Could smith have been a true prophet from god?

[zaffiroborant]

I read the whole thesis cited here. I did not give it my undivided attention though, I read it though out the day on the laptop in the kitchen in between making meals, helping with making Littlest Pet Shop houses, answering questions (what does illustrious mean?, why were our shadows at the carnival blue?). So I may have an understanding as scattered as the way I read it.

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

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 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

I think if you read the whole thesis you’ll see that the issue CJNick cites “God was once a mere man” is not possible in our view and I think Mr. Vajda’s thesis clearly explains this. In his introduction he says that in order to understand both theosis and exaltation one must have a basic understanding how each views the nature of God, man and Christ.
This understanding of the nature of God and man is central to CJNicks point.

In his part about theosis he explains the Catholic understanding of the nature of God, The Trinity. He goes from there to the nature of the “human person” and follows with Christ and his role as the second Adam. In explaining exaltation he follows a similar though not exact pattern(it can’t be since our views are so far apart). He explains the nature of God, the nature of “the human person” , the Grand Council, the Godhead( I don’t see why this couldn’t have been covered in the nature of God.but who am I to critique) and then the “centrality of Christ”. In both he explains what it means to “become partakers in the divine nature” he shows how this is a product of how one understands both the divine and the human nature. The “how” of “who” so to speak.

In the “Theosis and Exaltation: In Dialogue” he explores the similarities and differences between the two. This part shows just how deep the differences are and how they originate in a totally different understanding of the nature of God and the nature of man.
Really I don’t see how one can read this and come away with the idea that theosis and exaltation are the same thing.

For me after reading this I see there is no Incarnation(you may say there is but it is nothing like our understanding) in LDS theology and for me the atonement doesn’t make sense without it.

And about this quote from Hinckley in his interview with Time in 97 cited in the first part:

"At first, Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods, suggesting that “it’s of course an ideal. It’s a hope for a wishful thing,” but later affirmed that “yes, of course they can.” (He added that* women could too, “as companions to their husbands.**”*

That strikes me as utterly dismissive and contemptuous of women. And it makes no sense to me either it’s like saying Laura Bush got to be president as a companion to George.

 

[GodIsGracious]

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.
.

Correct.

And even earlier this thread I showed how Mormons claim God broke a promise and yet, Finrock twisted it around. (Man, I wonder what “logic” classes they attend!)

I still assert that Mormons claim God broke a promise and had to remake that promise. I know the God I worship and believe in doesn’t break promises he makes. And this is just one of many reasons why Mormonism is a false religion.

Personally, I wish it were eradicated. Unfortunately, since people continue to choose to stay ignorant it will continue to be around.

 

[ParkerD]

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.

Irish Kathy,
I think I understand where you are coming from with the use of the word “adoption” to distinguish everyone else besides Christ from what He inherits, which for Him is a return to the same position He had with the Father before He came to this earth. But there are so many verses in the Bible that state clearly that what they who “overcome the world” are promised to receive is the grace that brings them divine sonship and becoming a ruler on the throne with Christ.

Look at the parable of the talents with the words “I will make thee ruler over many things” in Matthew 25. Look at Paul’s epistle to the Galatians and his whole discussion about the Galatian saints needing to realize that they have an inheritance like Isaac and not like Ishmael. Look at all the verses in the book of Revelation that talk about what “him that overcometh” will receive in the hereafter. (2:17, 2:26, 3:5, 3:21, 21:7) Look at Romans 8:16-17. These verses are all explicit and clear about being joint-heirs and what it means to be a joint-heir. “Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.”

 

[ParkerD]

Correct.

And even earlier this thread I showed how Mormons claim God broke a promise and yet, Finrock twisted it around. (Man, I wonder what “logic” classes they attend!)

I still assert that Mormons claim God broke a promise and had to remake that promise. I know the God I worship and believe in doesn’t break promises he makes. And this is just one of many reasons why Mormonism is a false religion.

Personally, I wish it were eradicated. Unfortunately, since people continue to choose to stay ignorant it will continue to be around.

Gracious,
I don’t wish that your religion were eradicated. My religion is a part of me. It goes with me wherever I go. It will never be eradicated, I assure you.

Mormons absolutely do not claim God broke a promise. He keeps all of His promises, every one.

Again, you are totally fine with your choice of religion. God knew exactly what He was doing when He planned this world and the unfolding of its history to allow every person to choose what they would believe in. Enjoy yours, and I’ll enjoy mine.

 

[planten]

Pipper:
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.

Thanks for giving me some information about the mormons. I hope what you have said is available in the book of mormons. It says there were two persons. One said “this is my son.” But is it written in the book that they were God and son (Jesus)? I hope not. That is something which is assumed by Smith or later mormons.

You have described that in a good way saying “supposedly according to mormon myth Heavenly Father was saying that about Jesus.” But is it allowed for any one to assume such important things?. Such a belief is already well existing amongst the Catholics. It was nothing better or new.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Correct.

And even earlier this thread I showed how Mormons claim God broke a promise and yet, Finrock twisted it around. (Man, I wonder what “logic” classes they attend!)

Um, with all due respect, I think the answer is clearly “none”.

If you are around enough Mormons long enough, as I have been, you will find that most blindly accept what they are told at church, don’t really think about any of it too deeply, and can repeat things back word for word so precisely that it almost seems like there’s some kind of brainwashing going on. Some have additional training, but it’s not in logic, it is in confronting those who bring up certain troublesome topics and facts.

Mormons are lovely people individually, and many are right there to help you out whenever there’s a need. I find most of them kind, amazingly generous and good-hearted. I have many friends that are Mormons, we just don’t talk about religion because were I to do so, and be honest about it, I’d have to say that I think Mormonism is nuts and that would be hurtful to them. So I don’t.

I still assert that Mormons claim God broke a promise and had to remake that promise. I know the God I worship and believe in doesn’t break promises he makes. And this is just one of many reasons why Mormonism is a false religion.

Personally, I wish it were eradicated. Unfortunately, since people continue to choose to stay ignorant it will continue to be around.

Indeed, no matter how anyone spins it, the Mormon view of “apostasy” and “restoration” is not just a direct insult to the Catholic Church it is a direct and grave insult to God. This is supposed to be the same God that they supposedly hold in such high regard. It’s extremely offensive.

 

[CJ_Nick]

Um, with all due respect, I think the answer is clearly “none”.

If you are around enough Mormons long enough, as I have been, you will find that most blindly accept what they are told at church, don’t really think about any of it too deeply, and can repeat things back word for word so precisely that it almost seems like there’s some kind of brainwashing going on. Some have additional training, but it’s not in logic, it is in confronting those who bring up certain troublesome topics and facts.

Mormons are lovely people individually, and many are right there to help you out whenever there’s a need. I find most of them kind, amazingly generous and good-hearted. I have many friends that are Mormons, we just don’t talk about religion because were I to do so, and be honest about it, I’d have to say that I think Mormonism is nuts and that would be hurtful to them. So I don’t.

Indeed, no matter how anyone spins it, the Mormon view of “apostasy” and “restoration” is not just a direct insult to the Catholic Church it is a direct and grave insult to God. This is supposed to be the same God that they supposedly hold in such high regard. It’s extremely offensive.

Hello MelanieAnne

Could not agree with you more

Great post, IMHO !!!

Ditto!!!

Peace,
CJ

 

[zerinus]

Hi Religio71

Not to stray off topic but since hockey has been discussed at great length, I thought this might be ok.

I see you are formerly LDS. Can you shed some light on my confusion as to the LDS beliefs of " levels " of Heaven?? What if you ( say a man ) reach the highest level and say your wife ( sealed for all eternity ) does not reach that highest level?? How can the two be sealed forever and make spirit children together if they are not even in the same place??

Thanks in advance
Peace,
CJ

According to LDS theology, if you prove yourself worthy and faithful to be sealed in eternal marriage in the temple according to the proper procedure, acting no hypocrisy before God, and the ordinance is sealed upon you by the Holy Spirit of Promise, there is nothing that can stop you from obtaining exaltation except committing the unpardonable sin. If you commit serious sins in violation of your covenants, you will be severely punished for them in the after-life; but after you have paid the penalty of your sins, you will come forth in the resurrection of the just, and obtain your exaltation. There are not many that do commit the unpardonable sin. In case somebody does, God is all powerful, and is able to provide an alternative companionship for the worthy husband/wife who has remained faithful, so that they will not lose any blessings as a result of the unfaithfulness of their transgressing companion.

 

[zerinus]

Joseph Smith, clearly IMHO, goes on to teach that Mormons can also become God’s of their own Earths.

I don’t read that into the King Follett discourse. And in any case, LDS doctrine is determined by the standard works, not by the King Follett or any other discourse.

 

[RebeccaJ]

More mormon contradictions. The mormon church teaches its doctrines are found only in their scriptures, while simultaneously teaching beliefs that mormons claim are outside of their scriptures.

 

[zerinus]

More mormon contradictions. The mormon church teaches its doctrines are found only in their scriptures, while simultaneously teaching beliefs that mormons claim are outside of their scriptures.

I wish I knew what you were talking about.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I wish I knew what you were talking about.

Your church has two things going, that contradict each other.

1 - doctrine is in your scriptures
2 - quoting the King Follet sermon in official teaching material

In essence your church is teaching what is, by its own definition, not doctrine. It is a contradiction.

 

[pipper]

Thanks for giving me some information about the mormons. I hope what you have said is available in the book of mormons. It says there were two persons. One said “this is my son.” But is it written in the book that they were God and son (Jesus)? I hope not. That is something which is assumed by Smith or later mormons.

You have described that in a good way saying “supposedly according to mormon myth Heavenly Father was saying that about Jesus.” But is it allowed for any one to assume such important things?. Such a belief is already well existing amongst the Catholics. It was nothing better or new.

No that is not in the BOM, it is inother Mormon sources, maybe Doctrines and Covenants.

That belief is NOT Catholic, in that passage about the “first vision” Heavenly Father are shown as two distinct different “gods” Mormonism is polytheistic, haveing many “gods”.

I know this is kind of difficult for a Muslim to grasp, but in spite of the Trinity Christianity is still monotheistic, just like Islam, we do not beleive that God the Father and Jesus are two seperate Gods, only Mormons beleive that.

 

[DonLeon]

Whatever happened to Tiddley Winks??? :crying:

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Finrock]

Good evening zaffiroborant. How has your weekend been? Good I hope.

In the “Theosis and Exaltation: In Dialogue” he explores the similarities and differences between the two. This part shows just how deep the differences are and how they originate in a totally different understanding of the nature of God and the nature of man.

Really I don’t see how one can read this and come away with the idea that theosis and exaltation are the same thing.

I agree with you that the idea of theosis and exaltation are not exactly the same. If what I posted came across that way, it wasn’t my intent. Really, I think the thesis showed that there are many similarities to Greek father’s understand of theosis and the Mormon understanding of exaltation. The most important being the idea that we can become gods. I’ll quote Vajda here because his way of putting it is probably better than how I could do it:

"How, then, to characterize or summarize the similarities and the differences between the doctrines of theosis and exaltation? In this attempt to comparatively analyze two different ways of describing how humans can become “gods by grace,” the conclusion offered at the end of the subsection comparing the Trinity and the Godhead would appear to be tremendously significant. There the doctrines of the Trinity and the Godhead were described as functionally equivalent yet ontologically distinct.* Given the similarities and differences detailed in this chapter, it can be said that, like the doctrines of deity which they presuppose, the doctrines of theosis and exaltation are functionally equivalent while being ontologically distinct. In other words, in both cases the results of human divinization are equivalent—humans come to possess divine qualities and attributes, a new manner of life, which they did not possess before and which they could not attain of their own volition.** Yet the ways in which human divinization take place—in the case of theosis, through participation, and in the case of exaltation, through growth—are grounded in profoundly different ontological visions of human and divine nature*" (Vajda, Emphasis added).

That is what I’ve found so fascinating reading Vajda’s thesis is that even though how theosis is brought about are different from exaltation (as Vajda states there are ontological differences), the end result is that they are “functionality equivalent”. I think that is pretty significant. I am lead to wonder why more western churches do not emphasize this doctrine or are seemingly unaware that the nature of salvation, according to the Greek fathers, is to be “a god by grace”?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[zaffiroborant]

Good evening zaffiroborant. How has your weekend been? Good I hope.

I agree with you that the idea of theosis and exaltation are not exactly the same. If what I posted came across that way, it wasn’t my intent. Really, I think the thesis showed that there are many similarities to Greek father’s understand of theosis and the Mormon understanding of exaltation. The most important being the idea that we can become gods. I’ll quote Vajda here because his way of putting it is probably better than how I could do it:

"How, then, to characterize or summarize the similarities and the differences between the doctrines of theosis and exaltation? In this attempt to comparatively analyze two different ways of describing how humans can become “gods by grace,” the conclusion offered at the end of the subsection comparing the Trinity and the Godhead would appear to be tremendously significant. There the doctrines of the Trinity and the Godhead were described as functionally equivalent yet ontologically distinct.* Given the similarities and differences detailed in this chapter, it can be said that, like the doctrines of deity which they presuppose, the doctrines of theosis and exaltation are functionally equivalent while being ontologically distinct. In other words, in both cases the results of human divinization are equivalent—humans come to possess divine qualities and attributes, a new manner of life, which they did not possess before and which they could not attain of their own volition.*** Yet the ways in which human divinization take place—in the case of theosis, through participation, and in the case of exaltation, through growth—are grounded in profoundly different ontological visions of human and divine nature" (Vajda, Emphasis added).

That is what I’ve found so fascinating reading Vajda’s thesis is that even though how theosis is brought about are different from exaltation (as Vajda states there are ontological differences), the end result is that they are “functionality equivalent”. I think that is pretty significant. I am lead to wonder why more western churches do not emphasize this doctrine or are seemingly unaware that the nature of salvation, according to the Greek fathers, is to be “a god by grace”?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Well I disagree that they are “functionally equivalent” though there are similarities. The biggest difference in functionality is who is divinized. With theosis all who are saved are divinized, with exaltation only some are divinized. And with 3 levels of heaven and the further 3 levels of the CK and only those in the highest level of the CK actually being divinized. Well is seems only a small part of humanity actually is divinized.I also feel the ontological differences are huge, and this is acknowledged by Vajda when in his first listed difference he says it is the most profound.

And just me personally when it comes to what eternal progression is I prefer this:

“While patristic writers such as St. Irenaeus and St. Gregory of Nyssa consistently affirm the unlimited potential of the divinized human person, they are just as consistent in their vagueness when it comes to speaking of just what those who experience divinization actually “do.””

to this:

“The activities of exalted persons are very clear. They will do all those things that their own Heavenly Parents have done: they will organize matter into universes and worlds; they will produce spirit children; they will provide a plan whereby their spirit children can attain divinization also. Just as they were the recipients of blessings and grace from God, exalted persons become sources of blessing and grace for other intelligences.”

The first is all about possibility, the second is small, contained, possibility constrained.

Also I wonder about the bolded part in light of Hinckley’s statement about women and the discussions on MAAD where some LDS were emphatic the women would be unable to do what is bolded since they don’t possess the “priesthood” personally but only through their husbands. Actually I don’t see anything that shows “Heavenly Mother” doing any of the things listed. She seems to be nothing more than described by Hinckley, a companion, someone along for the ride, she hasn’t done anything in human history. And you all aren’t even allowed to talk to her.

 

[Zundrah]

Ok, let me ask you, Sunstone, questions based on these two statements.

How can you trust that what that person teaches is true and at what points is it true or false?
Why would you want to follow someone who is inconsistent?

Considering that you admit that Smith taugh contradictory things, how can you know which is true or false?

As a computer scientist who deals with logic all the time, this does not make sense to me. I know that if I have two statements, one true, the other false, the whole thing is false. When it comes to teachings, especially religious teachings, teaching has to be consistent in order to be trusted. That way there can be no doubt as to the validity of one statement over another.

You go! Bring some sense back to the crazy mormons!
This is why I don’t believe Joseph Smith is a true prophet from God. You do, and I know that you believe that, but you yourself admitted that Smith had inconsistent and contradictory teaching. That’s ok with you? :whacky: That just boggles my mind. There is no way that I’d follow the teaching of someone who is inconsistent, especially some lay person.

This is why I can’t understand why someone would follow Smith. He is inconsistent. His teachings can’t be trusted.

You go! Put the crazed mormons back to their senses!

 

[Zundrah]

I don’t know if it would be a sin, per se, but I wouldn’t do it.

While it is alright for Catholics to attend some Protestant services (depending on motive and one’s intent, i.e. weddings), we are not allowed to take part in their communion. Mormons aren’t even Christian, so they can’t even be called “Protestant.”

I noticed you said you were a Protestant and you know that Mormons aren’t Christian. Knowing that, why would you consider going with your friend to a Mormon temple? If you’re wanting to look into other Christian faiths, check out the Catholic church. Seriously. We have different rites and Churches that can appeal to all types of personal preferences.

(bolded red emphasis mine)

You make an excellent point. While it is my undertanding that Catholics view the Pope as Christ’s vicar on earth, I wouldn’t say he was a prophet, though.

But you’re right in that we never needed Joseph Smith. Simply because of Jesus Christ.

Exactly my point! This is why I will never understand LDS Churches - there is no excuse for the whole book of mormon. It is pointless. The bible speaks all. And if you go looking for any other person than christ to lead you to god, I think you are not a true christian. The mormons in a nut shell!

“I noticed you said you were a Protestant and you know that Mormons aren’t Christian. Knowing that, why would you consider going with your friend to a Mormon temple? If you’re wanting to look into other Christian faiths, check out the Catholic church. Seriously. We have different rites and Churches that can appeal to all types of personal preferences. ”

Well, cheeky, cheeky! …I did go to a protestant church but I love the catholic churches and cathedrals. I stopped going to my protestant church because I had a few problems with the ministers. More or less every lunch time I go into this catholic church for pray (light a candle) and I even wear the rosarys. I suppose you could say I prefer the catholic stuff! Ignore the mormons for now (their ignorant fools), enlighten me about catholics! I really want to know - how does a protestant become a catholic?

 

[Zundrah]

amen ON THAT, What Bible was Smith reading not a Christian Bible

I don’t know if you have noticed but you have spelled catholic wrong.
It says that you are a cathloic… do you notice?

 

[Zundrah]

According to LDS theology, if you prove yourself worthy and faithful to be sealed in eternal marriage in the temple according to the proper procedure, acting no hypocrisy before God, and the ordinance is sealed upon you by the Holy Spirit of Promise, there is nothing that can stop you from obtaining exaltation except committing the unpardonable sin. If you commit serious sins in violation of your covenants, you will be severely punished for them in the after-life; but after you have paid the penalty of your sins, you will come forth in the resurrection of the just, and obtain your exaltation. There are not many that do commit the unpardonable sin. In case somebody does, God is all powerful, and is able to provide an alternative companionship for the worthy husband/wife who has remained faithful, so that they will not lose any blessings as a result of the unfaithfulness of their transgressing companion.

This sounds really sick to me. Why do you mormons say such crazy things!? Just start preaching the gosple and stop trying to be God.
“if you prove yourself worthy and faithful to be sealed in eternal marriage in the temple” WHAT IS THIS ABOUT!? It sounds like some ancient egyption cult act. Prove your self worthy? Worthy of what!?
God decides who is worthy! And christ when he died on that cross decided that all were worthy - worthy of his forgiveness. How do you think you have the right to decide who is worthy or not? I can’t blame you since you are not the church president. But Joseph Smith started a cult and unfortunately that cult still exist today…