Christmas, Mary, and the LDS

[Stephen168]

??? I’m not sure what you are talking about here. Christ alone is the Son of God.

Yet, I’ve heard Mormons claim they can progress to be the same as Jesus Christ, and God was once a man; therefore nothing unique in nature.

 

[jane_doe]

So, at Christmas, as Catholics, we celebrate that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, co-eternal with the Father, came down in unspeakable humility to take on human nature.

LDS celebrate celebrate that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, co-eternal with the Father, came down in unspeakable humility to take on human nature.

Metaphysics of Trinity vs Godhead aside, it is the same.

So, that is why, I think, that it is somewhat fair to say that the LDS view God becoming man as being just a “run of the mill” event. Before Jesus came down, heaven, he was already human. And so, the Christmas event was not disruptive whatsoever.

I fail to see how someone can dismiss the birth of the Son of God, Savior of the world, is a “run of the mill” event. Christ’s coming and His life is HUGELY important for the very fundamentals of the plan of salvation.

 

[Horton]

??? I’m not sure what you are talking about here. Christ alone is the Son of God.

My understanding is, according to LDS belief, that God created many spirit babies with his relationship with heavenly mother. Are you saying all except one were female?

Jesus Christ alone is the Son of God is a very Christian belief. To believe it this way is too acknowledge the divinity of Christ from the very beginning, to believe God sent his only son to become the savior of the world. If this is believed then one can not believe there are other sons of God waiting for incarnation, thus weakening the argument for spirit babies.

 

[rcwitness]

LDS celebrate celebrate that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, co-eternal with the Father, came down in unspeakable humility to take on human nature.

Metaphysics of Trinity vs Godhead aside, it is the same.

That sounds good! Where does Mormon ism Teach this? And when?

 

[Stephen168]

LDS celebrate celebrate that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, co-eternal with the Father, came down in unspeakable humility to take on human nature.

Metaphysics of Trinity vs Godhead aside, it is the same.

Putting the Trinity aside is what makes it NOT the same thing.

 

[in_servitude]

LDS celebrate celebrate that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, co-eternal with the Father, came down in unspeakable humility to take on human nature.

Metaphysics of Trinity vs Godhead aside, it is the same.

I did give my best effort to explain what St. Athanasius was talking about. As I understand it, the LDS view God as a human from another earth doing the same thing on this earth that was done on other earths. For Catholics, we do not believe that this is the case. We believe that it is a unique event when Jesus came down to Earth.

Now, an LDS person might want to argue that they too view it as unique. But, it is unique only because it is “this earth” and “this Christ.” So, please do understand that there is a substantial difference.

Now, also, perhaps we have a different understanding of the word “co-eternal.” If Jesus is a creation of God, then he is not co-eternal. That was a major component of Arianism, and that is what was rejected by the council.

Some people refer to humans has having an “eternal soul.” Well, maybe in the sense that it persists after death. But, in the sense that we are talking about with God, then it is completely different in that there was a time when the soul was not, but it was created at a point in time.

As I understand LDS theology, there was a time when Jesus was not. This aspect is in line with the Arian heresy. And, that one fact alone rules out the “co-eternal” term. So, that is what is different about my use as a Catholic of the term “co-eternal” and the LDS use of the term “co-eternal.” The two words are spelled the same, but mean something very different.

Also, it is important to understand that Jesus was consubstantial with the Father (and the Father, Catholics believe, is not human whatsoever.)

I fail to see how someone can dismiss the birth of the Son of God, Savior of the world, is a “run of the mill” event. Christ’s coming and His life is HUGELY important for the very fundamentals of the plan of salvation.

Well, I suppose anyone can do something amazingly humble. Mother Theresa was amazing humble to live in the slums of India and care for people as they are dying. The point that I am trying to make is that when viewed through the lens of human history, Catholics are saying that the event was disruptive in that Jesus assumed the human nature.

Prior to God becoming man at the Incarnation, God was “other”. After the Incarnation, “God was no longer ‘other’”. (These are my words, I suppose that there is a theological problem here, but it is in line what what I’m trying to say.)

That is a big difference. I can agree that an LDS person would say that it was hugely important for Jesus to come to this earth because the humans on this earth have their salvation affected by this Christ on this earth. For Catholics, it is different in that we are talking about all of humanity, not just one of an infinitely small fraction of humans when looking at the LDS multi-verse.

So, in summary: for Catholics, the Incarnation is:

1. a time when God became human (lowering Himself).
2. and thus at that instant in time, humans became “of the nature of God” (elevating them).
3. this is a disruptive event in human history.
4. Mary played an active role in this disruptive event in human history.

 

[jane_doe]

I appreciate your very fair and respectful approach here. Thank you. I apologize that my response here is a bit disorganized.

As I understand it, the LDS view God as a human from another earth doing the same thing on this earth that was done on other earths. For Catholics, we do not believe that this is the case. We believe that it is a unique event when Jesus came down to Earth.

Now, an LDS person might want to argue that they too view it as unique. But, it is unique only because it is “this earth” and “this Christ.” So, please do understand that there is a substantial difference.

A correction about LDS beliefs: the statement “As I understand it, the LDS view God as a human from another earth doing the same thing on this earth that was done on other earths” is speculation. It is also completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand, and practically never discussed in LDS church, and a person is free to agree/disagree/not-care about this speculation. Either was, it has no practical baring on an LDS person’s faith and doesn’t really matter.

That being said, from the LDS perspective it appears you are letting inconsequential speculations have greater importance than Christ being born-- our Savior, our King, our Lord-- the critical central part of salvation. Admittedly, it has me scratching my head.

If Jesus is a creation of God

He is NOT.

That was a major component of Arianism, and that is what was rejected by the council.

Note: LDS are not Arian. I appreciate the lesson on Catholic beliefs and the history behind it (you’re done a great job explaining it), but it doesn’t really apply to LDS beliefs.

As I understand LDS theology, there was a time when Jesus was not.

Incorrect. Here’s a whole suite of scriptures saying otherwise: lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-eternal-nature-of?lang=eng

Also, it is important to understand that Jesus was consubstantial with the Father (and the Father, Catholics believe, is not human whatsoever.)

This is the specific part of the Nicene Trinity LDS disagree with. LDS do agree that there is 1 God in 3 persons, that the Father/Son/Spirit are all eternal, everlasting, all powerful, all loving, etc.

Well, I suppose anyone can do something amazingly humble. Mother Theresa was amazing humble to live in the slums of India and care for people as they are dying. The point that I am trying to make is that when viewed through the lens of human history, Catholics are saying that the event was disruptive in that Jesus assumed the human nature.

With all due respect to Mother Theresa, her love , humility, and sacrifice is NOTHING compared to Christ’s. No one’s is.

That is a big difference. I can agree that an LDS person would say that it was hugely important for Jesus to come to this earth because the humans on this earth have their salvation affected by this Christ on this earth. For Catholics, it is different in that we are talking about all of humanity, not just one of an infinitely small fraction of humans when looking at the LDS multi-verse…

Again, you’re getting distracted with inconsequential speculations and ignoring THE KING IS BORN.

 

[RebeccaJ]

??? I’m not sure what you are talking about here. Christ alone is the Son of God.

See chapters 2 & 3 of the Gospel Principles manual. lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-2-our-heavenly-family.p1?lang=eng. A few quotes:

“All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God.”

“We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Jesus Christ, who was called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27; see also Moses 4:1–4).”

Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1).

 

[Horton]

A correction about LDS beliefs: the statement “As I understand it, the LDS view God as a human from another earth doing the same thing on this earth that was done on other earths” is speculation. It is also completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand, and practically never discussed in LDS church, and a person is free to agree/disagree/not-care about this speculation. Either was, it has no practical baring on an LDS person’s faith and doesn’t really matter.

I feel it is completely relevant to this topic. To believe Jesus Christ is the savior of the world one has to believe in the nature of God as expressed by Christians. Within all Protestant denominations and all of Catholicism (those in communion with Rome and those not) the nature of God is not in dispute. If the LDS can not agree with all of Christianity about who God is, then how could they agree on his Incarnation?

That being said, from the LDS perspective it appears you are letting inconsequential speculations have greater importance than Christ being born-- our Savior, our King, our Lord-- the critical central part of salvation. Admittedly, it has me scratching my head.

Determining who you believe God to be and His nature is very consequential.

Originally Posted by in_servitude
If Jesus is a creation of God

He is NOT.

Then explain how you believe Jesus Christ to NOT be a creation of God that fits with LDS belief.

Originally Posted by in_servitude
That is a big difference. I can agree that an LDS person would say that it was hugely important for Jesus to come to this earth because the humans on this earth have their salvation affected by this Christ on this earth. For Catholics, it is different in that we are talking about all of humanity, not just one of an infinitely small fraction of humans when looking at the LDS multi-verse…

Again, you’re getting distracted with inconsequential speculations and ignoring THE KING IS BORN.

in-servitude’s words or neither speculative nor inconsequential. Just because you chose to believe other wise, does not mean in_servitude wrong. The birth of Jesus Christ is not just this one time thing, it changed the world, all of humanity, it was the new covenant God made with all people. There is nothing speculative about that.

 

[jane_doe]

“All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God.”

There is a huge difference between a son of God (such as Job 38:7) and the Son of God.

“We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Jesus Christ, who was called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27; see also Moses 4:1–4).”

Reading the verses cited. One of them says:
“But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and** Chosen from the beginning,** said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.”
Christ was always supposed to be one who did it. Yes, Christ did agree, but the choice was already made.

Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1).

This is Satan objecting to the father’s plan, the start of his rebellion.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There is a huge difference between a son of God (such as Job 38:7) and the Son of God.

Reading the verses cited. One of them says:
“But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and** Chosen from the beginning,** said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.”
Christ was always supposed to be one who did it. Yes, Christ did agree, but the choice was already made.

This is Satan objecting to the father’s plan, the start of his rebellion.

Read both chapters.

 

[jane_doe]

Read both chapters.

You assume I haven’t?

 

[Stephen168]

After reading both Chapters, it is clear that the Mormon Church teaches Christ is A son of God not THE son of God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You assume I haven’t?

“From the beginning”, for Mormons, means what?

Two plans are presented, one is chosen…as if there were options A and B, and one of those options isn’t Jesus. No such teaching or belief for Christians. Very non-Christian.

 

[Horton]

After reading both Chapters, it is clear that the Mormon Church teaches Christ is A son of God not THE son of God.

In reading both chapters it is clear the LDS have an extremely different view of who Jesus Christ is as well as who God is from all of Christianity.

 

[in_servitude]

A correction about LDS beliefs: the statement “As I understand it, the LDS view God as a human from another earth doing the same thing on this earth that was done on other earths” is speculation.

Okay, I think I see what you are saying. I suppose it is speculation because we don’t know what other gods decided to do on their earth. Is that why my statement is speculation?

It is also completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand, and practically never discussed in LDS church, and a person is free to agree/disagree/not-care about this speculation. Either was, it has no practical baring on an LDS person’s faith and doesn’t really matter.

Are you saying that the nature of God is inconsequential? Or, that what what happened previously on other earths is inconsequential? Is it inconsequential because we are not impacted by what other gods do on other earths? Is if fair to state that an LDS believer would rightfully say that the only thing that matters to us on this earth is what this God is doing for us and for our salvation?

That being said, from the LDS perspective it appears you are letting inconsequential speculations have greater importance than Christ being born-- our Savior, our King, our Lord-- the critical central part of salvation. Admittedly, it has me scratching my head.

I am doing my best to understand what you are saying. When we say that “Christ being born”, the question for me is “what does that mean?” It is one thing for me to learn about the birth of a dog, or a human, or my grandchild. I understand that the LDS beliefs teach that Christ is unique. But, for me, understanding the nature of God is of critical importance.

Now, also, perhaps we have a different understanding of the word “co-eternal.”** If Jesus is a creation of God**, then he is not co-eternal.

He is NOT.

Hmm… I don’t understand what you are saying here. I have always understood the LDS beliefs that there is an infinite progression of gods. These gods are constrained by matter and time, and each god progresses from other gods. For example, an LDS married couple could achieve the highest level of heaven where they will be given their own earth to populate. That couple will be the gods of their newly given earth. So, in my mind, that means that there is a point in time where each person in that couple was created. In other words, there was a time when the couple was not.

Are you saying that Jesus falls outside this construct according to my understanding of the infinite progression of gods? That Jesus was made before all the other gods? Or, is your statement somehow restricted to just our earth and just the time prior to the first humans on this earth?

Note: LDS are not Arian. I appreciate the lesson on Catholic beliefs and the history behind it (you’re done a great job explaining it), but it doesn’t really apply to LDS beliefs.

I am not trying to argue that the LDS are Arian. When I provided the quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was important to explain the backdrop from where the teaching was written. Context is pretty critical to understanding the text. That is why I was talking about the Arian heresy.

Incorrect. Here’s a whole suite of scriptures saying otherwise: lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-eternal-nature-of?lang=eng

Well, I did read all of the material at this link. It is in line with what I had previously understood the LDS beliefs to be. I didn’t see where it talked about how Jesus is somehow not a creation of God the Father. Can you provide the text from that link that says that Jesus is not a creation of God the Father?

This is the specific part of the Nicene Trinity LDS disagree with. LDS do agree that there is 1 God in 3 persons, that the Father/Son/Spirit are all eternal, everlasting, all powerful, all loving, etc.

I presume you mean eternal in the sense that they will not perish from this time forward. Is that a valid way to understand your use of eternal? Is the same as everlasting?

With all due respect to Mother Theresa, her love , humility, and sacrifice is NOTHING compared to Christ’s. No one’s is.

Okay, just as you say that there is a difference between Mother Theresa, I say that there is a difference between the Catholic understanding of God and the LDS understanding of God. It is one thing for the Catholic’s understanding of God to assume human form, and another thing for the LDS understanding of God to assume human form.

Again, you’re getting distracted with inconsequential speculations and ignoring THE KING IS BORN.

The Catholic says, “The King is Born”. The LDS says, “The King is Born.” We say the same words. The difference comes with the understanding of “The King.” That difference drives a different understanding of Mary and what her active participation in the Incarnation did for all of humanity. That is why I am taking the time to understand what you are teaching me about the LDS understanding of “The King.”

 

[Stephen168]

In reading both chapters it is clear the LDS have an extremely different view of who Jesus Christ is as well as who God is from all of Christianity.

It also proves that jane_doe does not know the teachings of the Mormon Church.

 

[jane_doe]

Okay, I think I see what you are saying. I suppose it is speculation because we don’t know what other gods decided to do on their earth. Is that why my statement is speculation?

It is speculation because it is not something that has been revealed infallibly, such as in scripture. The two sayings of which these ideas are even based on were/are both not infallible or scripture. If God chooses to reveal whatever is Truth about these issues, He will in His time.

Are you saying that the nature of God is inconsequential? Or, that what what happened previously on other earths is inconsequential? Is it inconsequential because we are not impacted by what other gods do on other earths?

I’m saying that things which are just speculated and not infallibly revealed (and wouldn’t really matter anyways) are inconsequential.

I am doing my best to understand what you are saying. When we say that “Christ being born”, the question for me is “what does that mean?” It is one thing for me to learn about the birth of a dog, or a human, or my grandchild. I understand that the LDS beliefs teach that Christ is unique. But, for me, understanding the nature of God is of critical importance.

Christ is our Savior, our King, our Lord, our Teacher, the Son of God. He is Perfect, Wonderful, Glorious. That’s who He is.

Hmm… I don’t understand what you are saying here. I have always understood the LDS beliefs that there is an infinite progression of gods. These gods are constrained by matter and time, and each god progresses from other gods.

This is speculation from one of the two talks I mentioned earlier. Not official doctrine nor scripture. A Mormon may choose to believe/disbelieve/be-nuetral/be-clueless about then and be 100% in good standing.

For example, an LDS married couple could achieve the highest level of heaven where they will be given their own earth to populate. That couple will be the gods of their newly given earth.

This is a different subject than the Father’s history. Yes, LDS do believe that we may become perfect and like the Father. Here’s a nice official essay on it:https: //www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

So, in my mind, that means that there is a point in time where each person in that couple was created. In other words, there was a time when the couple was not.

Important note here: LDS believe that we all have always existed.

Are you saying that Jesus falls outside this construct according to my understanding of the infinite progression of gods? That Jesus was made before all the other gods? Or, is your statement somehow restricted to just our earth and just the time prior to the first humans on this earth?

When I say that Christ has always existed, and have always been divine, I simply mean that.

I am not trying to argue that the LDS are Arian. When I provided the quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was important to explain the backdrop from where the teaching was written. Context is pretty critical to understanding the text. That is why I was talking about the Arian heresy.

Ok, I thought so. I just wanted to make sure, since “Mormons are Arians” is a pretty common misconception.

Well, I did read all of the material at this link. It is in line with what I had previously understood the LDS beliefs to be. I didn’t see where it talked about how Jesus is somehow not a creation of God the Father. Can you provide the text from that link that says that Jesus is not a creation of God the Father?

These scripture quotes speak of Christ being everlasting, eternal, etc:
thy name is from everlasting: Isa. 63:16 .
“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” : Heb. 13:8 .; Morm. 9:9 ; Moro. 10:7, 19 ; D&C 20:11–12 .
Christ speaking: “I am endless”: D&C 19:10 .
“God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal”: D&C 20:17 .

I presume you mean eternal in the sense that they will not perish from this time forward. Is that a valid way to understand your use of eternal? Is the same as everlasting?

Eternal = always living, without beginning or end. Everlasting = always lasting, without beginning or end.

I say that there is a difference between the Catholic understanding of God and the LDS understanding of God.

I have not denied that. I have said that the celebration of Christ being born is the same. Our Savior, our King, our Lord.

The Catholic says, “The King is Born”. The LDS says, “The King is Born.” We say the same words. The difference comes with the understanding of “The King.” That difference drives a different understanding of Mary and what her active participation in the Incarnation did for all of humanity. That is why I am taking the time to understand what you are teaching me about the LDS understanding of “The King.”

 

[LivingWaters7]

“Infallibility” in Mormonism? Is this new?

 

[Stephen168]

“Infallibility” in Mormonism? Is this new?

I thought the current prophet voids previous prophets, therefore nothing in Mormonism could ever be declared infallibly.

Truth is subject to change.