Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rock17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveVH,

Why should I use different language than the language of the scriptures, including the Bible? I don’t feel the need to do that, nor do I want to do that. The language of the Bible is sufficient to describe Them, Their purposes, Their Oneness, how Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father and as the Son He is the One and Only Savior and Redeemer, and how the Holy Spirit testifies of Him and of the Father. The Biblical language gives the ample description–nor am I “trying”…“to align [my] beliefs with” any other church. The change from the Biblical language illustrates the pattern that is followed in other areas also.

I love the Biblical language, using the KJV which I consider inspired sufficiently for being introduced to revelatory knowledge through the Holy Spirit to testify of all things, and bring all things to our remembrance.

If you want me to point out the Biblical verses specifically, let me know. Then, you’ll have my beliefs about God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
Why don’t you answer the question first; “Yes I believe that they are separate gods” or “No I don’t believe they are separate gods.” Then if you want to support your conclusions with scripture have at it. What I am saying, Parker, is state your position, clearly and unequivocally. From what I can see of Mormon theology, you would have to say that you believe they are separate gods. This is why you see a certain level of frustration in the comments on this thread. If you would state your position clearly we would still have a lot of room for discussion, but I think the attitudes would change dramatically.
 
Given that specific language including all implications of the question,

“No.”
Sorry, your answer made it to the thread before I finished my last. Since I asked my question from a different angle and have thus confused the issue, does “No” mean that you do not believe they are separate gods, or that you do believe they are separate gods?

Again, I think I have caused the confusion here, not you.
 
As I see it, Parker’s explanation of how Mormons see their ‘trinity’ is that the father, son and holy spirit are three separate people in ‘one god’. But, they’re only considered to be a ‘trinity’ because they’re ‘one in purpose’, so actually, they’re still just three separate ‘entities’ that agree on stuff. They also happen to somehow be physically related, through some past ‘sealed eternal marriage’ between the father and his ‘goddess wife’, on some other distant planet. If all of that is true, then, by that definition in combination with what the Gospels tell us, then all of us should already be ‘gods’, just like Jesus, because by being in the Body of Christ (His True Church) we are all ‘at one’ with Him, even while we’re still in this life. Aren’t we?

By following that same line of logic, I have to wonder why all of us still can’t seem to make the blind see and the crippled walk, just by speaking words of healing for them. Why can’t we all make the mountains throw themselves into the ocean if we wanted to? Maybe it’s just because we don’t believe in this particular religion and we’re all ‘apostates’, after all. But, why can’t Mormons do it all now, if they, in fact, do believe it and belong to the ‘one true church’, because they should be ‘as one’ with their trinity, already? Aren’t they also of ‘one purpose’ with their version of the trinity? It’s logical to me that they should already be at the point where they would possess their own powers as gods. Why should they have to wait until the next life for it? How many lives will they have to live on some other planet to get as far as the father is in his ‘progression of exaltation’?

Hmmmmm… methinks there is a giant paradox that cannot possibly be reconciled with reality, here. 🤷

From what I see in all of this, Mormons seem to be worshiping some kind of ‘ancient alien’ race of man from outer space, to put it simply. They certainly try hard to disguise that fact by trying to make it seem like it’s based on Christianity, but it’s not even close to what any Christian I’ve ever known, or ever heard of, actually believes. This is the* only* logical explanation that I can come up with when I look at their whole story. It would certainly explain Battlestar Galactica being based on the Mormon concept of reality, as I had heard from another Mormon in the past. I suppose that would make those of us who don’t believe in it, the Cylons. :ehh:
 
As I see it, Parker’s explanation of how Mormons see their ‘trinity’ is that the father, son and holy spirit are three separate people in ‘one god’. But, they’re only considered to be a ‘trinity’ because they’re ‘one in purpose’, so actually, they’re still just three separate ‘entities’ that agree on stuff. They also happen to somehow be physically related, through some past ‘sealed eternal marriage’ between the father and his ‘goddess wife’, on some other distant planet. If all of that is true, then, by that definition in combination with what the Gospels tell us, then all of us should already be ‘gods’, just like Jesus, because by being in the Body of Christ (His True Church) we are all ‘at one’ with Him, even while we’re still in this life. Aren’t we?
If I could weigh in for our LDS brethren here, I believe their theology teaches that one can only be truly united w/ the Holy Father, et al, after death. That is, after one has been perfected, which can only happen in the afterlife.

If I could further weigh in for our LDS brethren, the process of perfection (accomplished by the grace of the Heavenly Father, et al, in the afterlife but based on the merits of how one lives one’s life on Earth) results in an “equality” with the Heavenly Father that is both the same and not same as Him, it is both dependent on and independent of Him, it is both absolutely equal to and in no way whatsoever equal to the “perfection” that He has both attained himself and also been granted via another celestial being, and His uniquely common perfected state has both always existed from beginning of time (if we’re taking about this universe) but also did not exist at one point (if we’re talking about other multiverses) and we can all both receive and not receive this absolutely identical, but also totally different, perfection in the afterlife.

Did I miss anything?
 
As I see it, Parker’s explanation of how Mormons see their ‘trinity’ is that the father, son and holy spirit are three separate people in ‘one god’. But, they’re only considered to be a ‘trinity’ because they’re ‘one in purpose’, so actually, they’re still just three separate ‘entities’ that agree on stuff. They also happen to somehow be physically related, through some past ‘sealed eternal marriage’ between the father and his ‘goddess wife’, on some other distant planet. If all of that is true, then, by that definition in combination with what the Gospels tell us, then all of us should already be ‘gods’, just like Jesus, because by being in the Body of Christ (His True Church) we are all ‘at one’ with Him, even while we’re still in this life. Aren’t we? :
I like this simple comparison
Catholics believe there are three seperate persons unitied in one being (united in one purpose)
LDS beleive there are three seperate beings united in one purpose
Both sides are left with Father, Son and Holy Spirit acting in the same way

They are related in that God created them. If you want to use a DNA analogy, your Trinity persons would share the exact same dna

Introducing deification and Theosis vs Exaltation is too complicated to address. I will remind you that the RCC teaches “The Word became man so that man might become God” Why do mock the LDS for believing this Christian teaching?
By following that same line of logic, I have to wonder why all of us still can’t seem to make the blind see and the crippled walk, just by speaking words of healing for them. Why can’t we all make the mountains throw themselves into the ocean if we wanted to? Maybe it’s just because we don’t believe in this particular religion and we’re all ‘apostates’, after all. But, why can’t Mormons do it all now, if they, in fact, do believe it and belong to the ‘one true church’, because they should be ‘as one’ with their trinity, already? Aren’t they also of ‘one purpose’ with their version of the trinity? It’s logical to me that they should already be at the point where they would possess their own powers as gods. Why should they have to wait until the next life for it? How many lives will they have to live on some other planet to get as far as the father is in his ‘progression of exaltation’?

Hmmmmm… methinks there is a giant paradox that cannot possibly be reconciled with reality, here. 🤷:
Not sure what your point is here, except to insult and mock. Do you think I can get away with the same here on your faith?

All Christian faiths have their stories of healing. The LDS teach that the primary factors are the faith of the individual and the will of God, not because the Priesthood holder has special powers
From what I see in all of this, Mormons seem to be worshiping some kind of ‘ancient alien’ race of man from outer space, to put it simply. They certainly try hard to disguise that fact by trying to make it seem like it’s based on Christianity, but it’s not even close to what any Christian I’ve ever known, or ever heard of, actually believes. This is the* only* logical explanation that I can come up with when I look at their whole story. It would certainly explain Battlestar Galactica being based on the Mormon concept of reality, as I had heard from another Mormon in the past. I suppose that would make those of us who don’t believe in it, the Cylons. :ehh:
Again with the insults. I strongly urge you not to learn your theology from cartoons
 
“United in one being” is not the same as “united in one purpose.” Not at all. I can be “united in one purpose” with a great many people. I cannot be “united in one being” with anyone else.

That’s like saying, “The Boston Red Sox play their home games in Fenway Park (in the outfield).” It’s technically true, but it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the fullness of truth about Red Sox home games.
 
Tony888;8167992:
I like this simple comparison
Catholics believe there are three seperate persons unitied in one being (united in one purpose)
/QUOTE]

“United in one being” is not the same as “united in one purpose.” Not at all. I can be “united in one purpose” with a great many people. I cannot be “united in one being” with anyone else.

That’s like saying, “The Boston Red Sox play their home games in Fenway Park (in the outfield).” It’s technically true, but it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the fullness of truth about Red Sox home games.
LDS believe the Godhead are united perfectly in one purpose, there is no comparison with how men might be united. It does compare perfectly in the actions and purpose of the RCC trinity though.
 
Tony888,
not at all. the idea of the trinity and the idea of three gods is completly different
 
Crdl2Grv;8168087:
LDS believe the Godhead are united perfectly in one purpose, there is no comparison with how men might be united. It does compare perfectly in the actions and purpose of the RCC trinity though.
No it does not compare perfectly or even imperfectly, quit making LDS theology out to be the same as Catholic theology, it distorts ours and makes you look as though you need to justify yours by making it out to be ours. Can’t LDS thought stand on it’s own? Must it have the backing of Catholic thought to be valid, is it nothing more than a parroting of 2000 years of Catholic teaching?

The Trinity is not the same as the LDS godhead.
Exhaltation is not the same as theosis.

Quit validating your beliefs by twisting ours.
 
Sorry, your answer made it to the thread before I finished my last. Since I asked my question from a different angle and have thus confused the issue, does “No” mean that you do not believe they are separate gods, or that you do believe they are separate gods?

Again, I think I have caused the confusion here, not you.
SteveVH,

I meant “no” to the entire question.

In the first place, one would capitalize, always, for the primary word you asked the question about. In the second place, “separate” is not a word that describes the situation. “One” is the word that describes the situation. Christ used that word–“one”. It should be able to be understood as meaning “one”. He meant to use the word, and did so in His language, using the word that meant “one”. Anyone who wants to spend time thinking about this should avail themselves of the Intercessory prayer, and read it several times.
 
SteveVH,

I meant “no” to the entire question.

In the first place, one would capitalize, always, for the primary word you asked the question about. In the second place, “separate” is not a word that describes the situation. “One” is the word that describes the situation. Christ used that word–“one”. It should be able to be understood as meaning “one”. He meant to use the word, and did so in His language, using the word that meant “one”. Anyone who wants to spend time thinking about this should avail themselves of the Intercessory prayer, and read it several times.
This sounds more like a refusal to give a direct answer, much like the previous responses.
 
So…
SteveVH,

I meant “no” to the entire question.

In the first place, one would capitalize, always, for the primary word you asked the question about. In the second place, “separate” is not a word that describes the situation. “One” is the word that describes the situation.
But…
Jay53,

He said He was the Son of God, as did Peter, as did Paul, as did John. God the Son, the Son of God, separate and distinct from God the Father.
At this point, when I click on this thread, all I hear is this:

youtube.com/watch?v=V8vINCq_IAI&feature=related
 
As I see it, Parker’s explanation of how Mormons see their ‘trinity’ is that the father, son and holy spirit are three separate people in ‘one god’. But, they’re only considered to be a ‘trinity’ because they’re ‘one in purpose’, so actually, they’re still just three separate ‘entities’ that agree on stuff. They also happen to somehow be physically related, through some past ‘sealed eternal marriage’ between the father and his ‘goddess wife’, on some other distant planet. If all of that is true, then, by that definition in combination with what the Gospels tell us, then all of us should already be ‘gods’, just like Jesus, because by being in the Body of Christ (His True Church) we are all ‘at one’ with Him, even while we’re still in this life. Aren’t we?
Tony888;8167992:
I like this simple comparison
Catholics believe there are three seperate persons unitied in one being (united in one purpose)
LDS beleive there are three seperate beings united in one purpose
Both sides are left with Father, Son and Holy Spirit acting in the same way

They are related in that God created them. If you want to use a DNA analogy, your Trinity persons would share the exact same dna

Introducing deification and Theosis vs Exaltation is too complicated to address. I will remind you that the RCC teaches “The Word became man so that man might become God” Why do mock the LDS for believing this Christian teaching?
Tony, the RCC Trinity only has One Member that would have any DNA, at all, and that would be Jesus. He is the only One that ever existed, at any point in time, with human flesh and bones. Spiritual Beings do not have DNA because they do not have physical bodies.

To a Catholic, “One in Being” = One God.

The LDS concept of ‘exaltation’ has absolutely nothing in common with the RCC view of sanctification, in the least bit. We don’t count the days until we become gods, then leave the Holy Trinity behind to start our own family of people that would worship* us*. We count the days until we can spend all eternity with the Holy Trinity in perfect love, joy and happiness, as adopted members of the eternal Family of God. We never contemplate being God’s equal, in any way. That was the lie that the serpent told Eve, that they (Adam & Eve) would become ‘as gods’ if they ate the fruit. Instead, they got thrown out of Paradise to suffer and die on the earth, along with their children, until the time that a Savior would come to redeem them.

There’s a huge difference between the Holy Trinity, seen as ‘three separate beings united in one purpose’ as viewed by LDS, and the RCC believing that there are three separate Persons, united in One God. There is no real similarity in those two concepts in the least. The LDS look at the Trinity as one would look at the Three Musketeers (who I happen to love, and I’m only using them as an acceptable example of three different people that were ‘united in one purpose’, for comparative purposes). Would you agree that they would be a simple but fair example of the LDS concept of the Trinity?

Now, compare that to the Catholic teaching, where we also have those same three ‘beings’, but for us, they are all inseparable parts of the same God. One God. Not three gods. I’ve been giving a lot of prayerful thought to trying to come up with a way to describe the way Catholics see the Holy Trinity that would explain it in very simple terms, that even a child could understand. I think I may have found one.

This may seem pretty silly, but I think it makes it much easier to understand how the Holy Trinity exists as One God. Have you ever really looked at a peach? No doubt you have, but I doubt that you have ever thought about it the way I was thinking about it. At the center of the peach is a stone. It’s really just a big seed. All around that stone, is the sweet golden flesh. That’s the part that we all love to eat. Outside of the flesh, is the skin that wraps around and completely surrounds both the flesh and the peach stone. I was contemplating how that simple, lowly peach, can represent the Trinity of God so perfectly!

To my mind, the stone would represent the Father. He’s the center of the Trinity, and through His power, all of creation comes into existence out of nothing but God, Himself. I can easily picture the flesh of the peach as representing Jesus. He emanates from and completely surrounds the Father, with His Eternal Love. He is inseparable from Him. Nothing in all of creation can ever separate Them from each other. The flesh of that peach also reminds me of the human flesh that Jesus willingly took upon Himself when He humbled Himself, to become like one of us. It’s also that same sweet flesh that He left as His gift to us, that we consume whenever we partake of the Holy Eucharist. Last, but by no means least, we have the skin of the peach. The skin surrounds both the flesh and the stone of the peach (the Father and the Son). I saw that skin as representing the Holy Spirit, that binds the Son and the Father together by His Eternal Love for both of Them, that also emanates from Them to Him in return. Even the color of the peach’s skin reflects the colors of fire, so that it also perfectly represents the fire of God’s Love in the Holy Spirit.

The peach is one, single, lowly fruit. It’s not three different fruits, it’s just one, but it’s made up of three completely different parts. Each section alone, can’t really be called ‘a peach’. They have to stay together as a whole to be called that. If any of those parts was ever separated from the others, then they could no longer be called ‘a whole peach’. The Trinity is One.

Sorry about the Battlestar Galactica remarks, but a Mormon really did tell me that.
 
Why don’t you answer the question first; “Yes I believe that they are separate gods” or “No I don’t believe they are separate gods.” Then if you want to support your conclusions with scripture have at it. What I am saying, Parker, is state your position, clearly and unequivocally. From what I can see of Mormon theology, you would have to say that you believe they are separate gods. This is why you see a certain level of frustration in the comments on this thread. If you would state your position clearly we would still have a lot of room for discussion, but I think the attitudes would change dramatically.
SteveVH,

Again, I will reiterate. I don’t agree with the uses your question made of two words together, and their connotation when placed together in the way you placed them, particularly with the use of a small letter “g”. This is why I wrote “no”.

I totally concur with the description and beliefs presented by President Hinckley that can be read in the following link:

lds.org/new-era/2005/07/articles-of-faith-the-father-the-son-and-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng&query=three+believe
 
I like this simple comparison
Catholics believe there are three seperate persons unitied in one being (united in one purpose)
LDS beleive there are three seperate beings united in one purpose
Both sides are left with Father, Son and Holy Spirit acting in the same way

They are related in that God created them. If you want to use a DNA analogy, your Trinity persons would share the exact same dna

Introducing deification and Theosis vs Exaltation is too complicated to address. I will remind you that the RCC teaches “The Word became man so that man might become God” Why do mock the LDS for believing this Christian teaching?

Not sure what your point is here, except to insult and mock. Do you think I can get away with the same here on your faith?

All Christian faiths have their stories of healing. The LDS teach that the primary factors are the faith of the individual and the will of God, not because the Priesthood holder has special powers

Again with the insults. I strongly urge you not to learn your theology from cartoons
(Emphasis mine)
No God DID NOT “create” Jesus nor the Holy Spirit. They are GOD - no beginning and no end - completely uncreated and eternal.

If that was not what you meant by that statement, I apologize and would ask you to clarify.
 
SteveVH,

Again, I will reiterate. I don’t agree with the uses your question made of two words together, and their connotation when placed together in the way you placed them, particularly with the use of a small letter “g”. This is why I wrote “no”.

I totally concur with the description and beliefs presented by President Hinckley that can be read in the following link:

lds.org/new-era/2005/07/articles-of-faith-the-father-the-son-and-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng&query=three+believe
The most important theological questions were not answered. Such as does the Mormon God have a father?

God is just one of us. Exalted above us, further ahead in the line. . You want your faith to be labeled Christian yet if you really did make that leap you would be like Christians, like Catholics. The steeples would come down and the Cross would go up. Trinity believing. (Christianity-in Christ) Where you could say my Lord and my God just as the Apostles had done before even me.

Catholics have been accused of worshipping Mary and the Saints, yet I do not know any who understand their faith who would do this. For me it would be impossible to worship any other but God. Thus the separation between Creator and His Creation. Connected by His love through His Son for us. Us being His Creation.

Christians worship Jesus as well as the Father through the Holy Spirit.

Do you Parker worship Jesus?
Can you place Him above all things?
 
So…
SteveVH,

I totally concur with the description and beliefs presented by President Hinckley that can be read in the following link:

lds.org/new-era/2005/07/articles-of-faith-the-father-the-son-and-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng&query=three+believe
And… (from that link):

“I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal, living God. I believe in Him as the Firstborn of the Father and the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. I believe in Him as an **individual, separate and distinct **from His Father.”

But…
SteveVH,

In the first place, one would capitalize, always, for the primary word you asked the question about. In the second place, “separate” is not a word that describes the situation. “One” is the word that describes the situation.
So you “totally concur” that Jesus is “an individual, separate and distinct from His Father,” but you also believe that Jesus is “one” with His Father, and that “separate is not a word that describes the situation.” Got it.

Aaaaaaand cue circus music.
 
SteveVH,

Again, I will reiterate. I don’t agree with the uses your question made of two words together, and their connotation when placed together in the way you placed them, particularly with the use of a small letter “g”. This is why I wrote “no”.

I totally concur with the description and beliefs presented by President Hinckley that can be read in the following link:

lds.org/new-era/2005/07/articles-of-faith-the-father-the-son-and-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng&query=three+believe
Well, I reserve the name “God”, with a capital “G”, for the one, true God (one divine being). If we are speaking of more than one god it follows that they cannot be the “one God” so I will use a small 'g" when referring to more than one “god”. If you choose to say that Heavenly Father is God and Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God then you belive in the Trinity because they, together, not apart, constitute the One God, in essence and in being. If you believe that they are separate and distinct divine beings, united only in purpose, then by definition you are speaking of multiple gods who are in agreement with each other. I don’t care how you cut it, you cannot get around this fact and the answer you gave above is the perfect example of the type of comment that causes the frustration you see on this thread.
 
SteveVH,

Again, I will reiterate. I don’t agree with the uses your question made of two words together, and their connotation when placed together in the way you placed them, particularly with the use of a small letter “g”. This is why I wrote “no”.

I totally concur with the description and beliefs presented by President Hinckley that can be read in the following link:

lds.org/new-era/2005/07/articles-of-faith-the-father-the-son-and-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng&query=three+believe
Sorry, I forgot to comment on the link you provided. It says the same thing that I said:

“They are distinct beings, but They are one in purpose and effort”

and concerning Jesus Christ: “I believe in Him as an individual, separate and distinct from His Father.”

So President Hinckley agrees that they are separate and distinct beings. How is this different from anything I have been saying?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top