Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?


MaryJehanne
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, zil said:

I thought the difference was explained long ago:

Polytheism: implies not just the existence of multiple gods, but the worship of them (and that they are validly worshipable).  It also implies things like competing powers and hierarchy.

Plurality of gods in the beliefs of the Church simply means that they exist.  None of them are validly worshipable except God.  (While one can choose to engage in acts which one might call "worship", it will do no good - you may as well worship a stone idol as to worship Joseph Smith or Abraham or Moses.)

Okay, thank you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

I'm so sorry, Anatess. I thought that was what your post was saying...  I'm a little beaten down right now, so I'm probably expecting an attack. :)

The false consensus is I thought LDS taught multiple gods and that the members on this forum believed that. :) I thought LDS thought that (for instance, 3 Mormons YouTube claimed they do...). And even some members on here said, that LDS taught multiple gods. :P 😥 Not a lot of good feelings right now. :)

 

LDS people can admittedly be sloppy in word choices at points.  Also it's not uncommon for an LDS person mistakenly think that "the Trinity" = "modulism"-- that Trinitarians believe Christ prays to Himself, etc.  These flaws can make these conversations inadvertently more clumsy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

LDS people can admittedly be sloppy in word choices at points.  Also it's not uncommon for an LDS person mistakenly think that "the Trinity" = "modulism"-- that Trinitarians believe Christ prays to Himself, etc.  These flaws can make these conversations inadvertently more clumsy.  

Thank you, Jane_Doe. :) I mean, the part about the Trinity can be a little upsetting, but it's usually okay... I get it; it's different and hard to understand. I'm more rattled about some of the personal attacks happening... all for saying stuff I've heard other LDS members teach.  :) Maybe people don't realize how they're coming off, but I've just been crying and think I need to step away from LDS stuff for a while to recover. :P I'll probably stick around for a few more hours, and then pull the plug, so to speak. :P

Thanks for being kind. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Thank you, Jane_Doe. :) I mean, the part about the Trinity can be a little upsetting, but it's usually okay... I get it; it's different and hard to understand. I'm more rattled about some of the personal attacks happening... all for saying stuff I've heard other LDS members teach.  :) Maybe people don't realize how they're coming off, but I've just been crying and think I need to step away from LDS stuff for a while to recover. :P I'll probably stick around for a few more hours, and then pull the plug, so to speak. :P

Thanks for being kind. :)

I'm sorry that some folks have been unkind and attacking (even if they don't mean to / don't realize).  I've seen what things you're talking about and ... it's not right.  I'm sorry and my heart goes out to you.   

I myself love to investigate other faiths-- like I investigated Catholicism at a distance for 10 years and then intensively for 11 months, and I very much can related to your frustration / hurt here.  People... can be jerks, frequently without realizing it.  Trying to understand a different belief system is HARD, even without that obstacle.  

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, estradling75 said:

When did you do it??...  when you quoted LDS church leaders and then claimed they supported you in your claims that the LDS church is Polytheistic.  That is you happy twisting our teaching and practice to suit your preconceived ideas.  You did this right there plain as day in the post I quoted when I made the statement.

You do not get to do that, and then play hurt and confused when you get called out on doing it.

And I do not have to be upset or angry or hurt to point out that you are being hurtful and provoking.

 

 

Thank you, Estradling75. :)I thought it was LDS teaching. I've heard from other members that it's LDS teaching, and I guess I misunderstood what they understood to be plurality of gods. Asking and talking about someone's beliefs isn't being nasty... (I thought I was quoting a legitimate source in a legitimate context) people have been challenging Catholicism and the Trinity all over this thread. I'm not offended by that. I'm offended by personal attacks. I'm sorry I made you feel hurt. Hopefully I won't do it again. :)

God bless :)

Edited by MaryJehanne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm sorry that some folks have been unkind and attacking (even if they don't mean to / don't realize).  I've seen what things you're talking about and ... it's not right.  I'm sorry and my heart goes out to you.   

I myself love to investigate other faiths-- like I investigated Catholicism at a distance for 10 years and then intensively for 11 months, and I very much can related to your frustration / hurt here.  People... can be jerks, frequently without realizing it.  Try to understand a different belief system is HARD, even without that obstacle.  

Thank you, Jane_Doe. It really means a lot. :) I think sometimes it's harder over the computer, too. You can't get tonal cues from written words. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I wasn’t saying you were doing that. I was explaining, in another way, my invitation to you to perform a thought experiment that shows why polytheism isn’t appropriate to use as a descriptor for the Restored Gospel any more than it is to describe Catholicism... though arguments can certainly be made that it does apply to Catholicism.

I still think it would be fun for you to try what I proposed.

Thank you, CV75. :) I'm sorry I misunderstood you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

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.

I think a large part of the confusion that one will encounter on this topic is simply semantic. Some are willing to accept certain usages of terms while others don't see it the same way. What one might consider polytheistic is clearly not accepted by all. In some cases, it appears that a strict definition of only one God as seen in Judaism and Islam would be indisputably monotheistic whereas Christianity is definitely more nuanced if not apparently convoluted from an outside perspective and LDS teaching is no different in this respect. We teach for sure that God is our Eternal Father, the literal father of our spirits, Jesus Christ is the First Born of the Father in spirit and the only begotten in the flesh, The Holy Ghost is a divine personage of spirit who has not as of yet been tabernacled with a physical body. Those who are true and faithful will become joint heirs with Christ and receive all that the Father hath, even a fullness. It is absolutely LDS doctrine that faithful members can become gods in their own right, but will continue to reverence their Father and Christ forever. 

From there things can get hazy, because it's doctrinally not spelled out. For instance, @prisonchaplain asked:

Quote

This is the first time I have heard this. Will every LDS member who is exalted become part of the Godhead, united in purpose with Heavenly Father?

 This appears to be at least two questions. The first is will the faithful exalted become part of the Godhead? The second is will they all be united in purpose with Heavenly Father? The second question can be definitively answered with a resounding yes. They will abide a Celestial Glory having chosen to abide Celestial Law and will have an eye single to the Glory of the Father. However, when it comes to becoming a part of the godhead, I think any answer one way or the other would be speculation. Whether multiple godheads are formed to govern over the affairs of their own creation or they are all brought together in one, or both we just don't know. What we do know is that we will always worship the one true God which includes God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost as seems more common in lds vernacular as per our first article of faith.

I agree with @anatess2 that those who go on to be exalted and attain godhood will be perfectly united with God and one of the best examples in scripture is the intercessory prayer where the Saviour petitions the Father that His followers can be one with them even as they are one. To me this very much seems as something that is attainable. It makes little sense to me that the Lord would pray for something to be that cannot be. So while I accept that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three distinct persons, I also accept that they are ONE. Where I likely differ from others is that I'll admit I don't understand how. For me, being of one will or one purpose or one family or one office doesn't quite fit perfectly to explain just what it means to be one, I simply accept that God is one because He has declared it to be so. Therefore, I have no qualms accepting that any other number of perfected persons or beings (individuals) can also be one. 

All that being said, I see no reason why LDS teachings would not fit into the monotheistic umbrella using the definition you have given above. If we can accept that God has three persons why can we not accept that God has an infinite number of persons? If the different physical entities becomes a problem for oneness, let me just say that I am more open minded as to what it might mean to be one than to try to pigeon hole what God declares to be one into my mortal understanding of mathematics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

I think a large part of the confusion that one will encounter on this topic is simply semantic. Some are willing to accept certain usages of terms while others don't see it the same way. What one might consider polytheistic is clearly not accepted by all. In some cases, it appears that a strict definition of only one God as seen in Judaism and Islam would be indisputably monotheistic whereas Christianity is definitely more nuanced if not apparently convoluted from an outside perspective and LDS teaching is no different in this respect. We teach for sure that God is our Eternal Father, the literal father of our spirits, Jesus Christ is the First Born of the Father in spirit and the only begotten in the flesh, The Holy Ghost is a divine personage of spirit who has not as of yet been tabernacled with a physical body. Those who are true and faithful will become joint heirs with Christ and receive all that the Father hath, even a fullness. It is absolutely LDS doctrine that faithful members can become gods in their own right, but will continue to reverence their Father and Christ forever. 

From there things can get hazy, because it's doctrinally not spelled out. For instance, @prisonchaplain asked:

 This appears to be at least two questions. The first is will the faithful exalted become part of the Godhead? The second is will they all be united in purpose with Heavenly Father? The second question can be definitively answered with a resounding yes. They will abide a Celestial Glory having chosen to abide Celestial Law and will have an eye single to the Glory of the Father. However, when it comes to becoming a part of the godhead, I think any answer one way or the other would be speculation. Whether multiple godheads are formed to govern over the affairs of their own creation or they are all brought together in one, or both we just don't know. What we do know is that we will always worship the one true God which includes God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost as seems more common in lds vernacular as per our first article of faith.

I agree with @anatess2 that those who go on to be exalted and attain godhood will be perfectly united with God and one of the best examples in scripture is the intercessory prayer where the Saviour petitions the Father that His followers can be one with them even as they are one. To me this very much seems as something that is attainable. It makes little sense to me that the Lord would pray for something to be that cannot be. So while I accept that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three distinct persons, I also accept that they are ONE. Where I likely differ from others is that I'll admit I don't understand how. For me, being of one will or one purpose or one family or one office doesn't quite fit perfectly to explain just what it means to be one, I simply accept that God is one because He has declared it to be so. Therefore, I have no qualms accepting that any other number of perfected persons or beings (individuals) can also be one. 

All that being said, I see no reason why LDS teachings would not fit into the monotheistic umbrella using the definition you have given above. If we can accept that God has three persons why can we not accept that God has an infinite number of persons? If the different physical entities becomes a problem for oneness, let me just say that I am more open minded as to what it might mean to be one than to try to pigeon hole what God declares to be one into my mortal understanding of mathematics.

Thank you, SpiritDragon! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Thank you, SpiritDragon! :)

The book of Genesis starts by referring to God as plural. Husband's and wives should be one like the Father and son are. Doctine is God sent his Son to Die. Jesus is baptized and the Father says behold my Son. And on and on. The can't be one litteraly this false doctrine started by Constantine to take care of politics in his time. This is the difference Christ Church and many others. The Trinity doctrine is false doctrine. 

If you don't believe God has a son there's a problem. They work together as one like a family,town, country but each is a totally different being. Jesus sits at the right hand of God.

I hope you are joking. LOL

There is an expert on this that shows the Trinity to be impossible in the Church. I heard him speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, john4truth said:

The book of Genesis starts by referring to God as plural. Husband's and wives should be one like the Father and son are. Doctine is God sent his Son to Die. Jesus is baptized and the Father says behold my Son. And on and on. The can't be one litteraly this false doctrine started by Constantine to take care of politics in his time. This is the difference Christ Church and many others. The Trinity doctrine is false doctrine. 

If you don't believe God has a son there's a problem. They work together as one like a family,town, country but each is a totally different being. Jesus sits at the right hand of God.

I hope you are joking. LOL

There is an expert on this that shows the Trinity to be impossible in the Church. I heard him speak.

Thank you, John4Truth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I struggle with the idea that the three persons having one purpose makes them one God. Yet, I understand that LDS believe this, and can accept that it is yet another step away from strict monotheism, but that even Trinitarian teaching seems such to Jews and Muslims. What I find difficult is the doctrine of exaltation. If faithful, covenant-keeping LDS can become as God is then it stills seems more like henotheism. Is it because no LDS member will ever be a god to him/herself, and will never look to fellow exalted members as such? 

LDS have different ideas on the same topics at times.  From what I understand from what they were expressing, I suppose one could imagine it like this.

Rather than the same substance, replace that with the same will.  The same thought process and willpower.  What is will power?  When you raise your arm, you have expressed your will to do so.  When you nod your head, you have expressed your will to do so.  Anything united with your will, will will the exact same thing in the exact same way.  Thus, if you wished to raise your arm, so would they, and it would be both of your wills, which is actually only one will, that raises that arm.  You are in control of your arm, so are they, but as you are ONE it is exactly as you desire and they desire.  It is ONE will that you are unified by?

In like manner, suppose, united in will in regards to the Lord would be in creation.  The Father wishes the earth to be formed in a certain way with a certain aspect.  The Son wishes the same thing and they will it to be.  So does the Holy Spirit, and thus, even though they are separate, they are united as one in what they will and what occurs. 

We can see this also in the Garden of Gethsemane where the Son actually expresses a desire in regards to the bitter cup that is coming, but is subservient to the Will of God and thus takes the bitter cup and pays the sacrifice.  It is because the Will of the Father is also the Will of the Son.

If I understand what they were expressing correctly (my understanding of what they said, this is not necessarily what I follow, but from their phrasing I think that may be what they were saying?).

Hence, even though they are three separate individuals, it is the united Will that unifies them and makes them ONE Deity, rather than three deities.  In that way, I suppose one could view it that instead of a substance (closest English idea to it) being what is the defining basic building block of what creates and makes our Deity one, instead it is a Will that is common between them and is the basis of the unity between them.  Aka...it is the will that is the basic substance or item that is shared between them?

Not sure I'd express it the same way...but I think that is the gist they were expressing?

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

This is the first time I have heard this. Will every LDS member who is exalted become part of the Godhead, united in purpose with Heavenly Father?

Not how I understand it, but in the LDS there is a wide range of allowance on variances of belief.  Obviously some believe that in the LDS church.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how they are saying or what they are saying, but I do not believe we will ever be the same as the Father.  He will ALWAYS be above us and ALWAYS be worshipped by us.  He is our Father and as such, will always be The Father of his children.  We can be joint heirs with the Lord, but we do not become him. 

Just like a child can never become their Father (they can act like their father, they can do what their father wishes, but they cannot literally become their Father, he will always be their father whether they like it or not) we cannot become our Deity.

HOWEVER, I do agree we can be united in the purposes of God.  I think we strive to do that even in this life.  We strive to do as he would and be like him, to do as he would have us do and thus, fulfill his purposes.  I think in perfection we will be united in the purpose of him, but I do not believe we will become part of the Godhead.  The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not what we will join, from my understanding.  It would be more like how children are to their parents, in that children can grow and be like their parents, and even have the same goals and purpose as their parents, but they do NOT ever become part of that Parental relationship (and I do not think we have Ouedipus in Heaven as an example). 

That is MY belief though, it appears there may be those that differ from this, and I think that is okay.  LDS belief has a wide allowance of variance between different people and members.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, john4truth said:

The book of Genesis starts by referring to God as plural. Husband's and wives should be one like the Father and son are. Doctine is God sent his Son to Die. Jesus is baptized and the Father says behold my Son. And on and on. The can't be one litteraly this false doctrine started by Constantine to take care of politics in his time. This is the difference Christ Church and many others. The Trinity doctrine is false doctrine. 

If you don't believe God has a son there's a problem. They work together as one like a family,town, country but each is a totally different being. Jesus sits at the right hand of God.

I hope you are joking. LOL

There is an expert on this that shows the Trinity to be impossible in the Church. I heard him speak.

I'm not sure if your comment was directed @MaryJehanne or myself. I see that you quoted her, but reacted confused, possibly because of my post that she was quoting? Otherwise I'm equally confused as to why someone saying thank you is confusing in the context of this discussion. Who said anything about believing God doesn't have a son? Is that an assumption about the trinity? Perhaps some view it that way. I've learned that I don't appreciate people telling me what I believe and I try to avoid doing it to others in kind. So in order for me to be consistent and avoid making assumptions about what you are trying to convey I would like to give you the chance to clarify what you're trying to say. (If you like that be sure to read Oh say can You Say by Dr. Seuss 😋)

If I were left to assume I'd believe you are being rude suggesting that that your assumptions about someone else's deeply held beliefs about deity must be a joke because they don't conform to your own current beliefs. Can you please try to clear this up by clearly stating who and what you are referring to?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

I'm not sure if your comment was directed @MaryJehanne or myself. I see that you quoted her, but reacted confused, possibly because of my post that she was quoting? Otherwise I'm equally confused as to why someone saying thank you is confusing in the context of this discussion. Who said anything about believing God doesn't have a son? Is that an assumption about the trinity? Perhaps some view it that way. I've learned that I don't appreciate people telling me what I believe and I try to avoid doing it to others in kind. So in order for me to be consistent and avoid making assumptions about what you are trying to convey I would like to give you the chance to clarify what you're trying to say. (If you like that be sure to read Oh say can You Say by Dr. Seuss 😋)

If I were left to assume I'd believe you are being rude suggesting that that your assumptions about someone else's deeply held beliefs about deity must be a joke because they don't conform to your own current beliefs. Can you please try to clear this up by clearly stating who and what you are referring to?

 

Thank you, SpiritDragon! :)

God bless! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Not how I understand it, but in the LDS there is a wide range of allowance on variances of belief.  Obviously some believe that in the LDS church.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how they are saying or what they are saying, but I do not believe we will ever be the same as the Father.  He will ALWAYS be above us and ALWAYS be worshipped by us.  He is our Father and as such, will always be The Father of his children.  We can be joint heirs with the Lord, but we do not become him. 

Just like a child can never become their Father (they can act like their father, they can do what their father wishes, but they cannot literally become their Father, he will always be their father whether they like it or not) we cannot become our Deity.

HOWEVER, I do agree we can be united in the purposes of God.  I think we strive to do that even in this life.  We strive to do as he would and be like him, to do as he would have us do and thus, fulfill his purposes.  I think in perfection we will be united in the purpose of him, but I do not believe we will become part of the Godhead.  The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not what we will join, from my understanding.  It would be more like how children are to their parents, in that children can grow and be like their parents, and even have the same goals and purpose as their parents, but they do NOT ever become part of that Parental relationship (and I do not think we have Ouedipus in Heaven as an example). 

That is MY belief though, it appears there may be those that differ from this, and I think that is okay.  LDS belief has a wide allowance of variance between different people and members.

Jesus Christ is the same as the Father (One God).  The Father is ALWAYS above Christ and worshipped by him.  He prays to God that we become One with the Father as Christ is One with him.  Being One is not mutually exclusive with worship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Am I wrong, or is this one of the most fruitful and informative strings we've had on this fundamental doctrinal topic? Yay us!

I'm reluctant to add to the thread because I know parts of it have caused @MaryJehanne pain, and I don't want to add to that, though I'm not sure what caused it in the first place.  I know I tend to be very blunt, and that might be perceived as mean or rude when all the non-verbal bits are removed.  And I'm certain she is more sensitive to these things than I am.  Anyway, I'm sad that she has felt these things and wish we could undo that.  Nonetheless, I thought of what seems to me a better way of expressing why polytheism rankles (so to speak), so I'll give it a go.  It all boils down to what the believer believes (rather than what some outsider technically defines).

A polytheist believes themselves to be a polytheist.  It's not just that others define them that way, they define themselves that way.  Someone from ancient Greece would fully declare they have many gods - all the gods (in their pantheon) are their gods.  They (the believer) can serve, pray to, sacrifice to, and/or worship any and all of the gods.

Latter-day Saints do not believe themselves to be polytheists.  Why?  Because they do not believe there are multiple gods whom they can serve, pray to, sacrifice to, worship, etc.  Sure, there are other beings who have attained godhood, but these are not their God.  The Latter-day Saint cannot faithfully serve, pray to, sacrifice to, or worship those other beings, because those other beings are not their God.

So, if you want to use "polytheism" in the narrow meaning of "belief that there are multiple beings who are gods", then yes, Latter-day Saints are polytheists (though you really have to add the restriction that only one of those beings may be worshiped by any given person).  But if you include anything related to "worship" or "worshipable" in relation to those gods, then Latter-day Saints are not polytheists.

(NOTE: If 3 Mormons seriously say that Latter-day Saints are polytheists, I attribute it to (a) using a specialized meaning of that word, or (b) youthful ignorance, or (c) trying to appeal to or appease someone / be sensationalist.  (Honestly, I'm not impressed by these folks and wouldn't hold them up as anything remotely like an authority on our beliefs.  Some of their stuff is accurate, some helpful/useful, and some not so much.))

FWIW.

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

I'm not sure if your comment was directed @MaryJehanne or myself. I see that you quoted her, but reacted confused, possibly because of my post that she was quoting? Otherwise I'm equally confused as to why someone saying thank you is confusing in the context of this discussion. Who said anything about believing God doesn't have a son? Is that an assumption about the trinity? Perhaps some view it that way. I've learned that I don't appreciate people telling me what I believe and I try to avoid doing it to others in kind. So in order for me to be consistent and avoid making assumptions about what you are trying to convey I would like to give you the chance to clarify what you're trying to say. (If you like that be sure to read Oh say can You Say by Dr. Seuss 😋)

If I were left to assume I'd believe you are being rude suggesting that that your assumptions about someone else's deeply held beliefs about deity must be a joke because they don't conform to your own current beliefs. Can you please try to clear this up by clearly stating who and what you are referring to?

 

I understood from remarks you were saying they're litteraly one.  

I apologise if I over reacted and misunderstood. The Trinity is a common mistake. We do believe in polytheism

I should read more carefully. We worship God the Father. 

Edited by john4truth
Add to
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, john4truth said:

The can't be one litteraly this false doctrine started by Constantine to take care of politics in his time.

 

The doctrine of the Trinity was not started by Constantine.  That's a claim with no basis in historical fact.  The surviving contemporary records that describe the events at the Council of Nicea make no mention of it. The doctrine can be dated to at least a century prior to the birth of Constantine and 150 years prior to the Council of Nicea, where Constantine allegedly invented the doctrine and imposed it on the church.

Irenaeus, a 2nd century Catholic bishop of Lyon, France, addressed the nature of the Father and the creation.  He clearly taught that God made all things out of nothing (ex nihilo creation), that God is 'a spiritual and divine essence...who contains all things,' and that only God is uncreated.  All of these very Catholic doctrines are core tenets of the doctrine of the Trinity, contrary to LDS teaching that Heavenly Father is a man, with a glorified body of flesh and bones, who created all things out of pre-existent, eternal matter. 

Ireneaus penned the following in the late 2nd century, around 180 a.d.:

 “The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist.” (Against Heresies 1.22.1)

“And that they may be deemed capable of informing us whence is the substance of matter, while they believe not that God, according to His pleasure, in the exercise of His own will and power, formed all things (so that those things which now are should have an existence) out of what did not previously exist...”

“...but they [Ireneaus here speaks of the Gnostics] do not believe that God (being powerful, and rich in all resources) created matter itself, inasmuch as they know not how much a spiritual and divine essence can accomplish...

“For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable, and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that ‘the things which are impossible with men are possible with God.’ While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point preeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence.” (Against Heresies 2.10.2-4)

But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who has made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him have received a beginning. But whatever things had a beginning, and are liable to dissolution, and are subject to and stand in need of Him who made them... (Against Heresies 3.8.3)

“Truly, then, he Scripture declared, which says, ‘First of all believe that there is one God, who has established all things, and completed them, and having caused that from what had no being, all things should come into existence: He who contains all things, and is Himself contained by no one.’” (Against Heresies 4.20.2)

 

It's obvious that Constantine did not create the doctrine of the Trinity.  Here we have evidence of the core tenets predating him by at least a century.  It goes back further than that. Prior to being the Catholic bishop of Lyon when he wrote Against Heresies, he was a priest for about twenty years (beginning in 161 a.d.) and before that was a disciple of Polycarp, Catholic bishop of Smyrna (now Izmir, Turkey).  Polycarp, who died as an old man in about 155 a.d., was a disciple of the apostle John the Beloved - author of the Gospel of John.  Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John, is the author of the doctrines quoted above.  Clearly, the fundamentals of the doctrine of the Trinity are a lot older than Constantine.  The claim that Constantine created the doctrine is demonstrably false.

 

So...if the doctrine of the Trinity is an invention, it must have been created in the early second century and no later.  Either Irenaeus invented it himself or he learned it from Polycarp, who invented it, or Irenaeus learned it from someone else who invented it, after Irenaeus' discipleship with Polycarp.  Surely, no LDS church member can believe that the Apostle John invented it?

Zaccheus

 

 

 

 

Edited by Zaccheus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, john4truth said:

I understood from remarks you were saying they're litteraly one.  

I apologise if I over reacted and misunderstood. The Trinity is a common mistake. We do believe in polytheism

I should read more carefully. We worship God the Father. 

Thank you for clarifying.I believe nothing of the kind and don't believe I said I said anything of the kind. I don't believe in the trinity, but do believe in the oneness of God while also believing the Father and the Son have individual form and substance, even if they share the express image of each other. To try to sum up the whole point is to get to the idea that people operate with different definitions and connotations to what it means to be polytheistic vs monotheistic vs (insert) theistic. This leads to confusion because some like yourself can look at the LDS godhead and say we are polytheistic and someone like me can say we are monotheistic either due to a different understanding of what the terms mean, different comfort level using them for whatever reason and perhaps a different understanding of the scriptures and words of the prophets could come into play as well. LDS teaching is clear that there is one true and living God who we worship, and yet also teaches the godhead with three, and also teaches that those who are true and faithful will be exalted to godhood. You're apparently happy to simply say we are polytheistic, whereas I see a point that needs reconciling between there being one god and multiple gods and I see that happening via some form of oneness that takes place, not a physical oneness, but a becoming one nonetheless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MaryJehanne,

There have been a lot of good answers to your question.  I admit that I have not read every page, but in case it has not been shared, I believe the following passage by Paul succinctly summarizes the LDS belief on the matter:

Quote

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

(1 Corinthians 8:5-6) emphasis added

I believe what Paul wrote in this passage, hence (as Zil noted), I would not consider myself polytheistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Some argue that for good to exist the possibility for evil must also. Still others, including the script writers for the current TV series Lucifer, have taken your approach. In their case, the result was to portray the Devil as a God-ordained "fall guy," doomed to carry out opposition to God and good. Me? I see no flaw in believing God created us with the capacity to rebel against God--against good. It does not strike me as necessity that any capacity for evil must originate apart from God. After all, could not evil, or bad, simply be the absence of God/good? The serpent's primary temptation against Adam & Eve was not to do evil, but to gain the wisdom to make moral choices independent of God.

Thank you for your input - I believe there are 2 levels possibilities each with two sub possibilities in creation - If anyone disagrees or has something to add - please do so :

First Level : G-d knows - or does not know in advance of creation how each individual created will act and behave in all possibilities that can possibly exist.  

Second Level: G-d designs (creates) each individual with their all their characteristics including will along with all their strengths  and weaknesses - the other possibility is that the individuality and uniqueness of each individual already existed - That what G-d creates is everything else other than what makes an individual unique and is the same for all individuals.

I believe that G-d knows in advance how each individual will turn out - which is the first part of the fist level.  Then, I believe that what G-d creates is the same for all - that he does not create uniqueness.  This I believe because I do not believe G-d is a respecter of persons nor  will he do something or anything for one person that he will not do for another.  I do not believe what G-d creates or provides or gives anyone any advantage in eternity.

With that said - I am not convinced that this mortal existence is all of reality.  In this life we - I believe we are placed into condition that best serve our uniqueness.  So it may appear that because of circumstance some have advantage.  But I do not believe in this life we see the complete picture.  That any attempt to define justice, mercy, or even what is an individual on the parameters the are manifested between conception (or whenever a person starts life) and death is incomplete and misleading.  I believe there are 5 parameters that define our relationship with G-d and what he does for us as follows:

#1. G-d will not do for anyone that they are capable of doing for themselves.

#2. G-d will do for everyone that which they are not capable of doing for themselves.

#3. G-d will not do anything for anyone that is not for their eternal (long term) benefit.

#4. G-d will do whatever for everyone that is for their eternal (long term) benefit.

#5. G-d will not do anything for anyone without their permission and acceptance.

I have had many discussions with you @prisonchaplain and despite what you say of things according to doctrine you have been taught - I am not convinced that you fully believe some things you may say.  I do not say this to fault you or someone like @MaryJehanne or anyone else - but I am not sure that you understand the ramifications of certain doctrine.  For example - the doctrine that G-d is no respecter of persons.  I am not sure that your understanding of that doctrine come across well in you concepts of creation and the individuality of individuals. Especially why in scripture we are told that some are called to be prophets unto nations before their were born or conceived in their mother's womb.   I try to point out contradictions that I see.  But at the same time, I listen very carefully to each response and attempt to glean anything I may have missed - not just concerning what you say according to your understanding - but to carefully check my logic to determine something I may not have considered.  So I welcome your input.  

And if I can connect to any truth I have not previously understood - I will embrace it in less than a nanosecond.  And I can honestly say I have learned more from you (PC) than you realize.  Though our opinions are very different - I trust you (and I believe that to trust someone is a greater honor than to love them).  I do not learn much from anyone of my same exact opinion.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
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