K
KathleenGee
Guest
Acknowledged, Soren, but you are the expert on the whole topic of the priesthood. The debate would have to be yours.
Creeds of men that the lord found abominable...from an lds explanation.
- Status
B
benidict
Guest
lol! i can see why they do this. fortunately it doesnt work on me.
but a younger person… and the emphasis placed on marriage? yes i can see how that would be a draw for a younger man. Peace 
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
Hi soren.
I think most Mormon detractors, including many Catholics, are unfamiliar with the Catholic literature that uses language strikingly similar to that which the Mormons use. From Sts. Ireneaus, Aquinas, and John of the Cross to Pope John Paul II, the Church has approved of writings that in reference to our future exaltation, speak of the faithful becoming, as it were, gods. There is nothing for a Catholic to be scandalized about it my opinion, merely because the Mormon literature speaks of them as becoming gods too.
The difficulty I have with Mormonism isn’t that they become like their God, but that their God is one of us. They will sometimes even speak of God as being of the same species as us. And so it is no more supernatural for them to become a god, than for a worm to become a butterfly. It is all in the natural order of things, as in Genesis, “after their kind.” They don’t seem to have a problem with worship of or submission to what I think should be more accurately understood from a Catholic perspective, as an Advanced Man. He didn’t even give them existence and maybe I am just conditioned against it, but I don’t think I could easily transfer my devotion from the Catholic God to the LDS Man, even if I were convinced that the LDS faith is true.
I truly don’t mean any disrespect to the Latter-day Saints here, and as is usual, I feel bad when my fellow Catholics seem to give the LDS a casual, cavalier, and even satirical dismissal. We Catholics seldom seem to recognize that a Restoration is a more consistent response to an alleged apostasy than Reformation. That is why the whole concept would have an ecclesiastical appeal if the incredible could ever happen, and I became convinced that the Catholic Church has failed. But even then, I think I would have to recognize that becoming a god or even God is not a very audacious “achievement” when one realizes that “God” is only an Advanced Man. We Catholics should not criticize Mormonism so much for the reason that men become gods, but that it is no big deal since there is no transcendent nature to be adopted. The divine nature and the human nature is one in Mormonism. I had never thought of this before, but God and man are consubstantial in Mormonism!
The Mormons would be the first to tell us that they will not become gods that in any significant way resembles the God of the Creeds. They don’t believe in the God of the Creeds. And that is what is probably at the root of why the creeds were in the past said to be abominable, because we have according to them, defined a transcendent God that does not exist and which will never exist. You and others have expressed that Mormonism is excessively polytheistic. I suggest that it would be more accurate, if we seriously took into consideration our beliefs about God with theirs, to say that it comes closer to atheism.
Thanks for your consideration,
Rory
PS: I am afraid that my suggestion of “LDS atheism” might seem like anti-Mormon hyperbole. It seems worth the possibility that a quick read might make some LDS take offense, if I can help my fellow Catholics to realize that it might be a mistake to assume that Mormons mean what comes to our minds when they use the words “god” and “God”.
PPS: For soren…Marine Boy got married Saturday at the Basilica in San Juan Capistrano. Other than family, I think TAC people were in all the other five places of the wedding party. Very good times.
W
why_me
Guest
This is not true. The missionaries at visitor centers come in all shapes and sizes. They are not picked for being hunks or hot. And yes, it is an accident or as mormons would say, called from god to do such work. But nice try with a one line zinger!
B
benidict
Guest
i thank God you two took this on. honestly, i never even heard of this teaching until i was around Catholics for some time. it was quite unsettleing at first quite frankly. and i never heard this taught in protestantism. except of course for the kenneth copeland thing. Peace
A
ajourney
Guest
Now I am going to get serious, understanding why Jesus would over turn the tables …. How dare you come here and speak of these things dear to us as apostasies. We already know we are sinners, do you not know that you will be judged as you yourself judge others? Our lives in Christ are built on the shoulders of the Holy Family, the Family of Saints, and the “family” that makes up the “community”
Everything about Christ’s Church is here to remind us all of the sacrifice made to bring the “family of man” out of sin’s bondage (Heb. 12:1),
could you face Jesus Himself today and tell Him about this apostasy you speak to us about? I would suggest not doing that, I would suggest you fall to your knees together with us saying “Lord Jesus have mercy on me a sinner”
In Christ and with Love from Him
Rich
www.utahmission.com
Rich - Thank you for such an awesome response! I hate to read most of the threads on the different forums that have to do with Mormon vs Catholic beliefs as they usually end up in virtual name calling and personal insults. When I first joined CA I was pulled into a thread and I found myself becoming very hurtful to others. My feelings were hurt by an answer to one of my “self righteous” posts and ParkerD privately emailed me with a very warm explanation. I think that using biblical or Church teachings to respond to issues of faith doctrine is appropriate and enables us all to learn from each other, but sometimes the very pointed and hurtful jabs are just that - a means of making yourself feel superior to those you are debating with. Once again Rich, thank you so much for your rational response using the direct beliefs that we Catholics hold dear!
Everything about Christ’s Church is here to remind us all of the sacrifice made to bring the “family of man” out of sin’s bondage (Heb. 12:1),
could you face Jesus Himself today and tell Him about this apostasy you speak to us about? I would suggest not doing that, I would suggest you fall to your knees together with us saying “Lord Jesus have mercy on me a sinner”
In Christ and with Love from Him
Rich
www.utahmission.com
Rich - Thank you for such an awesome response! I hate to read most of the threads on the different forums that have to do with Mormon vs Catholic beliefs as they usually end up in virtual name calling and personal insults. When I first joined CA I was pulled into a thread and I found myself becoming very hurtful to others. My feelings were hurt by an answer to one of my “self righteous” posts and ParkerD privately emailed me with a very warm explanation. I think that using biblical or Church teachings to respond to issues of faith doctrine is appropriate and enables us all to learn from each other, but sometimes the very pointed and hurtful jabs are just that - a means of making yourself feel superior to those you are debating with. Once again Rich, thank you so much for your rational response using the direct beliefs that we Catholics hold dear!
K
KathleenGee
Guest
As Rich comes from a Mormon background, I experience the same when labelling our Catholic beliefs and practices as abominations. It is hurtful and bigoted. And it labels the Protestants as well.
Europe has a great history of faith, a different world than ours.
I understand Why Me’s issue of what Mormons have seen with the religious wars. There were many who were forced to leave the Catholic faith in Europe by their leaders. So there were Christians recognized by LDS…but were any of them devout Catholics?
I would say one can only go so far as that by Christ vs others beliefs that come later.
Early Christians believed heaven was here on earth. St. Athanasius and St. Catherine of Siena both said Christ comes to give us His divinity and we go to share with Him our humanity…for us to be one now…in the kingdom…and we are always remaining in our own personhood.
It is the great witness of seeing a broken person be totally transformed by Christ into a new life…which certainly be an act of heaven on earth in itself…but we cannot become gods…there are phrases used like we become ‘little Christs’…but it is for service and extending Christ’s Eucharistic presence into the world, not one of power and ruling.
Europe has a great history of faith, a different world than ours.
I understand Why Me’s issue of what Mormons have seen with the religious wars. There were many who were forced to leave the Catholic faith in Europe by their leaders. So there were Christians recognized by LDS…but were any of them devout Catholics?
I would say one can only go so far as that by Christ vs others beliefs that come later.
Early Christians believed heaven was here on earth. St. Athanasius and St. Catherine of Siena both said Christ comes to give us His divinity and we go to share with Him our humanity…for us to be one now…in the kingdom…and we are always remaining in our own personhood.
It is the great witness of seeing a broken person be totally transformed by Christ into a new life…which certainly be an act of heaven on earth in itself…but we cannot become gods…there are phrases used like we become ‘little Christs’…but it is for service and extending Christ’s Eucharistic presence into the world, not one of power and ruling.
S
soren1
Guest
It is among the most important points you can make with Mormons. As Rory points out, a lot of Catholics are unaware of the superficial similarities between the patristic teaching of theosis and LDS exaltation. This is a very big liability in our apologetic efforts with Mormons, because LDS apologists ever hesitate to exploit the patristic texts. You can make a laundry list of Fathers saying stuff like “We will be gods,” and for those who are unfamiliar with the conceptual underpinnings of that statement, it sounds like they agree with Mormons. This enables Latter-day Saints to retort that we are hypocritical to criticize them for their teachings while yet canonizing the Fathers.i really appreciate you soren. my caffine refuses to kick in this morning. i was going to make this exact point to parker. but you beat me to it
The difficulty this makes is compounded because Mormon writers tend to find ways to smooth the differences, so that the stark contrast is not so visible, or seems less important. Consider this passage for Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen Ricks’s book Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints, which thankfully comes much closer than almost any LDS literature to dealing squarely with the disagreements between Patristic and LDS teaching:
Even a cursory glance at Early Christian thought reveals that the idea of human deification - known in Greek as theosis or theopoiesis - is to be found throughout ancient Christianity. We are, of course, under no illusions that such figures as Athanasius or the Byzantine fathers - given their very different metaphysical and theological presuppositions - understood theosis in precisely the same way as do the Latter-day Saints. It is certain that the ancient doctrine has undergone massive dislocations by the time it reached the sixth century. Clearly, it has already been "spiritualized: by the time of Pseudo-Dionysius, around A.D. 500, and, given the evolution of Christian teaching on God, probably well before. Latter-day Saints, though, are in an enviable position here. Given our belief in an apostasy, we fully expect there to be differences, even vast differences, between the beliefs of the Fathers and Mormon doctrine. Any similarities that exist, however, are potentially understandable a survivals from before the apostasy. When any similarities, even partial ones, exist between Latter-Day Saint beliefs and the teachings of the Fathers but are absent between contemporary mainstream Christendom and the Fathers, they can be viewed as deeply important. (p. 76, emphasis in original)
Catholics who are unaware of what theosis is and how it persists in its integrity in modern theology open themselves wide to just the response that Peterson and Ricks make here. Because Western theology has tended to favor the language of Beatific Vision to its corollary of deification, a lot of American Catholics are ignorant at just this point.
It is also important to remember that the question is not, as our authors here seem to think, just a matter of how big the differences are between the Fathers and today’s Mormons. The salient point, more specifically, is that the Fathers differ from Mormons and agree with us, at points that are material to the question of mono/polytheism. The Patristic doctrine preserves the oneness of God, and the Mormon doctrine doesn’t. Hence, the Fathers provide no plausible escape for Mormons who want to show that their theology of deification should not be offensive to us. We commit no hypocrisy in criticizing Mormon theology as polytheistic while upholding the Patristic teaching as the true alternative.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Benedict,hi parker. i am going to wake up a bit more, and answer this. we may not be too far apart on this particular issue than you might think. im going to tread some pretty thin ice, and any fellow Catholic can feel free to correct me if i say the wrong thing. there is something that you wrote, that most protestants miss. and that we as Catholics have a similar understanding on. will get back to you. didnt sleep well, and the starbucks aint kickin in.lol! peace
I really appreciated your response here, and look forward to reading your thoughts.
I guess from reading a few comments, I should clarify further about the concept of becoming “like Christ” and why it is so important to believe that humankind has that capacity.
When Christ asked Peter to walk to him on the water, Peter showed that he could, and did so while he had complete faith in Christ, but then when that faith wavered he sank into the water. (He could swim, of course, as a fisherman, but he asked for Christ’s help anyway at that point because of the storm.) Here is the text in Matthew 14:
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
32 And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
That experience ought to be an illustration that humankind have the capability and capacity to “walk on water” through faith in Christ, if and when He invites a person to do this and thus shows that it is His will that they walk on water at a point in time when He does the inviting.
The LDS belief is not at all that humankind can “walk on the water” without Christ’s help and guidance, so any discussion that says humankind have some inherent capability to do those kinds of things, without acknowledging that Christ is at the very center of being enabled to do that, is completely erroneous. Christ was always perfect in pre-mortal life, and was always perfect on earth–thus always able to command the “winds and waves to obey His will” because His perfection included perfect faith, and the understanding that He was doing the Father’s will at all times. Humankind are nowhere near that in “lone capability” or “lone capacity”, but with His help, our capability and our capacity become so incredibly enlarged that He can bring us to a condition that we, in and of ourselves, are both incapable of and undeserving of–yet He can do it anyway, because He has that kind of power. But His is the way to get there, and it includes a day-by-day, year-by-year growth process that is centered on repentance and change, guided by Him and the Holy Spirit. Without Them, the capability and capacity flounder into a “personal best” that is miniscule in comparison.
But the need is there for being led, and for believing it can happen so that we are willing to change and to believe in ourselves (and others) with Their help. It is only through being led that anyone would be able to “get there.”
Again, thanks for your comments.
W
why_me
Guest
Before we get carried away, I think that the key for the mormon concept of apostacy is found in a sentence that Joseph Smith stated as taken from the article I linked to in my OP:
In an account dictated in 1832 to Frederick G. Williams, the Prophet Joseph related how the Savior had told him that “the world lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good.” The Lord further said, “They draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me.” (Backman, First Vision, p. 157.)
“They draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me”. Would this be true for christianity in 1820 when we consider christian history? I believe that this sentence is the key to the mormon belief of apostacy. It is not just about creed but how we do life in our daily existence. Certainly when we look at christians persecuting and killing other christians, we might be able to see some truth in that sentence.
In an account dictated in 1832 to Frederick G. Williams, the Prophet Joseph related how the Savior had told him that “the world lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good.” The Lord further said, “They draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me.” (Backman, First Vision, p. 157.)
“They draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me”. Would this be true for christianity in 1820 when we consider christian history? I believe that this sentence is the key to the mormon belief of apostacy. It is not just about creed but how we do life in our daily existence. Certainly when we look at christians persecuting and killing other christians, we might be able to see some truth in that sentence.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
And we can see that in the short history of Mormonism as well.
W
why_me
Guest
I have always stated that no church is perfect because human beings make up the membership. But this is a little different. Since before 1820, christianity was divided between two main groupings: protestant and catholic. Was god displeased with the christian faiths as they existed up to 1820? We can certainly see corruption and the idea that they speak the word of god but do the opposite of what they speak. For example, christians breaking one of the more serious ten commandments: Thou shall not Kill.
I am referring to the religious persecutions of pagans and other christians.
B
benidict
Guest
valid points on some level why me. but the same could be said for today. and lets not go to Christians killing Christians. someone may bring up the mt. meadows massacre… and in all honesty, the early days of Mormonism in utah, were anything but peaceful, even among their own kind. all movements and religions have their dark periods. including my ancestry, which is irish. if it were not for st. patrick i think we still would have been pretty barbaric. and you wouldnt have so many good policemen, and firemen. not to mention soldiers.
peace
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
And again, we see Mormons doing the same thing in its short history. Mountain Meadows Massacre, Danites, Joseph Smith himself shooting people before he was killed, and other issues come to mind.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
Already done
B
benidict
Guest
another case of great minds thinking alikeAlready done
but it really would not be fair on my part, or anyone elses to judge todays Mormons by yesterdays events. todays Mormons are so far removed from what their founders did and taught, there is really no comparison. and if we give them another 100 years…like i said. the RCOJCOLDS already agrees with the rest of Christiandom on the trinity, which is a bigee. who knows what the future holds. as time goes on, Main body continues to evolve( in the loose sense of the word) closer to us, as opposed to further. there is much to love about them. peace
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I do think that Mormonism is a very American religion. But many restorationalist church movements were popular at the time of it’s inception. The following describes why restorationalism was so popular in the 1800’s in America and is from:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening
"The ideal of restoring a “primitive” form of Christianity grew in popularity in the U.S. after the American Revolution. This desire to restore a purer form of Christianity played a role in the development of many groups during the Second Great Awakening, including the Mormons, Baptists and Shakers. Several factors made the restoration sentiment particularly appealing during this time period.
To immigrants in the early 19th century, the land in America seemed pristine, edenic and undefiled – “the perfect place to recover pure, uncorrupted and original Christianity” – and the tradition-bound European churches seemed out of place in this new setting.
The new American democracy seemed equally fresh and pure, a restoration of the kind of just government that God intended.
Many believed that the new nation usher in a new millennial age.
Independence from the traditional churches of Europe was appealing to many Americans who were enjoying a new political independence.
A primitive faith based on the Bible alone promised a way sidestep the competing claims of all the many denominations available and find assurance of being right without the security of an established national church."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening
"The ideal of restoring a “primitive” form of Christianity grew in popularity in the U.S. after the American Revolution. This desire to restore a purer form of Christianity played a role in the development of many groups during the Second Great Awakening, including the Mormons, Baptists and Shakers. Several factors made the restoration sentiment particularly appealing during this time period.
To immigrants in the early 19th century, the land in America seemed pristine, edenic and undefiled – “the perfect place to recover pure, uncorrupted and original Christianity” – and the tradition-bound European churches seemed out of place in this new setting.
The new American democracy seemed equally fresh and pure, a restoration of the kind of just government that God intended.
Many believed that the new nation usher in a new millennial age.
Independence from the traditional churches of Europe was appealing to many Americans who were enjoying a new political independence.
A primitive faith based on the Bible alone promised a way sidestep the competing claims of all the many denominations available and find assurance of being right without the security of an established national church."
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Christine, acknowledged … America so new…and it can be said of other institutions as well outside of religion…our own government and its constitution.
But when we try to break away, it really doesn’t work because ‘they’ are part of ‘us’…we have the same problems.
I like the universal Catholic church because of this…‘they’ are ‘we’.
But when we try to break away, it really doesn’t work because ‘they’ are part of ‘us’…we have the same problems.
I like the universal Catholic church because of this…‘they’ are ‘we’.
W
why_me
Guest
Again, I am not talking about acts of imperfection. But in house corruption where people were killed for political and religious gain—a more systematic form of corruption. People will make terrible mistakes and commit terrible sins in the name of faith. But I am referring to something much more deeper that was found inside the church. Was god angry with how the christian church acted throughout its history. And was there a need for a restoration?valid points on some level why me. but the same could be said for today. and lets not go to Christians killing Christians. someone may bring up the mt. meadows massacre… and in all honesty, the early days of Mormonism in utah, were anything but peaceful, even among their own kind. all movements and religions have their dark periods. including my ancestry, which is irish. if it were not for st. patrick i think we still would have been pretty barbaric. and you wouldnt have so many good policemen, and firemen. not to mention soldiers.
Sidebar: some people bring up MMM and say, hey lookie here. But again the context is missing from the picture and the fear that the mormon settlers had of outsiders. Now we need to remember the antimormonism that was coming out from california. I can only give you a brief account and it is not done by me but by an historian:
Q: Why did the massacre happen?
SESSIONS: In my view there’s one word that tells you why and the word is fear; these guys were scared. All the settlements had been pulled back, Cedar City was ordered to stand. It was the last major settlement between here and California going on the southern route. There were a couple of little, you know, Harmony and there were a few people living down in Washington down that way–but Cedar was it. There were six hundred people in all of Iron County between Parowan and Cedar City. These people were absolutely scared to death. They had been hearing for years the wind over the passes that the Californians were going to come and wipe them out.
You want to have a great (inaudible) if you’re interested in this. You want to see how blessed you are to just get the anti-Mormon stuff that’s out there now. Pick up the Sacramento Bee for the 1850s–hardly a week goes by that in that paper, there isn’t an editorial saying, ‘We need to raise an army and go wipe the Mormons off the face of the earth.’ And the folks in Cedar were scared, in my view, out of their minds that that was exactly what was going to happen.
On Wednesday, some militiamen who were coming out–the massacre happened on Friday–on Wednesday night some militiamen were coming out to- they were told when they were rounded up they were going to go out and bury some people that got killed by the Indians and some of them were coming out and near Pinto Junction they came upon three people from the party making their way back to Cedar City for help.
And not knowing what’s going on, they killed them. They fired on these people. They killed young William Aiden who was, had been a Mormon and was leaving with the party to come to California. Two of these guys, there are various accounts, some say two got away there- or one got away, anyway at least one got away. They killed all three of them eventually. But on Wednesday when only one got away they were just convinced that he made it back to the wagon circle and were telling them, ‘This is not Indians, this is Mormons.’
And I don’t doubt at all that that was the final straw that broke the camel’s back. The decision was made the next day to kill them and it was made out at the Meadows; and Major Higby reported in various accounts, ‘Kill everyone who is old enough to tell the tale.’ And Mormons interpreted that as people at the age of accountability so they tried to pick the kids who looked like they were under eight to save, and killed the rest.
So in my view it was naked fear–they were just scared to death that these guys were going to go on to California and report that Mormons had attacked them and this would bring them in a mob out of California. That’s my view and the view of many other historians as well.
fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Shining_New_Light_on_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre.html
I find it interesting that when people gleam information from sites not very favorable to mormons, they do not take notice of context because context is always missing. Momons had been living in fear for a few decades. And the antimormonism in california and also in the US government had its impact because the antimormonism did not stop when the early lds moved to what became known as Utah.
However, the MMM was wrong. But put in context…a little understandable that such a terrible tragedy happened.
W
why_me
Guest
See my post above about MMM. The danites were a group of mormons that organized itself to defend the defenseless against the mobs that were attacking women, children, the elderly and also men. However, they did commit excesses and were condemned by the mormon leadership. But context: if mormons were not being murdered and driven out of their homes, no danite organization would have existed.
- Status