Catholism vs Mormonism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveandJulie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marie5890 said:
I have no clue as to what present day LDS leaders are teaching in terms of their doctrine of “eternal progression” but the following link compiles statements from the early LDS church leadership that it’s based on.

mission.org/jesuspeople/eternalprog.htm
Click to expand...
They just generally use the term “eternal progression” and leave it at that. Then they just spout the same platitudes and advice from the last 20 or so years.
 
Tony888 said:
Dan,
Did you ever acually ask an LDS “do you believe that you can be come a god and rule your own planet?” I doubt it

However, I will now give you an answer
  • No the LDS church has never taught me this explicit teaching
Click to expand...
Then I guess you never attended a Gospel Principles class. The current lesson manual says this in chapter 47:

"Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:
  1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).
  2. They will become gods.
  3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. What do you think that means, Tony? They will be an eternal family.
  4. They will receive a fulness of joy.
  5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have–all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36)."
I used to teach that class and the lessons were quite specific about what exaltation is like. I think you are either too new to Mormonism to have learned the weirdness of it, or you are trying to give us the “milk”. Too late.
 
Tony,

I was wondering if you could inform us if there is an LDS teaching regarding the creation of the universe. I know you believe that God created our planet, but is the unvierse created too? If so, by whom?
 
Tony888 said:
Dan,
Did you ever acually ask an LDS “do you believe that you can become a god and rule your own planet?” I doubt it

However, I will now give you an answer
  • No the LDS church has never taught me this explicit teaching
  • Yes, the LDS church has taught seperate scriptural metaphore and.teachings that Anti-LDS love to combine, as if it a creed LDS recite every day.
Click to expand...
Tony,

It doesn’t matter whether you have personally been taught these particular teachings in the LDS Church. I know people who have been, but I can easily believe that your experience has been different. That is not what matters. What matters is what the prophets and apostles of the LDS Church have claimed on their authority throughout the church’s history and instructed the elders to teach. That is a matter of public record, not the personal experience or private opinion of any Mormon, and that is what determines what really is and is not LDS doctrine. The same applies to Catholicism. You have implicitly assumed the same principle by claiming that Catholics ignore the teachings of their own Church when criticizing exaltation. While I don’t agree at all with that evaluation, and will give part of its refutation in my next post, I note that your assertions about Catholic teaching show that you think that asking a Catholic what they believe is not as good a measure of Catholic doctrine as checking out actual Magisterial teaching like the Catechism. That is true, but you have no right to press the point if you assume a different standard for yourself, defining Mormon doctrine from you own thinking or the thinking of ordinary members over and against the teachings of prophets and apostles.

One does not need to cobble metaphors from a range of disparate sources to establish that LDS leaders have understood “eternal lives” discussed in D&C 132 to involve an eternally active procreating power, by which men who attain exaltation produce spirit-offspring with their wives. The offspring of these exalted persons will populate other planets on which they will have the same relation to their spirit-fathers that we have to God. That is a clear, consistent teaching that has never been disbelieved among Mormons until very recent years. Even if the modern LDS Church has found it convenient to deemphasize it, that does not make it any less relevant. You can defend it or justify doubting it. But if you doubt it, let us be clear what it is you are doubting: you are doubting officially propagated Mormon doctrine, confirmed by far more than one or two prophets, not to mention other General Authorities. Here is an important passage from Joseph Fielding Smith:

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.

It requires no malice, no uncharitable eye directed at distortion and fault-finding, to read these words for what they are clearly saying. To see that the LDS Church teaches that an exalted person will literally rule as a god over his own planet(s) is a straightforward, constructionist interpretation of a straightforward teaching.

While there are many texts like the one above that I could have cited, I chose it specifically because it comes from a book, Doctrines of Salvation, written by Fielding Smith when he was an Apostle, and which, after his death was quoted in the Achieving A Celestial Marriage Student Manual (1976), a text used throughout the LDS Church for couples preparing for marriage in a temple. Thus we have here not only an Apostle of forty years teaching it in a book on doctrine, but we have him quoted in an official Church instructional manual whose purpose is to explain the LDS doctrine about exaltation.

(continued)
 
  • Yes, these same teachings are CORE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
John 14:2 tells us that God has reserved a place for us." In my Father’s house are many mansions" In some translations it is a place, room, house or mansion.
By the 1800’s we understood God’s house included the billions and billions of stars and planets in all the galaxies and universe. With that context the mataphore extends fine. In my Fathers house (known universe) are many planets. . .
If you’ve read past lds presidents who have spoken on this topic, you will see some references to John 14:2. You may not like how LDS have extended this metaphore, but it is rooted in the Bible.

The Early Church Fathers taught us the concept of deification (this is not an LDS invention). If you were to study your CCC, you would see it is explicitly stated as RCC doctrine:

I know Catholic Theosis is not the same as LDS Exaltation, but it is ridiculous when Catholics completely ignore that LDS doctrine is based on scripture and core RCC doctrine, teachings by the ECF

Without stretching the facts in any fashion, I can claim Catholics believe they are going to become gods of their own posh mansions, just around the corner from where God resides. I could then speculate on who you would be importing to do your gardening, cooking, and cleaning 😉
Click to expand...
There is no inconsistency in criticizing the Mormon doctrine of exaltation as a rejection of monotheism while at the same time maintaining the truth of the doctrine of theosis. I believe that a solid 100% of the Church Fathers would agree with me here, including - and especially – those like Athanasius who wrote most extensively and explicitly on the subject of deification. In classical Christian teaching, men become gods in a qualified sense, by receiving the beatific vision: the indwelling of the Father in man elevates our living operations above the limits of our created, non-divine nature. We are thus partakers of the divine nature because the one, unique, and undivided being of God becomes the common property of all the saints. In Mormonism, however, each human being becomes a god by actualizing a natural potential in himself, which he possesses by his own right in an uncreated way. Thus the divine nature is present in man as his own self-possession, and not as a common property. It is not even God’s creation. Note the explicit statements made in the 1992 edition of the same manual I quoted above, which contains the following dialogue between a teacher and student:

“Yes. Do you realize the implications of this doctrine as far as you are concerned?”
"I think so. If God became God by obedience to all of the gospel law with the crowning point being the celestial law of marriage, then that’s the only way I can become a god.”
“Right. And it is the law that assists us in reaching that potential. It tells us what we must do to gain the ultimate freedom. In fact, it is by obedience to law that we have progressed to our present position.”
“You mean we have always been governed by law?”
"Always. You are an eternal being. You were never created and you cannot be destroyed, but you can advance, progress, and develop by obedience.
I don’t know if you see how vast a distance lies between this and the Catholic/patristic doctrine that you believe is in harmony with it. You said you know there are differences, but have you understood and appreciated the foundational nature of those differences? I am not appealing solely to the existence of difference, but to that fact that the two teachings differ in ways that are relevant to the charge of polytheism that Catholics make against Mormonism. The Catholic doctrine, because it relies on men’s common possession of the one divine being, is monotheistic. The Mormon doctrine depends upon different beings separately possessing the divine nature by virtue of their own uncreated spiritual attributes. Admittedly, these divine beings are brought to a higher perfection through obedience and divine favor, but are nonetheless independent of God in their nature and origin. Hence the Mormon teaching depends on denying the creator/created distinction upon which monotheism and theosis are totally dependent. In the Mormon view, we are not really “partakers of the divine nature” at all but “self-possessors of our own divine nature,” the exact opposite of what is said in the text you quoted in support of yourself.

For these and other reasons, we need not deny Catholic doctrine to say Mormons are wrong on exaltation. Rather, theosis is a doctrine so opposite to Mormon teaching that what Catholics really need to do is defend it against the Mormon alternative.
 
FabiusMaximus said:
Tony,

I was wondering if you could inform us if there is an LDS teaching regarding the creation of the universe. I know you believe that God created our planet, but is the unvierse created too? If so, by whom?
Click to expand...
Let’s get the core LDS teaching correct before we talk about the universe. It was Jesus Christ and the archangel Michael that created the Earth (organized would be the best representation of LDS belief) at the direction of God the Father. Now back to your regularly scheduled program…
 
Dan_Daly said:
Catholics don’t teach or believe that a man can become a God. Christ always was, is, and always will be God. Men (and women) are created beings made in the image and likeness of God. We hope to be be with God forever in heaven, but we do not hope to become gods.
Click to expand...
No Dan, it is explicit in the CCC that man can become God
It was also written about extensively by the ECF
I will agree modern catholics have a weak understanding of their doctrine on Theosis though.
 
Soren,
I fully respect and acknowledge any Catholic who disagrees with LDS doctrine from a postion of knowledge. I don’t expect you to support Exaltation over Theosis.

What I am objecting to is the RCC who mock the LDS for a belief that is rooted in Christian doctrine. Saying we have significant errors in interpetation is far different from mocking the LDS (charity?) and completely denying what is in your own closet.
soren1 said:
There is no inconsistency in criticizing the Mormon doctrine of exaltation as a rejection of monotheism while at the same time maintaining the truth of the doctrine of theosis. I believe that a solid 100% of the Church Fathers would agree with me here, including - and especially – those like Athanasius who wrote most extensively and explicitly on the subject of deification. In classical Christian teaching, men become gods in a qualified sense, by receiving the beatific vision: the indwelling of the Father in man elevates our living operations above the limits of our created, non-divine nature. We are thus partakers of the divine nature because the one, unique, and undivided being of God becomes the common property of all the saints. In Mormonism, however, each human being becomes a god by actualizing a natural potential in himself, which he possesses by his own right in an uncreated way. Thus the divine nature is present in man as his own self-possession, and not as a common property. It is not even God’s creation. Note the explicit statements made in the 1992 edition of the same manual I quoted above, which contains the following dialogue between a teacher and student:

“Yes. Do you realize the implications of this doctrine as far as you are concerned?”
"I think so. If God became God by obedience to all of the gospel law with the crowning point being the celestial law of marriage, then that’s the only way I can become a god.”
“Right. And it is the law that assists us in reaching that potential. It tells us what we must do to gain the ultimate freedom. In fact, it is by obedience to law that we have progressed to our present position.”
“You mean we have always been governed by law?”
"Always. You are an eternal being. You were never created and you cannot be destroyed, but you can advance, progress, and develop by obedience.
I don’t know if you see how vast a distance lies between this and the Catholic/patristic doctrine that you believe is in harmony with it. You said you know there are differences, but have you understood and appreciated the foundational nature of those differences? I am not appealing solely to the existence of difference, but to that fact that the two teachings differ in ways that are relevant to the charge of polytheism that Catholics make against Mormonism. The Catholic doctrine, because it relies on men’s common possession of the one divine being, is monotheistic. The Mormon doctrine depends upon different beings separately possessing the divine nature by virtue of their own uncreated spiritual attributes. Admittedly, these divine beings are brought to a higher perfection through obedience and divine favor, but are nonetheless independent of God in their nature and origin. Hence the Mormon teaching depends on denying the creator/created distinction upon which monotheism and theosis are totally dependent. In the Mormon view, we are not really “partakers of the divine nature” at all but “self-possessors of our own divine nature,” the exact opposite of what is said in the text you quoted in support of yourself.

For these and other reasons, we need not deny Catholic doctrine to say Mormons are wrong on exaltation. Rather, theosis is a doctrine so opposite to Mormon teaching that what Catholics really need to do is defend it against the Mormon alternative.
Click to expand...
 
Tony888 said:
Soren,
I fully respect and acknowledge any Catholic who disagrees with LDS doctrine from a postion of knowledge. I don’t expect you to support Exaltation over Theosis.

What I am objecting to is the RCC who mock the LDS for a belief that is rooted in Christian doctrine. Saying we have significant errors in interpetation is far different from mocking the LDS (charity?) and completely denying what is in your own closet.
Click to expand...
I think Soren1 has demonstrated that LDS belief is not rooted in Christian doctrine.
 
zaffiroborant said:
I think Soren1 has demonstrated that LDS belief is not rooted in Christian doctrine.
Click to expand...
No, Soren is off the mark

Theosis and Exaltation is about you and me, and the doctrines are rooted in the teachings by the ECF. Only someone who refused to read the CCC, or completely ignores the CCC role as the teaching manual of RCC doctrine would ignore it.

LDS doctrine teaches that God the Father was always God
Both the LDS and RCC teach that God was deity and came to earth and assumed human form of flesh and blood, and God still reatains this aspect (unless you are claiming Christ of the trinity did not assume human form and ascended (retaining flesh and bone)

ps. Don’t the RCC also teach that Mary ascended and reatined her human form?
 
Tony888 said:
No, Soren is off the mark

Theosis and Exaltation is about you and me, and the doctrines are rooted in the teachings by the ECF. Only someone who refused to read the CCC, or completely ignores the CCC role as the teaching manual of RCC doctrine would ignore it.

LDS doctrine teaches that God the Father was always God
Both the LDS and RCC teach that God was deity and came to earth and assumed human form of flesh and blood, and God still reatains this aspect (unless you are claiming Christ of the trinity did not assume human form and ascended (retaining flesh and bone)

ps. Don’t the RCC also teach that Mary ascended and reatined her human form?
Click to expand...
  1. Please, post some of those ECF teachings that you claim support the LDS belief that men can ever become gods, much less gods on other planets. Please, be specific in explaining how they support it.
  2. Taking one very small segment of the CCC out of context, to make a point that seems to agree with your philosophy, is just like taking one line out of the Bible to make any other completely irrational point.
  3. Mary did not bodily *ascend *into Heaven by her own power, she was assumed into Heaven by the power of God, drawing her to Himself. There’s a big difference between the two.
Just because you or your predecessors in Mormonism take the teachings of the Bible out of context, in order to create an entirely new form of religion, does not mean that they are anywhere close to understanding the real truth. I’m sure any one of us here could do the same thing, while using the Bible to back up whatever ridiculous claims we might make.
 
Tony888 said:
No, Soren is off the mark

Theosis and Exaltation is about you and me, and the doctrines are rooted in the teachings by the ECF. Only someone who refused to read the CCC, or completely ignores the CCC role as the teaching manual of RCC doctrine would ignore it.

LDS doctrine teaches that God the Father was always God
Both the LDS and RCC teach that God was deity and came to earth and assumed human form of flesh and blood, and God still reatains this aspect (unless you are claiming Christ of the trinity did not assume human form and ascended (retaining flesh and bone)

ps. Don’t the RCC also teach that Mary ascended and reatined her human form?
Click to expand...
From all we can see you are the one who refuses to read the CCC, you take one line out of five paragraphs and crow it over and over, completely ignoring the rest of the passage.

Soren is absolutely on target.
 
Tony888 said:
LDS doctrine teaches that God the Father was always God
Click to expand...
Wrong again, Tony.

Again, from the current Gospel Principles manual, chapter 47:
This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).
Click to expand...
If your “Heavenly Father” became God, then there was a time when he was not God.

Please, Tony, learn what the LDS church teaches before you come here to defend it to those of us who know better.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
 
Tony888 said:
Stephen,
Please contribute when you post.
I’ve provided quotes with soruces, that validate what I said. You accuse me of lyihng without a shred of evidence. That is slander!

Let me repeat
Both the RCC and the LDS teach Christ became man so that Man might become God

However, the nuances of what that means requires much study
  • Research Theosis for RCC
  • Research Exaltation for LDS
Click to expand...
Not quite.

Catholic teaching is that Christ became man so that man can be more like God and be united with God, not become a god.
 
Aramis said:
Not quite.

Catholic teaching is that Christ became man so that man can be more like God and be united with God, not become a god.
Click to expand...
I don’t think he’s saying that it’s the same. I think he is merely saying that they have common origins. The LDS believe they have the restored Gospel, so of course, they’ll believe that their understanding of what the Bible and the Fathers stated is the proper one.

Personally, I think it doesn’t make sense for God to be angry and jealous of people worshiping other gods and then turning around and turning men into gods for their own planets. It just seems odd. I think the concept of Sanctificaton and divinization makes more sense. But I’m not LDS, so whatever.
 
zaffiroborant said:
From all we can see you are the one who refuses to read the CCC, you take one line out of five paragraphs and crow it over and over, completely ignoring the rest of the passage.

Soren is absolutely on target.
Click to expand...
Why do you deny what the CCC explicitely says?
Let’s start over. Here is the full context. I’ve summarized the full section of this topic, from par 457-460. I believe all the five reasons that answer the question are all important.

CCC question - Why Did The Son of God Became Man?
    • For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven
    • in order to save us by reconciling us with God
    • so that thus we might know God’s love
    • to be our model of holiness
    • to make us "partakers of the divine nature"
    There is your context. Now I expand the 5th reason so there is no doubt what is being conveyed explicitely in the CCC
    • The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78
    • "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79
    • "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80
    • "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
    ZAFF or Soren,
    The challenge for you is to cite other paragraphs in the CCC that contradict what this paragraph explicitely states. I insist on official sources, not your opinion.
    Please do so and educate me!
    I’m also happy to provide you with extensive quotes by the ECF in this area, probably on another thread though
 
Tony888 said:
Why do you deny what the CCC explicitely says?
Let’s start over. Here is the full context. I’ve summarized the full section of this topic, from par 457-460. I believe all the five reasons that answer the question are all important.

CCC question - Why Did The Son of God Became Man?
    • For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven
    • in order to save us by reconciling us with God
    • so that thus we might know God’s love
    • to be our model of holiness
    • to make us "partakers of the divine nature"
    There is your context. Now I expand the 5th reason so there is no doubt what is being conveyed explicitely in the CCC
    • The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78
    • "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79
    • "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80
    • "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
    ZAFF or Soren,
    The challenge for you is to cite other paragraphs in the CCC that contradict what this paragraph explicitely states. I insist on official sources, not your opinion.
    Please do so and educate me!
    I’m also happy to provide you with extensive quotes by the ECF in this area, probably on another thread though
Click to expand...

  1. Your problem is you think we are arguing against the CCC, we’re not. We are arguing the the LDS concept of “exahaltation” is not equivalent to theosis and that the CCC says nothing similar to LDS teachings. Particularly as taught by your prophet, seer and revelator, president of the LDS church in this:
    The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.
    Click to expand...
    Again we are not denying what the CCC teaches, we are telling you that you don’t know what it teaches.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Your problem is you think we are arguing against the CCC, we’re not. We are arguing the the LDS concept of “exahaltation” is not equivalent to theosis and that the CCC says nothing similar to LDS teachings. Particularly as taught by your prophet, seer and revelator, president of the LDS church in this:

**

Again we are not denying what the CCC teaches, we are telling you that you don’t know what it teaches.
Click to expand...
I’m entertained that you refuse to cite Catholic Doctrine that disagrees with what I’ve posted. I’ve already admitted RCC Theosis and Exaltation are different, yet you claim they are completely different and deny their commonality - The teaching “Christ became Man so that Man might Become God” is Christian in origin and is a foundation point of LDS teachings on Exaltation, as well as RCC Theosis.

I think the problem is so few Catholics have a clue about Theosis. Anyway, I don’t want to derail this thread so have started a new thread specific to this topic…
 
Tony888 said:
I’m entertained that you refuse to cite Catholic Doctrine that disagrees with what I’ve posted. I’ve already admitted RCC Theosis and Exaltation are different, yet you claim they are completely different and deny their commonality - The teaching “Christ became Man so that Man might Become God” is Christian in origin and is a foundation point of LDS teachings on Exaltation, as well as RCC Theosis.
Click to expand...
Telstar said:
  1. Please, post some of those ECF teachings that you claim support the LDS belief that men can ever become gods, much less gods on other planets. Please, be specific in explaining how they support it.
Click to expand...
I’m still waiting, too
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top