Catholic and Mormon Theodicy

[TikiTokiguy]

.

This dear sweet man said he would “take me as his own” in the circumstance I presented. While that is very sweet and kind, it still gave me a start. There is NO WAY I could be that person. I know he meant it as a kindness, but it’s something I could never accept. His wife is his wife. I could never add to that number. Apart from the theological impossibility of it (admittedly my opinion not his) I would think of it as an insult to a woman I dearly love, his wife.

That is insulting to you and his wife. That’s another problem I have with the church - the pressure they put on singles to be married. Singles often feel like they are on the outside looking in. How can that be the “true” church that so many claim when it’s so tough being single in the church? I’ve had an LDS man even tell me it’s tough being single in the church because his divorced mom was having a tough time staying in the church. You would think if this was the “true” church it was be easy for singles to stay in.

I met an ex-LDS member at a Catholic church a few months ago. She was the secretary and I was talking religion with her. She said she joined as a teenager and as soon as she graduated from high school the church put pressure on her to get married and have kids. She wanted to go to collage first. She ended up quiting the church and never going back because of that pressure.

 

[MelanieAnne]

That is insulting to you and his wife. That’s another problem I have with the church - the pressure they put on singles to be married. Singles often feel like they are on the outside looking in. How can that be the “true” church that so many claim when it’s so tough being single in the church? I’ve had an LDS man even tell me it’s tough being single in the church because his divorced mom was having a tough time staying in the church. You would think if this was the “true” church it was be easy for singles to stay in.

I met an ex-LDS member at a Catholic church a few months ago. She was the secretary and I was talking religion with her. She said she joined as a teenager and as soon as she graduated from high school the church put pressure on her to get married and have kids. She wanted to go to collage first. She ended up quiting the church and never going back because of that pressure.

You have touched on a very important point about the Mormon faith. You are completely correct in your assessment. Singles have no place within the Mormon faith, no matter what they may say is the official policy. Yes, there are Singles “wards” that are there to promote marriage, but a single or divorced person just doesn’t “fit” in general and, in fact, they are never totally accepted. At least that’s been the experience of the people I personally know. At some point, they stopped trying to “beat their head against the wall”, they realized they would never be accepted in the way married couples were accepted and they quit, although, truth be told the “not married” bit was the least of the issues why they quit. They quit because they discovered the full theology of the Mormon faith and were repulsed by it.

Interestingly, the person I know who has been most abused by Mormons (a divorcee who entered and then left the Mormon faith) told me that single MEN are not ignored the way single women are. For example, she noticed that single MEN would be invited over to fellowship with other members, but she, a single woman, was not. So it may not just be a Mormon bigotry based on marital status, it may also be based on sex as well. It would appear that an unmarried male might be OK but an unmarried female ~ not so much.

As for me, I think that no one should be left alone on, for example, a holiday, or even a regular Sunday, and if we can remedy that, we should. I guess that’s why my Mom always said I would eventually be part of the “midnite mission”. I don’t know what the “midnite mission” is, but if it means helping out people that are otherwise alone and making them feel welcome, then I’m all for it! It’s how my Mom met my Dad so I figure it must be OK!

 

[Returning_Home]

Has anybody ever done any stories on what goes on in the mind of LDS women who like the idea of their husbands having many wives in the next life? Is that Fawn Brodie book on Smith any good?

I haven’t read Brodie’s book but it was good enough to get her excommunicated. Take that for what it’s worth.

 

[LongJourney]

It is a good book, but today, support for the Spalding-Rigdon theory is growing, and she is very critical of it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Since there has been a departure from the topic due to a misunderstanding of the LDS view of Christ as truly the Son of God (conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost) as He said and as certainly Mary and Joseph would have testified, then if anyone cares to share it, I would like to understand what the Catholic view is of whether Mary was “pregnant” before the birth of Jesus, and if Jesus is considered to be the Son of God the Father in reality, or the Son of the Holy Ghost, or ? (I am only interested in understanding the belief, not in challenging the particulars of it. I had thought I had understood that Catholics believed Jesus was truly the Son of God the Father, though of one divine essence with the Father yet a Separate Person. I have probably misunderstood at some point–the reason for this post–to ask for clarification. But it is off topic so I am not looking for a long discussion, just a simple explanation.) Thanks.

Mt 1 18-25; Lk 1:26-38.
Isa 7:14 in the LXX, quoted in Mt 1:23

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived “by the Holy Spirit without human seed”. The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:

You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.
497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility: “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”, said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee. The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.”

 

[TikiTokiguy]

It is a good book, but today, support for the Spalding-Rigdon theory is growing, and she is very critical of it.

Go to google and punch in Fawn Brodie. The third or so result is a page that says - fawnbrodie.com If you go to it you get a page attacking Brodie by Hugh Nibley.
Hmm, that’s kind of dirty. There are no other pages except a link at the very bottom with takes you to a pro Joseph Smith page.

fawnbrodie.com/brodie/

 

[LongJourney]

Nibley was a “the BoM is literal truth” kind of guy. According to some such people, you must either accept JS as the most perfect person who walked the earth (next to Jesus, presumably) or else condemn him as Satan embodied. If you choose the latter, they condemn you. There is no alternative way of looking at it.

Therefore, they condemned Brodie for having written the book, because she represented him as having been a mere human being, with all his frailties. She did the best she could, walking a narrow path but yet wanting to be honest, It didn’t work.

Bushman’s book “Rough Stone Rolling” was written in a new age, and seems to be acceptable to Mormons who wish to read it. Things have changed since Brodie wrote her book.

 

[ParkerD]

Mt 1 18-25; Lk 1:26-38.
Isa 7:14 in the LXX, quoted in Mt 1:23

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived “by the Holy Spirit without human seed”. The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:

You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.
497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility: “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”, said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee. The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.”

RebeccaJ,
Thanks for the response to my question. The response with the words “without human seed” leaves me uncertain about whether I am to understand that the Catholic belief is that Mary was literally Jesus’ mother through being her offspring (through conception by means of an egg within her womb that would make her the true parent and that thus the “race of David according to the flesh” is literal), or whether the words “without human seed” mean that her womb carried this divine baby Son who was not literally hers other than by carrying Him in her womb? (I’m trying to be discrete in how I ask this question).

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
Thanks for the response to my question. The response with the words “without human seed” leaves me uncertain about whether I am to understand that the Catholic belief is that Mary was literally Jesus’ mother through being her offspring (through conception by means of an egg within her womb that would make her the true parent and that thus the “race of David according to the flesh” is literal), or whether the words “without human seed” mean that her womb carried this divine baby Son who was not literally hers other than by carrying Him in her womb? (I’m trying to be discrete in how I ask this question).

Gal 4:4
Col 2:9
Lk 1:34-35
Jn 16:14-15
Mt 1:20; 2:1-12; Lk 1:35; 2:8-20; Jn 1:31-34; 2:11
Acts 10:38

484 The Annunciation to Mary inaugurates “the fullness of time”, the time of the fulfillment of God’s promises and preparations. Mary was invited to conceive him in whom the “whole fullness of deity” would dwell “bodily”. The divine response to her question, “How can this be, since I know not man?”, was given by the power of the Spirit: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you.”
485 The mission of the Holy Spirit is always conjoined and ordered to that of the Son. The Holy Spirit, “the Lord, the giver of Life”, is sent to sanctify the womb of the Virgin Mary and divinely fecundate it, causing her to conceive the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.
486 The Father’s only Son, conceived as man in the womb of the Virgin Mary, is “Christ”, that is to say, anointed by the Holy Spirit, from the beginning of his human existence, though the manifestation of this fact takes place only progressively: to the shepherds, to the magi, to John the Baptist, to the disciples. Thus the whole life of Jesus Christ will make manifest “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power.”

 

[TikiTokiguy]

I picked up the Browdie book at the library today. From scanning it, it seems like an easy read.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

RebeccaJ,
Thanks for the response to my question. The response with the words “without human seed” leaves me uncertain about whether I am to understand that the Catholic belief is that Mary was literally Jesus’ mother through being her offspring (through conception by means of an egg within her womb that would make her the true parent and that thus the “race of David according to the flesh” is literal), or whether the words “without human seed” mean that her womb carried this divine baby Son who was not literally hers other than by carrying Him in her womb? (I’m trying to be discrete in how I ask this question).

I definitely think Mormons take things much too literally! How could anyone know how Mary became the Mother of Jesus? It’s a mystery - like God.

God is mysterious, and he has mysterious ways. There are some things better left unexamined. Just accept the fact that Mary is the Mother of God and it was a miracle, and we humans will never really understand it. Like the Trinity. That’s a mystery too.

 

[zerinus]

God is mysterious, and he has mysterious ways. There are some things better left unexamined. Just accept the fact that Mary is the Mother of God and it was a miracle, and we humans will never really understand it. Like the Trinity. That’s a mystery too.

That agrees with Mormonism as far as I can tell. That is how I look at things.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That agrees with Mormonism as far as I can tell. That is how I look at things.

Well all this talk about eggs and sperm, for heaven’s sake, and God physically impregnating Mary. It’s goofy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well all this talk about eggs and sperm, for heaven’s sake, and God physically impregnating Mary. It’s goofy.

Definitely, the over explanation of Mary’s virginity is one of the stranger moments one will ever encounter in mormonism.

 

[Returning_Home]

That is insulting to you and his wife. That’s another problem I have with the church - the pressure they put on singles to be married. Singles often feel like they are on the outside looking in. How can that be the “true” church that so many claim when it’s so tough being single in the church? I’ve had an LDS man even tell me it’s tough being single in the church because his divorced mom was having a tough time staying in the church. You would think if this was the “true” church it was be easy for singles to stay in.

I met an ex-LDS member at a Catholic church a few months ago. She was the secretary and I was talking religion with her. She said she joined as a teenager and as soon as she graduated from high school the church put pressure on her to get married and have kids. She wanted to go to collage first. She ended up quiting the church and never going back because of that pressure.

That pressure you speak of is an outgrowth of the concept of the premortal existance; every Mormon baby is supposed to give another soul a mortal body with which to prove themselves worthy of godhood in the eyes of the Mormon god.

Not only that, but the woman can’t enter Heaven without her husband; he allegedly pulls her in. This is part of the temple rite: the man on one side of a curtain and the woman on the other. He practices bringing her through the veil because Mormon women, of course, aren’t worthy on their own.

 

[zerinus]

Well all this talk about eggs and sperm, for heaven’s sake, and God physically impregnating Mary. It’s goofy.

Well, it ain’t coming from me. The Bible and the Book of Mormon agree that Jesus was conceived in the womb by miraculous power of God, the Holy Ghost. The precise mechanism of how it was done is not revealed in either book. If you are going to keep probing it, then some people are going to speculate about “egg and sperm”. But the truth is that nobody knows how it was done. We just accept on faith that that is how it happened.

 

[Returning_Home]

Well, it ain’t coming from me. The Bible and the Book of Mormon agree that Jesus was conceived in the womb by miraculous power of God, the Holy Ghost. The precise mechanism of how it was done is not revealed in either book. If you are going to keep probing it, then some people are going to speculate about “egg and sperm”. But the truth is that nobody knows how it was done. We just accept on faith that that is how it happened.

But then again, the BOM also has God as a triune being and an eternal spirit, whereas Mormonism today holds that he’s an exhalted being with a body of flesh and bone.

Which is it?

 

[TikiTokiguy]

That pressure you speak of is an outgrowth of the concept of the premortal existance; every Mormon baby is supposed to give another soul a mortal body with which to prove themselves worthy of godhood in the eyes of the Mormon god.

Not only that, but the woman can’t enter Heaven without her husband; he allegedly pulls her in. This is part of the temple rite: the man on one side of a curtain and the woman on the other. He practices bringing her through the veil because Mormon women, of course, aren’t worthy on their own.

There is a myth marriage is sacred in the LDS church but I believe the church denigrates marriage. I know women in the church who, once they get a divorce, are on the hunt again to get married and sealed. They don’t really seem to wait. Once the divorce is done they say “I’m single” and start the hunt. I’m not against marriage and understand some women and men need a husband or wife and can’t ever live without one. But the LDS women I know seem to me to make a mockery of marriage. They don’t really wait that long. It’s 1. Divorce 2. Hunt. 3. Marriage. All as quick as possible. They will tell you God wants them to be married. Maybe. But how about after a divorce you wait a little bit before jumping into your third or fifth marriage?

 

[TikiTokiguy]

I’ve read the first hundred pages the Brodie book. It’s fascinating and fun to read. No wonder the LDS surround and protect Smith so much. If they let one little crack start in their “prophet” it will all come tumbling down under real facts. Hollywood should make a theatrical movie of the real Smith. It would be a fascinating film.

 

[ParkerD]

Christine,
The LDS belief is that Jesus was the literal son of Mary, and thus was a literal descendant of King David fulfilling the prophecies that the Messiah would be a lineal descendant of David. I had wanted to clarify whether I understood the Catholic position just to inform myself about it, since I have missed during these many moments reading on this website, a basic understanding that was not coming across in what I was reading about the relationship of Mary and the Savior (but mostly had just read headings on the thread topic page.)

The LDS belief includes that He really did condescend as the literal son of Mary to a position as “fully God” or Immanuel, God with us, but yet where He would experience the physical pains and anguishes of this mortal world while still having power over death and, of course, have His innate perfection completely with Him at all times.

To Christine or others:
To get back on topic, the thread seems to have had its intent (if I understood Soren1’s first post) to discuss the LDS position of why God has allowed evil to exist, versus the Catholic position given the belief in creation from nothing or “First Cause” of all things in the universe.

I think both of these two aspects of profound differences in belief are important. The condescension of Christ to be literally born of Mary as her Son was an important sign of His coming as the fulfiller of the prophecies about the Son of David as the rightful lineal King of the Jews. It means that His perfect life, suffering and atonement are all the more powerfully moving (at least to my way of thinking) in that His choices and His pain had a mortal element to them that made Him “like us”, and that He has the power to raise humankind up to become “like Him”–fully perfect in every way, living in the presence of Heavenly Father and Him, our Savior and Redeemer.

Creation (organization, or “fattening the earth”) from existing matter and energy and the corollary part of organizing intelligences from a prior existence from which they had the potential to progress in life form (to a spirit) and to demonstrate free will choice (such as Satan and the other fallen angels did and we all did by choosing to follow Christ who followed the Father), provide a basis for understanding that God allows the adversary and fallen angels to tempt, deceive, and influence the thinking of the spirits who chose to come to this mortal world and gain a body and be “proven herewith”. It is part of a tempering and testing process that God allows, including allowing the multitudinous religious beliefs in the world amidst the love He has for all of humankind and the desire He has for all of humankind to “choose Him” but yet not have a forced or wrongly influenced choice, in the process of our free will exercise of personal choice.

Free will choice boils down to recognizing that although outside influences impact how we view the world and interact within it, the choices we make are ours and we really have only ourselves to blame (not Adam and Eve, or our parents, or anyone else including God) if we make choices that bring us less than the happiness we probably thought we were trying to find when we made the choices we make each day.

Peace to all.