Is Mormonism Pagan?

[RoodAwakening]

A discussion of the differences between LDS and orthodox Christian perceptions of the Trinity on another thread suggested this thought:

If the LDS believe in multiple (“plural”) gods, rather than one God, aren’t they more theologically akin to classical Pagans than orthodox Christians? Is there really much difference if a person chooses to call Zeus and Apollo “Heavenly Father” and “Jesus,” instead?

I’ve read a Mormon’s suggestion elsewhere that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity derived as a result of paganism creeping into the early Church during the Great Apostasy, but it seems to me that it’s the other way around.

 

[Jerusha]

I don’t think we need to be throwing labels like that around. Most Christian churches consider it to be outside of Christianity because of their different understanding of the Trinity.

“Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” should give you some insights to that question.

 

[RoodAwakening]

I don’t think we need to be throwing labels like that around. Most Christian churches consider it to be outside of Christianity because of their different understanding of the Trinity.

Rebuke noted…and accepted. Sorry, All.

 

[Paul_G]

RoodAwakening:

A discussion of the differences between LDS and orthodox Christian perceptions of the Trinity on another thread suggested this thought:

GOD the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, indeed, we believe that They are separate and distinct personages, comprising One Godhead. However, despite the various interpretations of what the Trinity is or is not, the scriptures do not stipulate what a person must believe in this regard.

If the LDS believe in multiple (“plural”) gods, rather than one God, aren’t they more theologically akin to classical Pagans than orthodox Christians? Is there really much difference if a person chooses to call Zeus and Apollo “Heavenly Father” and “Jesus,” instead?

“Zeus” “Apollo”. Always interested in a legitimate discussion perhaps you could give us a more in-depth comparison rather than just an attention getting headline.

I’ve read a Mormon’s suggestion elsewhere that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity derived as a result of paganism creeping into the early Church during the Great Apostasy, but it seems to me that it’s the other way around.

I don’t know about paganism being suggested as the reason. I guess individuals can come up with all sorts of suggestions on both sides of the question. However, I am aware that the term Trinity (Latin trinitas) was first used by Tertullian around the beginning of the third century in (Tertullian, Against Praxeas. Theophilus of Antioch used a slightly different term (trias) in Ad Autolycum, written at the end of the second century.

 

[jgcase]

But…isn’t polytheism paganism, by its very nature?

 

[alterserver_07]

Paul G:

RoodAwakening:

GOD the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, indeed, we believe that They are separate and distinct personages, comprising One Godhead. However, despite the various interpretations of what the Trinity is or is not, the scriptures do not stipulate what a person must believe in this regard.

You keep on saying one Godhead to make it sound Chirstian, but don’t you believe they are three seperate Gods? Easy question, yes or no, and don’t say they are one because they believe in the same thing. Are they three gods or one God?

 

[majick275]

wow, this one is a bit tricky as well as emotionally charged.

My answer is yes…and emphatically NO!

The dichotomy? First the no, LDS people actually believe (at least all of the ones I have met) that they worship God the Father and act in the name of Jesus Christ as his servants with the aid and comfort of the holy spirit. (yes this is BIG oversimplifying but I think accurate for this ) so in this respect they are “christians”.

Yes “technically” because their “theology” if you will includes worlds without end that have infinite beings throughout ALL of time working out their salvation with their own heavenly fathers and saviors and tempters. Their “trinity” is all that they concern themselves with because they are the Gods of THIS earth. and THIS heavenly father is the literal father of all their spirits. (ours too technically) but to an outsider looking in the mere acknowledgement of other divine beings before during and after our own, even if they have no realtionship with us ever, does constitute paganism.

 

[amgid]

RoodAwakening:

A discussion of the differences between LDS and orthodox Christian perceptions of the Trinity on another thread suggested this thought:

If the LDS believe in multiple (“plural”) gods, rather than one God, aren’t they more theologically akin to classical Pagans than orthodox Christians? Is there really much difference if a person chooses to call Zeus and Apollo “Heavenly Father” and “Jesus,” instead?

No! Belief in the deification of man and in a plurality of gods (or a form of it) is intrinsic to traditional Christian doctrine and teachings. It is biblical, and it has support in the writings of early Christian Fathers. The Greek Orthodox Church also believes in a form of deification, called theosis. There are numerous biblical passages that can be quoted in support of that doctrine, but I like this one best:

Psalms 82:

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 10:

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

I’ve read a Mormon’s suggestion elsewhere that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity derived as a result of paganism creeping into the early Church during the Great Apostasy, …

That is not quite true either. The traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity is derived from an incorrect understanding of the biblical text. Nothing to do with paganism.

…but it seems to me that it’s the other way around.

Not so! See above.

Don’t be!

amgid

 

[majick275]

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures…

This passage from john when read in it’s entirety does not address plurality of Gods.

Here Jesus is being very specific in pointing out HIS unique role. He uses the refernce to the 82nd Psalm as a reminder to these men that they consider themselves the “sons of God”. He goes on to state that He is the Son who God specifically was sanctified and sent by God. He tells them it should be easy to tell that he is sent from God because he is obviously doing the works of God.

(John 10):

36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

There is a relationship between Man and God that allows us to become “sons of God”, wherein we may participate in the beatific vision. (thus experiencing godly attributes) that is referred to in Psalm 82. Jesus teaches us here in John that he is unique among “men” because he is sanctified and sent by God. Thus we get the lesson of his divinity and also of our own potential. As an added bonus I think he teaches here the importance of doing Gods work.

 

[arieh0310]

majick275:

in Psalm 82. Jesus teaches us here in John that he is unique among “men” because he is sanctified and sent by God. Thus we get the lesson of his divinity and also of our own potential. As an added bonus I think he teaches here the importance of doing Gods work.

It may also be helpful to note that Psalm 82 is actually a condemnation of the judges (“gods”) for not exercising their responsibility faithfully. Jesus uses an argument from the lesser to the greater, a very common form of argument in the ancient world, not least among the rabbis. He compares the people who are called gods to himself, the Son of God. They merely received the word of God, whereas he is the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

This is always difficult for me to understand, and comprehend how God could appear at the crucifixtion of His son Jesus Christ and at His baptism, and actually be His son at the same time, not to mention the Holy Ghost.
All three were there at Jesus’ baptism. How could they all three appear at one time? Is God a ventriloquist, that he said “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”?
Explain that to me very slowly and clearly. Why again (for the umpteenth hundred time )would God call Jesus Christ his son if he was really himself. That is just too difficult for me to comprehend.
I would rather believe that God is not a confusing God, and He actually is Jesus Christ’s father. There are three of them, the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not one pretending to be three. Does that make sense to any Catholic? I guess not.
Sorry to be so dense.
BJ

 

[majick275]

The “official” Catholic answer (taken from Catholic Answers)

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

No he is not a ventriloquist nor is he his own son. They are three persons (Fahter, Son, Holy Spirit) They are one God. (Substitute the word Godhead for God and it might be easier) Jesus IS the son of God. (The Son proceeds from the Father) The difference to you is that God differs from us in how he procreates and this is an eternal generation…thus (the mystery) Jesus has always been God. The one was never without the other.(God the Father and Jesus) taking this a step further the Holy Spirit proceeds from both and is also eternal. He has always been God, Three persons, one God. I am not the best at explaining this but I might visualize it as 3 legs of a tripod. Each leg is equal to others, yet the combination of the three is required for it to be an actual tripod.

 

[Tmaque]

Leaving out the notion of eternal progression(which leads to all sorts of problems and I don’t want to deviate from the thread subject), it’s really quite simple. Christians believe in one God, three persons, united in mind and purpose. LDS believe in one Godhead, three persons, united in mind and purpose. The only thing preventing LDS from saying “one God” is the fact that they believe the Father has a physical body. Other than that, there simply isn’t much difference when it comes right down to it.

What LDS need to change or drop is the notion that the Father has a physical body. Once that goes, the acceptance of one God, three persons will logically follow. This would also eliminate the need for the doctrine of eternal progression. And, I don’t mean the new, progressive version of the doctrine BJ believes in. I mean the standard version(where God was once a mortal man), that all my LDS family and friends believe in.

With LDS theology being so fluid it really wouldn’t surprise me to see them continue their drift toward orthodoxy in regards to the Trinity. I can see this happening especially because the Book of Mormon is almost modalistic in it’s treatment of the nature of God. The Trinity is almost a halfway point between the LDS teaching of a generation ago and the Book of Mormon. It would be a nice settling point between two opposing views.

 

[Tmaque]

BJ Colbert:

This is always difficult for me to understand, and comprehend how God could appear at the crucifixtion of His son Jesus Christ and at His baptism, and actually be His son at the same time, not to mention the Holy Ghost.
All three were there at Jesus’ baptism. How could they all three appear at one time? Is God a ventriloquist, that he said “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”?
Explain that to me very slowly and clearly. Why again (for the umpteenth hundred time )would God call Jesus Christ his son if he was really himself. That is just too difficult for me to comprehend.
I would rather believe that God is not a confusing God, and He actually is Jesus Christ’s father. There are three of them, the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not one pretending to be three. Does that make sense to any Catholic? I guess not.
Sorry to be so dense.
BJ

BJ, what you’re refering to here is not the Trinitarian view of God, but the Modalistic view which was rejected by the early Church. Ironically for you, the Book of Mormon treats the nature of God with a much more modalistic bent then Catholicism does. We believe in one God, three persons, united in mind and purpose. You believe(or, at least most LDS I know) in one Godhead, three persons, united in mind and purpose.

 

[MEP]

That’s very close to correct Tmaque except that we believe in one god not in mind and purpose, but in being, a consubstantial trinity. The “one in purpose” doctrine is really unique to Mormonism (as far as I know).

From the Catechism:

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”. The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: “In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.” Indeed “everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.” “Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son.”

Each of the three persons in the trinity is wholely and entirely God. They are all one in being (from the Nicene Creed, “One in being with the Father…”). The three persons are distinct. And the three persons are relative to each other. Truly understanding the nature of God is a little beyond us. We can not comprehend a nature that seems to be plural and singular at the same time because our mortal existences limit us to a singular understanding of the nature of most things. Mormons are happy to except “mysteries” in their faith like what is the real meaning of eternal progression or why in the world would we need a baptism for the dead. But it’s harder for them to accept any mysteries that touch on the metaphysical nature of God himself. Their view of the Father having a body of flesh and bone is probably the primary reason why they have no equivalent of our Trinitarian dogma.

Modalism is also called Sabellianism which is vey similar to most Protestant views, and the Mormon view of the Godhead is more akin to Arianism, but not exactly the same as what Arius taught before he was excommunicated.

 

[Tmaque]

MEP:

That’s very close to correct Tmaque except that we believe in one god not in mind and purpose, but in being, a consubstantial trinity. The “one in purpose” doctrine is really unique to Mormonism (as far as I know).

Are you saying that the three persons of the Blessed Trinity are not united in mind and purpose? Every time we speak of the Trinity we fail in some way to describe it accurately. I apologize for the confusion. When I say I believe in “one God, three persons, united in mind and purpose” I do indeed believe that for three persons to be “one God” they must be “consubstantial” in some way. I assumed that would be understood. If a spirit is “united in mind” with another being, consubstantiality is a given to my way of thinking. What keeps the LDS view from consubstantiality is their belief that the 1st Person of the Trinity has inherent physicality.

MEP:

Their view of the Father having a body of flesh and bone is probably the primary reason why they have no equivalent of our Trinitarian dogma.

That’s exactly what I said.

MEP:

Modalism is also called Sabellianism which is vey similar to most Protestant views, and the Mormon view of the Godhead is more akin to Arianism, but not exactly the same as what Arius taught before he was excommunicated.

I wasn’t saying that the Mormon view is modalistic. I was commenting that BJ has an incorrect view of Trinitarian doctrine. What she incorrectly described in her post as Trinitarian doctrine was actually modalism. I agree the LDS doctrine on God is similar in some aspects to Arianism, although it seems to be drifting towards orthodoxy.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures…

This passage from john when read in it’s entirety does not address plurality of Gods.

Here Jesus is being very specific in pointing out HIS unique role. He uses the refernce to the 82nd Psalm as a reminder to these men that they consider themselves the “sons of God”. He goes on to state that He is the Son who God specifically was sanctified and sent by God. He tells them it should be easy to tell that he is sent from God because he is obviously doing the works of God.

(John 10):

36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

There is a relationship between Man and God that allows us to become “sons of God”, wherein we may participate in the beatific vision. (thus experiencing godly attributes) that is referred to in Psalm 82. Jesus teaches us here in John that he is unique among “men” because he is sanctified and sent by God. Thus we get the lesson of his divinity and also of our own potential. As an added bonus I think he teaches here the importance of doing Gods work.

Nay, but ye do greatly twist the scriptures, in order to avoid the obvious sense of the meaning. That is not how I, or any other right-minded person would understand these scriptures, or Jesus’ line of reasoning here. The Jewish scribes were accusing Jesus of blasphemy, because He made Himself “equal with God”. Jesus quotes Psalms 82:6 as a rebuttal to counter that accusation. He is effectively saying to them, “Why do you accuse me of blasphemy, for making myself equal with God, when your own scripture makes you a God!” That is how any intelligent person would understand those scriptures. Your attempt to whitewash the thing simply does not wash.

While you are thinking about that one, here is another nice scripture for you to look at:

Exodus 7:

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

What is your answer to this one?

amgid

 

[majick275]

Let’s see…When the entire 82nd Psalm is read in context and the 10th Chapter of John is read in context, I understand there to be a HUGE difference between “sons of God” and God. I also understand there to be a vast difference between Jesus and “sons of God”. While I respect your right to believe differently I think it a bit presumptious to state that all “right minded” poeple share your view.

as to your quote from Exodus… Would you have us believe that at that point Moses had received his exaltation and was in fact deified? I think not.

God tells Moses that the pagan Pharoah now views Moses as a supernatural being due to the miracles that God performed through him. He also states that Aaron is Moses’ spokesman. The Lord is speaking in very simple analogies so that everyone understands the position of Moses, Aaron and Pharoah.

read verse 2:

Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

verses 5 and 6 remind us who IS God:

And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.

And Moses and Aaron did as the LORD commanded them, so did they.

The chapter goes on to show God performing miracles through Moses, he tells Moses what to speak and everything goes according to the will of the Lord.

Where in that chapter did you see Aaron prophesying? or Moses being a literal God?

Exodus is a pretty clear about there only being one God ever. I don’t see where I twisted anything. Perhaps you could elaborate?

 

[MEP]

Tmaque:

Are you saying that the three persons of the Blessed Trinity are not united in mind and purpose?

I’m saying that they are not only united in mind and purpose. Being one in being implies that they are also united in mind and purpose (being the same being). Being united in mind and purpose is very similar to what Mormons claim and does not necessarily imply a shared being (after all, bees are united in mind and committees are united in purpose). The implication relationship works one way so it’s important to express the “one in being” part explicitly.

I think you understand true trinitarian dogma and you believe in it based on what you’ve said. I just think you should phrase it differently.

My comments about Sabellianism and Arius were more for the rest of the discussion than anything else. I’ve had Mormons tell me that Arius was excommunicated for believing in three separate persons (which is a gross distortion of the truth). They’re view of the Godhead is similar to Arius, they’re right about that. But they’re wrong if they think that our problem with Arius was the separate nature of the three persons (which is what Mormons have always told me). The real problem is that Arius assigned a different form of divinity to Christ than he did to God. Christ was a creation of God rather than God himself and this meant that he was a lesser God. The Mormon view of Jesus as the heavenly spirit child of God, equal to all of us, but greater because he was the first born is very very similar to the Arian notion and essentially puts Christ on a lower level than God the Father, unless you believe in eternal progression in which case we are all equal to God (or will be) and that just minimizes God (he becomes the Man-Who-Became-God instead of the God-Who-Became-Man).

 

[alterserver_07]

BJ Colbert:

This is always difficult for me to understand, and comprehend how God could appear at the crucifixtion of His son Jesus Christ and at His baptism, and actually be His son at the same time, not to mention the Holy Ghost.
All three were there at Jesus’ baptism. How could they all three appear at one time? Is God a ventriloquist, that he said “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”?
Explain that to me very slowly and clearly. Why again (for the umpteenth hundred time )would God call Jesus Christ his son if he was really himself. That is just too difficult for me to comprehend.
I would rather believe that God is not a confusing God, and He actually is Jesus Christ’s father. There are three of them, the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not one pretending to be three. Does that make sense to any Catholic? I guess not.
Sorry to be so dense.
BJ

Why are you confused by the Trinity when the Book of Mormon has it in it too. There are many spots in the BoM that have this and I have shown it to you, but what you said is what the mormons beleive, then the BoM is going against what you believe. There is only one God, not three like you say, and it says that very clearly in the Bible and BoM.