There’s also no mention of exhaltation being mentioned in the BOM as man becoming gods. This concept didn’t evolve until later; the only two times ‘exhaltation’ is mentioned in the BOM, it has nothing to do with the modern concept of the word.
Say it loud, sister. This is one of the ways that Mormon missionaries gain new converts: they use the same terminology as Christians but affix a wholly different meaning to it.
This is quite common on this forum. I have seen many posts by catholics, attempting to educate mormons about the mormon faith. Why shouldn’t mormons educated catholics about the catholic faith?
From my observation, it seems that a majority of the Catholics on this forum, talking about the Mormon faith were at one time Mormon. Many were raised LDS, went on a mission, but later in life were led to the Catholic Church.
I personally was never LDS but I had a friend who was. Prior to that, the only exposure I had to Mormons was at work; a Mormon owned and ran the place I worked. I clearly remember two returned missionaries who worked there making fun of the old show Roots, specifically the scene where Kunta Kinte (Levar Burton) is asked his name. They seriously thought that was the funniest thing of all time and it took me many years to understand the reason.
Many meet that description, but not all. I wasn’t raised LDS, but I have friends going back over 40 years that are LDS and many of my friends in my local area are LDS. I’ve had what I would think would be greater-than-average opportunity to learn about the Mormon faith from a variety of sources including my own personal study of the faith, but also vast exposure to Missionaries, classes, etc. within the context of those friendships.
I agree. As a Mormon, I was never taught many of the things I now know. I never knew about the Temple Ceremony mirroring the masonic one. I never knew Joseph had 9 very different versions of the First Vision. I never knew about MMM. I never knew about “As man is, God once was…” I never heard that BY once taught that Adam was our God. I did not know the real story of how the Book of Mormon was translated, only what the general story was. I never knew so much about the Church that I know now. Mormkons are not taught it and never learn it unless they frequent boards like this or become apologists. Most Mormons are blissfully unaware of the past and what the Church really believes.
And all Catholics know about the “Christianizing” of certain aspects of pagan culture/practice? That really is no different than the similarities between the Endowment and Freemasonry (limited to a small part of the Endowment). All Catholics know about all aspects of their history and are taught it in Catechism class?
So she hasn’t read the Book of Abraham or the Doctrine and Covenants…
So they don’t read the Liahona?
This is the same thing that I have seen ex-Catholics say about Catholicism. It’s interesting to me how similar the arguments and views are of ex members of a religion.
And did I say that it was bad? The point is that you are criticizing Mormonism for borrowing certain things from Freemasonry, when Catholicism has done similar things with some pagan cultural practices.
If you have actually studied the history of the Endowment you would know that it is not just “from the Masons”. The portions “from the Masons” account for a small portion of the Endowment ceremony. Also, what does it mean that Joseph Smith said that “it was from God”? Provide the quote and then we can understand what he meant.
Sure, after you speak to all of the Latter-day Saints.
Please, that is not an “obscure” article. The point is that it has been discussed in official Church publications, including at the youth level, before you even served a mission. I also see the couplet in New Era and Liahona editions from January 2007, the Aaronic Priesthood manual, and even the March 2002 edition of the Friend (the children’s* magazine). My point was to show that you can’t say that it’s only now recently being brought up. So, I don’t know whether you were reading the Ensign, but it’s right in there. Try doing a search for MMM as well. These are not red herrings when we see that the things you brought up are discussed in official Church publications that you missed.
Nice deflection, that doesn’t address the issue. You said that your ex Mother-in law is a long time Mormon and hadn’t heard about the plurality of gods. If she’s a long time Mormon, she hasn’t read the Book of Abraham or the Doctrine and Covenants? Does she not attend Sunday School? The people in Honduras don’t have Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society? Sorry, this doesn’t make sense, especially when exaltation is an important part of our theology, along with the distinctive understanding of the Godhead.
So you’re telling me that they don’t have Sunday School or other Church instructional meetings? The chapels don’t have Church materials? Ok…
Sure. The syncretism in Latin America is just supposition. The extremes of Marian devotion is just supposition.
Wait, you were the one that brought up Mountain Meadows Massacre for one. So are we talking about doctrine, history, or both? Please be consistent. And even on doctrinal issues, again, please tell us how the Latin American Catholics view syncretism for one. After that, ask them to explain why the filioque had to be added to the Nicene Creed and what it means about the ontological Trinity.
What is really disingenuous is when you use arguments against something that can be used against yourself. Your argument loses any credibility when the same thing can be said about your own religion. Something about pots, kettles, glass houses, and stones comes to mind. If Catholics, ex-Catholics, the Catholic Church, etc. do or say the same thing as LDS, ex-LDS, or the LDS Church, then what is the argument again?*
When JS took on some aspects of Masonry, he claimed they were divinely inspired, precious lost truths, that were “restored”. He adopted and adapted rituals of freemasonry into LDS doctrine.In tune with the objective demands of faith and its mission to evangelize, the Church takes account of the essential fact that the meeting of faith and culture is a meeting of things which are not of the same order. The inculturation of faith and the evangelization of culture go together as an inseparable pair, in which there is no hint of syncretism8) this is the genuine meaning of inculturation. «In the face of all the different and at times contrasting cultures present in the various parts of the world, inculturation seeks to obey Christ’s command to preach the Gospel to all nations even unto the ends of the earth. Such obedience does not signify either syncretism or a simple adaptation of the announcement of the Gospel, but rather the fact the Gospel penetrates the very life of cultures, becomes incarnate in them, overcoming those cultural elements that are incompatible with the faith and Christian living and raising their values to the mystery of salvation which comes from Christ. (Toward A Pastoral Approach To Culture, 23 May 1999)
So the Hellenization of Christianity did not actually happen?
You’ll have to expand on what you mean by “Hellenization”. Specifically, in a doctrinal aspect.
**
The adoption of Platonic ideas into the Trinity definition (as stated by Pope Benedict XVI), for one.
Already addressed. There is not an issue for Latter-day Saints. The incorporation of Freemasonry into part of the Endowment says nothing about the truths that are being expressed in the Endowment. This LDS provides a review of a recent LDS book on the issue that provides some interesting perspective on the matter:
Wonderful, and that does not change the fact that Pope Benedict XVI stated that they adopted the Platonic model of hypostases into the Trinity. Or is that Hebrew in origin?
God never defined any “pagan practices” as divinely inspired. Humans exist in culture, and as such, when a society is evangelized towards Christ, so is their culture.
**
Sorry, this is Hellenization. Are you really disputing what multiple historians, including Catholic ones, have stated on the Hellenization of Christianity (as well as Judaism, with philosophers like Philo)? I am unsure of what definition of Hellenization you are using, but adopting Platonic ideas (among others) into theology is a Hellenization. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI recently spoke on the issue of the de-hellenization of Christianity.
It is the same thing. The adoption of Freemasonry into the Endowment is to express certain truths. In fact, I have seen similar arguments on this very forum (a quick forum search on hellenization or paganism and Christianity is very helpful, where it is said that the Pagans and the Greek Philosophers had “corrupted” pieces of the truth, but that these things were “baptized” in Christianity and corrected. The same can be said for Freemasonry (in fact, I remember an LDS authority (can’t remember who off the top of my head) that said that Mormonism had the “true” masonry) and Mormonism.