Mormon Beliefs on Creation: the Earth, the Universe?

[RebeccaJ]

We don’t call it the trinity, but it is a trinity. That is it includes the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. All three become the Godhead, and become one God under the power of the Father.

Seriously, I already know that Mormons hold no belief in One God, so why would you claim that you do?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tomnossor and fatboys, let me put it this way. When the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sings “All Creatures of Our God and King”, they leave off the last verse that begins:

*Praise, praise the Father praise the Son
And praise the Spirit three in one
*

Why?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Or, why do you have no hymns that praise the Holy Trinity?

Would a Mormon sing this refrain in Sacrament meeting?

O most holy Trinity,
Undivided Unity;
Holy God, mighty God,
God immortal, be adored.

Why not?

 

[kimg901]

Seriously, I already know that Mormons hold no belief in One God, so why would you claim that you do?

It would seem that each ward teaches something different so there is no unity among their followers about what is being taught. Also, the early lds teachings are completly different from what is now being taught. And what I mean is 20 years ago till now. But mormonism is and always has been polythiest. These are the things ive observed while I was lds so its not anti-mormon. But we will pray for you!!!

 

[FabiusMaximus]

We don’t call it the trinity, but it is a trinity. That is it includes the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. All three become the Godhead, and become one God under the power of the Father.

But technically, in Mormon theology, they are all distinct beings, and in effect, three gods that act as one. It’s a triad, no?

 

[kimg901]

But technically, in Mormon theology, they are all distinct beings, and in effect, three gods that act as one. It’s a triad, no?

From what I understand their trinity is not the same as ours. God has a father and so on. So its in direct contradiction of what Scripture says. There is only 1 God, but yet they believe J.S is a god and that they will become gods too. Uh, it makes my head ache. But pray we will!!!

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Most mormons i have run into say the universe is eternal.

 

[Porknpie]

Mormons believe that Jesus created the Earth by the power of the “priesthood” under the direction of God, the Father.

PM, is this belief held as an LDS doctrine? Does this belief come from the bible, the BoA or both?

They believe that God created “worlds without number,” however. It is not uncommon for Mormons to believe that everything in the Universe is of God’s creation.

I have some Mormon acquaintances who hold a view of God that is fairly orthodox in nature; that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and so forth. These Mormons believe that God created the Universe, albeit from existing material. Another Mormon theology casts God in a more finite context, and it is my opinion that these competing views have at times come into conflict. In current Mormon thought, the Infinite, all-powerful God of the Universe is more favored over the more finite, limited God.

. So to confirm, there is no doctrine concerning the creation of the universe? Multiple beliefs on the creation of the universe are possible, correct?

While Mormons (especially early Mormons) have speculated about the origins of God and the possibility of other gods,

the bold confuses me. Do you not believe in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit? Plural? At least there being three Gods? What is the belief on the number of Gods then…that there is minimum of three and a maximum of “we don’t know” but there are many?

their current theology posits that there is only One God with whom we have anything to do and about whom any knowledge is necessary.

are there not three Gods involved in someway with the human race, Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Mormons believe that their understanding of these matters represents additional revelation not clearly recorded in the Bible.

is the Old Testament considered inspired and infallible?

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello,
I may be able to return to this thread in a bit. I have been resurrected.
Charity, TOm

 

[pmccombs]

It would seem that each ward teaches something different so there is no unity among their followers about what is being taught. Also, the early lds teachings are completly different from what is now being taught. And what I mean is 20 years ago till now. But mormonism is and always has been polythiest. These are the things ive observed while I was lds so its not anti-mormon. But we will pray for you!!!

If ever there was a McChurch, the Mormon church is it. The Mormons have standardized and correlated everything, so that if you attend an LDS ward in Uganda, you’ll see the same paintings in the chapel, find the same facility layout, and learn from the exact same manuals (albeit translated into whatever language the local people use) down to the identical lesson being given in Canberra on that very Sunday. I believe that Mormons are unified in their teaching to a fault.

Mormonism did come from a very experimental era of American religious development. There have been various emphases in Mormonism over the years, but Mormons’ beliefs today are not so much different from those of other Christian faiths. Mormons don’t think of this as a great shift in doctrine, but as mere development that allows them to remain relevant and thrive in the modern world. They see the Lord’s hand in these “changes” and dismiss them as irrelevant. They expect for things to change; why else have a prophet?

Where does this idea come from that Mormons say one thing but really believe another? Well, it has to do with the nature of those who leave Mormonism; they are the ones who level this particular accusation, which is news to the Mormons who stand accused.

In my ward, we have ex-Catholics. Some of them are convinced that, when they were Catholic, they worshiped idols. Supposing our roles were reversed, and this were some Mormon forum where the OP had asked about a Catholic doctrine, I can imagine one of the ex-Catholic Mormons piping up with, “Why do you say you don’t worship idols, when really you do?” The ex-Catholic thinks they aren’t being anti-Catholic by saying this, because they were Catholic once and therefore are an authority on the genuine beliefs of that particular religion. Right?

Here’s a scenario: Suppose the LDS missionaries teach a Catholic person that he really believes that unbaptized infants are damned and that kneeling before the statue of a saint to offer a prayer is a blasphemous idolatry. These missionaries perhaps point out some verses of scripture and, wow, they seem so authoritative. The Catholic is left with some doubt, and one things leads to another. This Catholic is baptized into the LDS church and begins to tell his new Mormon friends about how, as a Catholic, he believed erroneously in the damnation of infant souls and in idol worship. The Mormons are confirmed in their own unjust and incomplete stories about “apostate” Catholicism from the mouth of a legitimate ex-Catholic who let a Mormon tell him what he believed while he was a Catholic!

Well, it turns out that the “leavers” of a religion have a lot in common, regardless of which religion they happen to leave. Sometimes they leave because they find some other “truth.” They feel like they have awakened to something and can see their old faith “as it really is,” which is to say, “false.” They accept what others tell them about themselves, such as that they are polytheist or idol worshipers or whatever. “Yes,” they admit, “I can see that now.”

My Mormon friends and neighbors do not think they are polytheistic. They think they believe in one God, and worship Him only–just like most Catholics think that Catholicism doesn’t teach the damnation of unbaptized infants nor that praying to a saint has anything to do with idol worship.

 

[pmccombs]

PM, is this belief held as an LDS doctrine? Does this belief come from the bible, the BoA or both?

You can find it recorded in the manual, “Gospel Principles,” which contains official church doctrine. Mormon teachers will tell you that this doctrine can be found in all of the scriptures, from the BoM to the Old Testament.

So to confirm, there is no doctrine concerning the creation of the universe? Multiple beliefs on the creation of the universe are possible, correct?

It is my opinion that the LDS church has no official stand on the origin of the material found in the universe and that the question is open to speculation.

the bold confuses me. Do you not believe in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit? Plural? At least there being three Gods? What is the belief on the number of Gods then…that there is minimum of three and a maximum of “we don’t know” but there are many?

The Father, Son, and Holy ghost are three persons in one Godhead. They are perfectly unified in thought and purpose. The Mormon worships only God, the Father, by virtue of God the Son through the power of God, the Holy Spirit.

I think the main disagreement with Mormonism goes clear back to the same troubles posed by Arius of Alexandria and with the resulting doctrine of homoousios which came about in 325 AD and remained rather unclear for some time. Mormons believe that the three members of the Godhead do not share the same substance, whatever that means.

are there not three Gods involved in someway with the human race, Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Mormons wouldn’t use the phrase “three Gods” and would consider that that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all involved to the same ends.

is the Old Testament considered inspired and infallible?

It is considered inspired, but not infallible.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If ever there was a McChurch, the Mormon church is it. The Mormons have standardized and correlated everything, so that if you attend an LDS ward in Uganda, you’ll see the same paintings in the chapel, find the same facility layout, and learn from the exact same manuals (albeit translated into whatever language the local people use) down to the identical lesson being given in Canberra on that very Sunday. I believe that Mormons are unified in their teaching to a fault.

Mormonism did come from a very experimental era of American religious development. There have been various emphases in Mormonism over the years, but Mormons’ beliefs today are not so much different from those of other Christian faiths. Mormons don’t think of this as a great shift in doctrine, but as mere development that allows them to remain relevant and thrive in the modern world. They see the Lord’s hand in these “changes” and dismiss them as irrelevant. They expect for things to change; why else have a prophet?

Where does this idea come from that Mormons say one thing but really believe another? Well, it has to do with the nature of those who leave Mormonism; they are the ones who level this particular accusation, which is news to the Mormons who stand accused.

In my ward, we have ex-Catholics. Some of them are convinced that, when they were Catholic, they worshiped idols. Supposing our roles were reversed, and this were some Mormon forum where the OP had asked about a Catholic doctrine, I can imagine one of the ex-Catholic Mormons piping up with, “Why do you say you don’t worship idols, when really you do?” The ex-Catholic thinks they aren’t being anti-Catholic by saying this, because they were Catholic once and therefore are an authority on the genuine beliefs of that particular religion. Right?

Here’s a scenario: Suppose the LDS missionaries teach a Catholic person that he really believes that unbaptized infants are damned and that kneeling before the statue of a saint to offer a prayer is a blasphemous idolatry. These missionaries perhaps point out some verses of scripture and, wow, they seem so authoritative. The Catholic is left with some doubt, and one things leads to another. This Catholic is baptized into the LDS church and begins to tell his new Mormon friends about how, as a Catholic, he believed erroneously in the damnation of infant souls and in idol worship. The Mormons are confirmed in their own unjust and incomplete stories about “apostate” Catholicism from the mouth of a legitimate ex-Catholic who let a Mormon tell him what he believed while he was a Catholic!

Well, it turns out that the “leavers” of a religion have a lot in common, regardless of which religion they happen to leave. Sometimes they leave because they find some other “truth.” They feel like they have awakened to something and can see their old faith “as it really is,” which is to say, “false.” They accept what others tell them about themselves, such as that they are polytheist or idol worshipers or whatever. “Yes,” they admit, “I can see that now.”

My Mormon friends and neighbors do not think they are polytheistic. They think they believe in one God, and worship Him only–just like most Catholics think that Catholicism doesn’t teach the damnation of unbaptized infants nor that praying to a saint has anything to do with idol worship.

The false comparison you have going here fails. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. taught clearly a plurality of Gods. They were NOT ambiguous about what they taught. When it was taught to me as a Mormon, there was no ambiguity. Plurality of Gods was taught as an important, restored, truth. Now, Mormons equivocate because this teaching drives away potential converts. There is still the Mormon teaching of a goddess, heavenly mother. The only way this is not polytheism is to redefine the word polytheism! Such shenanigans may work for Mormons.

Catholicism has never taught, once, that praying to the Saints is idolatry. If anyone believes so it is not because of what they were taught or because of what Catholicism teaches.

Mormons who believe in many Gods do because this is what they have been taught by Mormon leaders.

If you would like to lay out for me what I should understand about a plurality of Gods, then do so. But understand, I remember clearly, what I was taught and there is a plethora of quotes from Mormon leaders that I’m sure you will explain away as “opinion”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

"I will speak on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.

…]

Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. …] Hence if Jesus had a Father, cannot we believe that he had a father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it? (“Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, Joseph Smith Jr.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

So, if Mormons would like to refute Joseph Smith, I’m interested.

 

[kimg901]

So, if Mormons would like to refute Joseph Smith, I’m interested.

RebeccaJ, you know just as well as I that these folks are so lost in “another gospel” that it doesnt matter what we say. Lets see if they say that its not doctrine but a “teaching”. And remember that past prophets teachings are not relevent anymore, only the current prophet matters.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Latter-day Saints believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Divine Persons who are separate from each other (i.e. they are not each other). The Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. One is not the other. Because they are distinct from each other, and each is Divine, Latter-day Saints are okay with referring to them as “Gods”, or “three Gods”. In addition, Latter-day Saints also believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are united in perfect harmony, in perfect love, purpose, and will. This unity of the Divine Persons is known as the “Godhead”. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Godhead. Therefore, Latter-day Saints are also okay with referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as “one Godhead” or “one God” because of that perfect unity.

 

[pmccombs]

The false comparison you have going here fails. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. taught clearly a plurality of Gods. They were NOT ambiguous about what they taught. When it was taught to me as a Mormon, there was no ambiguity. Plurality of Gods was taught as an important, restored, truth. Now, Mormons equivocate because this teaching drives away potential converts. There is still the Mormon teaching of a goddess, heavenly mother. The only way this is not polytheism is to redefine the word polytheism! Such shenanigans may work for Mormons.

Polytheism is defined to be the belief in or worship of many gods. Regardless of what Mormons believe about the presence of multiple gods, they worship only one God by their own confession. At “worst” this is henotheism, though I’m not sure what it is about the epithet of “polytheism” that makes it so distasteful. Mormons also believe that the current prophet trumps whatever past prophets have said, and if the doctrine of multiple gods is no longer in particular favor, then Mormons have no problem with that. Ex-mormons have to imagine ulterior motives to that shift, and maybe they’re right. Or maybe it’s just that such shenanigans work for them.

Catholicism has never taught, once, that praying to the Saints is idolatry. If anyone believes so it is not because of what they were taught or because of what Catholicism teaches.

My point exactly. And Mormons have never taught that just because there is a heavenly mother or a plurality of gods, that they are hence polytheistic. Mormons have very little to say about whatever other gods there might be out there; what their roles are and so forth. Even the idea of “heavenly mother” is fairly speculative and not taught in Mormon doctrine today. Sure, Mormons still talk about it from time to time and the old-time Mormons sure said plenty about it.

Mormons who believe in many Gods do because this is what they have been taught by Mormon leaders.

There is only one God that Mormons are taught to believe in. Other gods are mentioned and have been mentioned in the past. Brigham Young had a whole Adam-God theory, for instance, that is rejected by modern Mormon leaders. While Mormons seem to understand that there are many godly beings in the universe, we aren’t taught to “believe in them”, or to worship them, or to ask them to elevate our petitions to the Arch God, or to even give them the title of God with a capital-G. Critics make Mormons offenders for a word when Mormons use “god” to describe these beings.

If you would like to lay out for me what I should understand about a plurality of Gods, then do so. But understand, I remember clearly, what I was taught and there is a plethora of quotes from Mormon leaders that I’m sure you will explain away as “opinion”.

Yes, you remember just like the ex-what-have-yous also remember so clearly what they were taught as adherents to their former faiths. And I remember pretty clearly too, since I regularly attend Mormon meetings and, in fact, currently instruct Mormons in their own faith–and I go by the book. Nobody comes to church to hear my agnostic rants.

Mormons don’t care what the old Mormon leaders said back in the day, so long as current leaders don’t care either.

I can hardly lay out for you what you should believe about the plurality of Gods since, in my opinion, we happen to be arguing about made-up stuff anyway. My opinion is that you and I are inevitable accidents; mere results of spontaneous complexity. We inhabit a meaningless universe and when we die, we’ll be dead.

But the Mormons would probably tell you: don’t worry about believing anything about a plethora of gods because “it isn’t important to your salvation.” Worship God the Father in the name of the Son and you will be blessed by the Holy Ghost. That’s what Mormons are into these days, in spite of how badly their critics need them to be adherents to the more shocking teachings of the past, since those are apparently easier to make fun of.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Latter-day Saints believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Divine Persons who are separate from each other (i.e. they are not each other). The Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. One is not the other. Because they are distinct from each other, and each is Divine, Latter-day Saints are okay with referring to them as “Gods”, or “three Gods”. In addition, Latter-day Saints also believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are united in perfect harmony, in perfect love, purpose, and will. This unity of the Divine Persons is known as the “Godhead”. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Godhead. Therefore, Latter-day Saints are also okay with referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as “one Godhead” or “one God” because of that perfect unity.

So then they are in reality, three gods? Moving in “perfect harmony” doesn’t deny the fact that they are three, entirely distinct beings. So technically, isn’t that really polytheism?

 

[pmccombs]

Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. …] Hence if Jesus had a Father, cannot we believe that he had a father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it? (“Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, Joseph Smith Jr.)

Sounds a lot like Aquinas’ argument from Order. Since there is order, there must have been an orderer, which is God.

But if God is a being of order and not chaos, says the philosopher, then God must have had a creator also, by the argument’s own logic… hence, the argument is either a contradiction or an infinite regress. Joseph Smith favors the regress over the contradiction, apparently.

 

[pmccombs]

So then they are in reality, three gods? Moving in “perfect harmony” doesn’t deny the fact that they are three, entirely distinct beings. So technically, isn’t that really polytheism?

If the non-modal trinitarian God is three distinct persons in one substance (asks the Jew and the Muslim), isn’t that really polytheism too? Nowhere in the dictionary does “polytheism” make a distinction between “beings” and “persons” or the philosophical sophistries surrounding “substance.” To non Christian monotheists, all Christians are clearly and unequivocally polytheists by definition.

The Mormon idea of monotheism is broad enough for the Mormon to feel justified in classifying himself as a monotheist. When he prays, he always prays only to the Father, and ever has since the beginning of his Church in spite of whatever other ideas have surfaced about the nature of God and of gods.