Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

“Joy of their Lord” are words that have significant meaning.

And you are of course free to create, as you have done here or have been taught, meanings that suit you.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

And you are of course free to create, as you have done here or have been taught, meanings that suit you.

And that, friends, is basically this entire thread in a nutshell.

 

[SteveVH]

Parenthood has been very enjoyablle for my wife and I. Even with all the hard parts.
It has helped us understand love, Gods love. But we do not worship the family, we worship God, the Creator of our family. The Most Holy Trinity is the perfect loving relationship. This is what we are called into to. To all be One in Him, just as Jesus is one with the Father. The Holy family is where we set our sites. To be children of the most hight forever. One God, One family forever. So many to Love, the same way God has always loved us. God is the only being that can truly Love as He is love itself. We share in that love, no possessing it as if it were our own. My children were created for Him not me. I get to share them with Him, learning how to truly love them. His love through my wife and I.

The Most Holy Trinity

The greatest example of being made in the image and likeness of God is the human family for the simple fact that God, from all eternity, is a family, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The two become one and the love between them becomes a third, very real person. The human family is a reflection the Holy Trinity. We will for eternity belong to a family; God’s family into which we enter through adaption, not exaltation.

It seems to me that the Mormon focus is self-centered. It is not a sharing in the life of God’s family, but rather acquiring our own glory with the ultimtate goal of being worshipped by one’s own “spirit children”. The Christian goal is to enter into God’s family that we may worship Him for eternity, not that we may be worshipped ourselves.

 

[PaulDupre]

God, from all eternity, is a family, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The two become one and the love between them becomes a third, very real person.

In Mormonism, since the Father and the Son are both human males with bodies, the relationship you describe would imply homosexuality. That is one big barrier to Mormons ever understanding or appreciating the trinity.

Satan is very, very clever.

 

[DCNBILL]

These definitions are simple but accurate

RCC believes we have B]Three Persons united in One Being

LDS believe we have Three Beings united in One Pupose

Just to clarify the Catholic position on the being of God, we do not believe that God is “a” being. We believe that God “is” Being. There is a significant philosophical distinction here that can be learned by studying Aquinas.

As for the LDS view, I am confused as to what they truly believe.

 

[KathleenGee]

Bill…

I totally concur…and think the Mormon church and its apologists should spend time learning Who God really is through the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas as well as the erudite tradition. It will be a great grace to the Mormon religion.

 

[PaulDupre]

As for the LDS view, I am confused as to what they truly believe.

So are they, if the diverse opinions from the LDS on this forum are any indication…

 

[SteveVH]

In Mormonism, since the Father and the Son are both human males with bodies, the relationship you describe would imply homosexuality. That is one big barrier to Mormons ever understanding or appreciating the trinity.

Satan is very, very clever.

I suppose that this shouldn’t surprise me but they certainly seem to place human limitations on God in other areas so why not in this area as well. Maybe you can explain to me why it seems so difficult for them to even imagine a God that is beyond our ability to comprehend; Who’s ways are not our ways, as the Scriptures tell us. Can they imagine a love that does not involve human sexuality?

 

[DCNBILL]

So are they, if the diverse opinions from the LDS on this forum are any indication…

I have experienced the same, it would seem that they have no defined dogma that can be pointed to and say here is what we believe, were you the one who mentioned something of akin to a catechism that they have?

 

[PaulDupre]

I have experienced the same, it would seem that they have no defined dogma that can be pointed to and say here is what we believe, were you the one who mentioned something of akin to a catechism that they have?

They have no catechism per se, but they used to have a book called Mormon Doctrine, written by apostle Bruce R. McConkie. It was very open and direct about what Mormons believe - apparently so open that it was condemned by the other leaders. A second edition was more acceptable in the 60’s and 70’s but is now discouraged as well.

The LDS are trying to distance themselves from many of the doctrines that they taught until recently. They are always trying to re-invent themselves and expunge their former claims (much like the JWs). So it is very hard to pin down what Mormons actually believe - this week.

 

[DCNBILL]

They have no catechism per se, but they used to have a book called Mormon Doctrine, written by apostle Bruce R. McConkie. It was very open and direct about what Mormons believe - apparently so open that it was condemned by the other leaders. A second edition was more acceptable in the 60’s and 70’s but is now discouraged as well.

The LDS are trying to distance themselves from many of the doctrines that they taught until recently. They are always trying to re-invent themselves and expunge their former claims (much like the JWs). So it is very hard to pin down what Mormons actually believe - this week.

Thanks, I will see if I can get a copy of that book.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

So it is very hard to pin down what Mormons actually believe - this week.

Honestly, I think this the big lesson I’m taking from this thread. I’m completely comfortable with a wide range of theologies; I certainly don’t spend most of my time with hard-core, practicing Catholics. And I get that pretty much any theology looks flat-out crazy to an outsider. So I have no issue with members of the LDS faith believing whatever they want to believe. Different strokes and all that.

But for the life of me, I cannot understand the thinking behind being so intentionally vague that you cross the line into deception. “Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate beings.” “‘Separate’ is not a word I’d use.” “Bruce McConkie says they’re ‘separate’ and distinct’ and I agree fully.” “I’ve never been taught that someday I can populate a planet with my spirit children.” Whoops, just kidding, here’s Paul Dupre linking to and quoting LDS teaching manuals that themselves cite Doctrine & Covenants.

(Cue Parker chiming in to say that he uses the word “Doctrine” differently, and it doesn’t really mean doctrine and here’s a link to a Joseph Fielding Smith speech… that turns out to say, “‘Doctrine’ means 'doctrine.”)

What’s the big deal w/ the secrecy?! Why not just come out and say, “Yes! You can become exactly like God! You get a planet! And a whole separate universe of people worshipping you! It’s awesome! Jump on board!” Who friggin’ cares if it sounds crazy?! ALL theology sounds crazy to an outsider.

 

[SteveVH]

Honestly, I think this the big lesson I’m taking from this thread. I’m completely comfortable with a wide range of theologies; I certainly don’t spend most of my time with hard-core, practicing Catholics. And I get that pretty much any theology looks flat-out crazy to an outsider. So I have no issue with members of the LDS faith believing whatever they want to believe. Different strokes and all that.

But for the life of me, I cannot understand the thinking behind being so intentionally vague that you cross the line into deception. “Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate beings.” “‘Separate’ is not a word I’d use.” “Bruce McConkie says they’re ‘separate’ and distinct’ and I agree fully.” “I’ve never been taught that someday I can populate a planet with my spirit children.” Whoops, just kidding, here’s Paul Dupre linking to and quoting LDS teaching manuals that themselves cite Doctrine & Covenants.

(Cue Parker chiming in to say that he uses the word “Doctrine” differently, and it doesn’t really mean doctrine and here’s a link to a Joseph Fielding Smith speech… that turns out to say, “‘Doctrine’ means 'doctrine.”)

What’s the big deal w/ the secrecy?! Why not just come out and say, “Yes! You can become exactly like God! You get a planet! And a whole separate universe of people worshipping you! It’s awesome! Jump on board!” Who friggin’ cares if it sounds crazy?! ALL theology sounds crazy to an outsider.

I couldn’t agree more. I have no problem speaking to any person from another religion who is honest about what they believe, regardless of whether or not I agree. With Mormonism it borders on deception. In my opinion I think it is the same reason that Mormon advertisements on TV promise to give you a free Bible and fail to mention the BoM, or D&C, or Pearl of Great Price. If they told the whole story up front they would have fewer takers.

 

[Lefty0908]

To PaulDupre and DCNBill:

No! No! No! Not Mormon Doctrine! Really, Paul, you gotta come into the 21st century of LDS scholarship. Mormon Doctrine isn’t even published any more. And given the history of theological controversies and changes in Catholic dogma over the centuries, are you really meaning to throw the rocks of “Mormon changes” from the glass house in which you live? C’mon. “Double standard” doesn’t even begin to describe that kind of game.

DCNBill, if you really want to read a current book on LDS theology that is written from from a purely philosophical view, you might consider Blake Ostler’s excellent treatments in Exploring Mormon Thought - The Attributes of God. Just to give you a sense of his approach, the first chapter of the book contains the following subsections:

What Does “God” Mean in Mormon Discourse?
Attribute and Essence
Is “God” a Title or a Name?
God and Monotheism
The Divine Thou
Subordinate “Gods”
Apotheosis: Human Gods
“God” as a Relationship of Unity Among a Plurality of Persons
God and Perfection
God and Possible Worlds

In the book he also discusses LDS views on the definitions of God that resulted from the early councils. So there are sections on Divine Simplicity, Pure Actuality, Immutability, Timless Eternity, Impassibility, Aseity, etc. It’s a big book (531 pages), and is the first of a 3-volume set by Ostler that discusses other aspects of Mormon theology. But it represents first-rate LDS scholarship the kind of which is studiously avoided by our critics who post here (somewhat) and on Evangelical anti-Mormon websites (a LOT).

 

[Stephen168]

if you really want to read a current book on LDS theology that is written from from a purely philosophical view, you might consider Blake Ostler’s excellent treatments in Exploring Mormon Thought - The Attributes of God

Is it ‘approved’ by the church?

 

[catholic-rcia]

To PaulDupre and DCNBill:

And given the history of … changes in Catholic dogma over the centuries, are you really meaning to throw the rocks of “Mormon changes”

This does not work with me
God has not changed in my faith. Jesus is the same today as He was yesterday. This I have come to count on in my new Catholic faith. Going on 14 years

In Christ
Rich
www.utahmission.com
1 Tim 3:15. the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth

 

[KathleenGee]

‘Absolute Relativism’ for $2.95 through CAF sounds like a good deal, and much needed reading…and sincere application.

This book on Relativism should should clear up people’s thinking about what to be livid about and what not to bother about…where to be an angel and fear to tread vs a fool who jumps in, and says the water is great while the fool is in a slow burn.

 

[DCNBILL]

To PaulDupre and DCNBill:

No! No! No! Not Mormon Doctrine! Really, Paul, you gotta come into the 21st century of LDS scholarship. Mormon Doctrine isn’t even published any more. And given the history of theological controversies and changes in Catholic dogma over the centuries, are you really meaning to throw the rocks of “Mormon changes” from the glass house in which you live? C’mon. “Double standard” doesn’t even begin to describe that kind of game.

DCNBill, if you really want to read a current book on LDS theology that is written from from a purely philosophical view, you might consider Blake Ostler’s excellent treatments in Exploring Mormon Thought - The Attributes of God. Just to give you a sense of his approach, the first chapter of the book contains the following subsections:

What Does “God” Mean in Mormon Discourse?
Attribute and Essence
Is “God” a Title or a Name?
God and Monotheism
The Divine Thou
Subordinate “Gods”
Apotheosis: Human Gods
“God” as a Relationship of Unity Among a Plurality of Persons
God and Perfection
God and Possible Worlds

In the book he also discusses LDS views on the definitions of God that resulted from the early councils. So there are sections on Divine Simplicity, Pure Actuality, Immutability, Timless Eternity, Impassibility, Aseity, etc. It’s a big book (531 pages), and is the first of a 3-volume set by Ostler that discusses other aspects of Mormon theology. But it represents first-rate LDS scholarship the kind of which is studiously avoided by our critics who post here (somewhat) and on Evangelical anti-Mormon websites (a LOT).

Please provide documentation for this statement that Catholic dogma has changed, ever.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

…And given the history of theological controversies and changes in Catholic dogma over the centuries, are you really meaning to throw the rocks of “Mormon changes” from the glass house in which you live? C’mon. “Double standard” doesn’t even begin to describe that kind of game.

There is a distinction between the development of doctrine that takes place over a period of centuries in the Catholic Church, and the abandonment and restructuring of core LDS doctrines and beliefs such as polygamy and exaltation, that have occurred since the alleged restoration in the mid 1800s. Plainly speaking - its not the same thing by a long shot.

Lefty0908:

…if you really want to read a current book on LDS theology that is written from from a purely philosophical view, you might consider Blake Ostler’s excellent treatments in Exploring Mormon Thought - The Attributes of God.

It’s not about theology, but about nailing down LDS doctrines upon which theologians can opine. I’m sure that your representation is sincere about Ostler and his top shelf LDS theological work- based on current LDS doctrines. But does his writing address the shifting sands of LDS doctrine concerning matters that were of core importance to the early Restored Church (Plural marriage, Exaltation, reserving the Priesthood to caucasians on doctrinal grounds, etc., etc., etc.) and which have since been abandoned in the face of political turbulence and/or public outcry?

Where, if you so claim, has the Catholic Church turned about or changed its tack on a core doctrinal and/or moral issue in the face of a political firestorm? I can’t think of a time off the top of my head. But the LDS Church suddenly obtained a “revelation” that repealed the necessity of plural marriage when that particular doctrine was a sticking point to Utah’s entry into the Statehood. A similar event occurred in the 1970s, when the LDS Church conveniently received the “revelation” that the priesthood was now open to non-caucasion members. It is doctrinal about-face maneuvers like these that - in my opinion - seriously undercut any real claim by the LDS Church to divine inspiration.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Telstar]

To PaulDupre and DCNBill:

No! No! No! Not Mormon Doctrine! Really, Paul, you gotta come into the 21st century of LDS scholarship. Mormon Doctrine isn’t even published any more. And given the history of theological controversies and changes in Catholic dogma over the centuries, are you really meaning to throw the rocks of “Mormon changes” from the glass house in which you live? C’mon. “Double standard” doesn’t even begin to describe that kind of game.

Catholic Dogma does not change because it cannot change. If you can find any example of any changes made in Catholic Dogma, please, post it. (Good luck with that wild goose chase.) It may be further explained or expounded upon, but the original intended meaning of Dogma can never change. It is what it is. (Quote Source)

Revealed truths become formally dogmas when defined or proposed by the Church. There is considerable hostility, in modern times, to dogmatic religion when considered as a body of truths defined by the Church, and still more when considered as defined by the pope. The theory of dogma which is here expounded depends for its acceptance on the doctrine of the infallible teaching office of the Church and of the Roman pontiff. It will be sufficient to notice the following points, (1) the reasonableness of the definition of dogma; (2) the immutability of dogma; (3) the necessity for Church unity of belief in dogma (4) the inconveniences which are alleged to be associated with the definition of dogma.

(1) Against the theory of interpretation of Scripture by private judgement, Catholics regard as absolutely unacceptable the view that God revealed a body of truths to the world and appointed no official teacher of revealed truth, no authoritative judge of controversy; this view is as unreasonable as would be the notion that the civil legislature makes laws and then commits to individual private judgment the right and the duty of interpreting the laws and deciding controversies. The Church and the supreme pontiff are endowed by God with the privilege of infallibility in discharge of the duty of universal teacher in the sphere of faith and morals; hence we have an infallible testimony that the dogmas defined and delivered to us by the Church are the truths contained in Divine revelation.

(2) The dogmas of the Church are immutable. Modernists hold that religious dogmas, as such, have no intellectual meaning, that we are not bound to believe them mentally, that they may be all false, that it is sufficient if we use them a guides to action; and accordingly they teach that dogmas are not immutable, that they should be changed when the spirit of the age is opposed to them, when they lose their value as rules for a liberal religious life. But in the Catholic doctrine that Divine revelation is addressed to the human mind and expresses real objective truth, dogmas are immutable Divine truths. It is an immutable truth for all time that Augustus was Emperor of Rome and George Washington first President of the United States. So according to Catholic belief, these are and will be for all time immutable truths — that there are three Persons in God, that Christ died for us, that He arose from the dead, that He founded the Church, that He instituted the sacraments. We may distinguish between the truths themselves and the language in which they are expressed. The full meaning of certain revealed truths has been only gradually brought out; the truths will always remain. Language may change or may receive a new meaning; but we can always learn what meaning was attached to particular words in the past.

(3) We are bound to believe revealed truths irrespective of their definition by the Church, if we are satisfied that God has revealed them. When they are proposed or defined by the Church, and thus become dogmas, we are bound to believe them in order to maintain the bond of faith. (See HERESY).

(4) Finally, Catholics do not admit that, as is sometimes alleged, dogmas are the arbitrary creations of ecclesiastical authority, that they are multiplied at will, that they are devices for keeping the ignorant in subjection, that they are obstacles to conversions. Some of these are points of controversy which cannot be settled without reference to more fundamental questions. Dogmatic definitions would be arbitrary if there were no Divinely instituted infallible teaching office in the Church; but if, as Catholics maintain, God has established in His Church an infallible office, dogmatic definitions cannot be considered arbitrary. The same Divine Providence which preserves the Church from error will preserve her from inordinate multiplication of dogmas. She cannot define arbitrarily. We need only observe the life of the Church or of the Roman pontiffs to see that dogmas are not multiplied inordinately. And as dogmatic definitions are but the authentic interpretation and declaration of the meaning of Divine revelation, they cannot be considered devices for keeping the ignorant in subjection, or reasonable obstacles to conversions, on the contrary, the authoritative definition of truth and condemnation of error, are powerful arguments leading to the Church those who seek the truth earnestly.