A Mormon Hymn: If You Could Hie to Kolob

[amontoya]

So…where DID God come from?

Nowhere. He is eternal. “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God,” Psalm 90:2. That’s why He says, “I AM THAT I AM,” and not “I was but I am now.”

What I DO believe is that God is literally our spiritual Father, and that He has promised that if we obey Him, we can become heirs and joint-heirs with Christ and have all that He does. When you consider what Jesus actually does have, and we have been promised the same, the logical conclusion goes somewhere that many Christians don’t feel comfortable with.

The conclusion that Christians are uncomfortable with is the one that assumes the Divinity of Jesus is something He inherits from the Father, and therefore something that we, as co-heirs, will one day inherit. Christ’s Divinity is not something that He has, but something that He is. It is His nature. Scripture tells us that Jesus, “being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,” Philippians 2:6.

The sort of heavens that have been described to me are the kinds that, frankly, I would have to be changed utterly beyond who I am to appreciate.

Yes, we must be changed.

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come,” 2 Cor. 5:17.

“Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality,” 1 Cor. 15:51-53.

 

[benidict]

I didn’t mean that you are here to proselytize, but to explain the LDS side of things, and to change minds so that people (like me) can say “Thanks for the explanation.”

Good because I really do like to ask lots of questions and I do try to be charitable. It is important to be able to ask the “deep” questions to someone.

Yeah, being Catholic isn’t much fun these days…but we are all learning a lot about faith.

hi lax. diana is a wonderful person, and yes a Mormon. she has actually done alot of good for Catholics, and she has also attempted to get on other forums to stick up for us. he/or she who is not against us is for us. and vice versa. id rather converse with an intelligent mormon, who we share alot with morally, than a fundamentalist protestant, who is attempting nothing but prosylatizing…( i think i spelled that wrong.) glad you 2 made peace. she can teach us alot about the true teachings and aspects of Mormonism. peace

 

[Answersplease]

diana is a wonderful person, and yes a Mormon.

she has actually done alot of good for Catholics, and she has also attempted to get on other forums to stick up for us.

he/or she who is not against us is for us. and vice versa.

id rather converse with an intelligent mormon, who we share alot with morally, than a fundamentalist protestant, who is attempting nothing but prosylatizing…

From the thread: LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation? (Link to the thread is below)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6315973#post6315973

Post #275 (bold type, underlining, and enlargement, added to highlight the original text)

Moving the goalposts there, Paul.

I guess I will have to point out that until the twentieth century it was not possible for an African American to attend a seminary here in the USA, unless he could ‘pass…’

In fact, the first African American Priest had to work his way to Rome to attend a seminary THERE, because Americans wouldn’t allow him to attend one here.

As well, (and this is why I mention double standards here…) **It was the direct result of instructions by a Pope that the international slave trade got going, and that people of black descent were singled out for slavery over other people. Slavery, in fact, was not only accepted, but promoted, by the church, Popes and all. Your priests…and at least a couple of Popes, OWNED slaves. **

…and even though there was a proclamation that slavery was a sin that was supposed to keep one from communion, **Catholics never once denied a southern slaveowner communion–and indeed several Priestly orders owned slaves right up until the North won the war. Even after that, American Catholic Bishops were unhappy about the change. **

…**and Catholic parishes were segregated until well past WWII. **

The point is, Paul, that Mormons were very much anti-slavery. Even Brigham Young, that noted racist (and yes, he was…) turned slavery into ‘indentured servitude…’ that recognized these servants as people bound in service, not property. Even though Utah was a ‘slave state…’ owning slaves was very much looked down upon.

Then, less than 150 years after the founding of the CoJCoLDS, on one sunny June morning, a simple announcement was made—and greeted with a great deal of joy–that said that ALL worthy men could have the priesthood. From that day, no man is discriminated against because of color, heritage or anything else. We turned it around in pretty much the time it took to read a statement.

Catholics…you’ve been around HOW long? You say 2000 years, the rest of us talk about 1500 years…and you STILL have problems with getting blacks into the priesthood. The very fact that you are bragging about importing black priests from Africa to help HERE should scream at you.

**WE did not begin slavery. WE did not make announcements from our leaders that literally moved armies against entire peoples for the express purpose of enslaving them. Catholic popes, however, did precisely that. **

WE fixed our problem in less than a tenth of the time it has taken you.

Given these facts (which anyone here is VERY aware that I can support…and will at the drop of a suggestion…) I think perhaps that you should consider the words in Matt. 7:1-5.

 

[KathleenGee]

I read a number of threads. Regarding this one, it is all about context and the particular times people lived in.

If a person or religion categorically denies that we as Catholics never had true Christianity since the last apostle, that does not make sense, and it is simply a conviction that only grace can overcome.

Just as the Church is being purified, I also make my case that other forms of Christianity also need to improve…and remove such invalidations regarding my own religion.

For now is the time for the desert to bloom, and the world is having such hunger for peace and justice.

In regards to some topics, I find it better to pray for people here on CAF. And I do so daily.

But I do hope that Christianity will come to a baseline some day. Nobody is more righteous than the other. Before God we are all the same. The Crucified Lord is the bridge to the Heavenly Father.

BTW, during Holy Week, church attendance was the greatest ever, and in one diocese on Easter Sunday, 1000 came into the Church inspite of all the media.

 

[lax16]

hi lax. diana is a wonderful person, and yes a Mormon. she has actually done alot of good for Catholics, and she has also attempted to get on other forums to stick up for us. he/or she who is not against us is for us. and vice versa. id rather converse with an intelligent mormon, who we share alot with morally, than a fundamentalist protestant, who is attempting nothing but prosylatizing…( i think i spelled that wrong.) glad you 2 made peace. she can teach us alot about the true teachings and aspects of Mormonism. peace

Benidict - I have come to know Diana pretty well in my short time here at CAF and I think she would say the same for me.

I agree, and have stated before, that we are fortunate to have our LDS friends here on CAF to answer our questions.

 

[dianaiad]

Nowhere. He is eternal. “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God,” Psalm 90:2. That’s why He says, “I AM THAT I AM,” and not “I was but I am now.”

Nothing in our beliefs disagrees with that, y’know. We do believe that He created all things, after all–including time, since time seems to be part of how the universe works.

The conclusion that Christians…

Some Christians, not all…

… are uncomfortable with is the one that assumes the Divinity of Jesus is something He inherits from the Father, and therefore something that we, as co-heirs, will one day inherit.

The scriptures are rather clear about that, though. the term ‘heirs and joint-heirs’ is pretty specific.

Christ’s Divinity is not something that He has, but something that He is. It is His nature. Scripture tells us that Jesus, “being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,” Philippians 2:6.

Yes, we must be changed.

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come,” 2 Cor. 5:17.

“Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality,” 1 Cor. 15:51-53.

Aye…we will be physically changed…but if our very nature is changed, spiritually, mentally, thought, wishes, preferences…who we ARE is changed, why bother with mortal life and all the suffering that comes with it in the first place?

 

[Catholic20064]

gee, i wonder why?

The reason it is recognized more is that it is the one most identified with the Mormon trek across the plains.

 

[simspt]

I have come to learn that everybody else’s theology is ‘a little strange,’ no matter who is doing the evaluating, or who is being evaluated. For instance, and I do understand that this might sound weird to you, but I think Catholic theology is a little strange. (shrug)

Isn’t a grand thing that my approval of Catholic doctrine isn’t required? Only God’s is, and I understand completely that you believe it has His. I believe He approves mine. I do understand that both of us could be wrong about that, but only one of us can be completely right. Under those circumstances, isn’t it a comforting thought that we neither one require the approval of the other for our own beliefs?

Diana, Mormon Curmudgeon.

Hi Diana,
I mean no disrespect by my question and I apologize if its off subject. I have been recently studying the history of early Christianity in the hope of learning more about what Christians believed and practiced that were chronologically closer to the apostolic era (eg first few centuries). Obviously my thought being that the closer you get to that era the better chance you are going to have at gaining a better understanding of how to interpret the NT and understand how the first Christians practiced Christianity. My question to you is what are your thoughts on looking to these early sources (eg Apostolic Fathers etc) as the earliest references outside the NT to gain a better understaning of Christianity.
Anyways I have seen some beautiful Hymns written by second century Gnostics (even if their philosophy is a little wacky, oh ya and heretical)

 

[SnakeMauler]

Isn’t kobob when you take like a long metal skewer and put meat on it and then roast it and eat it?

 

[dianaiad]

Hi Diana,
I mean no disrespect by my question and I apologize if its off subject.

…what, we have to stay on topic?

Well, Mormons like that approach. Of course, we cut things off a little earlier than Catholics do in determining the line between ‘the early church’ and when we believe it became something else…

My question to you is what are your thoughts on looking to these early sources (eg Apostolic Fathers etc) as the earliest references outside the NT to gain a better understaning of Christianity.

I enjoy reading the thoughts of early Christian leaders, very much. They help give a well documented account of how Christianity grew…and changed…over the centuries. The way philosophies and thoughts progressed (or regressed, or went completely off the rails…depending upon who is doing the describing…) is fascinating.

The problem, however, especially when one comes from two different assumptions the way you and I do, is to define exactly what it is we are studying. As a Catholic, I’m sure that you are looking at all of it through the assumption that whatever thoughts and writings the early church fathers had were well within the purvue of acceptable doctrine and thought. From the POV of a Mormon, who is actively looking for the point at which truth became more or less skewed, the entire purpose of the excercise is different, as is the point at which we can assume that the writers were speaking for God and not of themselves only. I would put that point considerably earlier than you might, I think.

Anyways I have seen some beautiful Hymns written by second century Gnostics (even if their philosophy is a little wacky, oh ya and heretical)

Music is a universal prayer. It’s true that one of my top ten hymns is "Of you could Hie to Kolob,’ but another hymn on that list is something called "Simple Gifts", written by the Shakers, whose ideas regarding God, Christ and marriage are very, very different from that which you or I would recognize.

[/QUOTE]

 

[simspt]

simspt;6533545:

Hi Diana,
I mean no disrespect by my question and I apologize if its off subject.

The problem, however, especially when one comes from two different assumptions the way you and I do, is to define exactly what it is we are studying. As a Catholic, I’m sure that you are looking at all of it through the assumption that whatever thoughts and writings the early church fathers had were well within the purvue of acceptable doctrine and thought. From the POV of a Mormon, who is actively looking for the point at which truth became more or less skewed, the entire purpose of the excercise is different, as is the point at which we can assume that the writers were speaking for God and not of themselves only. I would put that point considerably earlier than you might, I think.

, written by the Shakers, whose ideas regarding God, Christ and marriage are very, very different from that which you or I would recognize.

Im not Catholic yet. I agree 100% objectivity is impossible however I do believe there is a spectrum of being objective when interpereting these early Christian writings some people being much more objective than others. I guess my curiosity lies with where a Mormon believes the truth became skewed. Obviously this has been very popular in the media thanks to the Jesus Seminar promoting the Gnostic literature. When in your opinion did things get skewed? The comment I hear from many directed towards Mormons and JWs is how can you neglect so much history. Im not making this claim but am curious how you respond to these types of accusations.

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad;6533824:

simspt;6533545:

Hi Diana,
I mean no disrespect by my question and I apologize if its off subject.

Im not Catholic yet. I agree 100% objectivity is impossible however I do believe there is a spectrum of being objective when interpereting these early Christian writings some people being much more objective than others. I guess my curiosity lies with where a Mormon believes the truth became skewed. Obviously this has been very popular in the media thanks to the Jesus Seminar promoting the Gnostic literature. When in your opinion did things get skewed? The comment I hear from many directed towards Mormons and JWs is how can you neglect so much history. Im not making this claim but am curious how you respond to these types of accusations.

We DO “ignore so much history,” actually, because, well…how does the length of time a group believes the wrong thing make that ‘wrong thing’ right? In fact, believing that the length of time something is believed proves its truth is a fallacy that has a specific name: argumentum ad antiquitatem, or ‘appeal to antiquity.’ the fact is, that very same history, used in the same way, would ‘prove’ that the earth was the center of the solar system.

It isn’t.

As well, even as long as Christianity has been around, the worship of Ra was around longer—and yet very few, if any, people today figure that Ra is, in reality, deity.

So…that’s how I respond to those types of accusations.

As to 'when things got skewed…" or rather, when things began to get skewed (not everything did) we believe that began happening very, very early. In fact, most of the letters we read in the NT are from apostles fighting that very thing. Certainly, since we believe (as do most Christians) that public revelation stopped when the last NT apostle died, we count the apostasy from there. The difference between us isn’t that we have different opinions about when public revelation ended; we all seem to agree on that. The difference is that we don’t believe that the cessation of public revelation was a good thing.

Diana

 

[zerinus]

My question to you is what are your thoughts on looking to these early sources (eg Apostolic Fathers etc) as the earliest references outside the NT to gain a better understaning of Christianity.

In principle there is no problem with that, except that we have an earlier source, a better source; it is called the Book of Mormon!

 

[simspt]

simspt;6533944:

dianaiad;6533824:

We DO “ignore so much history,” actually, because, well…how does the length of time a group believes the wrong thing make that ‘wrong thing’ right? In fact, believing that the length of time something is believed proves its truth is a fallacy that has a specific name: argumentum ad antiquitatem, or ‘appeal to antiquity.’ the fact is, that very same history, used in the same way, would ‘prove’ that the earth was the center of the solar system.

It isn’t.

As well, even as long as Christianity has been around, the worship of Ra was around longer—and yet very few, if any, people today figure that Ra is, in reality, deity.

So…that’s how I respond to those types of accusations.

As to 'when things got skewed…" or rather, when things began to get skewed (not everything did) we believe that began happening very, very early. In fact, most of the letters we read in the NT are from apostles fighting that very thing. Certainly, since we believe (as do most Christians) that public revelation stopped when the last NT apostle died, we count the apostasy from there. The difference between us isn’t that we have different opinions about when public revelation ended; we all seem to agree on that. The difference is that we don’t believe that the cessation of public revelation was a good thing.

Diana

I agree that time **alone **does not have anything to do with the validity of a belief. However the closer one gets to an event the probability of distortion usually decreases (not completely of course). Otherwise why should we hold Paul’s letters or the Gospel of Mark in such high esteem considering even they were written decades after the events and not all of them necessarily by eyewitnesses. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you when you say that the apostasy started after the last Apostle died but why do you believe this. Are you referring to gnostic groups, Apostolic Fathers, or both?

 

[simspt]

In principle there is no problem with that, except that we have an earlier source, a better source; it is called the Book of Mormon!

Are you are referring to your belief that the Book of Mormon is revelation from God or that it was written before the 19th century?

 

[zerinus]

Are you are referring to your belief that the Book of Mormon is revelation from God or that it was written before the 19th century?

Both! The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture which bears powerful testimony of Jesus Christ on almost every page; and contains an account of Jesus’ visit and ministry to those people which is both sacred scripture as well as predating the early Church Fathers.

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad;6534176:

simspt;6533944:

I agree that time **alone **

does not have anything to do with the validity of a belief. However the closer one gets to an event the probability of distortion usually decreases (not completely of course). Otherwise why should we hold Paul’s letters or the Gospel of Mark in such high esteem considering even they were written decades after the events and not all of them necessarily by eyewitnesses. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you when you say that the apostasy started after the last Apostle died but why do you believe this. Are you referring to gnostic groups, Apostolic Fathers, or both?

If by the ‘Apostolic Fathers,’ you mean those men who were actuallly mentioned in, and whose writings appear in, the NT, than that is who I am referring to. It has to do with our concept of the priesthood, more than anything, I think…well, that, and the same concept of the point at which public revelation ceased.

 

[FCEGM]

Originally Posted by amontoya
Nowhere. He is eternal. “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God,” Psalm 90:2. That’s why He says, “I AM THAT I AM,” and not “I was but I am now.”

If He created time (and He did), how then can the Father Himself have a Father? This makes Him a contingent being subject to time, not the Creator of it. In Mormonism man is the measure of God (thus “Kolob”), not God the measure of man.

 

[kage_ar]

Why would be surprised to hear a hymn with same tune? It happens all the time.
Twinkle twinkle little star…
ABCDEFG…

Or

Here I am, Lord
Is it I, Lord
I have heard you calling in the night

and

Here’s the story
Of a lovely lady
Who is bringing up three very lovely girls

 

[TOmNossor]

simspt:
I agree that time **alone **does not have anything to do with the validity of a belief. However the closer one gets to an event the probability of distortion usually decreases (not completely of course). Otherwise why should we hold Paul’s letters or the Gospel of Mark in such high esteem considering even they were written decades after the events and not all of them necessarily by eyewitnesses. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you when you say that the apostasy started after the last Apostle died but why do you believe this. Are you referring to gnostic groups, Apostolic Fathers, or both?
I consider the Catholic solution to doctrine to be far more solid than the Protestant solution. Cardinal Newman and other authors have detailed the development of Christian doctrine under the guidance of folks who claimed to have authority to define what they defined. I still find the Protestant reasons (or more frequently lack of reasons) for embracing this developed doctrine to be lacking.
As a LDS there are plenty of areas for exploration. Barry Bickmore wrote a book where he suggested that the ECF evidence a development from many things LDS believe to many things that are believed within non-LDS Christianity at odds with LDS beliefs.

I am wondering where you are coming from in your queries however. I think there are many reasons to not be a LDS and many reasons to not be a Catholic and many reasons to not be a Protestant. The fact that God lives and Christ dies and was resurrected demands IMO that those who KNOW this do something with their knowledge. I find the invitation to abandon Catholicism offered by Protestants to Catholics to frequently be as problematic as their invitations to LDS. While there are some facts that form some of the cores of these invitations we should always remember what the disciples said to Christ, “to whom should we go?”

If you were to read the best books by Catholics and LDS detailing problems with Catholic authority claims and development of doctrine claims, to whom would you go?
Charity, TOm