Sorry Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, Jesus is God.

[SteveVH]

Well, yes, I think it does. Polytheism, the way I’ve understood it, involves multiple deities of different types and temperaments–a god of sky, god of sea, god of love, god of war, etc.–and there is usually a local emphasis of one god over another; e.g., one city mostly honors the sea god while another city honors the god of war. I don’t find Mormonism to be polytheistic in that sense:

Are you saying we can decide whether a divine being is a separate god based upon its type or temperament? The fundamental Mormon definition of the Godhead as “three distinct and separate beings” is, on its face, polytheistic. Now one can go on from there and try to defend it by imagining all the ways they might be “one”. But they are not even close to being “one” in comparison to comprising one Being. They remain, no matter how you slice it, separate and distinct from one another. That is not unity.

That’s not to say I don’t have problems with Mormon theology; I am, after all, and for that reason, an ex-Mormon. Related to the topic of this thread, there seems to be contradictions among various LDS leaders and publications about whether Jesus is to be worshipped and prayed to or not. And If he is not to be, there are seemingly contradictory exhortations both in the Book of Mormon itself (such as 2 Nephi 25:29; 3 Nephi 19:18-26) and also in the whole concept of Jesus being the OT Jehovah, for Jehovah was to be prayed to and worshipped.

Yes, I believe I have participated in some of those discussions. I am still confused, or should I say the Mormon posters seem to be confused as to who they actually worship and what it means to worship.

And of course, not being monotheistic is the charge often leveled against trinitarian Christians by followers of Judaism and Islam.

Yes, that is understandable unless and until they actually learn what we teach about the Trinty. We claim one divine Being. We may disagree with Judaism and Islam on the nature of that one, divine Being, but it cannot be said that we are polytheistic. That is why the three Persons of the Trinity have been so well defined in our creeds.

If the Bruce McConkie concept of worship is actually correct Mormon doctrine, then they honor Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as divine beings, yet worship and pray to just the Father. I think this has as much right to be considered monotheism as the trinitarian concept of worshipping three divine persons which are considered one due to their sharing the same essence.

I could not disagree more. They may worship only the Father but they believe there are other gods who they do not worship (except they kinda, sorta, in some way worship Jesus as well). That is poytheism. It isn’t just based upon whom you choose to worship, it is based upon whether or not you believe more than one God exists. Mormons most definately do believe this. They will each become one themselves, for crying out loud.

It bears repeating just what the orthodox understanding of the trinity is, and acknowledging that it’s not something the human mind can comprehend.

No, but we can know, through divine revelation, that God is a Trinity of Persons in one Being. If we could fully comprehend this then God would not be God as he would ony be as great as the capacity of our created minds. This is another problem I have with Mormon theology. They believe that they are capable of understanding God. And its not that difficult. He’s just like us only a little further down the road of progression.

 

[jrtrent]

Yes! "He will rule as King of Kings and reign as Lord of Lords, and every knee shall bend ****and every tongue shall speak in worship before Him.

Each of us will stand to be judged of Him according to our works and the desires of our hearts." (emphasis added)

I know you don’t like links, but I ran across this explanation of McConkie’s speech and wondered if you think it comes pretty close to explaining the seeming discrepancy between his words and those of Hinckley.

mormonmatters.org/2008/05/17/offenders-for-a-word-part-2-do-mormons-worship-jesus/

 

[Battleaxe]

The Nicene Creed, as it was adopted by ecumenical councils, did not contain the phrase “and the Son”; the later addition of that phrase in the West was one of the main causes of schism, so I chose to quote a source that didn’t include it as being more representative of “orthodoxy” (even though the Anglican church I attend does include it in the version we recite).

The Catholic Church isn`t the only one to use the Nicene Creed. And going by numbers alone, Eastern Orthodoxy would be outnumbered.

I think the link to the material by F. J. Sheed is being ignored because there’s a lot there to go through and because Sheed was a Roman Catholic

.
Sadly, the vast majority of Catholics havent been taught anything worthwhile about this, either. Plus, of course, it was a way of giving mtolympus an in-depth explanation. If he chooses to ignore it, thats his responsibility, and he will have to explain himself at the appropriate “time”… He has no excuse for saying no one ever tried to explain it to him. Again: “vincible ignorance”.

This being the non-Catholic religions forum, there are likely a lot of people who would not consider Roman Catholic authors as being authoritative, other than as gaining insight into the teachings of the Roman Catholic church, just as the LDS.org site would be authoritative for learning about the Mormon faith and the JW.org site would be authoritative for learning about the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

And so its better to tell folks that we know virtually nothing about the inner Life of God? Dont people want to know? Yes? No? That strikes me as depriving them of the very Heart of the Faith. Thats short sighted. Are you saying that everyones too lazy to read a handful of pages, and is satisfied with a one or two-line “explanation”? At least give everyone the chance.

Frank Sheed`s work is based on Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Number 1 Doctor of the (Catholic) Church. Give people the best the Church can give, i say. Why settle for less? Plus: it applies 100% to this thread. The big guns on a battleship are meant to be used.

Apart from that, twice i provided a very sawn-off but adequate explanation of the Trinity.
As a Catholic, i have a responsibility to explain the Catholic Faith as best i can, “Non-Catholic Religions” notwithstanding. Some sort of lowest common denominator doesnt fit in with my outlook! :( If others disagree, thats not my problem.

 

[Battleaxe]

Who created Satan?

God is the creator of Satan who was created good. He fell because of pride. He, himself, chose evil and took a lot of the other angels with him. Angels are pure spirit: intellect and will, and nothing else.
Satan and the other fallen angels are pure malice.

Jesus, our eldest Kinsman Redeemer Brother (to quote Scott Hahn) is fully God and fully Man. He`s the eternal Word incarnate:

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” John 1:14

The Word (Logos: a thought or an idea: ie the Fathers Idea of Himself) is the Fathers Self-knowledge and Wisdom, generated in eternity: God the Son. The image of the Father.
Jesus has His divine nature (or essence), plus a human nature consisting of a human soul (spirit) and a human body.

There`s an infinite difference between Jesus and Satan.

 

[SteveVH]

There`s an infinite difference between Jesus and Satan.

Yes. One is the Creator, the other a free-willed creature who chose evil. Big difference.

 

[Battleaxe]

Yes. One is the Creator, the other** a free-willed creature **who chose evil. Big difference.

i forgot to mention free will, as such.

Here`s hoping mtolympus reads it.

 

[mtolympus]

The Catholic Church isnt the only one to use the Nicene Creed. And going by numbers alone, Eastern Orthodoxy would be outnumbered. . Sadly, the vast majority of Catholics havent been taught anything worthwhile about this, either. Plus, of course, it was a way of giving mtolympus an in-depth explanation. If he chooses to ignore it, that`s his responsibility, and he will have to explain himself at the appropriate “time”… He has no excuse for saying no one ever tried to explain it to him. Again: “vincible ignorance”.

And so its better to tell folks that we know virtually nothing about the inner Life of God? Dont people want to know? Yes? No? That strikes me as depriving them of the very Heart of the Faith. Thats short sighted. Are you saying that everyones too lazy to read a handful of pages, and is satisfied with a one or two-line “explanation”? At least give everyone the chance.

Frank Sheed`s work is based on Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Number 1 Doctor of the (Catholic) Church. Give people the best the Church can give, i say. Why settle for less? Plus: it applies 100% to this thread. The big guns on a battleship are meant to be used.

Apart from that, twice i provided a very sawn-off but adequate explanation of the Trinity.
As a Catholic, i have a responsibility to explain the Catholic Faith as best i can, “Non-Catholic Religions” notwithstanding. Some sort of lowest common denominator doesnt fit in with my outlook! :( If others disagree, thats not my problem.

I read your post #38 but didn’t see any Bible references. I consider anything written after the apostles had been killed and revelation ceased a product of man’s wisdom. If we say we cannot comprehend God why would we try to expain Him using man’s wisdom? Paul who was an apostle received his understanding through revelation. He wrote:

“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Yes! "He will rule as King of Kings and reign as Lord of Lords, and every knee shall bend ****and every tongue shall speak in worship before Him.

Each of us will stand to be judged of Him according to our works and the desires of our hearts." (emphasis added)

The Living Christ -The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Testimony of the Apostles
January 1, 2000

If you do not worship Jesus Christ as GOD THE SON as DIVINE then:

1. how can He save us if he is NOT God? Only God can save us - it’s HIS LAW that was broken. No created person can do it. Christ Jesus is the Word who was with God from the beginning (forever). Where the Father is, the Son and the Spirit are ALWAYS together, You can never split the DIVINE NATURE APART. Yes, they are ONE in UNITY and PURPOSE, but they are ONE GOD always united, forever.
2. We are commanded to have no other gods before us
3. LDS are promoting Henontheism (spelling?) - God the Father is apparently the only God you really have anything to do with.
4. There is a distinct PROBLEM with YOURSELF “becoming” a GOD; hence a POLYTHEISTIC idea (Where have we heard of millions of gods before?)
5. The Jews knew of only ONE GOD (see my post in the # 30’s) & they used the word meaning ONE (God) of multiple “parts”. Rosalind Moss, former Catholic Answers Apologist & Jewish Convert from Brooklyn now Mother Miriam with her own order of sisters, explained this on a talk I have on CD or Cassette & used the single grape versus one bunch of grapes I believe. Being fluent in Hebrew, she was careful to explain the difference in the words in the Schema of Deuteronomy “Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one”; the Jews of the time had an inkling God was ONE but more than just 1 person is the best I can explain it - according to the footnote in my New American Bible with caps added by me:
   
   “THIS passage contains the BASIS PRINCIPLE of the WHOLE MOSAIC LAW, the KEYNOTE for the Book of Deuteronomy (6:4): since the Lord alone is God, we must love him with an undivided heart. Christ cited these words as “the GREATEST and the FIRST COMMANDMENT” embracing in itself the WHOLE LAW of GOD.” Jesus squares this in Matthew 22:37 " ‘You shall love the Lord your God with your WHOLE heart, with your whole soul, and your whole mind.’ This is the GREATEST and FIRST COMMANDMENT…"
6. Only 1 God
7. Jesus Christ’s UNCREATED nature is Divine OR you are worshipping someone OTHER THAN GOD WHICH IS FORBIDDEN.
8. Jesus Christ existed as the WORD (forever) before he took on mortal flesh “in the beginning was the WORD… and the Word was God.”
9. Jesus Christ gained His flesh from one mortal: HIS MOTHER and by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT
   a. no physical relations with the “heavenly father” - NOT supported by scripture
   b. not an “active force”

Knowledge of who Jesus Christ is with sects muddled and sects often reflect another gospel especially those promoted by an angel other than the 2000 year old gospel that is incapable of changing.

God the Father says “I changeth not.”
Jesus says “I AM” 7 times in John
Jesus says “the Father and I are ONE”

 

[Porknpie]

I read your post #38 but didn’t see any Bible references. I consider anything written after the apostles had been killed and revelation ceased a product of man’s wisdom. If we say we cannot comprehend God why would we try to expain Him using man’s wisdom? Paul who was an apostle received his understanding through revelation. He wrote:

“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

In 1 Corinthians, St. Paul’s use of “your” is speaking to those individuals living in Corinth. He is not speaking of the Catholic church as a hierarchy. With that exegesis, Catholics agree. When he speaks of “your faith”, he is speaking of the OT and oral tradition of the church concerning the revelation of Jesus Christ. The bible did not exist at this time. It did not exist for another 350 years or so. That’s a lot of time that tradition existed without the bible… and the church exploded in growth. So by definition, it is mans wisdom that is being used to explain God’s revelation, guided by Jesus himself, protecting his church on faith & morals until the end of time.

And no where is there a great apostasy that needed to be corrected 1800 years later.

 

[SteveVH]

I consider anything written after the apostles had been killed and revelation ceased a product of man’s wisdom.

And what about the revelation received by the Apostles which was passed down to the Church, namely the fullness of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ? Do you imagine that this was just forgotten or set aside forcing men to turn to their own wisdom? Had the Church, to which Christ promised to never leave but rather remain with until the end of time, to which he sent the Holy Spirit to guide into all truth, to which he had given the keys to the Kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose and the power to forgive sins, somehow been abandoned by God, thereby breaking his own promises never to leave it orphaned?

The real question is for you. Why do you assume that modern revelation is necessary in the first place, as if the revelation of Christ is somehow not sufficient? You will not find that taught in scripture. The source for this belief is based solely on the assumption that Mormon claims that modern revelation is necessary are true. That’s it. It is neither scriptural nor historical. You have posed no problem for us since your entire postition is based upon a Mormon understanding of revelation which has never been accepted by Christianity in its 2000 year existence.

If we say we cannot comprehend God why would we try to expain Him using man’s wisdom? Paul who was an apostle received his understanding through revelation. He wrote:

“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

We do not explain God using man’s wisdom, but rather the wisdom of that one Church in which Christ remains and to which he sent the Holy Spirit, specifically so that we would not be reliant upon our own wisdom. This is a question to which I have never recieved a credible Mormon explanation. Do you believe that God broke his promise to remain with and guide his own Church? If you are going to answer that it failed due to the weakness of man inspite of Christ’s promises, you can save it. I’ve heard it before. It assumes that God is dependent upon man in order to succeed which is false on its face. The Church is a divine institution with God himself as its head. It can never fail, inspite of human weakness.

 

[jrtrent]

Are you saying we can decide whether a divine being is a separate god based upon its type or temperament?

No. I’m saying that “polytheism” is an emotionally charged word that conjures up associations with mythology and paganism. It can become a pejorative term that implies far more than the reality of the situation with respect to Mormon teaching warrants unless delivered with an explanation.

I suppose that depends on what body of divine revelation you choose to accept. That teaching of the trinity is not explicit in the Bible. As the whole history of Arianism and other early heresies show, it is possible to find supporting scriptural references for various understandings of the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The body of divine revelation accepted by the LDS church leads them to a different understanding of the Godhead than the orthodox trinitarian formula.

As I understand it, the purpose of this forum is to ask and answer questions that clarify our own positions as well as give us clearer understanding of the teachings of other faiths, not to put them down or find ways to encourage people to leave their respective churches. As one of the sticky threads puts it, “CA makes every effort to provide our participants with a pleasant and informative place on the internet where Catholics and non-Catholics may gather. It is our hope that respectful dialogue and discussion will lead to better faith understandings.”

[/QUOTE]

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]

The Arians did a pretty good job of it. I honestly think that most people, if confronted with some of the arguments made by Arians like Eunomius, would not be able to refute them.

[/SIGN]

searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2010/07/i-am-john-858-ex-314.html

There is no doubt that a proper knowledge of the God we worship is essential. (Ex. 20:2, 3, 5; Is. 45:22; Jn 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Jn 4:24, NIV; Ro. 1:18-21, 25, NIV) Trinitarians, of course, agree …But they insist that we must have the “true” knowledge of the “three persons-in-one God” (in contrast to the knowledge that God is one person alone, the Father, whose only personal name is Jehovah).

This would mean, then, if the trinity doctrine were really true, that God’s chosen people never worshiped God in truth Jn 4:24. This would mean, of course, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, King David, Daniel, Isaiah, Elijah, and all the rest of the inspired prophets of God, inspired writers of scripture, etc. never knew the true God!

How is it that all these faithful people, beloved by God Himself, never taught a 3-in-one God (or a ‘multiple-person God’ of any kind)?
Why was this most elementary, basic, and essential information (if the trinity is true) about God not taught to His people for thousands of years?

Why was it not carefully and clearly taught by those who wrote the New Testament?

Look how carefully and clearly they taught the knowledge of the Christ in the NT. That, too, means eternal life (John 17:3), so it was taught clearly and repeatedly throughout the New Testament that Jesus alone is the Christ, the Messiah!

One might argue that the knowledge of the Christ was not clearly and abundantly revealed in the Old Testament, and that is very true. But when the time came that such knowledge became necessary for one’s very eternal life (John 17:3), it was simply, clearly, repeatedly, and unmistakably declared throughout the NT!
Such knowledge was not necessary to eternal life for those who lived and died before the Messiah came to earth!

But the knowledge of who is the only true God whom you must worship in truth has always been necessary to eternal life for God’s people.

And though revealed to his people clearly and abundantly in the OT, the knowledge of God is still at least as essential as the knowledge of the Christ for those who wrote the NT (John 17:3).

So where is the scriptural deluge of statements that are equally clear and repeated (as are those identifying the one true Christ) which declare the life-saving knowledge that “God is one and is three;” or “In the one God there are three persons;” or “God is one: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit;” etc.?

…BACK SOON

 

[Michelle_G_55]

I don’t know what the Mormons tell people to “suck them in” but it happened to my daughter in a matter of about 1-2 months. A little to late, I read on Catholic Answers, that a man by the name of Isaiah Bennett wrote a book called “Inside Mormonism” what Mormons really believe. My husband and I are truly enjoying this read. Some of the stuff is entertaining (because of what we believe in our faith) and I don’t mean that I’m bashing the author. We just don’t understand how such a smart girl (our daughter) who was so strong in her faith, and smart people such as some political figures, can believe such stuff. So we are reading this so that one day, we can be armed with facts. If Mr. Bennett reads any of these posts, I have to say “Thank you so much for this book”. Hopefully it will come in handy for us someday. I only wish that I had known about it sooner. In the meantime, several of you may want to read it as well. You will find a lot of your answers in it. Thank you Catholic Answers for leading me to this book.

I hope you all have a very blessed day

 

[SteveVH]

I’m saying that “polytheism” is an emotionally charged word that conjures up associations with mythology and paganism. It can become a pejorative term that implies far more than the reality of the situation with respect to Mormon teaching warrants unless delivered with an explanation.

I think I have delivered an explanation. Even if we leave the nature of the “Godhead” out of the argument, the entire faith, even the notion of “exaltation”, is based upon polytheistic principles; that we are self-existent beings and contain within us, independent of God, the divine nature which only needs to be perfected toward its ultimate end: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.” Simply following the logic of this statement results in the belief in “many gods”, the very definition of polytheism.

Perhaps I read too much into it, but your comment several posts ago struck me as a form of name-calling (“there is no getting around the fact that they believe in many gods whether they worship them all or not. It is polytheistic through and through”).

If the shoe fits then wear it. My intention is certainly not to engage in “name calling” and I fail to see how my comment would be considered such. I stand by my statement.

I thought your more recent reply was nicely put–“Belief in one God is so central and fundamental to Christianity that one not accepting monotheism as part of their beliefs could not in any reasonable fashion be considered Christian.” Now, they, and even I, might disagree with you that the term “polytheism” is properly attached to them, but that’s just a part of civil discourse and debate.

Mormon doctrine depends upon separate and distinct beings each possessing the divine nature through nothing other than their own, uncreated natural attributes. How can one deny the polytheistic implications of such a belief?

I suppose that depends on what body of divine revelation you choose to accept. That teaching of the trinity is not explicit in the Bible.

No, but the raw material supporting the Trinity is found in scripture which was then further developed and defined into the formal doctrine as expressed by the Church who wrote and canonized the scripture. What better interpreter of a book exists than the author of that book?

As the whole history of Arianism and other early heresies show, it is possible to find supporting scriptural references for various understandings of the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Which is the reason that the Church is always on guard to protect the faith against these heresies. The fact that one may draw different conclusions does not place their opinions on equal footing with the Church. It is the Church that is “the pillar and bulwark of truth”, not each individual’s opinion.

The body of divine revelation accepted by the LDS church leads them to a different understanding of the Godhead than the orthodox trinitarian formula.

No argument there. What is in question is the validity of this other “body of divine revelation”.

As I understand it, the purpose of this forum is to ask and answer questions that clarify our own positions as well as give us clearer understanding of the teachings of other faiths, not to put them down or find ways to encourage people to leave their respective churches. As one of the sticky threads puts it, “CA makes every effort to provide our participants with a pleasant and informative place on the internet where Catholics and non-Catholics may gather. It is our hope that respectful dialogue and discussion will lead to better faith understandings.”

Then you are assuming that my motivation in pointing out the polytheistic nature of Mormonism is somehow to simply engage in Mormon bashing. That is absolutely not the case and I don’t appreciate the accusation. I think I have laid out a good case for polytheism. You and any Mormon poster are free to either respond or ignore it, but the doctrines and words of their “prophets” are documented for all to see.

 

[jrtrent]

Originally Posted by jrtrent
As I understand it, the purpose of this forum is to ask and answer questions that clarify our own positions as well as give us clearer understanding of the teachings of other faiths, not to put them down or find ways to encourage people to leave their respective churches. As one of the sticky threads puts it, “CA makes every effort to provide our participants with a pleasant and informative place on the internet where Catholics and non-Catholics may gather. It is our hope that respectful dialogue and discussion will lead to better faith understandings.”

Then you are assuming that my motivation in pointing out the polytheistic nature of Mormonism is somehow to simply engage in Mormon bashing. That is absolutely not the case and I don’t appreciate the accusation.

Hmm, I should have used the preview post option; not only did I goof on formatting the quote from you that I used, I included a paragraph that I had pushed down the screen a bit and intended to delete. Nonetheless, I will now put my other foot in my mouth and say that I wouldn’t characterize your motivation as Mormon bashing, but my sense from your posts is that you consider your position to be correct and theirs to be wrong, that your church holds the truth and that theirs does not. That’s perfectly reasonable–I should hope that each person belongs to the church they do because they believe it to be true–but it seems out of the spirit of achieving “better faith understandings.”

You ask, “Mormon doctrine depends upon separate and distinct beings each possessing the divine nature through nothing other than their own, uncreated natural attributes. How can one deny the polytheistic implications of such a belief?” That’s a good question, and one I’m trying to better understand. I may be a former Mormon, but I don’t remember receiving this charge from non-Mormons or hearing it addressed in church (though that’s been decades ago, and maybe I just don’t remember it). What I do know is that, at least from one source I quoted previously, Mormons deny being polytheists. I attempted to rationalize that by suggesting that they are not polytheists in the same sense as religions of mythology or paganism, and also that their understanding of the Godhead is not so different from orthodox teaching but that the trinitarian understanding has also been accused of polytheism by others. But I’m open to other explanations. My purpose isn’t to prove that they are polytheists, but to better understand why they say they are not.

You’ve also rightly pointed out, “The fact that one may draw different conclusions does not place their opinions on equal footing with the Church. It is the Church that is ‘the pillar and bulwark of truth’, not each individual’s opinion.” Mormons also believe this, saying that the church has been restored and that many plain and precious truths that were lost have now been restored.

You have said that what is in question is the validity of the body of doctrine accepted by the LDS church, but from the perspective of achieving “better faith understandings,” nobody’s body of doctrine should be seen as any more valid than anyone else’s. The thread title is “Sorry Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, Jesus is God,” so my goal should be to better understand in what sense both of these groups see Jesus, to try to understand how they see his divine nature, if any. If someone is kind enough to try explain that to me, should I then turn around and tell them their thinking is wrong, that their sources of authority are invalid, that the statements of their leaders don’t make sense?

I apologize for any accusations against you that you saw in my previous post and in this one. I don’t know your motivations, and am guilty of responding to my perceptions of those, not the reality. I will refrain from such in the future, but thought your understandable indignation deserved a response.

 

[Porknpie]

All -

Its particularly important to define a number of words when comparing LDS and Christianity, particularly the Catholic church. Polytheism defined:

From Merriam-Webster.com “belief in or worship of more than one god”

Dictionary.com “the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods”

Why is there any debate regarding the LDS beliefs as polytheism? I don’t understand… I ask this sincerely.

 

[jrtrent]

Why is there any debate regarding the LDS beliefs as polytheism? I don’t understand… I ask this sincerely.

Sorry, that’s probably my fault. In trying to understand LDS doctrine, the word polytheism came up. Mormons deny that this label is appropriate.

“It should be remembered that polytheism has reference to pagan deities to whom reverence, devotion, and worship are given. It is not to be confused with the gospel truth that there are “gods many, and lords many, But to us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 8:4-7.) The saints are not polytheists.”

“The Latter-day Saints, who believe in the Godhead, are no more polytheistic than are Christians who believe in the Trinity. God and Christ are the objects of our worship. Even though Mormons believe in the ultimate deification of man, I am unaware of any reference in LDS literature that speaks of worshiping any being other than the ones within the Godhead. Latter-day Saints believe in “one God” in the sense that they love and serve one Godhead, one divine presidency, each of whom possesses all of the attributes of Godhood.”
lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/polytheism.htm

If you wish to call them polytheists anyway, you are at liberty to do so. Further searching led me to the quote below which may explain why they are sensitive to the term.

“Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.”
en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Polytheism

 

[MaryIsOurMother]

Polytheism is directly stated in Mormon scripture in the following passage from the Book of Abraham (taken from the official LDS site lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/4?lang=eng)

"Chapter 4

The Gods plan the creation of the earth and all life thereon—Their plans for the six days of creation are set forth.

1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they,** that is the Gods**, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters.

3 And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.

4 And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness."

Incidentally, with all due respect to the Mormon religion, the following article discusses a number of undeniable facts regarding this “scripture.”

mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

and especially this part :

vintage.aomin.org/Mintract.html

I would be very interested in commentary from LDS faithful concerning the topics discussed in these articles.

 

[Porknpie]

If you wish to call them polytheists anyway, you are at liberty to do so. Further searching led me to the quote below which may explain why they are sensitive to the term.

“Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.”
en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Polytheism

JrTrent - after reading the definition, do you believe Mormons to be polytheists?

 

[SteveVH]

Hmm, I should have used the preview post option; not only did I goof on formatting the quote from you that I used, I included a paragraph that I had pushed down the screen a bit and intended to delete. Nonetheless, I will now put my other foot in my mouth and say that I wouldn’t characterize your motivation as Mormon bashing, but my sense from your posts is that you consider your position to be correct and theirs to be wrong, that your church holds the truth and that theirs does not. That’s perfectly reasonable–I should hope that each person belongs to the church they do because they believe it to be true–but it seems out of the spirit of achieving “better faith understandings.”

You ask, “Mormon doctrine depends upon separate and distinct beings each possessing the divine nature through nothing other than their own, uncreated natural attributes. How can one deny the polytheistic implications of such a belief?” That’s a good question, and one I’m trying to better understand. I may be a former Mormon, but I don’t remember receiving this charge from non-Mormons or hearing it addressed in church (though that’s been decades ago, and maybe I just don’t remember it). What I do know is that, at least from one source I quoted previously, Mormons deny being polytheists. I attempted to rationalize that by suggesting that they are not polytheists in the same sense as religions of mythology or paganism, and also that their understanding of the Godhead is not so different from orthodox teaching but that the trinitarian understanding has also been accused of polytheism by others. But I’m open to other explanations. My purpose isn’t to prove that they are polytheists, but to better understand why they say they are not.

You’ve also rightly pointed out, “The fact that one may draw different conclusions does not place their opinions on equal footing with the Church. It is the Church that is ‘the pillar and bulwark of truth’, not each individual’s opinion.” Mormons also believe this, saying that the church has been restored and that many plain and precious truths that were lost have now been restored.

You have said that what is in question is the validity of the body of doctrine accepted by the LDS church, but from the perspective of achieving “better faith understandings,” nobody’s body of doctrine should be seen as any more valid than anyone else’s. The thread title is “Sorry Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, Jesus is God,” so my goal should be to better understand in what sense both of these groups see Jesus, to try to understand how they see his divine nature, if any. If someone is kind enough to try explain that to me, should I then turn around and tell them their thinking is wrong, that their sources of authority are invalid, that the statements of their leaders don’t make sense?

I apologize for any accusations against you that you saw in my previous post and in this one. I don’t know your motivations, and am guilty of responding to my perceptions of those, not the reality. I will refrain from such in the future, but thought your understandable indignation deserved a response.

Thank you for your very reasonable response. I understand and admire your sensitvity in not offending our non-Catholic guests. Part of the problem I have, however, in accepting that Mormons are monotheists is that their very doctrines contradict that position. The attempt to redefine polytheism as “worship of”, rather than “belief in” multiple gods appears to be nothing more than an attempt to side step the the reality of their core belief system in order appear to be more in step with traditional Christianity. If they choose to believe in multiple gods they are free to do so. But to believe in them and at the same time deny it indicates either confusion or deception. At this point I believe it is confusion.

One cannot simultaneoulsy hold two contradicting positions and believe both are true. One cannot simultaneously believe in three distinct and separate divine beings as well as becoming gods themselves and then claim to be monotheistic because they only worship one of them. So I keep asking and presenting arguments in the hope of some reasonable explanation. I am still waiting.

Anyway, I do appreciate your kind words.

God bless.

Steve