For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[Stephen168]

I give up. Obviously you are reading just the first sentence of each of my posts and then answering what you assumed I must be getting at.

Paul, I have given up on a Mormon’s ability to reason a short while ago. Prove the negative seems to be a popular Mormon defense, while Ad Hominem seems to be the basis of Mormonism with lots of red herring for everyone. I now accept ‘Mormon logic’ and ‘avoid the question’ for its entertainment value.
Please don’t give up totally. Keep us informed of the facts. It is almost impossible to get a straight factual answer from a Mormon, so we need help from others in the know.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Paul, I have given up on a Mormon’s ability to reason a short while ago. Prove the negative seems to be a popular Mormon defense, while Ad Hominem seems to be the basis of Mormonism with lots of red herring for everyone. I now accept ‘Mormon logic’ and ‘avoid the question’ for its entertainment value.
Please don’t give up totally. Keep us informed of the facts. It is almost impossible to get a straight factual answer from a Mormon, so we need help from others in the know.

What kind of ad hominems? I’ve yet to see any LDS people (at least here in CAF) resort to such (save for maybe our old pal Zerinus).

The discourse here is usually civil.

 

[mfbukowski]

I give up. Obviously you are reading just the first sentence of each of my posts and then answering what you assumed I must be getting at.

I’ve gone back over the thread a couple of times now, and I would like you to please show me exactly where I did this. I read your posts carefully and answered them directly as far as I can see.

 

[mfbukowski]

The JWs do. They are another branch of the restoration movement.

That is exactly what the LDS teach and believe. I know you don’t like to have that “plain and precious truth” stated so plainly, but there it is. The LDS teach that man, angels and gods are all the same species. So your god is just some guy like us, though more advanced because he got started progressing earlier than we did.

I am difficult when it comes to blasphemy against my God.

You didn’t read my post very carefully. Did you skip the part about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church?

Don’t presume to tell me that my “god is some guy like us”

How dare you?

My God is the God of the universe who is infinite in majesty and perfection, and whos Son came to earth to redeem all who have ever lived and ever will live

He has been gracious enough to give us the greatest gift he ever could- the opportunity to share in his infinite majesty, which you scorn with your insolent attitude. You should be honoring Him for his willingness to offer you such a blessing.

If your God cannot or would not do that, what kind of God is that?

If you want to believe that he is incapable of giving us such a gift go ahead and believe what you will, and I will guarantee that such a supernal blessing will never be yours because you have rejected it.

It’s up to you and you have already chosen your path by leaving his church.

Don’t presume to tell me about my God, and I will return the favor.

 

[TOmNossor]

Thanks! I’ll add this to my reading list. Are these found in public libraries? Or in general bookstores or does one typically only find these in Seagull Books and the like?

I doubt you will find them in a local library or a general bookstore.
None of them are phenomenally expensive, but inter-library-lone is cheap and easy.

I have a funny feeling that these authors are going to point out the change in church polity as evidence of an apostasy (with regards to titles like “From Apostles to Bishops” and “Rise of the Papacy” etc). Seeing as church polity evolves in every ecclesiastical organization (including the LDS church) I don’t quite see how this is evidence of anything except the church growing in size and thus necessitating a more developed hierarchy. Keep in mind, there are still only 3 priesthood offices in Catholicism just as its been in the begining: Deacons, Priests, and Bishops.

Well, yes and no.
Sullivan will document the movement from groups of leaders in the “city churches” to monoepiscopal bishops. Some of the early authors do not evidence 3 priesthood offices. In addition to this, the distinction between Presbyters (Priests) and Episcopes (Bishops) was not always maintained. Irenaeus at the end of the 2nd century is not immune from using these terms interchangeably (in ways that would never happen just 2 centuries later). Sullivan argues that the singular head of “city churches” was firmly established earlier in places like Antioch and Smyrna (towards the very end of the 1st century or the beginning of the 2nd) and much later (after 150AD probably) in places like Rome and Corinth. This IMO has an impact upon the strength of the argument of Peterine succession within the Roman church.
Eno will document the movement from numerous city churches of very similar authority / priority, to a system where Rome claims primacy. This takes much longer than do the monoepiscopal bishops.

Now, Nibley’s book has two sections. One focuses on some of the same evidence Sullivan sites, but Nibley argues that Apostles and Bishops existed side by side in the church with very different roles. Therefore, the Bishops were never meant to usurp (Nibley) or develop (Sullivan) into those with apostolic authority (what Nibley would call general rather than local church officers. The second part of Nibley’s book mirrors Eno’s and argues that the usurpation (Nibley’s sentiment, Tertullian’s term)/development of Roman primacy was not necessarily divine.

Barker spends a great deal of time on authority and some on doctrines. His main focus (in my mind) is to show how Bishops at the head of city churches became metropolitans, then patriarchs, and ultimately the Roman Bishop became Pope. Barker argues that a divine church has authority that starts at Christ, goes to His leaders, and then down to more local leaders. The apostate church gradually defined (in a political way) the hierarchy starting from seemingly equal city church leaders until the Bishop of Rome was prime.

Now, I think Nibley and Barker’s books are a little out of date, but they present a read of history that actually deals with the data in a better way than does Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy. I think Sullivan and Eno also present a reasonable read of the data. I prefer Nibley’s and Barker’s, and I still prefer them and the LDS truth claims after reading Quinn’s book Origins of Power which speaks about LDS post Joseph Smith authority development. All that being said, if Catholic Answers and other Catholic apologetic outfits were not so RADICALLY married to what I perceive to be a rejection of DEVELOPMENT, I would find this easier to embrace. A Newman Catholic has a powerful response to a Protestants and can deal with the evidence Nibley and Barker and Bickmore and other LDS bring up. Lay and professional Catholic apologists speak as if Peter was the Bishop of Rome; and Linus, Cletus, and Clement thought themselves at the head of the worldwide church. Cardinal Newman, Father Sullivan, and Robert Eno would not argue for such things.

cont…
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I’d be more interested in evidence of the CHURCH actually sliding away from their own orthodoxy, and in matters of dogma. THAT I think would better indicate an apostasy. Please note that I’m not referring to the flimsy evidence apologists such as Nibley points out (I’ve read much of his work as a teenager). Those like Nibley like to isolate some group of condemned heretics (or in other cases single quotes from individual people in the church) to prove that there must have been some kind of “proto-LDS” church. The problem with this upon further study is that these heretical groups (or idividual theologians) preached OTHER doctrines FAR removed from the contemporary LDS understanding. In other words, a Mormon might appeal to the Arians to demonstrate that “true” early Christians espoused the LDS belief in the godhead as if the Arians were some kind of proto-Mormons, yet they completely shy away from the Arains belief in the communion of saints, the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, etc.

Well, I would consider you quite an extraordinary teenager if you read Nibley and then decided that he was utilizing “flimsy evidence.” This is a common claim that folks like Evangelical Scholars (one who is moving towards Catholicism partially because of his recognition that he could not respond from an EV position adequately to Mormonism) Mosser and Owen suggest is unfounded (or at least unproven). Nibley is not perfect, but flimsy is quite a stretch IMO.
I do not know why Arians would be proto-Mormon’s. The BOM is significantly clearer in its declaration that Christ is God than is the Bible. The reason that all pre-Nicene Christians (other than the modalists) were subordinationalists is that the Bible speaks of Christ as subordinate to God the Father.
The Eucharist IMO is a strong point for Catholicism. I am actually encouraged by some words from Brigham Young. I do not think we as LDS recognize just how powerful the presence of Christ is in the sacrament. Still Catholics have a better understanding of the early church position on the Eucharist than do LDS.

Now, I point to the apostasy of authority rather than the change in doctrine. Doctrine does in fact develop in the CoJCoLDS and in the Catholic Church. If the development is divine (and for the Catholic does not introduce new/unique things), then this is as it should be. The Body of Christ does not sit static, but grows in its understanding of the gospel. So, you are welcome to think that the apostasy should be evidenced in a proto-Mormon (who is not part of a heretical group even) writing down volumes of LDS ideas in the 1st century; but, I was responding to the request to define the apostasy. I would suggest that what you claim to look for is unlikely to ever materialize (even if proto-Mormons lived in the 1st century), but this is not such a problem for me.

BTW, the development of Creation ex Nihilo as documented by Gerard May (non-LDS) is IMO a huge reason that Catholicism developed the way it did. St. Clement of Rome evidence that he likely embraced Creation ex Materia, and St. Justin Martyr is clear that he did. This development is IMO a foundational slip upon which numerous problems hang.

Now, what I see as problematic in general is the view that the LDS cannot define the apostasy. I think it is not unreasonable to be or even become a Catholic. I think you have chosen the second best way to follow Christ. We should all strive to choose the best way, and I will continue to be a LDS (and even a LDS apologist), but that does not mean that I think the Catholic read of history is without reason. Interestingly enough it is Catholic philosophy that I find most problematic.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Don’t presume to tell me that my “god is some guy like us”

…

My God is the God of the universe who is infinite in majesty and perfection, and whos Son came to earth to redeem all who have ever lived and ever will live

He has been gracious enough to give us the greatest gift he ever could- the opportunity to share in his infinite majesty, which you scorn with your insolent attitude. You should be honoring Him for his willingness to offer you such a blessing.

If your God cannot or would not do that, what kind of God is that?

If you want to believe that he is incapable of giving us such a gift go ahead and believe what you will, and I will guarantee that such a supernal blessing will never be yours because you have rejected it.

It’s up to you and you have already chosen your path by leaving his church.

Don’t presume to tell me about my God, and I will return the favor.
I would suggest that you are the WORLD AUTHORITY on what you believe. There is no mere person in the universe who knows better what you believe than do you.

President Monson doesn’t even know better what you believe than you. But certainly non-LDS do not. And, former LDS, who so frequently left a church I do not recognize also seem to be unable to define what I (and I suspect you) believe.

Now, having said what I most wanted too, let me ignorantly insert myself into your conversation here.

The New Testament clearly teaches two things:
Jesus Christ came to witness God to us. Through Him we see God.
Jesus Christ came to lift us up to be what He is. Through Him we can become gods.

The ECF were ever so clear in their espousal of these two truths. Athanasius argued with the Arians from their common understanding. He said that if Jesus Christ is going to make us gods, He surely must be God Himself.

The controversies of the early church evidence profound difficulties with defined just how Jesus Christ was God AFTER the ECF decided that God was impassible and immutable and other ABSOLUTES present within Greek thought. Numerous heresies said things like, “but Christ eat food and suffered and … so how can He be God who never …? As Christ was elevated to divinity in philosophical terms He was torn apart. Chalcedon claimed that Christ had two natures (and maintained that this did not tear Christ apart).

After defining “divinity as such” in terms that precluded the humanity of Christ being divine, the ECF began to limit the final state of deified man.
Before Nicea no ECF when speaking of deification spoke of a limit upon the FINAL state of deified man.
Where I Catholic, I would believe that Jesus Christ in his humanity is homoousian with men. I would also believe that deified men could be (through the power and grace of God) be made homoousian in our divinity with God. By my study there is nothing irreformable that disallows embracing these truths. But, few Catholics seem willing to embrace them.
As a LDS, I do not separate Christ into two natures. I believe John tells us that the Father and Son are one as we are to become one in them. Also, “God is love.” This IMO is the Biblical unity and the definition of how Father and Son are one God and are God. This is also part of the call to deified unity for Chrisitans.

Anyway, I think your point that God can lift us to divinity and loves sufficiently to lift us to divinity is clear and powerful!
Charity, TOm

 

[mfbukowski]

The Eucharist IMO is a strong point for Catholicism. I am actually encouraged by some words from Brigham Young. I do not think we as LDS recognize just how powerful the presence of Christ is in the sacrament. Still Catholics have a better understanding of the early church position on the Eucharist than do LDS.

Now, I point to the apostasy of authority rather than the change in doctrine. Doctrine does in fact develop in the CoJCoLDS and in the Catholic Church. If the development is divine (and for the Catholic does not introduce new/unique things), then this is as it should be. The Body of Christ does not sit static, but grows in its understanding of the gospel. So, you are welcome to think that the apostasy should be evidenced in a proto-Mormon (who is not part of a heretical group even) writing down volumes of LDS ideas in the 1st century; but, I was responding to the request to define the apostasy. I would suggest that what you claim to look for is unlikely to ever materialize (even if proto-Mormons lived in the 1st century), but this is not such a problem for me.

I agree with you about the Eucharist. I think the LDS have no clue about how profound it is/could be. I am doing my best with the folks I influence.

I think I brought in the Arian thing as being an apostate version of a possible proto-LDS position, so guilty as charged.

I am definitely a duffer an church history, and that is why I feel uncomfortable on the subject of the apostasy. Thanks for straightening me out! Glad you’re here!

 

[mfbukowski]

I would suggest that you are the WORLD AUTHORITY on what you believe. There is no mere person in the universe who knows better what you believe than do you.

President Monson doesn’t even know better what you believe than you. But certainly non-LDS do not. And, former LDS, who so frequently left a church I do not recognize also seem to be unable to define what I (and I suspect you) believe.

Now, having said what I most wanted too, let me ignorantly insert myself into your conversation here.

The New Testament clearly teaches two things:
Jesus Christ came to witness God to us. Through Him we see God.
Jesus Christ came to lift us up to be what He is. Through Him we can become gods.

The ECF were ever so clear in their espousal of these two truths. Athanasius argued with the Arians from their common understanding. He said that if Jesus Christ is going to make us gods, He surely must be God Himself.

The controversies of the early church evidence profound difficulties with defined just how Jesus Christ was God AFTER the ECF decided that God was impassible and immutable and other ABSOLUTES present within Greek thought. Numerous heresies said things like, “but Christ eat food and suffered and … so how can He be God who never …? As Christ was elevated to divinity in philosophical terms He was torn apart. Chalcedon claimed that Christ had two natures (and maintained that this did not tear Christ apart).

After defining “divinity as such” in terms that precluded the humanity of Christ being divine, the ECF began to limit the final state of deified man.
Before Nicea no ECF when speaking of deification spoke of a limit upon the FINAL state of deified man.
Where I Catholic, I would believe that Jesus Christ in his humanity is homoousian with men. I would also believe that deified men could be (through the power and grace of God) be made homoousian in our divinity with God. By my study there is nothing irreformable that disallows embracing these truths. But, few Catholics seem willing to embrace them.
As a LDS, I do not separate Christ into two natures. I believe John tells us that the Father and Son are one as we are to become one in them. Also, “God is love.” This IMO is the Biblical unity and the definition of how Father and Son are one God and are God. This is also part of the call to deified unity for Chrisitans.

Anyway, I think your point that God can lift us to divinity and loves sufficiently to lift us to divinity is clear and powerful!
Charity, TOm

I think we are essentially in agreement, (not surprisingly!, both of us being LDS) especially about my point being “clear and powerful” (thanks)

But being me, I have to ask you about how love being the unifying factor between the father and the son is different from “being” or “substance”, and does this leave you philosophically in a similar position to classic trinitarians, only with the unifying force redefinied?

In your view is this how we become “one substance with the Father”, that substance being love?

And why do you need to postulate any kind of an underlying unifying force other than the classic LDS idea of “one in purpose”?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[ronald_g_w]

Let me jump in here…

Doctrine was received by revelation - the final revelation - Jesus Christ. That doctrine is protected, further understood and applied to our current lives through the Holy Spirit operating in the Church as Jesus promised it would:

If you want to call that revelation, go ahead. We Catholics use words very carefully, and are loathe to call anything after Jesus and the apostolic age “revelation”. See what the easy acceptance of new revelation led to with the restoration movement. Jesus is just an angel, or God is just some guy like us, or there is no hell or… you get the idea.

Why the need for the Pope then if the Holy Ghost is operating in the church

 

[TOmNossor]

Mfbukowski,
I think we are very close. Especially if you are not overly hung up on what being an “orthodox LDS” means. I think it is difficult to have these discussions because “orthodoxy” is so important for most non-LDS Christians and much less important for LDS Christians.

In your view is this how we

become “one substance with the Father”, that substance being love?

And why do you need to postulate any kind of an underlying unifying force other than the classic LDS idea of “one in purpose”?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

Since non-LDS who insist on one-substance positions that go beyond “father-son” type of one-substance are unable to define terms like “being” and “substance” sufficiently, I see the Social Trinity as satisfying this requirement (as does Alvin Plantinga a Protestant philosopher).
I also believe the scriptures, LDS only and the Bible, are quite clear that God is one and there is one God. I agree with Elder Holland when he says:
ElderHolland-bold_added:

Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.

Now, I am not sure we should make allowances that the “orthodox” Trinity is not a perversion of the Bible. In fact, I believe the underlying assumptions that lead to the decisions of the first 4 councils are quite problematic. But I am quite convinced the inability to define “being” and what “one substance” means allows the belief espoused by Elder Holland to be termed salvific within a Catholic or Protestant framework. One of the things that leads me to this belief is the inability of virtually every non-LDS Christian I meet IRL to decide I am unorthodox in my Trinity UNTIL they discover I am a LDS. And, I am quite precise in my language so this is not a vocabulary problem.

So, I do not usually speak of “me-me-oneness” of substance. I believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three persons who form one God through indwelling love and perfect communion. I have no problem saying that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three beings who form on God through indwelling love and perfect communion. When I do so I use the term “being” as is more common within English in opposition to the vague and less well defined way Christian theologians frequently do. I think the oneness of God is in many ways a starting point (the Old Testament proceeds the New – though I believe Old Testament saints knew more about the Trinity than is evidenced in the canonized LDS scriptures). I think that the distinctions between the persons of the Godhead have been blurred by non-biblical ideas like “divine simplicity” and foundationally by “creation ex nihilo.” And I think those who wish to declare LDS are not Christians because our oneness is not sufficient, do not have a solid foundation from which to do so. While there are surely tri-theist LDS and I had a former Bishop who was a modalist, I find these folks among non-LDS Christian congregations. If not having a philosophically mature view of the Trinity is not damning for the little old Italian Catholic lady, I do not see how it could be for the LDS in the pew either.

Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre]

Why the need for the Pope then if the Holy Ghost is operating in the church

Because the Holy Spirit operates, for the universal Church as a whole, through the Pope and the bishops in union with him. I should think that would be obvious to a Mormon, since you believe the same about your 1st Presidency and Quorum of the 12 in union with them.

 

[ronald_g_w]

OK. Thanks.

OK. He does not say to baptize the dead. And he is not speaking about those who came before he instituted baptism as a sacrament for salvation.

Of course they are not excluded. However, it does not state that they are compelled to follow a sacrament that was not instituted after their earthly lives ended. Do you believe in a God that would impose a requirement on those who - through no fault of their own - are not capable of meeting that requirement? Do you believe that until you baptize every person born before the Restoration they are bound to some less-than-heavenly eternity? I do not think God is so capricious and arbitrary.

Baptism of desire is one way. Entrusting them to the hands of aloving God is another way. Proxy baptism is simply unworkable unless you have a perfect record of every person born before the institution of the sacrament of baptism - or else the concept is unfair and unjust for those who have no record?

The Catholic Church is in no such danger by the Scriptures you quote. What is in question is the evidence of proto-Mormons preaching about unique Mormon doctrines, one of which is baptism of deceased non-members by proxy. The scripture simply does not support the practice in any real measure.

Peace,
-Robert

Originally Posted by Robert in SD
Where in the historical record is there evidence of these “plain and precious” truths being attacked by an apostate Christianity? Where is there a record of plural marriage being defended by Peter and Paul? Where is there a record of “eternal progression” being defended by the dying proto-LDS Church? Where is there evidence of the proto-LDS bishops imploring the faithful to put on the temple garb and baptize their ancestors at a proto-LDS temple? I’m sorry, but unless I see real evidence of distinct LDS doctrine being attacked by a rising “apostate” Church, I’m not going to be eager to accept your belief on the matter.

QUOTE=Stephen168;4330347]Excellent questions for which you will most probably never receive an answer. Not a straight answer anyway.
As you can see, 20 posts later and they have been ignored.

Where is there evidence of the proto-LDS bishops imploring the faithful to put on the temple garb and baptize their ancestors at a proto-LDS temple?

Robert
As I quoted 1 Cor. 15: 29 from the KJV below which you gave your comment on above

1 Cor. 15: 29
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

What if we worded it as below,
how would you understand it then ?

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead ? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf ?

 

[PaulDupre]

Anyway, I think your point that God can lift us to divinity and loves sufficiently to lift us to divinity is clear and powerful!

Charity, TOm

No knowledgeable Catholic would disagree with you that God desires to lift us to divinity. The Catholic Church has always taught that. Theosis was Catholic doctrine 1800 years before it ever occurred to Joseph Smith.

What Catholics disagree with Mormons about is their depiction of God the Father as an ascended master - a human being whom some other god raised to divinity (and of course that other god was raised by some other god and so on regressing into infinity). We find that blasphemous.

 

[TOmNossor]

No knowledgeable Catholic would disagree with you that God desires to lift us to divinity. The Catholic Church has always taught that. Theosis was Catholic doctrine 1800 years before it ever occurred to Joseph Smith.

What Catholics disagree with Mormons about is their depiction of God the Father as an ascended master - a human being whom some other god raised to divinity (and of course that other god was raised by some other god and so on regressing into infinity). We find that blasphemous.

Hello Paul!
Catholics have throughout the years maintained the believe that “men can become gods.” It is evidenced in numerous publications (including some liturgy).
What most Catholics have done is limit this deification. That being said, Before Nicea no ECF when speaking of deification spoke of a limit upon the FINAL state of deified man.

Where I Catholic I would embrace the following things:

• God the Son is homoousian with God the Father in His divinity.
• God the Son is homoousian in His humanity with mankind.
• Mankind may become homoousian with God (Father and Son) in his future deified state becoming gods via grace. This will result in man having a duel nature like Christ.

Do you embrace these three things? If not why not?

Now, I actually adopt Ostler’s view of the pre-incarnate state of God the Father. I believe that God the Father like God the Son was divine before He was embodied. This is a minority view within the CoJCoLDS, but there are folks who are beginning to embrace it and there is good reason to believe it was the view of Joseph Smith.

So, if you are a “robust deifier” and I generally reject the aspect of Mormonism you mentioned, we are pretty close in this respect.
Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre]

Don’t presume to tell me that my “god is some guy like us”

How dare you?

My God is the God of the universe who is infinite in majesty and perfection…

It’s not me telling you, it’s your own prophets and apostles:

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as he did.

• Gospel Principles Chapter 47 - Exaltation

God the Father had to “succeed” in order to become a god?

“God, angels, and men are all of one species, one race, one great family, widely diffused among the planetary systems as colonies, kingdoms, nations, etc.”

• (LDS Apostle Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, 1978 Deseret Book reprint, pg. 21)

Now, I am very happy if Joseph Smith’s god is not your God. But don’t accuse me of making this doctrine up when it is from your own founding prophet and quoted in your own Sunday School manuals!

That’s how I dare.

 

[PaulDupre]

Before Nicea no ECF when speaking of deification spoke of a limit upon the FINAL state of deified man.

Catholics place no limits upon the deification of man. We believe the apostle Paul who taught:

“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him”

• 1 Cor 2:9

Now, I actually adopt Ostler’s view of the pre-incarnate state of God the Father. I believe that God the Father like God the Son was divine before He was embodied. This is a minority view within the CoJCoLDS, but there are folks who are beginning to embrace it and there is good reason to believe it was the view of Joseph Smith.

Nope, Joseph Smith taught that “God the Father was once a man like us” and “succeeded” in “becoming” God (so he was not divine before that, otherwise, there would have been no issue as to his “success”). We were not divine prior to our birth. If God the Father was divine prior to his sojourn upon an earth-like planet, then he was not like us, but Joseph Smith taught that he was not divine prior to becoming a god, ergo “a man like us” - in other words, just some guy.

If Mormons are starting to embrace a more Christian concept of God, it is only because they are beginning to understand that Joseph Smith’s god is not God at all.

So, if you are a “robust deifier” and I generally reject the aspect of Mormonism you mentioned, we are pretty close in this respect.

I’m glad you reject that aspect of Mormonism, but it is the Joseph Smith aspect, so can you really call yourself a Mormon if you are not a follower of Joseph Smith?

 

[ronald_g_w]

Because the Holy Spirit operates, for the universal Church as a whole, through the Pope and the bishops in union with him. I should think that would be obvious to a Mormon, since you believe the same about your 1st Presidency and Quorum of the 12 in union with them.

The reason why I asked was that revelation no longer exists through the Pope as the lords mouth piece where as the Prophet is the lords mouth piece for us.

 

[PaulDupre]

The reason why I asked was that revelation no longer exists through the Pope as the lords mouth piece…

Not revelation as a Mormon would think of it (new doctrine that contradicts and replaces older doctrine), but revelation as a Catholic would think of it (the Holy Spirit bringing deeper understanding of the never-changing doctrine taught by Jesus and the apostles and its application in our current times). But we generally do throw the word revelation around like Mormons do.

 

[TOmNossor]

Catholics place no limits upon the deification of man. We believe the apostle Paul who taught:

Nope, Joseph Smith taught that “God the Father was once a man like us” and “succeeded” in “becoming” God (so he was not divine before that, otherwise, there would have been no issue as to his “success”). We were not divine prior to our birth. If God the Father was divine prior to his sojourn upon an earth-like planet, then he was not like us, but Joseph Smith taught that he was not divine prior to becoming a god, ergo “a man like us” - in other words, just some guy.

If Mormons are starting to embrace a more Christian concept of God, it is only because they are beginning to understand that Joseph Smith’s god is not God at all.

I’m glad you reject that aspect of Mormonism, but it is the Joseph Smith aspect, so can you really call yourself a Mormon if you are not a follower of Joseph Smith?

Paul,
I asserted three things and asked if you agreed with them. You didn’t answer my question.

TOmNossor:
Where I Catholic I would embrace the following things:

• God the Son is homoousian with God the Father in His divinity.
• God the Son is homoousian in His humanity with mankind.
• Mankind may become homoousian with God (Father and Son) in his future deified state becoming gods via grace. This will result in man having a duel nature like Christ.
  Do you embrace these three things? If not why not?

Now, let me answer your question.

If I do not embrace the same theology that Joseph Smith embraced, I can in fact call myself a LDS. I am a LDS, and while I think Joseph Smith and I would come to agreements on most of the positions I espouse, I do not believe such would be necessary. Specifically in this case, Joseph claimed in the KFD that God the Father was a man predicated upon the idea in John 5:19. This IMO points strongly to the fact that God the Father like God the Son was divine before and while incarnate. I do not think it impossible that Joseph’s view is different than mine, but I think it likely he embraced the view I do. I however believe that Brigham Young did not. I am also quite confident neither President Hinckley nor President Monson has clarified this for the church during my time as a LDS.

Specifically you said, “can I call myself a Mormon if I am not a follower of Joseph Smith.” I would generally say, “no.” To be a LDS is to embrace the restoration which occurred through the prophet Joseph Smith. IMO this is being a follower of Joseph Smith.

That being said, neither I nor Joseph Smith claim that I must believe as he did. A High Priest was brought before Joseph Smith for teaching something that Joseph found so ridiculous he laughed. But, Joseph Smith, disbelieving what was embraced by this man, did not even censor this man. You cannot be a Catholic and disbelieve Catholic dogma. There are certain ideas that seem integral to being a LDS, but I am quite confident believing that God was not God before He became man is not one of those things.

I am a follower of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Thomas Monson BUT only to the extent that I believe they point me toward Christ. Ultimately, the errors and insights I have will be between me and my Savior. I do not believe my salvation will be predicated upon my orthodoxy relative to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or the Catholic Church.
Charity, TOm