Catholic responses to Blake Ostler (Mormon apologist)?

[Nicea325]

Do the Catholics here believe that God can change in the sense of moving from one state to another? For instance, can God change from thinking about you to not thinking about you? Is God eternally thinking about you, me, and everyone else? Does God answer prayers? If so, does this mean from all eternity he is answering the prayers he chooses to answer?

God is omniscient.

 

[KathleenGee]

We acknowledge the beginning of man when he and God walked side by side in the Garden.

God wills our existence. Without His loving will, we do not exist.

He did not make us puppets either, but gave us free will so that we may freely chose to love Him back or deny Him.

Furthermore, our position with God is more relational, pointed towards friendship with Him, personified by Christ who said later, ‘I now call you friends’.

 

[RebeccaJ]

We don’t see a problem because there isn’t one. You’ve built a maze, that I certainly can’t follow.

You don’t need to work out a maze to know God, because the beginning of Catholic thought is, God knows you. The most ancient of symbols that recognizes God who sees you is the all seeing eye. No, it is not a Christian symbol, but even the ancients understood God knows me. Your argument seems to be, God doesn’t know you and as God gets to know you, you want a reaction that signals God finally does indeed, know you.

God does not react, God acts, from His nature which is love. I don’t know how many ways we can the same thing.

 

[Stephen168]

Rory is a great guy, but could you believe that I do not believe his post or Robyn’s post eliminates the problems I see?
Is that possible to you?

No, because as we has said, your definition of immutable is your own, and not one held by the Catholic Church. So the “problem” is in your own mind and not with the Catholic Church. If you are expecting a Catholic to unravel the problem you have created for yourself that seems a little irrational.

I suspected you had not read him. You see Father Weinandy surely knows similar things to what Rory and Robyn do, but he is quite honest in his acknowledgement of how this problem has impacted folks. He list Catholics that I think he would say have somewhat abandoned Tradition they are so impacted by this issue.
I surely think there are options other than my dishonesty or ???, to explain why I do not go “ahh, I see” as soon as I read Rory or Robyn

Instead of quoting a priest quote a Council. Only you know what motivates you in holding on to this self created “problem” but, after reading your post #76 it gets even more anti-Catholic in my mind. Claiming the Catholic Church believes God is frozen and can’t love you but then claiming God can act. So God can act but can’t act to love you; very irrational to me.

Is it different when I “attack” the Catholic Church than when folks “attack” the LDS Church. Defense of the Mormonism does not seem to be a high priority here. When I thought I had to provide an answer to every query it was not the absence of answers that I found overwhelming, but the abundance of queries

Yes, it is different. The Catholic Church was started by Christ and continues to this day; therefore we do not have to attack Mormonism to defend Catholicism. As a Mormon, you have to attack Catholicism at some point because Mormonism requires it. I just think your attack should be honest. I also think the quicker the attack on the Catholic Church the weaker your defense of Mormonism.
Also it has been pointed out a noted that Mormon apologetics seems to contain frequent claims of answers without providing answers. I see that in you here.

 

[Stephen168]

I am not ashamed and you might be right that I should be. I truly read his comments as accusing me of intentionally stating falsehood.Combined with his unwillingness to read Father Weinandy who said many things I have been trying to say, I figured he was using a “tactic.”

I don’t need a “tactic”. I have been straight forward in saying your claim about the Catholic Church sharing your definition of immutable is false and that fact has been explained to you before. Of course after reading your post #76 your definition seems to be shifting.

 

[LSK]

the fact that his definitions are shifting is not unusual for LDS. This is a philosophy which embraces the idea that the ends justifies the means and that lying, if done for good reason, is absolutely acceptable.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t need a “tactic”. I have been straight forward in saying your claim about the Catholic Church sharing your definition of immutable is false and that fact has been explained to you before. Of course after reading your post #76 your definition seems to be shifting.

The anti-Catholic note sounded for me in his quoting ECF in context of Jeffrey Holland. Hard for me to take seriously from that point. As I said, overlaying Mormon belief over Catholicism and then complaining it doesn’t make sense. Well, no kidding.

 

[Porknpie]

Someone tell me…in a pithy way…what is the two papyri theory?

I do not even find the two papyri theory particularly wonderful, but some LDS do. Am I just dishonest in my assessment of this so I can hold onto a problem with my church? I don’t think so. I just do not think we have explained the BOA for some of the same reasons I think critics have not explained the BOM.

I bet I can guess…

Also…while I’m posting and off subject…what % of Mormon men wear temple garments all day? I was in a meeting today and there was Mormon gentleman…and I’m thinking…what is he wearing? Is he wearing? I know. I know.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Someone tell me…in a pithy way…what is the two papyri theory?

I bet I can guess…

Also…while I’m posting and off subject…what % of Mormon men wear temple garments all day? I was in a meeting today and there was Mormon gentleman…and I’m thinking…what is he wearing? Is he wearing? I know. I know.

• Book of Abraham - claimed by Smith to be a translation of an Egyptian papyri
• Said papyri actually exists, but tada doesn’t translate to anything remotely of what Smith claimed.
• So, enter in the Mormon apologetics of “things disappear”. In this case, a new claim that Smith actually translated a different papyri, that no one can seem to find. But that’s how it happened, so don’t you worry about the first papyri.

I’m not touching the underwear question.

 

[Stephen168]

The anti-Catholic note sounded for me in his quoting ECF in context of Jeffrey Holland.

Could you explain that for me?

 

[TOmNossor]

To the article you linked to, I understand the argument, but don’t agree that God being moved

is an indication of a changing God. As Robyn p said, God is not frozen but acts in human history. We see this as God’s love made manifest. God’s love is unchanging.
So, what you are saying is that you disagree with Father Weinandy?

As I have said a few times, nobody prayers or loves a God they perceived to be unmoved by their prayers and love. I believe Aquinas didn’t really even do this.
Analogously, no LDS prays to God while thinking that there is a God above Him that is more deserving of our worship (some LDS generally reject the idea that there is a god above God the Father – myself included).

But, denying that Weinandy is correct when he asserts God’s impassibility seems to me to be a tough path to walk for a faithful Catholic. Brilliant folks such as Hans Kung seem to have done this, but I have been unconvinced it is a good idea.

Anyway, I cannot fault you for this choice. I am not sure what choice I would make. I see the immutability of God as “axiomatic” to much Catholic thought (even if the terms immutability and … appear infrequently in the councils). So to me accepting a passible God and accepting the councils would create a conflict.

God does not become

, He is. I’m not seeing this understanding in your thought process.
D&C 20:17 says that God does not become too. So LDS believe this correct?
I suspect that you are unconvinced and that is analogous to me being unconvinced that Catholics are not married to an immutable God.

I personally believe that God has always been God and that there is no God above God the Father. I believe God is constant in His love and covenantal faithfulness. I however reject that He possesses an absolute perfection such that He is not “more perfect” tomorrow than He is today. He is the “self-surpassing surpasser of all.”
Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

Could you explain that for me?

I thought the same, and RebeccaJ is correct (she’s referring to Tom’s post #57 on the thread). It comes from Elder Holland’s October 2007 General Conference talk The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent:
"
**In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils)4 as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.”5 How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”?6**"

I can’t remember where I saw it, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a response to this Conference address that showed that Elder Holland used that “Woe is me!” quote out of context (and I assume Tom knew this as he said it was “slightly out of context” in the way he (Tom) used it).

 

[TOmNossor]

• Book of Abraham - claimed by Smith to be a translation of an Egyptian papyri
• Said papyri actually exists, but tada doesn’t translate to anything remotely of what Smith claimed.
• So, enter in the Mormon apologetics of “things disappear”. In this case, a new claim that Smith actually translated a different papyri, that no one can seem to find. But that’s how it happened, so don’t you worry about the first papyri.

I’m not touching the underwear question.

I pretty poor explanation of the two papyri theory. “Things Disappear,” stands in for a famous and well documented fire that was believed to have destroyed ALL of the papyri until some (or all) was found.
There is much more to recommend it, but I think it rather lacking myself so I will content myself with this comment.
There is much written by LDS apologist and anyone who wants to know should seek it from them not from someone who presents it as it has been presented above.

I linked to Weinandy because he offers the BEST defense of God’s impassibility I have found. Perhaps I should not have done this.
Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

So looking at the Catholic responses, am I correct in saying that Tom is misunderstanding the Catholic view on the immutability of God, claiming or implying that when Catholics state they believe that God is immutable, it means that they believe He is frozen, doesn’t do anything, etc. Catholics reply that that is an incorrect understanding of immutable (and perhaps the related belief in the impassibility of God), and that it is certainly possible to believe in an immutable God who can also answer our prayers and love us, and that this is not a logical contradiction (I did find Robyn P’s post helpful in this regard).

I do think that Elder Holland’s GC address I quoted earlier does present the typical LDS view of the traditional Christian understanding of God. To LDS, the descriptions of God, with all of the technical terms used (immutable, impassible, essence/substance, without body, parts, passions, divine simplicity, immaterial, etc) all seem to make God out to be…a “thing” or more precisely in the LDS view, “nothing” (I think I’ve seen some LDS apologists and/or leaders use that word specifically, though I’m only having a vague recollection of that). This of course is in contrast to the LDS view that God is an exalted, resurrected, embodied man.

 

[twopekinguys]

Someone tell me…in a pithy way…what is the two papyri theory?

I bet I can guess…

Also…while I’m posting and off subject…what % of Mormon men wear temple garments all day? I was in a meeting today and there was Mormon gentleman…and I’m thinking…what is he wearing? Is he wearing? I know. I know.

This may help you with the “garment” issue.

Read it here.

It is a rather common experience I am finding. Do a Google search for “Mormon Garment Feel Up”

 

[Marie5890]

Someone tell me…in a pithy way…what is the two papyri theory?

I bet I can guess…

Also…while I’m posting and off subject…what % of Mormon men wear temple garments all day? I was in a meeting today and there was Mormon gentleman…and I’m thinking…what is he wearing? Is he wearing? I know. I know.

It’s easy to tell if a Mormon man is wearing his garments as the top looks like a simple t-shirt under his clothes. Also if you look at his “just above the knee” level of his pants (hard to do with jeans) and see if there is a ridge of the edge of the leg garment.

For women, you can tell, along the same lines if the fabric of their clothing is thin enough to see the ridge of either the top or the bottom. She is to wear her bra over the garment. Garment goes closest to the body.

Any TBM will always be wearing the garments except for when they are in athletic wear, swim suit. That sort of idea.

Think of Catholics who wear scapulars. It’s the same idea. You wear them all the time under your clothing

 

[Stephen168]

I thought the same, and RebeccaJ is correct (she’s referring to Tom’s post #57 on the thread). It comes from Elder Holland’s October 2007 General Conference talk The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent:
"
**In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils)4 as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.”5** How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”?6"

I can’t remember where I saw it, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a response to this Conference address that showed that Elder Holland used that “Woe is me!” quote out of context (and I assume Tom knew this as he said it was “slightly out of context” in the way he (Tom) used it).

Thank You.

I seem to recall seeing a video of that, too. It was the first time I saw the “I’m confused defense” used by a Mormon. Where they claim if they don’t understand something, it must be false.

 

[Marie5890]

This may help you with the “garment” issue.

Read it here.

It is a rather common experience I am finding. Do a Google search for “Mormon Garment Feel Up”

If the clothing is of thicker material yes. But often times, if you know what to look for and where to look, not necessary to do a feel up.

Wearing jeans, however, can make it harder to see the bottom garment line. And during any athletic situation as well (you dont want to get them sweaty)

 

[TOmNossor]

I thought the same, and RebeccaJ is correct (she’s referring to Tom’s post #57 on the thread). It comes from Elder Holland’s October 2007 General Conference talk The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent

:

"
In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils)4 as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.”5 How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”?6"

I can’t remember where I saw it, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a response to this Conference address that showed that Elder Holland used that “Woe is me!” quote out of context (and I assume Tom knew this as he said it was “slightly out of context” in the way he (Tom) used it).

Actually, I have always thought the Monk’s expression was pretty solid. My “slightly out of context” referred to the general anthropomorphic concern verses a specific immutable concern (as I look at it now it is primarily “embodiment” as Paulsen used it. Paulsen is a solid scholar and published an article on divine embodiment in the Harvard Theological Review - I do not know if the Serapion quote was included in this).

As I have pointed out Father Weinandy properly acknowledges how God’s immutability is generally axiomatic in the development of Christian doctrine, but reached its full culmination in the “scholastic tradition.” I believe I long ago read Theophilus’ letter and my VAGUE recollection was that it was about taking many human like attributes of God from the pages of the Old Testament and claiming this was allegorical.
So my “slightly out of context” comment referred to the difference between that Theopilus said and what I was saying.

I would be interested in seeing how Elder Holland misrepresented Serapion as I have actually not heard of this.
It is not integral to my point in any case. Divine passiblists are sweeping across Christianity and LDS have been divine passibilist from the beginning. I expect that before and after this “sweeping” the average person in the pew would be quite put out by the idea that God is immutable, impassible, …
Charity, TOm

 

[Marie5890]

I was in a meeting today and there was Mormon gentleman…and I’m thinking…what is he wearing? Is he wearing? I know. I know.

If you know that this gentleman is an active Mormon, and he has been thru the temple (and most likely he has if he has been a Mormon for some time), yes, he was wearing his garments.

No guess work needed.