The September/October 2012 issue of Stand To Reason’s newsletter, Solid Ground, focuses on this question: Is Mormonism just another Christian denomination? In the author’s forward, Greg Koukl explains,
“In this month’s Solid Ground, I do what the LDS is failing to do. My aim is ‘simply to educate’ on some of the foundational differences between classical Christianity—the Christianity of the last 2000 years—and the Mormon church.
“In this article, I’m not asking if Mormonism is true. I’m only trying to determine if it’s Christian in the classical sense of the term. That’s all. Let’s get the facts clear.”
As one might imagine, the article takes a good look at theological issues. Mr. Koukl writes,
“If Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity, then everything doctrinally central to classical Christianity is also central to LDS theology, and nothing doctrinally central to LDS theology is inconsistent with classical Christianity.”
With that caveat, the article takes a look at the Mormon view of God. Using the 2011 book LDS Beliefs—A Doctrinal Reference by Robert L. Millet, Camille Fronk Olsen, Andrew C. Skinner and Brent L. Top as his reference, Greg Koukl summarizes,
“The Mormon Godhead consists of ‘three beings’ who each ‘possess all of the attributes of godliness in perfection,’ that are ‘a divine community’ sharing ‘no mystical union of substance.’ Instead, they ‘are as distinct in their persons and individualities as are any three persons in mortality.’ (263-264)
“[This] is an explicit affirmation of polytheism. Note, ‘God the first…God the second…and God the third’ are ‘separate and distinct beings.’
“To be fair, Mormonism denies this charge: ‘The LDS belief in… three beings within the Godhead… is not to say that we are polytheistic.’ (263) However, also to be fair, this assertion is hard to take seriously.”
Noting that there is nothing ambiguous about the word polytheism, Solid Ground defines it for readers: “from poly- (many) and theos (god)—is the belief in or worship of more than one god.” Yet Mormons insist that Mormonism is not polytheistic while still holding to a firm belief in (and worship of) more than one God. Mr. Koukl provides his readers with the Mormon explanation on this seeming contradiction that can be found in LDS Beliefs under the heading “Monotheism”:
“In the ultimate and final sense of the word, there is only one true and living God…. We believe in one God in that we believe in one Godhead, one divine presidency of the universe… three Gods… three beings… and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one.” (436)
Mr. Koukl urges his readers to “note the qualification” the Mormon authors use in their explanation: “Mormonism is ‘monotheistic’ in the sense that three distinct Gods comprise what was earlier referred to as one ‘divine community.’”
A theology that includes a plurality of Gods is foundational in Mormonism. Joseph Smith taught,
“I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods… [Father, Son and Holy Ghost] constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.” (History of the Church 6:474).
Brigham Young:
“How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods…” (Journal of Discourses 7:333).
Bruce McConkie:
“Three separate personages — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods” (Mormon Doctrine, 576-577).
Nevertheless, Mr. McConkie insisted, “The saints are not polytheists” (Mormon Doctrine, 579).
Greg Koukl concludes,
“A belief in multiple, distinct gods is polytheistic, even if the LDS refuses to call it that. Religious groups are free to define their own beliefs. They are not free to redefine the English language.”
Sixteen years ago when interviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle, BYU professor (emeritus) Truman Madsen was refreshingly candid on the subject:
“People tell us, ‘You don’t believe in one God; you believe in three Gods.’ And the answer is, ‘Yes, we do.’ If that is polytheism then we are.” (“150-Year- Old Debate: Are Mormons `Really Christian’? San Francisco Chronicle, April 8, 1996).
Yes, Dr. Madsen, that is polytheism. Mormonism is a polytheistic religion and is therefore theologically inconsistent with classical Christianity.
But Sharon they are Christians, they have Jesus in the name of their church. This is the reason I have gotten from Mormons. I used to say this same thing. The first time I was told that I was not a Christian was when I allowed 2 Jehovah’s Witness missionaries into my home for a discussion years ago. I let them in because I had gone to High School with one of them. The girl I didn’t know flat out told me I wasn’t a Christian because I was LDS. This was back when I was active. I was so offended! I don’t think the average Mormon gets it. Now to me, a Christian is someone who believes in the tradition Jesus of the Bible and believes in the doctrines and teachings of Christianity that have been taught for over 2,000 years. Mormonism doesn’t even come close to Christian teachings and doctrines.
“…and is therefore theologically inconsistent with classical Christianity.”
It is that “classical Christianity” had gotten part of it wrong that caused Heavenly Father to return to the earth to restore His Church.
The problem with old Greg Koukl’s article is that he starts off by contradicting himself. As he is quoted from his introduction, he is comparing Mormonism to Classical Christianity. He even admits that there are other meanings for the term Christian by saying that he is using the “Classical sense.”
Then he talks in his article as if the “Classical Sense” is the only way to use the term. He thus gives a nice mouth service to being objective, but fails to do so.
I would also point out that his timeline is not really very accurate. After all, for at least four hundred years there were several versions of Christianity.
However, my biggest point is this. The definition of a Christian, and thus a Christian church, is one who believes in Christ as the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world, and that through him, and only through him, may one be saved in the eternal worlds. Any religion that professes this, regardless of any other doctrine they hold to, is a Christian religion. They may not be of the Catholic denomination, or of the Baptists, or Methodists, or other protestant reformation churches. But they are still Christian.
parkman,
Don’t you believe that God is all powerful? Don’t you believe that He could have given us his Gospel through the writers of the Bible? Are you suggesting that he flubbed up and let men corrupt the Bible and leave out His message? According to Mormons, God was too incapable to get his message to us through His Holy Word so he had to have Joseph Smith “restore” it. Joseph Smith was but a man, how do you know that he got it right? Everything he taught and believed was contrary to God’s Holy Word. Red flag anyone? What exactly did Joseph Smith restore? Polygamy? Untruths about the nature of God? Temples and temple rituals of the Free Masons? I could go on but you get the picture. If these things are “restored” from Christianity then tell me why none of these things are mentioned in the BoM. None of it. As falcon has pointed out many times, none of Mormonism is found in ANY ancient writings, writings of the early church fathers including the apostolic fathers, or in God’s Holy Word. Where is it? Mormonism is anything but Christianity.
As to Polytheism, I deny it, but in a way except it.
First, we worship only one God, and that is the Father. I worship him through Christ, and I honor and revere Christ and the Holy Ghost. But the Father is the true and Living God that I worship.
Now, it can be said that we worship all three as we do recognize the Godhead as the ruling counsel or presidency. However, in this sense we still worship only one God, as we worship the Godhead as one unit. It is one Godhead, and the only God that has authority and thus has our worship. This is really not much different than the confusion of “Three in one and one that is three.” It is actually the same thing, but without the confusion.
It is kind of like saying we have only one Congress in the United States, but at the same time affirming that there are several that make up that body. We have one God, but that one God is comprised of three separate beings.
As to a belief in many gods, I think many people confuse this part of our doctrine. To us a god is not necessarily someone that is worshiped. It is merely a person who has achieved a certain state of existence. Kind of like in school, where there are many Graduates, but only one valedictorian. There are many beings that exist in the divine state, but there is only one that is worshiped and thus a God in the classical sense.
Matthew 7:22-23
22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
First you have to have the right Jesus. Making up a character, calling him Jesus, prophesying in his name and performing miracles etc.. doesn’t mean anything and certainly doesn’t qualify you as a Christian. A Christian is one who believes in the Christian God, the Christian Jesus and the Christian Holy Ghost. A Christian is one who believes and practices the teachings and doctrines of traditional Christianity. I don’t know why this is so hard for Mormons to understand. What if I waltzed in and restored Mormonism? Changed all of the Mormon teachings and doctrines then added my own? Would Mormons still think I’m Mormon and that I represent Mormonism? Or would they say I’m a fraud? Same thing.
Kate
I have been reading about the Nicene creed and the events surrounding it. In those days there was the question of the relationship between God and Jesus. Was Jesus subordinate to God. How do you explain the concept of the Godhead without being polytheistic? We know that the Trinitarians won the day and the victors write the history. Trinitarianism was traditional Christianity. If you believed anything else you were a heretic.
What if you are wrong? Then you have the wrong Jesus, the wrong God and the wrong Holy Spirit but your service to people might count for more than what we believe.
Kate
Do you even think about the things you say?
Q. Don’t you believe that He could have given us his Gospel through the writers of the Bible?
A. Yes we do. Not only do we believe he could have, but we believe he did. But this doesn’t mean much.
Q. Are you suggesting that he flubbed up and let men corrupt the Bible and leave out His message?
A. First of all, if he let it happen it was not a mistake, but part of the plan, and that is the whole point. People like to say that we deny the power of God, but they have failed to think this through. We do not deny his power, but we also do not deny his purposes. He does everything for a purpose.
So yes, we believe he let people corrupt the word he gave to the original writers. That is not saying he couldn’t have stopped it, but that he chose not to. Please get that strait.
You also claim “According to Mormons, God was too incapable to get his message to us through His Holy Word so he had to have Joseph Smith “restore” it.”
This is a completely false understanding of the doctrine and only shows ignorance in those who make such a claim. His capabilities are not the issue. His purposes, reasons, and actions are the issue.
You say “A Christian is one who believes and practices the teachings and doctrines of traditional Christianity.”
The problem is that these were not the teachings of “traditional Christianity” until nearly 400 years after Christ. Before this time there were many theories and beliefs on the subject, and yet all were considered Christian. So why can we not have this
Kate, I cannot do better than shematwater in answering your questions.
Shem
Great posts. I would just point out that you second post shows that we Lds are Henotheistic, not Polytheistic. And there’s nothing wrong with that, many biblical scholars argue that is what the ancient Israelites where as well.
Also it needs to be said that a strong case can be made that Trinitariamism is much closer to Polytheism then Monotheism, just ask the Jews and Muslims.
In the article above, Koukl is quoted as saying: “Religious groups are free to define their own beliefs. They are not free to redefine the English language.”
I think this hits on a very important aspect of Mormonism specifically, and I saw it also in the way shematwater responded to Kate’s question (Are you suggesting that he flubbed up and let men corrupt the Bible and leave out His message?).
Mormonism’s articles of faith specifically says (and I copied and pasted this from Mormon.org, btw): We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly …
The most common definition of the word “translate” is (I’m getting all these directly from dictionary.com):
to turn from one language into another or from a foreign language into one’s own
In this case, yes, the Bible has been translated many times over since it was written in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic … and yes, I am hopeful and I believe that those who did the translating DID translate it correctly. However, as I can neither speak nor read any of the above languages, I certainly can’t test this for myself. I read the Bible in English, and I have several translations that I prefer. NIV, for one, is my go-to. It is much more relate-able than, say, the KJV that the Mormon church uses.
Which brings me to another definition of “translate”:
to explain in terms that can be more easily understood; interpret
In this case, the Mormon church has failed in its article of faith, which said the Bible is trustworthy as long as it’s been translated correctly. Because the KJV is out-dated and difficult to read and comprehend because it was written in an English and a style of English that hasn’t been in use in centuries. (I won’t take the time to debate the use of such English in the Book of Mormon right now, though I could.)
Now, a third definition, one that is not usually associated with the word “translate.” In the case of dictionary.com, this was not one of the 4 definitions (of which I have referred to two) listed at the top, but rather this was further along down the page:
to interpret or infer the significance of
This, then, is what the Mormon Church’s use of the word “translate” means, and I’m pointing it out for several reasons.
1. It’s an odd word choice given that what the Mormon church REALLY means is not a common definition of the word. Why did the Mormon church choose the word “translate” when what they really mean is the word “interpret” (a la our third definition).
2. The entirety of Sharon’s piece here is ABOUT interpretation. Even shematwater admits to that when he says: “As to Polytheism, I deny it, but in a way except it.” He is interpreting polytheism and what the Mormon church teaches in ways that twist the definition and teachings of both to a point where it CAN be shown that what the Mormon church teaches isn’t actually polytheism at all.
I’ve said all this in an effort, I hope, to illustrate just what it is about the Mormon church that makes it so easy for both them at large and them as individual members to argue or shut down or control dialogue, opposition, and even, dare I say it, pleadings out of love to examine the claims of Mormonism as true or false.
Mormonism teaches that truth is truth so long as it is interpreted in a specific way. Or, to use their (incorrectly defined) word: so long as it is translated in a specific way.
Joseph Smith began this when he decided that Christianity and its modern teachings were wrong. He “translated” his own gospel and his own doctrine. Brigham Young continued it, putting his own “translations” not only on the Bible and Christ’s words, but also on Joseph Smith’s. The Mormon church is still doing this TO THIS DAY. We see this all the time, especially from its own leaders. Look at Hinckley’s supposition that the Mormon church never taught Snow’s “As man is God once was, as God is man may be.” Hinckley said:
“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made.”
Lorenzo Snow was the fifth president of the Mormon church. Hinckley, as well, was a president of the Mormon church. Each had their own “translation” of this teaching. Hinckley, however, “translated” that he didn’t understand it, didn’t know it, and didn’t teach it.
My question is this: How can ANY Mormon ever know that ANYthing is true (or isn’t)? How can any Mormon know what doctrines, what verses, what teachings “have been translated correctly.”
I was telling Shem under a different topic part of the reason why I dont believe in Mormonism and cannot be a Mormon. This topic will make me add more reason.
The AoF taech,
Ok, so the BoM has 4,000 changes or so, yet thats ok and not a problem, but the Bible is not/has not been translated correctly and No mormon prophet or Mormon in general has ever given us a list of these verses that were not/are not translated correctly.
So Mormons quote the Bible, yet they never say, that verse was wrong but we/the prophet corrected it? Then JS claims He “Corrected” the Bible and we have the J.S.T of the Bible, yet LDS teach that it is corrupt and use only a very rare few verses from it. So why has God not seen fit to allow a prophet to translate the Bible correctly as of yet?
Why do LDS use it and insist they believe it when it is translated incorrectly?
Then Shem said
Here is the problem with this idea, Why would He allow it? How can we trust God if we dont have a correct written record of who He claims to be? Jesus and the apostles quoted the OT many times and ACTS 17:11 applies to the OT. So if they quoted it, then it tells me it is trustworthy. So if God has the power to (cont)
(cont)
Protect his word in the OT, why not due the same for the NT? God says in His word, I place my word above my name. We know from Scripture He places a lot upon His name and if we take it in vain we will be punished, How more will He protect His word?
Then if the NT cannot be trusted, How can we know God is who He claims if His word is corrupt. ?
The nature of God is the nitty gritty of a religion, any religion. Mormons are living a total fantasy regarding who God is. They may as well say that Captain Kirk is a god, it makes about as much sense. How do we know about the Mormon god? Well, of course, the Mormon prophets have had it “revealed” to them. Well that pretty much seals the deal, right? These guys are, after all, spiritual super stars. How can anyone follow these nimrods?
If Mormons are turned on by these guys, I can make available all sorts of information on many different prophets at least as good as these Mormon dudes. I’ve pointed out on other threads how the Utah sect of Mormonism are pretenders to the throne of the revealed restoration. Even other Mormon sects don’t agree with them.
So here a prophet, there a prophet, every where a prophet prophet. Mormons need to get a grip and as countless Mormons are doing everyday, come to the realization that the church is not true and neither is her god.
Two-thirds of the members of the Utah group are inactive. Half of returning missionaries go inactive. But I have to remember is that coming out is a process.
Hay, how come all of the Mormons posters have surfaced all of a sudden?
Clyde, It’s a great to see how those christians in 325 A.D. attempted to defend their
belief about God against teachings which they felt could erode that belief . These
christians would no doubt point people to the Scriptures as the authority on doctrine.
This is not to different than what your leadership has said today , i.e. to be wise
LDS should anchor their beliefs in the written word , the scriptures . Obviously
you have what you feel are additional scriptures today , but this is the principle that
we emphasize about Nicea — councils are one thing , but the scriptures are the final
authority about ascertaining who God is , etc.
TjayT , I agree ” Henotheistic ” sure sounds better than ” Polytheistic” if you’re going
to advertise as “christian” these days . Now I guess you could make a strong case that
Trinitarianism is closer to Polytheism if you relied on testimony from Jews or Muslims,
but then they don’t accept the New Testament as a authorative source , and they would
certainly try to also make a “strong case ” that Jesus was not the Messiah or that He rose
from the dead . So I’m stickin with the Bible .
Parkman, your Heavenly Father never returned to the earth to restore His church .
He did’nt need to . Those who accepted the gospel of salvation —Rom 1:16— though
perhaps few in number because of coming persecutions , have been in existence ever
since that gospel was preached by Jesus’ apostles long ago .
Shem, concerning the term “christian” , it seems that going by the simple dictionary definition
of that term then LDS are christians . I actually lean towards what LDS Seventy Bruce Porter
taught a few years ago , which was that LDS should be called christians but if critics add modifiers
to that term such as ” unorthodox or even ” heretical” then that was fine just as long as LDS
were’nt called non-christians . This brings up a interesting point since some heresies, if believed ,
will result in loss of salvation according to Mormon authorities , and embracing false doctrines
about God is said to be one of these .
Concerning your reply to Kate, I think being a new christian she may not articulate what she
means at times , now I think I realize what she was trying to say about the Bible revealing the
gospel for us in our time etc. and ” incapable” may have not been the right word to use . But
she is on to something here relative to the Bible containing the gospel message of salvation
( and a correct knowledge about God ) being available and thus these truths not needing a
“restoring” in 1830 etc.
What you said about Polytheism was’nt clear , at least to me. You worship only one God,
i.e. only one Being (Father) in the Godhead of three , then you stated that it could be said that
LDS worship all three Beings as one unit . Then: ” This is really not much different than the
confusion of ‘ Three in one and one that is three’ [cont]
cont.
” It is actually the same thing , but without the confusion “. Now if the ‘ Three in one and one
in three’ is confusing , and what you stated just before that phrase is the same thing , then how
does that not make what you first stated just as confusing ?
Now I hope that I relayed that clear because it did’nt make a lot of sense to me .
As a Christian , a follower of Jesus Christ , I worship God the Father , and I thank
Him that I have entered into a relationship with His Son , my Savior and desire to worship
him also . This wonderful blessing is facilitated by the Holy Ghost.
And the source of Utah Mormonism’s views on the nature of God is what or who? Mormonism, generally, has a real problem concerning who they are going to depend on for their information on who God is. The ever evolving views of Joseph Smith as to who God is, forms the basis of some of the sects of Mormonism. So these Utah Mormons jump on the band wagon of a guy who prior to becoming a religious entrepreneur, used to run about the countryside with his magic rock claiming he could look into the ground and see buried treasure. Now there’s a guy you’d depend on, right?
Since you all say that Jesus is your only prophet, let’s take a look at what Jesus said on this topic.
Mark 12:28-34 is a recital of the Schema Israel. Jesus was teaching a scribe, by his own understanding. The Jews did not, and still do not believe in a Trinity. That is how this man understood Jesus, that God was one, or in other words unitary, not trinitary. In v32 the man agreed with Jesus and in v34 Jesus said that that man was “not far from the kingdom of God” without correcting him by saying anything about a trinity.
In all of Jesus teachings, why didn’t he make it plain and simple and define the trinity? Why did He call Heavenly Father His ‘God’ and our ‘God’? Why was He always subservient and talking about another person greater than He, if He knew about the trinity?
Jesus never taught a Trinity, but a unitary God, being Heavenly Father. He never put Himself or the Holy Spirit into the mix. This was put in by men after hundreds of years of arguments.
How do we reconcile the Bible saying that there is only one God, by that – Heavenly Father is the only God for this world and creation as He is the only Supreme Being over all, including Jesus.
I have said this a number of times and Shem mentioned it above – to the LDS a god is a powerful being of one sort or another thus it is only a title but to you it deems The Supreme Being. But the Bible calls Satan a god and many men as well, indicating title more than Supreme Being. The only Supreme Being to us is Heavenly Father.
Ralph, a question for you (and for the other Mormons on this board):
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God?
That is, do you believe that He is God made flesh?
Or, another way — do you believe that Jesus is Divine in nature, God in human form?
Like many arguments, this is one that boils down to definitions. Usually, when a Mormon claims to be a Christian, he has a very simple definition of what a Christian is. Shematwater’s definition in the third comment is a very good example of this kind of definition. It boils down to a belief in Christ. For what it’s worth, they have a point if a dictionary is referenced.
Usually, when a Christian claims Mormons are not Christian, they have a more involved definition of the term, which clearly excludes Mormon theology (and often other religions as well).
When this argument comes up, things generally get kinda heated fairly quickly, and unproductive. Ultimately, there are important theological differences between Mormonism and the mainstream Christian diaspora. Full stop.
What’s most important (and interesting) to me about this topic is not quibbling over how how words are used, or who gets to claim what title, but the theological differences between Mormonism and other faith traditions. They are substantial.
Mike,
Incapable is the exact word I wanted to use. Don’t forget I was on the inside of this at one point. It seems so absurd to me now that I ever believed the Bible was untrustworthy. God is fully capable of getting his message to us through his Word. When I was a Mormon I didn’t really even bother with the Bible because I didn’t know which parts were “translated correctly.” I was never really taught which parts of it I could actually trust. It was better to just follow along blindly. You have seen over and over how Mormons on this blog throw the Bible under the bus at every turn. Unless they want to use parts they think makes their case. In Mormonism the Bible cannot be trusted it’s better to look to the prophet.
Shem,
So according to your logic, God could just be letting Joseph Smith corrupt millions as part of his plan and then at some later date he could send someone to restore all that Joseph Smith revealed. How do you know what to trust then if God allows all of this corruption? I think I will stick with the Christian God who reveals himself in His Holy Word, the God who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. We all know that Mormonism has changed who God is more than once, depending on which prophet’s “opinion” is being believed at the time.
” So why can we not have this”
Go back and read my comment November 15, 2012 9:51 am
parkman,
Nice dodge.
Clyde,
That’s great that you are studying Nicea. I would suggest that you go back even further and study the early church fathers that came before Nicea.
Shem’s comment:
“A. First of all, if he let it happen it was not a mistake, but part of the plan, and that is the whole point. People like to say that we deny the power of God, but they have failed to think this through. We do not deny his power, but we also do not deny his purposes. He does everything for a purpose.
So yes, we believe he let people corrupt the word he gave to the original writers. That is not saying he couldn’t have stopped it, but that he chose not to.”
Thanks Shem, that is a clearer explanation than I usually hear regarding this issue. You are absolutely correct, this issue of the Bible’s inerrancy comes down to purpose; unfortunately, you are on the wrong side as far as the Bible is concerned. Only two verse are needed to make this clear (don’t worry, I’m not gonna quote Revelation 22. I know LDS jump all over that).
Proverbs 30:5 – “EVERY word of God proves true…” The word every, kole, means every.
Isaiah 46:10 – “declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I WILL ACCOMPLISH ALL MY PURPOSE,’ ”
OR
Job 42:2 (Not God talking, FYI) – “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.”
From Proverbs we can confidently say God has a purpose for us to know all His Words are true. From Isaiah (and Job) we know God will accomplish all his purposes. For your beliefs to stand regarding God’s preserving, or lack thereof, of the Bible, one or both of those verses have to be wrong. So, why don’t you tell me which one?!
I realize you can wiggle your way out of Proverbs 30:5 by playing some word games (no pun intended). So, also consider 2 Timothy 3:16:
2 Timothy 3:16 – “All Scripture is breathed out by God …”
Spoken AND written Word.
Mormonism teaches that men can become gods themselves and rule their own planet and that they will be worshiped as god by their spirit children who have been sent to gain a body. Are there already millions of gods doing this? Do Mormons count these other gods doing the same thing as their god? Or does just the god of this planet count?
Some interesting LDS quotes:
“I wish to declare I have always an in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods.”
– Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 6, p. 306
“If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds.”
– Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 345, February 18, 1855
“Women are queens and priestesses but not gods. The Godhead, the ‘Presidency of Heaven,’ is a presidency of three male deities, similar to a stake presidency whose members each have wives who are responsible for domestic religious education but not ecclesiastical functions.”
– Rodney Turner, retired BYU religion professor, Sunstone Panel Discussion, September 7, 1991
Wow, I think women are getting the short end of the stick. What about these verses in the Bible?
Isaiah 46:9
Isaiah 43:10
Isaiah 44:6-8
Another thought on this subject.
Why would God allow His word to be corrupted and we go for almost 2000 years Before JS comes along, but then after he comes along and finds the golden plates they are taken away for a few years then given back before JS can translate them. Then it takes nine first visions spanning years and all contradicting themselves. Then while JS is alive, he is told by God that he is to re-translate the Bible and create the J.S.T . But God then Tells JS he will finish that book before he dies, and it seems according to the book he did not do that. Then that version falls into corruption. So despite all these issues, People still believe the BoM and JS.
All they do is prove the Bible is real, showing they love darkness rather than light and choose death over life and reject God.
mossface said something interesting:
Like many arguments, this is one that boils down to definitions. Usually, when a Mormon claims to be a Christian, he has a very simple definition of what a Christian is. Shematwater’s definition in the third comment is a very good example of this kind of definition. It boils down to a belief in Christ. For what it’s worth, they have a point if a dictionary is referenced.
I had this discussion with a Mormon friend of mine who quoted the dictionary that said that a Christian is someone who believes in Christ. But the question I asked (that she answered but in a roundabout way) is this: someone who believes in Christ — as what? — did what? — is what?
Because I have quite a few atheist friends who believe that Christ existed and that he was a good moral teacher. I know of Muslims who believe in Christ as a prophet but not as God. I know many Jews who believe he existed but was not the Messiah.
So by a Mormon’s simple definition of themselves as a Christian, Muslims, some atheists or nonreligious folks, and many Jews — they should all be considered Christian as well, right?
I asked it up above but I’ll ask it again, using words direct from Christ in Luke 9:20, using the KJV:
[Jesus] said unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
I think that there are some BYU professors who should trade places with the apostles they
submit to these days . Truman Madsen understands what Mormon doctrine concerning the
Godhead reveals–polytheism . Then we have other BYU professors who admit that Mormon
doctrine has taught that Heavenly Father had sex with Mary to produce a body for Jesus. Then
we also have the admitting that Adam -God was in fact what B.Y. believed and taught . Strange
how these men can admit what the apostles they serve under won’t admit (publically ) .
Maybe the wrong men are serving as apostles these days ?
Ralph, Jesus not explicitly describe the “Trinity”, He also never fully disclosed other
important doctrines , these were revealed by His apostles after His resurrection.
Jesus’ identity as Jehovah was a difficult truth to grasp especially by Jewish converts, it was
not an easy transition for them . They were members of Jesus’ New Testament Church , and
they became aware of the revelation of Father, Son , Holy Ghost , thru the apostles teachings
but these teachings were basic revealments of God and this is all that is required to believe
for followers of Jesus since Almighty God in a way is incomprehensible to our finite
minds , we need to feed on what Jesus’ apostles taught and be leary of men who introduce
“another Jesus” . Much later on the term “trinity” was created to defend what the scriptures
revealed about God amist struggle within and from without of the church . Since Mormons
apostles claimed to have the true trinity of F.S.&H.G. should people test that claim with what
Jesus’ apostles taught ? 1Jn4:1; Mk13:23
MikeR
Hello my friend! Always good to talk to you.
I didn’t use Henotheistic because it sounds better then Polytheistic. I used out because it’s the proper term. Polytheism is the worship of multiple Gods. But Mormons don’t worship multiple Gods, we worship one God (The Father) through his Son and receive witnesses of him through the Holy Spirit. The correct word for the worship of one God without denying the existence of others is Henotheism. The reason that I would argue this is an important distinction is because Polytheism isn’t a belief that can be supported biblically, but a Henotheistic view is perfectly acceptable.
My point about the trinity was that sometimes critiques from non believers must be looked at with a grain of salt. There are people that would be as quick to call your beliefs Polytheistic as they would be to call mine. For the recorded I have nothing against Trinitariamism (at least as I understand it) per se, I just don’t think it best reflects how Jesus described his relationship with the Father and Holy Spirit.
Just a quick note related to TJayT’s comment above. According to authoritative LDS sources, Mormons are supposed to worship at least two Gods, the Father and the Son:
From The LDS Church’s Newsroom:
“Jesus Christ — not Moses, Paul or Joseph Smith — is the object of Mormons’ devotion and worship…For Latter-day Saints, being a Christian means being a disciple of Jesus Christ, loving and worshiping Him above all.”
Gordon B. Hinckley: “I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal, Living God. None so great has ever walked the earth. None other has made a comparable sacrifice or granted a comparable blessing. He is the Savior and the Redeemer of the world. I believe in Him. I declare His divinity without equivocation or compromise. I love Him. I speak His name in reverence and wonder. I worship Him as I worship His Father, in spirit and in truth.”
Apostle Quentin Cook: “Among all doctrines, beliefs, and principles revealed to His [Heavenly Father’s] children, the truths related to His being and nature should stand as the preeminent focus. We acknowledge His existence and true nature in order to join with ancient believers and prophets in true worship (see Mosiah 4:9).”
Sharon
Thank you for the quotes. My understanding of Lds theology is that Jesus is co-equal but willingly subservient to the father, and because of this subservience all praise and worship shown given to him is then directed and given to the Father, and so worshiping the Son is worshiping the Father, meaning we still only worship the Father.
I would love to hear from the other Lds here on the subject and there corrections to my understanding that are needed.
In the mean time I’ll keep looking and digging and asking questions.
Thanks Sharon.
TjayT , it’s always nice to talk with you as well . I was familiar with the term “henotheism “.
I personally feel that the issue of the Trinity can be a complex one given how great our
Creator is . That’s why the Bible’s description of God is what we should anchor our beliefs
in and I believe we are accountable before God to not go beyond that Standard . I also think
it’s important to consider the time period in which we live —the latter days . Today we can
see the importance of Jesus’ warning about prophets who would seek to introduce teachings
about God that go beyond what His apostles taught , and therefore they are of whom Paul
warns –Gal. 1:8. Now I believe Mormon prophets are such men . When I consider what they
have introduced about about God/Jesus’ identity ever since their alleged appointment by
Jesus to teach I find their alleged authority to be only self promotion . Mormon leaders have
claimed that they have the remedy for the disease that affects all other christian teachers,
namely , that unlike others who have promoted their own notions and ideas as gospel truth
about God , Mormon apostles are personally supervised by Jesus to bring doctrinal clarity.
The record speaks otherwise .
You are correct that polytheism can’t be supported Biblically when it comes to proper Christian
worship. Given what Sharon cites above no wonder some Mormons ( Truman Madsen) connect
the dots and sees the obvious—Mormons are polytheists .
TjayT , I hope the day is soon when you can dismiss your prophets with their egregious
beliefs of Gods/Goddesses. I pray God will give you the strength.
Well what these Utah Mormons would have us believe is:
1. That the first century Christian church believed in polytheism. That is, that there are millions perhaps billions of gods in the universe.
2. That men, who follow a prescribed religious system, can themselves become gods.
3. That the first century Christians were polygamists since Joseph Smith taught that only those who were into this practice could reach the highest level of something called the Celestial Kingdom.
4. That first century Christians had temples in which they performed rituals started by the Free Masons.
5. That the first century Christians believed that the Mormon god of this planet had a cadre of wives with whom he procreated spirit children.
Now can anyone provide documentation for any of this? No! Why not? Because Utah style Mormonism didn’t exist until the Mormons settled in Nauvoo, Ill and really got percolating when this group settled in Utah.
Mormonism is a fantasy. A religious system born within the very fertile imagination of Joseph Smith and expanded upon by those men calling themselves prophets who followed Smith.
So instead of spending their time repeating talking points from the FAIR/FARMS websites regarding the doctrine of the Trinity perhaps the Utah Mormons should actually spend some time studying the doctrine and reading what the Church Fathers wrote.
I wonder if the Utah Mormons ever stop to consider what they are expecting us to believe regarding first century Christianity. In order to make their narrative work, they have to invent all sorts of conspiracy theories and take a giant flight of fancy.
So anyway, how do I know what I believe is true. Let’s just say that I’ve had it revealed to me. That ought to be case closed for the Utah Mormons.
You see about the last thing the Utah Mormons want to talk about is the sheer fantasy of what they’d have us believe took place in the first century Christian Church. So they want to get off into a discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity. It’s a lot easier attempting to put the Christian posters on the defense and avoid answering very basic questions about Smith’s “restoration”.
Is there any Utah Mormon out there that can provide any evidence that Utah Mormonism existed in the first century Christian Church?
Joseph Smith believed in the doctrine of the Trinity when he launched his religious experiment. Joseph Smith’s son was the prophet of what was known as the Restored church of Latter Day Saints. That group, as far as I can tell, accepts the doctrine of the Trinity. The FLDS hold a view of Jesus that’s enough to make a Jehovah Witness blush.
So, my friends, there is no “restoration” for a couple of reasons. First of all we have a paper trail and a historical record regarding Christianity. We know what the Church Fathers wrote and how they battled the heretics who wanted to make Jesus into someone less than He is; God incarnate.
The only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ. Making up a sort of Jesus and sprinkling in a little Christianity isn’t going to get the job done.
TjayT, you’re a humble person and therefore if you keep looking into the Bible you’ll
soon discover how Jesus can be more than a god among many , one spirit baby born to
one of the Goddess wives of a God in heaven , He is the unique Lord God Almighty and as
such He is worthy of direct and specific worship . A relationship with Jesus is to know
Him on an intimate level as one person to another , such real interaction causes one to
naturally praise , worship, and adore Him regularly and this arrangement is the Father’s
will for us and thus it brings Him glory . This behavior facilitated by the Holy Ghost
and yet the Bible clearly states this is worshiping one God , not two separate Gods
which as you already have correctly noted would be Polytheism . In the New Testament
we constantly read the written words, the ” GOD ” , not ” Gods ” , and for a very good reason .
So keep looking to God for guidance and keep immersed in the bedrock of the christian
faith , the Bible .
Praying for you.
[ P.S. if you’re looking for some LDS to correct your understanding on this issue of worship
might you look to your apostles , rather than some apologist , since they are the official
source for doctrine —Mormon wise anyway . ]
MikeR,
Ralph, Jesus not explicitly describe the “Trinity”, He also never fully disclosed other
important doctrines , these were revealed by His apostles after His resurrection.
Wow MikeR, with this statement you have said much. You have basically said that Jesus was teaching that He believed just as the other Jews did, in a one, unitary God, but then later changed it through other people by revelation. If faith is a gift from God given to His chosen, as many here attest, then Jesus should have taught the Trinity straight out and God’s chosen would have believed reguardless.
Then you have just negated the use by others of the scripture where it says that in these last days God has spoken through His Son to us. They use it to say that we do not need any more Prophets to give us revelation from God or interpret scripture, Jesus is our final Prophet. If Jesus, according to the use of this verse, was/is our last Prophet then He did not have to reveal anything to anyone else after His resurrection. He had revealed all that as necessary, meaning that if He did not teach a Trinity while on this earth, then it is an abberant and false doctrine. But the Trinity is just an interpretation of the Bible anyway, it is not explicitly written in there.
SR says:
I asked it up above but I’ll ask it again, using words direct from Christ in Luke 9:20, using the KJV: [Jesus] said unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
I can quite emphatically agree with Peter’s response – The Christ of God.
Jesus did not tell him – but you need to remember that I am also part of the Trinity of God. There is no reference to a Trinity in there.
So according to you using this as a criterion I am Christian
Kylyo21,
You issued a challenge – did God keep His word uncorrupted?
In Jeremiah 8:8 we find that God is calling the Jewish scriptures corrupted laready by priests. As you know these are the first 5 books of the OT. So we find before Jesus’ birth the Bible has already been corrupted.
We find in 1 John 5:7 what is called the Johanine Comma. It has been found to be an inserted line of text that has not been found in the earliest manuscripts we have. Does this count for corruption of the text?
If that was not enough, what about Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11? They too have not been found in any of the oldest texts that we have. There are others, but as the Bible says, 2 or 3 witnesses are enough.
For more on these issues see – http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/text.html
There are other sites besides this one, but because of restrictions on this blog I am only giving one reference.
Ralph, I see you completely misunderstood what I said . Are you really saying that the
apostles were’nt directed to unfold more on what Jesus taught in the Gospel’s concerning
some important doctrines ? Where did you ever get that notion ? You also had some
strange comments relative to Heb. 1 : 1-2 that are only assumptions on your part . Now
it’s very late here so I’ll have to end this this post . I would like though to briefly comment
on what you stated to SR about the Bible. I was really disappointed that you resorted to
posting a Atheist site in order to proof your point . That was something you used to
do too often and I thought you had changed. Concerning the issue of the Bible being
“corrupted” I think that although the copies we have today are not 100% perfect the fact
remains that what we do have is what God has provided so that anyone can read and know
about Him and the gospel and I will quote from a source that you consider to be of higher
authority than the one you cited to SR : ” I love the Bible, both Old and New
Testaments . It is a source of great truth . It teaches us about the life and ministry of the
Master.” [ Ezra T. Benson Church News 6-5-1991 ] .
” The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is a Christian denomination wholly committed to the New
Testament account of the birth,life, crucifiction and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
[media pact for the Mormon Temple opening , Preston ,England ]
Mike,
You see that’s the point with these Mormons. They live in a parallel universe where the accepted standards of logic and evidence don’t exist. Credulity is suspended.
We know all about the various heretical beliefs that emerged in the first 400 years of Church history. We know about the heretics who perpetrated the heresies. There is no Mormonism any where and thus the premise for a “restored” gospel is totally fallacious.
Bottom line? Mormons make it all up out of whole cloth and support their premises with fantastic explanations and pure fantasy.
The “desire” to believe something is the emotion that drives people to develop and then accept their own fantastic stories. For some reason, there is a closed set of people who are taken with the Joseph Smith story. They dig it! Thus any form of explanation, no matter how far out, convoluted and ridiculous is accepted as support for what they want to believe.
We don’t even have to get into Joseph Smith’s life story and character in order to call into question his veracity. All we have to do is look at the claims themselves and dismiss them out-of-hand. Smith was typical of a type of person that made the scene in his era. Mormons may as well accept any of the “prophets” of the time if they’re going to accept Joseph Smith.
So I guess my point is that you can have these back-and-forth with the Mormon posters but their goal is to stay as far away from the facts and evidence as possible. They are experts at chasing people down empty rabbit holes, as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions.
If Mormons are really interested in becoming knowledgeable about Christian history and doctrine, they need to make their way down to a local Christian bookstore and pick-up some books dealing with the topics and study.
There’s nothing hidden here when it comes to these topics. Mormons have succumbed to this odd, peculiar and strange form of thinking and scholarship that does little but reinforce their desire to believe the Joseph Smith mythology. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years and it’s been sliced, diced and examined from every angle possible.
Now Mormons have the unfortunate approach to finding truth by being guided by their feelings which they suppose are a conduit to the heart and mind of God and the means by which God communicates to mankind. There is nothing superior to this approach and in fact it can be extremely deceptive. God does and will communicate through our intellects and what we come to understand as truth may indeed make us feel euphoric or terribly depressed. Good feelings about spiritual matters is something that is easily produced and used often times to manipulate people.
Now, as I’ve repeated often, I have what’s called a full gospel approach to Scripture and take very seriously what God reveals to us in His Word and the tools/gifts that he has provided us to understand what He is communicating. This is all laid out very clearly in First Corinthians chapters 12, 13 and 14.
Bottom line is that folks need to come to a clear understanding of who Jesus is and what the early Church taught about Him. He is not the spirit offspring of one of the Mormon gods and one of his many wives. Even the early heretics would laugh at that!
Ralph,
Oh yes, some Jews do believe in the Holy Trinity. First, the apostles. Second, all the Hebrews who believed in their Messiah in the Scriptures. Third, many Jewish Christians today – I know a few myself. If you define “Jewish” as people who don’t believe Christianity and thus don’t accept God’s full revelation of the Trinity in the New Testment, then you are correct – but that’s defining a term in a way that by definition can ONLY prove your point – it’s like saying Buddhists to this day follow Buddha rather than Jesus – it’s a meaningless self-evident statement.
Those Jews who believe in Jesus – and the Trinity – do believe in One True God.
“We All Believe in One True God”
by Martin Luther, 1525
1. We all believe in one true God,
Who created earth and heaven,
The Father, who to us in love
Hath the right of children given.
He both soul and body feedeth,
All we need He doth provide us;
He through snares and perils leadeth,
Watching that no harm betide us.
He careth for us day and night,
All things are governed by His might.
2. We all believe in Jesus Christ,
His own Son, our Lord, possessing
An equal Godhead, throne, and might,
Source of every grace and blessing.
Born of Mary, virgin mother,
By the power of the Spirit,
Made true man, our elder Brother,
That the lost might life inherit;
Was crucified for sinful men
And raised by God to life again.
3. We all confess the Holy Ghost,
Who sweet grace and comfort giveth
And with the Father and the Son
In eternal glory liveth;
Who the Church, His own creation,
Keeps in unity of spirit.
Here forgiveness and salvation
Daily come through Jesus’ merit.
All flesh shall rise, and we shall be
In bliss with God eternally. Amen.
Hymn #251
Ralph,
Yes, Jeremiah 8:8 speaks of false prophets perverting God’s truth. This is primarily in how the liars distort the teachings of Scripture, but I wouldn’t put it past some of them trying to claim some things are Scripture which are not – look at Joseph Smith. I believe this is exactly what he did in the Joseph Smith “translation” of the Bible. And has God protected us from this distortion of His Word? I believe He has – not even the LDS Church uses it. I see God’s providential protection of the Church in how that has turned out.
I am aware of the minor discrepancies in Scripture – and find it a blessing that there are so many numerous copies of Scripture that these kinds of determinations can be made. There is so MUCH manuscript evidence that we can use it to great benefit. These kinds of things only futher prove the trust-worthiness of Scripture to me. On that point, what has your source document research on the Book of Mormon uncovered? Oh yeah, there isn’t a source document, much less numerous source documents in multiple language across the span of human history – nope, none of that. Just one man’s word that it’s true. No evidence, no supporting archeology, no manuscripts – zip, zero, nada. And you question the Bible? – Un BeLive Able.
Ralph, I said nothing about the Trinity in anything that I asked or said. In fact, the questions I asked prior were a precursor to what I asked lower, when I quoted scripture.
You said: I can quite emphatically agree with Peter’s response – The Christ of God.
Jesus did not tell him – but you need to remember that I am also part of the Trinity of God. There is no reference to a Trinity in there.
So according to you using this as a criterion I am Christian
Yes, but define “the Christ of God.” As I asked before, is Jesus God? Is Jesus divine? Is Jesus God made flesh to walk among us? THAT is where Mormons’ answer differs from Christianity’s.
I get a kick out of how our Utah Mormon posters try to defend their aberrant, heretical view of the nature of God.
There reasoning seems to take this path: If I can convince myself that the doctrine of the Trinity is not true, then the view of the Utah Mormon sect regarding the nature of God must be true.
Some goofy reasoning I’d say.
I hauled out a couple of my books, which are basically charts and graphs of Christian dogma and Church history and one thing is very plain. First of all, unlike Mormonism, Christianity makes no attempts to hide information or present it as something that it isn’t. It’s all there for the world to see. Utah Mormonism, on-the-other-hand, must do everything it can to hide, shade, twist and invent explanations for their view on the nature of God.
Mormons know instinctively that what they believe regarding the nature of God is unacceptable to Christians. Mormons aren’t going to go around openly telling people that they believe God was once a man who through following the principles of the restored gospel, became a god. They aren’t going to be up front concerning their view that there is a mother god (or several) that attach themselves to their polygamous god. We won’t hear about spirit procreation between this god and his many goddess wives. We will not hear loudly proclaimed, their view that there are millions, perhaps billions of gods through out the universe. Finally, Mormons aren’t going to tell their non-Mormon friends and neighbors that they (Mormons) are going to become gods.
It’s amazing to me how people will chase off and follow some guy who proclaims he has the real truth and he has this truth because of his special status as a prophet who receives revelations.
falcon,
You are forgetting one thing, milk before meat. You have laid out the “meat” in your last comment and LDS Mormons believe that people, especially prospective converts, aren’t ready to hear or accept that without having the “milk” first. Personally I call this “bait and switch.” It’s interesting that other sects of Mormonism deny the meat of the LDS sect. I think before any Mormon tries to figure out if they are Christian or not, they need to figure out if they are truly Mormon or not. Which sect is true Mormonism?
In order for Mormonism to work inside the mind of a (Mormon) he has to convince himself of all sorts of ideas. Just having a guy walking in the woods and having visions of God isn’t going to get the job done. All sorts of people have walked in the woods and encountered God. So there has to be a special sort of narrative; a hook. Joseph Smith worked on his over a considerable amount of time to the end that the final version had to go through eight editions before he found the one that included all of the necessary elements to make it somewhat unique.
There’s another thing that has to happen and that is people have to be convinced that what they have believed is wrong and what you’re promoting is right and true. Joseph Smith was a creative fellow and one of his prime characteristics and abilities was being able to create stories and do so by incorporating information from various sources.
Joseph Smith’s legacy is this religious/spiritual creativity. That’s why there are so many different sects of Mormonism with competing and contradictory narratives.
Take our topic at hand; polytheism. There are sects of Mormonism that totally reject this notion and favor Smith’s original stream of thought. Then there are others who are all in with Smith’s successor Brigham Young and his Adam-god doctrine and his wild and wooly ideas concerning the nature of Jesus.
Ignorance is what drives a lot of this. Ignorance and an attitude to jump on board the next new thing; the attraction to the shinny object. One of the other legacies of Smith was his invention of new Scripture. A new religion needs new Scripture. If not, folks would just continue to believe the accepted revelation.
“… aren’t ready to hear or accept that without having the “milk” first.”
I would dare to say that whatever kind of worship group or church you belong to there is something along the lines of a Junior Sunday School. Moreover, unless your leaders are dumber than doorknobs, you also have some sort of introductory lessons for those who are new and unfamiliar with what you teach, just to get them up to speed with the rest of you.
Which would make the comment about “milk” another DO AS IS SAY AND NOT AS I DO moment.