Catholic responses to Blake Ostler (Mormon apologist)?

[TOmNossor]

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.
As I mentioned before, I would rather believe like Sabelius if his concept of God was reality than believe like the Catholic Church or the CoJCoLDS.
Surely Serapion’s reaction can be interpreted as “difficult to let go of a false God,” but that is not what Elder Holland believes. Thus he is not using Serapion out of context.
Elder Holland’s point that he borrowed from David Paulsen, was that Serapion worshiped God with a concept inconsistent with the concept presented by the learned Catholic Bishop. Paulsen’s article in BYU Studies and in Harvard Theological Review points out that Serapion and MANY early church folks worshiped God with a concept of Him that is different than that held by Catholic thinkers today. And the concept was more inline LDS thought.
Again, either we LDS are wrong, or Catholics are wrong. I do not want to be wrong.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

See, I would have said that Mormonism teaches that we pray to know the truth and it is Catholicism that regularly teaches that you can evaluate using God given reason Catholicism / Protestantism / Mormonism / Islam / … and determine that Catholicism is God’s path.
The CoJCoLDS definitely teaches that you can know for yourself, but only by humbly asking God.

Centered on Christ. Agree, that is the goal.

I can confidently say that my children are more centered on Christ as LDS than I was at their age as a Catholic. There is little contest here.

I try to do both (rely on Christ AND use reason, I do not think they are mutually exclusive).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

All,
I have completed reading the comments in this thread and the complete paper that I linked above.
This is my conclusion.

Directly from here (and some from my own knowledge of my failings).

TOm is arrogant (the word comes from my knowledge of myself, I am not suggesting anyone has called me this). TOm believes that his way of evaluating a set of data is the only way (I have seen this here and other than the fact that I know I am susceptible to such things –arrogant- I would deny it). TOm has concluded that “immutability” and “love” are not generally compossible, but he is wrong.
Whatever “immutability” means, it cannot mean that God cannot love us and respond to us.

From Weinandy and Gavrilyuk. God loves impassibly and this is good because if he was affected by us he could be paralyzed by our sorrows. We want God to be impassible so we can know He can bring to pass His plan without being overcome by pain and horrors of the world. And the human nature of Christ which is part of His person does feel our pain so it is OK that the divine nature does not.

From Stephen168. Immutablity does not mean that God is a rock. TOm says it does. God can love and whatever immutablity means it is not that God cannot love. Nothing to see here.

From Patrick Lee (the link I provided and read).
Option #1 does not align with the prevalent tradition within Catholicism and is likely not true.
Option #2. God is unknowable. When we claim that God loves and that God is immutable whatever human understanding we have of these two terms is not a complete understanding. As such our human thoughts on these things do not directly apply to God. God has revealed himself in the Bible as one who has attributes that are best understood by humans as “love” or “immutability,” but they are not what humans understand. There is mystery.

From RebeccaJ and Lax16 (and crazzeto). TOm thinks he can hold the concept of God in his human brain. What Patrick Lee says is true about God being a mystery and TOm errs in trying to understand the mystery and believing he has a concept that is of value. This is a Mormon problem and TOm is stuck in this thinking. TOm does not listen when we go to the basics like what Jews believe or the Timelessness of God as necessitated by the knowledge that God created. If TOm would humbly follow the reasoning from Jewish thought or from creation, he would recognize that he has made a wrong turn (perhaps many).

Well, that is what I have gotten from this thread.
I have no idea what to do with the sin of pride. I have taken it to God and told Him that I will follow Him as best I can and He knows how to reach my sinful prideful self. I actually believe pride is an affliction of all humans, but it is probably worse for me.
As best I can discern, He keeps me as a LDS.
As best I can discern, He encourages me to use my mind to evaluate issues like the BOA and the Catholic councils.

The fact that immutablity and the love of God is a huge issue is well accepted within theological circles. To the extent that folks here think it is a no big deal and surely I must be imaging a problem in order to justify my LDS-ness is IMO not due to it not being a big deal.

It is all mystery. The Bible teaches us things that are like the things of God, but does not teach us any true propositions about God because God is unknowable. Perhaps, but I see much more in the Bible that seems like it is truly informing us about God. His ways are higher, but God knew this when He wrote the Bible. I do not think we are to abandon reason when it comes to understanding what the Bible says about God.

Hope I have well represented the thoughts of folks I tried to represent. I didn’t mention a few folks but I meant no offence.
Charity, TOm

 

[LivingWaters7]

I found this person’s response to Elder Holland’s talk interesting.
**
“Here, Holland fails to inform his audience of just who this monk was, or the circumstances surrounding his utterance. For the fourth century monk was the heretic Serapion, and the reason why he cried out was that he discovered that the “Anthropomorphite” god that he had been worshiping turned out to be a false god. The Anthropomorphites were a band of Egyptian monks that held a similar corporeal view of God that the Mormons currently do, and when Serapion is confronted with the error of his thinking, according the Early Church Father, John Cassian, Serapion “was drawn to the faith of the Catholic tradition.” During a prayer of thanksgiving Serapion was so emotionally overcome that “he burst into a flood of bitter tears and continual sobs, and cast himself down on the ground and exclaimed with strong groanings” his woeful statement. Therefore, a little context always helps to understand just what is going on, rather than a mere emotional special pleading, and misleading people into thinking something that is contrary to fact.”**

 

[crazzeto]

From RebeccaJ and Lax16 (and crazzeto). TOm thinks he can hold the concept of God in his human brain. What Patrick Lee says is true about God being a mystery and TOm errs in trying to understand the mystery and believing he has a concept that is of value. This is a Mormon problem and TOm is stuck in this thinking. TOm does not listen when we go to the basics like what Jews believe or the Timelessness of God as necessitated by the knowledge that God created. If TOm would humbly follow the reasoning from Jewish thought or from creation, he would recognize that he has made a wrong turn (perhaps many).

Well I certainly hope you don’t take any comments of mine very harshly. I would like to be fully clear on one point, I never direct any of my challenges at individuals, so much as belief systems. Judgment of the individual is only within the competency of God, and Him alone. That said, judgment of a belief system can be within the competency of the individual. It must be on some level. I do have grave concerns about mormonism, and in particular the trinitarian view.

I believe that the Mormon belief system (you hit the nail on the head so to speak) does focus too much upon the idea that God is fully knowable by individuals. I believe that this makes God way too small, if we can know Him completely could have have created everything ex nilhilo (from nothing). I doubt it, no being knowable to us could create quantum mechanics, and even time its self. Further I have concerns with the Mormon idea that God is not immutable, I find this in grave error. Lastly I have concerns (I get this from a Mormon friend I judge to be a faithful representitive of the faith, not you) of the denial of Christ’s divinity. I worry this could come too close to being a denial of the Lordship of Christ, which is a divine Lordship. This can not be from heaven.

Well, that is what I have gotten from this thread.
I have no idea what to do with the sin of pride. I have taken it to God and told Him that I will follow Him as best I can and He knows how to reach my sinful prideful self. I actually believe pride is an affliction of all humans, but it is probably worse for me.

Well let me solve this easily, all you need is to practice the virtue of humility! That easy right? You just hit on one of my own (among many) biggest failings. I too am prideful, this is a fact. All I can say is this, I will pray for your soul, I ask only that you pray for mine as well. I could use all the prayer I can get.

As best I can discern, He keeps me as a LDS.
As best I can discern, He encourages me to use my mind to evaluate issues like the BOA and the Catholic councils.

If you were to convert your thought overnight, then you probably wouldn’t have been a good Mormon to start with. Can I offer you one more resource to read?

earlychristianwritings.com/

This will require extra work on your part, unfortunetly. The writings aren’t grouped by orthodox and heretical and historical (all of the above are there). So you will need to google the author and writing to understand if it is considered orthodox (catholic) or considered gnostic or some other dangerous group.

The point of the exorcise is to understand the early martyrs. What did Christians live and die for.

 

[TexanKnight]

All,
I have completed reading the comments in this thread and the complete paper that I linked above.
This is my conclusion.

Directly from here (and some from my own knowledge of my failings).

TOm is arrogant (the word comes from my knowledge of myself, I am not suggesting anyone has called me this). TOm believes that his way of evaluating a set of data is the only way (I have seen this here and other than the fact that I know I am susceptible to such things –arrogant- I would deny it). TOm has concluded that “immutability” and “love” are not generally compossible, but he is wrong.
Whatever “immutability” means, it cannot mean that God cannot love us and respond to us.

From Weinandy and Gavrilyuk. God loves impassibly and this is good because if he was affected by us he could be paralyzed by our sorrows. We want God to be impassible so we can know He can bring to pass His plan without being overcome by pain and horrors of the world. And the human nature of Christ which is part of His person does feel our pain so it is OK that the divine nature does not.

From Stephen168. Immutablity does not mean that God is a rock. TOm says it does. God can love and whatever immutablity means it is not that God cannot love. Nothing to see here.

From Patrick Lee (the link I provided and read).
Option #1 does not align with the prevalent tradition within Catholicism and is likely not true.
Option #2. God is unknowable. When we claim that God loves and that God is immutable whatever human understanding we have of these two terms is not a complete understanding. As such our human thoughts on these things do not directly apply to God. God has revealed himself in the Bible as one who has attributes that are best understood by humans as “love” or “immutability,” but they are not what humans understand. There is mystery.

From RebeccaJ and Lax16 (and crazzeto). TOm thinks he can hold the concept of God in his human brain. What Patrick Lee says is true about God being a mystery and TOm errs in trying to understand the mystery and believing he has a concept that is of value. This is a Mormon problem and TOm is stuck in this thinking. TOm does not listen when we go to the basics like what Jews believe or the Timelessness of God as necessitated by the knowledge that God created. If TOm would humbly follow the reasoning from Jewish thought or from creation, he would recognize that he has made a wrong turn (perhaps many).

Well, that is what I have gotten from this thread.
I have no idea what to do with the sin of pride. I have taken it to God and told Him that I will follow Him as best I can and He knows how to reach my sinful prideful self. I actually believe pride is an affliction of all humans, but it is probably worse for me.
As best I can discern, He keeps me as a LDS.
As best I can discern, He encourages me to use my mind to evaluate issues like the BOA and the Catholic councils.

The fact that immutablity and the love of God is a huge issue is well accepted within theological circles. To the extent that folks here think it is a no big deal and surely I must be imaging a problem in order to justify my LDS-ness is IMO not due to it not being a big deal.

It is all mystery. The Bible teaches us things that are like the things of God, but does not teach us any true propositions about God because God is unknowable. Perhaps, but I see much more in the Bible that seems like it is truly informing us about God. His ways are higher, but God knew this when He wrote the Bible. I do not think we are to abandon reason when it comes to understanding what the Bible says about God.

Hope I have well represented the thoughts of folks I tried to represent. I didn’t mention a few folks but I meant no offence.
Charity, TOm

and here is what I got:

you have admitted that the LDS Church is false and that its doctrine cannot be defended. Further, you ignore those you cannot best.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I think that out of all of the beliefs and practices various LDS apologists and scholars reference from the early Christians, the one that they seem unable to get around, and something that I have thought much about lately, is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. LDS reference writings from theologians from diverse areas, belief systems, etc. anciently (as we see with the Serapion quote). Yet, it seems pretty clear to me that, in contrast to the symbolic LDS view of the Sacrament (though of course noting that LDS do believe that the Sacrament “does” something, i.e. the renewal of baptismal covenants, in contrast to various Protestant churches that hold to a purely symbolic view), the ancient Christians, no matter where they were (Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, etc), believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (complete with parallels to the Old Testament temples).

I need to give in and just read Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist already.

Random thought I just had. :newidea:

 

[crazzeto]

I think that out of all of the beliefs and practices various LDS apologists and scholars reference from the early Christians, the one that they seem unable to get around, and something that I have thought much about lately, is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. LDS reference writings from theologians from diverse areas, belief systems, etc. anciently (as we see with the Serapion quote). Yet, it seems pretty clear to me that, in contrast to the symbolic LDS view of the Sacrament (though of course noting that LDS do believe that the Sacrament “does” something, i.e. the renewal of baptismal covenants, in contrast to various Protestant churches that hold to a purely symbolic view), the ancient Christians, no matter where they were (Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, etc), believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (complete with parallels to the Old Testament temples).

Random thought I just had. :newidea:

This is a protestant problem in general (few exceptions, some accept some form of real presence). Illustrating your point, is the attached writing of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Symrnans written in 107 AD, this is just ~7yrs after the death of St. John the Apostle (last of the original 12). St. Ignatius of Antioch was of his school, and wrote this on his way to (I’m fairly sure) to be torn apart by wild beasts (or another death).

I would suggest also, reading St. Justin Martyr would would come on the scene ~50 years later (in the grand scheme, not all that long). He would go on to give the first complete account of worship, and a similarly specific Eucharistic belief system. More over, affirm the Lordship and divinity of Christ, and a host of other Catholic doctrines.

 

[RebeccaJ]

See, I would have said that Mormonism teaches that we pray to know the truth and it is Catholicism that regularly teaches that you can evaluate using God given reason Catholicism / Protestantism / Mormonism / Islam / … and determine that Catholicism is God’s path.

The CoJCoLDS definitely teaches that you can know for yourself, but only by humbly asking God.

We don’t teach or believe that you “feel” for truth as LDS do. Feelings are not discounted, certainly, but they are not the central determinator of truth as it for LDS. We see it here with LDS all the time, where something can’t be answered rationally, we get a response that is along the lines of “I feel it is truth.” It the method by which Mormonism brings converts into Mormonism as well, read a book, and then feel whether or not you think it is truth.

The most interesting aspect of Mormonism’s feeling for truth, is that it is the Mormon church that defines what each type of feeling means.

Centered on Christ. Agree, that is the goal.

I can confidently say that my children are more centered on Christ as LDS than I was at their age as a Catholic. There is little contest here.

We can find good and bad examples of people’s lives in any faith, so what is the contest?

I am much more Christ centered in my life now than I ever was a Mormon. As Mormon, I can confidently say I didn’t know who Jesus Christ is, and is still what I maintain about all LDS. I see Mormonism as teaching a shadow version and not the light of Christ.

I try to do both (rely on Christ AND use reason, I do not think they are mutually exclusive).
Charity, TOm

Indeed they are not, and that is what every Catholic says to every Mormon who comes here. It is LDS who consistently tell us they rely on feelings.

 

[KathleenGee]

Ostler could be the bridge to help Mormonism become standardized into Christianity, and eventually become Catholic to share their objective gifts with the Church.

Every person of good will experiences God unique to them, that also reflects the truth. So … with the objective good that exists within Mormonism that transcends its beliefs…there will come a day…through Blessed Mother Mary…to be truly in universal communion…with the Holy Trinity, the source of communion, and with each other.

 

[Stephen168]

I think that out of all of the beliefs and practices various LDS apologists and scholars reference from the early Christians, the one that they seem unable to get around, and something that I have thought much about lately, is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. LDS reference writings from theologians from diverse areas, belief systems, etc. anciently (as we see with the Serapion quote). Yet, it seems pretty clear to me that, in contrast to the symbolic LDS view of the Sacrament (though of course noting that LDS do believe that the Sacrament “does” something, i.e. the renewal of baptismal covenants, in contrast to various Protestant churches that hold to a purely symbolic view), the ancient Christians, no matter where they were (Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, etc), believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (complete with parallels to the Old Testament temples).

Yes, belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the sign of the true Church of Christ. We can’t obey Christ (Luke 22:19) outside of orthodoxy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think that out of all of the beliefs and practices various LDS apologists and scholars reference from the early Christians, the one that they seem unable to get around, and something that I have thought much about lately, is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. LDS reference writings from theologians from diverse areas, belief systems, etc. anciently (as we see with the Serapion quote). Yet, it seems pretty clear to me that, in contrast to the symbolic LDS view of the Sacrament (though of course noting that LDS do believe that the Sacrament “does” something, i.e. the renewal of baptismal covenants, in contrast to various Protestant churches that hold to a purely symbolic view), the ancient Christians, no matter where they were (Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, etc), believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (complete with parallels to the Old Testament temples).

I need to give in and just read Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist already.

Random thought I just had. :newidea:

I agree, and think it is the problem of LDS apologetics using Catholic writings at all. They never look at the whole of Catholic thought, from beginning to end, and focus on one thing and one thing alone.

I saw a definition of heresy once, from a Catholic POV of course, that defined heresy as placing a focus on one aspect of the Catholic faith, to the detriment of everything else. LDS do this especially with the Catholic doctrine of the beatific vision, called theosis in the East and exaltation by Mormons.

Tom has it going on here with a singular aspect of God. Not seeing the forest for the trees, kind of thing.

 

[Stephen168]

Ostler could be the bridge to help Mormonism become standardized into Christianity, and eventually become Catholic to share their objective gifts with the Church.

If Mormonism decides to reason, I think they will move to orthodoxy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

As I mentioned before, I would rather believe like Sabelius if his concept of God was reality than believe like the Catholic Church or the CoJCoLDS.
Surely Serapion’s reaction can be interpreted as “difficult to let go of a false God,” but that is not what Elder Holland believes. Thus he is not using Serapion out of context.
Elder Holland’s point that he borrowed from David Paulsen, was that Serapion worshiped God with a concept inconsistent with the concept presented by the learned Catholic Bishop. Paulsen’s article in BYU Studies and in Harvard Theological Review points out that Serapion and MANY early church folks worshiped God with a concept of Him that is different than that held by Catholic thinkers today. And the concept was more inline LDS thought.
Again, either we LDS are wrong, or Catholics are wrong. I do not want to be wrong.
Charity, TOm

It isn’t about what we’d rather believe, it is about what God has Revealed about Himself. If it is about what you want to believe, you are building a God of your own making, which is idolatry. As I already said, let God be God. God has Revealed Himself as love and as immutable. Theology and philosophy are tools we use to understand what God has revealed, we don’t use them to make God resemble our personal idols or the false god(s) of a non-Christian faith tradition.

We can express the difficulty in understanding what God has revealed, in many ways, such as you are doing. But it doesn’t change Who He IS.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ostler could be the bridge to help Mormonism become standardized into Christianity, and eventually become Catholic to share their objective gifts with the Church.

Every person of good will experiences God unique to them, that also reflects the truth. So … with the objective good that exists within Mormonism that transcends its beliefs…there will come a day…through Blessed Mother Mary…to be truly in universal communion…with the Holy Trinity, the source of communion, and with each other.

I have thought on more than one occasion that the the ever-changing doctrines of Mormonism leads them slowly closer to the universal Church. They are closer now than they were at the time it arose from Smith’s imagination. Certainly closer than they were under Brigham Young, and his ideas about God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

From RebeccaJ and Lax16 (and crazzeto). TOm thinks he can hold the concept of God in his human brain. What Patrick Lee says is true about God being a mystery and TOm errs in trying to understand the mystery and believing he has a concept that is of value. This is a Mormon problem and TOm is stuck in this thinking. TOm does not listen when we go to the basics like what Jews believe or the Timelessness of God as necessitated by the knowledge that God created. If TOm would humbly follow the reasoning from Jewish thought or from creation, he would recognize that he has made a wrong turn (perhaps many).

Well, that is what I have gotten from this thread.
I have no idea what to do with the sin of pride. I have taken it to God and told Him that I will follow Him as best I can and He knows how to reach my sinful prideful self. I actually believe pride is an affliction of all humans, but it is probably worse for me.
As best I can discern, He keeps me as a LDS.
As best I can discern, He encourages me to use my mind to evaluate issues like the BOA and the Catholic councils.

The fact that immutablity and the love of God is a huge issue is well accepted within theological circles. To the extent that folks here think it is a no big deal and surely I must be imaging a problem in order to justify my LDS-ness is IMO not due to it not being a big deal.

It is all mystery. The Bible teaches us things that are like the things of God, but does not teach us any true propositions about God because God is unknowable. Perhaps, but I see much more in the Bible that seems like it is truly informing us about God. His ways are higher, but God knew this when He wrote the Bible. I do not think we are to abandon reason when it comes to understanding what the Bible says about God.

Hope I have well represented the thoughts of folks I tried to represent. I didn’t mention a few folks but I meant no offence.
Charity, TOm

Tom, commenting on the arrogance of humans wasn’t a personal attack. It is a symptom of our fallen state. The sin of pride is counteracted with the virtue of humility.

I guess for your point of me not seeing a problem, from my experience of atheism, where I defined God how I would rather view Him…non-existence, and then seeing how my anger at the God I had built of my own thinking didn’t make me a very good atheist…I rely on what God has revealed about Himself. Catholics like St. Thomas Aquinas lay out in a logical way how we can understand what God has revealed. You focus on people who are seeking to understand, and expressing what they don’t understand, which isn’t a bad thing in and of itself. The problem I see is the intent of your exercise. Are you seeking to understand what God has revealed, or seeking to make God fit into what you believe about God?

I’m not saying you are unique in this, as we all can make God fit what we want to believe, in different ways, rather than seeking to understand what God has revealed. We are called to let our false images die, however painful that may be, and let the Reality of God fill us.

God has revealed Himself as love and as immutable. Making God in a image of “my ideal” is a much bigger problem, don’t you think? Do you want to worship a God you imagine or a God of reality?

 

[lax16]

All,
I have completed reading the comments in this thread and the complete paper that I linked above.
This is my conclusion.

Directly from here (and some from my own knowledge of my failings).

TOm is arrogant (the word comes from my knowledge of myself, I am not suggesting anyone has called me this). TOm believes that his way of evaluating a set of data is the only way (I have seen this here and other than the fact that I know I am susceptible to such things –arrogant- I would deny it). TOm has concluded that “immutability” and “love” are not generally compossible, but he is wrong.
Whatever “immutability” means, it cannot mean that God cannot love us and respond to us.

From Weinandy and Gavrilyuk. God loves impassibly and this is good because if he was affected by us he could be paralyzed by our sorrows. We want God to be impassible so we can know He can bring to pass His plan without being overcome by pain and horrors of the world. And the human nature of Christ which is part of His person does feel our pain so it is OK that the divine nature does not.

From Stephen168. Immutablity does not mean that God is a rock. TOm says it does. God can love and whatever immutablity means it is not that God cannot love. Nothing to see here.

From Patrick Lee (the link I provided and read).
Option #1 does not align with the prevalent tradition within Catholicism and is likely not true.
Option #2. God is unknowable. When we claim that God loves and that God is immutable whatever human understanding we have of these two terms is not a complete understanding. As such our human thoughts on these things do not directly apply to God. God has revealed himself in the Bible as one who has attributes that are best understood by humans as “love” or “immutability,” but they are not what humans understand. There is mystery.

From RebeccaJ and Lax16 (and crazzeto). TOm thinks he can hold the concept of God in his human brain. What Patrick Lee says is true about God being a mystery and TOm errs in trying to understand the mystery and believing he has a concept that is of value. This is a Mormon problem and TOm is stuck in this thinking. TOm does not listen when we go to the basics like what Jews believe or the Timelessness of God as necessitated by the knowledge that God created. If TOm would humbly follow the reasoning from Jewish thought or from creation, he would recognize that he has made a wrong turn (perhaps many).

Well, that is what I have gotten from this thread.
I have no idea what to do with the sin of pride. I have taken it to God and told Him that I will follow Him as best I can and He knows how to reach my sinful prideful self. I actually believe pride is an affliction of all humans, but it is probably worse for me.
As best I can discern, He keeps me as a LDS.
As best I can discern, He encourages me to use my mind to evaluate issues like the BOA and the Catholic councils.

The fact that immutablity and the love of God is a huge issue is well accepted within theological circles. To the extent that folks here think it is a no big deal and surely I must be imaging a problem in order to justify my LDS-ness is IMO not due to it not being a big deal.

It is all mystery. The Bible teaches us things that are like the things of God, but does not teach us any true propositions about God because God is unknowable. Perhaps, but I see much more in the Bible that seems like it is truly informing us about God. His ways are higher, but God knew this when He wrote the Bible. I do not think we are to abandon reason when it comes to understanding what the Bible says about God.

Hope I have well represented the thoughts of folks I tried to represent. I didn’t mention a few folks but I meant no offence.
Charity, TOm

Tom - What I believe is lacking for you is obedience. Plain and simple.

 

[lax16]

If Mormonism decides to reason, I think they will move to orthodoxy.

Recently, I have had a few Mormons express their admiration of the Catholic Church and had one tell me that after traveling abroad and seeing cathedrals in Europe, he is on the brink of conversion.

Another was so impressed with the conclave and all of the ceremony surrounding it - he even knew all the names of the cardinals!..funny how people are drawn in by so many things.

And for those who like to reason…yes, there is plenty to study!

 

[Marie5890]

If Mormonism decides to reason, I think they will move to orthodoxy.

I agree completely. I have a strong, very strong draw to Orthodoxy.

But I dont see how they get there until they face, for many of them, atheism and agnosticism

 

[KathleenGee]

Marie --Likewise we pray for the reunity of the Latin and Orthodox Churches. May be, with Mary’s help, that could be the trigger. I feel like I am in the middle of both, see validity in the both perspectives and emphases.

There are many looking at the thread that questions if Mormonism is a cult…it could be people are deep inside searching for the truth.

And we must pray always for Holy Father Francis.