Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rock17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1voice said:
“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
Click to expand...
Hi, 1Voice,

I’ll go ahead and provide a quick response about these verses. If I were studying this subject and the writings of Paul, I would use a different translation since the one you chose is clearly a change in meaning from the original writing of Paul. I would also read all of Colossians 1-3 to gather the context, and would easily find that the context of Paul’s writing is nowhere near a belief in the Trinity as described in the Nicene Creed or in the so-called “apostles’ creed”.

It amazes me when I read this kind of new translation of the Bible.

If you really want a detailed discussion about this subject, I could go through it with you but I would use the KJV as the source text, although a Greek-English transliteration also works.
 
Miriam1947 said:
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:
Click to expand...
Miriam,

Unless I’m mistaken which is possible, both citations were from the same person, Isaiah Bennett, who says he is a “former Mormon” but that means nothing to me. He was the one I was meaning that if he is being quoted, then I would rather respond directly in a conversation with him.
 
ParkerD said:
Hi, 1Voice,

I’ll go ahead and provide a quick response about these verses. If I were studying this subject and the writings of Paul, I would use a different translation since the one you chose is clearly a change in meaning from the original writing of Paul. I would also read all of Colossians 1-3 to gather the context, and would easily find that the context of Paul’s writing is nowhere near a belief in the Trinity as described in the Nicene Creed or in the so-called “apostles’ creed”.

It amazes me when I read this kind of new translation of the Bible.

If you really want a detailed discussion about this subject, I could go through it with you but I would use the KJV as the source text, although a Greek-English transliteration also works.
Click to expand...
“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
Colossians 2:9-10
King James Version (KJV)
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
I dont see any difference.
 
1voice said:
Colossians 2:9-10
King James Version (KJV)
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Click to expand...
1Voice,

One finds the context for the word “fulness” in Colossians 1:19, “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;” (him being Christ).

One finds the context for the words “thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers” in Colossians 1:16. These are not light things or words to be overlooked and passed over as insignificant.

Christ had the fulness, as He stated that “all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). This certainly and surely includes the power to ordain and establish “thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers” through the power and authority given to Him by the Father. Those “thrones, dominions, principalities, powers” are what this thread is talking about that Latter-day Saints acknowledge are real promises, not idle words with no meaning.
 
ParkerD said:
Miriam,

Unless I’m mistaken which is possible, both citations were from the same person, Isaiah Bennett, who says he is a “former Mormon” but that means nothing to me. He was the one I was meaning that if he is being quoted, then I would rather respond directly in a conversation with him.
Click to expand...
Yes it was an article by Isaiah Bennett in This Rock magazine which is part of this site.

You have not answered this:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
Miriam1947 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Miriam,

I did answer your post previously, explaining that the explanations about the Trinity are not difficult to understand at all, but I’ll give you a more thorough answer about the Godhead and the simplicity of understanding the Godhead (that it is not a “mystery”) using Paul’s epistle to the Colossians.

Catholics seem to draw justification for what they call the “mystery” of God, as your post implied, from Paul’s writings. But one who studies Paul’s epistles finds that what he was writing about when he used the words “mystery of God” is the coming of Christ and the mission of Christ which fulfilled the promises of the Old Testament about a Savior and a Messiah, and which to those who rejected Jesus Christ, remained a “mystery”, but to the believers, Paul being one of them, was no longer a “mystery”, and which glorious message he desired to share among the Gentiles.

We see this in Colossians 1:26-28, “Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:”

“The hope of glory” is what this thread is about. The issue is that the “glory” is so much more than some of the comments understand is available, for those who desire to conform their own will and desires to the will of the Father and of the Son.
 
Quote: ParkerD
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.
Originally Posted by 1voice

Colossians 2:9-10
King James Version (KJV)
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
ParkerD said:
1Voice,

One finds the context for the word “fulness” in Colossians 1:19, “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;” (him being Christ).

One finds the context for the words “thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers” in Colossians 1:16. These are not light things or words to be overlooked and passed over as insignificant.

Christ had the fulness, as He stated that “all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). This certainly and surely includes the power to ordain and establish “thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers” through the power and authority given to Him by the Father. Those “thrones, dominions, principalities, powers” are what this thread is talking about that Latter-day Saints acknowledge are real promises, not idle words with no meaning.
Click to expand...
Colossians 1:16
King James Version (KJV)
16For 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:
Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
I dont in any way disagree. I dont think that they are idle promises at all. I know for a fact that they have real meaning. I have personally entered into battle with dominions, principalities and powers… That were usurped by Satan as a result of Adam’s treason.
… and won many times in many battles. I could tell war stories for days. Ive been at this for a long time.
Satan has attempted to take my life more than once. This is not a word game to me in any way.
Without “Christ in me … the only hope of glory.” Colossians 1:27
I would be dead. But Gods word (in me) is like a fire… like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? Jeremiah 23:29

That is why I put on the full armor of God … The helmet, the breastplate, the loin guard, the shoes the shield and the sword. Having done all … to stand…Eph 6:12

These are not idle words in a book to me. These truths have saved my life… and the lives of those I hold dear.
The Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence … and the violent take it by force!
Matthew 11:12
 
ParkerD said:
Hi, 1Voice,

I’ll go ahead and provide a quick response about these verses. If I were studying this subject and the writings of Paul, I would use a different translation since the one you chose is clearly a change in meaning from the original writing of Paul. I would also read all of Colossians 1-3 to gather the context, and would easily find that the context of Paul’s writing is nowhere near a belief in the Trinity as described in the Nicene Creed or in the so-called “apostles’ creed”.

It amazes me when I read this kind of new translation of the Bible.

If you really want a detailed discussion about this subject, I could go through it with you but I would use the KJV as the source text, although a Greek-English transliteration also works.
Click to expand...
The new translation you’re amazed at (the same as all translations produced in recent decades) is based on much older Alexandrian text-type, greek manuscripts than that used for the KJV translation (approx. 1000 years older than the oldest greek manuscript used for the KJV) . This is in addition to 400 years of additional scholarship and manuscript discoveries of non-biblical documents to help scholars fine tune the meaning of obscure greek words. In other words, contemporary translators know more about ancient greek than the King James translators 400 years ago did. As a source text for English tranlsation of the ancient greek, the KJV is hopelessly out of date and is subpar compared to the new translation, including the NIV.

NS
 
NewSeeker said:
The new translation you’re amazed at (the same as all translations produced in recent decades) is based on much older Alexandrian text-type, greek manuscripts than that used for the KJV translation (approx. 1000 years older than the oldest greek manuscript used for the KJV) . This is in addition to 400 years of additional scholarship and manuscript discoveries of non-biblical documents to help scholars fine tune the meaning of obscure greek words. In other words, contemporary translators know more about ancient greek than the King James translators 400 years ago did. As a source text for English tranlsation of the ancient greek, the KJV is hopelessly out of date and is subpar compared to the new translation, including the NIV.

NS
Click to expand...
NewSeeker,

I’m confused by your last sentence. So before commenting, I guess I would need a clarification about what translation you think is the “best”. It would be well to also know what the translators had in their minds as to what their basic intent was with the new translation they were developing. For the NIV, the translators definitely had a different intent than making a word-for-word translation. They brought their own “biases” with them.
 
ParkerD said:
NewSeeker,

I’m confused by your last sentence. So before commenting, I guess I would need a clarification about what translation you think is the “best”. It would be well to also know what the translators had in their minds as to what their basic intent was with the new translation they were developing. For the NIV, the translators definitely had a different intent than making a word-for-word translation. They brought their own “biases” with them.
Click to expand...
Every group of translators brings their own biases with them. We know what the KJV translators had in their minds when they translated (and it wasn’t Mormonism). The KJV translators intended to conform to Martin Luther’s canon (decided arbitrarily by Luther) and the ecclesiology and episcopal structure of the very Catholic (except for Henry VIII’s divorce addition) Church of England at the order of King James. The NIV conforms to the evangelical christian point of view of Zondervan. The NAB conforms to the Catholic view. Etc. It’s interesting to me that Mormons cling tenaciously to the Church of England’s Bible, 400 years out of date, when new translations based on better manuscripts and the latest scholarship are available. The important thing is to rely on multiple translations (both word for word, literal versions and paraphrase versions) and use versions thought to reflect the best scholarship and best available manuscripts. If you’re interested in having the best sources available to understand what the original authors intended (without learning to read ancient greek yourself), the KJV-only approach fails on all three counts. That’s not to discount the beauty of the KJV’s English or its cultural importance, though.

NS
 
zaffiroborant said:
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.🤷
Click to expand...
I guess that’s fair enough - I am often called presumptuous and I can admit that I am overly bold in some situations, perhaps including this one. I don’t think any of the posts in here have been questionable to the extent of warranting a report to the moderators, but I suppose my post would make it seem otherwise.

One reason that I did not feel presumptuous in posting - although that is not to say that I was not, only that I did not feel so - is due to the “Banned Topics Notice” on the forums that clearly shows that many users on the forum have a tendency to go too far with discussions about the differences between two faiths or denominations. Although you may not agree with me that this post goes to far, I hope that you can at least understand my feeling wary about the direction of this thread in the light of past threads relating to such discussions.
 
Miriam1947 said:
Parker,

In Defense of the Trinity
Click to expand...
Miriam,

I don’t know if you were kidding, or what. Perhaps you have the Latter-day Saints confused with the Jehovah’s Witnesses–but the two religions have very few similarities, if any. That link had no relevance to the conversation I had thought we had going.

Have a good day.
 
ParkerD said:
Miriam,

I don’t know if you were kidding, or what. Perhaps you have the Latter-day Saints confused with the Jehovah’s Witnesses–but the two religions have very few similarities, if any. That link had no relevance to the conversation I had thought we had going.

Have a good day.
Click to expand...
Actually I do think this article has relevance. JW’s and Mormons are different yes, but in both the Trinity is not accepted.
 
Miriam1947 said:
Actually I do think this article has relevance. JW’s and Mormons are different yes, but in both the Trinity is not accepted.
Click to expand...
There are many similarities between Mormons and JWs. Besides a common rejection of the true (trinitarian) God, both groups contemporaneously came out of the restorationist movement in the burned-over district in New England, produced idiosyncratically-edited Bibles to support their theology (Mormon JST and JW New World Translation), invented strange doctrines that are radically different from what true Christianity has always taught, believe there was an apostasy of the Church Jesus founded and that they are the restored church, and send missionaries to your door to wake you up on Saturday mornings. Both also like banning perfectly normal and acceptable things and label them as bad (Mormons ban coffee, tea, and beer; JW ban birthays and holidays). They do this to set themselves apart and create the perception of a peculiar people, set aside by God and special. One final commonality - according to a 2006 poll administered by the Pew Research Center Forum on Religion and Public Life, both groups are also at the bottom of the list in the percentage of members who accept that darwinian evolution is true (Mormons - 22%; JW - 8%), down there a bit lower than evangelical Christians.

Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have lots in common.

NS
 
Miriam,

If you want to discuss the Biblical teachings and doctrines about God, then it would seem best to use the Bible, and as I have noted I prefer the KJV to do that.

The JW religion was started much later than 1830, and has no relevance to the Latter-day Saints, at all. They did try and understand the Bible and did understand that there had been an apostasy from pure Biblical teachings after the time of the lives of the apostles, but they got immediately off on a tangent with many of their beliefs, so it is not a useful discussion to have.
 
ParkerD said:
Miriam,

If you want to discuss the Biblical teachings and doctrines about God, then it would seem best to use the Bible, and as I have noted I prefer the KJV to do that.

The JW religion was started much later than 1830, and has no relevance to the Latter-day Saints, at all. They did try and understand the Bible and did understand that there had been an apostasy from pure Biblical teachings after the time of the lives of the apostles, but they got immediately off on a tangent with many of their beliefs, so it is not a useful discussion to have.
Click to expand...
So, out of everything that they got wrong, the one thing they got right was the apostasy? I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that this is the only thing that agrees with the LDS church. They also claim “new revelation”, or as they call it, “new light”. Like the LDS, the JW’s must, necessarily, claim new revelation because so many of the their beliefs conflict with the biblical account and foundational Christian doctrines. In this, I see great similarity.
 
ParkerD said:
Miriam,

If you want to discuss the Biblical teachings and doctrines about God, then it would seem best to use the Bible, and as I have noted I prefer the KJV to do that.

The JW religion was started much later than 1830, and has no relevance to the Latter-day Saints, at all. They did try and understand the Bible and did understand that there had been an apostasy from pure Biblical teachings after the time of the lives of the apostles, but they got immediately off on a tangent with many of their beliefs, so it is not a useful discussion to have.
Click to expand...
But Parker you claim an apostasy that didn’t and still doesn’t exist. The teaching of the early Church, when every Christian was Catholic, are the same today as taught orally and by letter by the apostles.

You may like the KJV and I did too when I was a Protestant. But, as Blessed John Cardinal Newman said: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

John Cardinal Newman was an Anglican. He studied the Catholic church in order to prove it wrong. He studied himself right into the Church.
 
“Let us take things as we find them: let us not attempt to distort them into what they are not. We cannot make facts. All our wishing cannot change them. We must use them”

John Henry Cardinal Newman
**…Convert to Christ **

**Learn about this man Parker. Make a study of him. What can it hurt? **
**In Christ **
**Rich **
 
Miriam1947 said:
But Parker you claim an apostasy that didn’t and still doesn’t exist. The teaching of the early Church, when every Christian was Catholic, are the same today as taught orally and by letter by the apostles.

You may like the KJV and I did too when I was a Protestant. But, as Blessed John Cardinal Newman said: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

John Cardinal Newman was an Anglican. He studied the Catholic church in order to prove it wrong. He studied himself right into the Church.
Click to expand...
Miriam,

Everyone certainly has their free will choice, and of course it was not a stretch at all to move from the Anglican church, which was clearly a human institution, back to the Catholic church.

I do find it surprising about all the clear Biblical meanings that are passed over, but then I have been able to see through conversations on this forum, how carefully the path is laid out for those meanings to be passed over–but it has been a learning experience for me to see that actually work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top