huge gap between what Catholics believe about God, and what Mormons believe. Mormons seem to focus on the humanity of Jesus as the example of what God the Father is, instead of focusing on His position as the third Person of a Triune God. Jesus is, in essence, Almighty God that has humbly lowered Himself by being born of a lowly virgin, and taken on the form of a mortal man, in order to redeem us all from sin. He is not a mere man that is somehow going through the final stages of a process of being formed into ‘a god’ through some strange ‘eternal progression’ to become ‘exalted’ like his father was. He is, now, and always was God. Period.

Mormons look at the entire process in reverse, like looking at it all through a huge mirror. That’s why everything looks backwards to them. Their entire philosophy began in the mind of a 13 or 14 year old boy that was trying to understand the concept of God by reading his Bible and trying to figure it all out on his own. He refused to listen to anyone that told him that he was wrong about any part of what he believed about it, so he decided to make his own church. Since he didn’t want it to be anything like any other church, he turned everything that he had been taught up to that point, completely upside down.

If anyone has had kids, I think they know and understand how the minds of young boys (or girls) tend to work during those teenage years. The fact is, their minds tend not to work very logically at all. Their hormones are in overdrive, and their focus tends to be on more carnal things, and not on spiritual things that they can’t seem to grasp very well at all. (I also raised three boys, so I remember that ‘know-it-all’ phase, all too well.)

I also know it for a fact because when I was around that age, I went through a very similar phase of curiosity and ‘know-it-all’ about God, myself. But, I was very lucky, I had people around me that said a lot of prayers for me, and patiently tried to help me to see the truth. It took several years (and a very eyeopening spiritual experience in my early 20s) to finally get through to me, because I was also extremely stubborn. I thank God that I was raised Catholic, and had those special graces from sacraments of the Church, to help me to make the right choices. If that weren’t true, then I have no idea where I would have ended up, but I doubt very much that I would even be here, now. I was certainly heading for a huge fall. In hindsight, I realize it now, but I had no idea at that point in time. I was a very stubborn ‘know-it-all’. 😊
 
Crdl2Grv,

I’m sorry, I don’t think I was clear enough in my response. You, for one, have shown that you are genuinely trying to have a fair debate about your differences in beliefs. I have no problem with this. You have been fair in your statements.

I am not referring to the actual action of stating your stance - I believe this, you believe that. I’m referring to the way many people in this thread have used it as a conduit for statements along the lines of “So let me get this straight… Mormons BELIEVE this?” which are meant to degrade Mormons by saying they are wrong and nothing more. It is one thing to say “This is what I believe, and it is directly against what you believe. It does not seem you are correct” and another thing entirely to say “You are WRONG, my friend. Just wrong. I hope that one day you can be opened up to true faith.”

I am not trying to insult any individuals in this thread and thus won’t use any specific examples, but I hope from this post it is a bit more clear what I’m against now. If I’m still not making sense to anybody, please just completely disregard my posts.

Thanks.
Perhaps instead of generally admonishing posters here you should report posts you find objectionable to the moderators I have always found them to act quickly when I have notified them of a post I found unacceptable. Personally I find it a bit presumptuous of you to lecture people on your third post.🤷
 
What is your basis for believing that Catholic Christians “agree on most of the other points” of polytheistic Mormonism?.

Name the points agreed upon. The points of disagreement form a very long list, indeed.
That at some point we can overcome our nature and be perfected.
 
Crdl2Grv,

I’m sorry, I don’t think I was clear enough in my response. You, for one, have shown that you are genuinely trying to have a fair debate about your differences in beliefs. I have no problem with this. You have been fair in your statements.

I
No need to apologize at all. Guess I’m a little defensive. ("What?! What?! You talking to me?!) I’ll do my best to leave Travis Bickle out of this forum from now on.
 
The differences are philosophical.
The differences are scriptural. LDS Book of Abraham 4:1-3:

And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters.

And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top