Could smith have been a true prophet from god?

[Finrock]

Good evening to you CJ Nick. It is nice to meet you.

Hello Parker

As one of the Catholics who have such a strong disagreement with the LDS in this regard, I will offer you that your perspective is not the heart of what I take issue with. Rather, speaking for myself, I take great issue with the JS’s teaching in the King Follet Sermon which, imho, clearly teaches the potential of becoming a God of your own Earth and clearly teaches that our God was once a mere man of another Earth before he earned " God " of us.

Just thought I would offer my perspective

Peace,
CJ

Jordan Vajda, was ordained a Catholic priest in 1998 and about a month later wrote his thesis on Mormonism. In his concluding comments he speaks about a chapter in his thesis dealing with the Mormon idea of exaltation. Below is part of what he wrote:

“As chapter three has made abundantly clear, the Mormons are truly “godmakers”: as the doctrine of exaltation explains, the fullness of human salvation means “becoming a god.” Yet what was meant to be a term of ridicule has turned out to be a term of approbation, for the witness of the Greek Fathers of the Church, described in chapter two, is that they also believed that salvation meant “becoming a god.” It seems that if one’s soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity”.

I came across this thesis just tonight while looking in to this topic. You can read his full thesis (the parts I have read so far are fascinating to me) here.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Religio71]

yes, sanctification/theosis is important in Catholicism, and finds particular emphasis in Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[pipper]

Good evening to you CJ Nick. It is nice to meet you.

Jordan Vajda, was ordained a Catholic priest in 1998 and about a month later wrote his thesis on Mormonism. In his concluding comments he speaks about a chapter in his thesis dealing with the Mormon idea of exaltation. Below is part of what he wrote:

“As chapter three has made abundantly clear, the Mormons are truly “godmakers”: as the doctrine of exaltation explains, the fullness of human salvation means “becoming a god.” Yet what was meant to be a term of ridicule has turned out to be a term of approbation, for the witness of the Greek Fathers of the Church, described in chapter two, is that they also believed that salvation meant “becoming a god.” It seems that if one’s soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity”.

I hate to dissagree with Father Vadja, but he is dead wrong about the Greek Fathers. The Orthodox Greeks teach nothing about "becoming a god’. The idea that Mormon “divinisation” is the same as Greek Orthodox Theosis, is a well know canard the Mormons try to pull off.

The Greek idea of theosis posits that one can come to share in the energies of God, but never in the essence of God.

But Mormon divinisation says that we become Gods ourselves, sharing in the essence of God, even though we can never be peers with “Heavenly Father” owing to the idea of “eternal progession”.

Fin I have tried to be nice with you, but when you attempt to pull off a whopper like this the gloves come off.

I came across this thesis just tonight while looking in to this topic. You can read his full thesis (the parts I have read so far are fascinating to me) here.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

pipper,

I’m not trying to pull anything off. I was providing, what I considered, an interesting quote from a Catholic priest’s thesis that was relevant to what CJ Nick had posted. Your issue shouldn’t be with me (so you can keep on being nice ) but rather with the author of the thesis. He apparently felt that the ideas of theosis and exaltation were close enough in concept to make the parallel he did.

I haven’t read the whole thesis yet, but it is clear that the Greek fathers did teach about “becoming a god.” Also, Vajda does describe that theosis means taking part in the divine energy, but it doesn’t just stop there. There are actual consequences when a person becomes a “god by grace” according to the Greek church fathers. Vajda writes in his thesis:

“To paraphrase St. Maximus the Confessor (580—662), a divinized human person becomes all that God is except for identity in essence.”

A bit later we read:

“… the man who enters into communion with the divinizing grace, which makes him a god in every respect 'save identity of essence.’”

This is not dissimilar to the Mormon idea of exaltation. The idea of “essence” being foreign to Mormons, we believe we will become all that God is, but we will not replace Him and will continue to be subordinate to Him.

Vajda continues:

“The significance and magnitude of human divinization becomes evident when one takes into account that just as it is possible to predicate both divine and human attributes of Christ, insofar as he is one person who is both divine and human, so too it is possible to predicate divine and human attributes of a divinized human person—'for they will be by grace everything that God is by nature.’”

"…a divinized person, insofar as remaining human by nature, is created; but insofar as one becomes divine by grace, united to the divine energies, then one is also, at the same time, 'unoriginate and eternal.’"

Even the idea of eternal progress, which you made as a distinction between exaltation and theosis was taught by the Greek fathers:

“In his treatise The Life of Moses Gregory explains that human perfection consists in a person’s eternal growth and progress in virtuous activity…In this teaching eternal progress is rooted in the infinite nature of God. A divinized person will never stop growing and learning and doing precisely because the source of divinization, the uncreated energies of God, is limitless and infinite. Divinized persons will never exhaust God’s ability to empower them for virtuous activity.”

All of these are definite parallels with the Mormon idea of exaltation. In some instances it’s as if the Greek church fathers were quoting Mormon scripture.

In any case, Vajda is justified in making his comparison. There are very close similarities between the Greek fathers idea of theosis and Mormon exaltation. Vajda’s thesis is well documented and detailed which clearly shows that these are the ideas that the Greek fathers taught. You can read it, I provided the link, if you doubt it.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[MelanieAnne]

In case you are interested, my forum name is actually composed of the names of my two sons. My oldest is Fin and my youngest son is Kivi, which means “rock” in Finnish. Hence, Finrock.

I think this may help explain the whole hockey thing too.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
If I have understood correctly (including all the belittling about becoming a “god”), then we define the words so differently that they are very different beliefs. To inherit means to me to receive an inheritance. To inherit what the Son inherits means to me that even though the Son is the rightful heir to a throne at the side of His Father, He brings to us the gift of also having a place at His side as a joint throne-holder. The throne is exactly what the word means–a position of rule, in complete righteousness but with complete power because those who inherit that power are trusted with it.

But you may define the words as you like, and say you believe in joint heirship. If you want me to create a different phrase for my belief, I’m not going to do it. I take the phrase from the Bible, and what the words mean from the Bible.

But you have already created a different phrase for your belief “exaltation”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Catholic Church is Christ’s Church. He promised that it would never fail. Either you believe Jesus, having faith that He is ever our King, which Kingship includes leading His Church, and He does not fail in His Kingship, or you don’t.

There is no evidence for a “great apostasy”. None. The evidence that Jesus has upheld all He promised is here, right in front of your eyes. The Church He built has not failed. It has done and continues to always do what He charged it to do. To teach His Gospel to all nations.

To believe otherwise is to believe a lie.

As to what Catholics believe about the next life. It is free and easy to read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It has also been discussed here with and without Mormons. It is easy to do a search and read these discussions.

 

[pipper]

pipper,

I’m not trying to pull anything off. I was providing, what I considered, an interesting quote from a Catholic priest’s thesis that was relevant to what CJ Nick had posted. Your issue shouldn’t be with me (so you can keep on being nice ) but rather with the author of the thesis. He apparently felt that the ideas of theosis and exaltation were close enough in concept to make the parallel he did.

I haven’t read the whole thesis yet, but it is clear that the Greek fathers did teach about “becoming a god.” Also, Vajda does describe that theosis means taking part in the divine energy, but it doesn’t just stop there. There are actual consequences when a person becomes a “god by grace” according to the Greek church fathers. Vajda writes in his thesis:

“To paraphrase St. Maximus the Confessor (580—662), a divinized human person becomes all that God is except for identity in essence.”

A bit later we read:

“… the man who enters into communion with the divinizing grace, which makes him a god in every respect 'save identity of essence.’”

This is not dissimilar to the Mormon idea of exaltation. The idea of “essence” being foreign to Mormons, we believe we will become all that God is, but we will not replace Him and will continue to be subordinate to Him.

Vajda continues:

“The significance and magnitude of human divinization becomes evident when one takes into account that just as it is possible to predicate both divine and human attributes of Christ, insofar as he is one person who is both divine and human, so too it is possible to predicate divine and human attributes of a divinized human person—'for they will be by grace everything that God is by nature.’”

"…a divinized person, insofar as remaining human by nature, is created; but insofar as one becomes divine by grace, united to the divine energies, then one is also, at the same time, 'unoriginate and eternal.’"

Even the idea of eternal progress, which you made as a distinction between exaltation and theosis was taught by the Greek fathers:

“In his treatise The Life of Moses Gregory explains that human perfection consists in a person’s eternal growth and progress in virtuous activity…In this teaching eternal progress is rooted in the infinite nature of God. A divinized person will never stop growing and learning and doing precisely because the source of divinization, the uncreated energies of God, is limitless and infinite. Divinized persons will never exhaust God’s ability to empower them for virtuous activity.”

All of these are definite parallels with the Mormon idea of exaltation. In some instances it’s as if the Greek church fathers were quoting Mormon scripture.

In any case, Vajda is justified in making his comparison. There are very close similarities between the Greek fathers idea of theosis and Mormon exaltation. Vajda’s thesis is well documented and detailed which clearly shows that these are the ideas that the Greek fathers taught. You can read it, I provided the link, if you doubt it.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

I read the link you so thoughtfully provided, and I instantly noticed that it came not from any Catholic site, but from BYU’s site. I will have to do further research and find if FATHER Vajda is referenced in any Catholic site at all. I rather doubt it however.

Only by severly twisting Fr. Vadja’s writtings can any “paralells” be gathered from his writtings, and the Greek Fathers who were Catholic not Mormon. Of course Mormonism would not exist for nearly two millienia.

This is a very common Mormon tactic making things in Mormonism and Christianity appear the same, when they are extremely different. I guess because thye want to appeat orthodox Christian and they are the opposite. Good Lord the Mormon Articles look a lot like Christianity, but when you understand the very different meanings Mormons give common terms like “God” it becomes very apparent the ruse they are trying to foist.

 

[dianaiad]

I have a good friend who for 8 months told me she was just christian…but no, she was Mormon… So I backed away from her craziness but she is really good to me - perhaps it is because I am prodestent and not as hard to brainwash as a catholic because catholics are taught more from the bible (?)
Anyway she keeps encouraging me to come to her mormon church & temple. I want to go with her, but I don’t want to be badgered about the book of mormon which is obviously crazed.
Mormon’s are a cult. Period. Your not christian, your not catholic…your crazy!
Joseph Smith…? I don’t think so!
I’d rather worship Mary like a God then believe in the 12 living apostles that the mormons claim to have!

Also can a catholic please tell me if it would be sin to enter a mormon temple?

Don’t worry about it. You won’t be allowed in until you are a Mormon anyway, and then of course it would not be a sin.

I think that your friend is offering to show you the Temple visitor’s center, and I highly doubt that going there is a sin for Catholics. If it is, then I know an entire monastery full of monks that collectively committed this sin in a bus driven by the head of the monastery. The LA Temple does a rather lovely Christmas display, and they go down to see it every year.

But hey, I’m not a Catholic…perhaps you should ask your priest if going to see an LDS Temple visitor’s center is a sin worth confessing and doing penance over?

 

[pipper]

Just as I expected I did a simple google search and it appears the Jordan Vajda is an “aberrant Former priest” who has apparently gone apostate and joined the Mormon church. He is the opposite of a Catholic authority.

Funny Finrock, you never described him as an EX-priest did you?

Is there no limit to the deception you guys will try and foster in your attempts to proselytise Christians away from the Catholic Church, trying to foist off an EX priest and current Mormon as a “Catholic” authority?

Fin, I used to have respect for you, but now no longer.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I read the link you so thoughtfully provided, and I instantly noticed that it came not from any Catholic site, but from BYU’s site. I will have to do further research and find if FATHER Vajda is referenced in any Catholic site at all. I rather doubt it however.

Only by severly twisting Fr. Vadja’s writtings can any “paralells” be gathered from his writtings, and the Greek Fathers who were Catholic not Mormon. Of course Mormonism would not exist for nearly two millienia.

This is a very common Mormon tactic making things in Mormonism and Christianity appear the same, when they are extremely different. I guess because thye want to appeat orthodox Christian and they are the opposite. Good Lord the Mormon Articles look a lot like Christianity, but when you understand the very different meanings Mormons give common terms like “God” it becomes very apparent the ruse they are trying to foist.

Most of the Mormons I have come in contact with in my life know little, if anything, about any other faith than their own and that includes those who converted to Mormonism, even converts from Catholicism ~ for only a poorly catechized Catholic would be susceptible to Mormonism.

While it is absolutely true that Mormons have very different meanings for many theological terms/concepts, I suspect that only a few actually consciously understand that they are perpetuating a ruse. They know what they are taught and they go by that.

This is also why discussions with Mormons can be so troublesome because any thoughtful discussion must begin with a definition of the most basic words.

Many who call themselves Christian, including Mormons, are unfamiliar with Early Church History. Most who study Early Church History end up as either Catholic or Orthodox, which is a telltale sign in itself of the compelling evidence for the truthfulness of the Catholic Faith.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I haven’t read the whole thesis yet, but it is clear that the Greek fathers did teach about “becoming a god.”

Yes, and when mormons start paying attention to all the Church Fathers have to say then there might be something to talk about. As it is, picking and choosing quotes, pulling them wildly out of context, and calling it something it is not may be a hallmark of Mormonism, but it is just more nonsense.

The difference has one simple basis. Catholic teaching, east, west and for 2000 years is that we partake of the divine nature. We do not become that nature. Catholic teaching is, was and will always be we become gods, within the understanding that we are creatures, not the CREATOR, and never will be.

The King Follet sermon, and mormon doctrine, that we become as GOD IS, is nothing but heresy and has no Christian teaching or tradition to support it.

 

[Irish_Kathy]

Zaffiroborant,
If I have understood correctly (including all the belittling about becoming a “god”), then we define the words so differently that they are very different beliefs. To inherit means to me to receive an inheritance. To inherit what the Son inherits means to me that even though the Son is the rightful heir to a throne at the side of His Father, He brings to us the gift of also having a place at His side as a joint throne-holder. The throne is exactly what the word means–a position of rule, in complete righteousness but with complete power because those who inherit that power are trusted with it.

But you may define the words as you like, and say you believe in joint heirship. If you want me to create a different phrase for my belief, I’m not going to do it. I take the phrase from the Bible, and what the words mean from the Bible.

Hi Parker The problem we Catholics see with that kind of logic is that we believe that ONLY JESUS is true God and True Man. Any sonship we aquire from Him from the Father is through ADOPTION. So there is a difference. Our understanding is that Jesus is the only true Son that comes from God the Father. Thus, we are not exactly on the same level as Him when it comes to our relationship to God the Father.

We don’t even consider Mary to be a Godess. We may call her The Queen of Heaven, but that’s because it was an action confired upon her, AND ONLY HER, because she’s The Mother of God and that is because of her perfect YES to God throughout her whole life.

 

[planten]

I recently met a friend who told me about Mormons that they could not be right for many reasons. J.Smith saw a vision. He saw two persons (unknown, unidentifies persons) and one of them said about the other “he is my son.” Who said it? About whom it was said?? Nothing is known.

Moreover the golden plates (tablets) landed from sky. Such a thing never happened in the history of mankind before Smith. So it could not be trustworthy news. The language of the plates (tablets) was also not known. That is another problem.

Then those golden tablets having some message from God were lost. Why they got lost?? Such a valuable thing getting lost is not understandable, not believable.

There were other such problems about the LDS told by my friend. The post of MelanieAnne has described the rest of the story about the Mormons. I personally do not know anything about the beliefs of the Mormons.

 

[pipper]

I recently met a friend who told me about Mormons that they could not be right for many reasons. J.Smith saw a vision. He saw two persons (unknown, unidentifies persons) and one of them said about the other “he is my son.” Who said it? About whom it was said?? Nothing is known.

Moreover the golden plates (tablets) landed from sky. Such a thing never happened in the history of mankind before Smith. So it could not be trustworthy news. The language of the plates (tablets) was also not known. That is another problem.

Then those golden tablets having some message from God were lost. Why they got lost?? Such a valuable thing getting lost is not understandable, not believable.

There were other such problems about the LDS told by my friend. The post of MelanieAnne has described the rest of the story about the Mormons. I personally do not know anything about the beliefs of the Mormons.

Planten close but no cigar. Mormons say the people in the first vision were Heavenly Father, and Jesus, two completely different “gods”. Supposedly according to mormon myth Heavenly Father was saying that about Jesus.
The golden tablets did not land from the sky, again in the mythology, they were buried there on hill Cummorah by Mormon a “Nephite” and were lost for millenia. Joseph Smith supposedly had another “vision” He was told where the tablets were and told to wait before digging them up. He did apparently dig them up eventually and proceeded to “translate” them. Only maybe four people were allowed to “see” them. Their “testimony” is printed in every copy of the Book of Mormon.

The plates were supposedly written in “reformed egyptian”. Smith was supposed to have “translated” them by speaking to a scribe from behind a drawn curtain. Not by looking at the plates, but by looking into an empty hat with his magic peepstones on. Suposedly when Smith had finished his “translation”, Mormon who had become an angel whisked them off to heaven.

Off course there were no “golden plates” to begin with, all of Mormon junk is just figments of Smith’s imagination. There never has been a toungue as “reformed Egyptian” either.

But you have to hand it to Smith, he was obviously a brilliant thinker, he built a huge theocracy with himself as Theo. He even had a private army, and ran for the presidency.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Planten close but no cigar. Mormons say the people in the first vision were Heavenly Father, and Jesus, two completely different “gods”. Supposedly according to mormon myth Heavenly Father was saying that about Jesus.
The golden tablets did not land from the sky, again in the mythology, they were buried there on hill Cummorah by Mormon a “Nephite” and were lost for millenia. Joseph Smith supposedly had another “vision” He was told where the tablets were and told to wait before digging them up. He did apparently dig them up eventually and proceeded to “translate” them. Only maybe four people were allowed to “see” them. Their “testimony” is printed in every copy of the Book of Mormon.

The plates were supposedly written in “reformed egyptian”. Smith was supposed to have “translated” them by speaking to a scribe from behind a drawn curtain. Not by looking at the plates, but by looking into an empty hat with his magic peepstones on. Suposedly when Smith had finished his “translation”, Mormon who had become an angel whisked them off to heaven.

Off course there were no “golden plates” to begin with, all of Mormon junk is just figments of Smith’s imagination. There never has been a toungue as “reformed Egyptian” either.

But you have to hand it to Smith, he was obviously a brilliant thinker, he built a huge theocracy with himself as Theo. He even had a private army, and ran for the presidency.

The Book of Mormon has been examined by scholars for years. While I myself have never studied the Book of Mormon so intensely (although I have read it) nor have I studied it with a view toward scholarly analysis, I respect those who have done so as their findings and their insights are helpful to all of us.

While you’re right that there is no such thing as “Reformed Egyptian”, and there are numerous aspects of the Book of Mormon story that do not stand up to scrutiny (cataloged in this forum from time to time), I have read more recently that the opinion of at least some scholars (the objective ones, not the Mormon Apologist ones) is that the Book of Mormon was not entirely the product of the imagination of Joseph Smith and/or his own plagiarism from the Bible. Instead, some of his cohorts are thought to be the source of at least some parts of the story.

Unfortunately for Joseph Smith and his group, it is likely that they never expected that in less than 200 years the means to debunk most, if not all, of their story has become available if one merely looks at the facts objectively. As such, not only is their no language known as “Reformed Egyptian”, there is also no evidence of any migration to the Americas from the Middle East at the time that the Book of Mormon says that it occurred. While the story of the “translation” of the Book of Mormon cannot be proved one way or the other, it is so preposterous that proof is unnecessary for most people.

But in the end, at least for me, the important thing about Mormonism is not whether the Book of Mormon is true or not, it’s not the language or the translation, or “eternal progression” or any of that. A lot of it is either an appeal to human vanity (be a god of your own planet) or just downright silly (magic rocks in the bottom of a hat) but much of it is superfluous to the heresy of Mormonism as it pertains to the “Godhead”.

Mormons deny the Trinity (as traditionally understood by Christians), Mormons make Jesus subordinate to God/Heavenly Father (Mormons don’t even pray to Jesus) and they make Jesus into, if not a liar, then at least someone incapable of keeping His word to guide and preserve His Church, and instead content to abandon His followers for nearly 2000 years. The insults to God that are inextricably part of the Mormon’s definition of the “Godhead”, their claim of a so-called “Great Apostasy” that required the Mormon “Restoration” are the most offensive.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening pipper! I hope you’ve had a good weekend.

Just as I expected I did a simple google search and it appears the Jordan Vajda is an “aberrant Former priest” who has apparently gone apostate and joined the Mormon church. He is the opposite of a Catholic authority.

Funny Finrock, you never described him as an EX-priest did you?

Is there no limit to the deception you guys will try and foster in your attempts to proselytise Christians away from the Catholic Church, trying to foist off an EX priest and current Mormon as a “Catholic” authority?

Fin, I used to have respect for you, but now no longer.

Well, I have only a couple of things to comment on. I can understand why you would think there is some deception going on. I’m sorry that you feel that way and I’m sorry that I’ve lost any respect that you had for me. I’ll try to address your concerns the best I can.

I do want to point out that there really is no relevancy of where Vajda’s thesis is being hosted, whether on a Catholic site, Mormon site, BYU site, whatever. What is relevant is the content.

Looking at the website, it appears that FARMS agreed to host his thesis to make it available to a larger audience, not because Vajda was doing some project for BYU.

“I am grateful to The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) for publishing my thesis and making it available to a wider audience. A special word of thanks goes to Professor William Hamblin for initiating the contact that led to the publication of this latest volume of the Occasional Papers. This thesis is being published as it was approved by my thesis committee in August 1998”

I came across the article last night for the first time while looking for information on exaltation. The description of the author that the BYU website has at the beginning of the thesis, which was apparently published sometime in 1998, was this:

“Jordan Vajda (Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley, California) is a Catholic priest and a member of the Order of Preachers (the Dominicans). He serves at the Newman Center (the Catholic Campus Ministry) for the University of Washington in Seattle”

When I posted my quotes, I was basing my description of Vajda on the source I was using. Also, when reading through the thesis, I saw no indication that the author was not Catholic. As a matter of fact, in his introduction Jordan writes:

"I am often asked how it is that a Catholic Priest knows so much about Mormonism (I was ordained in 1998, at the age of twenty-seven, about a month before I wrote the bulk of what you now hold in your hands). Of course, sometimes the question is expressed a bit more bluntly: Why? Why do I continue to read and reflect upon LDS literature? When will I finally outgrow my interest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? While my answer to this last question is I hope not anytime soon, I do recognize the need to explain, at least to some extent, why an “outsider” continues to interact with the doctrines of a church to which he does not belong—to explain something of my motivations."

So, I guess my point is that I had no reason to think Jordan Vajda wasn’t Catholic now. Plain and simple, my understanding of Vajda lastnight when I posted those quotes was that he was a Catholic priest. That’s pretty much all I can say to that.

As far as how good his thesis is and how good the content is, let me just make some observations.

Whatever the case is today, it is certain that Jordan Vajda was a Catholic priest and a Catholic authority when he wrote the thesis. Looking in to this, it appears that Jordan Vajda joined the Mormon church in 2003. That is roughly 5 years after writing his thesis. So, he didn’t write his thesis after joining the Mormon church or from a position of a Catholic “apostate”. He wrote it from the position of a Catholic priest.

But, I hope you can recognize (from a position of reason) that it is irrelevant what Jordan Vajda is now or ever. It doesn’t affect the content of his thesis. His thesis is either valid or invalid regardless of his religious affiliation. If he wrote the thesis as a Catholic, and it was true or false then (respectively), then it wouldn’t somehow magically become true or false (respectively) when he converted to Mormonism. If you must, just pretend it is 2002 and Vajda is still Catholic. The content of his thesis hasn’t changed from then and what he wrote didn’t become “tainted” when he joined the Mormon church.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[pipper]

The Book of Mormon has been examined by scholars for years. While I myself have never studied the Book of Mormon so intensely (although I have read it) nor have I studied it with a view toward scholarly analysis, I respect those who have done so as their findings and their insights are helpful to all of us.

While you’re right that there is no such thing as “Reformed Egyptian”, and there are numerous aspects of the Book of Mormon story that do not stand up to scrutiny (cataloged in this forum from time to time), I have read more recently that the opinion of at least some scholars (the objective ones, not the Mormon Apologist ones) is that the Book of Mormon was not entirely the product of the imagination of Joseph Smith and/or his own plagiarism from the Bible. Instead, some of his cohorts are thought to be the source of at least some parts of the story.

Unfortunately for Joseph Smith and his group, it is likely that they never expected that in less than 200 years the means to debunk most, if not all, of their story has become available if one merely looks at the facts objectively. As such, not only is their no language known as “Reformed Egyptian”, there is also no evidence of any migration to the Americas from the Middle East at the time that the Book of Mormon says that it occurred. While the story of the “translation” of the Book of Mormon cannot be proved one way or the other, it is so preposterous that proof is unnecessary for most people.

But in the end, at least for me, the important thing about Mormonism is not whether the Book of Mormon is true or not, it’s not the language or the translation, or “eternal progression” or any of that. A lot of it is either an appeal to human vanity (be a god of your own planet) or just downright silly (magic rocks in the bottom of a hat) but much of it is superfluous to the heresy of Mormonism as it pertains to the “Godhead”.

Mormons deny the Trinity (as traditionally understood by Christians), Mormons make Jesus subordinate to God/Heavenly Father (Mormons don’t even pray to Jesus) and they make Jesus into, if not a liar, then at least someone incapable of keeping His word to guide and preserve His Church, and instead content to abandon His followers for nearly 2000 years. The insults to God that are inextricably part of the Mormon’s definition of the “Godhead”, their claim of a so-called “Great Apostasy” that required the Mormon “Restoration” are the most offensive.

I agree completely, and or course am no Mormon, I was just trying to correct some of the misconceptions the previous poster had about the “first vision” and the BOM.
I tried to read the BOM, but I never got far due to the unusual type of English it is written in. Honestly to me the BOM is a snooze. And mormon theology does not go by it, but more from “doctrines and covenants” and the “Pearl of Great Price”.

I do wonder what the other poster thinks about Mormonism since she is a Muslim?

I gathered what information I know about the Mormon religion mostly from the internet, it is interesting although false.

I will no be so polite as you, and say outright that their “Great Apostacy” stuff is downright insulting. I wonder how Mormons have the nerve to come on Catholic.com with there opinion about Catholics?

I have noticed that Finrock has not been back since I caught him in his ruse, calling a Mormon a Catholic priest, and quoteing him from Brigham Young University.

Wonder if he will be back now?

 

[MelanieAnne]

I agree completely, and or course am no Mormon, I was just trying to correct some of the misconceptions the previous poster had about the “first vision” and the BOM.
I tried to read the BOM, but I never got far due to the unusual type of English it is written in. Honestly to me the BOM is a snooze. And mormon theology does not go by it, but more from “doctrines and covenants” and the “Pearl of Great Price”.

I do wonder what the other poster thinks about Mormonism since she is a Muslim?

I gathered what information I know about the Mormon religion mostly from the internet, it is interesting although false.

I will no be so polite as you, and say outright that their “Great Apostacy” stuff is downright insulting. I wonder how Mormons have the nerve to come on Catholic.com with there opinion about Catholics?

I have noticed that Finrock has not been back since I caught him in his ruse, calling a Mormon a Catholic priest, and quoteing him from Brigham Young University.

Wonder if he will be back now?

Hi Pipper,

Unfortunately some Catholics take their religion for granted and many are unfamiliar with the doctrine. We all share in the responsibility to ensure that others, especially our immediate family, are well grounded in the faith. A well-catechized Catholic knows the value of the faith and is not so easily seduced away from it, but a poorly-catechized Catholic is another story.

Mormons have found that Catholics are a great source of potential converts to Mormonism, so it is not surprising that Mormons flock to a Catholic website. Are all Mormons here to proselytize? Probably not. But the possibility cannot be excluded that some, if not many, are.

 

[RebeccaJ]

re: Vadja, he wrote nothing of Catholic doctrine that you can’t find in the Catechism. He added in borrowings from Mormonism and so it is apparent his thought process became corrupt.

His individual speculation does not change the truth as the Catholic church has taught for 2000 years. A priest writing a thesis that compares religions, while interesting, is not a priest acting in a role as teacher. The catholic Church encourages ecumenical comparisons. It also encourages thinking. What the tens of thousands of priests come up with in a thesis is not required to be believed, by anyone.

What we believe is found in scriptures and tradition as interpreted by the Majesterium. This college of bishops are led by the Holy Spirit. This authority is given to them by the Pope, who holds the keys of St. Peter, to ensure correct teaching and right understanding is maintained through the centuries. This is an important facet of the Catholic Church, as our charge is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church has protected this teaching, ensuring that it does not become corrupt.

If Mormons believe that the ECF’s wrote correctly of theosis, then why do they reject the rest of the ECF writings as “apostate”? Further, the beliefs, practices and doctrines put forth by the ECFs are found in the catholic Church. Mormonism doesn’t even come close. No ECF ever taught that we become as God is. No ECF ever taught that God is a created being. No ECF ever taught that the Eucharist is nothing but a symbol.

So Vadja focused in on theosis, but seems to have lost sight of truth. It happens, Finrock, that individuals take on themselves the role of Pope. Vadja is just one more person who has chosen to believe his own personal interpretation of scripture. As you can see quite readily, this creates nothing but thousands of disparate churches, none of which contain the entire truth that is found in the Catholic Church.