For us former Mormons...

[zerinus]

Some of them have said they believe the universe eternally co-existed with God, albeit in an unformed state until God formed it.

I haven’t heard of that one. You would have to first define “universe,” and I don’t know if there is anyone in the world who knows enough about the “universe” to be able to define it.

They don’t believe God was the ultimate source of the raw materials or of the laws of physics which bind the universe.

We haven’t said anything about the “laws of physics”. Our scriptures tell us that the laws which govern the universe were determined by God (D&C 88:13). That presumably includes the laws of physics. LDS doctrine teaches that there are two things that were not created, but have always existed. They are referred to in LDS scripture as “the elements” and “intelligence”. These are the raw materials out of which the rest of the universe, or all of God’s creations were made, both animate and inanimate objects. The natures of these two substances are not understood. By the “elements,” for example, is not necessarily meant the elements in the Periodic Table. It could be referring to something much more basic and elemental than that. Similarly, we don’t know what is meant by “intelligence”. A lot of the speculations made by some early Church leaders in the past about that, who had a fertile imagination, were just that, speculations. All we know is that God did not make anything out of nothing. He created them out of these two basic raw materials, the precise natures of which have not yet been revealed.

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

We haven’t said anything about the “laws of physics”. Our scriptures tell us that the laws which govern the universe were determined by God (D&C 88:13). That presumably includes the laws of physics.

You yourself said that God’s omnipotence is limited to being the ability to do all that is possible within the universe, and that there were some things impossible even to God.

It is contradictory to say that God is limited in His abilities to doing only what is possible within the universe, and to also say that God established the limits.

My answer is that God is not a creature constrained by the elements and limits of the universe. God is the source of the universe and everything that it is composed of. God chooses to abide by the rules He created, but also has the ability to change those rules. The one who builds the walls may choose to stay on one side of them, but he is not limited by those walls.

LDS doctrine teaches that there are two things that were not created, but have always existed. They are referred to in LDS scripture as “the elements” and “intelligence”. These are the raw materials out of which the rest of the universe, or all of God’s creations were made, both animate and inanimate objects. The natures of these two substances are not understood. By the “elements,” for example, is not necessarily meant the elements in the Periodic Table. It could be referring to something much more basic and elemental than that. Similarly, we don’t know what is meant by “intelligence”. A lot of the speculations made by some early Church leaders in the past about that, who had a fertile imagination, were just that, speculations. All we know is that God did not make anything out of nothing. He created them out of these two basic raw materials, the precise natures of which have not yet been revealed.

zerinus

See this commentary. catholic.com/library/Creation_Out_of_Nothing.asp

The earliest church fathers, writing within the lifetimes of the apostles and within the lifetimes of those personally taught by the apostles, taught that nothing existed save God, then God created the materials needed for creation, then God created the universe.

Your favorite Father, Origen, even said the same.

 

[Gertabelle]

We haven’t said anything about the “laws of physics”. Our scriptures…

zerinus

Z, as a cradle Catholic, I have been a lurker on this thread – because it is specifically for “former Mormons.”

While I’m certain it must be frightfully tempting to post defenses of your faith on this thread, I would respectfully ask you to refrain from doing so. Save the LDS apologetics for some other thread. **This thread **really is not for either one of us.

Gertie

 

[ROBIN97]

Yes.

But the Universe is not eternal. Both the Bible and Science says it had a beginning. According to Astronomers -13.2 billion light-years ago to be precise. Someone had to make the matter - from nothing logically. Then that someone had to get it started to first make Hydrogen. Then other matter from that. We see him still creating gasses and stars from that today.
God has to be infinite. The universe does not - and has to have a Creator.
Where does that leave you?
**Robin of the Wichita Hood **

 

[zerinus]

You yourself said that God’s omnipotence is limited to being the ability to do all that is possible within the universe, and that there were some things impossible even to God.

It is contradictory to say that God is limited in His abilities to doing only what is possible within the universe, and to also say that God established the limits.

My answer is that God is not a creature constrained by the elements and limits of the universe. God is the source of the universe and everything that it is composed of. God chooses to abide by the rules He created, but also has the ability to change those rules. The one who builds the walls may choose to stay on one side of them, but he is not limited by those walls.

You can believe what you like. I am just telling you what we believe, and what is the basis of it. I am less interested in what you believe, than ensuring that you correctly understand what we believe.

See this commentary. catholic.com/library/Creation_Out_of_Nothing.asp

See these commentaries:

eschooloftheprophets.blogspot.com/2008/04/creatio-ex-materia.html
en.fairmormon.org/Creatio_ex_nihilo

Anything you can do, we can do—and often better.

The earliest church fathers, writing within the lifetimes of the apostles and within the lifetimes of those personally taught by the apostles, taught that nothing existed save God, then God created the materials needed for creation, then God created the universe.

Your favorite Father, Origen, even said the same.

I don’t blame those people for believing as they did. They could not have known what God had not revealed to them. They did the best they could with the limited knowledge that they possessed. They had no scriptural evidence to back it up though. It was a conjecture on their part—making the best use of the knowledge they possessed. That is neither here nor there. That is why we need modern prophets and modern revelation to tell us what we didn’t know before; rather than risk taking a guess at it—and getting it wrong.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Z, as a cradle Catholic, I have been a lurker on this thread – because it is specifically for “former Mormons.”

While I’m certain it must be frightfully tempting to post defenses of your faith on this thread, I would respectfully ask you to refrain from doing so. Save the LDS apologetics for some other thread. **This thread **really is not for either one of us.

Gertie

This is an open tread in an open forum. That means that anybody may post in it if they want to. When LDS beliefs are misunderstood or misrepresented, I have as much right to post a reply to correct it as the next person.

zerinus

 

[grandfather]

I haven’t heard of that one. You would have to first define “universe,” and I don’t know if there is anyone in the world who knows enough about the “universe” to be able to define it.

We haven’t said anything about the “laws of physics”. Our scriptures tell us that the laws which govern the universe were determined by God (D&C 88:13). That presumably includes the laws of physics. LDS doctrine teaches that there are two things that were not created, but have always existed. They are referred to in LDS scripture as “the elements” and “intelligence”. These are the raw materials out of which the rest of the universe, or all of God’s creations were made, both animate and inanimate objects. The natures of these two substances are not understood. By the “elements,” for example, is not necessarily meant the elements in the Periodic Table. It could be referring to something much more basic and elemental than that. Similarly, we don’t know what is meant by “intelligence”. A lot of the speculations made by some early Church leaders in the past about that, who had a fertile imagination, were just that, speculations. All we know is that God did not make anything out of nothing. He created them out of these two basic raw materials, the precise natures of which have not yet been revealed.

zerinus

Mormons clearly do not believe in the same God that Christians believe in. They do not believe in the God of the Jews either. The God of the Old and New Testaments created everything that exists materially and spiritually out of nothing. There is nothing coeternal with God. Mormons insist they are Christians, but do not believe what Christians believe. Mormon’s are not even deists. If one group believes God made everything out of nothing and another believes God made anything out of nothing they have nothing in common whatsoever. They are entirely foreign to one another, not a little, but completely. Mormons are disappointed or unhappy that Christians do not classify Mormonism as a Christian religion yet there is nothing in common in the beliefs of Christianity with Mormonism. The very basic most fundamental beliefs of both religions are entirely different. It is puzzling that Mormons would want to be identified by name as a form of a religion with which they hold no common essential beliefs. They can insist that their religion is true and others are false, but why do they want to be called Christians when they share nothing in common belief with Christians?

 

[BartBurk]

Mormons clearly do not believe in the same God that Christians believe in. They do not believe in the God of the Jews either. The God of the Old and New Testaments created everything that exists materially and spiritually out of nothing. There is nothing coeternal with God. Mormons insist they are Christians, but do not believe what Christians believe. Mormon’s are not even deists. If one group believes God made everything out of nothing and another believes God made anything out of nothing they have nothing in common whatsoever. They are entirely foreign to one another, not a little, but completely. Mormons are disappointed or unhappy that Christians do not classify Mormonism as a Christian religion yet there is nothing in common in the beliefs of Christianity with Mormonism. The very basic most fundamental beliefs of both religions are entirely different. It is puzzling that Mormons would want to be identified by name as a form of a religion with which they hold no common essential beliefs. They can insist that their religion is true and others are false, but why do they want to be called Christians when they share nothing in common belief with Christians?

I don’t really understand your line of reasoning here. They may not hold the same doctrine as Trinitarian Christians, but they believe that Christ’s birth was unique in that Christ was born of an immortal Father. They believe Christ taught us to follow him, atoned for our sins though his passion, died on the cross and was resurrected. They in some sense see Christ as God. They believe Christ will come again and rule the world. They are heretics, but it is hard for me to see how they wouldn’t be considered Christian. Their scriptures even claim that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One Eternal God although they may not go as far in their understanding of their oneness as we do.

I think it is closer to the truth to call them heretical Christians than it is to call them non-Christians. I think wrongly addressing them as non-Christians builds a wall which makes it difficult to have a decent dialog with people who are doing their best to follow Jesus. That doesn’t mean we are going to accept their baptism or let them take the Eucharist. It seems to me we Catholics are ready to sit down with people like the Disciples of Christ even though they don’t require their members to believe in the Trinity. How many Anglicans even believe in the Trinity these days? The United Churches of Christ refer to the creeds as historical documents, but don’t require their ministers to believe the creeds.

Yes, the Mormons are wrong about many things. I do think that most Mormons are doing their best to follow Jesus as they understand him.

 

[comebacktome]

This is an open tread in an open forum. That means that anybody may post in it if they want to. When LDS beliefs are misunderstood or misrepresented, I have as much right to post a reply to correct it as the next person.

zerinus

Yes, you have a “right” to post on an open forum. However, I think Gertie was pointing to the “responsibility” that comes with “rights”, and that is to stay on topic within each thread.
Of course, we all have the “right” , nay, the “free will”, to throw common courtesy to the wind.

 

[armyross]

Z, as a cradle Catholic, I have been a lurker on this thread – because it is specifically for “former Mormons.”

While I’m certain it must be frightfully tempting to post defenses of your faith on this thread, I would respectfully ask you to refrain from doing so. Save the LDS apologetics for some other thread. **This thread **really is not for either one of us.

Gertie

Thank you, find another another home Z

 

[zerinus]

Thank you, find another another home Z

Come and make me!

zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

Thank you, find another another home Z

I think he’s already finding it here. And when he finally completes the journey to the Catholic Church we’ll all welcome him home.

 

[armyross]

I think he’s already finding it here. And when he finally completes the journey to the Catholic Church we’ll all welcome him home.

I agree. I will be waiting.

 

[zerinus]

I think he’s already finding it here. And when he finally completes the journey to the Catholic Church we’ll all welcome him home.

I love the Catholic Church. I have nothing against the Catholic Church. If there was no Mormonism, and I was looking for a church, Catholic is most likely the one I would choose. But I have something better to offer them. As some of our leaders have said, you can keep all the good principles and true doctrines that you already have, and come to us ang get some more!

zerinus

 

[armyross]

Come and make me!

zerinus

I am not going to come back with any sort of threat that you are doing to me. Because I know if you and I were face to face you would not threaten me nor any of my Airborn brothers. So I am going to pray for you instead.

 

[BartBurk]

I love the Catholic Church. I have nothing against the Catholic Church. If there was no Mormonism, and I was looking for a church, Catholic is most likely the one I would choose. But I have something better to offer them. As some of our leaders have said, you can keep all the good principles and true doctrines that you already have, and come to us ang get some more!

zerinus

I can’t get the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist in the Mormon Church. Somehow the symbolism of Wonder Bread and water just isn’t enough when compared to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. That’s one doctrine (found in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon) that the Mormon Church rejects. See 3 Nephi 20: 1-8.

[1]And it came to pass that he commanded the multitude that they should cease to pray, and also his disciples. And he commanded them that they should not cease to pray in their hearts.

[2] And he commanded them that they should arise and stand up upon their feet. And they arose up and stood upon their feet.

[3] And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat.

[4] And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude.

[5] And when they had given unto the multitude he also gave them wine to drink, and commanded them that they should give unto the multitude.

[6] Now, there had been no bread, neither wine, brought by the disciples, neither by the multitude;

[7] But he truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink.

[8] And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled.

 

[zerinus]

I can’t get the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist in the Mormon Church. Somehow the symbolism of Wonder Bread and water just isn’t enough when compared to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. That’s one doctrine (found in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon) that the Mormon Church rejects. See 3 Nephi 20: 1-8.

John 6:

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

We offer you more of the words of Christ.

zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

John 6:

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

We offer you more of the words of Christ.

zerinus

And if the spirit gives life to the host and wine in the Eucharist to make Christ’s presence real, why would you reject Christ in the Eucharist? Why would you reject the clear words of Christ and Paul in this regard? Why would you reject the teachings of the early church Fathers who testified of this doctrine? Why would I deny myself the opportunity to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ as he commanded and exchange it for the dead symbols of the Mormon Church’s sacrament?

 

[zerinus]

And if the spirit gives life to the host and wine in the Eucharist to make Christ’s presence real, why would you reject Christ in the Eucharist? Why would you reject the clear words of Christ and Paul in this regard? Why would you reject the teachings of the early church Fathers who testified of this doctrine? Why would I deny myself the opportunity to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ as he commanded and exchange it for the dead symbols of the Mormon Church’s sacrament?

You are clutching at straws.

zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

You are clutching at straws.

zerinus

I’m actually reading the scriptures clearly. You are in denial about what the scriptures are telling you. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the teaching of the early church as clearly seen in the Bible and the Early Church Fathers. Here’s the long form of the argument which is convincing to me:

catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Quoting from the article:

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).