Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?


MaryJehanne
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

Rather, we both believe in ONE God.  Three divine persons, but ONE God.

One Godhead that is one in purpose.  The LDS believe in the plurality of Gods.  It is in our teachings and scriptures. 

For example, here's how it is explained on LDS.org, which is our own church website:

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods.

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/enrichment-section-a-who-is-the-god-of-the-old-testament?lang=eng

Perhaps the most accurate definition of theism in LDS doctrine as that we are henotheistic or follow monolarty. 

Dictionary.com:

monolatry

[muh-nol-uh-tree]
noun
  1. the worship of only one god although other gods are recognized as existing.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monolatry

This is perhaps the most accurate definition.  The LDS do recoginize that other gods do exist, but we only worship one God (or Godhead).

This is different from monothesim and doesn't fit well with what people think of polytheism (i.e. a god of war, a god of wine, etc.).

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Scott said:

One Godhead that is one in purpose.  The LDS believe in the plurality of Gods.  It is in our teachings and scriptures. 

For example, here's how it is explained on LDS.org, which is our own church website:

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods.

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/enrichment-section-a-who-is-the-god-of-the-old-testament?lang=eng

Perhaps the most accurate definition of theism in LDS doctrine as that we are henotheistic or follow monolarty. 

Dictionary.com:

monolatry

[muh-nol-uh-tree]
noun
  1. the worship of only one god although other gods are recognized as existing.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monolatry

This is perhaps the most accurate definition.  The LDS do recoginize that other gods do exist, but we only worship one God (or Godhead).

This is different from monothesim and doesn't fit well with what people think of polytheism (i.e. a god of war, a god of wine, etc.).

Thank you SO much for this, Scott! This makes perfect sense and is what I see in the official teachings. I really appreciate and respect your honesty. One of the last things I expected to have to do on an LDS forum was argue that the LDS religion teaches plurality of gods! I was seeing this stuff spelled out perfectly from LDS sources, from foundational doctrine to young adult apologetic videos (3 Mormons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u0F8ztDDDQ).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MaryJehanne said:

One of the last things I expected to have to do on an LDS forum was argue that the LDS religion teaches plurality of gods!

Except that wasn't what you were doing:

11 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

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.

"plurality of gods" is not the same as "polytheism".

Words matter. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

The word "nature" doesn't really convey into LDS thought (we've talked about this before).

God is 100% Perfect, Just, Merciful, Wonderful, Powerful, Knowledgable, etc.  We can take on all of these qualities and become ONE with Him through Christ's atonement: 

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Folks that don't fully accept Christ and His atonement are not exalted and do not become like God.  Rather, they live with a lesser glory (which is still beyond-mind-boggling for us and beyond-comprehenable-happy).

Thank you, Jane_Doe. :) Nature, in this case, I'll just equate to essence. So, even if every one has the same essence, there's still the concept of essence.

It's hard, coming from a Catholic standpoint. I'm trying to engage in LDS thought, but we have a lot of different philosophical traditions and perspectives. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Ironically, Trinitarianism is closest to HINDUISM, NOT a monotheistic religion.  If Trinitarians were Monotheistic they would hold views closer to either Judaism's view or Islams view.  Very few Christian religions actually fall under Monotheistic belief.

This is why they are called Trinitarian.

Hindu varies between sects (just like Mormons).  Their main deific characters, however, are a trinity.  They are three separate beings, but each, though separate, is also a different aspect or being of the same being.  In some beliefs (or sects), they are three separate distinct beings, but generated of the same substance (sound familiar?).  Trinitarian Christians do NOT believe in Modalism (though some Hindu sects also believe in Modalism in their deific three) typically, and thus believe that there are three separate individual Deities (even if they are consubstantial).

Latter-day Saints believe very similarly, however, they do not believe that the three in one are consubstantial, or so Mormons claim.

IRONICALLY, if we get to what consubstantial actually means, the gap between Mormons and Trinitarians becomes far closer. 

Consubstantial is almost normally utilized exclusively to the trinity...and people just accept it without asking what it means.

One other term that is used regularly and from which it springs is Homoousion.  This is used to indicate that the Son is generated of the same substance as the Father, but not necessarily of the same essence as the Father.

What is this substance than? 

The creed holds that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit too) are Distinct personages (NOT monotheistic) that are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial (from Homoousion in the Greek).

Modalists believe more on what the Sabellius promoted who was a splinter group of the Athanasians, which was that the trinity is actually ONE individual acting in different roles.

Mormons on the otherhand, believe that the Father and the Son are distinct personages, but are not necessarily co-equal (this does not mean they are not co-equal either, Mormons have that they have different roles or purposes).  They believe that the Father is head of all things and THE GOD, while the Son is the Son of God (and thus also a God as a son is made of the same type of stuff his father is, for example, I am human and my son is human, thus Jesus as the Son of God is also a God).  We also believe the Son created the Earth and all there is, but under the command/direction of the Father, thus the Son is also the Father of creation.  In the bible we believe that when it says Jehovah, this is form of Jesus Christ before he condescended to be born of Mary.  The Father is a separate individual.

They are both sects of Christianity, and the views are very similar, yet each sect feels they are different enough to be exclusive to their own set of beliefs.

I would say the Trinity is just as polytheistic in it's belief as Mormonism.  Only Modalists could really claim to be Monotheistic.

The claim that Mormons are polytheistic because they believe that the Saints can become Deities themselves, I find is rubbish.  We do not hold that we replace God, or that we become him.

Instead we get our information from verses like this in the New Testament

John 10 25-39

And Romans 8 13-25

So you can see the context of what was spoken and how it was spoken (KJV).

We, thus, do NOT believe we replace the Father, but that we are the Children of God and as such, Joint Heirs with Christ (and what was Christ the Heir of?).

Thus, to me, the claim that we are polytheistic because we believe this is not a valid claim, however the claim that we are polytheistic similar to a claim that Trinitarians are polytheistic holds more truth.

If a Trinitarian claims to be monotheistic, than the same would apply to a Mormon in my estimation.

Thank you, JohnsonJones. :) That's a (not very rare) misunderstanding of Trinitarianism; it's not the same concept: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/pagan-trinities

Monotheism, from Britannica, is "the belief in the existence of one god or, stated in other terms, that God is one. As such it is distinguished from polytheism, the belief in the existence of a number of gods, and atheism, the denial of the belief in any god or gods at all." Being is different from a person from a Catholic perspective. A rock is a being, a human is a being, and God is a being. A rock has no persons, a human has one person, and God has three persons.

"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."

"The Church teaches that the Son was eternally begotten by the Father. The Father has always been the Father and the Son has always been the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the father and the Son. Though they differ in their roles, it does not follow that the members of the Trinity differ in what they are. When we ask what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are, the answer is always the same. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Not a god. Each is God. Critics may say God can’t be three Gods, and they are right. But if there can be beings composed of zero persons, and beings composed of one person, why can’t there be a being composed of three persons? To say God can’t be more than one person is to put a human limit upon divine omnipotence. If God is all-powerful, there is no reason he can’t enter into his creation or exist as the perfect cooperation of three equally divine persons." (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-not-to-share-the-trinity)

Yes, I did know that LDS did not believe Heavenly Father would be replaced. Thank you for your post; it did help a bit. :)

I'm sorry if my post is to abrupt or anything... I'm having a great deal of anxiety over this thread, so I'm not quite up to my usual energy. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

An understandable view. One reason many Trinitarians react so against your church's understanding, is that the rejection of trinitarian monotheism stings. We very much consider ourselves monotheistic, and believe that accepting that the three persons are physically distinct crosses the line definitively.

Trinitarians as the rest of the world would understand it, are not monotheistic though.  The Mormons are far more accepting of Trinitarian monotheism than 75% of the rest of the world (or more, everyone who does not claim Trinitarians are monotheistic because Monotheism means ONE rather than three or three in one normally reject the idea of the trinity being a monotheistic doctrine).  Trinitarians are rejected as Monotheistic for the same reason many Hindu sects are (and the most ironic is that many of the Trinitarians view the Hindu's who believe the exact same principles about their Deities are Polytheistic yet claim that they, as Trinitarians are not).

The Trinity has traditionally had elements which one can understand and comprehend, but essential to it's essence is that portion which is openly claimed to also be Incomprehensible.  There are parts that we simply cannot understand and as such, puts the true Christian above such things that others try to place upon them such as Monotheistic, polytheistic or other such things.  The trinity includes and supersedes ALL of that and all other beliefs in traditional Christianity.  They are three separate entities, three separate beings and thus cannot be included as a strictly Monotheistic religion.  HOWEVER, these three are also one being or one in substance, which typically WOULD qualify them as being Monotheistic. 

Ironically, Trinitarians wish to think they hold a monopoly on this type of view of Deity.  Ironically, they do not.  It's a view that's been around for a long time, even prior to Christianity.  Ironically, every other religion that believed that way has been labeled polytheistic (not by Mormons interestingly enough, they would probably side with the Trinitarian more often than those others) but by the secular world and the rest of civilization who see religions such as Islam as Monotheistic, but Christianity as NOT being a typical Monotheistic religion (as there comes into the being of at least two if not three different Deities involved, even if they are also the same deity).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I would say that >95% of the time this comes up it's because someone (falsely) told the person that LDS are polytheists.  Some times the person I'm talking to is Christ like and willing to listen and get their facts straight (examples: @MaryJehanne and @Larry Cotrell).   Other times...not so much.  

For those people who don't have that false perception being told to them, >95% of them don't ever think to ask it because, they clearly see that we're monotheists. For the small remainder, it's the usual "wait how can Christ and the Father both be God" question (a question Catholics are well familiar with too). 

Thank you for continuing to be kind, Jane_Doe. :) That's a wonderful compliment, but I am not near to being Christ-like. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Fether said:

I wish I had command over the English language so I could explain what I’m thinking. I’ll have to stick with analogies.

to your first question, yes, the only people I have heard bring it up are he people who are looking for reasons why our church is wrong. 

To your second question, it isn’t that they don’t care, they just don’t know. We talk about it just as often as NBA players discuss the musical tone of the basketball hitting the backboard and how it resonates with the squeak of the shoes. 

MaryJehanne... I can’t explain this well enough,  the topic just doesn’t come up cause no one cares to discuss it. When I first heard it, this was my thought process “hmmm... ya I guess technically we are polytheistic” and then I went back to doing whatever it was I was doing. I’m not afraid of it, I just have as much cause to discuss it as an Astrophysicist has a cause to explain why the earth is round and not flat.

It just isn’t anything anyone cares about XD 

It is killing me cause I can’t describe how pointless this topic is to members of the church xp

That's an interesting point to add, Fether; thank you. Again, a lot of this is hard for me, because, as I'm realizing increasingly, a lot of our backgrounds (LDS vs Catholic) are very different... I'm very glad you're not afraid of the term; I think that shows an honesty and integrity, even if you're saying it's not really important.

I see! I was wondering why people didn't like the term... it seemed that some cared about that and I thought I'd ask why they were so against it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, zil said:

While the technical definition may be simply belief in the existence of multiple gods, in everyone's mind is the idea of worshiping multiple gods - and therein lies the reason for:

We worship one God, and only one God, from eternity to eternity - there will never be another God we worship.  If people were willing to make a distinction between "acknowledging existence of" and "worshiping", the conversation would go easier, perhaps.

Okay, thank you, Zil! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Others have answered for church members so lets address investigators...

For the LDS faith conversion is a Revelatory process not an Argumentative one.  Namely we ask investigators to read and pray, asking God for direction and guidance.  Generally speaking we do not use/depend on use of Logical/Rational arguments and persuasion.

The very first thing we ask Investigators to do is to Read and Pray about the Book of Mormon and ask God if it is True.   They Study, they Ponder, they Pray, and God answers.  It is between the investigator and God.  With the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon established then it becomes the foundation to Pray about if Joseph Smith was a prophet. They Study, they Ponder, they Pray, and God answers.  It is between the investigator and God.  With the truthfulness of Joseph Smith as a Prophet established then it becomes the foundation to Pray about if the Church is True/Authoritative. They Study, they Ponder, they Pray, and God answers.  It is between the investigator and God.  With the truthfulness of the Church established then it becomes the foundation for everything else. 

Thus the investigators established for themselves from God the Authority of the Church to give answers.  Thus if they have a question about the nature of God (or something else) there is no real need to debate or convince them... The Church simply tell them and they accept.

Thus it never really needs to be brought up in any kind of discussion sense... Although it can be a quick question and answer type because that is all they need.

Okay! Thank you, Estradling75!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mikbone said:

D&C 121:28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest.

We are not upset about it at all.  

It will eventually be manifest.  Apparently as of yet it has not been manifest.  

Final Word.

Thank you, Mikbone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Thank you, JohnsonJones. :) That's a (not very rare) misunderstanding of Trinitarianism; it's not the same concept: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/pagan-trinities

Monotheism, from Britannica, is "the belief in the existence of one god or, stated in other terms, that God is one. As such it is distinguished from polytheism, the belief in the existence of a number of gods, and atheism, the denial of the belief in any god or gods at all." Being is different from a person from a Catholic perspective. A rock is a being, a human is a being, and God is a being. A rock has no persons, a human has one person, and God has three persons.

"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."

"The Church teaches that the Son was eternally begotten by the Father. The Father has always been the Father and the Son has always been the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the father and the Son. Though they differ in their roles, it does not follow that the members of the Trinity differ in what they are. When we ask what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are, the answer is always the same. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Not a god. Each is God. Critics may say God can’t be three Gods, and they are right. But if there can be beings composed of zero persons, and beings composed of one person, why can’t there be a being composed of three persons? To say God can’t be more than one person is to put a human limit upon divine omnipotence. If God is all-powerful, there is no reason he can’t enter into his creation or exist as the perfect cooperation of three equally divine persons." (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-not-to-share-the-trinity)

Yes, I did know that LDS did not believe Heavenly Father would be replaced. Thank you for your post; it did help a bit. :)

I'm sorry if my post is to abrupt or anything... I'm having a great deal of anxiety over this thread, so I'm not quite up to my usual energy. :)

 

There are many Hindu sects that ONLY believe in ONE GOD.  What you are misunderstanding is the WHY Catholicism is NOT a Monotheistic religion (despite the idea that many WANT to claim it is so).  It is the exact same reason a Catholic labels a Hindu who only believes in the three but one principle of their deity as Polytheistic rather than Monotheistic. 

I'm speaking not as a Mormon in this viewpoint, but from a secular historical viewpoint. 

I understand the Catholic theology and it is a very essential part that though of the same substance that they are also THREE separate and distinct entities. 

There has been a misunderstanding and a push towards the ideas of Sebellius in recent years, in a way that I've referenced as Modalism.  In this, rather than see the trinity as three distinct individuals but also consubstantial, they see it rather as three different faces of aspects of the same being (also another idea straight from some Hindu sects).  Some would see it as part of the push to accommodate the world to try to impress upon it that they are actually Monotheistic in the face where the trinity has been rejected as a Monotheistic idea.  In this, they say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one being.  Instead of saying they are also three distinct entities or beings as well, the claim is that each is simply a different aspect of the same being.  For example, one could say that the same person could be a Father, a Husband, a Boss at work, and a Deacon at church.  These would be different roles that they do, but they are still the same person.

However, Modalism has been rejected by most Traditional Trinitarians (and Catholicism as I understand it) in recent years.  The idea is that the three in one are not just alternate aspects of the same being, but literally three different and individual beings.  They are NOT the same individual.  At the same time, they ARE the same being, coming or being of the same substance, thus being consubstantial.  

Modalist (and others) try to understand the entirety of the Trinity and reject the idea that there are things that are incomprehensible to the modern man.  Thus, instead of accepting that we can comprehend and yet not comprehend, they try to comprehend it all.  Yet, being comprehensible and yet incomprehensible is KEY to the trinity itself.

The parts one can understand is that there is ONE God.  We can comprehend that there is ONE supreme being.  It is upon this facet that many Trinitarians argue that they are in fact, Monotheistic.  However, the second part we can understand makes it so that they, by default cannot be categorized with the other Monotheistic religions of the world.

One can also understand that there is a Father in Heaven who is the Father of all things and created all things.  He has a Son who is separate and unique.  This son died for all of us and if we accept this sacrifice and follow him we can go to heaven.  There is also the Holy Spirit which is able to be with all of us if we let it.  These are three separate things and three separate beings.  They act accordingly as three separate individuals.  They are their own individuals in this understanding.

We can comprehend the above, but we cannot forget the incomprehensible.  This is where it gets difficult for most and where they lose it. This is why Modalism has taken an increased focus for some.  While we can understand how a being is one supreme being, and we can understand how there can be three separate and completely different beings, we cannot comprehend how there can be three beings just as separate as you and I, and yet they are also the SAME being at the very same time. Many have tried to explain it, and many try to follow them, but invariably it typically leads to heresy from the Catholic Teachings and the Catholic Church if they travel to far down that path (and from many of the other Trune churches that believe in the trinity).

They are separate and distinct (just like you and I to a degree at least) but at the same time, they are one and the same, the SAME being.  They are, as some would put it, Triune.  They are three persons, ONE GOD.  The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and yet infinite and complete together.  They are Triune.

However, it is this essential element which transcends the idea of the simple Modality that some currently adhere to (and how we even some some of the Saints explain it in the past),  and creates one as a true Trinitarian rather than someone who is strictly Polytheistic or strictly Monotheistic. 

Overall, a Christian Trinitarian probably shouldn't care, as in truth the teaching would be that Christianity ascends above the worldly labels that we try to give to each other and various religions.  Monotheistic or Polytheistic are very closed in how they are labeled.  They are worldly labels which try to group various religions with each other. 

Jews would see themselves as Monotheistic (at least the majority, they have some sects which differ).  Islam sees itself as Monotheistic (once again, among the majority, there are some sects at odds with the major beliefs).  They do NOT view Christianity as such (and a lot of that deals directly with the belief in the trinity).  Buddist normally don't care about the label, and it really differs from sect to sect among Hindus on what they feel (I think most would feel the idea of Monotheism and Polytheistic as too restrictive as they have a lot more categories of religious grouping among themselves).

The trinity is an interesting blend of Eastern and Western philosophy during the time it started it's formation.  I think too often though, that we try to hard to ascribe to what the world explains a religion to be, rather than what the religion itself explains itself to be.  As such, a Catholic may view themselves as Monotheistic, even if, from a worldly viewpoint, they don't actually fall into that categorization.  The same probably applies to Mormons and many other religions that have the idea of three Deities or deific types which they at the same time refer to as ONE Deity.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

@MaryJehanne  @Larry Cotrell and others that believe in monotheism.  I am a polytheist because the scriptures reference G-d in plural not singular.  The Hebrew word for one being is "Yahed".  But the term always use to designate "one" G-d in scripture is "Ehad" - I would point out that there is not a single exception.  This is the same term is used to refer to a man and woman being "one" flesh.  But there are two beings in a marriage - this is because when referencing persons the term is plural and means many united by a single covenant.    The problem is that despite claims - few if any traditional Christians understand covenant or why those in a covenant are referenced as one - or one by covenant.

If anyone can provide a scripture that states unequivocally that there is only one single g-d being regardless of any covenant - I would be very interested if it was demonstrated that the reference to one is yahed and not ehad in covenant.  Otherwise - I hope you understand that prophesy of Isaiah has been fulfilled which is a time of Apostasy during which (among other things) ordinances are changed, the everlasting covenant broken (meaning oneness with G-d) and the law transgressed.

BTW I can give many examples in scripture that those that are "one" with G-d will be like G-d.  For example - Jesus was accused of making men into G-ds - he referenced that this was a doctrine established in scripture - he did not deny to any degree that it was a false doctrine (man becoming g-d).

 

The Traveler

Thank you, Traveler!

I didn't mean to debate whether monotheism or polytheism is true... I think that subject should have its own thread!

God bless. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

@MaryJehanne semantics and context are very important. It is best to use the most common understanding of a term to describe others, and allow them to define the nuances, if there are any, not impose them upon others. Using the Wikipedia definition and discussion, which I think is representative of the most common ways polytheism is understood, is the most good-faith approach in discussing the topic of polytheism and how Christianity and the various denominations reflect it or not. It is not fair to portray a Christian religion in terms of polytheism.  Our faith has only one religion and one set of rituals; we recognize no others for other gods as having been revealed or even appropriate (if you understand the Joseph Smith quote you provided). There are many other generally accepted characterizations of polytheism that our faith rejects as do other Christian faiths. It would be uncharitable to misrepresent any of them, with Catholicism being the most vulnerable, as forms of polytheism.

Thank you, CV75!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zil said:

See this reply, also from me:

We are perhaps less rigid in our definition of "God" than others.  With a capital G, it means "The Father" or "The Godhead" (all 3 members - each of whom is a God, but when used in the singular, it generally means the grouping, or Heavenly Father).  But they are indeed one, thus, as the Book of Mormon says, one God.

When you switch to lower case g, we do indeed believe there are numerous gods and we have the potential to become gods, but that will never change the fact that for us (the people of planet Earth) there always has been and always will be only one God whom we worship.  We acknowledge the existence of others, but we did not, do not, and will not worship them.

But the instant you say (without all that extra stuff), "Latter-day Saints are polytheists," the whole world instantly thinks we worship multiple gods - but we don't.

I see! Thank you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I can really see you're putting a lot of high quality thought into this @MaryJehanne!    I'll go through your comment, adding stuff in blue.  

 

"I can turn to the objective matter on the LDS side and say, okay, let's see. There is God the Father. And then there is Jesus, who is called a god (and also God), and together they are one God.  See these scripture verses:

John 17:11 “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.”

“God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.” https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/7.7?lang=eng&clang=eng#p6. 

 “Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen”.  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20

  “And after this manner shall ye baptize in my [Christ’s] name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.” https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11

 

There is one non-canonical speech where Joseph Smith speculated Heavenly Father was once a man like us who had to become god, so he had a god.   But we don’t really know much about that.

It is known that followers of Christ can progress to achieve godhood. Those are many gods, whom are all one with the Father as Christ is with the Father (John 17:11).

FWIW, I actually find the Bible to much more support the LDS view of God than the Athanasian one.  I do respect that other people see differently though.

 

No, just different divine persons in ONE God.

Logic puzzle for you: can you go out and honor the Father will dishonoring the Son?    How about obey the promptings of the Spirit, but disobey the Father?  Can you listen to the Father but ignore the Spirit?  

NO!!!  Of course not, because they are ONE God.  Different persons, but ONE God. 

Thank you for that, Jane_Doe! Admittedly, this is a little confusing for me, though I think a lot may be due to the different concepts, categories, and definitions we're bringing to the table from our respective traditions.

I know it's hard to switch perspectives, but in talking, especially about the nature of God, "person" has a specific meaning in Catholicism. Like I mentioned in another post, for Catholics, a rock is a being, a human is a being, and God is a being. A rock has no persons, a human has one person, and God (as we believe) has three persons. So, for the sake of my understanding (even though I know it isn't quite LDS lingo), do you mean three persons in one being making up God, or three persons in three beings (for instance, with three separate bodies) making him up?

God bless. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

It is interesting that you have brought up the subject of worship.  A concept that parallels the culture and society of an ancient Kingdom in the Near East.  I can give you references (even references written by Catholics if you like) concerning the understanding of the kingdom of G-d as symbolically referenced in Near Eastern Supreme Suzerain – Vassal covenant and law with the citizens of a kingdom.  The first heir of the Supreme Suzerain is a vassal designated as the “Son of the Suzerain” sometimes stated as the only begotten of the Suzerain.  Often it was practice that a vassal sent by the king or Suzerain would speak in the first person as the Suzerain.  An example – the vassal would say, “I am the supreme suzerain (king) and beside me there is no other Suzerain or king”

We can see recognition of this culture and understanding in the trial of Jesus before Pilate when the Jews cried out – “We have no king but Cesar.”  One would then ask – who then was king Herod?  Perhaps if we were to talk to a Catholic or traditional Christina – they may say “Herod was the manifestation of Cesar in Palestine – that in reality they are one in the same person.”   Herod was a Vassal of Cesar and was therefore not a reprehensive (vassal) of another king or kingdom.

Thus to show honor and respect for a king is like unto worship of G-d as the Suzerain of the kingdom of heaven and that would mean that the same honor and respect for the king is extended to his vassal representative.   In fact to not honor the vassal of the Suzerain was an act of treason against the Suzerain. 

However, every one of the ancient culture and society of kingdoms knew all this stuff.  And they knew that in reality the Vassal and Suzerain were not the same individual.  I would point out that Jesus was very clear that He was a Vassal sent by his Father and that the Father was in essence the Suzerain.  The confusion is in those the alter the meaning of scripture to fit another kingdom and king.

 

The Traveler

Thank you, Traveler. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zil said:

You didn't offend - I just felt like some very strong statements of our perception were warranted (and a reminder that just because one person can't see / doesn't accept a particular view doesn't mean other people don't see it).

Nope, all powerful.  Omnipotent.  Your definition may be different from mine, but I think we can agree that God can do anything and everything He chooses to do.  The only thing we disagree on is whether it's even possible to create something from nothing.  (I refer you to The Sound of Music as my authority on that. ;) )

(Let's agree to skip the "Can God make a rock so heavy that He can't pick it up?" nonsense.)

Thank you, Zil. :)

I wouldn't use the rock thing. That's really normally used by atheists to attack God. :)

Okay. :) I do respect your right to your belief, of course. But as a Catholic, I can't concede that point; it'd be against my religion. I can say that it's true that you believe that's omnipotence, but I can't say that that is omnipotence. I'd have to confess that next Confession. :)So I'll just be quiet about it. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Except I can say the exact same thing for the LDS on the nature of God...  I could explain how God is defining being ONE in the scriptures is in perfect harmony with what the LDS faith teaches, and that all our teaching are in harmony with that.  That will not matter to you because you disagree and you are more then happy to twist our teachings and practices to suit your preconceived ideas.

And you can claim all you want that the Catholic church isn't engaging in Idol worship that is not going to silence your critics. Just like you are doing they will claim that is what the Catholic church teaches and how many member practice, and they twist your teaching and practices to support their preconceived idea

And you proved my point...  You went on the defensive straightaway against the charge of Idol Worship..  You did stop and say 'you know from an outsider someone saying Hail Marys and Asking for help from the Patron Saint of Lost Causes can kind of look like worship of other Gods?' and you are totally against any kind of acknowledgement of it.  And yet you wonder why the LDS are behaving the exact same way

 

Estradling75, I'm sorry if I upset you, but I was only answering a question you posed. There are several other LDS members here who are saying the LDS religion does teach that there are multiple gods... it's not just me who's saying that.

It may not silence my critics, but do I really need to silence them? I don't expect to silence them all. Some will continue to twist it and get around it to believe what they want to, but some will understand. In the end, persecution only lends to an opportunity for greater holiness. And I would expect Christ's Church to be persecuted, as He was one earth. :)

I didn't directly address that point, but I did say that it may look like the same action, while having different intent, which did kind of answer that indirectly. I never said it didn't look like that to some people. I'm not against any kind of acknowledgement of it; I was just never asked to.

May God bless you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

@MaryJehanne I would like you to list 5 ways Catholicism could be portrayed as polytheistic, and the 5 most important things you feel the Catholic Church has in common with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Which list would God approve of?

You may consider the first list to fundamentally false, but at least you might reconsider some of your focus on our faith as polytheistic. And I could probably improve upon your second list.

Friendly challenge accepted?

I'm sorry, CV75, but I'm not really motivated to try to speculate on that, especially since I'm worn down from some of the aggression I've been getting from some members. :P What do you mean what list would God approve of?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

Are you saying you do not have parents?  Saying you were created ex-nihilo?  I do not believe you are thinking clearly what you are posting.

 

The Traveler

Ha ha... I thought that would be mentioned. ;)

And, everyone, this is just me expressing my beliefs because I was asked... This is not trying to start a debate on my religion as opposed to LDS beliefs. I was just asked... So I'm trying to clarify.

On a more specific scale, my soul, at conception, was created ex-nihilo. My parents cannot create souls. And in the soul lies what separates man, a rational animal, from the irrational animals. It is what is made in the image and likeness of God.

My body is not created by my parents in the same sense as God creates. Human beings use already existing matter. They do not create new matter. So, although my body is organized from God's creation, all of creation came from nothing, and is currently held in existence by God, who could cause it to cease if He so wished (and He doesn't ;) ).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share