CCC 460 sounds like an LDS belief

[OfTheCross]

TOmNossor:

I am sure I do not know all the words used by all the current LDS leadership. I am sure that all I know from the Bible, D&C, BOM, and PGP would lead me to look for this subordination of the deified man to God. This is how I interpret the scriptures (binding LDS doctrine) and the words of LDS leaders (non-binding).

As I have suggested in this thread and in the Catholic Deification thread I believe there is a spectrum of allowable beliefs for the Catholic. I believe within the CoJCoLDS there is an even larger spectrum of allowable beliefs. This larger spectrum is a result of a number of things, including no magisterium and generally being non-creedal.

So I would embrace a LDS who moved beyond my personal comfort zone with respect to the possibility of the future separateness from God as my brother or sister LDS and certainly as my brother or sister in Christ. I would also seek to share with them as an equal my opinions on this because I think our scriptures demand it.

Charity, TOm

Am I understanding that essentially the LDS belief is sola scriptura (although claiming more Scripture via BOM, POGP). So essentially any individual Morman has free reign on what he or she may believe and depends only on their private judgement of LDS “Scriptures”? So an individual LDS is allowed to believe that as a divinized god they could be equal to or even exceed the Trinity of God(s) and that the Trinity of God(s) may even worship them. If they wish to interpret divinzation this way through the LDS Scriptures, than this is an allowable belief for them?

If this is the case, it seems like the COJCOLDS is not really one religion at all, it is simply many religions based on one’s interpretation of the LDS Scriptures. Seems very similar to Bible Only Protestants, and certainly an impossibility to arrive at the Truth.

Peter John

 

[darcee]

Again, TOm’s view of things is a bit “original” it is not really the same as the teachings you would find in an LDS ward.

To read what the LDS Church officially teaches on exaltation go here:
lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html

In short it says:

They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).
They will become gods.
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. They will be an eternal family.
They will receive a fulness of joy.
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).

God was once a man like us and achieved his exaltation. We are to become gods to our spirit children just as God is our god. It is impossible to escape the polytheistic reality of this teaching.

-D

 

[darcee]

To learn what the LDS church teaches about the relationship to scripture and their prophets go here:
lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-14,00.html

and here

lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-15,00.html

In Short

Many people find it easy to believe in the prophets of the past. But it is much greater to believe in and follow the living prophet. We raise our hands to sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator.

How can we sustain the prophet? We should pray for him. His burdens are heavy, and he needs to be strengthened by the prayers of the Saints.

We should study his words. We can listen to his conference addresses or read them in Church publications.

We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult. The Lord commanded us to follow the inspired teachings of his prophet:

"Thou shalt give heed unto all his [the prophet’s] words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D&C 21:4-5).

The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.

And

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9).

According to LDS teaching a prophet speaks the teachings of God. They learn about these teaching through the publications of the LDS Church. Not just the 4 standard works.

-D

 

[TOmNossor]

OfTheCross:

Am I understanding that essentially the LDS belief is sola scriptura (although claiming more Scripture via BOM, POGP).

There are a number of aspects of sola scriptura that would be inappropriate to apply to the CoJCoLDS.

• Members sustain their priesthood leaders. This includes local leaders such as Bishops and the Prophet and … To sustain (among other things) is to formally recognize the position of the Prophet as the earthly leader of Christ’s Church. The Catholic who does not recognize the primacy of the Pope is as confused as the LDS who does not recognize the possession and authority of the keys residing with the Prophet. The Catholic who recognizes that Pope John Paul II has not made any infallible declaration during his 25+ year papacy is not failing to recognize the pope’s primacy. Just as I who recognize that the D&C teaches that the Prophet does not always teach binding doctrine am not failing to sustain the Prophet.
• To sustain ones priesthood leaders is to recognize that the Holy Spirit can guide the body of believers over which they have stewardship through revelation to the leader. This is important and results in a need to look to current leaders for guidance that may be coming from God. All members are responsible for their own direction and have the gift of the Holy Ghost to aid them, but when we sustain our leaders we agree to support them and we recognize the possibility of guidance from them that results from divine inspiration to them.
• Nothing in what I said suggested that the scriptures were to be of individual interpretation. The CoJCoLDS has General Authorities who may teach from the scriptures. Personal interpretation is fine, but it is not for the guidance of the body of the church.
• LDS believe in continued revelation. The Prophet could receive new revelation from God, present this revelation to a group of general authorities, and then present this revelation to the whole church. This new revelation could then be added to our scriptures and become binding LDS doctrine.

I will briefly address Darcee’s comments in a second.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Much of what Darcee is trying to communicate here is pretty accurate. The links she has provided are good sources of LDS understanding.

My views are in fact different than what you would often find expressed by the guy sitting next to you in the pew.

I have chosen to expose myself to the teachings of the critics of the CoJCoLDS since shortly after I was baptized as a member almost 10 years ago.

During Vatican I, the most respected scholars were very concerned about the doctrine of Papal infallibility. They argued against it and presented heretical papal teachings from history. I would suggest that few lay Catholics are aware of these things. There are a number of other aspects associated with the papacy that are not included in the worldview of most lay Catholics. The fact that the Catholic apologist possesses understanding of Catholic doctrine that comprehends heretical popes, anti-popes, robber councils, … does not mean that they belong to a different church than does the little old Italian lady who would be scandalized by some of the truths.

So, yes, I will explain the CoJCoLDS somewhat differently than will the person you find in the pew on Sunday next to you, but I belong to the same church they do. Darcee is an ex-LDS. She found out about some of the things that I know about and it caused her to leave the church. Many a protestant walked out in similar fashion never to grace the door of a Catholic Church again. The fact that Karl Keating has a Catholic view that encompasses heretical popes, anti-popes, robber councils, and … ; and that the ex-Catholic lost faith when confronted with heretical popes or … does not mean that Karl Keating is not Catholic. And it does not mean that he is not a member of the same church as the little old Italian lady who would be scandalized by some of the history of the Catholic Church.

Continued (so much for brief)…

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

According to LDS teaching a prophet speaks the teachings of God. They learn about these teaching through the publications of the

LDSChurch. Not just the 4 standard works.

And this is a true and excellent statement. The pronoun “They” of course should not refer to the prophet but rather to the member of course.
Of course “a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.” So according to the D&C, one may know the prophet is speaking his opinion and not binding doctrine if his ideas are not supported by the 4 standard works. If he chooses to elevate his teachings (because they were revealed and are necessary for the body of the church despite not being in the 4 standard works) through common consent to binding doctrine, this will be done as mentioned above and these teachings may then be added to the standard works.

Charity, TOm

 

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

Joseph Smith was quite clear that the deified man was subordinate to God.

I maintain that the deified man is only deified through uniting with God. As such the diefied man must maintain his relationship with God. He is both subservient and bound to God.

Charity, TOm

Yet, he becomes a God himself with Godship over a world like earth, with millions and millions of new people worshiping him AS GOD. Not A god, but GOD. The whole thing is ridiculous. The LDS Church wants to turn eternal salvation into Amway. It’s the network marketing version of religion.

 

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

But, that men may become gods, is not some scholarly silliness. There is a consistent tradition. There is Biblical backing. There just seems to have been a huge silence between 700-1900AD.

Charity, TOm

Charity, TOm

Please show us the proof that the doctrine of men becoming Gods is “consistent tradition” of the Catholic Church prior to 700 A.D. Also, please give us the biblical proof.

 

[darcee]

TOmNossor:

Of course ?a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.? So according to the D&C, one may know the prophet is speaking his opinion and not binding doctrine if his ideas are not supported by the 4 standard works. If he chooses to elevate his teachings (because they were revealed and are necessary for the body of the church despite not being in the 4 standard works) through common consent to binding doctrine, this will be done as mentioned above and these teachings may then be added to the standard works.

Again TOm is trying to confuse people here on the idea of what an LDS prophet is.

Again from lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-14,00.html

“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. God bless you”

TOm would have you believe that LDS only take what their prophet says as binding when it is “supported” by LDS scripture. The truth is that LDS are told that they can know if a prophet is speaking his own opinion if it is in “conflict” with the standard works of the LDS Church. If it is in conflict (such as the ending of plural marriage or the priesthood being given to ‘blacks’) then it must be voted on and accepted by general consent.

He further is again apelling to the Catholic concept of infallability. This is a totally unrelated thing. To my knowledge to LDS Church has never made a claim of “infallabaility” about its prophets any more then the Catholic church has ever claimed that its Pope’s to be anything other then mortal men with failings and sins.

They don’t need to claim infallibility, their teaching about the nature of prophets explicitly states that the leadership of the LDS church is to be followed. You can not go to the temple and receive your endowments, you can not be exalted without sustaining the leadership of the church. A faithful LDS sustains the leadership of the LDS church at least twice a year heralding the General presidency as “Prophet, seers and revelators.” While all Catholic teaching must be in harmony with Tradition and the Scriptures, LDS revelation must only not be conflict.

Additionally TOm, please do not make assumptions about why and how I left the LDS church. I did not leave because of some teaching I stumbled upon. I was almost as good as you are with theological gymnastics to make the LDS church teaching work for me. It was only AFTER I left that I was emotionally free to actually think through the issues that had bothered me.

-D

 

[AugustineH354]

OfTheCross:

What does this prove, that Father Vajda is either purposefully or ignorantly twisting the view of the Catholic Church or the ECF’s?

If I bring forth a host of ex-Mormons who became Protestant Pastors or Catholic priests and align themselves against his novel claims would that prove anything. No, it wouldn’t. My faith is not based on ex-Catholic priests or ex-Mormons or Master’s thesis’ or Doctoral dissertations. My faith is based on the Word of God (the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition) with the infallible guidence of the Magesterium and Pope guided by the Holy Spirit in binding and dogmatic pronouncments of faith over 2000 years.

If you or Father Vajda want to stubbornly believe that the Catholic Church teaches or allows the LDS concept of divinization, do as you please to your own peril. God has given us each free will.

Dear Peter John,

So far you have given us nothing but your personal opinion on the matter. This offering has little to do with the infallible guidence of our Magesterium and Popes, for you have cited nothing from them in support of your personal views.

However, Tom has re-posted a list of Catholic saints, scholars and Popes that I complied and posted on another message board. (Plus citations from the CF’s, a personal field of study of mine for over 20 years now.)

Perhaps it is time that you provide us with official Catholic statements on the issue of deification.

Grace and peace,

Aug

 

[darcee]

Interestingly enough though NONE of those quotes speak about becoming Gods to your own spirit children. They seem to be speaking only of becoming God in the sense that we all do when we become part of the Body of Christ.

You can’t change what the teaching of a church is by digging around for some esoteric comments made here or there which ARE NOT part of the general cannon.

-D

 

[OfTheCross]

—This is the First Presidency Message, taken from the Feb 2002 Ensign.
Quote:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—“that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.” He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its “distinct order or sphere,” and will enjoy “eternal felicity.” That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (see D&C 77:3).
Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and **even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God. **

—LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie in his book Mormon Doctrine, under the section Plurality of Gods taught:
“a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods,” (pp. 576-77; see also pp. 321-22).

—Three separate personages–Father, Son, and Holy Ghost–comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576- 577).

 

[OfTheCross]

—Mormon theologian Duane S. Crowther:
Thus it becomes obvious that there are now, and will continue to be, many gods who will rule and reign throughout eternity on an ever increasing number of worlds which they will create. This is not in opposition to the Biblical concept of “one God,” for an earth serves as the dwelling place for the children of only one God, and he alone reigns over his children there as Father and God (Life Everlasting, p. 361).

Joseph Smith—"I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods" (History of the Church 6:474).

—Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt taught, “We were begotten by our Father in Heaven;** the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father, and so one, from one generation to generation”** (The Seer, pg. 132).

—Mormon Apostle John Widtsoe stated, “God and man are of the same race, differing only in their degrees of advancement” (Gospel Through the Ages, pg. 107).

—Joseph Smith stated, “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see” (Teachings, pg. 345).

—Joseph Smith taught, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22).

—Brigham Young said, “Some would have us believe that God is present everywhere. It is not so” (Journal of Discourses 6:345).

—According to Joseph Smith, “The idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false”
(D&C 130:3).

 

[OfTheCross]

—"So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 4:27). [See also Abraham 4 and 5 as well as Doctrine & Covenants 132:37]

—To us, *speaking in the proper finite * sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods … This doctrine of plurality of Gods is so comprehensive and glorious that it reaches out and embraces every exalted personage. Those who attain exaltation are gods (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577).

—Brigham Young: “How many Gods there are I do not know, but there never was a time when there were not Gods” (Journal of Discourses, 7:333).

—LDS prophet Lorenzo Snow, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may be. A son of God, like God to be, would not be robbing deity.”

—King Follett Discourse, Smith stated, “I will preach to you on the plurality of gods. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea. . . .”

 

[OfTheCross]

You would have me believe that only ignorant LDS believe in the plurality of Gods, as the poor Italian Catholic who would be scandalized by her faith if she studied her history a little better. Do the above men also qualify as your typical ingnorant LDS? It is you who is trying so very hard to hide the LDS concept of gods behind the shimmering veil of monotheism. It is like trying to hide an elephant under an endtable.

The burden of proof is on you Tom, not me to demonstrate that the statements of LDS leaders/prophets are fully acceptable and conformable to Catholic teaching. All I have received thus far is a few pithy quotes from a couple fathers, JPII, on the concept of diviniztion. Divinization can be defined many different ways, and I still do not think the quotes you posted can be reconciled with the quotes I just posted. They are entirely two different definitions, as far as the east is from the west, one orthodox Catholic belief and one novel LDS belief.

Peter John

 

[Tmaque]

I think we’re not seeing the forest for the trees here. The simple fact is that even though it may seem to Tom that CCC 460 resembles LDS teachings, it in reality does not. Mormons believe that God:
has a physical, resurrected body,
was once a man,
has sex with his resurrected wives
Mormons also believe:
that men may become Gods in and of themselves
will have their own worlds to have dominion over to be worshiped and glorified by their own subjects(children),
will have sex with their resurrected wives

These beliefs stand in stark contrast to the simple statement in CCC 460.

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

It’s obvious to any objective observer that what is meant here is that God wants us to SHARE his divinity…not have our own. There is nothing that suggests that God was once a man, that he has sex with his wives, that he wants us to have our own worlds, etc. In short, the answer to the question is no, CCC 460 DOES NOT resemble LDS doctrine.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Getting back to the initial issue, one should also consider CCC 460 in context.

Canon 460 addresses the question: Why did the Word become flesh? (Article 3 of Chapter 2 of Part One, discussing the Profession of Faith) The canons at the section which address that question also include:

456 With the Nicene Creed, we answer by confessing: “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.”

457 The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins”: …

458 The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God’s love: “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

459 The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.” “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: “Listen to him!” Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law: “Love one another as I have loved you.” This love implies an effective offering of oneself, after his example.

Only after a series of Canons describing the need for the Saviour does Canon 460 appear.

Canon 460 addresses the salvific mission of Jesus Christ, not the deification of human beings. Note that the quote in 460 (from St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.) states that the Son of God became man so that we might become God (not gods). The quote should be read in the context of the discussion - i.e. that Jesus came to reconcile us to God, that we might know God and be with Him and live eternally in His precence. The quote does not support the LDS doctrine of an exhalted man-god with spirit children who will worship him.

On a rational level, the LDS concept of human deification falls apart because it fails and refuses to acknowledge the True God as the primary cause of all created things. Instead, the LDS concept is reminiscent of a cosmic Ponzi scheme. As long as I give praise to God, I will one day be my own god with spirit children who will worship me and my spirit children - who are good LDS members - will have spirit children who worship them, and so on, and so on without beginning or end. It begs the question - who started it all? Is this truly a primary doctrine of the LDS faith?

One final thought. If the ultimate goal of all spirit children is godhood, and if Jesus Christ is the first spirit child of the Heavenly Father, then why is Jesus not his own god with his own spirit children on his own planet?

 

[TOmNossor]

Concerning all the quotes mostly posted by OftheCross:

• I think only one of these addresses what the Biblical “One God” statements mean. That would be the quote from Crowther. I have no idea who Crowther is, but I embrace him as a LDS. I just disagree with him. Blake Ostler another LDS scholar, has conducted what I think to be a very thorough review of LDS scripture and I not only embrace him as a LDS, but I agree with most of his ideas.
• The quotes from LDS authorities certainly express things differently than I generally do, but the fact that they do not address the oneness of God demonstrates that your quotes are not comprehensive treatment of the subject. You quoted McConkie. He also said (again used the term “Gods” which I usually avoid, but expressing the same thing I keep saying).

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.319 GODHEAD

The oneness of the Gods is the same unity that should exist among the saints. (John 17; 3 Ne. 28:10-11.)
…

 

[TOmNossor]

Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.114-115

And yet, let there be no misunderstanding, the revelations teach that there is one God. In one of the most profound proclamations ever to fall from his lips, Moses proclaimed: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deut. 6:4.) Paul picked up the same theme and said simply: “God is one” (Gal. 3:20), and “There is none other God but one” (1 Cor. 8:4). Jesus quoted Moses’ teaching with approval (Mark 12:29), and Zechariah, speaking of the millennial day, confirmed the same eternal truth in these words: “The Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one” (Zech. 14:9). So speaks the Bible on the oneness of God.

The Book of Mormon is even more express and even more expansive. After setting forth the terms and conditions of the plan of salvation, Nephi says: “This is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.” (2 Ne. 31:21.) Amulek speaks plainly of salvation in the kingdom of heaven, of being raised from death to life through the atonement of Christ, of the wicked retaining a bright recollection of their guilt, and of the eternal judgment that awaits them, when they “shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.” (Alma 11:44.) Mormon records that the righteous shall be found guiltless in that great day and shall “dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.” (Morm. 7:7.)

Truly, there is one God, and one God only!

….

 

[TOmNossor]

Here is an excellent quote on what deification is:

John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement, Ch.20

A man, as a man, could arrive at all the dignity that a man was capable of obtaining or receiving; but it needed a God to raise him to the dignity of a God. For this cause it is written, “Now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him.” And how and why like Him? Because, through the instrumentality of the atonement and the adoption, it is made possible for us to become of the family of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; and that as He, the potential instrument, through the oneness that existed between Him and His Father, by reason of obedience to divine law, overcame death, hell and the grave, and sat down upon His Father’s throne, so shall we be able to sit down with Him, even upon His throne. Thus, as it is taught in the Book of Mormon, it must needs be that there be an infinite atonement; and hence of Him, and by Him, and through Him are all things; and through Him do we obtain every blessing, power, right, immunity, salvation and exaltation. He is our God, our Redeemer, our Savior, to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be eternal and everlasting praises worlds without end.

…