H
- Status
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Yeah, but Pres. Young was always the weirder of all LDS presidents (at least in my humble opinion). Note that he single handedly instituted racism in the LDS priesthood (where Joseph Smith Jr. himself ordained a number of Black men to the priesthood).
Either way, we must acknowledge that none of this is doctrinal speculation. To my knowledge there has never been defined LDS doctrine that labels themselves as “Christian”. Only mere “mortal opinions” (as the LDS like to point out) that some like to be called Christian while others don’t.
I guess this brings us all the way back to square one
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi 1holy,Since the LDS are polytheists “false gods” would be more apropos.
newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm#article3
:doh2:
I think the argument you mentioned was your quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas?
If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist.
Why would more than one god necessarily differ from one another in any important way?
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
It’s the same argument over “evolution of doctrine VS organic development of doctrine”.
The same can be posed to the LDS. There have been numerous “so-called changes” to doctrine. Were they development or evolution of said doctrine? The answer you get to that question will invariably depend on whether the person is LDS or not.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Technically this quote from St. Thomas Aquinas would not be at variance to your LDS beliefs, since Mormons are technically NOT polytheist, rather henotheist.
In LDS dogma, there is only ONE god for our world (Elohim) whom we are to worship, while the LDS acknowledge that there are numerous other gods of other worlds with whom us mortals have no relationship, and to whom we owe no recourse.
B
BDawg
Guest
You can check out the thread on The Nature of God in Mormonism for some examples.
H
hosemonkey
Guest
Agreed. BTW, welcome home.
B
BDawg
Guest
In an earlier post, I quoted Brigham Young saying that all gods are one. Here’s another one from Orson Pratt.
“If, then, the one hundred and forty-four thousand are to have the name of God inscribed on their foreheads, will it be simply a plaything, a something that has no meaning? or will it mean that which the inscriptions specify?—that they are indeed Gods—one with the Father and one with the Son; as the Father and Son are one, and both of them called Gods, so will all His children be one with the Father and the Son, and they will be one so far as carrying out the great purposes of Jehovah is concerned. No divisions will be there but a complete oneness; not a oneness in person but a perfect oneness in action in the creation, redemption, and glorification of worlds.” (Orson Pratt, JD 14: 243.)
I think your understanding of LDS doctrine is incomplete, in other words.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
The LDS believe that the father and son are only one in purpose but not one in substance. Since Orson Pratt is comparing the relationship of “the gods” to the relationship between the father and son, how can these not be “different gods”?
B
BDawg
Guest
The LDS scriptures say there is “one God” in some places, and in other places talk about more than one god. So to us, it is proper to say either, depending on the “sense” in which the words are meant.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Thank you!
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi x,
My suggestion is to say, “Mormons are Christians in the broad sense, but Catholics see them as heretics who aren’t true Christians.”
It’s blunt and to the point. Everyone would understand what you mean. It’s good enough for me, at least, and I think any Mormon who would be offended by a statement like that should man up and quit being such a baby.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
So please explain how this relates to the nature of God versus the nature of the gods (seeing as you perceive my understanding of LDS doctrine to be “incomplete”).
As a young LDS, I had always been taught that while there are numerous gods of numerous worlds “bring[ing] to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (to quote the book of Moses) of the mortals of their respective “worlds”, these are all separate individuals of separate substance, with separate minds, and separate faculties.
By all the “gods being one” did you mean to imply that they all have the same goal with respect to human beings?
If this is the case, then I feel we are, in an obscure way, agreeing yet arguing over semantics.
B
BDawg
Guest
BTW, x, where does the Bible say HOW God is one? That’s really the issue between us, don’t you think? We both can say that God is ONE, but we mean it in different ways. Which way is right?
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
That seems fair enough. So I have a question for you. By your own definition of what a Christian is, are there any contemporary “Christian sects” that you would not consider to be Christian?
I’m simply trying to better understand your position. I think an example of the negative would help.
Thanks!
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
I well understand this (having been a former Mormon and currently undergoing conversion to the Catholic faith).
With these past posts, I’ve been specifically focussing on the LDS idea of “one in purpose but separate in substance” belief (without actually tackling the idea of who is right).
With respect to the LDS definition of “oneness”, I’ve stated that there are numerous gods (in substance) but conceivably one “God” (God as a concept, one in purpose [see that verse in the PoGP I believe it’s Moses 1:32?]).
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi x,
This is not your fault. I think it’s a general problem with LDS teaching on this topic. Some of us focus so much on differentiating our doctrine from others’ that we end up focusing solely on the differences and ignoring the similarities. For example, some of us get so caught up in making sure everyone knows that we don’t believe in the mainstream Trinity (and we usually have a distorted view of that doctrine, anyway) that we ONLY talk about the separateness of the gods. We forget to emphasize how completely one these beings are in every other way, like Orson Pratt and Brigham Young did in those quotations I provided.
We typically say (like you did) that God is one “in purpose,” but that doesn’t cover it. God is one in mind and will, as well. If two beings are so unified as to have a single mind and will, not just the same goals, this is a far more complete unity.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Zerinus played out on me as far a conversation on the “great apostasy” is concerned. I am reposting a point to give other LDS a chance to respond and explain, as well as show others there was no “great apostasy” in my opinion. I have asked logical questions that have yet to be answered. Where did the “great apostasy” take place? Who started the “great apostasy”? When did the “great apostasy” take place? Who defended against the “great apostasy”? So far, I have not seen any satisfactory answers to these basic questions of any event as important as the “great apostasy” would have been and the impact it would have played throughout history.
Why is there no evidence of a “great apostasy”?
There were many enemies of the Church who would have benefited from disproving the claims of the early Christians, Jews and Romans just to name two. Historians would have recorded the event as it would be a major event to disprove Christianity. The pagan Romans studied the Christian religion to combat it more effectively. Julian the Apostate unsuccessfully tried to rebuild the Temple in order to discredit the prophecy of Christ that the Temple would be destroyed and never re-built. The Jews, accused of killing the messiah, would have benefited greatly from such an event. Yet nowhere in history has the “great apostasy” been recorded until the 1800s. Where are the writings documenting the event from those who apostasized?
Catholics can produce evidence of the Church continuing on through the ages, from the time of the Apostles to present day. Surely, there had been a “great apostasy”, there would be Catholic documentation defending against such a thing.
Zerinus has only produced a few scriptures that indicate some small apostasies, or schisms, all short of a “great apostasy”. Nothing has been offered outside of those few scriptures, some of which I feel are being misinterpreted for the sake of his argument. Surely a “great apostasy” would have been taught continuously through history and not just since the 1800s.
Like I said, there are many writings available from the early Church fathers, Jews, Romans and historians. Where’s the evidence of the “great apostasy” that took place as mormons claim?
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
Why is there no evidence of a “great apostasy”?
There were many enemies of the Church who would have benefited from disproving the claims of the early Christians, Jews and Romans just to name two. Historians would have recorded the event as it would be a major event to disprove Christianity. The pagan Romans studied the Christian religion to combat it more effectively. Julian the Apostate unsuccessfully tried to rebuild the Temple in order to discredit the prophecy of Christ that the Temple would be destroyed and never re-built. The Jews, accused of killing the messiah, would have benefited greatly from such an event. Yet nowhere in history has the “great apostasy” been recorded until the 1800s. Where are the writings documenting the event from those who apostasized?
Catholics can produce evidence of the Church continuing on through the ages, from the time of the Apostles to present day. Surely, there had been a “great apostasy”, there would be Catholic documentation defending against such a thing.
Zerinus has only produced a few scriptures that indicate some small apostasies, or schisms, all short of a “great apostasy”. Nothing has been offered outside of those few scriptures, some of which I feel are being misinterpreted for the sake of his argument. Surely a “great apostasy” would have been taught continuously through history and not just since the 1800s.
Like I said, there are many writings available from the early Church fathers, Jews, Romans and historians. Where’s the evidence of the “great apostasy” that took place as mormons claim?
May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
But it’s not just Catholics who see Mormons as not being Christian. Much of the information that is claimed to be “anti-Mormon” is from our separated brethren–Protestants!
Have you ever read that book that was mentioned awhile back, A Tale of Two Churches: the Mormon Church and the Vatican (or something like that). The author is a Catholic priest who has Mormon family. In comparison with most of the Protestant literature, it’s positively loving.
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi x,
I would use the word “Christian” in a broad sense and a narrow sense, as well. For instance, the Episcopalian bishop John Shelby Spong is a Christian in the broad sense, because he belongs to a sect that teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, etc. But Spong doesn’t believe that Jesus was really the Son of God, so I would say that anyone who believes such a thing isn’t really a Christian believer in a narrower sense. In an even narrower sense, LDS believe that all other churches are corrupted in some ways, and lack authority from God. In that very narrow sense, we are the only true Christians. So I could say that “Catholics are Christians in a broad sense, but I think they are heretical,” etc.
Does that makes sense?
- Status