Gene Fadness, ex-Mormon, on Catholic Answers

[KathleenGee]

Zerinus…

I am waiting too, but I recall this: “Who is like unto God?”, St. Michael the Archangel…

and Satan offering Eve the forbidden fruit…to become like a god…

this is the original sin…isn’t it, man making himself god?

 

[KathleenGee]

I would say closest we come is … receiving the Eucharist and become as little christs bringing His work to others within our daily lives…Mother Theresa I believe made such a remark…

It is about emptying of self and allowing the presence and grace of Jesus Christ to work within us…

 

[TheosisM]

“Men can become gods” and there being many gods are part of the same doctrine. They amount to the same thing.

Okay thanks

 

[soren1]

“Men can become gods” and there being many gods are part of the same doctrine. They amount to the same thing.

The doctrine of theosis is a favorite topic in Mormon apologetics, because quoting a Church Father who says “We will become gods” seems to undermine the most common objection to Mormonism that exists. Alas for the Mormon argument, what the Fathers are saying when they make statements like that is profoundly opposite to the meaning that Mormon scholars read into it. The words sound the same, but there in no propotionality between the concepts those words express for Catholic theology and the Mormon teachings they are used to defend.

The Mormon reading makes really only one error, but it is a foundational and therefore fatal error repeated over and over: they fail to see the difference (which the Fathers understood well) between *partaking *of the divine nature and self-possessing one’s own divine nature. In Catholicism, man has no divinity by nature, but does have a natural affinity with the divine, since he is created in the spiritual image of the Trinity. The action of grace makes the image of God in the human spirit participate in the nature it images, not by possessing that nature of itself, but by receiving it from another.

In Mormonism the opposite is the case. Human beings have the divine nature not by receiving it, but by existing from eternity independently from God, as uncreated spirit matter. What God does is help our divine natures to attain their intrinsic potential by formimg our spirit bodies and fleshly bodies and later by empowering man to take hold of etenal life for himself. None of this would be recognized by the Fathers as theosis, first because it is not “partaking” of a nature. Partaking entails reception, whereas Mormonism says that our divine nature is unreceived. Second, because the thing that we do receive from God in Mormonism is not his nature but rather his attributes, bodily form, moral strength, creative power, etc. These are the kinds of things that distinguish an adult from an embryo, whereas a nature is what distinguishes a man from dog. (This difference is not always clear in Mormon theology because Mormon leaders sometimes use “nature” in broad or equivocal ways that smudge this distinction. I am appealing to the classcial meaning of the word that was understood by the Biblical writers.)

Catholic and Biblical theosis is about living one’s own life through the very same life that is God’s - not just a life that is like God’s, or enabled by God, but the same individual life. God infuses his uncreated being into the underlying created nature of the human person so that God’s identity as God becomes the life principle of the person at the most fundamental level of existence. Because the human is a created being, he remains personally distinct from God and retains his individuality, but his living activity is the life of God, whence Paul can say, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” (Gal 2:20) I daresay that at every point, the Fathers took verses like this more literally than the Mormons do.

The Catholic view is perfectly monotheistic, because it takes the absolute difference between created and uncreated nature as its first premise - and assumes that permise at every point. Although many are called gods by participation in God’s life, only one being is properly divine. Hence its does not amount to belief in many gods, since “god” is not said univocally of both creature and creator. Yet Mormon exhaltation theology takes as its first premise that no such difference exists: we and God are alike uncreated. The two teachings are, therefore, opposite and inimical to each other. That both schools use phrases like “We will become gods” is a completely superficial resemblance, since the meaning of that phrase is foundationally different.

 

[KathleenGee]

soren1,

When I was studying Mormonism privately, I came with an open mind, but the foundation throughout the teachings was different and separate than ours with a different eschatology…I just came on to the issue of Mormonism just recently, but the posts on common ground always raise much more questions for me…that it does seem like a separate religion as Islam…but then I also see fruits of the Holy Spirit at work and also see the problem with the use of language.

However, I look forward to questions about what Mormons truly believe like what I saw in post #89 as it touches on some things i read that again, point to a different religion that uses the Christian bible…Islam has similarities as well.

 

[zerinus]

The doctrine of theosis is a favorite topic in Mormon apologetics, because quoting a Church Father who says “We will become gods” seems to undermine the most common objection to Mormonism that exists.

It is not a “favorite topic” at all. It just happens to be the most appropriate answer to the commonest objection made to Mormonism.

Alas for the Mormon argument, what the Fathers are saying when they make statements like that is profoundly opposite to the meaning that Mormon scholars read into it. The words sound the same, but there in no propotionality between the concepts those words express for Catholic theology and the Mormon teachings they are used to defend.

Let’s not talk out of the both sides of our mouth. The comparison is not between Mormonism and Catholic theology, but between Mormonism and what the early Christians believed and taught.

The Mormon reading makes really only one error, but it is a foundational and therefore fatal error repeated over and over: they fail to see the difference (which the Fathers understood well) between *partaking *of the divine nature and self-possessing one’s own divine nature. In Catholicism, man has no divinity by nature, but does have a natural affinity with the divine, since he is created in the spiritual image of the Trinity. The action of grace makes the image of God in the human spirit participate in the nature it images, not by possessing that nature of itself, but by receiving it from another.

In Mormonism the opposite is the case. Human beings have the divine nature not by receiving it, but by existing from eternity independently from God, as uncreated spirit matter. What God does is help our divine natures to attain their intrinsic potential by formimg our spirit bodies and fleshly bodies and later by empowering man to take hold of etenal life for himself. None of this would be recognized by the Fathers as theosis, first because it is not “partaking” of a nature. Partaking entails reception, whereas Mormonism says that our divine nature is unreceived. Second, because the thing that we do receive from God in Mormonism is not his nature but rather his attributes, bodily form, moral strength, creative power, etc. These are the kinds of things that distinguish an adult from an embryo, whereas a nature is what distinguishes a man from dog. (This difference is not always clear in Mormon theology because Mormon leaders sometimes use “nature” in broad or equivocal ways that smudge this distinction. I am appealing to the classcial meaning of the word that was understood by the Biblical writers.)

That of course is false, and an entirely arbitrary and false distinction between Mormonism and what early Christians believed. Neither Mormonism nor the early Christians attempted to explain how, or by what mechanism men can become gods. Both simply state that they can be. The early Christians quoted a number of well-known scriptures in support of their doctrine, the favorite of which was Psalms 82:6 “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” That essentially teaches that men can become gods because they are the children of God. That is what the ECFs believed, and that is what Mormonism teaches. We become gods by grace, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Deification is equivalent to salvation. We are deified to be saved, and it is a gift of God through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Catholic and Biblical theosis is about living one’s own life through the very same life that is God’s - not just a life that is like God’s, or enabled by God, but the same individual life. God infuses his uncreated being into the underlying created nature of the human person so that God’s identity as God becomes the life principle of the person at the most fundamental level of existence. Because the human is a created being, he remains personally distinct from God and retains his individuality, but his living activity is the life of God, whence Paul can say, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” (Gal 2:20) I daresay that at every point, the Fathers took verses like this more literally than the Mormons do.

That is a load of nonsense which doesn’t make any sense to anybody. That is not what the early Christians taught. It may be Catholic doctrine, but not early Christian doctrine.

The Catholic view is perfectly monotheistic, because it takes the absolute difference between created and uncreated nature as its first premise - and assumes that permise at every point. Although many are called gods by participation in God’s life, only one being is properly divine. Hence its does not amount to belief in many gods, since “god” is not said univocally of both creature and creator. Yet Mormon exhaltation theology takes as its first premise that no such difference exists: we and God are alike uncreated. The two teachings are, therefore, opposite and inimical to each other. That both schools use phrases like “We will become gods” is a completely superficial resemblance, since the meaning of that phrase is foundationally different.

First of all I am not comparing Mormonism with Catholic doctrine. I am comparing Mormonism with what the early Christians taught. Secondly, Mormonism doesn’t teach any of that stuff. Mormonism teaches that we become gods by grace, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and we will remain subject to, and subordinate to, God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.

 

[ricko]

John 4:24: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

Luke 24:39: “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”

Your teachings that God has a body is false according to scripture as your belief that you can become a god and that there are multiple gods.

 

[KathleenGee]

I would have to be reserved in how the Mormons interpret early Christians…and were they mainline Christians or sects with their own ideas…

I think the quote about us being gods is open to interpretation…

 

[RebeccaJ]

I would have to be reserved in how the Mormons interpret early Christians…and were they mainline Christians or sects with their own ideas…

I think the quote about us being gods is open to interpretation…

2 Peter 1,4 Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.

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.”

Note, we share in the divine nature, we do not, as mormons believe, become that nature.

The ECF clearly make a distinction between Creator and created, something Mormons purposely blur, and ignore completely in the ECF writings. In essence, they cherry pick.

 

[zerinus]

John 4:24: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

Luke 24:39: “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”

Your teachings that God has a body is false according to scripture …

So by your reckoning Jesus couldn’t be God then because He had a body, right?

… as your belief that you can become a god and that there are multiple gods.

You appear determined to make yourself as ridiculous as you possibly can be. Be my guest! Who am I to try and stop you!

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Rebecca.

I think of the forbidden fruit…to be like gods…then there is the reference to be as gods from Scripture…but the Jewish tradition always believed in the One True God…Abortion, euthanasia, the creating of man made life forms that harm nature…I see this as man playing as god. Of course, I also know the Mormons oppose abortion…but I think their take is like ruling over a dominion…but then there is the part of celestial weddings…too much there…

I think as you say, we become heirs to the Divine life…but always as creatures, the created.

 

[KathleenGee]

If non-Mormons are misunderstanding or stretching things…that is why we need single church that inculturates the common faith all humanity is called to…

We become babel churches…

 

[Gene_Fadness]

Zerinus,
You ask a lot of questions and I will try and answer some. But some ground rules first. We can disagree with each other while not assigning evil motives. Your statement that I would use a scripture passage as an “excuse to get myself out” of the church and your following statement that I deliberately chose to misrepresent LDS teachings are not acceptable. Why on earth would I look for an excuse to get out of the church? I loved the Mormon church! It was my whole life and you haven’t the foggiest notion of how hard I fought to stay in the church and how difficult it was to cut off those ties. So don’t go there, my friend. Let us begin with the premise that we are both sincere in our beliefs and there is no attempt by to misrepresent my church’s beliefs or mine yours. I may not, in your opinion, have the right understanding of Mormon belief, but there is no attempt on my part to misrepresent it and I’ll assume you come from the same respectful position. I also will not tolerate any comments such as those you made to some posters here about some comments being a “load of nonsense” and similar comments you made to others. This will be a civil discussion or it will not happen at all.
Both Jewish and Christian writers are uncertain as to whether Melchizedek was an actual person or a figure or “type” of Christ. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say he was a real person. I tend to agree with writers who say he was. He belonged to a priesthood established by God in pre-Mosaic times and bible writers, who do not give a genealogy of him, bring him up to point out that his priesthood was superior to the Levite priesthood because Abraham paid tithes to him and he blessed Abraham.I’m quoting here from the Navarre Study Bible (and referring to Melchizedek as M):
“Moreover, since Genesis says nothing about M.'s background, the sacred writer, following a common Rabbinical rule of interpretation, sees Scripture’s silence on this point as symbolic: M, since his genealogy is unknown, is a figure or type of Christ who is eternal. … It is not Christ who resembles M but M who is like Christ. … Christ is the perfection of priesthood. M was created and made like Christ so that we by reflecting on him might learn something about the Son of God.”
Theoderet of Cryus wrote: “Christ the Lord possesses all these qualifications in reality and by nature. He is “without mother” for God alone begot him (before he was born in the flesh) . He is “without father” for he was conceived by mother alone (by the power of the Holy Spirit), that is the virgin. He is ‘without genealogy’ as God, for he who was begotten by the unbegotten Father has no need of genealogy. He is without beginning of days for his is an eternal generation. He had no end of life for he possesses an immortal nature. …”
So, in short, if M did exist as King of Salem (Jerusalem) he existed primiraily as a precusor and prototype of the priesthood Christ would come to hold and for which only Christ could qualify. The moment you introduce me a Mormon man with these qualfications, then I shall gladly accept him as a member of the priesthood type established by Melchizedek for Christ alone.
Many of your follow-up questions relate to Mormonism’s belief in the existence of many Gods compared to Christianity’s assertion that there is one God. Mormons believe that man may progress to Godhood, and I can cite here quote after quote from Mormon leaders that assert that there are gods of other worlds and the “only God with whom we have to do,” is the God of this world. The Doctrine of Eternal Progression clearly establishes that god was once a man who progressed to his godhood through his good works and this same exaltation to godhood is in store for every Mormon man who faithfully fulfills his priesthood calling and temple ordinances. There is simly no denying that or writing around it.
As far as gods of their own planets, I will acknowledge that the modern day church has backed away from that. You certainly don’t see the quotes from the prophets of the modern church like you did from Joseph Smith (King Follett Discourse) and Brigham Young about men going on to create their own worlds as “all gods have done before them.”. I try to make that distinction in my talks. Mormons are all over the table on this teaching. The truly courageous ones, in my view, are those who stoutly defend the old-school teaching even though it has since fallen out of favor and the current church prefers to “shush” it up a bit. Mormons should not have been put in this quandry in the first place. You will never find Old Testament prophets or Jesus, our last prophet and high priest, ever contradict themselves on something so essential as the nature of God.
When talking about the Incarnation of God, I notice you are very careful to say the “Son of God” took on flesh. We believe that God Himself took on flesh, that Jesus is quite literally Immanuel – God With Us. That he is who Isaiah said he would be the “Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” Huge distinction there.
I note that you often refer to “God the Son.” That is not typical of most Mormons, and I was told by an LDS bishop just last week that such phraseology would not be appropriate. But I commend you for getting back to the original Book of Mormon which, in I Nephi, makes several references to God the Son. Later editions changed all those passasage to “son of God”, not God the Son to accommodate for Joseph Smith’s evolving teaching on the nature of God.
And, finally, in respone to your #10, I would ask you if you believe that Jesus is God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) come in the flesh? If you do, then you’ll want to turn in that temple recommend and welcome to the Christian faith.
God bless,
Gene

 

[zerinus]

Hi, Gene, and thank you for replying. In the following series of posts I am going to focus just on the “Melchizedek” issue, and will deal with the other issues in subsequent posts. Owing to the software limitations imposed by the Board admin, I am going to have to split this reply into three posts.

Zerinus,

You ask a lot of questions and I will try and answer some. But some ground rules first. We can disagree with each other while not assigning evil motives. Your statement that I would use a scripture passage as an “excuse to get myself out” of the church and your following statement that I deliberately chose to misrepresent LDS teachings are not acceptable. Why on earth would I look for an excuse to get out of the church? I loved the Mormon church! It was my whole life and you haven’t the foggiest notion of how hard I fought to stay in the church and how difficult it was to cut off those ties. So don’t go there, my friend. Let us begin with the premise that we are both sincere in our beliefs and there is no attempt by to misrepresent my church’s beliefs or mine yours. I may not, in your opinion, have the right understanding of Mormon belief, but there is no attempt on my part to misrepresent it and I’ll assume you come from the same respectful position.

My apologies if I came across that way. I did not mean to attribute “evil motives”. But people can have hidden motives that they may not be fully aware of themselves. They may have been doubting things for some time, and then somebody says something that strikes a resonant chord. That is what I meant by “excuse to get yourself out”.

I also will not tolerate any comments such as those you made to some posters here about some comments being a “load of nonsense” and similar comments you made to others. This will be a civil discussion or it will not happen at all.

That is between me and them. I respond to each poster according to his merits. A civil discourse will be responded to accordingly. A lot of the response that Mormons get around here are not exactly “civil”. You leave that to me and them.

Both Jewish and Christian writers are uncertain as to whether Melchizedek was an actual person or a figure or “type” of Christ.

He could have been both! We know for example that Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac was a figure or type of the Father sacrificing His Son. But they were still real people. In the same way Melchizedek could have been a real person, but at the same time in some way prefiguring Jesus Christ. That in essence is what Mormon theology teaches. According to Mormonism, the Holy Priesthood in ancient times was called “the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God”. But the ancient Church, in order to avoid too frequent repetition of the name of the Deity, changed its name to the Melchizedek Priesthood. Melchizedek was a real person; but he was such a great High Priest that the Priesthood was called after his name in deference to the name of the Supreme Being. (See D&C 107:2–4.)

But, for the sake of argument, let’s say he was a real person. I tend to agree with writers who say he was.

I agree too. The fact that Abraham offered him “tithes,” and he brought “bread and wine” and “blessed” Abraham, and “received tithes” from him (Genesis 14:17–20), suggests that he was a real person. Also the fact that Paul calls him simply a great “man” implies the same thing: “Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils” (Hebrews 7:4).

He belonged to a priesthood established by God in pre-Mosaic times and bible writers, who do not give a genealogy of him, bring him up to point out that his priesthood was superior to the Levite priesthood because Abraham paid tithes to him and he blessed Abraham.

Thus far I agree.

I’m quoting here from the Navarre Study Bible (and referring to Melchizedek as M):

“Moreover, since Genesis says nothing about M.'s background, the sacred writer, following a common Rabbinical rule of interpretation, sees Scripture’s silence on this point as symbolic: M, since his genealogy is unknown, is a figure or type of Christ who is eternal. … It is not Christ who resembles M but M who is like Christ. … Christ is the perfection of priesthood. M was created and made like Christ so that we by reflecting on him might learn something about the Son of God.”

Theoderet of Cryus wrote: “Christ the Lord possesses all these qualifications in reality and by nature. He is “without mother” for God alone begot him (before he was born in the flesh). He is “without father” for he was conceived by mother alone (by the power of the Holy Spirit), that is the virgin. He is ‘without genealogy’ as God, for he who was begotten by the unbegotten Father has no need of genealogy. He is without beginning of days for his is an eternal generation. He had no end of life for he possesses an immortal nature. …”

So, in short, if M did exist as King of Salem (Jerusalem) he existed primiraily as a precusor and prototype of the priesthood Christ would come to hold and for which only Christ could qualify.

Thanks for the quotes. Those are somebody’s attempt at interpreting those scriptures; but as you have pointed out, it is not the only one. There are others who have given different interpretations. The interpretations are in fact very numerous, and vary widely—including suggestions that Melchizedek was: the Father incarnate; the pre-mortal Jesus; an angel; a man; … to an alien from outer space! I did a Google search using the search term “who was Melchizedek,” and came across thousands of hits. Here is one interpretation that I particularly liked:

Continued … /

 

[zerinus]

/… Continued

Question

Who was or is Melchizedek, and what was his standing with respect to God?

Answer

Melchizedek was an Old Testament priest of God in the days of Abraham (Gen. 14:18), hundreds of years before the institution of the Levitical priesthood. We don’t know much about him, except what we learn in Genesis 14 and the comments on that chapter that we find in Hebrews 7.

Hebrews 7:2 notes that “Melchizedek” means “king of righteousness” and that “Salem,” the land over which he was king, means “peace.” Some have wrongly taken these names as an indication that Melchizedek was divine, but this is not a reasonable conclusion based on his name or his title. Also, because Melchizedek had neither beginning of days nor end of life (Heb. 7:3), some have thought that Melchizedek was not human, taking these phrases to mean that he was not born and that he did not die. On this basis, some have concluded that Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. This speculation, however, is not supported by the text of Genesis; there Melchizedek is merely a man, though a good one. And in Hebrews 7:3, the idea that days were unlimited refers to a detail of the Levitical priesthood that did not apply to Melchizedek, namely that Levites served only between the ages of twenty-five and fifty (Num. 8:24-25). Their lives as priests began when they were twenty-five, and their days of service ended when they were fifty. These restrictions did not apply to Melchizedek because he was not a Levite. He is said to be without father, without mother, without genealogy, simply because the Scripture does not record his parentage, not because he didn’t have parents.

In Hebrews 5:5-10; 6:20; 7:11ff., we learn that Jesus is the foretold priest forever of the order of Melchizedek?of Psalm 110:4. This does not imply that Melchizedek was also a priest forever in the same manner that Jesus is. Jesus holds his priesthood forever because he never dies; Melchizedek was a man and as such died, but the order of his priesthood is forever insofar as Christ is of his order and lives/serves forever.

In summary, Melchizedek was a true priest of God in the days of Abraham. That Christ is of Melchizedek’s order shows great honor to Melchizedek, implying that he must have been a very good priest whom God was pleased to have in his service. Source

Here is another interesting commentary I found. I am going to quote only relevant extracts form it, because it is a lengthy commentary. You can read the rest online if you want:

What is meant by “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days or end of life” (Hebrews 7:3)? It seems to plainly indicate that Melchisedec was eternal. However, we must put ourselves back into the eastern world 2000 years ago to understand what the expression would have meant to the original readers. The expression quoted above is not peculiar to the Scripture. It was an expression we find in secular literature of the day. The expression was used, not to indicate eternality, but to express the idea that an individual did not have a recorded geneology, or to indicate an obscure genealogy. Adam Clarke gives such examples from actual historical documents of the day. Here are two such documents:

Senceca, in his 108th epistle, speaking of some of the Roman kings, says: “Of the mother of Servius Tullus there are doubts; and Ancus Marcus is said to have no father.”

Titus Livius, speaking of Servius, says he was born of a slave, named Cornicularia,…, of no father.

The phrase “without descent” is translated from the Greek agenealogetos. This word does not mean the absence of ancestors, but the absence of a traced genealogy. According to Adam Clarke, the word means “a generation, a descent, a pedigree, not absolutely, but rehearsed, described, recorded.” The base of agenealogetos is genealogetos. The “a” before the word changes the word into its negative, or opposite meaning, portraying the idea of “without.” “Genealogetos is he whose stock is entered on record. And so, on the contrary, agenealogetos is not he who has no descent, no genealogy, but he whose descent and pedigree is nowhere entered, recorded, reckoned up.”

To the Jews, a traceable genealogy was of utmost importance, especially for the priesthood. If one could not prove his lineage he was barred from being a priest (Nehemiah 7:64). There is no recorded genealogy of Melchisedec. His descent was not important because his priesthood was not dependant on it. His lineage did not affect his right to the priesthood. The author went on to say in Hebrews 7:13-17 that the Law foretold of a day in which the Melchisedecian priesthood would arise again. Since under the Law of Moses the priesthood had to be of the Aaronic order, this gave evidence that the Law would one day be abolished in favor of a new covenant and consequently a new priesthood. The Law needed to be abolished because it demanded that the priests have their lineage through Aaron, not Melchisedec. After the Law was abolished through Christ’s death and the New Covenant was instituted with His blood, Jesus had no need to be in the lineage of Levi to serve as a priest of God. He could be of the stock of Judah and still be a priest under the order of Melchisedec, for there was no genealogical requirement for this order. The two priesthoods were of a different sort and order, serving two different purposes, at different times.

• • *

Continued … /

 

[zerinus]

/… Continued

Conclusion

Melchisedec seems to be an ordinary man who served as a priest and king over Salem for the duration of his life. Jesus’ priesthood is compared to his priesthood to show that one need not come from the tribe of Levi to be a priest. In fact, the Aaronic priesthood was not as good as the Melchisedecian priesthood. It was full of weakness. Jesus’ priesthood needed to be like Melchisedec’s so He could by-pass the weaknesses of the Levitical order and save those who come to Him. Jesus has both the office of King and Priest (which the Aaronic priesthood could not have) like Melchisedec, and serves for life. Because of these reasons, God ordained for Jesus to have a priesthood in the similitude of Melchisedec’s, and not of Aaron. Source

The reason why I have given these lengthy quotes is to demonstrate that interpretations and commentaries on who Melchizedek was are not one or two; they are very many. And who is to say that the commentary that you have given is the only correct one, and all the rest are wrong? Has the Pope infallibly declared which one is the right one? So why should I accept your particular quoted commentary in preference to any of the others that are out there? The point I am trying to make is that in a discussion of this kind it is best to leave “commentaries” alone, and deal directly with the scriptures—otherwise our discussion would be reduced to just “trading commentaries,” which is not a very enlightening way of conducting such a discussion. Let us get directly into the scriptures, and see what it actually says, and come to an agreed conclusion of possible, rather than just engage in trading commentaries:

Hebrews 7:

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

That suggests that it is his priesthood that is eternal (because it is God’s priesthood), not that himself is eternal. It says that he abideth a priest continually. Himself is mortal, and has a father and mother, and a date of birth and date of death! But his priesthood is eternal; and after he dies and is resurrected, he remains a priest forever, eternally. That is how Mormons understand this verse; and who is to say that their interpretation is wrong, and everybody else’s is right?

The moment you introduce me a Mormon man with these qualfications, then I shall gladly accept him as a member of the priesthood type established by Melchizedek for Christ alone.

That challenge is based on a false premise. It is based on the assumption that that particular commentary that you had quoted is the correct interpretation, and that I have accepted it as such. It is not, and I have not. I accept the Mormon interpretation of these scriptures, which is the most logical and scriptural interpretation I have found—quite apart from the wealth of additional information that is found in LDS scripture about Melchizedek.

Don’t forget that this discussion started with your comment in your interview that you started questioning Mormonism when a Catholic priest pointed to you that in order to qualify for the Melchizedek Priesthood one had to be “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Hebrews 7:3). But as you can see, the Mormon theological position is a lot more water tight than that. In Mormonism it was not Melchizedek himself that was “without father and without father …” but his priesthood. It was a higher priesthood than the Levitical Priesthood. And that is a very plausible and biblical interpretation. I can therefore only assume that your knowledge of Mormon theology at that time was very limited; and that your “questioning of Mormonism” at that time on that basis alone was rather superficial and premature, to say the least. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[KathleenGee]

Melchizedek was a very great man and an initial model enduring to the time of Christ…

Christ came to fulfill the final revelation of Who God is and His mission for us, and to irrevocably and clearly fulfill His mission of establishing His priesthood as High Priesthood, and His priests who serve the altar of atonement in administrating the power of Jesus through His Word and Sacraments.

Another work of Fulfillment by Christ…now that including the priesthood beginning now in Hebrews …Ch 1: 1-2.

‘In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe…’

 

[KathleenGee]

The priesthood was set up 2,000 years ago…if Christ is the intercession through which the universe was created…

He certainly would not fail in properly establishing His church through the intercession of the Holy Spirit to His apostles and successors.

 

[zerinus]

Hi Gene, here is the answer to the remainder of your post:

Many of your follow-up questions relate to Mormonism’s belief in the existence of many Gods compared to Christianity’s assertion that there is one God.

That is a fundamentally erroneous presentation of either the Mormon theological position, or the historical Christian one. Mormons believe that there is only one God whom we, and angels, and spirits, and gods, and the inhabitants of all worlds visible and invisible worship—and that is God the Father. There is no other, or higher, or greater God than Him. Here is a quote:

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

Looking at the other side of the coin, it is also an incorrect presentation of the historical Christian theological position. Early Christians believed that men can become gods, and that there are many gods. Here are a few quotes from the Early Church Fathers quoted from Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers (London: Oxford University Press, 1956, repr. 1958). Each author’s name, and relevant page numbers in the book are given after each quote:

… and they have received the title of “gods,” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the Savior. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

… the Word, I say, of God, who became man just that you might learn from a man how it may be that man should become God. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

The Son in his kindness generously imparted deification to others … who are transformed through him into gods, as images of the prototype … the Word is the archetype of the many images. (Origen, p. 274.)

For the Word was not degraded by receiving a body, so that he should seek to “receive” God’s gift. Rather he deified what he put on; and, more than that, he bestowed this gift upon the race of men. (Athanasius, p. 384.)

… If the works of the Godhead had not taken place by means of the body, man would not have been made divine. (Athanasius, p. 399.)

The Word was made man in order that we might be made divine. (Athanasius, p. 404)

So with that statement you are misrepresenting both Mormonism as well as traditional, historical, Christian theology.

Mormons believe that man may progress to Godhood, …

True!—and so did the early Christians, as far back as you want to trace them.

… and I can cite here quote after quote from Mormon leaders that assert that there are gods of other worlds and the “only God with whom we have to do,” is the God of this world. The Doctrine of Eternal Progression clearly establishes that god was once a man who progressed to his godhood through his good works and this same exaltation to godhood is in store for every Mormon man who faithfully fulfills his priesthood calling and temple ordinances. There is simly no denying that or writing around it.

You are now mixing up Mormon theology with Mormon speculation. True Mormon doctrine is that is found in Mormon scripture. The leaders of the Church have repeatedly stated that that is the ultimate source of LDS theology and doctrine, not the teachings of Church authorities if it cannot be confirmed from the standard works, or if it contradict it. Here are a few relevant quotes (there are more if you wanted me to quote them):

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

“You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, pp. 203-04)

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973)

“If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scripture, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.” (Harold B. Lee, 11th President, Improvement Era, January 1969 p.13)

Continued … /

 

[zerinus]

/… Continued

Thus it IS correct that Mormonism teaches that men can become gods (and hence there are many Gods)—and so did the early Christians. That is clearly stated in Mormon scripture; and it is equally clearly stated by the Early Church Fathers. It is NOT correct Mormon doctrine to state that Mormons worship only the “God of this world,” or that men can become “gods of their own worlds”. That is Mormon speculation, not Mormon doctrine.

As far as gods of their own planets, I will acknowledge that the modern day church has backed away from that. You certainly don’t see the quotes from the prophets of the modern church like you did from Joseph Smith (King Follett Discourse) and Brigham Young about men going on to create their own worlds as “all gods have done before them.” I try to make that distinction in my talks.

See above.

Mormons are all over the table on this teaching.

Not so!

The truly courageous ones, in my view, are those who stoutly defend the old-school teaching even though it has since fallen out of favor and the current church prefers to “shush” it up a bit. Mormons should not have been put in this quandry in the first place. You will never find Old Testament prophets or Jesus, our last prophet and high priest, ever contradict themselves on something so essential as the nature of God.

The truly courageous ones are the ones who stick close to what the Lord has revealed, and avoid dabbling in speculation—either their own, or somebody else’s!

When talking about the Incarnation of God, I notice you are very careful to say the “Son of God” took on flesh.

The Bible teaches that the Son of God took flesh:

Romans 8:

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

We believe that God Himself took on flesh, that Jesus is quite literally Immanuel – God With Us. That he is who Isaiah said he would be the “Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” Huge distinction there.

Hardly! Mormonism also teaches that God Himself took flesh:

Mosiah 3:

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

Ether 3:

17 And now, as I, Moroni, said I could not make a full account of these things which are written, therefore it sufficeth me to say that Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit, even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites.
18 And he ministered unto him even as he ministered unto the Nephites; and all this, that this man might know that he was God, because of the many great works which the Lord had showed unto him.

I note that you often refer to “God the Son.” That is not typical of most Mormons, and I was told by an LDS bishop just last week that such phraseology would not be appropriate.

That would be a very strange bishop! Maybe you were talking to him in a different context. He was objecting to something different perhaps, or misunderstanding your meaning.

But I commend you for getting back to the original Book of Mormon which, in I Nephi, makes several references to God the Son. Later editions changed all those passasage to “son of God”, not God the Son to accommodate for Joseph Smith’s evolving teaching on the nature of God.

I am aware of changes having been made in the Book of Mormon; but I was not aware of that particular change. If you can give me a reference, or point to a website, it would be appreciated.

Continued … /