Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[ParkerD]

Cradle to Grave,

If I am understanding what you wrote, you would not consider it in any way disrespectful if people writing anywhere, at any time, in the newspaper or in any setting, wrote “Catholics believe in god.”

I do consider it disrespectful, so we differ.

The reason I “come back” is when a thread keeps going and people keep stating incorrect information about Latter-day Saint beliefs. It has to do with allowing someone, somewhere in the world, the opportunity to not get erroneous information thinking they have received correct information–so it has nothing to do with present company, who have plenty of sources for correct information whether they choose to use them or not.

SteveVH,

The reason I was interested in the word “person” and your insistence that it means “individuality” is that I still am not seeing that connotation in the description you most recently gave about your beliefs in God. If you care to restate those beliefs using the word “individuality”, then perhaps I will be able to understand what you meant when you wrote that “person” always has a connotation of “individuality”.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Cradle to Grave,

If I am understanding what you wrote, you would not consider it in any way disrespectful if people writing anywhere, at any time, in the newspaper or in any setting, wrote “Catholics believe in god.”

I do consider it disrespectful, so we differ.

Well ignoring the fact that “believing in God” is a given for Christianity and a lack of proper capitalization I don’t see it as disrespectful, (redundant or addressed to dunderheads maybe) why do you see it that way, is this one of those situations where you have your own esoteric definition for “Catholics” or “believe” or “God” or maybe “in”

 

[Telstar]

The dogma of the Trinity

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.” In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God’s nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen (“In Ps. xvii”, 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen’s pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

"There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and **this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever**" (P.G., X, 986).

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.

Proof of doctrine from Scripture
Scroll down the page to find this heading for Scriptural references from the Old & New Testaments and the rest of the explanation and references. All words used should be found in any old, ordinary dictionary, and the meanings are as most commonly defined.

Emphasis is mine.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The reason I was interested in the word “person” and your insistence that it means “individuality” is that I still am not seeing that connotation in the description you most recently gave about your beliefs in God. If you care to restate those beliefs using the word “individuality”, then perhaps I will be able to understand what you meant when you wrote that “person” always has a connotation of “individuality”.

The reason you don’t see it is because you have been taught it is not there, your apostles in your general conferences have told you this.

The problem here is you again refuse to understand what is meant. Show me where “person” has meant lack of individuality.

Person:
1.
a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2.
a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3.
Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4.
Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.
5.
the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Cradle to Grave,

If I am understanding what you wrote, you would not consider it in any way disrespectful if people writing anywhere, at any time, in the newspaper or in any setting, wrote “Catholics believe in god.”

I do consider it disrespectful, so we differ.

The reason I “come back” is when a thread keeps going and people keep stating incorrect information about Latter-day Saint beliefs. It has to do with allowing someone, somewhere in the world, the opportunity to not get erroneous information thinking they have received correct information–so it has nothing to do with present company, who have plenty of sources for correct information whether they choose to use them or not.

This is how your church was built Parker. It is the foundation of your own faith. I went into the Catholic Church to learn about them. I received correct information, the good and the bad. The Catholic church is built because we are all fallen. Forgiven…loved by Jesus

 

[ParkerD]

The reason you don’t see it is because you have been taught it is not there, your apostles in your general conferences have told you this.

The problem here is you again refuse to understand what is meant. Show me where “person” has meant lack of individuality.

Z,

It has nothing to do with what I have heard by anyone outside of people who are members (at least that is what they have presented) of the Catholic church.

If the following statement is true, and “individuality” is understood within these words–“in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another”–then by the connotation that SteveVH used for the word “polytheistic”, the Catholic church is “polytheistic” (his connotation, not mine–I think it is the wrong word entirely).

So then I have learned something I hadn’t understood about your beliefs.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Z,

It has nothing to do with what I have heard by anyone outside of people who are members (at least that is what they have presented) of the Catholic church.

If the following statement is true, and “individuality” is understood within these words–“in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another”–then by the connotation that SteveVH used for the word “polytheistic”, the Catholic church is “polytheistic” (his connotation, not mine–I think it is the wrong word entirely). .

"

'So then I have learned something I hadn’t understood about your beliefs"

You have not learned anyhting to write what you have just written…nothing Parker.

Parker, here is a good example of speaking un truths about the Catholic faith as you are doing iT here right now. This is why I am at the forum. Mostly for those who may be viewing and not posting. One God Parker…One!..Trinity

Again, Christians believe in one God only. Our God is a God of love, the Godhead is one of relationship….Love. This love, where all true love originates from is in human words, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is our God, One God forever. God is not a solitude, how could love itself have nothing to love?
(maybe an Epiphany
here?)
Saint Augustine addresses himself, us and you in a vey unique way. He points out in many of his writings the difference between God and Gods creation.
Read this carefully Parker.

'When I was just twenty it gave me great satisfaction that I managed to read, and understand, the Ten Categories of Aristotle without a teacher. I would mention the book at every opportunity, slipping the title in with a touch of awe, smiling to myself when lecturers would comment how difficult it had been for them to answer it. And much good it did me! Indeed, it was harmful, because it encouraged me to think of You, O Lord, as if you were part of what you had made, instead of being its essence and origin. Sadly, I had my back toward the light and my eyes fixed on the darkness. I could understand without difficulty logic, rhetoric, geometry, music, and arithmetic, but I did not see that my intelligence itself was a gift of God and that all the true things I learned came from him, their source. What advantage was it to me that I had a nimble wit when all the while I turned from good and clung to evil? Little did I realize then how much better off were all those (as I saw them) “simple” souls who lacked my native intelligence but put their trust in God Saint Augustine

We have a Utah State university professor who was LDS going through the process of falling in love with Jesus right now. If all goes well he will be baptized next Easter. Where is he right now in his own faith journey. Here is what he presented to many attending up here in Logan Utah. Read the comments Parker

whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/mormon-converts/item/62-mormon-convert-richard-sherlock

The old Dean of the University wrote to the Local paper that he would have stopped him from speaking. I can find that article for you if you like. Last night we all spoke, Richard was there, on the Communion of Saints. He cannot wait until he gets the chance to teach the Catholic faith to others. Why? He finds it easy to speak about God and Gods church. It was hard for him to defend the Mormon church because he just came to a fork in the road. He had to be honest with himself. In this he has found the Jesus of Christianity / authentic and historical. . Read his story Parker. He is still in a state of mind that is moving from his head down to his heart. By next Easter I think his heart might explode.

www.utahmission.com

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think ParkerD is being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate. If it will do any good at all, then posting this is worth the time:

The Synod of Toledo (675) expressed the faith of the Church in the Triune God with this concise formula, in the wake of the great fourth century councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.

In our own times, Paul VI in the Credo of the People of God expressed the same faith in the words already quoted in previous catecheses: “The mutual bonds which eternally constitute the Three Persons who are each one and the same Divine Being, are the blessed inmost life of God thrice holy, infinitely beyond all that we can conceive in human measure” (L’Osservatore Romano, English edition, July 11, 1968, p. 4).

God is ineffable and incomprehensible. In his essence God is an inscrutable mystery, whose truth we have sought to illustrate in the previous catecheses. Before the Most Holy Trinity, in which is expressed the inmost life of the God of our faith, one must repeat and admit it with a still greater force of conviction. The unity of the divinity in the Trinity of Persons is indeed an ineffable and inscrutable mystery! “If you comprehend it, it is not God.”

Paul VI continues in the text cited above: “We give thanks, however, to the divine goodness that very many believers can testify with us before men to the unity of God, even though they know not the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity.”

Holy Church in her trinitarian faith feels united to all those who confess the one God. Faith in the Trinity does not affect the truth of the one God. Rather, it makes evident its richness, its mysterious content—God’s inmost life.

This faith has its source ”its only source ”in the New Testament revelation. It is possible to know the truth about the Triune God only by means of this revelation. This is one of those “mysteries hidden in God which can never be known unless they are revealed by God,” ”according to the First Vatican Council (Const. Dei Filius, IV).

The dogma of the Most Holy Trinity has always been considered in Christianity as a mystery ”the most fundamental and inscrutable mystery. Jesus Christ himself said: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt 11:27).

The First Vatican Council taught: “The divine mysteries by their nature transcend the created intellect in such a way that, while made known by revelation and accepted by faith, they remain however covered by the veil of the same faith and wrapped in a kind of obscurity as long as in this mortal life ‘we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight’ (2 Cor 5:6)” (Const. Dei Filius, IV).

This statement is especially valid for the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. Even after being revealed, it remains the most profound mystery of faith. The intellect by itself can neither comprehend nor penetrate it. But in a certain way the intellect enlightened by faith can grasp and explain the meaning of the dogma. Thus it can bring the mystery of the inmost life of the Triune God close to man.

The concept of “person” as distinct from that of “nature” (or essence) is shown to be particularly important and fundamental in the accomplishment of this sublime work ”whether by means of the work of many theologians and first of all that of the Fathers of the Church, or by the definitions of the Councils. A person is he or she who exists as a concrete human being, as an individual possessing humanity, that is, human nature. Nature (essence) is all that whereby that which concretely exists is what it is. For example, when we speak of “human nature,” we indicate what makes a human being a human being, with his essential components and properties.

Applying this distinction to God, we recognize the unity of nature, the unity of the divinity, which belongs in an absolute and exclusive way to him who exists as God. At the same time ”both by the light of the intellect alone, and still more by the light of revelation ”we cultivate the conviction that he is a personal God. God the Creator should appear as a personal Being, even to those who have not received the revelation of the existence of God in three Persons. The person is what is most perfect in the world. One cannot but attribute this qualification to the Creator, even in regard to his infinite transcendence. Precisely for this reason the non-Christian monotheistic religions understand God as a person infinitely perfect and absolutely transcendent as regards the world.

Uniting our voices with that of every other believer, let us also lift up our hearts to the living and personal God, the one God who created the world and who is the origin of all that is good, beautiful and holy. To him be praise and glory forever.

(Pope John Paul II, “Unity and Distinction in the Eternal Communion of the Trinity”, 27 Nov. 1985)

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Cradle to Grave,

If I am understanding what you wrote, you would not consider it in any way disrespectful if people writing anywhere, at any time, in the newspaper or in any setting, wrote “Catholics believe in god.”

Yes, Parker. The whole thing was about capitalization. That’s the crux of the entire argument between you and Steve. That’s why you said “‘Separate’ is not a word I’d use,” except when you did use it multiple times in this thread, and then linked to a document written by a former President of the LDS church that used it multiple times, too. All because of an un-capitalized “g.”

I’m not sure what’s more strange: that you come to a Catholic forum and deliberately post vague and misleading information re: LDS doctrine or that you actually think people can’t see through your nonsense.

 

[SteveVH]

Cradle to Grave,

If I am understanding what you wrote, you would not consider it in any way disrespectful if people writing anywhere, at any time, in the newspaper or in any setting, wrote “Catholics believe in god.”

I do consider it disrespectful, so we differ.

The reason I “come back” is when a thread keeps going and people keep stating incorrect information about Latter-day Saint beliefs. It has to do with allowing someone, somewhere in the world, the opportunity to not get erroneous information thinking they have received correct information–so it has nothing to do with present company, who have plenty of sources for correct information whether they choose to use them or not.

SteveVH,

The reason I was interested in the word “person” and your insistence that it means “individuality” is that I still am not seeing that connotation in the description you most recently gave about your beliefs in God. If you care to restate those beliefs using the word “individuality”, then perhaps I will be able to understand what you meant when you wrote that “person” always has a connotation of “individuality”.

I will always use the smaller case “g” when speaking of any god other than the one, true God. You believe in a multiplicity of gods, which is clear to everyone on this forum in spite of your protests, therefore you cannot believe in the one, true God. When speaking of “separate and distinct” beings who you believe to be divine, you are speaking of more than one god by anyone’s definition other than yours. What is disrespectful is to use the name “God” when speaking of these other “gods” whom you and your founder have described as “separate and disctinct” from one another. “Separate and distinct” does not connote unity. It connotes “separate and distinct” and in that case the lower case “g” is proper.

As for the Persons of the Trinity, the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Spirit either of them. From that aspect they have individuality. It is from the perspective of “relationship” and they have been in this relationship from eternity, yet they constitute one divine being Who we call God. This is why Jesus could do nothing apart from his Father any more than you could do something apart from yourself; they are truly one, not just in purpose, but in their very being. The reason you have a problem with this is that you think of God in human terms. His ways are not our ways. He is infinitely above us in every respect. The fact that we are made in his image and likeness is like a candle being in the image and likeness of the sun. Both give warmth and light to some degree but a candle could never be compared to the sun in its radiance and glory. Even that analogy falls short when speaking of the radiance and glory of God when compared to us.

 

[vsedriver]

So no question that John did not “seek” leadership in the way that the world looks at leaders. But his calling was as a leader, and he held keys and the apostleship as a leader, and will be a judge as a leader–yet Jesus taught that the apostles, though being leaders, should be as servants.

Where is it written that John received keys? Only Peter received keys from Jesus. Peter was made steward and so are his successors.

 

[Stephen168]

.

For this thread, I would use “a person is an individual substance of a rational nature.”

 

[vsedriver]

If ever we have that same experience of being physically in His presence, face to face, and Him asking us to pray, then the Holy Ghost may inspire us to pray to Him and if that experience is like the Book of Mormon experience, He in turn will pray to the Father for us, showing His intercession, and He will ask the Father that we may be one with Them, just as He had done in His Intercessory prayer as recorded by the apostle John.

You can experience that now! Jesus is present in the Eucharist.

 

[vsedriver]

You can go online and read Latter-day Saint lesson manuals, Ensign articles, the Bible dictionary, the Doctrine and Covenants, and glean the “definitive beliefs”.

The problem with ‘gleaning’ is you risk misinterpreting text.

Then if they haven’t read the Book of Mormon they will never really significantly approach understanding Latter-day Saint beliefs.

books are not self-interpretive. You need a legitimate authority to interpret text. So why is there no clear catechism for Mormonism? Surely with all their scholarship they could put together something church approved that resembles the CCC?

 

[Crdl2Grv]

books are not self-interpretive.

That’s is a very good point.

I’m going to steal that someday and pretend I came up with it myself. Just fyi.

 

[Tony888]

The problem with ‘gleaning’ is you risk misinterpreting text.

books are not self-interpretive. You need a legitimate authority to interpret text. So why is there no clear catechism for Mormonism? Surely with all their scholarship they could put together something church approved that resembles the CCC?

I also wish there was a clear Q&A manual that explicitly taught doctrine for the LDS, but it does not exist. I think if it did exist, many of the answers would say “we don’t know because that has not been explicitly revealed”

Even fro the RCC, the CCC leaves many things unexplained and in some cases just raises more questions.

I think we are not meant to have all the answers.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There is an aversion in Mormonism to catechism, creeds, or anything that they would view as enforcing “right belief”. In essence, there is no such thing as orthodoxy in Mormonism.

While Tony888 objects to the teachings of the LDS Church being brought up here, they are in fact teachings which many LDS believe. Tony888 has taken on an idea that what is believed by him/her self is the orthodox version of LDS belief. But he/she would be hard pressed to show that what he/she believes is doctrine, let alone orthodox.

 

[catholic-rcia]

You can experience that now! Jesus is present in the Eucharist.

Yes, yes, yes. in the here and now

 

[Tony888]

There is an aversion in Mormonism to catechism, creeds, or anything that they would view as enforcing “right belief”. In essence, there is no such thing as orthodoxy in Mormonism.

While Tony888 objects to the teachings of the LDS Church being brought up here, they are in fact teachings which many LDS believe. Tony888 has taken on an idea that what is believed by him/her self is the orthodox version of LDS belief. But he/she would be hard pressed to show that what he/she believes is doctrine, let alone orthodox.

Rebecca, please don’t put words in my mouth I have not uttered

I object to people claming their favorite anti-LDS attack phrases are ‘Doctrine’ when in fact they are not LDS doctrine

I don’t object to you sharing beliefs and teachings you have heard. I fully admit people in the church have shared speculation as if it were doctrine. However, that mistake still does not make it LDS doctrine. We all have members of different levels of catechism, and even the most learned are human and make mistakes

 

[KathleenGee]

Mormonism has quite a history of unique ideas, and a most colorful past.