Catholic responses to Blake Ostler (Mormon apologist)?

[Stephen168]

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).

The Catholic Church, like St. James, says that God is immutable, but does not define or explain what the Church means by the word immutable. I think the fact we believe God created would indicated that the Catholic Church does not share Tom’s ‘frozen God’ definition.

 

[TOmNossor]

The Catholic Church, like St. James, says that God is immutable, but does not define or explain what the Church means by the word immutable. I think the fact we believe God created would indicated that the Catholic Church does not share Tom’s ‘frozen God’ definition.

Do you think Weinandy and Gavrilyuk who specifically say that the early church took God’s immutablity beyond the Biblical witness are wrong?
Do you disagree with me when I suggest that many of the councils use God’s immutabliity in their reasoning as they debate, “Can Jesus be God?” or “Can Jesus be human?”
I also qualified my frozen, but I still see it over and over in the thought I read.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Do you think Weinandy and Gavrilyuk who specifically say that the early church took God’s immutablity beyond the Biblical witness are wrong?
Do you disagree with me when I suggest that many of the councils use God’s immutabliity in their reasoning as they debate, “Can Jesus be God?” or “Can Jesus be human?”
I also qualified my frozen, but I still see it over and over in the thought I read.
Charity, TOm

Quote that Councils. When you quotes the Councils we will know the mind of the Catholic Church. When you quote the Councils we will have the primary source from which to have a discussion. This will be about the 5th time I’ve challenged you to quote the Councils, but you would rather talk about someone else opinion instead of the source. I’m really not interested in that. When you find that you are able to quote the Councils, then we can have a discussion. All you have to do is find the Church definition of immutable in the text of the Church Councils and you will know what the Church teaches the word to mean.

 

[pablope]

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”

Did not know about these garments…can anyone post a pic or so? Just got curious…

 

[crazzeto]

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”

Wow, I had no idea.

 

[Marie5890]

Did not know about these garments…can anyone post a pic or so? Just got curious…

Pablope, the garments are undergarments, and they are to remind the wearer of the convenants they made in the lds temple.

 

[pablope]

Pablope, the garments are undergarments, and they are to remind the wearer of the convenants they made in the lds temple.

Thanks…this piqued my curiosity and I googled…the CC, in all its history, has never required such a thing…this requirement speaks of cultish requirement to me…anyway.

I googled some pics…and it …mormoncurtain.com/topic_garments_section1.html

exmormon.org/d6/drupal/The-new-garment-guidelines-Mormons-are-not-happy

 

[crazzeto]

Thanks…this piqued my curiosity and I googled…the CC, in all its history, has never required such a thing…this requirement speaks of cultish requirement to me…anyway.

I googled some pics…and it …mormoncurtain.com/topic_garments_section1.html

exmormon.org/d6/drupal/The-new-garment-guidelines-Mormons-are-not-happy

We don’t have anything like that, but we do have the brown scapular, medals, coins (I have all of these), hair shirt (don’t have one, but I think it would be good to try) and other such things. In our tradition I we have many things designed in some way to remind us about God. True there’s no requirement to partake, but it is good and holy to do so.

I’m not going to get too worked up about Mormon undergarments. Frankly it looks pretty standard anyway, certainly they would help increase modesty. Nothing wrong with that. I think of bigger issue is their belief system, and the fact that they seem ready and willing to gloss over the inconvenient fact that the scriptures that form the basis of their faith don’t actually support their faith (I’m talking here about the Christian bible, even in it’s protestant stripped down version).

A faith tradition, in order to be valid must be self consistent, Your not going to find that in the Mormon faith. I’m particularly concerned about their trinitarian view.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yeah, people’s choice of underwear isn’t a concern. The only thing I’ve ever read that really made me go :ehh: was in Martha Beck’s “Leaving The Saints”, when she describes returning to Utah valley with her husband, and as they looked out over the valley before driving into it, her thought was, “They’re all wearing the same underwear!”

It is a temple garment, considered sacred to LDS, so the pics you find on the internet are insulting to LDS members.

 

[TOmNossor]

Quote that Councils. When you quotes the Councils we will know the mind of the Catholic Church. When you quote the Councils we will have the primary source from which to have a discussion. This will be about the 5th time I’ve challenged you to quote the Councils, but you would rather talk about someone else opinion instead of the source. I’m really not interested in that. When you find that you are able to quote the Councils, then we can have a discussion. All you have to do is find the Church definition of immutable in the text of the Church Councils and you will know what the Church teaches the word to mean.

Because Rory helped and you reminded me, here is a council’s statement:

• “First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons.”
  -----Council of Florence, Ecumenical XVII, Session 11, 4 Feb., 1442, (EWTN website)*

I find it likely they used “immutable” in a way similar to Aquinas and other Catholic thinkers.
I did find two new papers that I plan to read and if anyone like me is remotely concerned with the idea of the love of an impassible God I think these are both faithful Catholic presentations of this issue.
www2.franciscan.edu/plee/doesgodhaveemotions.htm
and
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bookpump.com%2Fdps%2Fpdf-b%2F1121911b.pdf&ei=IrtJUa7UHeKWjALnzoGwDQ&usg=AFQjCNH7qSqD02Oh7CZORQVGyaYVU-o4ew
I realized that the second one is only a preview (I was excited, but I am not sure I will buy it).

It seems that most people here do not have any concern over this issue. I do not completely understand that, but it sure seems to be the case.

Let me try this parallel.
Wearing garments does not disturb me in the least (and I do not care to talk more about it BTW), but trying to use thoughts from Weinandy to align worshiping an impassible God instead of a passible God does. To the extent that Weinandy deals with and dulls this issue it will still be a mark against me being Catholic IMO.

Now, the origins of the BOA does disturb me some. So I can sympathize (unlike the impassible God BTW ) with Catholics and former-Mormons who have no desire to pick up the concerns they would have for the BOA. Perhaps you can think of your Mormon issue that creates the most stress for you. It is quite unlikely that I have not already thought about this and few of them bother me. Why would I pick up an impassible God theology when I have a passible God who interacts with me regularly?

And the other parallel I have already drawn it the two papyri theory as an explanation of the BOA. I doubt many non-LDS find that so convincing that the issue becomes unimportant. Rory’s answer (and I love Rory) & Robyn’s answer (and it was nice) do not address this as well as Weinandy or Gavrilyuk IMO. And I think Weinandy and Gavrilyuk present God as less worship worthy than God in LDS thought (at least as it is outlined by Blake Ostler).

I would rather worship the real God who is the modalistic monstor that is presented in the mis-characterizations of the Trinity, then the false God who meets with my personal approval. But God as presented by Ostler verses the God of the councils has the added benefit IMO that He is in better alignment with the Bible. He is in better alignment with how I experience God in my life. So, I think it more likely that God’s true characteristics are closer to those presented by Ostler within a LDS framework than those presented by the councils of the Catholic Church.

I hope the above helps. Ostler has done a great deal to address theological problems present in Classical Theism and in certain strains of Mormon thought. Does that make him the greatest LDS apologist? Maybe, but I am just a “fan boy!”
Charity, TOm

 

[Miriam1947]

Thanks…this piqued my curiosity and I googled…the CC, in all its history, has never required such a thing…this requirement speaks of cultish requirement to me…anyway.

I googled some pics…and it …mormoncurtain.com/topic_garments_section1.html

exmormon.org/d6/drupal/The-new-garment-guidelines-Mormons-are-not-happy

My understanding is that only Temple worthy Mormons must wear the garments.

This topic is not enlightening and so far I see a lot of insults.

As Catholics we often wear scapulars. Are we weird as well?

 

[TOmNossor]

We don’t have anything like that, but we do have the brown scapular, medals, coins (I have all of these), hair shirt (don’t have one, but I think it would be good to try) and other such things. In our tradition I we have many things designed in some way to remind us about God. True there’s no requirement to partake, but it is good and holy to do so.

I’m not going to get too worked up about Mormon undergarments. Frankly it looks pretty standard anyway, certainly they would help increase modesty. Nothing wrong with that. I think of bigger issue is their belief system, and the fact that they seem ready and willing to gloss over the inconvenient fact that the scriptures that form the basis of their faith don’t actually support their faith (I’m talking here about the Christian bible, even in it’s protestant stripped down version).

A faith tradition, in order to be valid must be self consistent, Your not going to find that in the Mormon faith. I’m particularly concerned about their trinitarian view.
Crazzeto AND RebbecaJ,
Thank you very much for the understanding words. I do appreciate that.

To Crazzeto’s concern about the internal consistency of LDS theology, I cannot recommend enough Ostler. He has been called the first systematic theologian within the LDS tradition. I am not sure that is entirely fair, but he has gone much farther than any other single LDS thinker towards defining a consistent (scripturally and internally) theology.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I would be interested in seeing how Elder Holland misrepresented Serapion as I have actually not heard of this.

He had a false idea of God, as you do. And exclaimed in the same manner as you are. The misrepresentation is in the idea that expressing the loss of a false God, indicates He didn’t accept the truth about God, or that his false idea about God indicates something truthful about your false idea of God. It doesn’t. You think Serapion was mocking God, as you do. He wasn’t.

It is difficult to let go of false god(s), we see it here, with every Mormon post about deity.

 

[crazzeto]

Because Rory helped and you reminded me, here is a council’s statement:

I find it likely they used “immutable” in a way similar to Aquinas and other Catholic thinkers.
I did find two new papers that I plan to read and if anyone like me is remotely concerned with the idea of the love of an impassible God I think these are both faithful Catholic presentations of this issue.
www2.franciscan.edu/plee/doesgodhaveemotions.htm
and
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bookpump.com%2Fdps%2Fpdf-b%2F1121911b.pdf&ei=IrtJUa7UHeKWjALnzoGwDQ&usg=AFQjCNH7qSqD02Oh7CZORQVGyaYVU-o4ew
I realized that the second one is only a preview (I was excited, but I am not sure I will buy it).

It seems that most people here do not have any concern over this issue. I do not completely understand that, but it sure seems to be the case.

Let me try this parallel.
Wearing garments does not disturb me in the least (and I do not care to talk more about it BTW), but trying to use thoughts from Weinandy to align worshiping an impassible God instead of a passible God does. To the extent that Weinandy deals with and dulls this issue it will still be a mark against me being Catholic IMO.

Now, the origins of the BOA does disturb me some. So I can sympathize (unlike the impassible God BTW ) with Catholics and former-Mormons who have no desire to pick up the concerns they would have for the BOA. Perhaps you can think of your Mormon issue that creates the most stress for you. It is quite unlikely that I have not already thought about this and few of them bother me. Why would I pick up an impassible God theology when I have a passible God who interacts with me regularly?

And the other parallel I have already drawn it the two papyri theory as an explanation of the BOA. I doubt many non-LDS find that so convincing that the issue becomes unimportant. Rory’s answer (and I love Rory) & Robyn’s answer (and it was nice) do not address this as well as Weinandy or Gavrilyuk IMO. And I think Weinandy and Gavrilyuk present God as less worship worthy than God in LDS thought (at least as it is outlined by Blake Ostler).

I would rather worship the real God who is the modalistic monstor that is presented in the mis-characterizations of the Trinity, then the false God who meets with my personal approval. But God as presented by Ostler verses the God of the councils has the added benefit IMO that He is in better alignment with the Bible. He is in better alignment with how I experience God in my life. So, I think it more likely that God’s true characteristics are closer to those presented by Ostler within a LDS framework than those presented by the councils of the Catholic Church.

I hope the above helps. Ostler has done a great deal to address theological problems present in Classical Theism and in certain strains of Mormon thought. Does that make him the greatest LDS apologist? Maybe, but I am just a “fan boy!”
Charity, TOm

Think of it this way, God created the universe. Think about it. He created everything in the universe. Scientifically this includes time… People of faith, and scientists, though we use different methodology, arrived at the same conclusion that time is created.

Fundamentally, this means God exists outside of time its self. The days do not pass for him, nor the hours or minutes or seconds. These are concepts which, while they have meaning for us, have no meaning to Him. He is the creator, existing outside of time.

I want you to think about what this means then, for this term immutable. God, biblically speaking was self described as “unchanging”. Well that makes sense, because to God all points in creation (including time) are present. There is no need for him to change. This doesn’t make him unloving.

No, the fact that we have free will (as argued by St. Justin Martyr), that we can choose good or evil. This proves Gods love for us. Creation proves God’s love, for he created out of love. After all, the bible asks what does God need from us? Burnt offerings? Libations? There is nothing we can offer him, he needs nothing for us.

So we know then, that he is an immutable and loving God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Which is why I can’t see how LDS can reconcile themselves to Christianity. You can’t say you (the general “you”) are Christian, when you mock the very God we worship!

 

[truthseeker32]

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

Are you using the term “walked” figuratively or literally? It has been my understanding that Catholics believe in an immaterial God that does not have feet to walk with.

 

[crazzeto]

Are you using the term “walked” figuratively or literally? It has been my understanding that Catholics believe in an immaterial God that does not have feet to walk with.

God the Father & the Holy Spirit are pure spirit and what you says holds. Christ has his human nature he put on, this is permanently a part of Him. Even today, Christ has his glorified body with it’s wounds in tact, a sign of what our bodies are to become.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

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

Tom, my experience is different. I learned from a different set of Catholics, that are far more knowledgeable than I, both in philosophy and theology. My background is technology, working more with logic. That is what attracted me to St. Thomas Aquinas.You have built up something illogical, refusing to acknowledge that there is a logical answer.

If you want a taste of my understanding, read Pope Benedict XVI encyclicals, his Regensburg address works by Msgr. Luigi Giussani and subscribe to “Traces”.

You seem to think I don’t accept your view just because it doesn’t “feel right”? I’m not a “feel right” kind of person, as I’m not one those who seem to be born with an innate sense of right. So, I don’t run on feelings, because as you are most likely aware, my feelings led me to atheism. Using my Mormon training to “feel” for truth, it felt really, super, right (at the time) to let God go altogether.

You have built a train a thought that took a left somewhere, when you could have took a right. I’ve tried to understand where that turn is, but I’m thinking at this point, there is more than one left turn. Along with a distinct expression about you, that there can’t possibly be another way of viewing things, other than your own.

So. I think there is no point to the discussion.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom, to add… I am aware that I cannot rely on myself for truth. That is a hard truth to face, no doubt. It is, I think, why it is so difficult for LDS when Mormonism crumbles out from under them. Mormonism teaches to rely on self, for truth. Such arrogance we humans have!

Truth, for me, is an encounter with Jesus Christ, Who is Truth. Christianity is centered on Him. That is why I asked you where you think Jesus fits in to your idea of God who is unchanging. Your response is to explain Him away!

He is where I am centered, not any Priest, Bishop or even Pope. Christ is my center, and I only need to look to the Cross to know He loves me, an unworthy sinner, unconditionally. God didn’t begin to love at the Cross, He didn’t become love in Sacrifice, He is love, and the Cross expresses WHO HE IS.

So, when I pray, I don’t have an idea that God isn’t responding to me, as I can see already, that He responded before I spoke one word. Msgr. Giusanni describes our encounter with Christ as a wound. I am wounded by Christ. I trust Him, unconditionally.

 

[pablope]

Yeah, people’s choice of underwear isn’t a concern. The only thing I’ve ever read that really made me go :ehh: was in Martha Beck’s “Leaving The Saints”, when she describes returning to Utah valley with her husband, and as they looked out over the valley before driving into it, her thought was, “They’re all wearing the same underwear!”

It is a temple garment, considered sacred to LDS, so the pics you find on the internet are insulting to LDS members.

Miriam1947 Re: Catholic responses to Blake Ostler (Mormon apologist)?

My understanding is that only Temple worthy Mormons must wear the garments.

This topic is not enlightening and so far I see a lot of insults.

As Catholics we often wear scapulars. Are we weird as well?

I deeply apologize if it came out insulting…it was not my intent…i was just shocked/surprised.

I just wanted to see pics of the Gs…and I did not read the stories…sorry for this as well.

Regarding the Scapulars…yes, many wear them but is not required. And nobody checks on us…that is all.