Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[PaulDupre]

Paul,

That is also a tremendous statement on your parents part and their fidelity to prayer.

Yes, indeed. Their example of faith and the peace and joy they had as a result was an important factor in my ultimate attraction to the Catholic Faith. I wanted what they had.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[mwok]

I had a discussion with a mormon coworker of mine about why the BoM says “they fell to their knees and worshipped Him”(referring to Jesus), I think it was 2 Nephi, and he said they worship God the Father through Jesus Christ. Also in the D&C 20:28 Joseph Smith says that the Father,Son and Holy Ghost are ONE infinite and eternal(no mention of the word purpose)

 

[mwok]

Likewise, we need to pray with the same fidelity as Paul’s parents for the Mormons will come to the Lord as we know Him.

Great idea!! while we are at it, will all Catholics reading this forum say a quick prayer for our Mormon brothers and sisters.

 

[mwok]

And to our Mormon brethren, please forgive me if what I post seems an attack on your faith. Not my intention, I pray that the Holy Spirit help me respond in love and respect. However, I am human and being a former mormon carry some hurt over being mislead.

 

[PaulDupre]

I had a discussion with a mormon coworker of mine about why the BoM says “they fell to their knees and worshipped Him”(referring to Jesus), I think it was 2 Nephi, and he said they worship God the Father through Jesus Christ. Also in the D&C 20:28 Joseph Smith says that the Father,Son and Holy Ghost are ONE infinite and eternal(no mention of the word purpose)

It was 3 Nephi and there is no mention in that passage of worshipping The Father. They worshipped Jesus - plain and simple.

Joseph Smith’s ideas on the nature of God evolved over time. In the early sections of the D&C, as well as in the Book of Mormon and the Lectures on Faith, JS taught a very 19th-century Protestant trinitarian view of God (though it did evince a tendency toward the heresy of modalism). Later in his career, Joseph developed his multi-god theory and began to preach about multiple gods and men becoming gods.

That is why the Book of Mormon does not teach any of the uniquely LDS doctrines that modern LDS take for granted - Joseph had not created those beliefs yet.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[mwok]

It was 3 Nephi and there is no mention in that passage of worshipping The Father. They worshipped Jesus - plain and simple.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

That’s what I thought, and just for clarification I asked my wife who has a B.S. in Lit. to see if there was possibly any shift in whom was being worshipped. Thanks for the clarification on the referrence.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Define “Christian” for me please.

Here you are, Irishmen,

CHRISTIAN - A person who is validly baptized in the name of the Trinity, as defined by the Catholic Church - in the name of the Father, and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. Amen. A professed Christian in the West also believes in the tenets of the Apostles’ Creed.

The Catholic Church accepts other Christian baptisms. The attempts at baptism by Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not accepted because these are not Christian; that is, these organizations do not baptize in the name of the Christian Trinity.

A Catholic Christian further accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church, participates in the Eucharistic liturgy and sacraments of Catholic Christianity, and gives allegiance to the Catholic hierarchy and especially to the Bishop of Rome.

Apostles’ Creed: I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, And in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended to the dead The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen

It should be noted that Eastern Christians do not have the Apostles’ Creed in their liturgy; it is therefore not a requirement for them. However, they use other, similar creeds.

Reference: Modern Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S.J.

Jim Dandy

 

[PaulDupre]

Here is the passage from 3 Nephi:

12 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words the whole multitude fell to the earth; for they remembered that it had been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto them after his ascension into heaven.

13 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying:

14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole dearth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.

15 And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.

16 And when they had all gone forth and had witnessed for themselves, they did cry out with one accord, saying:

17 Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him.

• 3 Nephi 11:12-17

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[mwok]

That’s the one! My mormon coworker stated that it is through Jesus that the Father is worshipped. No response to D&C 20:28 though.

 

[PaulDupre]

That’s the one! My mormon coworker stated that it is through Jesus that the Father is worshipped. No response to D&C 20:28 though.

That is the current LDS teaching, though it conflicts with the Book of Mormon and the earliest teachings of Joseph Smith.

Mormon doctrine is ever-changing. I am curious to see what the LDS religion morphs into over the next 20 years or so. I’m sure it will bear little resemblance to the Mormonism of today, just as the Mormonism of today bears little resemblance to the Mormonism of 180 years ago.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[mwok]

I agree. After reading these treads concerning mormonism though I have concluded that the words “doctrine” and “teachings” should be referred to with the word “ideas”, because it seems that, like you say, it is ever changing and no 2 mormons seem to agree with eachother.

 

[PaulDupre]

I agree. After reading these treads concerning mormonism though I have concluded that the words “doctrine” and “teachings” should be referred to with the word “ideas”, because it seems that, like you say, it is ever changing and no 2 mormons seem to agree with each other.

Yes. What we see on this forum is that each Mormon, lacking any clear exposition of doctrine (such as a Catechism) and confronted with conflicting and ever-changing doctrines, cobbles together his own religion, loosely based on Mormonism and incorporating a great deal of personal speculation and fantasy, and declares it to be Mormonism. That is why none of the Mormons we encounter have the same (or even similar) beliefs.

The only thing they all have in common is that they believe that the LDS church is “true”, despite the fact that what that “truth” is can never quite be defined. Perhaps the only thing all Mormons agree on is that all other churches are “corrupt” and “apostate”.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[mwok]

I think another thing that gets in the way is continuing revelation. This coworker I debate with once told me “prophets may fall, apostles may apostasize, but my knowlegde of the truth which was revealed to me by revelation of the Great Apostasy given to me by the Holy Ghost will never fail.”

To me it was startling that he would claim to receive revelation as he could very well lead the mormon church.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

That is the current LDS teaching, though it conflicts with the Book of Mormon and the earliest teachings of Joseph Smith.

Mormon doctrine is ever-changing. I am curious to see what the LDS religion morphs into over the next 20 years or so. I’m sure it will bear little resemblance to the Mormonism of today, just as the Mormonism of today bears little resemblance to the Mormonism of 180 years ago.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Paul,

I read somewhere (can’t remember the source) that David O. McKay wanted to make Mormonism more “Christian” in order to make it more acceptable to Christians, and began “sanitizing” Mormon teaching and suppressing the documents that contain the early doctrines of Mormonism that Christians found so shocking and objectionable. That’s why McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine, The Seer, and other documents got axed. Any truth to that?

Do you have any info about Mormon ownership of the financial infrastructure of the United States and other American businesses? If you do, I’d like to start a separate thread so I can educate myself and others. Or perhaps there has already been a thread on this subject?

Thanks, Jim Dandy

 

[mwok]

Paul,

I read somewhere (can’t remember the source) that David O. McKay wanted to make Mormonism more “Christian” in order to make it more acceptable to Christians, and began “sanitizing” Mormon teaching and suppressing the documents that contain the early doctrines of Mormonism that Christians found so shocking and objectionable. That’s why McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine, The Seer, and other documents got axed. Any truth to that?

Do you have any info about Mormon ownership of the financial infrastructure of the United States and other American businesses? If you do, I’d like to start a separate thread so I can educate myself and others. Or perhaps there has already been a thread on this subject?

Thanks, Jim Dandy

Jim, I think if you wiki any of the tussles the mormon settlers had in Missouri I think it said something about land monopolization and a bank that JS owned that failed.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Yes. What we see on this forum is that each Mormon, lacking any clear exposition of doctrine (such as a Catechism) and confronted with conflicting and ever-changing doctrines, cobbles together his own religion, loosely based on Mormonism and incorporating a great deal of personal speculation and fantasy, and declares it to be Mormonism. That is why none of the Mormons we encounter have the same (or even similar) beliefs.

The only thing they all have in common is that they believe that the LDS church is “true”, despite the fact that what that “truth” is can never quite be defined. Perhaps the only thing all Mormons agree on is that all other churches are “corrupt” and “apostate”.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

I’ve noticed that with “The Only Begotten Son”, no explanation as to just how that might fit into a theology the is quite clear that Jesus is our older brother, literally born of the the same Heavenly parents. While I can see their understanding where Jesus is the only son physically begotten in “mortality” I don’t see how you can mesh our view of the Son as the “Only Begotten” with theirs like Parker wants to do. It seems they all make up what they believe according to what ever strikes their fancy.

 

[mwok]

I’ve noticed that with “The Only Begotten Son”, no explanation as to just how that might fit into a theology the is quite clear that Jesus is our older brother, literally born of the the same Heavenly parents. While I can see their understanding where Jesus is the only son physically begotten in “mortality” I don’t see how you can mesh our view of the Son as the “Only Begotten” with theirs like Parker wants to do. It seems they all make up what they believe according to what ever strikes their fancy.

Not to mention the overlooking of the greek word “monogenes” which has the word “begotten”, which implies that the Son and the Father are one substance.

“Begotten, not made”

 

[ParkerD]

You have never explained how He could be the Only Begotten of the Father when LDS theology has all of us as literal children of God the Father.?

Z,

Here are some applicable verses about the Only Begotten of the Father:

Moses 6:62
62 And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:13; 29:46
76:13 Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning;

29:46 But behold, I say unto you, that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten;

John 1:14; 3:16
1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

His Only Begotten Son “was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning”.

That is a profound difference in comparing Him with anyone else–He is uniquely His Only Begotten Son, “who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning.”

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks for your explanation, Parker. I’m still unclear about several things. Please tell me where I am wrong in my understanding.

It appears, from your explanation, that it really was part of God’s intention that sin enter the world so that we would then be faced with “choices” which are necessary for our progression. In other words, we are really “saved” by the choices we make.

The Catholic understanding, at least my understanding as a Catholic, is that God created us to live and walk in his presence, to have a relationship with him as his sons and daughters. Satan stepped in to thwart this relationship by tempting man, by placing doubt in his heart as to the intentions of his Creator, in order to break this relationship. Mankind gave into temptation and disobeyed God. This act changed our relationship, in fact, it changed all of creation. Sin and death had now entered in where they did not exist before. There was no need for salvation until this occurred. Adam and Eve were created with free will, they were not dependent upon sin in order to acquire free will (otherwise they could not have “chosen” to disobey God prior to sinning). They were created with free will for the purpose of “choosing” to love God, not being forced to love God. They instead “chose” to disobey God and now were in need of salvation due to that “choice”.

SteveVH,

It would be an incorrect statement to say “it was part of God’s intention that sin enter the world”. It would be correct to say “It was part of God’s intention that free will choice be given to humankind.” It would also be correct to say, “God knew through His perfect foreknowledge that humankind would sin.”

This does not mean that God was complicit or that it was part of His intention that Satan would introduce sin into the world. Satan did that tempting, acting of Satan’s own volition. By God’s foreknowledge, He knew what Satan would do after the creation, when Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden as well as now, when we are here on the earth. God also knew that free will choice would accomplish an ultimately good purpose.

Satan continues to act of his own volition every single time he or his fallen angel followers influence through temptation, anyone to commit sin.

Receiving Christ’s redemption is a choice available to be made by every person who has attained an age where they can make an accountable choice.

So, “we are saved by a choice we can make and we need to make–to choose Him.”

 

[ParkerD]

(Continuation)
(Steve’s understanding of Latter-day Saint teachings on this subject)
Ok, so again, the plan was that man would come to earth and be faced with choices between good and evil. This exercise was necessary for our progression (and therefore our salvation). It was God that presented the plan, therefore God intended evil as a part of his plan (so that we would have “choices to make”). And this is where it really gets fuzzy for me. Adam and Eve, by choosing to disobey God, were really obeying him because this is just what he had planned. Disobedience was God’s will in order that we could progress. Please tell me where I am inaccurate in my assessment here.

My understanding as a Catholic is that God knew from eternity that a Redeemer would be necessary because he is omniscient. His will (which Adam and Eve disobeyed) was that his children love him and trust in him alone. The nature of love necessitates a “choice” to love (one cannot love unless he/she chooses to love). So the free will “choice” existed prior to the fall. God not only did not, but cannot will evil. Yes, he knew the choice that would be made because he knows everything, but he did not will it. His will was that Adam and Eve obey him, that is why it was a sin when they didn’t. They disobeyed his will. In spite of man’s disobedience, God, being always faithful promised to send a Redeemer to save us from the consequences of Adam and Eve’s choice to disobey God.

SteveVH,

To say that God allowed evil to happen as a part of His plan of salvation, and that God cast Satan and the fallen angels out of heaven and they were cast out “into the earth” knowing that they would “deceive the whole world” (Revelation 12:9) is the correct statement, and thus evil became part of the opportunity of “free will choice”–one of the potential choices that can be made. God does not originate the evil–Satan does. The “blame” should go back to the originator of the evil–back to Satan.

It doesn’t need to be “fuzzy” to understand that Eve, and then Adam, disobeyed God because of the temptation of Satan toward Eve, and that Eve thought using her own mind and her own volition, that “the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise,…” (Genesis 3:6)

If one wants to blame God for placing the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden and thus giving Adam and Eve the potential to choose to eat its fruit, then I suppose that is a choice someone can make to blame God about it. God did place the tree there, and it had fruit that was enticing and could be eaten. If the tree were not there, then there would have been no choice available about it. But it was placed there, with its fruit, which if the words be true about it, it was “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” (Genesis 2:17)

By the way, there is nothing in the Genesis account or in any other account that says God told Adam and Eve that if they ate that fruit they “didn’t love Him” or would be showing an abandonment of their love for Him. It was not the “tree of whether or not the person eating this fruit loves God”. The deceiver can make it mean that, but God did not make it mean that.