Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[Jim_Dandy]

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.

The reason there is no manual of Mormon doctrines, and no one can write a book like Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which is not a Church document, is that what is doctrine today may be un-doctrine tomorrow and denied by the LDS. Where truth is changeable, as it is is Mormonism, doctrine can’t ever be defined well enough to write it down… In reality, there is no truth in Mormonism to be recorded. “Truth” means true forever, and Mormon doctrines are subject to change through ongoing revelation…

Since you don’t know what Catholics believe, and have consistently misstated Catholic doctrine, how can you present yourself as an expert on the Catechism and say it leaves many things unexplained? Like what? It was written for Catholics, y’know, as was the New Testament. The CCC is a precis – a concise summary – of Catholic belief. It is not a book of systematic theology.

Perhaps this “don’t put it in any official book” principle allows more flexibility in the Mormon practices of “Lying for the Lord” and “milk before meat.”

Jim Dandy

 

[Tony888]

The reason there is no manual of Mormon doctrines, and no one can write a book like Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which is not a Church document, is that what is doctrine today may be un-doctrine tomorrow and denied by the LDS. Where truth is changeable, as it is is Mormonism, doctrine can’t ever be defined well enough to write it down… In reality, there is no truth in Mormonism to be recorded. “Truth” means true forever, and Mormon doctrines are subject to change through ongoing revelation…

Since you don’t know what Catholics believe, and have consistently misstated Catholic doctrine, how can you present yourself as an expert on the Catechism and say it leaves many things unexplained? Like what? It was written for Catholics, y’know, as was the New Testament. The CCC is a precis – a concise summary – of Catholic belief. It is not a book of systematic theology.

Perhaps this “don’t put it in any official book” principle allows more flexibility in the Mormon practices of “Lying for the Lord” and “milk before meat.”

Jim Dandy

Jim, why are you so bitter against the LDS? I say that because your claims are ludicrous.

The LDS make a strong attempt to catechize members on the teachings of the Church, and the Church uses standardized manuals to ensure all members are learning the right teachings. These manuals are clearly meant to teach correct doctrine, and except for a few errors, they do this well.

I would love for you to back up your claim that LDS doctrine is a complete mess, that constantly changes. Please support this slander Or where you just attacking the concept of ongoing revelation?

I think the independent surveys support the LDS know their bible and doctrine better than the Catholics, as a group. It’s not a competiton, but I’m tired of your ego and attacks on the body of the faithful.

I have not claimed myself an expert on the CCC but I’ve noticed what it explicitly says, and asked you to justify your comments that conflict. If your words were true, you would have ample official references (but you have supplied none)

 

[PaulDupre]

Jim, why are you so bitter against the LDS? I say that because your claims are ludicrous.

The LDS make a strong attempt to catechize members on the teachings of the Church, and the Church uses standardized manuals to ensure all members are learning the right teachings. These manuals are clearly meant to teach correct doctrine, and except for a few errors, they do this well.

Yet you keep insisting that these manuals do not represent Mormon doctrine. Which is it, Tony? Are these manuals, which are approved by your “prophets, seers and revelators”, doctrine or not? Every time we quote to you the Melchizedek Priesthood manual or the Gospel Principles manual or any other manual, you insist that LDS manuals are not doctrine - that only “what is in the quad” is doctrine.

Come on, Tony, 'fess up, which is it?

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[twopekinguys]

Jim, why are you so bitter against the LDS? I say that because your claims are ludicrous.

The LDS make a strong attempt to catechize members on the teachings of the Church, and the Church uses standardized manuals to ensure all members are learning the right teachings. These manuals are clearly meant to teach correct doctrine, and except for a few errors, they do this well.

I would love for you to back up your claim that LDS doctrine is a complete mess, that constantly changes. Please support this slander Or where you just attacking the concept of ongoing revelation?

I think the independent surveys support the LDS know their bible and doctrine better than the Catholics, as a group. It’s not a competiton, but I’m tired of your ego and attacks on the body of the faithful.

I have not claimed myself an expert on the CCC but I’ve noticed what it explicitly says, and asked you to justify your comments that conflict. If your words were true, you would have ample official references (but you have supplied none)

Didn’t you just admonish Rebecca about putting words in your mouth that you didn’t utter?

Isn’t that exactly what you are doing to Jim Dandy?

I haven’t seen where he has said, as you put it “lds doctrine is a complete mess”.

Perhaps you could point me to the exact quote. If you can’t, then please do not employ a double standard. If you can, then I will stand corrected.

 

[Tony888]

Didn’t you just admonish Rebecca about putting words in your mouth that you didn’t utter?

Isn’t that exactly what you are doing to Jim Dandy?

I haven’t seen where he has said, as you put it “lds doctrine is a complete mess”.

Perhaps you could point me to the exact quote. If you can’t, then please do not employ a double standard. If you can, then I will stand corrected.

Did I use quotes? NO
Did Jim articulate a mess below? YES

that what is doctrine today may be un-doctrine tomorrow and denied by the LDS. Where truth is changeable, as it is is Mormonism

He clearly diescripbed it as a mess, but if he actually thinks it is organized and stable, he can rephrase his statement.

Why not contribute to the discussion?

 

[SteveVH]

I would love for you to back up your claim that LDS doctrine is a complete mess, that constantly changes.

I wouldn’t call it a complete mess. But off the top of my head aren’t there a few issues, such as polygamy, non-whites in the priesthood and the whole Adam/God thing that were certainly considered doctrine and were changed by new revelation? I could be wrong about the Adam/God thing being doctrine. I realize that it is very acceptable to ignore some of the writings and speeches of your prophets and disclaim their words as doctrine.

 

[twopekinguys]

Did I use quotes? NO
Did Jim articulate a mess below? YES

He clearly diescripbed it as a mess, but if he actually thinks it is organized and stable, he can rephrase his statement.

Why not contribute to the discussion?

So, by your own admission, he did not use the words you state. I still don’t see where he made the “claim” you are accusing him of making.

You may be interpreting it that way, but again, I cannot find a post where he made such a “claim”.

Also, by you accusing him of something that he in fact, has not done, you are the one who is slandering, and not him, as you accuse him in your post.

If you want to have a valid discussion, then you should not cry foul when you do the same thing you accuse others of.

As far as my “participation” in this discussion. I have news for you. Posting is participation.

As far as the original purpose of this thread, there is no doubt in my mind, or that of at least a billions others, that mormonism is in fact Polytheistic.

Over a billion Catholics can’t be wrong.

 

[KathleenGee]

Back to the sideline here, I was watching on EWTN tonight, the discovery of some ancient scrolls discovered by a Bedouin in Egypt…these were written in Coptic monks around 200 AD, and put away in safe keeping…they said nothing new…publicly, Gnosticism was already being refuted by ancient Catholic (here I mean, what was handed down universally) teachers, Gnosticism…that grew out of the East, took hold in Egypt, Palestine, and then to Rome…

What these philosophies did was take Sacred Scriptures and impose their interpretation on them, invalidating the Jewish understanding of their own Old Testament, and then Christ coming to us as Incarnate God. They saw Christianity as another form of religion…also in form of relativism…all equal, none having absolute truth…some forms of Gnosticism saying the creator of this world was bad.

Gnosticism almost destroyed the true meaning of Christianity.

There was just one person who defeated Gnosticism, none other than St. Irenaeus. It was on account of his teachings and affirming Christ as God, that the true meaning of Scripture and of Christ was retained. Tony888 quotes a few remarks but without truthful context.

Mormonism is a form of Gnosticism because it has a different concept of Christ, and God for that matter, as did the ancient Gnostics, and overwrites and interprets the 2,000 year old history of Christianity to make it mean something else. Instead, Mormonism takes the true intent of Christianity, condemns it, and makes itself as true Christianity.

I know only Christ can make me a better person, and it begins knowing that my existence depends on Christ loving me as I am.

I am staying with the old time religion that Christ gave us and His one Church.
St. Irenaeus never taught that we would become gods. There is but one God, 3 persons, and Jesus Christ Incarnate, we are nourished by Him, Eternal Word, Who reconciles us to the Father, to ourselves, and to the world.

It is in Christ, and not Joseph Smith, that we find meaning and fulfillment to our lives no mortal can do.

 

[twopekinguys]

Is it me, or has anyone noticed Lefty’s failure to provide any references for his outlandishly wrong claim about Catholic doctrine changing?

I know he/she has been in the forums since the claim was made.

Hmmmmmmmm:shrug:

 

[Tony888]

Yet you keep insisting that these manuals do not represent Mormon doctrine. Which is it, Tony? Are these manuals, which are approved by your “prophets, seers and revelators”, doctrine or not? Every time we quote to you the Melchizedek Priesthood manual or the Gospel Principles manual or any other manual, you insist that LDS manuals are not doctrine - that only “what is in the quad” is doctrine.

Come on, Tony, 'fess up, which is it?

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

No Paul, that is not what I’ve stated, so I’ll try again to be crystal clear

Yes, the manuals are intended to teach Church Doctrine
No, the manuals are not scripture, they are not Doctrine by themselves.

**This distinction is very important for you to understand. **
We expect all teachings in the manual to be correct, but that is not always the case
The manuals should refer to and explain doctrine but they cannot create it. They are not a source of doctrine,
All correct Doctrine must have a true doctrinal source external to the manual

To some extent isn’t it the same for RCC? Your Priests, Bishops and the Pope teach and explain doctrine on a daily (?) basis. However, just because a priest or even a Pope said something and it was published, that action does not make it new Catholic doctrine.

 

[SteveVH]

No Paul, that is not what I’ve stated, so I’ll try again to be crystal clear

Yes, the manuals are intended to teach Church Doctrine
No, the manuals are not scripture, they are not Doctrine by themselves.

**This distinction is very important for you to understand. **
We expect all teachings in the manual to be correct, but that is not always the case
The manuals should refer to and explain doctrine but they cannot create it. They are not a source of doctrine,
All correct Doctrine must have a true doctrinal source external to the manual

To some extent isn’t it the same for RCC? Your Priests, Bishops and the Pope teach and explain doctrine on a daily (?) basis. However, just because a priest or even a Pope said something and it was published, that action does not make it new Catholic doctrine.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is, for all intents and purposes, a teaching manual and it is not scripture either, but it contains scripture. It is not Tradition, but it contains it. If you are Catholic, however, you had better adhere to its teachings. I don’t know of any mistakes it contains but what I do know is that we Catholics can rely on it for the truth. I don’t think anyone is trying to make the claim that your manuals create doctrine, but they sure discuss it and we can certainly refer to those doctrines being discussed as doctrines, can we not?

 

[Tony888]

I am staying with the old time religion that Christ gave us and His one Church.
St. Irenaeus never taught that we would become gods. There is but one God, 3 persons, and Jesus Christ Incarnate, we are nourished by Him, Eternal Word, Who reconciles us to the Father, to ourselves, and to the world.
.

How do you expalin the explicit teachings in CCC460 on Deification?
Just because you don’t agree with, or support this teaching doesn’t mean it is not RCC doctrine
While I respect your personal decision to refute this aspect of RCC doctrine,
Irenaeus was a firm believer in deification/Theosis

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.33.4 …how can they be saved unless it was God who wrought out their salvation upon earth? Or how shall man pass into God, unless God has [first] passed into man? (ANF 1.507).

Irenaeus - Adv. 4.20.4 Now this is His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made a man among men, that He might join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God. (ANF 1.488).

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.39.2 How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker? For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. (ANF 1.522-523).

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 5.Pref …the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself. (ANF 1.526).

 

[PaulDupre]

No Paul, that is not what I’ve stated, so I’ll try again to be crystal clear

Yes, the manuals are intended to teach Church Doctrine
No, the manuals are not scripture, they are not Doctrine by themselves.

**This distinction is very important for you to understand. **
We expect all teachings in the manual to be correct, but that is not always the case
The manuals should refer to and explain doctrine but they cannot create it. They are not a source of doctrine,
All correct Doctrine must have a true doctrinal source external to the manual

To some extent isn’t it the same for RCC? Your Priests, Bishops and the Pope teach and explain doctrine on a daily (?) basis. However, just because a priest or even a Pope said something and it was published, that action does not make it new Catholic doctrine.

You do not understand that there is a great deal of difference between “priests” and the bishops in communion with the pope. The bishops in communion with the pope constitute the magisterium of the church. When they, as a unit, pronounce on faith and morals they are infallible as promised by Jesus himself:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

• John 16:13

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[PaulDupre]

No Paul, that is not what I’ve stated, so I’ll try again to be crystal clear

Yes, the manuals are intended to teach Church Doctrine
No, the manuals are not scripture, they are not Doctrine by themselves.

**This distinction is very important for you to understand. **
We expect all teachings in the manual to be correct, but that is not always the case
The manuals should refer to and explain doctrine but they cannot create it. They are not a source of doctrine,
All correct Doctrine must have a true doctrinal source external to the manual

Of course I understand that. But your manuals extensively quote scripture and conference talks and the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (and the Journal of Discourses when your prophets think it appropriate). If the manuals (which are always approved by the 1st presidency) quote a source, then that source (though it may be limited to a few lines in a long dissertation or speech) must be considered authoritative or must least be assumed to express correct doctrine.

Otherwise, your prophets, seers and revelators are completely clueless so why would you listen to them?

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[catholic-rcia]

Jim, why are you so bitter against the LDS? I say that because your claims are ludicrous.

The LDS make a strong attempt to catechize members on the teachings of the Church, and the Church uses standardized manuals to ensure all members are learning the right teachings. These manuals are clearly meant to teach correct doctrine, and except for a few errors, they do this well.

I would love for you to back up your claim that LDS doctrine is a complete mess, that constantly changes. Please support this slander Or where you just attacking the concept of ongoing revelation?

I think the independent surveys support the LDS know their bible and doctrine better than the Catholics, as a group. It’s not a competiton, but I’m tired of your ego and attacks on the body of the faithful.

I have not claimed myself an expert on the CCC but I’ve noticed what it explicitly says, and asked you to justify your comments that conflict. If your words were true, you would have ample official references (but you have supplied none)

He is not being bitter Tony, he is being honest. He can justify what he has written. I can as wel. But the most important thing is you can as well with a mild study. Plus if you were Catholic and baptised you have the Holy Spirit in you that will guide you to the truth.
God Bless
Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[Tony888]

He is not being bitter Tony, he is being honest. He can justify what he has written. I can as wel. But the most important thing is you can as well with a mild study. Plus if you were Catholic and baptised you have the Holy Spirit in you that will guide you to the truth.
God Bless
Rich
www.utahmission.com

Rich, please stop claiming you can justify your statements with doctrine and just do so!

My experience is you can’t actually do it with true sources of doctrine.

 

[Tony888]

Of course I understand that. But your manuals extensively quote scripture and conference talks and the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (and the Journal of Discourses when your prophets think it appropriate). If the manuals (which are always approved by the 1st presidency) quote a source, then that source (though it may be limited to a few lines in a long dissertation or speech) must be considered authoritative or must least be assumed to express correct doctrine.

Otherwise, your prophets, seers and revelators are completely clueless so why would you listen to them?

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Paul, you say you understood me yet you continue to reference the manual as if it was doctrine.

Where are the citations to doctrine that support your fantasy of infinite regression?
They don’t exist because it is not doctrine.

Again, please stop pretending real doctrine and random speeches are all pieces in a lego brick set, and you are entitled to fit the pieces together as you wish (without context) and build new doctrine that must be true.

To bring the point home, why haven’t you responded to my LEGO RCC doctrine? I stated that ALL CAtholics believe they will become Gods and live in POSH Mansions, just down the way from Christs THrone! For sure It must be doctrine since the components were doctrine
I was able to pull these facts from legitimate scripture, without resorting to questionable speeches.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Rich, please stop claiming you can justify your statements with doctrine and just do so!

My experience is you can’t actually do it with true sources of doctrine.

Tony I have been blessed here in Northern Utah in helping many Mormons come to understand the Catholic faith. I have the Utah Mission at www.utahmission.com

Each year I get to help up until they receive Baptism. I know what they have been taught, please believe me. The one thing that stands out with all of them over the years is they have a hunger to get to know Jesus in a deeper kind of relationsip.

I also give tours of our church each month for the last five years.

Last night we had four LDS go through it and they asked some pretty good questions. What I enjoy the most is when we all gather under our Crucifix. It is very life like and beautiful. I get to tell them how much it means to us to have it in our churches. They are always thrown back at what they hear about it. They tell me they never thought about it like that. Just lat night am LDS women said “That’s a beautiful reason to have the crucifix”

About five years ago when we opened this new Church an LDS women stayed after the first tour. She asked me to come over and I did. I sat behind her in the pews. She spoke about the Crucifix, “how beautiful it is”, she remarked then she began to cry. After she wiped the tears from her face she said, looking at the Crucifix “why do we have such a hard time forgiving each other” I felt that she must have a tremendous burden in her life, I chose to just be silent and stay with her for awhile.

I know your faith Tony as I was LDS as a child in Sacramento California up until about 14 years old. Life took me on a journey and I ended up Catholic 30 years later. My LDS Grandmother who raised me taught me how to pray. I remember watching Jesus of Nazareth with her. We both cried together as Jesus in this movie was being crucified. Maybe this was where I had my first bonding experience with Jesus I don’t know. But while in my high school art class I made a bust of Jesus with the thorns on His head.

The Catholic faith brought me to Jesus in a way I never could have imagined.  While I was learning about this faith I read a story about what Catholics call Saints. Please read about him at my site. After I want to share with you something very special. Something that brought me to my knees and furthered my conversion to the Catholic Church. Let me know, please that you read about him.

http://utahmission.com/pages/cJouges_page.html

 

[mwok]

No Paul, that is not what I’ve stated, so I’ll try again to be crystal clear

Yes, the manuals are intended to teach Church Doctrine
No, the manuals are not scripture, they are not Doctrine by themselves.

**This distinction is very important for you to understand. **
We expect all teachings in the manual to be correct, but that is not always the case
The manuals should refer to and explain doctrine but they cannot create it. They are not a source of doctrine,
All correct Doctrine must have a true doctrinal source external to the manual

To some extent isn’t it the same for RCC? Your Priests, Bishops and the Pope teach and explain doctrine on a daily (?) basis. However, just because a priest or even a Pope said something and it was published, that action does not make it new Catholic doctrine.

Where do mormons referrence a Doctrine, the Articles of Faith? or somewhere else?

 

[zaffiroborant]

How do you expalin the explicit teachings in CCC460 on Deification?
Just because you don’t agree with, or support this teaching doesn’t mean it is not RCC doctrine
While I respect your personal decision to refute this aspect of RCC doctrine,
Irenaeus was a firm believer in deification/Theosis

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.33.4 …how can they be saved unless it was God who wrought out their salvation upon earth? Or how shall man pass into God, unless God has [first] passed into man? (ANF 1.507).

Quite clearly about the Eucharist

Irenaeus - Adv. 4.20.4 Now this is His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made a man among men, that He might join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God. (ANF 1.488).

Theosis means being joined to God.

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.39.2 How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker? For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. (ANF 1.522-523).

Theosis means partaking of the glory of God.

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 5.Pref …the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself. (ANF 1.526).

No one here, contrary to your assertions, has a problem with anything in the CCC, what we have a problem with is your interpretation of OUR catechism, your applying Mormon “theology” (for lack of a better term) to Catholic teaching.

You are LDS, you do not get to tell us what OUR catechism means, period.