A
Anima_Christi
Guest
Being a Catholic priest is also a “full time” job which is why they must receive a salary to support themselves.
- Status
N
Nan_S
Guest
That’s a nice graphic of the Three Levels of Heaven, and how Mormons believe we get there, but it leaves off the Eternal Progression part.well here is a nice mormon chart of eternal progression…
Compare it to this graphic. Eternal Progression is granted to those who have sealed marriages and achieve Godhood in the Celestial Kingdom.
EP is inconsistent with the biblical Jesus, and inconsistent with the Mormon scriptures as quoted by Zerinus.
But yes, EP was taught by both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Even though it’s not in the BoM, and not completely clear in the D&C 132, it’s still part of their continuing revelation that continues beyond the original Mormon scriptures.
A quick search of www.lds.org brought up 187 documents explaining and commenting on EP. So, please stop telling me that because it’s not clearly defined in the Mormon scriptures then the Mormon church does not believe in it as doctrine.
The places where Eternal Progression is not held as doctrine are the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches, which hold that the Canon of Scripture is closed. Being a Catholic, I also do not accept EP.
But it’s nice to know that there is room for me in the Mormon’s Terrestrial Heaven, just as there is room for devout Mormons in heaven as we understand it according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 846 and 847 (quoted and linked to many times elsewhere). Look it up yourself on the Vatican’s website.
Nan
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
Still avoiding answering the hard questions, huh Zerinus???
I will complain about your proselytizing.
You are a broken record of idiotic assertions without the decency to address your questioners. So why are you here???
The Chart says it all: like everything else in Mormonism, when you are caught in a lie (your own words) you dissemble onto an ad hominem attack.
Zerinus, you’re still a fraud and sadly ill equipped to defend Mormonism on this Forum. Go away: we’re not interested in coming back into the fold !
Z
zerinus
Guest
Except that you have a LOT more of them than we do. That is the difference. At the ward and stake level (equivalent to your parish and diocese) we have none. The offices of bishop, stake president, priest, teacher, deacon, elder, high priest, patriarch, temple worker and temple presidency are not paid or professional. Only at the General Authority level they are paid. That I guess would be equivalent to your cardinals and officials at the Vatican. Even at the General authority level they are not all paid. Some of the Seventies are not paid. More importantly, as I explained before, there is no established “professional clerical office in the Church”. That is a fundamental difference. Nobody can choose a “clerical career” for himself in the Church. There are no seminaries or colleges where one can train to become a professional LDS clergyman—and that is how it used to be in the early Christian church. That is a vital difference.
zerinus
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
"EP is inconsistent with the biblical Jesus, and inconsistent with the Mormon scriptures as quoted by Zerinus."
** – Nan S.**
Gee, Zerinus, you answered a non-question. What a surprise!
How about Nan’s statement (see, I’m making it easy for you: one question at a time. We might get lucky!)
** – Nan S.**
Gee, Zerinus, you answered a non-question. What a surprise!
How about Nan’s statement (see, I’m making it easy for you: one question at a time. We might get lucky!)
Z
zerinus
Guest
That still does not give me an accurate verbal definition of eternal progression. A picture is not a definition. When we are discussing serious theology, what we want is a verbal definition, not a pretty picture.
When you have given me an accurate verbal definition of eternal progression, and explained to me how it is “inconsistent with biblical Jesus,” then I will be in a position to tell you whether I agree with your theological analysis or not. Until you do that, I have no answers to give. I can’t debate in pictures, I am afraid. Maybe you have a vivid imagination, and can debate in pictures, but I can’t. When I am debating serious theology, I need words, not pictures.
If it is not consistent with Mormon scripture, then it is not Mormon doctrine, period. I don’t care who has said it.
Until I know what EP is, I cannot comment.
Good! Since you have done such a great job of researching that, perhaps you can finally give me an accurate verbal definition of eternal progression. When you have done that, and also explained to me how it is “inconsistent with biblical Jesus,” I will be in a position to answer your questions, and respond to your objections on that particular topic.
I still don’t know what EP is. Judging by how some people seem to understand it, I don’t think I accept it either; neither it seems does Gordon B Hinckley, current president of our Church.
I have already answered that question for you comprehensively in my previous post. You have completely ignored it, and now asking me the same question again. I have no idea what you mean by “Jesus progressed from Elohim”.
zerinus
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Oh, the pain! To have my reputation called into question. But what really hurts is to accuse me of proseltyizing on the Catholic forums, something I have tried to avoid scrupulously. I guess I’m just a failure. That is a painful wound though, all kidding aside,
I’m not sure anymore where I was baptised since it was an infant baptism, I have no recollection. I’m a little sktchy on the FC thing too. I think it was in Vancouver BC at the church of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. I know I attended grade 2 there and Sister Mary Ann Seaton was my grade two teacher. For some reason that particularly sticks in my head. I also went there for grade three. Grade four was at The Church of the Transfiguration in Etobicoke, Ontario (we moved around a lot) and 5 and 6 at St. Louis in Mississauga, Ontario. We made the front of the paper talking to the local priest infront of St. Christopher, where I attended graded 7 & 8 because at the time, St. Christopher was stripped of his Saintly status. That was in Mississauga too. You might see the occassional Canadian spelling creep into what I write here (mispellings too, but try to ignore those!) The rest of the time was in heathen public schools. I’m pretty sure most of those schools are still around and you can probably find them using the internet.
Well, I guess I’ll go mope now. You know, you guys are free to disagree with me and I know I’m here only by your tolerance, this is the Catholic forums, but I also come here for fellowship. But even I have some feelings! Sheesh! You shouldn’t feel threatened.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Do not reply to them. They do not deserve a reply either from you of from me; and you are making things difficulst for me as well as for yourself when you debate with them or reply to them. Ignore them. Do not read their posts and do not reply.
zerinus
D
decn2b
Guest
If mormoms can teach that man can attain godhood and they deny the Trinity. That is all the information I need about their faith to make a decision that it isnt even remotely similar to Christianity.
I find it offensive that they call themselves Chritians. It is a made up religion by some crackpot guy around 175 years ago. They baptize dead people for crying out loud. It is an insidious false religion.
The poster here on this board whos name starts with a Z (cant remember it) is a slave of the silly false system and likely has no idea that the Catholic Answers Forums is probably the last place to venture for recruits
I find it offensive that they call themselves Chritians. It is a made up religion by some crackpot guy around 175 years ago. They baptize dead people for crying out loud. It is an insidious false religion.
The poster here on this board whos name starts with a Z (cant remember it) is a slave of the silly false system and likely has no idea that the Catholic Answers Forums is probably the last place to venture for recruits
K
Karin
Guest
Nan…
you do realize that it was not I that told EP was not clearly defined…it was Zerinus that keeps telling you that
K
Karin
Guest
Oh Z you know what EP is…it is ETERNAL PROGRESSION…lets not play stupid now, ok
Just look at Nan’s lovely chart that she posted above…
Once again Z…you are playing stupid…EP is ETERNAL PROGRESSION
K
Karin
Guest
your fellow LDS is making things difficult for you???
Oh you poor Z…perhaps you both should compare notes and get your LDS facts straight
K
Karin
Guest
T
truthsilence
Guest
Zerinus, do you agee with Joseph Smith’s teaching about God being once a man just like you?
cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=5004665693237&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE7
cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=5004665693237&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE7
C
christianley
Guest
That’s not really the most important sermon because it doesn’t say that God has a Father – it just says God has a body just like a man. The more important sermon to ask about is this one in which Joseph is supposed to have said that our Father had a Father:
utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/smithpluralityofgodssermon.htm
And by the way, here is an interesting quote from that discourse:
"The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it! The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.
Code:
"I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God."
N
Nan_S
Guest
That’s OK. Some people think better visually, others think better verbally. I’m one of the former. You must be one of the latter.
I have no idea what you mean by “Jesus progressed from Elohim”.
zerinus
Here is Eternal Progression as explained by Joseph Smith himself. Now, if you believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and that the revelations he presents did come from the Holy Spirit as he claims, then you would be hard pressed to deny Eternal Progression: that God the Father had a Father Himself, and that men can follow the example of Jesus Christ to become gods themselves.
And if you truly reject Eternal Progression and hold that Jesus Christ is eternal, which is the opposite of the words of Prophet Joseph Smith, you must not be a Mormon after all.
(This is excerpted. I’d love to print the whole thing, but I am space limited here. Read it yourself at the link christianley just provided.)
Joseph Smith’s King Follet Sermon
(as printed in History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 302-317)
Sunday, April 7, 1844
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.
In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.
Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me.
These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before.
What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself.
(continued)
N
Nan_S
Guest
(continued from previous post.)
Joseph Smith’s Sermon On Plurality of Gods
(as printed in History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479)
Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844.
Now, you know that of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods, and, lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry—“The Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has fallen.”
I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!
I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text. I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can.
Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. “Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.” “Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.” All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.
If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also?
I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before. He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys, &c. I know it is good reasoning.
Paul says, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So is also the resurrection of the dead.” They who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead, are exalted far above principalities, powers, thrones, dominions and angels, and are expressly declared to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, all having eternal power.
“Now,” says God, when He visited Moses in the bush, (Moses was a stammering sort of a boy like me) God said, “Thou shalt be a God unto the children of Israel.” God said, “Thou shalt be a God unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman.” I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can cry, “Abba, Father!” Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for.
Joseph Smith’s teachings on the plurality of gods, denying the Holy Trinity, are hand-in-hand with Eternal Progression. I say it again. If you are a real Mormon, you must cling to both. If you hear the Holy Spirit telling you something different, you must not be a Mormon after all.
Joseph Smith’s Sermon On Plurality of Gods
(as printed in History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479)
Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844.
Now, you know that of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods, and, lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry—“The Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has fallen.”
I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!
I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text. I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can.
Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. “Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.” “Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.” All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.
If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also?
I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before. He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys, &c. I know it is good reasoning.
Paul says, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So is also the resurrection of the dead.” They who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead, are exalted far above principalities, powers, thrones, dominions and angels, and are expressly declared to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, all having eternal power.
“Now,” says God, when He visited Moses in the bush, (Moses was a stammering sort of a boy like me) God said, “Thou shalt be a God unto the children of Israel.” God said, “Thou shalt be a God unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman.” I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can cry, “Abba, Father!” Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for.
Joseph Smith’s teachings on the plurality of gods, denying the Holy Trinity, are hand-in-hand with Eternal Progression. I say it again. If you are a real Mormon, you must cling to both. If you hear the Holy Spirit telling you something different, you must not be a Mormon after all.
M
mjf001
Guest
Without a paid clergy, who is accountable? If someone, say, a Bishop, teaches something immoral. Say the ward bishop says something like, “The father has a right to discipline his family anyway he sees fit, even if it crosses over into abuse.” Who is accountable in that situation? If that is the quality of moral guidance being given, where is one to turn? A moral leader should understand the teaching of scriptures - this requires education and formation. I believe the Catholic church has it right, in this area. That’s not to say Priests are perfect, we’re all sinners, but at least they’re knowledgable in what the scriptures do or do not teach.
M
mjf001
Guest
Z,
I was taught about eternal progression in priesthood class when I wast twelve, then again when I was fourteen, and then again when I was sixteen. The chart Nan posted above is a very good illustration of what I was taught fifteen years ago. I don’t understand how you can say this isn’t doctrine. If it’s not doctrine, why did they teach it to deacon’s, teacher’s, and priests in the Aaronic priesthood classes?
I remember these discussions clearly, because I asked “why” alot during these discussions, which made me extremely popular.
I was taught about eternal progression in priesthood class when I wast twelve, then again when I was fourteen, and then again when I was sixteen. The chart Nan posted above is a very good illustration of what I was taught fifteen years ago. I don’t understand how you can say this isn’t doctrine. If it’s not doctrine, why did they teach it to deacon’s, teacher’s, and priests in the Aaronic priesthood classes?
I remember these discussions clearly, because I asked “why” alot during these discussions, which made me extremely popular.
G
geraldffff
Guest
Don’t know a whole lot about Mormonism but I noticed a scripture quote by zerinus that had nothing to do with the text about his Holy Ghost theory zerinus was writting about. It sounds a lot like the giberish the JW’s sound off about. My thanks to truthsilence for such a powerfull insightfull statement. I might add the Catholic Church is the best and the worst for people who do not have out going personalities. In a social setting like a parish festival the sound it is like a great frendly busy beehive which is as it should be. In the worship setting one can not deny that Jesus is King. I have pity for thoese who miss out on this experience.
- Status