MaryJehanne

Okay! We don't need a long, drawn-out discussion of nuances! It's very simple! There's no reason for us to accept this label, because it cannot be found anywhere in our teachings or official practice. If it was found in our teachings and was objectively what we did, then I should accept it to avoid being dishonest. But it's not. I can point to the Catechism to show that we teach the opposite of idol-worship. I could then say that there’s a difference between worship and honor, and turn to the objective matter to examine it and see what it is. Is it an action itself or intent that changes the nature of a relationship? For instance, when someone kisses their mother, it means something very different than when they kiss their wife (or at least we should all certainly hope so). The question, then, is do Catholics pray in front of statues of saints (etc.) with the same intent as when they pray in front of the tabernacle? No. The prayers that may be recited do not indicate that saints are equal to God, and in no way is there anything equated to them that belongs to God alone (such as thanking them for our salvation, praising them as the creators of the universe, asking them to save our souls, etc.) As I try to run these same tests on LDS belief in multiple gods, it works to confirm rather than refute the claim. From Joseph Smith's teaching: "I will preach 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 a spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370). I can turn to the objective matter on the LDS side and examine that. There is God the Father. And then there is Jesus, who is called a god. And Heavenly Father was once a man like us who had to become god, so he had a god. And LDS people can progress to achieve godhood. Those are many gods. It doesn’t matter if the Biblical scriptures say something different, if the individual religion teaches something else. What the Church actually teaches is what it, well, teaches. That's what I was wondering when I started the thread... the teaching describes polytheism, but then its followers seem to claim it's not polytheistic. That was my quandary, anyway.😕

Really just looking at LDS doctrine and then seeing "polytheism" described, but for some reason never labeled and not accepted by individual LDS! Okay! But I think a person can still say they believe in Jesus and then also say the believe there are other gods that exist! (And on that note I actually have to step away for a while to get some work done. Thank you to everyone who's answered, and hopefully I'll be able to get back to this soon!)

Ha ha! Huh, interesting! So, really, the only people who bring it up are the people who are definitely not interested in joining? Investigators don't care?

I think that depends on your definition of practical... If God is not my Origin, Divine Lover, perfection from eternity, who dwells inside me, who I can seek a mystical non-physical union with, that completely changes my day-to-day interaction with Him. 😕

Ohhh, okay. Thank you. I was really confused, because I've seen LDS teaching and bits of speeches from Mr. Smith, etc., that don't view it that way. This helps!

You're very welcome! OH! I think I understand what you mean! (Unless this is a false breakthrough ) You're referring to "God" more as a position, not a nature? As in, there's one person who is called "God", while others have divine (godly) natures, but do not achieve "God"?

That is true! But even if we do agree on a lot of issues (which we do!), that doesn't impact the point that mono- and polytheism address. I can believe in solid, traditional family values and read the Bible and be able to agree about these things with, for instance, an Eastern Orthodox person. But, I can also claim to be a polytheist. The only thing mono- and polytheism deals with is: one God or more than one? Not what our other values are... So, even if there are examples of polytheism in the past that are distasteful to some people, that doesn't impact the fact of what the objective religious framework is. 😕

Oh, good! Thanks, Jane_Doe.

Okay! I said I wasn't going to get off topic, but I guess one side note won't hurt. By saying I think it's important, I do think it impacts the day-to-day way we approach and practice our religions, but more than that... It doesn't matter if it doesn't change the motions. "How a person functionally practices their religion" isn't what's of real importance. To use an extreme example, lets say we have two people, functionally practicing their religion in the same way: they are kneeling and praying. But, one is praying to God, and one is praying to a rock they claim is god. Does it matter? Knowing whether you are praying to the eternal Origin of all or someone who became a god and arranges matter changes your fundamental understanding of who God is an what the universe is. To pray to the Origin God, you can give yourself entirely over to a being who designed all that you are, on who you depend on for existence at every moment of your life, who is more important than anything or anyone else, who is all-loving, has always been all-loving, and will never cease to be all-loving. If this is not the case, such union is impossible. If God did not design you, but rearranged you from what already exists, he is not the intimate designer and lover of your soul. If God is not the ultimate of all, if something came before Him, if something can be like Him, then he's not more important than anything. And if He is not all-powerful, then I can't rely on Him. That was really brief and spotty, but I'd have to go down specific examples of Catholic practice and show how a lack of one God would undermine them... which I can do, later on, if you wanted.

Okay! Isn't it best to be prepared when confronted with it, though? It seems that even if it's not important to LDS people, it's important to those trying to ask questions about what you believe... Again, I think it's important because it radically changes the nature of the religion, one way or the other, but I'm glad to hear you're not really afraid of the label or anything! And to everyone, I'm getting a little confused and backed-up with replying to posts, so if I miss yours, just remind me. I probably just didn't see it.

Huh... That sounds like the Catholic God. That isn't what I've read about LDS doctrine from even LDS resources... Do you have the places where this teaching is found?

I've seen a lot of Protestant preachers online (they're mostly the ones who record their endeavors!) who are... less then charitable. I like seeing the interactions, because I think it's informative on people's beliefs, but I don't agree with their approach most of the time. Especially the ones who just sit and scream that people are going to Hell. I don't think polytheism necessarily indicates a brainwashing cult. Polytheism was the common type of religion in ancient times, except for a few pop-ups like one of the Egyptian Pharaohs, and, of course, Judaism. Polytheistic religions still exist today. But, Joseph Smith's teaching seemed pretty clear, and a central part of the LDS salvation is that people become gods? Yeah, as I've seen from videos, people aren't always the kindest. I'm sorry you have to deal with that.

Okay... 😕 I mean, I do think it's really important, but, of course, I'm going to try not to drift from the main topic! Thank you so much for taking the time to reply.

But... that's not what I've read about LDS doctrine. 😕 I mean, there's, "Just as a child can develop the attributes of his or her parents over time, the divine nature that humans inherit can be developed to become like their Heavenly Father's." (https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng) And then there is, "Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine." (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/smithpluralityofgodssermon.htm) And also, "The first-born spirit child of God the Father was Jehovah, whom Latter-day Saints identify as the premortal Jesus. Jehovah was a God and was like God the Father in attributes [...]." And from that, "Jesus was a God in the pre-earthly existence. Our Father in Heaven gave Him a name above all others—the Christ." (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/03/joy-in-christ?lang=eng&_r=1)

(Catholicism + Protestantism + Eastern Orthodoxy!) But, if that's what you believe, it still seems like you shouldn't be ashamed of it... To hide it seems like trying to trick people. 😕

Just to specify, I haven't gotten any backlash! I've never mentioned this in conversation with an LDS member before. I just watch other people's conversations. Yes, there is the original definition of cult that just means "a following." I have no problem with that! There's another definition of cult, a "brainwashing cult" that seeks to control and isolate its members, usually under a dictatorship-type structure that smothers free thinking and questioning. That's the more commonly known definition. So, this is the standard Latter-Day Saint stance. Then, from what you've said, the answer is, the LDS don't care either way, and would rather not admit the label, even if it were true, for fear of looking bad?

This is probably a bit of an unusual question, but... I've wondered, since some of the earliest encounters I've had in this topic with Latter-Day Saint believers, why the identity of "polytheism" is shied away from. In debates and arguments online, I see Latter-Day Saints being angry and upset at being identified as polytheistic, while I'm sitting there thinking, but why is that a problem? If that's what you believe, shouldn't you love it and want people to know about it? Shouldn't they just tell the person they're debating that that's not a problem for them and that, yeah, that's what they think? I even see Latter-Day Saints who begrudgingly accept that they're not polytheistic, but henotheistic... which is polytheism, just a specific type of polytheism. (polytheism doesn't require that you worship other gods, just that you believe there are other gods) I'm monotheistic, and I love my monotheism. But, I would only imagine that if I were polytheistic, if I really thought that was the truth and the good, that I wouldn't push away the label, be ashamed of it, or reject it, but embrace it. Is this a universal thing in Latter-Day Saint circles? Why does it happen? How do you react to and respond to people who say that Latter-Day Saints are polytheistic... and why? Is there something I haven't taken into the equation? Thank you, guys! And God bless.

Yes, thank you, Anatess!

I’m just giving the Catholic teaching. I certainly didn’t come up with this stuff! I’m not sure what you’ve heard, but the Catholics you were speaking to might just not have been informed very well in this area. Here’s a video that explains what I was trying to get at earlier, and maybe does it better than I did! https://www.catholic.com/video/can-you-make-judgements-about-human-behavior God bless!

Ah, yes! No concept of mortal sins outside of Catholicism, really. A couple Protestant denominations may still have it, but I’m not sure... And the Eastern Orthodox do, of course. Although, I’d still insist we never say someone committed a mortal sin. We would never say “Gosh, didn’t you hear? Jimmy committed a mortal sin... suicide, you know.” That doesn’t happen. It’s actual IMMORAL to say that. We don’t know. That’s where the concept of matter vs. culpability comes in, but I don’t think I’m explaining that well.

Thank you, Jane_Doe! That is similar to the Catholic position, then! (evil in matter, though only God knows a person's true level of culpability) Although, especially in our day and age, it's often a person struggling with an illness (e.i. a mental illness that's affecting their decision making) who wants to end their life, it's not always the case. For instance, actor George Sanders left this in one of his suicide notes: "Dear World, I am leaving because I am bored. I feel I have lived long enough. I am leaving you with your worries in this sweet cesspool. Good luck." Suicide is despair (not just the feeling of despair, but intellectual despair). And so it can have very human motivations, beyond mental illness. Someone may be tempted under emotional distress, but that's not the same as mental illness, and emotions are almost always (if not always) a factor in coercing someone towards committing any evil. God bless!

I'm very sorry about that. I hope your son is doing better now. There are many people who have these experiences without explicitly mentioning it. In fact, in these days or at least in my generation, it seems many if not most people have. Believe me, there are people who have directly been through depression and thoughts of harm and death who affirm the disordered nature of the act. Of course, temptations to suicide and self-harm are not sinful in matter at all. It's only the entertainment and intentional enjoyment of them, the desire for our wills (death) over God's (to live). Sadness is a form of suffering, and death and even pain can be an escape. But sometimes we have to choose God's desire over our own (Jesus suffered a distress so great that he sweat blood as he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane. But did he stop the suffering or continue to endure?). And, of course, someone else's evil does not justify our own (they may be, instead, acting as temptations), and as we could not murder them for causing us extreme emotional distress, we cannot murder ourselves. Of course, we are sympathetic for the sufferings of the individual. And doubly sorry if they've despaired, rejecting their hope in God, and decided to end their life. But I can do all that, hope and pray that they were either not guilty of the act or repented, and still not condone the evil. Again, while affirming the objective wickedness of the act (matter), I do not judge the subjective guilt of a person. So, while suicide is grave matter, John Doe, who commits suicide, may not have committed a mortal sin. (Is this maybe a concept that's different than the Latter-day Saint teaching?) Of course, our religious differences are probably playing into the disagreement here! Our Church has definitively spoken on the nature of suicide; I don't know if the Latter-day Saint hierarchy has! God bless!

Hi, Anatess! That quote was from Vort, not me! (Though maybe you were trying to ask both of us?) I never said I had kids. Like I mentioned, I think it's great for kids to participate in the tradition of Santa Claus, and how he's based off of St. Nicholas (St. Nicholas doesn't equal Santa Claus; Santa's based off of him, but he's really become a figure of folklore... St. Nicholas never owned a workshop in the North Pole and flew around in a sled! ). The problem isn't the character of Santa Claus, it's the step after that says he really truly flies around the world in a sled, has a workshop of elves, etc. My parents started out with Santa and all that. It wasn't until part of the way through our childhood that they realized the problem... Then they began trying to emphasize, when we asked about Santa Claus, that Saint Nicholas was a real figure. They told me that if they'd had a do-over, they probably wouldn't have started it all in the first place.

Oh, that's good to know! Some people would think lying about Santa Claus, etc. isn't a big deal, but I think it really is.

Yes, as a Catholic, I distinguish between sin and sinful matter. Sin is the subjective guilt on a person's soul. Matter is the objective truth of the morality of the act. Murder is always objectively wrong, regardless of why someone does it or to whom they do it (whether it's a stranger, a family member, or oneself). But, an objectively grave act does not always result in actual guilt. For instance, the objective loss of life, an offense against God and creation, is an evil. But, is a person aware of that, and do they fully and freely will it? For most people an most cultures, we know killing people is really bad. So, generally knowledge is covered. But, let's say, a person is compromised by emotion or even an altered mental state, such as delusions? Can we say they fully desired their death? Maybe. Can we say they freely willed their death? For this, it's quite possible that they did not... Their will may have been impaired or influenced by a broken brain. In this way, for instance, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that Robin Williams was impaired when he commit suicide, and so he may not have been guilty of grave sin. This is all from a Catholic perspective, though, so I don't know if that's in opposition to Latter-day Saint teachings. Anyway, God bless!