Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[Cal_Fullerton]

He [Cal] certainly does seem to be using a lot of the same rhetoric, circular arguments and ‘buzzwords’ that all Mormons use. Not to mention the typically ‘butter wouldn’t melt in my mouth’ type of sickeningly sweet condescension towards anyone that disagrees with them.

It’s a typical ploy that’s used many times by forum ‘trolls’. They post under another name to offer ‘support’ to another of their own forum ID’s, or to one of their friends that can’t seem to make a believable point on their own and need to bring in ‘reinforcements’, to help them with their arguments. It’s a very old forum trick that some people like to use to make themselves sound more convincing. Having been on a few other forums, I tend to be skeptical when someone just pops in from out of nowhere to defend someone that’s having a hard time convincing others that he’s telling the truth. I guess I’ve gotten a bit cynical after a few too many go-arounds with some of them.

I don’t blame you for being cynical but you are wrong. You should be more careful about what you say.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Logically, when we make a statement about God (e.g. “God is Love”, “God has the fullness of truth”), we cannot be speaking accurately about God but only using a figure of speech (metaphor, analogy, etc.) in an attempt to convey a limited way to relate to God. God can’t have parts so He can’t have a finite part and an infinite part. He is completely not finite. Any words or combination of words is completely finite. Hence it is impossible to use words to accurately say anything positive about what God is. If we could actually describe God, we could understand him, How can a finite mind encompass infinity?

If both a Mormon and a non-Mormon agree on the definition of Polytheism, and the Mormon says he is not a Polytheist, yet uses words to describe God that the non-Mormon interprets as expressing Polytheism, then it seems to me that there are only two possibilities. Either the Mormon is just playing and not trying to express anything real or else the non-Mormon lacks the cultural experience and references to understand the way that the Mormon understands the words he uses as a way to gain a limited appreciation of God.

In either case, I certainly agree that “there’s a disconnect of communication”.

Is it reasonable to demand that the Mormon translate his words into a metaphorical/analogical language that has the same meaning in the non-Mormon’s culture? Translating culturally specific references is extremely difficult.

Wouldn’t the onus be on the non-Mormon to learn enough about Mormonism to be able to understand the Mormon’s metaphorical/analogical language?

Wow, you are a deep thinker, Mike!
I agree with your last three paragraphs. People can call me names all they want to—they called Jesus horrible names—but this is what I’ve done—what God has led me to do—to, as you put it, “learn enough about Mormonism to be able to understand the Mormon’s metaphorical/analogical language.”

When it comes to the topic of this thread, I believe it is indispensably necessary. It’s also very difficult, as you said.
Thanks, Mike, for your refreshing comments!

It’s getting late, so I must quit while I’m . . . ahead, behind, whatever. I hope I haven’t left too many comments.

Blessings to you.

 

[lax16]

Hi Lax16!

Since we’re off subject, I’ll be brief.
Mormons don’t think this is all it takes. The Bible does.

Hi Cal - I am assuming then you don’t agree with the Mormons?

The Bible does not say that is all it takes - we must do as Jesus commanded and celebrate the Eucharist.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

Jesus lived on the earth, was called “Man of Holiness”, and was divine and is divine. I never said, nor would I, that “they were human”. The Joseph Smith quote says “the same as Jesus Christ Himself did”–which is clear and to the point. Jesus was divine when He lived on this earth and walked with the apostles and taught them.

So God’s parents were gods?

How did Jesus get brought into the conversation - the question is who were the parents of God the Father? Were they gods? It appears that JS said so and you either agree with him or you don’t (as he was the one who developed this doctrine, right?) If you don’t then say so - if you do, then say so.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Logically, when we make a statement about God (e.g. “God is Love”, “God has the fullness of truth”), we cannot be speaking accurately about God but only using a figure of speech (metaphor, analogy, etc.) in an attempt to convey a limited way to relate to God. God can’t have parts so He can’t have a finite part and an infinite part. He is completely not finite. Any words or combination of words is completely finite. Hence it is impossible to use words to accurately say anything positive about what God is. If we could actually describe God, we could understand him, How can a finite mind encompass infinity?

If both a Mormon and a non-Mormon agree on the definition of Polytheism, and the Mormon says he is not a Polytheist, yet uses words to describe God that the non-Mormon interprets as expressing Polytheism, then it seems to me that there are only two possibilities. Either the Mormon is just playing and not trying to express anything real or else the non-Mormon lacks the cultural experience and references to understand the way that the Mormon understands the words he uses as a way to gain a limited appreciation of God.

In either case, I certainly agree that “there’s a disconnect of communication”.

Is it reasonable to demand that the Mormon translate his words into a metaphorical/analogical language that has the same meaning in the non-Mormon’s culture? Translating culturally specific references is extremely difficult.

Wouldn’t the onus be on the non-Mormon to learn enough about Mormonism to be able to understand the Mormon’s metaphorical/analogical language?

Hello Mike, the disconnect is coming from LDS, who view themselves as monotheist by the fact that they worship one god. But their beliefs and scripture clearly express polytheism, as they have a belief that there are many gods (what they call a plurality of gods), but they only concern themselves with one of them. It is just a fact of Mormonism, it has many of these paradoxes.

There is a Mormon book titled: “People Of Paradox”. Where the LDS author proposes that Mormonism is a series of paradoxes, and not fixed principles. So they are very aware of this aspect of their religion.

Coming from an LDS background, and knowing many LDS who converted to Catholicism, we clearly understand Mormon language. Also, Mormon belief regarding who God is. It is why LDS converts have always expressed a desire to be baptized. It is because we know, in light of Christian doctrine, our Mormon baptism isn’t based on anything that is Christian in nature. Beginning with, WHO GOD IS.

Hope that helps.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You are free to explain further, Rebecca. I will listen. (If you need to read my message again, it was Message #940, I believe.)
Have a nice day.

Cal, every word in that post that expresses Christian belief is defined differently in Mormonism, and/or has concepts associated to those words that are not Christian in nature.

As an example, “Salvation” in Mormonism is defined differently, by the fact the Mormons reject Original Sin. Also, Salvation is tied intimately to who Jesus is, the second Person of the Holy Trinity. Mormons reject who God is, and also, have no understanding of the Incarnation.

That isn’t to say Mormons are not seeking Jesus, or that many Mormons are not seeking a Christian life. They are, but the religion they are following is not a Christian religion.

 

[ParkerD]

So God’s parents were gods?

How did Jesus get brought into the conversation - the question is who were the parents of God the Father? Were they gods? It appears that JS said so and you either agree with him or you don’t (as he was the one who developed this doctrine, right?) If you don’t then say so - if you do, then say so.

Lax16,

By bringing the statement from Joseph Smith from the King Follett Sermon into the conversation, you brought Jesus into the conversation. Just because you didn’t bring the quote within its context, doesn’t mean there wasn’t a context for the quote that included the words “the same as Jesus Christ Himself did”. Those words are talking about the divine Son of the divine Father. The quote is incomplete without that context.

So if you are making the assumption that God the Father had parents because of the statement that He lived on an earth “the same as Jesus Christ Himself did”, then that would mean those parents are divine parents, living in a different universe than our universe and that they still do live there and it is outside of our system of creation and they are One and have omnipotence and omniscience and are perfectly loving and perfectly good consistent with God the Father.

What I agree with is the statement that “God the Father lived on an earth the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.” And the statement that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man; the Son also.” (D & C 130:22) This means the Father has a resurrected body, with a fullness of joy and a fullness of Lights and Perfections.

It also means that to live in the presence of the Father, one absolutely must be perfectly clean every whit through the atoning grace of Christ and be perfectly united in will and desires with Their will through personal acts and desires expressing free will choice, and through being resurrected with a body that is a celestial body.

This is what the Savior prayed for for us, if we choose, in His intercessory prayer (John 17). If you’re going to say “that’s polytheism”, then blame it on Him, not me or Joseph Smith.

 

[mwok]

Lax16,

By bringing the statement from Joseph Smith from the King Follett Sermon into the conversation, you brought Jesus into the conversation. Just because you didn’t bring the quote within its context, doesn’t mean there wasn’t a context for the quote that included the words “the same as Jesus Christ Himself did”. Those words are talking about the divine Son of the divine Father. The quote is incomplete without that context.

So if you are making the assumption that God the Father had parents because of the statement that He lived on an earth “the same as Jesus Christ Himself did”, then that would mean those parents are divine parents, living in a different universe than our universe and that they still do live there and it is outside of our system of creation and they are One and have omnipotence and omniscience and are perfectly loving and perfectly good consistent with God the Father.

What I agree with is the statement that “God the Father lived on an earth the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.” And the statement that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man; the Son also.” (D & C 130:22) This means the Father has a resurrected body, with a fullness of joy and a fullness of Lights and Perfections.

It also means that to live in the presence of the Father, one absolutely must be perfectly clean every whit through the atoning grace of Christ and be perfectly united in will and desires with Their will through personal acts and desires expressing free will choice, and through being resurrected with a body that is a celestial body.

This is what the Savior prayed for for us, if we choose, in His intercessory prayer (John 17). If you’re going to say “that’s polytheism”, then blame it on Him, not me or Joseph Smith.

Since John 17 was brought up, is Jesus a liar from the beginning?

according to mormon ideology Jesus’ plan was that all glory and honor go to the Father and yet in John 17 Jesus asks the Father to glorify Him with the glory they had since before the beginning. So was Jesus waiting until the plan was almost complete to show his real motives?

 

[ParkerD]

Since John 17 was brought up, is Jesus a liar from the beginning?

according to mormon ideology Jesus’ plan was that all glory and honor go to the Father and yet in John 17 Jesus asks the Father to glorify Him with the glory they had since before the beginning. So was Jesus waiting until the plan was almost complete to show his real motives?

Mwok,

I have no idea what your questions mean. I guess you may need to restate them, or explain what you mean by those questions. Of course the answer to your first question is “no”.

 

[mwok]

In Jn 17:1 it states: “These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:”

according to mormon ideology, Jesus’ plan was that man have free will and ALL glory go to the Father.

In the verse I referrenced above Jesus is asking for the same glory the Father has, it seems Jesus is now asking that he share the glory he said the Father would have entirely.

 

[ParkerD]

In Jn 17:1 it states: “These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:”

according to mormon ideology, Jesus’ plan was that man have free will and ALL glory go to the Father.

In the verse I referrenced above Jesus is asking for the same glory the Father has, it seems Jesus is now asking that he share the glory he said the Father would have entirely.

Mwok,

Oh.

If I understand where your question is coming from, then the words “Jesus’ plan” are talking about the pre-mortal council in heaven. That question has a wrong premise.

In that council in heaven, Heavenly Father presented His plan, and Jesus was in total agreement with Heavenly Father’s plan. Jesus already had “glory” of being God as God the Son at that point. He was already God’s Beloved Only Begotten Son who was known by us as having that unique role, and was perfect including perfectly loving with perfect love for us, and perfectly perfect in desiring Heavenly Father’s will be done including that all “glory” (meaning what one could call “credit for the plan and for carrying it out”) should go to Heavenly Father for His plan of salvation, which does indeed include free will choice. Jesus acted from His own free will choice to completely sustain and accept Heavenly Father’s plan, and to say, “Here am I, send me” when asked who was willing to be sent to this earth and be the Redeemer and Savior of humankind when the time came to do that.

Jesus’ intercessory prayer shows that He has sustained Heavenly Father’s plan, and understands that the glory He as God the Son had in pre-mortal life is the glory He will still have when He returns to His Father as the resurrected Jesus Christ, the resurrected Immanuel, the resurrected Jehovah. That prayer also shows that Jesus was asking that humankind be one with Them.

 

[Miriam1947]

Parker, where does this come from?

**In that council in heaven, Heavenly Father presented His plan, and Jesus was in total agreement with Heavenly Father’s plan. **

Where does Mormonism get the council? Where do you get info about the plan? And the agreement Jesus has with Heavenly Father.?

Is this in a book? I don’t recall reading about it in the Bible.

 

[catholic-rcia]

I think this would be a good time to talk to Parker about why it is so important to not only worship our Creator, but to understand that there is only one Creator of all things.

Why it is dangerous to believe that there is a line of gods?

You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! – James

Why would the demons want us to believe that there are other gods other than the Father?

What would this feed into?

What would a Catholic Saint say about all of this?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, where does this come from?

**In that council in heaven, Heavenly Father presented His plan, and Jesus was in total agreement with Heavenly Father’s plan. **

Where does Mormonism get the council? Where do you get info about the plan? And the agreement Jesus has with Heavenly Father.?

Is this in a book? I don’t recall reading about it in the Bible.

Miriam,

One can read about this in greater detail in the Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4:1-2.

Using the Bible alone as the source of study about this, one can read Isaiah 14:13-14 to read about Lucifer’s rebellion against Heavenly Father’s plan, and read about the effects of that rebellion in Revelation 12:7-10 where Satan and the fallen angels were “cast out into the earth” and that Satan had “accused them before our God day and night”. One can add to their insight by reading Isaiah 61:1-2 and seeing that Jesus was “anointed” during the council in pre-mortal life, to be sent to earth as the Redeemer and Savior.

There are many passages in the four Gospels that show that Jesus knew He was sent by His Father. “Sent” means there was a plan in place, and He was sent as a part of that plan. It was not a “happenstance”–it was a divine plan of salvation through Redemption, and God the Son was foreordained to be the Redeemer as part of Heavenly Father’s plan which He sustained by offering to be the One who would be the “Sent One”.

 

[Miriam1947]

Parker, where does this come from?

**In that council in heaven, Heavenly Father presented His plan, and Jesus was in total agreement with Heavenly Father’s plan. **

Where does Mormonism get the council? Where do you get info about the plan? And the agreement Jesus has with Heavenly Father.?

Is this in a book? I don’t recall reading about it in the Bible.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Using the Bible alone as the source of study about this, one can read Isaiah 14:13-14 to read about Lucifer’s rebellion against Heavenly Father’s plan, and read about the effects of that rebellion in Revelation

Says nothing about the Mormon council in heaven and is speaking to the downfall of the King of Babylon.

12:7-10 where Satan and the fallen angels were “cast out into the earth” and that Satan had “accused them before our God day and night”.

This isn’t in Isaiah 12

One can add to their insight by reading Isaiah 61:1-2 and seeing that Jesus was “anointed” during the council in pre-mortal life, to be sent to earth as the Redeemer and Savior.

This is speaking of the anointing of Isaiah.

There are many passages in the four Gospels that show that Jesus knew He was sent by His Father. “Sent” means there was a plan in place, and He was sent as a part of that plan. It was not a “happenstance”–it was a divine plan of salvation through Redemption, and God the Son was foreordained to be the Redeemer as part of Heavenly Father’s plan which He sustained by offering to be the One who would be the “Sent One”.

Yes, this is Christian doctrine. Jesus IS GOD, though the “sustaining” part is a Mormon invention. God does not need to sustain Himself. Such an idea presupposes that the Holy Trinity is not One, but rather has the possibility of being divided.

Still, nothing that addresses a “council in heaven” as taught by the LDS Church.

 

[Mike_Dante]

No, (most) Catholics don’t claim to receive secret knowledge from God by special, private revelation, as does Mr. Fullerton. And if they do, we’re skeptical.

The Church is not based on the NT. The NT is based on the living, teaching Church who wrote it. So whether you think the so-called Gospel of Thomas should have been accepted or not is irrelevant. The teaching of the Church comes from the Apostles, not from the NT. The NT confirms her teachings, but is not their source. Why do I believe the Church is led by the Spirit? Because the Church founded by Christ, the God-Man, for the salvation of the world, says so! The Church speaks for Christ (Luke 10:16). That is why I believe Trent – or any other Council. The Church is literally the Body of Christ, His Bride.

The Holy Spirit, I’m sure I don’t need to tell you, is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Grace is the supernatural gift that God, in his benevolence, bestows on rational creatures for their salvation. It is a gift freely given. There are different kinds: actual, efficacious, gratuitous, habitual, justifying, sacramental, sanating, sufficient, and sanctifying grace. An example of actual grace would be the impulse which caused me to begin my study of the Catholic Church when I was a contented atheist. Sanctifying grace is the Divine Life of God which Catholics receive in the Eucharist, in Confession, and in the Anointing of the Sick.

Anyone who believes in the so-called “apostasy” calls Christ a liar.

Jim Dandy

 In an argument, if each side doesn't try to understand what the other is trying to say from the point of view of the one making the statement,  the two sides will not be speaking with each other but talking past each other.

 My impression is that in this thread, the discussion frequently goes like this: one side says "A", and the response is "you are wrong to say B, the truth is C".

 Let me illustrate what I mean from the reply to me quoted above.  First, let me make it clear that what I am giving is my personal impression, not an attempt to say that anything you posted is actually wrong.

 I suggested that it is difficult to see any difference between the action of the Holy Spirit and the Grace of the Lord.  For example, Catholic teaching is that the Pope is infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra".  Wouldn't it be possible for a person who does **not** believe that the present day Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, to respond, "It is nonsense for Catholics to claim that the Pope receives secret knowledge from God by special, private revelation, that he can then declare to be true."  Of course the Church doesn't use the words "secret knowledge" or "special, private, revelation" but rather "Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility".  Now I am sure that you can explain this teaching without using the words in quotes, but I am equally sure that a reasonable person could respond that your explanation is a distinction without a difference.  After all, a primary reason for making a "de fide" declaration is to correct errors that have crept into the Church.  So if there is a contrary opinion in the Church, where does the Pope get the knowledge of which opinion is right?  The Church does not claim that all of the Pope's opinions are infallible, but does teach that the Pope has the ability to declare infallibly that one of his opinions are certainly true, despite contrary opinion within the Church.  Where does he get this "secret knowledge" (that his opinion is certainly true and the opposing opinion held perhaps by Catholic Scholars much more learned than the Pope, is false) if not from "special, private, revelation"?

I used as an example the exclusion of the Gospel of Thomas from the Canon. The response “The Church is not based on the NT” appears to be an example of not understanding what was meant. Hundreds of years after the death of Christ, the Church decided that the Gospel of Thomas should not be in the NT. I gave that as my example. Responding with “The Church is not based on the NT” seem to be implying that I was arguing against that. Many people reading that opening statement will not pay much attention to the rest of the paragraph because they will conclude that you didn’t understand what was said, so any following explanation must be irrelevant.

Or consider the statement "Anyone who believes in the so-called "apostasy" calls Christ a liar."   Anyone who believes that events like the scandals of the Borgia Popes and the Church having three Popes at one time are proofs that the hierarchy of the Catholic church led their followers out of the Church founded by Christ (wouldn't this be the definition of apostasy?),  would be likely to take that statement as nothing but an ad hominem attack. (After all, many of these people claim that the Church of Christ carried on without a break outside the Catholic Church.)  It seems to me that personal attacks are not likely to result in productive discussions.

 Note once more, I am not saying that anything in your posting was false, only that, in my opinion, postings that can be interpreted as above are not useful.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

By bringing the statement from Joseph Smith from the King Follett Sermon into the conversation, you brought Jesus into the conversation. Just because you didn’t bring the quote within its context, doesn’t mean there wasn’t a context for the quote that included the words “the same as Jesus Christ Himself did”. Those words are talking about the divine Son of the divine Father. The quote is incomplete without that context.

So if you are making the assumption that God the Father had parents because of the statement that He lived on an earth “the same as Jesus Christ Himself did”, then that would mean those parents are divine parents, living in a different universe than our universe and that they still do live there and it is outside of our system of creation and they are One and have omnipotence and omniscience and are perfectly loving and perfectly good consistent with God the Father.

There are 30 posts left on this thread and I believe that you will do anything to avoid answering the questions until then.

I posted the words of your prophet not mine - therefore I am not making an assumption about anything. Again:

** I will preach on the plurality of Gods… Our text says, ‘And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father.’ The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above… My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” —Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370

“Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand.” —LDS Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (who became Mormonism’s 10th Prophet) Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, p. 47**

What I agree with is the statement that “God the Father lived on an earth the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.” And the statement that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man; the Son also.” (D & C 130:22) This means the Father has a resurrected body, with a fullness of joy and a fullness of Lights and Perfections.

I will paraphrase what I think you are trying to say since you never come out and say anything clearly “No I don’t believe in the words of my prophet, the one chosen by Our Lord to restore the church here on earth but I like this scripture better because I can avoid thinking about the fact that JS really did teach polytheism.”

It also means that to live in the presence of the Father, one absolutely must be perfectly clean every whit through the atoning grace of Christ and be perfectly united in will and desires with Their will through personal acts and desires expressing free will choice, and through being resurrected with a body that is a celestial body.

If you say this one more time I think I am going to scream…

This is what the Savior prayed for for us, if we choose, in His intercessory prayer (John 17). If you’re going to say “that’s polytheism”, then blame it on Him, not me or Joseph Smith.

What???
Where in John 17 does it say that God had parents - it doesn’t - that was your prophet JS talking.

So Parker, God’s parents, are they divine or human? (let’s see if you can answer this before this thread is up…) If you say you don’t know and don’t care to know (again) then please refer me to someone who does. thanks!

 

[ParkerD]

There are 30 posts left on this thread and I believe that you will do anything to avoid answering the questions until then.

I posted the words of your prophet not mine - therefore I am not making an assumption about anything. Again:

** I will preach on the plurality of Gods**… Our text says, ‘And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father.’ The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above… My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” —Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370

“Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father, until we come to a stop where we cannot go further, because of our limited capacity to understand.” —LDS Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (who became Mormonism’s 10th Prophet) Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, p. 47

I will paraphrase what I think you are trying to say since you never come out and say anything clearly “No I don’t believe in the words of my prophet, the one chosen by Our Lord to restore the church here on earth but I like this scripture better because I can avoid thinking about the fact that JS really did teach polytheism.”

If you say this one more time I think I am going to scream…

What???
Where in John 17 does it say that God had parents - it doesn’t - that was your prophet JS talking.

So Parker, God’s parents, are they divine or human? (let’s see if you can answer this before this thread is up…) If you say you don’t know and don’t care to know (again) then please refer me to someone who does. thanks!

Lax16,

You still don’t understand, evidently, that the intercessory prayer was about being one with God and one with Christ, and that They are One.

Joseph Smith didn’t say that Heavenly Father “had parents.” You quoted from Joseph Fielding Smith about that concept, and he made the statement in a book he wrote before he was the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That means that the words of Joseph Fielding Smith may be true, or may be needing further information until they are considered “true and settled doctrine”.

It also means I have agreed with the words of Joseph Smith on the subject, and it means once again that if you are going to use the word “polytheism” in the way you seem to be using that word for “more than one God” , then you should go to the source of the doctrine, Who is Jesus Christ Himself in John 17. He had a Father, and They are One. But if a person defines Them as “more than one”, rather than “One” in all Their attributes and Oneness, and takes that “more than” and then says “that’s polytheism”, then the dictionary needs to be modified so that John 17 is clearly understood to point to that as one possible meaning of the word and to include that Christ prayed for humankind to be “one” with Them.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

You still don’t understand, evidently, that the intercessory prayer was about being one with God and one with Christ, and that They are One.

Joseph Smith didn’t say that Heavenly Father “had parents.” You quoted from Joseph Fielding Smith about that concept, and he made the statement in a book he wrote before he was the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That means that the words of Joseph Fielding Smith may be true, or may be needing further information until they are considered “true and settled doctrine”.

It also means I have agreed with the words of Joseph Smith on the subject, and it means once again that if you are going to use the word “polytheism” in the way you seem to be using that word for “more than one God” , then you should go to the source of the doctrine, Who is Jesus Christ Himself in John 17. He had a Father, and They are One. But if a person defines Them as “more than one”, rather than “One” in all Their attributes and Oneness, and takes that “more than” and then says “that’s polytheism”, then the dictionary needs to be modified so that John 17 is clearly understood to point to that as one possible meaning of the word and to include that Christ prayed for humankind to be “one” with Them.

Parker - Who were the parents of God?
JS says here that God did not always exist - where did he come from?
He was once a man - who were his parents?

"it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and suppose that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did… Here then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priest to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one. . . . (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-47; emphasis added).