Answering Mormon Objections

[CaptainPrudeman]

We will be perfected in heaven, restored to our pre-fall nature (I believe that’s the teaching) but Adam and Eve weren’t gods before the fall.

 

[Stephen168]

Nor were the ECF Mormons.

Tom has already pointed out two beliefs (creation ex nihilo and original sin) held by the Catholic Church and the Early Church Fathers, but rejected by Mormonism. Tom has not been able to point out any unique Mormon beliefs held by the ECFs. The Early Church Fathers were Catholic and never Mormon.

 

[gazelam]

Christians believe in Theosis. This means we becomes one with God through his grace. We do not shed our natures and become absorbed into God as pantheism would describe it, rather God works in our nature whereby our energies might be united to his energies flowing from him allowing us to partake or participate in his divine nature. But this is not, nor does it imply, that we are transformed (or rather, “transubstantiated”) into it. St. Paul talks about this in Colossians:

We proclaim Him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ.
To this end I strenuously contend with all the energy (ἐνέργειαν) Christ so powerfully works (ἐνεργουμένην) in me.
Colossians 1:28-29

Two points in response…

1. I don’t intentionally overstate Latter-day Saint doctrine, nor any other.
2. Latter-day Saint (or Mormon as you say) teaching is Christian teaching since Latter-day Saints are Christians. Perhaps a better way to make the point I think you wish to make is to perhaps contrast Latter-day Saint teaching as non-Trinitarian Christian or non-Orthodox Christian. Though not Trinitarian Christians, we are Christians through and through.

Take care and God bless!!

 

[YHWH_Christ]

I don’t intentionally overstate Latter-day Saint doctrine, nor any other.

But, you clearly did.

Latter-day Saint (or Mormon as you say) teaching is Christian teaching since Latter-day Saints are Christians. Perhaps a better way to make the point I think you wish to make is to perhaps contrast Latter-day Saint teaching as non-Trinitarian Christian or non-Orthodox Christian. Though not Trinitarian Christians, we are Christians through and through.

Latter-day Saints are not Christians because there is no such thing as a non-Trinitarian Christian. The Trinity is the central doctrine of the Christian faith and if one does not believe it then one is simply not a Christian. It would be akin to saying that one can be a Muslim but not necessarily believe Qur’an to be the literal word of God. But that is clearly absurd.

I would also like to point out that there are many more things that separate Mormonism from Christianity. These include, but are not limited to:

• Belief in the existence of other gods (i.e. polytheism)
• The belief that God is a physical man.
• The belief that God is a created being.
• Belief that human beings can become deities over other worlds.
• The belief that Jesus is the literal Son of God.
• The idea of pre-existence.
• Belief that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired.
• Belief that Joseph Smith is a prophet.
• The practice of foreign rituals like baptism of the dead or the endowment ceremony.
• Belief that polygamy can be a legitimate practice.

As you can see, Christianity and Mormonism are very very very very very different religions from one another. Whereas Christians are followers of Jesus Christ, Mormons are followers of Joseph Smith.

I have explained this to you on numerous occasions, but you continue to pull the same charades @gazelam. Stop. We know your behaviours. I have refuted you on numerous occasions. Don’t play stupid with me because I know where you’re going to take this.

 

[TOmNossor]

We will be perfected in heaven, restored to our pre-fall nature (I believe that’s the teaching) but Adam and Eve weren’t gods before the fall.

Are you saying Adam and Eve had a sinless but human nature before the fall? Unless you intend to suggest that they were only partially human then, that invalidates your answer here.

That answer was not the best Catholic Answer which I believe is espoused by Keating, but it like his is not consistent with what the ECF taught. Would you like to change your answer from here?

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

lilypadrees:

Nor were the ECF Mormons.

Tom has already pointed out two beliefs (creation ex nihilo and original sin) held by the Catholic Church and the Early Church Fathers, but rejected by Mormonism. Tom has not been able to point out any unique Mormon beliefs held by the ECFs. The Early Church Fathers were Catholic and never Mormon.

I think you have quite misunderstood.

The earliest ECF did in fact reject Creation ex Nihilo. The two examples are St. Justin Martyr AND Clement of Rome. After Irenaeus (and per Gerard May – not a LDS - not including Irenaeus, but I personally think Irenaeus is close enough). So the earliest ECF agree with LDS here.

ECF before Augustine (and many in the East after) embraced “original sin” in the SAME way LDS and Eastern Orthodox Christians embrace “original sin.” You have either failed to notice or chose to ignore the three (of probably more than half-a-dozen I have read and dozens that exist) scholars I provide for youhere (continued here). It is acknowledged by many non-Catholic scholars and I think some Catholic scholars that Augustine introduced the understanding of “original sin” that LDS Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians reject.

Now, Lily and I agree against your position that the ECF were not Catholic. All three of us believe that the ECF were not Mormon.

What I hold that I expect you and Lily both reject is that many LDS doctrines that are criticized as “non-Christian” were held by the earliest ECF. The degree to which this happens IMO is more than just chance and indicates that Joseph Smith connected with the same divinity (Jesus Christ) that the early apostles connected with and thus Joseph Smith restored Christ’s Church. The evidence for this is the connection to the ECF writings that are more than just coincidence IMO.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. Mormonism moved the date of the apostasy from 570 A.D. to earlier and earlier dates to exclude Christian beliefs held by the Catholic Church, and rejected by Joseph Smith. Or moving the definition of the Early Church Fathers to earlier and earlier dates to support a claim that they were not Catholic.

 

[TOmNossor]

Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. Mormonism moved the date of the apostasy from 570 A.D. to earlier and earlier dates to exclude Christian beliefs held by the Catholic Church, and rejected by Joseph Smith. Or moving the definition of the Early Church Fathers to earlier and earlier dates to support a claim that they were not Catholic.

As you should know, there has never been an official date of “the apostasy.”
The problems with the Catholic “continuity with the Apostles” are legion, which leads to multiple theories all with support from Catholic history (as recorded by sympathetic and non-sympathatic / believing and non-believing scholars).
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints merely knows that God choose to restore through Joseph Smith. This fixed truth. The rest are scholarly attempts to understand.

And if you think I have.been inconsistent concerning when the ECF embraced creation ex nihilo OR the new understanding of original sin you are not paying attention.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Mormon Math: 1830-1260=570
Revelation 12:6 King James Version:

And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days .

Revelation 12:5 Joseph Smith Translation:

And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore years .

Restoration of all Things; Joseph Fielding Smith:

Time will not permit a thorough discussion of this vision, but in substance the interpretation is this. The woman is the church ; she is glorified by the light of heaven. The twelve stars are the apostles . The son born to her is the Priesthood which is to rule the earth by the truth of the gospel, which is the rod of iron. Because of the persecution and power of the dragon, the Priesthood is taken back to heaven, and the woman is forced to flee from the face of the earth. The dragon is Satan who rebelled in heaven and prevailed upon one third of the spirits to follow him. He with his followers was cast out of heaven into the earth where he made war on the church and drove it into the wilderness. The dragon then made war on all those who tried to live the truth who are called the seed of the woman. Remember the angel was showing John what was to take place following the vision, or in later times. In the year 1830, this woman—the church—with her man child returned to the earth . The power of the dragon was overcome and the Lord has proclaimed that the gospel now restored shall never be taken from the earth, for this is the dispensation in which the Lord is gathering in one all things both which are in heaven and on earth

Times and Seasons Vol.5:

We are informed by the renowned historian, Whelpley, as also in the Revolutions of Europe, that the church of Jesus Christ was overrun, and driven into the wilderness, A.D. 570, and John the Revelator informs us it must remain there 1260 years, which makes exactly the time, the year 1830, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints was organized, with the gifts and blessings.

Times and Seasons Vol. 6 pg 858:

Q.-5. Who put to death the woman’s friends?

A.-The Roman Church.

Q.-6. What was the rod?

A.-It was the power and priesthood after the holy order of the son of God, which the church had; and was delivered of it, or rather, it was taken from her in the year 570, and the church fell into the hands of the Pope of Rome.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

How did the Gates of Hell prevail against the Church for 1260 years, then? Why did God break His promise to be with us until the end of the age?

 

[Stephen168]

The ECF are Catholic, never Mormon.

TOmNossor:

Nobody before Augustine believed in “Original Sin”

Note: Augustine was an early church father.

TOmNossor:

LDS and Eastern Orthodox accept the “Fall of Adam” or “Ancestral Sin” or even “Original Sin.”

Note: Mormonism teaches the fall was a good thing which was never believed by

Christians.

Stephen168:

Unique Mormon beliefs never taught by Christians:

-barring blacks from the priesthood

-exaltation

-polygamy

-Melchizedek Priesthood

-excommunicating Apostles

-God was a man

-blood atonement

-water baptism on behalf of the dead

-God was near the star Kolob (as recorded in Mormon scripture translated by Joseph Smith from papyrus which turned out to be an Egyptian funeral text.)

The ECF were Catholic, never Mormon.

Stephen168:

While Mormons claim their unique beliefs were held by the early church fathers, they can never prove it because they are not there. I’m sure the claims will be repeated as it has before without proof.

TOmNossor:

I point to the ECF because it is REMARKABLE how much of criticized supposedly “unique” LDS theology is present in the ECF. Joseph Smith and the early Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn’t have access to the ECF.

Proof?

TOmNossor:

What I hold that I expect you and Lily both reject is that many LDS doctrines that are criticized as “non-Christian” were held by the earliest ECF. The degree to which this happens IMO is more than just chance and indicates that Joseph Smith connected with the same divinity (Jesus Christ) that the early apostles connected with and thus Joseph Smith restored Christ’s Church. The evidence for this is the connection to the ECF writings that are more than just coincidence IMO.

Proof?

TOmNossor:

The earliest ECF did in fact …

ECF before Augustine

Stephen168:

Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. Mormonism moved the date of the apostasy from 570 A.D. to earlier and earlier dates to exclude Christian beliefs held by the Catholic Church, and rejected by Joseph Smith.

Or moving the definition of the Early Church Fathers to earlier and earlier dates to support a claim that they were not Catholic.

TOmNossor:

And if you think I have.been inconsistent concerning when the ECF embraced creation ex nihilo OR the new understanding of original sin you are not paying attention

What I’ve been paying attention to is Tom trying to refute my original claim: The Early Church Fathers are Catholic, and have never been Mormon. His many tangents to avoid proving they were Mormon has led him to prove the early was Catholic while only claiming they were Mormon. When caught he ‘moved the goal post.’ When caught ‘moving the goal post’ he responded with more tangents.

 

[Stephen168]

While the apostasy is a fiction, it was a popular belief in 19th century America in the anti-Catholic restoration movement.

 

[Theprodigalson84j]

Here’s the proof there was no apostasy.
Mormons self contradict themselves. I remember one time the missionaries told me all about this apostasy and then began citing some verses from the New Testament. I shook my head and realized how ridiculous it was for them to do this. I asked them what books were in their New Testament. They seemed confused. I explained, there was no formal New Testament until 393 at the Council of Carthage, and the earliest known list which is exactly the same as ours was Saint Athanatius Easter Proclamation in 367. It isn’t as if the Bible flew out of the sky. Many early Christians went to their grave thinking certain books were scripture that are not in the Bible today. I realized to myself that it was near impossible that this apostasy church just happened to get it right.
Also they don’t contain books that were always in the Christian Bible. Also books such as Enoch and Jubilees were cited as scripture by early Christians. On this they claim Joseph Smith prayed about the " apocrypha". This again is a proof he wasn’t a prophet but just a typical 19th century Protestant. The term apocrypha means hidden. If he was a prophet he would know none of these were ever hidden.
It’s all a sham. They say to read it and it will make you feel good and that means it is scripture. Okay. So if I read Paradise Lost or the Imitation of Christ and it makes me feel good those are scripture as well?
The funniest one is this. The entire argument they make for this so called apostasy if taken seriously happened right in their own church. For one most of the witnesses left the movement. For two, following Smith’s death some thought they should follow Smith’s family and went to Independence Missouri. Others thought they should follow Brigham Young and went to Salt Lake City. So which one is the true church? There you go. Apostasy right in their ranks as well. I’m tired of listening to arguments about this blasphemy made up by a fraud. The View of the Hebrews is a wonderful inspiration for the BOM and Oliver Caldery owned a copy of it. With that the book basically plagiarized writings of Saint Paul in the books timeline 400 years before Paul was even born.
Animals, plants, weapons exist that were not even in America. There is no Hebrew blood in any Native American. Like will this charade stop finally? Can we all stop pretending we are arguing that the world isn’t flat? I feel like that’s what I am arguing against when it comes to Mormonism. All rationale thought is gone when you argue with Mormons. They have no grasp of the Church history and claim they are restoring a church but if you went into a time machine to early Christianity you would never find any heresy that comes close to what they believe. It’s so off the charts I don’t think it could even be classified as a heresy, it makes Ghosticism seem orthodox. As if theres some God who was once a man hanging out by some star called kolob. Man this whole bizarre topic has been spoken about to much on these forums.

 

[TOmNossor]

Vincent of Lerins:

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.

Vincent was answering the question; how do we know the proper interpretation of Holy Scripture? His “rule of thumb” was to be used to “distinguish the truth of Catholic faith and the falsehood of heretical pravity.”
John Henry Newman said anti-catholics like to believe there was once a pure Christianity which then became corrupt. Then they have to draw a line between what is pure and what is corrupt; and then give a date for the corruption. These anti-catholics use the “dictum of Vincent of Lerins” for that purpose. While this dictum “provides a bulwark against Rome,….it opens an assault upon Protestantism.”
As John Newman discovered while investigating the development of Christian doctrine for his essay, the Vincentian Canon supports Catholic belief. Unique Catholic beliefs are there, while unique Protestant beliefs are not.

Despite your participation in “wine tasting” you have not well understood (or well-presented) Cardinal Newman’s point.

Newman’s comments on St. Vincent cannot be divorced from his history. Before he was Catholic, he was part of what is/was called the Oxford Movement. He and other scholarly Anglicans argued for a “via media” between some of the Reformation ideas and the Catholic Church. They appealed to the ECF.

What Newman discovered is that a simple use of the Vincentian Canon does not produce the High Church Anglicanism for which he and Pusey generally argued. Instead, you could not separate some Catholic beliefs that were rejected by High Church Anglicans from the beliefs they tried to defend using the Vincentian Canon. Newman didn’t reject the Vincentian Canon, but instead placed his DEVELOPMENT of doctrine over the top of it. A simple use of the Vincentian Canon could not produce High Church Anglicanism, but neither would it produce the Catholicism of Newman’s day. Newman’s pre-Catholic works well documented the CHANGES in Catholic teachings from those of the ECF, but when he became a Catholic he offered his DEVELOPMENT thesis to explain why Catholicism can CHANGE/DEVELOP. As a Catholic he was condemned by Bishops and view with skepticism in Rome. Ortestas Brown another Catholic convert was asked by a couple of Bishops to write in response to Newman’s essay and his work well documents SOME of the reception of Newman’s essay within the Catholic Church.

But, Newman was absolutely correct, a simple exercise of the Vincentian Canon could not produce the Catholic Church of his day. Over time Catholicism has embraced Newman’s teachings and Vatican II is sometimes called “The Newman Council” (Newman was gone, but his ideas on DEVELOPMENT were credited for CHANGES initiated at Vatican II). Some “ultratrad” Catholics (some SSPX or Sedavacantist) condemn Newman’s ideas along with Vatican II, but IMO they lack the ancient perspective to see how necessary Newman’s DEVELOPMENT is.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

As John Newman said, the way anti-Catholics use it, the way Mormons use it, brings an assault upon Mormonism.

Actually, Newman only mention Mormonism one time and he spoke positively of it. He said that the type of ridicule you offer against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a mark of a true church.

Catholic priests and apologists (Marc Shea) have suggested that the Melchizedek Priesthood is the Catholic priesthood.

What Baptism for the Dead was has been a discussion for many years in the Catholic Church and it may or may not have involved water in its PROXY nature. I might add that proxy baptisms WITH WATER align better with what St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke about concerning baptism than does the LATER developed teaching of “Baptism of Desire” and “Baptism of Blood” not to mention the rejection of over a millennium of settled theology recently offered from the Vatican.

The rest of your list is not near so simplistic as you suggest in that some is not LDS REVELTION and most are not part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today anyway.

That being said, you are indicating that the very reason that Newman spoke positively of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is just as true today as it was in Newman’s day. We are ridiculed and often by people who do not care to KNOW what we actually believe. May the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever continued to be like the ancient church in this way and in many others!!!

I might add, it is my opinion that Newman would be less pleased with Vatican II than many suspect AND it is my stronger opinion that Newman would be scandalized by some of the CHANGES made by Pope Francis in the last few years. There is not “early anticipation” of some of the things done recently and thus these things lack one of the necessary MARKS of a true DEVELOPMENT and instead are mere CORRUPTIONS of the faith.

I suppose all of this does not really matter because I reject the Catholicism of 1830 and think the roots of the apostasy started long ago. But, the Catholicism I considered returning too under John Paul II as taught by Catholic Answers was far more appealing than is the Catholicism under Pope Francis with all of its changes and turmoil. It looks much less likely to be true than it once did, and I still chose the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over it back during the pontificate of John Paul II.

Charity, TOm

 

[cfernandomaciel]

I grew up as a Mormon, served as a Missionary in The USA (New England) back from 1999-2001. Married to a (former) Mormon woman.

Putting Mormon history aside (you guys covered well a good portion of Joseph Smith’s history, everything you wrote is legit). Now, my fifty cents about its doctrine, and why it’s so difficult to stick with Mormonism.

Mormon doctrine will constantly admonish you to have a personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ, so every Mormon person will try his/her best at getting closer to God and Jesus.

The problem lies exactly when you try to assess the subject about God, and Jesu’s nature. See, in Mormonism, God, Jesus, and The Holy Ghost are perfected beings, separated ones, and perfected ones. When it comes to God, HE Himself is a perfected human, whom in His past had had a celestial father, received His salvation, and now has become a God of His own.

Mormon doctrine teaches us that God cannot override any law of Physics, and that His abode is inside this universe (the planet Kolob).

This has severe implications to the limitations of God. Because when one tries to assess God, to draw closer to Him, He is nothing but a Dude (pardon my expression). It gets both intellectually and “guttly” difficult to absorb this Deity, full of limitations, and full of a humanly past.

One can get around that by sticking to maxims such as “God is love”, “God is Mercy”, “God is inside you”, and so on. In fact, that’s what LDS people do, as one cannot get past the limiting factor, whence, God becomes a very intangible, abstract thing. Weird, huh? When one gives God a humanly nature, He starts becoming less and less understood. Precisely by the limiting factors stated above.

I left Mormonism back in 2004ish, to become an atheist. Because when trying to assess the whole subject about God, facing all the scientific discoveries we have these days, God had become something impossible to understand and to believe in.

It was ONLY a couple of years ago, when studying some of the Catholic Doctors, such as St. Augustine, and mainly St. Thomas Aquinas, that I have come across the real nature of God.

Finding out that God is All Powerful, Almight, and Omnipresent PRECISELY because He LITERALY IS EVERYWHERE, specially because He is NOT a Person, but a force, an everything, that has ever been here, EVER existed, EVER WAS and IS has made the ENTIRE difference in my understanding about God.

It didn’t take too long to start believing again in God, to become a Catholic revert (grew up Mormon, but was born a Catholic), and accept Jesus.

Mormonism has ruined my perception about God, it represented such a hindrance in my entire intellect, that made God become a ridiculous factor.

[continues…]

 

[cfernandomaciel]

…continued

It was only after assessing all the richness the Catholic Church has, with all its tradition, and historical value, that I could again assess religion as something serious, beautiful and necessary.

I have already met several people whom have left these fundamentalist religions, such as Mormonism, Jehova Withnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and so on. And one thing strikes me whenever I find these former-fundamentalists: the vast majority leaves their religions to become atheists.

It’s only because of how poor their doctrine is, and how twisted the idea about God they give. Living in a world of so much information as nowadays, it’s difficult to conceal these religions with reason.

The Catholic doctrine does not clash with science and any modern discovery, nor does it clash with the maxims above stated, such as “God is inside you”, because He really IS inside me. A God whom is everywhere, including and mainly outside of this universe, therefore, a God whom is NOT stuck inside this 4 dimensional universe CAN and IS PERFECTLY ABLE TO be everywhere, INCLUDING inside us.

Sorry if I offended anybody with any of my sayings, I just felt compelled to give my 50 cents, as a former Mormon, and now a happy as it can get Catholic.

Peace,

 

[Stephen168]

This has severe implications to the limitations of God. Because when one tries to assess God, to draw closer to Him, He is nothing but a Dude (pardon my expression). It gets both intellectually and “guttly” difficult to absorb this Deity, full of limitations, and full of a humanly past.

One can get around that by sticking to maxims such as “God is love”, “God is Mercy”, “God is inside you”, and so on. In fact, that’s what LDS people do, as one cannot get past the limiting factor, whence, God becomes a very intangible, abstract thing. Weird, huh? When one gives God a humanly nature, He starts becoming less and less understood. Precisely by the limiting factors stated above.

I left Mormonism back in 2004ish, to become an atheist. Because when trying to assess the whole subject about God, facing all the scientific discoveries we have these days, God had become something impossible to understand and to believe in.

Whenever a hear an atheist mocking a belief in God, they are describing the god of Mormonism. It is never the God Christians and Jews know.

The Catholic doctrine does not clash with science and any modern discovery, nor does it clash with the maxims above stated, such as “God is inside you”, because He really IS inside me.

I agree, not only does Catholic doctrine never clash with science, I believe Catholic doctrine is the cause of science. Mormonism with continuing revelation would never have had the reason to discover things today which the Mormon President could change tomorrow.

 

[cfernandomaciel]

Whenever a hear an atheist mocking a belief in God, they are describing the god of Mormonism. It is never the God Christians and Jews know.

Indeed, @Stephen168, indeed! They (atheists) always come to the assumption of a very limited God, which can easily made fun of.

I believe Catholic doctrine is the cause of science

Wonderful! Beautifully said!

Another interesting thing about Mormonism is that while they say they are not protestants, because they say they are The Single True Church of Jesus Christ, handled directly from Jesus’s hands to Joseph Smith. They celebrate the Schism Martin Luther caused, and pretty much everything they say, when it comes down to their views about Protestantism, it’s pretty much a protestant way of seeing the world.

 

[Theprodigalson84j]

Exactly.
If Mormonism is true their missionaries wouldn’t start by saying Luther and Calvin tried to reform the Church.
If they were true Luther and Calvin would be reforming a Church that was lost long ago thus what they did was pointless. And if there was no apostasy then the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church who are in schism but are still technically the ancient church are the true Church and any reform outside of the Church would not be a reform but a revolution. It’s self contradictory.