The Many Gods of Mormonism


#1

From the Discourse on Mormonism thread:

TOm wrote (in blue):
“I am a monotheist.” The CoJCoLDS properly understood is monotheistic. Our binding doctrine is contained solely in the Bible, BOM, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. From these 4 “standard words” one gets a monotheistic religion.

I reply:

Monotheism has thus been redefined as belief in many gods, but only one of them – the god of the planet earth – counts.

Judaism and Christianity are well known as monotheistic world religions. The One God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob revealed Himself to the Jews; they were to nurture this belief – in contrast to their polytheistic neighbors – and to teach that truth to the world. That’s what Jews were chosen to do: to teach and preserve the revelation of the One True God and to live by the rules of His Covenant with them.

In the words of the great Shema, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Dt 6:4).

The Old Covenant with Israel was superceded by the New Covenent with the New Israel – the Catholic Church (Gal 6:16). In Christ, God revealed that He is a Trinity of Three Persons in one God.

And then, there’s Mormonism, founded in New York in 1830 by Joseph Smith.

Gospel Principles, Page 6
Published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
(a study guide and teacher’s manual)

Quote:
"…if you were to see him [God] today, you would see him like a man in form . . .(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). God is a glorified and perfected man, a personage of flesh and bones. Inside his tangible body is an eternal spirit (see D&C 130:22). . . . Everything that he does is to help his children become like him – a god. Unquote.

Gospel Principles, Page 290

Quote:
BLESSINGS OF EXALTATION

Those who live the commandments of the Lord and receive eternal life (exaltation) in the celestial kingdom will receive special blessings. The Lord has said: "All [things] are theirs (D&C 76:59). These are some of the special blessings given to exalted persons:

  1. They will live eternally in the presence of our Heavenly father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).

  2. They will become gods.

  3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

End quote. Emphasis added. The chapter continues.

How does one qualify for exaltation? One lives the life of an obedient Mormon. Among other requirements, one must be a married male and receive the “temple endowment.” Wives get the “endowment” to become goddesses secondarily from their husbands, thus enabling them to live with them and have their spirit children when the husbands become gods and rule over their own planets.

Abraham, Chapter 4 (this is Mormom ‘Scripture’): Introduction: The Gods plan the creation of the earth, and all life thereon – Their plans for the six days of creation are set forth [verses follow].

TOm says that “the LDS church, properly understood, is monotheistic.” Well, we have the god of the earth (that’s one), plus the gods of the rest of the universe (where’s my calculator?), plus and all Mormon men who have ever received their exaltation and have become gods (calling Big Blue!).

Sorry, TOm, but mono- means one. Period.

Mormonism is polytheistic by any calculation, no matter how you twist it Therefore, it is not Christian.

Peace be to you and to all who post on these forums.


#2

Amen to you Katholikos. My “Discourse with Mormons” thread was getting a little stuffed.

Anyway, as I love and pray for our brothers and sisters who subscribe to Mormonism, there is absolutely no way that I, nor any other Catholic, can give any respect to religion that claims to be Christ’s Church but is the antithesis of Christianity. Don’t get me wrong, I know many Mormons, am friends with some, and know that if they found the Truth in Christ’s Church, they would be great Catholics.

All I can say is the Devil is much smarter than us humans, and takes advantage of all our weaknessess, but Truth has always, and will always, prevail.


#3

Katholikos:

Monotheism has thus been redefined as belief in many gods, but only one of them – the god of the planet earth – counts.

TOm:

How is this helping you to demonstrate your point? I do not choose to redefine monotheism.

Katholikos:

Judaism and Christianity are well known as monotheistic world religions. The One God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob revealed Himself to the Jews; they were to nurture this belief – in contrast to their polytheistic neighbors – and to teach that truth to the world. That’s what Jews were chosen to do: to teach and preserve the revelation of the One True God and to live by the rules of His Covenant with them.

TOm:

Actually modern Jews and Moslems would take exception to your use of the term monotheism to describe Christianity. And guess what, they would have a point. The Trinity is a three in one formulation. Modern Jews and Moslems are consistent when they draw a line between their “absolute monotheism” and Christianity’s Trinity and call Christians polytheistic.

LDS have regularly balked at the term Trinity, but leading LDS scholars such as Paulsen and Ostler now embrace the term Social Trinity. Guess what, so do I.

More to follow.
Charity, TOm


#4

Katholikos:

In the words of the great Shema, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Dt 6:4).

TOm:

Guess what this is in my Bible too. This is part of LDS binding doctrine. In fact I would go so far as to say that the BOM is probably more monotheistic than the New Testament.

Katholikos:

The Old Covenant with Israel was superceded by the New Covenent with the New Israel – the Catholic Church (Gal 6:16). In Christ, God revealed that He is a Trinity of Three Persons in one God.

TOm:

Actually, I am sure you are aware that the term Trinity is not in the Bible (boy that is so tired I am amazed I even mentioned it).

What we have in the Bible is a threeness. There is Jesus Christ, there is God the Father, and there is the Holy Spirit. They all possess attributes of God. They are not the same PERSON. There is only one God. Cardinal Newman suggests that if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church he would be an Arian. To compromise the eternality of Jesus Christ is one solution to the words of the Bible.

Also we should note that pre-Nicea orthodox was a subordinationalism that subordinated Jesus Christ to God the father. We have ECF who used words like “deuteros theos” to refer to Jesus Christ as the “second God.”

No, the Trinity did not walk an undeviating path from the lips of the apostles to the doctrine of the early church.

But you are Catholic so you subscribe to the authority of the holy spirit sealing the decision of the Council of Nicea and to the final blow to semi-Arianism that did not come for many years after the Council of Nicea (because of course the outcome of the Council of Nicea was very compatible with semi-Arianism).

I am a LDS and I must right all the words in the BOM, D&C, PGP, and the Bible into a coherent picture of the God. In my mind the Trinity (a Social Trinity) emerges.

Important for our further exploration will be these words of the Bible that point to a oneness of God the Father and Jesus Christ so I will share them for you now.

John 17: 21 -

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

TOm:

The Father and the Son are one. And look we are to be one too.

More later (perhaps tommorrow).

If you would like to see some of the ECF and Catholic teachings I will discuss shortly you may go to this link. This poor neglected thread is getting little attention anyway.

[/font]http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1624

Charity, TOm


#5

Because I am Human, and GOD is Perfect, and this Mortal world of Humans have limitations, I will keep my mind open to any possibility, instead of human set rules.

I do have a passion for the CHRIST, who I know was Resurected into an immortal body after the Crucifixion. I have to keep my mind open to the idea that Jesus can appear in the form of a body or in spirit form. GOD the Father maybe in the form of spirit, but can’t HE appear in the form of the Flesh if HE wanted too.

I fear that we Humans maybe limiting GOD with our IDEAS of what GOD has to be.

The Basic Thing, is that im working on my Passion for the Christ, and it is not easy at all in this Materialistic world, where things can get very worldly.

I am a Mormon, but do not limit myself to the ideas of GOD himself being limited in any way by our beliefs of HIM.


#6

TOm,

No, the word Trinity is not in the Bible. Guess what: neither is the word Bible! That argument doesn’t work. So who determined that what we know as the Bible is the Bible? Christ’s One True Church because She alone was given the authority to teach Christ’s Word.


#7

Tom,

You use Cardinal Newman and the athority of the athority of the Catholic Chruch here in your argument to disprove the Trinity. That is absurd, you can’t use the Church’s teachings to disprove the Church’s teachings, it doesn’t work they don’t contradict. You can’t pick and choose what teachings you want to believe you either take them all or take nothing. You also talk about the trinity as one god but you talk about there being three atributes of God. No there is only one God but Three divine persons.


#8

Although I have had to study Mormonism, to some extent, for my work, it is not a religion that interests me in the least. The chief reason, I think, is the evident impossibility of its basic teaching, which is polytheism.

The chief point of OT history is the inculcation of monotheism into the Chosen People. By our Lord’s time monotheism was long established–and not just with the Jews. Even many pagans, such as many Greek philosophers, already had come to the conclusion that polytheism, in whatever form, was a hopeless theory.

Then Joseph Smith resurrects that theory. Yes, I know that today’s Mormons insist that their religion is monotheistic, but it is so only in a constricted sense. They can say that only when referring to the god that rules this world, but that god, earlier in his existence, used to be a man who lived on some other planet and who, through proper obeisance to his god, became deified. And millions, apparently, have followed the same route.

It is this actual polytheism that turns me most forcefully away from Mormonism. Other false religions fare so much better by avoiding that error. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong on so many things, but they don’t fall into the trap of polytheism, and so in a way their faith warrants a bit more of a hearing. But I just can’t take Mormonism seriously.

Don’t get me wrong. I take Mormons seriously, and I take Mormonism seriously in the sense that it is a wrong path which many are walking. But I don’t take that religion seriously in terms of its truth claims because it goes wrong at the first instance.

The most basic divide in religion is whether there is one God or many gods. Mormonism comes down on not just the wrong side but on what I consider to be, in terms of elementary philosophy and not just theology, the impossibly wrong side.


#9

[quote=Tyler Smedley]Tom,
[/quote]

You use Cardinal Newman and the athority of the athority of the Catholic Chruch here in your argument to disprove the Trinity. That is absurd, you can’t use the Church’s teachings to disprove the Church’s teachings, it doesn’t work they don’t contradict. You can’t pick and choose what teachings you want to believe you either take them all or take nothing. You also talk about the trinity as one god but you talk about there being three atributes of God. No there is only one God but Three divine persons.

You actually misunderstood what I said.

I said that Cardinal Newman would be Arian had he not subscribed to the authority of the Catholic Church. As I understand his point, he sees Arianism as a solid read of the Bible and thus without the authority of the Catholic Church (ie as a sola scripturist) he would be Arian.

Sorry I was not clear.

Charity, TOm


#10

TOm,

Judaism is monotheistic.

Yet Mormons use the Jewish scriptures to “prove” that there are many gods.

Christianity is monotheistic, notwithstanding your arguments to the contrary. 2,000 years of monotheism taught by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church cannot be denied. Your understanding is deficient if you believe otherwise.

You use the New Testament to argue for some scriptural interpretation (abberation) called “social trinity.”

The issue here is singular: Is Mormonism polytheistic – believing in many gods – or monotheistic – believing in one God?

Mormonism teaches:

  1. that there are many gods in the universe
  2. that the god of earth is flesh and blood, and was once a man
  3. that Mormon males can become gods and rule over their own planets, provided they obey the rules for “exaltation.” Their wife (or wives) can become goddesses and produce spirit children with their husband-gods, but their “exaltation” is derived from that of their husband. Unless married to a Mormon male, they’re not going to be ‘exalted.’

A strong motivation for getting married and staying married and tithing and following all the other LDS requirements, don’t you think?

You have already redefined monotheism by claiming that polytheistic Mormonism is monotheistic! And claiming in your latest post that the Book of Mormon is “probably more monotheistic than the New Testament”! (Actually, the Mormon doctrine about many gods and about men becoming gods is concentrated in the Doctrine and Covenants.)

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to admit that Mormonism is (1) polytheistic, or (2) prove that it is monotheistic. In view of the evidence from Mormon sources, including the Mormon “scriptures” and the writings of Joseph Smith and his friends, the second option is quite impossible. You will sooner be able to prove that 2 + 2 = 5 than that Mormonism is monotheistic.

Mormonism is not Christian because it is polytheistic (and for other reasons).

Believe anything you wish. But I strongly object to your calling the Mormon religion ‘Christian.’

All the other issues you argue here are mere obfuscations. Address the issue, please.

Oremus pro invicem (Let us pray for one another).


#11

[quote=Karl Keating]Although I have had to study Mormonism, to some extent, for my work, it is not a religion that interests me in the least. The chief reason, I think, is the evident impossibility of its basic teaching, which is polytheism.
[/quote]

The chief point of OT history is the inculcation of monotheism into the Chosen People. By our Lord’s time monotheism was long established–and not just with the Jews. Even many pagans, such as many Greek philosophers, already had come to the conclusion that polytheism, in whatever form, was a hopeless theory.

Then Joseph Smith resurrects that theory. Yes, I know that today’s Mormons insist that their religion is monotheistic, but it is so only in a constricted sense….

TOm:

Wow! One of the reasons I was excited to come here was that I could read posts by Karl Keating. I have enjoyed your writing in the past and I am thrilled you have responded to little old me.

Now you state that I would like to be a monotheist, but you say I can only do this in a constricted sense. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to allow me to define in what way I am Monotheistic and then determine what you think of it. The fact is that you have misrepresented my beliefs in your post. This is remarkably similar to what you have accused anti-Catholics of in your books.

I have much to say.

First, you claim that polytheism, in whatever form, was a hopeless theory and this occurred before the Christian error. Surely you know that the term “gods” and the concept that men may become “gods” is riddled throughout the ECF and even in modern Catholic writings.

Rather than reproduce the quotes let me link to my much neglected thread.

[font=Times New Roman]http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1624[/font]

In this thread you will find the term “gods” used by:

Justin Martyr

Tertullian

G.H. Joyce

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In this thread you will find the concept that men become gods put forth by:

Justin Martyr

Irenaeus

Tertullian

Athanasius

G.H. Joyce

Lugwig Ott

Matthias Joseph Scheeban

Pope John Paul II

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

How is the concept of LDS deification different than the concept available and elucidated upon by the likes of Irenaeus.

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 3.6.1 “God stood in the in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.” He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. (ANF 1.419).

Add Irenaeus to the list of those who use the term “gods” to describe, “the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption;”

By this post I intend to show that when LDS use the term “gods” and say that “men may become gods” we cannot be called polytheistic without condemning the entire modern Magisterium. So the sense in which we “constrict” the term Monotheistic must surely be something other than this. On we will go.

Your character counts are very restrictive. Continued in the next post.

Charity, TOm


#12

First, our character counts are not unduly restrictive. They’re intended to help long-winded people write more concisely. :slight_smile:

Second, your references do not remotely prove what you think they prove. When the OT, for example, refers to “gods,” it doesn’t thereby affirm their existence. It recognizes that pagans believed in multiple gods, and it repeatedly pits the one, true God against these false gods (some of whom were mere chimera, others no doubt demons).

Similarly with writings by the Fathers of the Church. You think that when they refer to Christians becoming “gods” that they meant that Christians somehow “grew into” divine nature. Not so.

If that is what they really meant, they would not have been so diligent in writing against the multiple gods of the pagans.

What Mormonism teaches is that the god who rules this world used to be just a man. He lived on some other world, he lived justly, and he was divinized. One might say he “evolved” from having a human nature into having a divine nature.

He was set over his own universe–the one we know–and so, in a certain sense, may be termed the only god known to us. But there are countless gods like him, each with a separate universe. Good Mormon men have the prospect, in the afterlife, of following the same path. They too can be divinized and can be set up to rule a universe of their own, peopling it with their wives.

No matter how one examines it, the god of Mormonism is one of many equally powerful gods. And, frankly, he isn’t all that powerful. He does not share the perfections of the Christian God: omnipotence, omnipresence, and so on.

So, just as I lose interest in Mormonism because of its polytheism, so I can’t take Mormonism seriously because its god is too small. I am not interested in worshiping a super-man, which is all the Mormon god is.


#13

Mr. Keating can speak for himself, TOm, but your last post of 9:05 p.m. illustrates the danger of interpreting Scripture without the guidance of the God-appointed teacher – the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The term “god” or “gods” (small ‘g’) is used many times both in the OT and NT. But it doesn’t mean “gods” in the same sense as the One True God, creator of the universe.

Example: 1 Corinthians 4:4 - “the god of this world” refers to Satan.

I understand now how you may have been led into Mormonism. Lo siento mucho (I’m very sorry).


#14

[font=Arial]

[quote=Karl Keating]They can say that only when referring to the god that rules this world, but that god, earlier in his existence, used to be a man who lived on some other planet and who, through proper obeisance to his god, became deified. And millions, apparently, have followed the same route.
[/quote]

With the above you actually are in error when it comes to binding LDS doctrine. What is binding LDS doctrine is contained in 4 volumes of scripture, accepted by common consent by the body of the church. So the concept that God was once a man is not supportable from the scriptures. The current prophet of the church recently said, “We do not know very much about that.” (Irenaeus has an interesting comment that I think is similar to President Hinckley’s “we do not know very much about that.”) And anyone who does not choose to discard it as non-binding must right it with the following statement which is binding LDS doctrine:

[font=Times New Roman]“There is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God…” (D&C 20:17).[/font]

I can back up the requirement for doctrine to be contained in scripture in excruciating detail if it is important to you, or you can just accept the fact that I as a LDS should have priority when defining LDS doctrine (not to mention I am the world authority when defining what I believe).

So what we have now is the D&C 20:17 must be taken into account when determining if God was in any sense once a man. We have the fact that no binding statements require this. We have the fact that the current prophet has distanced the church from this. In my mind this is a pretty weak place to point to the non-Christian-ness of the CoJCoLDS.

From my previous post, I have also shown that if the Catholic Church can deal with making men gods, the CoJCoLDS should be afforded the same opportunity.

[quote=Karl Keating] It is this actual polytheism that turns me most forcefully away from Mormonism. Other false religions fare so much better by avoiding that error. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong on so many things, but they don’t fall into the trap of polytheism, and so in a way their faith warrants a bit more of a hearing. But I just can’t take Mormonism seriously.
[/quote]

So hopefully you will allow me to define my belief.

There is one God who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God. This God is comprised of the three members of the trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and subordinate to them “those who receive the adoption.” To receive the adoption is to be united and deified. God does not change to do this, but instead lifts men up to participate in the divine nature with Him, neither separating nor compromising Himself to do so.

Have I defined a Monotheism? While you answer remember that Jews and Moslems would deny you the title of Monotheist, so perhaps you can find some line that included Irenaeus and the Magisterium but rejects me; but is it really appropriate to do this?

I look forward to your consideration of what I have written. I am of the opinion that you have failed to understand LDS beliefs explained in a theologian vice a layman type way. I am no theologian, but I read a fair amount. It may be easier for you to dismiss the CoJCoLDS, but I hope I have shown that we need be no more polytheistic than the ECF, modern Catholics, current Pope, and the Magisterium.

BTW, if you would really like to challenge yourself you may read Blake Ostler’s excellent essay:

nd.edu/~rpotter/ostler_element1-1.html

Charity, TOm

[/font]


#15

[quote=Katholikos]Mr. Keating can speak for himself, TOm, but your last post of 9:05 p.m. illustrates the danger of interpreting Scripture without the guidance of the God-appointed teacher – the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The term “god” or “gods” (small ‘g’) is used many times both in the OT and NT. But it doesn’t mean “gods” in the same sense as the One True God, creator of the universe.

Example: 1 Corinthians 4:4 - “the god of this world” refers to Satan.

I understand now how you may have been led into Mormonism. Lo siento mucho (I’m very sorry).
[/quote]

Katholikos,

This statement seems like you didn’t even read what I posted. If you read the quotes I have provide from:

Justin Martyr

Irenaeus

Tertullian

Athanasius

G.H. Joyce

Lugwig Ott

Matthias Joseph Scheeban

Pope John Paul II

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I cannot imagine that you will not clearly see that the term “gods” and the concept, “men may become gods” is most definitely not associated with false gods nor with the “god of this world.”

Please, please, please, read what I have put forth. Much of it is available on the net if you want greater context. I cannot imagine you could possible make such a comment if you really read the quotes provided.

Additional appeal in response to a few messages above (BTW, my time stamps do not match yours). Please do not tell me what Mormonism teaches. I would most appreciate if you ask me what LDS believe. Second best would be to quote from LDS scriptures as this is the deposit of binding doctrine. You are also welcome to quote Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or … but recognize that Pope Honorius can be quoted as well.

Charity, TOm


#16

Karl Keating:

First, our character counts are not unduly restrictive. They’re intended to help long-winded people write more concisely.

TOm:

Guilty as charged and I have failed to be concise for quite a while.

I am prolly unreformable.

Charity, TOm


#17

Karl Keating:

Second, your references do not remotely prove what you think they prove. When the OT, for example, refers to “gods,” it doesn’t thereby affirm their existence. …

TOm:

I said nothing of the Old Testament. Not word one. Pls read my posts.

Karl Keating:

Similarly with writings by the Fathers of the Church. You think that when they refer to Christians becoming “gods” that they meant that Christians somehow “grew into” divine nature. Not so.

If that is what they really meant, they would not have been so diligent in writing against the multiple gods of the pagans.
TOm:
First, you have no more right to define the minds of the ECF than I do. My Catholic friend has said, “they are our boys.” Well, Justin Martyr is one of my guys. Witness of “uniquely” LDS doctrine is abundant within the ECF.

Second, multiple gods is an abomination. There is one God. It is through unifying and the adoption that we become gods. There is no hyper pelagian achievement that we can perform/do that deifies men. God must reach down and pull us to him. In 1998 a man who was a Catholic Priest compared LDS deification with the ECF and found remarkable similarities. Have you read this masters thesis?

Karl Keating:

What Mormonism teaches is that the god who rules this world used to be just a man. He lived on some other world, he lived justly, and he was divinized. One might say he “evolved” from having a human nature into having a divine nature.

He was set over his own universe–the one we know–and so, in a certain sense, may be termed the only god known to us. But there are countless gods like him, each with a separate universe. Good Mormon men have the prospect, in the afterlife, of following the same path. They too can be divinized and can be set up to rule a universe of their own, peopling it with their wives.

TOm:

I spend 20+ hours a week studying and contemplating what Mormonism teaches and you are in error. Please do not try to define my religion for me. Let me define it, then you do what you will. I can TEACH you some differences that exist between LDS and Catholics, but the ones you point to are a result of you not allowing LDS scholars to best define LDS beliefs. Read the Blake Ostler essay I linked you too.

Karl Keating:

No matter how one examines it, the god of Mormonism is one of many equally powerful gods.

TOm:

Sorry, this is wrong as well. You are big on saying that anti-Catholics should not define Catholic beliefs. You suggest that anti-Catholic take the most negative read possible and then attack it. Please contemplate your own words and do not do the same to me.

Karl Keating:

And, frankly, he isn’t all that powerful. He does not share the perfections of the Christian God: omnipotence, omnipresence, and so on.
So, just as I lose interest in Mormonism because of its polytheism, so I can’t take Mormonism seriously because its god is too small. I am not interested in worshiping a super-man, which is all the Mormon god is.

TOm:

Again, please do not take the most negative read possible and then attack it. This is what you are doing. Please show me one LDS who has ever called God a “super-man.” PLEASE SHOW ME ONE LDS WHO HAS EVER CALLED GOD A “SUPER-MAN.” You are employing the tactics you condemn in your books. Please think about what I am saying, because I hope it is just late and you are tired. This is not what I was expecting. It seems hypocritical even. Shouldn’t I be able to define what I believe, and even explain what makes the most sense from LDS scripture? Isn’t this what you ask to be allowed relative to anti-Catholicism?

Charity, TOm


#18

When I saw this thread I misinterpreted…I had the preconceived notion I was going to hear some discussion of something often hurled at the Mormons.It’s not they don’t believe in the Trinity ,there comes out a claim that there are polytheistic because they believe that God who is called an Eternal Father is going to make them into gods in an exalted state.

Now what I don’t fathom is that this doesn’t appear to be an official teaching of the Church at all,where did it come from?What does it really mean?You could quite easily take the perfectly orthodox idea of our partaking in the nature of Christ and say that makes us communitarian polytheistic.Is it the objection that no one can ever resemble God?The exalted state"the world to come"is a grand mystery.Stupid as they may be judged, the Mormons have formulated the future …Heaven is getting on with something.

I’m not headed for Salt Lake City just yet-but I also observe that the notion they will actually tell you about when you first meet them is neither really in their Scriptures or ours.I wonder if people know that it was part of the incorrect musings of Origen which were not accepted by the official theologians.We can’t undermine the Pre-existence of Jesus as Logos with a parallel scenario where every human being begins its life at God’s side and descends to earth on probation.It’s actually very difficult to extract any reason for the Redemption, but no one takes William Wordsworth as The Word in his right mind.


#19

[quote=TOmNossor]*

Far be it from me to disagree with one of the great divines of the Catholic church, but to me (and I am Reformed, mind you) the Trinity, though not spelled out (“Okay, we have three divine persons, but one God, aight?”) is so clearly taught throughout the Scriptures that I must believe it. I don’t need to understand it fully, but I believe it, as has all of Christendom from the get-go.*
[/quote]


#20

TOm,

I still don’t see the LDS position as monotheism… maybe henotheism?

Henotheism: The worship of one god as pre-eminent, while not denying the existence of other gods.

From what I read and see that seems the better fit.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.