Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[catholic-rcia]

I could argue that I see every bit as much confusion and chaos in your tradition (and in your thinking!) as you claim to see in mine. It doesn’t lead to understanding, of course. But then, that’s not your objective.

I was baptised Catholic13 years ago. I am not confused at all about the Catholic faith.
Very authentic, historical, real Christianity. I have helped others come to Christ now for 13 years here in Northern Utah. I have not witnessed any chaos at all. Just souls falling in love with Jesus. I mayself have a great sense of the Trinity and see it laced throughout the scriptures everywhere. I do not know how anyone who is seriouse could miss it. The Godhead is a God of relationship. God is not a solitude. Simply Love and the Loved. The Father, Son anf Holy Spirit…GOD
scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html

In Christ
Rich

 

[KathleenGee]

Lefty,

You were given professional teachings on the early Christian church, and how in time, due to Arius as well as minor issues of church structuring, there had to come about the Council of Nicea. It is not criticizing Mormonism.

What you are missing is the constructs of Mormonism. Your beliefs are that only Mormonism is correct, while it has changed its beliefs a number of times, that Christianity, and particularly our teachings are corrupt.

You take a stand like that…where we adhere to the teachings given us by the Apostles 2,000 years ago…and instead want to believe in a dubious character who used spectacles, a hat, Egyptian scrolls…to prove he was right and Christianity wrong. Why go to ‘corrupt’ sources???

Expect to be challenged. Your religion is the one setting itself up, and labelling Christianity, and particularly Catholicism…what else has been out there before the Protestant Reformation???

Your scholars are now discovering the ancient church fathers, but their teachings are being given the opposite meaning to Mormon followers. That is dishonest as well.

We all know the name Trinity is not mentioned in the gospel. Christ did not come to teach theology, but many of His disciples have been called, one of them St. Athanasius who taught Christ as God…three persons in one God…theology…

I have heard people say Mormonism does not have theology…it does not employ anthropology or archaeology to support its claims. Why would it then be confused to prove our Jesuit priest invalidating the Trinity?..He is not.

Again, it is better Mormons stick with their own teachers to support their views than use Catholic scholars to support or prove Mormonism is right.

 

[Mike_Dante]

May I ask what the objective is when we argue about what someone else believes? Why should anyone believe that a Catholic is an expert on Mormonism?

After having had many discussions with people that revealed how many false beliefs are held about the Catholic religion, I came to the conclusion that it is not very profitable to argue with someone who claims that I believe something I don’t believe. (Have you ever gotten into a discussion with a Muslim who argues that Catholicism is a Polytheistic religion?)

As an example, I have had interesting discussions with educated Hindus who insist that Hinduism is a Monotheistic religion and that westerners simply don’t understand Hinduism. I was told that the multiplicity of Hindu “gods” should be understood in the same way as the thousands of “Virgins” found in Catholic Churches are supposed to be understood by Catholics.

So it seems to me that, at least in a spirit of charity, if for no other reason, we should accept what other people claim to believe as their true beliefs. Why drive people away from the truth by insisting that they are lying when they tell us what they believe? (Isn’t that what they hear when we say that they don’t really believe what they say they believe?)

I understand the objection that we are really arguing that they don’t understand their own faith. Muslims don’t get very far with me when they make the argument that I don’t understand Catholicism.

Surely we have an obligation to attract people to the true faith. Wouldn’t it make more sense to listen respectfully, with an open mind, to the non-Catholic’s explanation of why they believe their religion is Monotheistic. Ask questions to make clear that their explanations are understood the same way by both of you. Then explain the Catholic belief on those same points. Finally, instead of trying to prove them wrong, leave the “proving” to the Holy Spirit. Won’t we have done our jobs simply by sowing the seeds we have been given?

Perhaps we might learn by reflecting on St. Paul’s sermon in the Temple of the Unknown God?

 

[KathleenGee]

Also, St. Justin the Martyr affirmed that Jesus Christ is the Lord and the Eucharist is Christ present. He was a defender for Christians and described the Mass to the Roman Emperor. He was also a philosopher.

St. Ireneaus was the greatest apologist refuting all heresies of the time.

But the discipline of doctrine did not come until later, considering the upheaval and persecutions Christianity went through its first 300 years.

Subsequently St. Justin the Martyr, St. Ireneaus, Origen, Tertullian, and others in that time period were not espousing doctrine. The Council of Nicea firmly established Christ as one with God, Christ as God with no beginning or end.

I think one of the problems those involved with churches who place themselves in antipathy towards the Catholic Church project their ways of relating and affirming…the Catholic Church is a community of believers. We do not heed the opinions or convictions of one person.

The protestant churches and Mormonism were founded by single men, or those with partners. What they said was right.

In Catholicism, as in how Christ Himself selected 12 apostles, and not one person…the Church has had many gifted teachers, theologians, apologists…but the Holy Spirit works in the gathering of the people. The Holy Spirit guides and teaches and affirms in the Church those teachers or apologists whose teachings are in the Spirit, not soley of their own opinion.

This is the same problem we see here on St. Augustine…people putting too much weight on his teachings, and not balanced with gifted teachers who are also contributing to the Life of the Spirit in the Church.

We do not follow one theologian, or one teacher…we are always open instead to the Holy Spirit working with those in communion with the Lord and with each other.

That is why we cannot just go off and follow a dissenting leader…some people do get caught up…but in the spirit of the Church, we do not revolve our faith around one man…only Jesus Christ. This explains why so many times, our saints, teachers, priests, etc. are taken out of context, misconstrued, and in the case of Mormonism, being reversed and mis used to prove Mormonism.

 

[twopekinguys]

I would consider the development of the concept of Trinity an example of change that took place. It certainly has been a source of very much discussion over the centuries. But if you want me to bullet-point a bunch of junk from anti-Catholic websites as is too often done here relative to the Mormons, I’m not really interested.

My objective is to try and introduce sources for consideration that seem to be never otherwise addressed when it comes to the Mormons. Isn’t it reasonable to think that might be included in a section that purports to discuss non-Catholic religions? Or is that just a front for something else entirely?

So, I’m taking that as a “no”. You can’t back up your statement. Go figure.

 

[PaulDupre]

Gentlemen, it took a council THEN to decide whether Heavenly Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost were one in the same or if they were three distinct parts of the Godhead. MEN voted for the idea of the Trinity.

Just as MEN voted that it was not necessary to become a Jew, be circumcised and obey the law of Moses in order to be a Christian. It was called the First Council of Jerusalem and is recorded in the 15th chapter of The Acts of the Apostles.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

P.S.: Note the chiasm

 

[PaulDupre]

Frankly the ideas that “God exists as three persons but is one God” . . . that Jesus was praying to himself in the Garden of Gethsemane . . . that when Christ was baptized “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” is nothing short of lunacy to me.

This is the typical Mormon tactic of misrepresenting what Christians believe. There is not a Christian on earth who believes that "Jesus was praying to himself in the Garden of Gethsemane ".

The Trinity as Christians understand it is the inescapable and obvious logical conclusion from the biblical text:

1. There is only one God. There has never been any other God and there will never be any other God.
2. Jesus referred to His Father as God and claimed that He (Jesus) is also God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The fact that Jesus prayed to His Father and referred to the Holy Spirit in the third person shows clearly that they are three distinct persons.
5. Three distinct persons, all of whom are God (and remember there is only ONE GOD), leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that God exists as a Trinity of three persons.

Any other conclusion is nothing short of lunacy to me.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Someone above mentioned henotheism—the belief that there are many gods but we should only worship one of them. He or she said, “This is what Mormons believe.”

Then someone else said in effect, “This is outside Christianity, is it not?”

I believe we need to make a distinction between essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and non-essentials. Although there are many non-essentials that are important—such as the admonition to raise your children with proper, loving discipline—there are only a few essentials. These few requirements of God for entrance to the kingdom of God are basically repentance, faith in Christ (enough to cause you to follow him as Lord), belief that Jesus is the Son of God (or the Messiah), and belief that God rewards those who earnestly seek him (Hebrews 11:6).

The Mormon Church of Salt Lake City does teach those essentials. And they don’t teach anything that contradicts those essentials. Therefore, a true Mormon—one who believes what the LDS teaches—is a Christian. Therefore, I classify the LDS as a foundationally Christian church.

That’s my strong conviction.

Also, Jesus said, “You’ll know them by their fruit.” Mormons are generally thought of as moral people–which they generally are.

Thanks for considering my viewpoint.
Those who defend their brothers and sisters in the Lord will be blessed; but those who slander them will bring misfortune upon themselves.

 

[PaulDupre]

Someone above mentioned henotheism—the belief that there are many gods but we should only worship one of them. He or she said, “This is what Mormons believe.”

Then someone else said in effect, “This is outside Christianity, is it not?”

I believe we need to make a distinction between essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and non-essentials. Although there are many non-essentials that are important—such as the admonition to raise your children with proper, loving discipline—there are only a few essentials. These few requirements of God for entrance to the kingdom of God are basically repentance, faith in Christ (enough to cause you to follow him as Lord), belief that Jesus is the Son of God (or the Messiah), and belief that God rewards those who earnestly seek him (Hebrews 11:6).

If you read the bible you will see that the most important foundational doctrine of both Judaism and Christianity is Monotheism - the truth that there is only ONE GOD.

The bible says this so often and so forcefully that I cannot understand how anyone could read it and not understand. If you choose to deny this one foundational (and essential) truth, then you are not a Christian. It is that simple.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[SteveVH]

May I ask what the objective is when we argue about what someone else believes? Why should anyone believe that a Catholic is an expert on Mormonism?

After having had many discussions with people that revealed how many false beliefs are held about the Catholic religion, I came to the conclusion that it is not very profitable to argue with someone who claims that I believe something I don’t believe. (Have you ever gotten into a discussion with a Muslim who argues that Catholicism is a Polytheistic religion?)

As an example, I have had interesting discussions with educated Hindus who insist that Hinduism is a Monotheistic religion and that westerners simply don’t understand Hinduism. I was told that the multiplicity of Hindu “gods” should be understood in the same way as the thousands of “Virgins” found in Catholic Churches are supposed to be understood by Catholics.

So it seems to me that, at least in a spirit of charity, if for no other reason, we should accept what other people claim to believe as their true beliefs. Why drive people away from the truth by insisting that they are lying when they tell us what they believe? (Isn’t that what they hear when we say that they don’t really believe what they say they believe?)

I understand the objection that we are really arguing that they don’t understand their own faith. Muslims don’t get very far with me when they make the argument that I don’t understand Catholicism.

Surely we have an obligation to attract people to the true faith. Wouldn’t it make more sense to listen respectfully, with an open mind, to the non-Catholic’s explanation of why they believe their religion is Monotheistic. Ask questions to make clear that their explanations are understood the same way by both of you. Then explain the Catholic belief on those same points. Finally, instead of trying to prove them wrong, leave the “proving” to the Holy Spirit. Won’t we have done our jobs simply by sowing the seeds we have been given?

Perhaps we might learn by reflecting on St. Paul’s sermon in the Temple of the Unknown God?

You are very new to this forum. Stick around and maybe you will better understand. The only thing any of us want, I believe, is for them to tell us exactly what they believe and stand by it. Now someone may be able to tell you that they believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each Gods in their own right, united in purpose, and that is only applicablle to this world; that there are other Gods in other worlds; that they themselves will become Gods over their own worlds, and then tell you that they believe in one God. If you want to pat them on the back and say good for you, you are free to do that. But the question asked in this thread is whether or not their beliefs constitute polytheism. When they explain that they do, in fact, believe in many gods and at the same time claim to be monotheists we have a slight problem, don’t you think?

 

[PaulDupre]

May I ask what the objective is when we argue about what someone else believes? Why should anyone believe that a Catholic is an expert on Mormonism?

Several of the Catholics here are former LDS who served missions and held many very responsible callings (myself included). We understand Mormonism very well. In fact, most of us left Mormonism after studying it very deeply for many years. After gaining a thorough understanding of LDS origins, history and teachings we came to the conclusion that Mormonism could not be the truth.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[KathleenGee]

Mike,

Why would Mormons want to use Catholic writings to prove their beliefs?

 

[mwok]

Someone above mentioned henotheism—the belief that there are many gods but we should only worship one of them. He or she said, “This is what Mormons believe.”

Then someone else said in effect, “This is outside Christianity, is it not?”

I believe we need to make a distinction between essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and non-essentials. Although there are many non-essentials that are important—such as the admonition to raise your children with proper, loving discipline—there are only a few essentials. These few requirements of God for entrance to the kingdom of God are basically repentance, faith in Christ (enough to cause you to follow him as Lord), belief that Jesus is the Son of God (or the Messiah), and belief that God rewards those who earnestly seek him (Hebrews 11:6).

The Mormon Church of Salt Lake City does teach those essentials. And they don’t teach anything that contradicts those essentials. Therefore, a true Mormon—one who believes what the LDS teaches—is a Christian. Therefore, I classify the LDS as a foundationally Christian church.

That’s my strong conviction.

Also, Jesus said, “You’ll know them by their fruit.” Mormons are generally thought of as moral people–which they generally are.

Thanks for considering my viewpoint.
Those who defend their brothers and sisters in the Lord will be blessed; but those who slander them will bring misfortune upon themselves.

I think our main objections to the mormon claims on this forum is that God the Father is one god, Jesus is another god, and the Holy Ghost is yet another god. Also, the claim that those faithful to mormon teachings will one day become a god.

 

[KathleenGee]

About our history, here is some history of our ancient saints…this one, Saint Sixtus, pope and martyr, who was arrested while celebrating the sacred liturgy in one of the catacombs. August 6, 257 he was put to death.

Here is a letter by St. Cyprian, bishop and martyr.

“I did not write to your community at once, dearest brother, because all the clergy, exposed as they are to the imminent danger of being put to the test and prepared in a spirit of dedication for the divine glory of heaven, were quite unable to leave here. But you must know that the messengers whom I dispatched to Rome have now returned. I sent them back to find out the truth and report back whatever may have been decreed in our regard, for many conflicting and unreliable rumors are current.”

“The true state of affairs is this. Valerian has issued an edict to the Senate to the effect that bishops, presbyters and deacons shall suffer the death penalty without delay. Senators, distinguished men and members of the equestrian class, are to be deprived of their rank and property, and if, after forfeiting their wealth and privileges, they still persist in professing Christianity, they too are to be sentenced to death. Ladies of the upper classes are to be deprived of their property and exiled. In the case of members of the imperial staff, any who have either previouslyl confessed or do now confess to being Christians shall have their property confiscated and shall be assigned as prisoners to the imperial estates.”

“To this decree the Emperor Valerian attached a copy of the letter he had sent to the provincial governors concerning us. Every day we are hoping that this letter will arrive, for we are standing firm in faith and ready to endure suffering, in expectation of winning the crown of eternal life through the help and mercy of the Lord. I must also inform you that Sixtus was put to death in a catacomb August 6, and four deacons with him. Moreover, the prefects in Rome are pressing this persecution zealously and without intermission, to such point that anyone brought before them is punished and his property is claimed by the treasury.”

“I ask you to make these facts known to the rest of our fellow bishops, in order that by the exhortation of their pastors the brethren everywhere may be strengthened and prepared for spiritual combat. Let all our people fix their minds not on death but on immortality; let them commit themselves to the Lord in complete faith and unflinching courage and make their confession with joy rather than fear, knowing that in this contest the soldiers of God and Christ are not slain but rather win their crowns.”

“Farewell in the Lord, dearest brother.’” Saint Cyprian.

No one can accuse this witness of faith as corrupt. And when God and Christ are used here, he means God as all powerful Creator, and Christ in particular, as the Son of Man Who remains with us.

 

[ParkerD]

You are very new to this forum. Stick around and maybe you will better understand. The only thing any of us want, I believe, is for them to tell us exactly what they believe and stand by it. Now someone may be able to tell you that they believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each Gods in their own right, united in purpose, and that is only applicablle to this world; that there are other Gods in other worlds; that they themselves will become Gods over their own worlds, and then tell you that they believe in one God. If you want to pat them on the back and say good for you, you are free to do that. But the question asked in this thread is whether or not their beliefs constitute polytheism. When they explain that they do, in fact, believe in many gods and at the same time claim to be monotheists we have a slight problem, don’t you think?

SteveVH,

I for one really appreciated “Cal Fullerton’s” statement and insight.

What I have gotten from this particular thread, is the insight that Catholics believe God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, are Separate and distinct Persons with Individuality, but that Catholics don’t believe Christ’s intercessory prayer had literal meaning, while Latter-day Saints do believe Christ was being very real and very precise in the words He used in the intercessory prayer and that to “be one with Them” is both possible and desirable through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Just as MEN voted that it was not necessary to become a Jew, be circumcised and obey the law of Moses in order to be a Christian. It was called the First Council of Jerusalem and is recorded in the 15th chapter of The Acts of the Apostles.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

P.S.: Note the chiasm

And just as MEN voted as to whether or not blacks could have the priesthood, or who would be the “prophet”.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Mike,

Why would Mormons want to use Catholic writings to prove their beliefs?

Deception, "we believe that too"I], makes proselytizing easier.

 

[mwok]

SteveVH,

I for one really appreciated “Cal Fullerton’s” statement and insight.

What I have gotten from this particular thread, is the insight that Catholics believe God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, are Separate and distinct Persons with Individuality, but that Catholics don’t believe Christ’s intercessory prayer had literal meaning, while Latter-day Saints do believe Christ was being very real and very precise in the words He used in the intercessory prayer and that to “be one with Them” is both possible and desirable through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ.

I think you misrepresent Catholics when you say we do not believe in a literal meaning in the Lord’s intercessory prayer, where we differ is how we will “be one with Them”. Mormon ideology uses it to defend the idea of becoming a god, where the Catholic Church has always taught that we will be one with Gods divinity. Just like we were when God first made man.

 

[NewSeeker]

SteveVH,

I for one really appreciated “Cal Fullerton’s” statement and insight.

What I have gotten from this particular thread, is the insight that Catholics believe God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, are Separate and distinct Persons with Individuality, but that Catholics don’t believe Christ’s intercessory prayer had literal meaning, while Latter-day Saints do believe Christ was being very real and very precise in the words He used in the intercessory prayer and that to “be one with Them” is both possible and desirable through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ.

If that’s what you got from this particular thread, then you need to go back and reread it. What you fail to grasp is the nature of the infinite reality of God: that, although Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one divine essence, they are three distinct persons in a relationship. The divine essence is infinite and utterly transcendant - it is Being itself; our human essence is finite and contingent - that’s why we homo sapiens can only be one person and have only one nature (essence). You and I can’t share an essence between our two persons because we are finite beings. Yet, the distinction between you and me as persons is just as real as the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as persons. IMO, the reason some people have such difficulty with the trinitarian doctrine is because they cannot imagine such a being as God actually existing. No wonder, as our imaginations are rooted in the contingency and changeability of our material existence and experiences. There is nothing unchanging, transcendant, and infinite that exists, or can exist, as a part of the material cosmos. But the trinitarian doctrine is not the product of imagination; it is the product of reason, building upon revelation preserved within the Tradition of the Church and metaphysical truths which entail the necessity of a First Cause which is Being Itself, preserving the material cosmos in existence from moment to moment. God is both Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and also Being As Such, the First Cause and Prime Mover. As God is immaterial and is not a man (he is not human, not a homo sapiens), God cannot be imagined, but He can be conceived through reason. That is an important distinction that is often missed in these kinds of discussions. One thing that is certainly true is that the anthroporphic God of Mormonism, an embodied male with fingers, toes, nipples, and flowing locks - sitting on a throne somewhere or walking around in white robes - is a philosophical impossibility. Unless, that is, God is conceived as Mormons imagine him as a being made of matter (and, therefore, subject to the limitations of both time and space (by definition)). But then, that kind of God is in reality just a highly-evolved spaceman (how does he resist the ravages of time and space on his planet, force fields???). Even if that’s all God is, such a conception (which is very easy to imagine - and such an anthropomorphic god is the god of children) still begs the most important question - who/what made God and who/what created the material cosmos (any and all existing universes)? Hence, Joseph Smith’s implied system of gods (turtles) all the way down within a cosmos that has always just existed. Modern mormonism has distanced itself from this implied system, but that just re-begs the question that Joseph Smith sought to answer with his King Follett discourse. We now have within Mormon thought an anthromorphic, physical god made of matter, and therefore subjected by categorical necessity to the limitations of time and space, that is also somehow (confusingly and unphilosophically) believed to transcend those limitations (god is imagined by mormons to be a man who is eternal and possess infinite and transcendent power through his priesthood). The Mormon god is merely a powerful man sitting in a fancy chair or walking about with his wife or wives at his side, on a planet somewhere out there near a distant star named Kolob, who is able to use his priesthood to somehow negate the effects and limitations of time and space - kind of like an entity in a Star Trek episode. The current Mormon conception of God is the true incomprehensible mishmash in this discussion.

 

[mwok]

Anyone read Acts 13:22-23?

Herod let the people think he was a god and an angel struck him down…

Methinks godhood is not something to be sought.