Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

[Michael68]

You argue all this word salad stuff about consubstantial. The really interesting thing is the possible belief God was man on another planet. I think that is the most problematic part if it is true they believe this.

 

[LivingWaters7]

As I posted yesterday:

Was looking at older posts and stumbled upon this, in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young manual:

"God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead. President Brigham Young taught the Latter-day Saints to worship God the Father and address prayers to Him in the name of Jesus Christ. He taught further that God the Father was once a man on another planet** who “passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality” (DBY, 22)."

and

"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church. How do you feel, knowing that God, through His own experience, “knows all that we know regarding the toils [and] sufferings” of mortality?"
lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-4?lang=eng

Yes, it is consistent with Mormon theology that God the Father was once a man who lived on an earth somewhere, and progressed to Godhood, as we can. This is found in many Mormon documents and statements.

 

[Stephen168]

You argue all this word salad stuff about consubstantial. The really interesting thing is the possible belief God was man on another planet. I think that is the most problematic part if it is true they believe this.

Christians believe there is a divine nature and a human nature; they are not the same.

Mormons believe humans have the same nature as God. God was once a man and man can become God. He is a creature. Therefore, they worship a God that is not the Christian God.

It is the main reason the Catholic Church does not recognize Mormons as Christians.

 

[PJM]

Was looking at older posts and stumbled upon this, in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young manual:

"God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead. President Brigham Young taught the Latter-day Saints to worship God the Father and address prayers to Him in the name of Jesus Christ. He taught further that God the Father was once a man on another planet** who “passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality” (DBY, 22)."

and

"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church. How do you feel, knowing that God, through His own experience, “knows all that we know regarding the toils [and] sufferings” of mortality?"
lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-4?lang=eng

YEP, that was my understanding too,

THANKS for sharing

GB

 

[jane_doe]

The one question I have is: Does the LDS church believe that God the Father was once a man on another planet?

It is a possibility and has been speculated about, but nothing has been officially revealed scripture. God will reveal when He chooses to reveal.

 

[sallybutler]

It is a possibility and has been speculated about, but nothing has been officially revealed scripture. God will reveal when He chooses to reveal.

Where can I find the LDS official position on this?

 

[jane_doe]

Where can I find the LDS official position on this?

LDS is not a culture which gives official positions on everything, including this. There is no scripture on the matter. I could refer you to speculations, but it’s important to remember speculations are not scripture.

 

[Stephen168]

Where can I find the LDS official position on this?

Post #849 has quotes from Mormon official publications and Post #851 has a link to a Mormon publication. Both contradict what jane_doe claims.

 

[jane_doe]

Post #849 has quotes from Mormon official publications and Post #851 has a link to a Mormon publication. Both contradict what jane_doe claims.

this reply use totally ignores the differences between scripture, an officail statement, continuing revelation, or other publications,

 

[LivingWaters7]

Where can I find the LDS official position on this?

There is no official LDS position per se, as in, there is no document that explicitly states “this is the official LDS position on whether God was once a man and progressed to become God”, however there are a number of LDS church documents and publications (right on LDS.org) that teach that God the Father was once a man that progressed to become God, and the related belief that we can do the same.

 

[Stephen168]

this reply use totally ignores the differences between scripture, an officail statement, continuing revelation, or other publications,

Which is all fluid in Mormonism. Mormon scripture can change and be ignored as needed to conform to the current teachings of the Mormon Church. So what is important when asked, “What is the teaching of the Mormon Church” is answer the question. You have long since proven to be an unreliable source of Mormon Church teaching. Even to the point of claiming the Mormon Church has no authority to teach:

The highest authority is God Himself. You’re welcome to ask Him directly for private answers.
The second greatest authority is scripture, which contains only a fraction of God’s marvels and knowledge. Scripture will continue to be revealed as God deems fit to share it with the world. Until then, you’ll have to wait.

I think Mormons would be shocked to hear this

 

[LivingWaters7]

Mormons often do limit what is “official doctrine” to what is contained in their scriptures, articles of faith, and official proclamations (you can see as much in their “Approaching Mormon Doctrine” statement on Mormon Newsroom). However, it is also important to see what their church and leaders are teaching its members, and that can be seen in their official publications, manuals, magazines, general conferences (indeed, the LDS church teaches that general conferences are “latter-day scripture”), etc.

 

[Stephen168]

Mormons often do limit what is “official doctrine” to what is contained in their scriptures, articles of faith, and official proclamations (you can see as much in their “Approaching Mormon Doctrine” statement on Mormon Newsroom). However, it is also important to see what their church and leaders are teaching its members, and that can be seen in their official publications, manuals, magazines, general conferences (indeed, the LDS church teaches that general conferences are “latter-day scripture”), etc.

I agree, but was thinking about two exceptions:

-Mormon scripture once contained documents which contradicted their teaching on God being of flesh and bone. Those documents are no longer scripture.

-The current Mormon Church teaching on what the Book of Mormon is about conflicts with Mormon scripture. So teaching doesn’t have to line up with scripture in every case.

Because there are exceptions, when I see a Mormon claiming the Mormon Church doesn’t teach something because it isn’t in scripture or worse does not have the authority to teach, I lose all confidence in their reliability to teach Mormon doctrine.
Why can’t they give an honest straight forward answer on current Mormon teaching? It just seems odd to me.

 

[TOmNossor]

I had to have Tom define his terms before I understood his false dilemma; it must be this or that. But I think HojaVerde picked on it waaay before I did.


I just tried to point out in my post #907 that it doesn’t make any sense to claim the Catholic Church would endorse a heresy. The Church found middle ground and avoided both of the heresies Tom claims “Catholic scholars” believe.

I just used the terms as Catholic scholarship have used the terms from long before we were born.
In response to that you claimed the view embraced by Father Davis and Dr. Cross was modalism.
You did this because it is most clearly modalism, but as Dr. Cross tells us how it is not modalism is “unintelligible to us.”
Also, as I said, there is no middle way between generic and numeric. The “middle way” is to recognize that it is “unintelligible to us.”
It is frustrating to me that you are not acknowledging your multiple errors in this thread.

I entered the thread because you and another poster were demanding a LDS define co-substantial as if that had ANYTHING to do with the very good point made by this LDS. I claimed that Catholics didn’t understand the term and they would deny Catholic dogma as the fumbled around with it. It was a distractions to ask for the definition and it was done because there is no simple and clear Catholic response to the point made. HolaVerde (and I think PJM) offered a response and didn’t attack the LDS. I was correct, a Catholic poster denied dogma from the Council of Chalcedon.
I am actually quite convinced you denied dogma from the 4th Lateran Council, but I might not be able to prove that to a jury of atheists and I have zero hope of getting any Catholic here to admit I have a point.
Anyway, in case you are tempted to believe that I think I have made errors in Catholic theology other than claiming consubstantial was Latin, I do not believe this. I think these points are valid especially in response to the criticism I saw directed at a LDS poster who made a great point but used a wrong term. So when I say them in some future thread, you can again call me a liar, but I will not be lying.
Soon my family will return from vacation and I will not be able to be the monster you see before you. You will continue to offer poor reasons my church is not God’s church, but I will have less time to demonstrate (attempt to demonstrate) you do not know what you are talking about.
I do not think I have changed your mind about much, but at least you will no longer claim consubstantial has one meaning or that numeric consubstantiality is modalism. This means we are closer in our understanding of Catholicism than we were before and I reckon that is good.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You argue all this word salad stuff about consubstantial. The really interesting thing is the possible belief God was man on another planet. I think that is the most problematic part if it is true they believe this.

I assume this was directed at me .

As I believe you know, I entered this thread because a LDS was being subjected to an “uncharitable ‘Gotcha.’” This “gotcha” involved the definition of the word consubstantial. I claimed the LDS point good within a wide range of definitions for consubstantial AND that Catholics didn’t understand the word anyway. I claimed Catholics would deny dogma trying to flesh it out. One did (two if you choose to believe Stephen168 denied dogma from the 4th Lateran Council).
So, I get the “word salad.” You are right. But it is Catholicism that claims it is error free and being guided toward “all truth.” Theology is not something LDS place much emphasis upon. I have said many times we seek an orthopraxy not an orthodoxy.

Now concerning your “most problematic:”
I am not sure if you have read Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origin. Irenaeus the earliest of the bunch wrote about 150 years after Christ called a group of non-theologians to receive revelation and start a “church” outside the Jewish authority (Ciaphus). These three authors offer wildly speculative thoughts that have no place in modern Catholicism (and many thoughts that are part of Catholicism today after all these folks are the ones whose writings were preserved). It was 1250 years before St. Thomas tried to pull together Catholic thought into his Summa, but after experiencing the real God, he called his work “straw” and never wrote again.
I share this because LDS with our denial of the importance of theology are working out our theology as a secondary intellectual pursuit. I subscribe to the thoughts offered by LDS scholar Blake Ostler in his much praised 3 Volume set, Exploring Mormon Thought. God the Father became embodied in a way analogous to Jesus Christ becoming embodied. God the Father is the one called “greater than they all” in the Book of Abraham and God the Father was fully God before, after, and during His mortal sojourn.
You will hear from Living Waters (former LDS) and Stephen168 and … many things about how Ostler’s view cannot be embraced. I have taught Ostler’s view in church and nary an eyebrow was raised. But, in the world of anti-Mormonism, only the view most likely to be rejected and reviled can be the Mormon view.
So, it is true that Joseph Smith possibly (probably not IMO) and virtually all LDS leaders until the 21st century after Joseph Smith, taught that God the Father was once a man who had to work out His salvation. Very seldom (I am not immediately aware of any) will you hear during these 180 years that God the Father ever sinned (this is one of the reasons that I view God the Father’s incarnation similar to Christ’s rather than identical to ours). I believe God the Father was fully God during his time on earth, because I believe the scripture D&C 20:17 (I quoted earlier) refers to God the Father.
Anyway, I think Catholic Answers Non-Catholic message board is a poor place to learn about Catholicism, but it is a very poor place to learn about Mormonism. I recommend Exploring Mormon Thought by Ostler and/or a good LDS message board.
Charity, TOm****

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think I have made it very clear that Catholic scholarship supports my position on TWO senses of the word. And that Stephen claimed the sense Catholic scholars embrace for God the Father and God the Son is modalism.

I have said nothing about Catholics claiming human substance and divine substance where the same thing.

Oh, and while you were not the Catholic who denied dogma due to not understanding consubstantial on this thread (that was someone else), I think it was you on a previous thread. If you disagree, I can search for it, but Catholics (even those who post againts my faith on Catholic Answers) regularly misunderstand consubstatial.

Charity, TOm

Two red corvettes look the same. Two grapes taste the same. This is not using the word “same” in a different sense.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I had to have Tom define his terms before I understood his false dilemma; it must be this or that. But I think HojaVerde picked on it waaay before I did.


I just tried to point out in my post #907 that it doesn’t make any sense to claim the Catholic Church would endorse a heresy. The Church found middle ground and avoided both of the heresies Tom claims “Catholic scholars” believe.

Yeah.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I agree, but was thinking about two exceptions:

-Mormon scripture once contained documents which contradicted their teaching on God being of flesh and bone. Those documents are no longer scripture.

-The current Mormon Church teaching on what the Book of Mormon is about conflicts with Mormon scripture. So teaching doesn’t have to line up with scripture in every case.

Because there are exceptions, when I see a Mormon claiming the Mormon Church doesn’t teach something because it isn’t in scripture or worse does not have the authority to teach, I lose all confidence in their reliability to teach Mormon doctrine.
Why can’t they give an honest straight forward answer on current Mormon teaching? It just seems odd to me.

Agreed. Also, I think that sometimes the whole “it isn’t scripture” thing can become a way to dismiss out of hand statements by their leaders. It is very interesting to watch some become sola scriptura when faced with difficult/eccentric statements made by Mormon leaders. Essentially, we’re being asked to ignore what the leaders are teaching. What good are they then, and why do we need them, when we should just ignore their words and read what’s in the scriptures?

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168; 14193867:

I just tried to point out in my post #907 that it doesn’t make any sense to claim the Catholic Church would endorse a heresy. The Church found middle ground and avoided both of the heresies Tom claims “Catholic scholars” believe.

I just used the terms as Catholic scholarship have used the terms from long before we were born.
In response to that you claimed the view embraced by Father Davis and Dr. Cross was modalism.

You are delusional.

And as we have already established Father agrees “that many (most probably) of the Father’s at Nicea used homoousian in the generic sense.”

Generic sense means not modal.

No, [Father Davis, Dr. Cross, and Athanasius] are not modalists.

It is you who keeps claiming faithful Catholics are modalists. Forgetting that modalism is a heresy.

You did this because it is most clearly modalism, but as Dr. Cross tells us how it is not modalism is “unintelligible to us.”

Again, I’ve never done this. It has been your unproven claim. Which is false. Catholics are not modalists.

Also, as I said, there is no middle way between generic and numeric. The “middle way” is to recognize that it is “unintelligible to us.”

The Catholic Church teaches the middle way because modalism and tritheism are heresies. The middle way IS the Church’s teaching on the Holy Trinity. To prove there is no middle way all you would have had to do is quote a Catholic scholar claiming that modalism or tritheism are teachings of the Catholic Church. I’m not sure why you quoted my post because you have not refuted what I said, except to repeat your claim.

It is frustrating to me that you are not acknowledging your multiple errors in this thread.

I think you are frustrated because you got caught in your sophistry. Once you defined your terms it became clear to me.

 

[Stephen168]

Two red corvettes look the same. Two grapes taste the same. This is not using the word “same” in a different sense.

Or when I look at a 1973 corvette from the front it is the same 1973 corvette when I look at it from the back.

or all 1973 corvettes are the same.

or all red 1973 corvettes are the same.

or all automobiles are the same

At what specificity are they the “same” or not?

Tom says the first and the last, nothing in the middle.