Comparing Best to Best.

[mormon_fool]

majick:

I would refer to his comments that he doesn’t know that we teach it or emphasize it as misleading. as pres. of the church he should know if you teach/emphasize it or not. (the recent gospel doctrine lesson would indicate that it IS taught/emphasized)

majick,

I am enjoying your discussion with TOm, so do keep up the good work. As always your posts show a very good breadth of knowledge. I was somewhat troubled by your claims that GBH was confident about “God was once a man” in a 1994 conference address. I mean making an extremely charitable allowance for President Hinckley being confident in conference because he had time to carefully consider his remarks and sources, but being less sure while being put on the spot anwering a loaded question just wasn’t a satisfactory answer for me.

I went and looked up his remarks in the October General Conference of 1994 and found these remarks: On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342–62; and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1.)

Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom.

And then I thought to myself how he is concentrating on our eternal progression and not God’s. He even failed to quote the first half of the couplet. His avoiding that part seems to be somewhat intentional. Perhaps he wanted to concentrate on doctrine that can be solidly traced to the LDS standard works? I realize it might be seen as orwellian to only quote half a couplet, but I think this might explain why he was so more confident at conference.

It appears that two unrelated things were under discussion at the two diiferent occasions. Anyway, I don’t look to the news media for doctrine. I have faith that if God wants to emphasize or de-emphasize something, He would hopefully do it in a source more authoratative.

Question for you though. Why would flexibility in secondary, non-binding doctrines be evidence of orwellianism? When I think of Orwell, I think of a totalitarian regime that dictates every jot and tittle of how it wants its subjects to behave and think. Another hallmark might be an institution that controls information and prevents access to interested parties. If anything, the flexible variations we see in beliefs and interpretations on doctrinal minutia should tell that us mormons are indeed thinking for themselves and finding information to support their thinking.

Sorry to derail you guy’s thread. Carry on my fellow Christians.

Later,
fool

 

[majick275]

I hardly consider eternal progression a secondary non-binding doctrine. Especially in light of the quote from GBH that you posted. The very nature of God, The ENTIRE PURPOSE for the plan of salvation, the reason to even have a church is because of this doctrine in the LDS church. “this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (paraphrased)

Another hallmark might be an institution that controls information and prevents access to interested parties. If anything, the flexible variations we see in beliefs and interpretations on doctrinal minutia should tell that us mormons are indeed thinking for themselves and finding information to support their thinking.

This is where I have real problems with Boyd Packer. I think we have seen even in the “standard works” enough of this to be concerned.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

I hardly consider eternal progression a secondary non-binding doctrine. Especially in light of the quote from GBH that you posted.

If you’ll notice I did say that our (not God’s) eternal progression is solidly traced to the standard works. I would relegate eternal progression as it relates to God as a little understood, secondary, non-binding doctrine. The former was discussed in conference and the latter is what was being discussed in Time Magazine.

The latter shows the flexibility of mormon thinking on non-binding doctrinal areas. There is plenty of low DSI information that the church makes no attempt to conceal on this topic and people have formed different viewpoints on. The thinking on this subject is quite diverse and rich. We have Joseph Smith’s two un-canonized Nauvoo sermons, Brigham Young’s non-binding Adam-God musings, Orson Pratt’s opposition to the same, B.H. Robert’s take, Lorenzo Snow’s take, Blake Ostler’s philosophical treatments, Van Hale’s BYUStudies article, lay members contesting the infinite backwards regression of Gods based on such passages as D&C 20:17, scholars noting connections to the Kabballah, gnostic texts, and First Temple Judaism

This is where I have real problems with Boyd Packer. I think we have seen even in the “standard works” enough of this to be concerned.

I don’t have such a big problem with Elder Packer. His remarks were addressed to people in CES, the organization responsible for educating the church membership about the church. Packer should be concerned that history and doctrine are being taught in an “objective” manner, because he was responsible for the disribution of tithing funds in this area. When I say “objective”, I mean it in the sense that when any writer refuses to see the hand of God leading the LDS church, it comes across to me as a denial of reality! If writers want to [bracket] the church’s truth claims aside, so they can appear more “objective” to the world, they are more than welcome to do so, just don’t do it on faithful tithing payers’ dime.

Even so, there are many organizations, publishing venues, and forums for works that faithful LDS scholars produce aimed at general audiences or tackling non-faith promoting themes. Some are even partially sponsored at BYU. There is no shortage of information that a resourceful member of the church can’t find if they are motivated. When I am at church I appreciate the harmony I have with my fellow saints over the devotional material presented there in the manuals. I thank Elder Packer for whatever role he played in bringing this about. When I am in the library or other repositories of knowledge, I appreciate the diversity and richness of mormon thought.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

If you’ll notice I did say that our (not God’s) eternal progression is solidly traced to the standard works. I would relegate eternal progression as it relates to God as a little understood, secondary, non-binding doctrine. The former was discussed in conference and the latter is what was being discussed in Time Magazine.

I don’t see any way to logically divorce the two. What works forward in this must also work backward or it isn’t an eternal principle. In any case I find GBH to be outright dishonest in his media interviews on this. I also have seen here LDS folks using the interviews and media articles as what he “really” believes even though he said not to. I feel confident that I have an accurate view of LDS eternal progression and I think GBH understands it at least as well. I see a professional PR guy (GBH) doing what he does best despite his position.
mormon fool:

The latter shows the flexibility of mormon thinking on non-binding doctrinal areas. There is plenty of low DSI information that the church makes no attempt to conceal on this topic and people have formed different viewpoints on. The thinking on this subject is quite diverse and rich. We have Joseph Smith’s two un-canonized Nauvoo sermons, Brigham Young’s non-binding Adam-God musings, Orson Pratt’s opposition to the same, B.H. Robert’s take, Lorenzo Snow’s take, Blake Ostler’s philosophical treatments, Van Hale’s BYUStudies article, lay members contesting the infinite backwards regression of Gods based on such passages as D&C 20:17, scholars noting connections to the Kabballah, gnostic texts, and First Temple Judaism

Just for the record, while I enjoyed your DSI, I do not agree with it for purposes of establishing doctrine. Moving on though, When LDS leaders deliver teachings that result in universal practices and/or teachings for the members it is, in effect, binding doctrine. Some of these doctrines have changed, some even have been denounced as false but there was a time when all of these were considered by the members to be “doctrine”. My point in all of that is that it sure doesn’t seem like the LDS church was being led by revelation from God.
mormon fool:

I don’t have such a big problem with Elder Packer. His remarks were addressed to people in CES, the organization responsible for educating the church membership about the church. Packer should be concerned that history and doctrine are being taught in an “objective” manner, because he was responsible for the disribution of tithing funds in this area. When I say “objective”, I mean it in the sense that when any writer refuses to see the hand of God leading the LDS church, it comes across to me as a denial of reality! If writers want to [bracket] the church’s truth claims aside, so they can appear more “objective” to the world, they are more than welcome to do so, just don’t do it on faithful tithing payers’ dime.

Well now I think your example is too extreme.I’m not seeing a refusal to acknowledge the hand of God so much as questioning certain specific examples as not being proof of the hand of God in that particualr situation. Packer requires EVERYTHING taught to show the hand of God in ALL things. Editing source materials to remove contradictory information is, in my opinion, deliberate falsification. It may be on a small scale and seemingly minor details…but then why rewrite it if it’s not so bad? Packer has been responsible for people in academic positions losing their jobs and people “on the tithepayers dime” being exed for refusing to lie. I find his version of a “historian” (even BYU history professors) to be similar to Goebbels. I don’t ask the LDS to advertise their past problems in their “faith promoting” materials, just don’t suppress/rewrite/deceive about historical documents to create “propaganda”.
mormon fool:

Even so, there are many organizations, publishing venues, and forums for works that faithful LDS scholars produce aimed at general audiences or tackling non-faith promoting themes. Some are even partially sponsored at BYU. There is no shortage of information that a resourceful member of the church can’t find if they are motivated. When I am at church I appreciate the harmony I have with my fellow saints over the devotional material presented there in the manuals. I thank Elder Packer for whatever role he played in bringing this about. When I am in the library or other repositories of knowledge, I appreciate the diversity and richness of mormon thought.
later,
fool

Well, I am happy for you then. My experience has been different.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick,

I had hoped not to derail this by making such a simple, straight-forward correction. It is pretty obvious that actual church members draw a distinction between the two halves of the couplet–one is solidly based in scripture, the other takes a beating in some passages. Your logic that the two ideas are unseparable is fallacious. Compare to “All indians walk in a single file, at least the one I saw did.” Involving the word “eternal” doesn’t strengthen your case. For example see how it is used in LDS scripture D&C 19:6-11 and D&C 20:17.

Just for the record, while I enjoyed your DSI, I do not agree with it for purposes of establishing doctrine.

Perhaps you can come up with something better?

Moving on though, When LDS leaders deliver teachings that result in universal practices and/or teachings for the members it is, in effect, binding doctrine.

This makes green jello with carrot strips binding doctrine!

It is and always has been universally accepted that we don’t know much about “God once being a man”. According to your definition, not knowing much about that has always been binding doctrine.

I find his version of a “historian” (even BYU history professors) to be similar to Goebbels.

You are aware of Godwin’s law, No?

later,
fool

 

[amgid]

majick275:

I hardly consider eternal progression a secondary non-binding doctrine…

I had asked you to give me an accurate definition of “eternal progression,” but you never did. I think that you are as unclear in your mind about what it means as I am, but you continue to use it as though it had a clearly defined meaning, and you knew exactly what that meaning was. That is not a very honest way of engaging in a discussion with someone. I think it is very important when we discuss something with someone, that we use terminology that has a reasonably well-defined meaning, and that all sides in the debate agree as to what that definition is, so that the discussion does not descend into chaos and misunderstanding.

Especially in light of the quote from GBH that you posted. The very nature of God, The ENTIRE PURPOSE for the plan of salvation, the reason to even have a church is because of this doctrine in the LDS church.

Which doctrine? You mean “eternal progression”? How can that be, if nobody seems to know, or be able to clearly define, what the expression “eternal progression” actually stands for?

“this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (paraphrased)

Aha! Is that what you mean by “eternal progression”? Great! If that is what you mean by it, then I am all in favor of “eternal progression”! You can sign me up for “eternal progression”!

That quote comes straight out of LDS scripture, and it is true. If everybody agrees that that is what we mean by “eternal progression,” I would be all in favor of “eternal progression”. But your earlier posts suggest that that is NOT all that you really mean by it. You mean by it a whole lot of stuff that is not contained in that quote, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be deduced from it. You mean by it that God was once a man on a planet, and then progressed to become a God. You mean by it that those who go to the celestial kingdom have sex with their polygamous wives, and their wives become pregnant with spirit kids, and then they go to spirit hospital and give birth to spirit babies, and when they have had enough of them spirit kids they create a planet for them, and provide a devil and a savoir for them so they can pass through the same experience of mortality as we do, and the process then keep on repeating itself. Well, I have got bad news for you. That is not LDS doctrine, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be read into the simple scripture: “This is my work and glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”.

I think it is very important that we accurately define our terminology before we use them, so that people do not get confused as to what we are really talking about. It is dishonest to do otherwise.

Another hallmark might be an institution that controls information and prevents access to interested parties. If anything, the flexible variations we see in beliefs and interpretations on doctrinal minutia should tell that us mormons are indeed thinking for themselves and finding information to support their thinking.

This is where I have real problems with Boyd Packer. I think we have seen even in the “standard works” enough of this to be concerned.

I do not understand what you are objecting to in the Packer quote. I may have missed the thread of the argument. I have quickly skimmed through the earlier posts, but still do not understand what it is that you are objecting to in the quote, or why.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid and fool, you have now made it obvious to me that we can’t have meaningful discussions. I am through trying to overlook the extremely dishonest denials and distortions to try and compare/contrast doctrines, etc. The LDS church is a dangerous cult. My purpose is to warn Catholics to avoid it. I do not invade LDS sites to impose my beliefs on them and question your intent here on this site. I will no longer respond directly to any of your posts.

 

[PaulDupre]

amgid:

I had asked you to give me an accurate definition of “eternal progression,” but you never did. I think that you are as unclear in your mind about what it means as I am, but you continue to use it as though it had a clearly defined meaning, and you knew exactly what that meaning was. That is not a very honest way of engaging in a discussion with someone. I think it is very important when we discuss something with someone, that we use terminology that has a reasonably well-defined meaning, and that all sides in the debate agree as to what that definition is, so that the discussion does not descend into chaos and misunderstanding.

Which doctrine? You mean “eternal progression”? How can that be, if nobody seems to know, or be able to clearly define, what the expression “eternal progression” actually stands for?

Aha! Is that what you mean by “eternal progression”? Great! If that is what you mean by it, then I am all in favor of “eternal progression”! You can sign me up for “eternal progression”!

amgid

Let’s use the description of eternal progression that all of us learned when we were LDS:

(Taken from Apostle Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine)

Endowed with agency and subject to eternal laws, man began his progression and advancement in pre-existence, his ultimate goal being to attain a state of glory, honor, and exaltation like the Father of spirits. During his earth life he gains a mortal body, receives experience in earthly things, and prepares for a future eternity after the resurrection when he will continue to gain knowledge and intelligence. (D. & C. 130:18-19.) This gradually unfolding course of advancement and experience – a course that began in a past eternity and will continue in ages future – is frequently referred to as a course of eternal progression.

It is important to know, however, that for the overwhelming majority of mankind, eternal progression has very definite limitations. In the full sense, eternal progression is enjoyed only by those who receive exaltation. Exalted persons gain the fullness of the Father; they have all power, all knowledge, and all wisdom; they gain a fullness of truth, becoming one with the Father. All other persons are assigned lesser places in the mansions that are prepared, and their progression is not eternal and unlimited but in a specified sphere. There will be truths such persons never learn, powers they never possess. They are “ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory,” and they so continue “to all eternity, and … forever and ever.” (D. & C. 132:16-17.)

Those who gain exaltation, having thus enjoyed the fullness of eternal progression, become like God. It should be realized that God is not progressing in knowledge, truth, virtue, wisdom, or any of the attributes of godliness. He has already gained these things in their fullness. But he is progressing in the sense that his creations increase, his dominions expand, his spirit offspring multiply, and more kingdoms are added to his domains. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 5-10.)

Now let’s stop the deceptions and admit once and for all that this notion of eternal progression pervades all of Mormon thought and theology.
Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

majick275:

amgid and fool, you have now made it obvious to me that we can’t have meaningful discussions. I am through trying to overlook the extremely dishonest denials and distortions to try and compare/contrast doctrines, etc. The LDS church is a dangerous cult. My purpose is to warn Catholics to avoid it. I do not invade LDS sites to impose my beliefs on them and question your intent here on this site. I will no longer respond directly to any of your posts.

Dear majick,
While I agree with you that the denials, distortions and obfuscations practiced by LDS are terribly annoying and disheartening, someone has to keep them from getting away with it. By quoting their leaders, past and present, on the doctrines they try to deny and misrepresent we keep them from deceiving those who haven’t had the benefit of our experience inside the LDS.

I believe that the Lord took me through the Mormon Church for a reason, and part of that reason is right here.

If you need to take a break for a while, then by all means do so. But don’t give up entirely. The purpose, as you have already discovered, cannot be to convert LDS from their errors. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. But we can help to protect others from the deception.

God bless you my friend,
Paul

 

[TOmNossor]

majick275:

amgid and fool, you have now made it obvious to me that we can’t have meaningful discussions. I am through trying to overlook the extremely dishonest denials and distortions to try and compare/contrast doctrines, etc. The LDS church is a dangerous cult. My purpose is to warn Catholics to avoid it. I do not invade LDS sites to impose my beliefs on them and question your intent here on this site. I will no longer respond directly to any of your posts.

PaulDupre:

Now let’s stop the deceptions and admit once and for all that this notion of eternal progression pervades all of Mormon thought and theology.

PaulDupre:

Dear majick,
While I agree with you that the denials, distortions and obfuscations practiced by LDS are terribly annoying and disheartening, someone has to keep them from getting away with it.

I really started this thread to combat the view now expressed by PaulDupre and Majick275. Not only do I believe it to be an extremely poor read of the available data concerning what the CoJCoLDS believes, but I do not believe it is productive for positive discussion.

Godwin’s law and Ad Hominem speak about such things.

Anyway, least we forget, there are Sainted Catholic who embraced things that were ultimately declared heresy. There were popes who embraced things that were ultimately declared heresy. I have said that I will only allude to such things and this is what I am doing.

I do not claim that Catholics are being deceitful when they claim truth is other than what past leaders and saints taught. I do not claim that Catholics are being deceitful when they do not teach their history in a non-faith-promoting way. And I think it is unfortunate that former LDS feel the need to say such things about the church they left. I am pretty convinced that this is not a positive for discussion here AND it has greater negative impact on the Catholics than LDS.

I had prepared some responses to some of the posts above and I may provide them, but I have also thought that Mormon Fool and Amgid spoke well. LDS believe that men may become gods. We embrace eternal progression and eternal increase, but we do not know what this means beyond the fact that man in fact can become gods. Through God we are offered the chance to “partake of the divine nature.” To share in His energies and essence. To unite with the fount of divinity such that we are fully divine. Always subordinate due to the fact that we could not grasp our potential through our own strength, but instead must be deified by grace through Christ. But still participants in the fullness of God and rightly called gods. Christ showed us the way AND provided the at-one-ment that makes it possible for us to follow. Christ did not need to do this in order that He might be divine because he already was, but He did this because He chose to love us.

The ideas around God the Father’s eternal progression are many, varied, and all speculative.

There is nothing nonsensical about suggesting that men may participate in eternal progression in a way that God the Father never did. That would be like saying that it is nonsensical to believe beings created ex nihilo could have eternal life, and this is exactly the position Catholics hold.

In early Mormon thought there are ideas that do not involve a time before which God the Father was not God. Certainly there are competing thoughts that suggest that this is the case, but when I search for what makes sense to me I try to align my ideas with our scriptures. To me our scriptures teach that God is infinite and eternal the same unchanging God. And they teach that God the Father is at the head of all gods. Since our leaders do not elaborate upon this too much, my ideas are speculative, but I believe all LDS must align their ideas with scripture.

The evolving of our understanding should not be labeled deception just as the evolving of Catholic thought should not be labeled deception. I do not think you can have it both ways, but believing as I do I will still not label Catholic evolved thought as deception in response to the accusations lofted upon the CoJCoLDS.
I HOPE for MORE than this, but I will accept that which I find.
Charity, TOm

 

[sara888]

****Tom, Lets get off Catolic Doctrine for a moment and let me say most Christians do NOT profess the teachings of the book of Mormon.?

I believe most Christians worldwide do read the BIBLE. The only difference the Catholics and the Protestants disagree upon is the Justification/Faith issue. However your Orthodox Protestants do profess Faith/works,doctrine.

LDS follow the book of Mormon, A lot of Christians do believe LDS to be a cult rather than a religion for the simple reason, their prophet Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon that is not consistent with the Bible which is the inspired word of God.

We do not believe St. Michael the Archangel is or could be Adam.

We as Christians do not believe in Polgamy.

We do not believe their are many Gods, but the GODHEAD alone or Trinity.

We believe that the Virgin Mary concieved Jesus by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT. We do not believe in any other possiblities.

Catholics follow Apostolic Tradition
which translates we follow the teaching which was done by Christ and His apostles.

I do not comprehend your dispute or your muddling with the Catholics with regard to the LDS theology, as Protestants and Catholics worldwide follow the inspired word of God which is contained in the BIBLE.****

You cannot compare the Book of Mormon written by false prophet Joseph Smith to the Bible. The variations and distortions are beyond comprehension.

Sara

 

[TOmNossor]

As I was thinking about this more it occurred to me that I should acknowledge that there are many possible triggers that COULD lead former LDS to expressing things as they have been expressed here.

I am not sure I can highlight them without causing greater offense, but I am sure it is frustrating for the former LDS to see their former religion framed in a way that they felt was outside of the realm of possibilities. There are many responses to such frustration, that can include diligently explaining what and why you once believed as you once did.

I do not encourage people to frame the Catholic Church in a way that I am convinced it is totally unfaithful to believe. More often then not, IRL, I am asking Catholics to be more not to cease to be Catholic. I have encouraged my SSPX Catholic to become a conservative Catholic who embraces Vatican II. I have encouraged some liberal Catholics to become conservative Catholics who do not abuse Vatican II. I guess this means that I am willing to advocate certain Catholic positions as stronger than others, but I do not ever remember suggesting these folks framed the Catholic Church in a deceptive way.

I do also encourage folks to investigate the CoJCoLDS. Four days ago two evangelical Christians specifically questioned me as to how I as a LDS could have encouraged their former evangelical friend to return to Catholicism. He has been attending mass for about 6 months. I explained my reasons and then gave both the mass attending Catholic and one of the ECs BOMs. I do not believe it is all the same, I just believe that we must try to continually build up rather than tear down.

I can say is that I know that I am an active and flawed LDS. I have little doubt that amgid, Mormon Fool, Blake Ostler, and thousands of others who believe things not believed by some former LDS are also active and flawed. We believe as we do (and surely we do not agree on everything) because we think it is the most faithful way to follow God.

I will not put down that which I have found to be true and that which God has called me to embrace, because folks who by definition do not believe my religion to be the highest form of Christianity tell me that I cannot believe as I do and still be a LDS.

Every year many people put down their Catholic faith and embrace something less (IMO), because they believe that Catholicism is something that it is not (this was the case of the former Catholic, former evangelical, current Catholic above). Often these people are aided in their new found realization by former Catholics who truly think they are doing God’s bidding. I advocate that neither Catholic nor LDS walk such paths without very carefully reviewing their options. Nobody should walk TOm’s path or PaulDupre’s path because it is ones own path that must be walked. In the end it is our personal relationship with God that we must be faithful too.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom, Lets get off Catolic Doctrine for a moment and let me say most Christians do NOT profess the teachings of the book of Mormon.?

I am not sure you posted this in the correct thread. I have spoken little about Catholic Doctrine in this thread (more in the post that I posted concurrently with your comment than in any previous posts, but still very little).

Have you read through the BOM? There is an evangelical Christian group that uses the BOM because there is really nothing in the BOM that is not compatible with non-LDS Christianity (except for some very controversial things like infant baptism). In fact, I have found that most “mere Christianity” ideas are not only in the BOM, but are clearer in the BOM than in the Bible.

** I believe most Christians worldwide do read the BIBLE. The only difference the Catholics and the Protestants disagree upon is the Justification/Faith issue.**

Actually, while Justification/Sanctification issues are one of the more prominent doctrinal divides between Catholics and Protestants, there are many less prominent issues AND among Protestants there are literally thousands of different understandings.

You will either be encouraged or frustrated or ??? to know that I embrace Infused Righteousness in a fully orthodox Catholic way.

LDS follow the book of Mormon, A lot of Christians do believe LDS to be a cult rather than a religion for the simple reason, their prophet Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon that is not consistent with the Bible.

The Bible and the BOM are both pre-critical texts. This means that little is explained systematically in either book. This is why Evangelical Christians can embrace both the Bible and the BOM and why LDS can as well. This is also why ORTHODOXY outside of an authority structure (like the Catholic Church) is so radically variant from one group to the next.

The word “cult” is rather devoid of true meaning. It is offensive to some LDS and I advocate that it is avoided. Similarly I try to not label any specific LDS critic with whom I am dialoguing an anti-Mormon because I have found this to be the cause of offence. I personally do not care if you want to call me a cultist.

The Pearl of Great Price is also pre-critical and the D&C is generally pre-critical, but there is greater conflict between the words of these two LDS scriptures and the developed orthodoxy embraced by the Catholic Church and her children.

Clearly, LDS do not believe the Bible is the only word from God and if you choose you may form a definition of cult around such a truth.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

We as Christians do not believe in Polgamy.

Martin Luther who I know we both disagree with was pretty sharp when it came to what the Bible teaches and he didn’t see it as teaching against Polygamy.

We do not believe their are many Gods, but the GODHEAD alone or Trinity.

Catholics should believe that humans may become gods. How this is explained as I said in another thread has never to my knowledge been authoritatively stated.

We follow the Apostalic teachings of Christ, in the BIBLE.

I actually believe that it is the CoJCoLDS that follows Apostolic teaching in the Bible. In addition to this, we recognize other communications from God. But we are really not so different from the Catholic Church in this respect. A Catholic cannot show from the Bible that the Popes authority is Peter’s authority, and yet a Catholic MUST believe in the primacy of the Pope to be a Catholic. This is extra-Biblical and absolutely required.

I do not comprehend your dispute or your muddling with the Catholics with regard to the LDS theology, as Protestants and Catholics worldwide follow the inspired word of God which is contained in the BIBLE.

I do not understand the first part of the above quote.

I do not believe even a former LDS can more correctly define LDS beliefs than current LDS can. This is what this thread is about. The “muddling with the Catholics” on this thread is because I suggest LDS should explain what LDS believe and some Catholics declare LDS liars when we explain what we believe.

I cannot understand how you could suggest that a LDS should not feel it appropriate to tell Catholics what LDS believe. Was this your point?

On the second part of your above quote:

Catholics and their Protestant children follow the DEVELOPED understanding of the inspired word of God. The agreements between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church are a product of similar development not systematic Biblical truths. For this (and at least one other reason) I concur with Cardinal Newman, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” In addition to this I also say, attempting to quote my Catholic friend, “Either divine restoration or divine continuation.”

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

TOmN,

Sorry to derail this thread. Whenever eternal progression comes up it tends to take on a life of its own. Thanks for you helpful comments.

majick,

I apologize for causing trouble in our discussion. I hope you can forgive me, as our back and forths on other threads have been quite enjoyable. And I am guessing anyone lurking in would learn quite a bit from them. But if you want to narrow your focus on this board, I can understand that. Sometimes these debates can become taxing on our well-being.

I specifically apologize for bringing up Godwin’s law. I had hoped that we could all learn from it the value of “comparing best to best” instead of trying compare the worst possible reading of Elder Packer to a Nazi. A better comparison would have been to compare the objectives of Mormon devotional settings to similiar Catholic ones. For example, in RCIA or Mass, is there any time when problematic historical events are brought up where it would be difficult to see the hand of God? In Catholic Universities are people allowed to stay on the payroll while producing works seen as antagonistic to the faith? How plentiful are forums or venues – that are church sponsored or participated in by faithful adherants – that participate in frank and open discussion of things that are less then faith-promoting? These items would actually be productive comparisons, and if the Catholic church shines here I might be able to develop Holy Envy.

amgid,

It is true that “eternal progression” gets slung around without much of a systematic definition. But I am guilty of this as well as it can be a difficult term to determine exactly what truths it embraces and which parts are open to speculation and or differing interpretations. “Eternal progression” is just another word for the Plan of Salvation, it embraces all the concepts in the primary song “I am a Child of God”. In a message board setting, the focus is usually on the controversial ideas hinted at in the Snow couplet.

May I suggest a change in strategy for you? Whenever you suspect our correspondents are misusing a term or incorrectly characterizing a doctrine, why don’t you give it a proper definition or characterization? Don’t wait for them to provide a definition and demand they keep trying until they get it right, as that could go on indefinitely!

I don’t mean to come across negatively. You have made many fine and knowledgeable points on many of the threads. This thread seems to be about constructively helping each other conduct better interfaith dialogues.

Paul,

Thanks for providing some quotes from a repected mormon leaders. Generally speaking those passages do a good job of exposition, although a couple of their assertions have been been thought about by other leaders and thinkers with varying results. I’ll not bring these up, except to point out that sometimes one has to survey a variety of literature to see how uniformly believed (or not) a particular tenant is.

later,
fool

 

[PaulDupre]

TOmNossor:

Anyway, least we forget, there are Sainted Catholic who embraced things that were ultimately declared heresy.

No problem. No Catholic denies that some theologians have embraced incorrect ideas. So what? Speculation is the pervue of theologians, and sometimes they get it wrong. But the magisterium has never taught error in faith and morals. When theologians have strayed, the pope in concert with the bishops has defined the doctrine correctly and in most cases the theologian has recognized his mistake and recanted. Theologians can sometimes be of great use in helping the faithful understand difficult gospel concepts (Frank Sheed comes to mind) but theologians do not determine the deposit of Catholic faith. That is for the magisterium. And theologians, even Doctors of the Church, are rarely members of the magisterium.

There were popes who embraced things that were ultimately declared heresy.

But did they teach those things to the Church? The doctrine of papal infallibility only says that the pope will never teach error in matters of faith and morals. It does not claim that no pope will ever privately entertain a wrong-headed idea, or commit a sin, or fail to act when he should act.

So name one these supposed heresies from a pope and we can discuss it. That might be fun.

The objections to Mormon teachings are not to isolated utterances of this or that GA. Anyone can misspeak and we should make charitable allowance for that. The objections are to the systematic teaching of doctrines that spanned entire generations, from all of the GAs acting in concert, published in official Church organs (the Ensign, priesthood manuals, Gospel Doctrine manuals, FHE manuals, etc) and in Church-published popular books and then are suddenly reversed or supressed and Mormons who were taught these things from birth claim “I never heard that” or “I don’t know what you mean by that term”. Denials like that are the main thing that cause people to become frustrated with the LDS.

Be well, TOm
Paul

 

[amgid]

PaulDupre:

Let’s use the description of eternal progression that all of us learned when we were LDS:

Snip/…

Now let’s stop the deceptions and admit once and for all that this notion of eternal progression pervades all of Mormon thought and theology.

Thank you for finding a definition. Let me say first that majick275 is not going to be very pleased with your definition, because it says nothing about God living once on a planet as a man, and then progressing to become God! It also says nothing about exalted beings having spirit kids in heaven, making a planet for them, and providing a savior and a devil for them, etc. Majick275 could have found me that definition himself if he had wanted to. The reason why he didn’t is because it doesn’t include those bits that he wanted to put in it. So too bad the definition you have found isn’t going to be of much use to him.

As for my personal opinion of the definition that you have found, allow me to briefly comment. I don’t know whether it “pervades all Mormon thought and theology” or not. I doubt that it does. But my own personal feelings about it are, firstly, that Bruce R. McConkie does not define LDS doctrine. That is defined exclusively in LDS scripture. Secondly, the expression “eternal progression” is not a scriptural expression. It does not occur anywhere in LDS scripture, and it cannot be used to accurately and reliably define anything in LDS theology. It causes problems when you try to define deeply theological principles. I prefer to stick to scriptural terminology. I will give you a brief example. The following passage occurs in the quote you had given:

“It should be realized that God is not progressing in knowledge, truth, virtue, wisdom, or any of the attributes of godliness. He has already gained these things in their fullness. But he is progressing in the sense that his creations increase, his dominions expand, his spirit offspring multiply, and more kingdoms are added to his domains.”

There are some problems with that quote. The terms “progress” and “progression” is not used in scripture to define this aspect of God’s life. The term that is used is glorification. Here are a couple of quotes:

…for herein {i.e. in the continuation of seeds of mankind} is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified (D&C 132:63).

For behold, this is my work an my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39).

…for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease (Moses 1:4).
Now I see a difference between “progression” and “glorification”. They are two entirely different words, and have different connotations. “Progression” implies moving from a less perfect state to a more perfect state. It implies traveling along a journey towards a final destination. “Glorification” carries with it no such connotations. If God had wanted to convey to us the idea of “progression,” He would have done so. The fact that He has chosen to use the term “glorification” instead of “progression” is theologically significant, and I would rather stick to His own preferred terminology than somebody else’s. God does not “progress,” He is “glorified”. These are two entirely different concepts.

In the NT it is also taught that when we do good works, by such actions we “glorify God”. It says that when someone is martyred in a good cause, such as in spreading the gospel, by so doing he “glorifies God”. So does that mean that every time we do good, or are martyred, we help God “progress”? The two words simply don’t mean the same thing. I prefer to stick to the counsel given by our leaders, and let scripture be the standard by which I judge every man’s doctrine. In general I find Bruce R. McConkies quote too imprecise and inaccurate to serve as a reliable guide to LDS theology. I prefer to define LDS doctrine directly out of LDS scripture. Bruce R. McConkie is not the final authority on LDS doctrine. He speaks for himself alone, not for the Church.

So to conclude, I have to say that I am not impressed with the definition you have found. I still don’t know for sure what “eternal progression” is supposed to mean! It is an alien concept for me as far a scriptural doctrine is concerned.

amgid

 

[sara888]

******Tom said: Catholics and Protestants, there are many less prominent issues AND among Protestants there are literally thousands of different understandings.

Most( traditional) mainstream denominationals agree upon the basic theology of the bible , Faith/Commandment keeping, Trinity, etc.

All Traditional Lutherans , Episcopaliens,. do agree upon Justification/Salvation doctrine. I do agree you have your fundies and extremist who do not adhere to basic theology most Christians do follow. I like to stick with the mainstream Traditionalist as they seem to stay on course with the apostolic teachings from Christ in the Bible.

Again, most Protestants do follow the Bible and not the BOM, regardless of how they interpret some of scripture in the bible. I feel most do follow the basic teachings of Christ with the exception of the fundie’s and extremist sects.

It is the Catholics who kept and preserved the Bible. Even Martin Luther acknowledged that Jesus surely did not teach faith alone .Luther never suggested that Polgamy was ok, He would condem most of what the BOM profess’s or teaches.
see Mt. 25:31-46, Jn. 5:28-29, Mt. 19:16-17 Rev. 22:14)
and he surely taught that one can lose salvation, (see Mk. 9:43, Mt. 24:13, Lk 12:43-46, Jn. 15:6

I don’t want to confuse you with Scriptures. But I’m sure you’ll try to explain those ones away

The BOM is not the inspired word of God, but the word of false prophet Joseph Smith who has been proven many times over as a false prophet****.

You cannot compare the Bible to the BOM, as they are two different entities.

The bible is a simple book to interpret, with wisdom and understanding the scriptures are very easy to follow.

Also, there are thousands of verses in the bible that dispute BOM with regard to Gods, becoming Gods, the saints, Adam, Polgamy.

Sara ]**

 

[PaulDupre]

Wow, amgid. I’m always amazed at the mental gymnastics one must go through to navigate the maze of Mormonism. Be careful - you’ll tear a mental hamstring.

The real gospel just isn’t that complicated.

God bless you.
Paul

 

[majick275]

Paul,
Do you see the difficulties in “debating” false doctrines, taught by false prophets with people who glorify and denounce these teachings and “prophets” whenever/wherever it is necessary to support a position based on satanic pride so that they can become Gods?

The actual practices of these people as well as what they actually teach in their churches every sunday proves what their doctrine is. (by their fruits ye shall know them) Obviously they can not and do not restrict their binding doctrine to scripture alone. Furthermore what the members themselves believe to be doctrine (and thus act upon) has obviously changed radically over time ; often with no “scripture” to justify it.

I use the term cult in its derogatory sense because it accurately describes a religion that is man made for the glory of men. They sing “praise to the man” and “we thank we thee o god for a prophet” not in the hopes of spending eternity worshiping and praising god but in the hope of becoming a God.

This is not a sharing in the beatific vision type of “sons of God” but an actual progression from embryonic God to adult God who may very well always look up to their parent God but fully expect to grow into the same type of “adult being”.

I had compared Boyd Packer to Goebbels not because of nazism (or I would have said hitler) but because Goebbels is such a well known example of successful propaganda architect. Someone who suppressed the history of an entire culture to foster a sincere belief in false principles. I believe the spin is evident in the works of Gordon Hinkley (a trained and successful PR man by trade) who told the LDS not to get their doctrine from the media. Yet we see his followers use his media quotes in an attempt to deny his belief in the very doctrines that he taught in general conference. Doctrines that have been taught in a consistent manner from Joseph smith on down.