L
Lemuel
Guest
And compulsive liar and serial adulterer.
- Status
C
Chris-Wa1
Guest
What you may not know is that this is a brand new development, within the last couple of weeks! BYU just officially started allowing the sale of caffeinated sodas on campus. No longer do the students have to consume their Cokes in shame in their dorm rooms, and then lie to their bishops about how they are keeping the Word of Wisdom. Free at last!
C
Chris-Wa1
Guest
Well, that may be your personal opinion, but understand that any Mormon who shares this opinion falls completely outside the teaching of the LDS church. If one really believe that it doesn’t matter whether or not the BoM is authentic scripture, then they are in direct opposition to one of the most fundamental doctrines of the church. The entire basis for the existence of the LDS church hinges on two things: whether or not Joseph Smith was a true prophet and whether or not the BoM is true. Take out either one and there is absolutely no justification for the church’s existence. Furthermore, if one said that enough times on a public forum, it might even get them excommunicated. If that is really what they believe, then they are taking a highly nuanced approach to Mormonism and there is probably really no point to staying a member.
Last edited:
C
Chris-Wa1
Guest
What a load of bunk Gazelam. Congratulations, you found a few quotes from several non-Mormons giving their opinions on this matter that happen to agree with your own. But you ignored the fact that the vast majority of all Christians, including theologians and historians, disagree with you. What you did is called ‘cherry picking’ and is disingenuous at best.
G
gazelam
Guest
Regarding the writings of Ignatius, Jesuit Scholar Edmund J. Fortman says:gazelam:
And the earliest Christians, some of which were born shortly after Christ crucifixion have writings on this doctrine, therefore they and those they preached to believed it. St. Ignatius of Antioch is the most notable of the earliest 1st generation Christians:
Thus although there is nothing remotely resembling a doctrine of the Trinity in Ignatius, the triadic pattern of thought is there, and two of its members, the Father and Jesus Christ, are clearly and often designated as God. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 40
There’s no Trinitarianism in Ignatius, nor the other Apostolic Fathers, nor in the New Testament. It is therefore a bogus criteria to insist that baptisms be “Trinitarian” in order to be valid.
G
gazelam
Guest
Is Fortman a cherry pick?
How about Harper Collins Bible Dictionary (1996)?
It is only with the fathers of the church in the third and fourth centuries , that a full-fledged theory of the Incarnation develops. Attempts to trace the origins still earlier to the Old Testament literature cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship. The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great Church Councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament .
C
Catholicos
Guest
Congratulations, now you’re starting to sound like a Jehovahs Witness and you also reason and misrepresent writings and facts in the same way.First of all, you’re parsing sentences and leaving out the entire context of Fr Fortmans writings. Even though I believe that book has been out of print for decades, it does not disprove in any way St. Ignatius rejected the Trinity. Read the rest of Ft. Fortmans text.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Secondly, nothing Fr. Fortman wrote changes the Mormon belief and doctrine totally neutering what Christianity understands as Trinity. IF your religion professes to have more that One God, specifically, what we Christians professes to believe as the Holy Trinity(Father Son, Holy Spirit), your religion is not technically Christian.
A simple question. Do you believe you, a Mormon believer can become a God, yes or no?
L
Lemuel
Guest
You already know the answer to that! They are ordained in the Mormon temples to become Gods and Goddesses.
G
Gertabelle
Guest
It’s called cherry-picking because you take these quotes out of context. Fortman’s book absolutely claims that the early Church fathers believed in the Trinity – One God, Three Divine Persons.Catholicos:
Regarding the writings of Ignatius, Jesuit Scholar Edmund J. Fortman says:gazelam:
And the earliest Christians, some of which were born shortly after Christ crucifixion have writings on this doctrine, therefore they and those they preached to believed it. St. Ignatius of Antioch is the most notable of the earliest 1st generation Christians:
Thus although there is nothing remotely resembling a doctrine of the Trinity in Ignatius, the triadic pattern of thought is there, and two of its members, the Father and Jesus Christ, are clearly and often designated as God. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 40
There’s no Trinitarianism in Ignatius, nor the other Apostolic Fathers, nor in the New Testament. It is therefore a bogus criteria to insist that baptisms be “Trinitarian” in order to be valid.
And regarding the Trinity not being in scripture, Fortman analyzes the scriptural references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and argues that the Holy Trinity present as One God - Three Divine Persons in scripture.
You pull out a sentence or two from his writings and post them here, noting that Fortman is a Jesuit, trying to confuse Catholics who may read this thread — but you are taking his words out of context.
Here’s an idea: Instead of just posting a few excerpts you got from some LDS pamphlet or book or website, seek out the source – Read Fortman’s book for yourself.
Better yet, hop on over to NewAdvent.org and read the Church Fathers for yourself. You seem convinced they’re on your side, so what harm could it do?
C
Catholicos
Guest
Thank you, the Trinity portion of the discussion can conclude right there.Catholicos:
You already know the answer to that! They are ordained in the Mormon temples to become Gods and Goddesses.
G
gazelam
Guest
This statement is incorrect. For additional information on LDS temple ordinances see http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Temple_Ordinances
G
gazelam
Guest
I have the book and have read it. Please refer me to the pages where Fortman argues that the Holy Trinity present as One God - Three Divine Persons in scripture and I will take a look. BTW, “One God - Three Divine Persons” also fits LDS belief. It’s the manner of the Oneness that’s in dispute. LDS believe that the Three Divine Persons are One God in purpose along the lines of John 17:22 (And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one) This verse rules out any consubstantiality or same essence since the disciples for whom Jesus is praying will never become consubstantial with each other. I hope thus helps…
G
gazelam
Guest
G
gazelam
Guest
One last question, if you believe that you cannot either become a god or like God, what do you make of CCC 460?
CCC 460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.
Take care.
CCC 460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.
Take care.
C
Catholicos
Guest
Just as the previous post regarding Ignatius and a writers analysis, You can see how even 4 words here can be easily misunderstood and an entirely new religion can be built on it.
You’ll have to read up on St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as St. Athanatius the great Saint, who defended the faith against the arian heresy, if you want the in depth meaning, since this is what CCC 460 refers to.
Or you can like scripture, take the entire paragraph in context. The important thing not to overlook in the entire paragraph is … "entering into communion with the Word"
Some background and understanding of Catholic theology is necessary here to understand the last 4 words, might make men gods.
Communion is not a symbolic thing to us Catholics, it is literally the real presence of Christ, His divinity is right there. It is spiritual food, and supernatural because it is that Body of Christ that if eaten, as He commanded, gives us eternal life. We are like gods because we partake in Gods divinity that allows us to eternally be with God.
As the paragraph reads, it gives us “divine sonship” because it gives us life , through the divinity and power of Christ. This is the power and glory of the Holy Eucharist. It is central to the Catholic faith, because everything we believe revolves around it. That is God.
God bless you, and we pray you find the truth, in Christ
L
Lemuel
Guest
I don’t read your church’s sanitized versions of things. The full temple ceremony is out there for anyone to plainly see. I have seen it several times, with all the Masonic rituals and the slitting of the throats and cutting open the chests and bowels, the true order of prayer, the five points of fellowship, the mocking of the Christian minister, etc., along with all the places where, in 1990, God changed his mind on how it was to be done and so you don’t do them anymore. I know how your church put out all the essays to try to justify things like Joseph Smith’s adulteries, and his epic botching up of the Book of Abraham. So, I’m not a Mormon and I got a word wrong? You are ordained to become Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses unto the Most High God. A king does not exist without a kingdom. So you are ordained to become kings over your future kingdoms. The order of heaven is that God the Father will always be your God, and that you will have rule of one (or many) of his countless subdivisions. You will, in essence be Gods to your kingdoms, just as God is to His. Or as Joseph Smith said, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man . . . and you have to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one . . . to inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before . . .”
Call it King, call it God, I don’t care. It boils down to the same thing. Mormons believe that they will become Gods and the temple is one mandatory vehicle to get them there.
Last edited:
L
Lemuel
Guest
Joseph Smith was found guilty of the crime of money digging wherein he used a stone in a hat to tell him where the buried treasures were. He found none. And we are supposed to believe that this same worthless stone was the means of translating the plates?
Have you got a bridge for sale?
Have you got a bridge for sale?
L
lilypadrees
Guest
Lemuel says, “Call it King, call it God, I don’t care. It boils down to the same thing. Mormons believe that they will become Gods and the temple is one mandatory vehicle to get them there.”
lilypadrees: Yes, that’s what I was told by a Mormon on another discussion board when I asked him if he believed he was going to become a god. I asked him what would happen if he didn’t become a god and wasn’t accepted as one by the other gods they believe in. He said he would live as a lesser god and still rule his own kingdom.
lilypadrees: Yes, that’s what I was told by a Mormon on another discussion board when I asked him if he believed he was going to become a god. I asked him what would happen if he didn’t become a god and wasn’t accepted as one by the other gods they believe in. He said he would live as a lesser god and still rule his own kingdom.
D
De_Maria
Guest
He says he’s Catholic, so I’m sure we all understand it the same way and different from the Mormon understanding.
Let’s look at Scripture for a second.
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Jesus did not mean that all men were gods. But only that they are in the image of God.
In the same way, the more that we do God’s will, the more that we conform ourselves to God, the more we will resemble Him. It is called Divinization.
Whereas, as I understand it, correct me if I’m wrong, Mormon’s believe that you actually become deities. Gods in charge of your own satellite system. Right or wrong?
- Status