Gene Fadness, ex-Mormon, on Catholic Answers

[zerinus]

/… Continued

The earliest councils of the church at Nicea and at Athanasia were called to defend and then articulate the Tri-Unity of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The Council of Nicaea was held in the early part of the fourth century; it was not an “early council”. There were many earlier councils than that; and the “Tri-Unity of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” was not an issue in the council. I am not aware of a council at “Athanasia”. I don’t know what you are referring to here. I think you are confusing the Athanasian Creed with something else. The Athanasian creed was not written by any church councils. Tradition attributes it to Athanasius, but available evidence suggests otherwise; and no one knows for sure who wrote the Athnasian Creed.

A second area where we disagree is the view that men may become gods. That is NOT a teaching of the early church fathers.

Well, that is the express language they used. It is your word against them! I would rather trust them with their own words than you.

You may be able to find some isolated quotes from the writings of Mormon apologists that try and establish that by a mis-use of what they mean when they say “gods” and God-like characteristics, …

You are very wrong. The fact that the early Christians believed that men can become gods is a well-documented fact, and accepted by many scholars. A good book on the subject is The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers which I can recommend you to read. It is not written by “Mormon apologists”. I have also written a couple of posts in my Blog which you can read here and here, in which more quotes from the Early Church Fathers is given.

… but, believe me, my friend, there are volumes more of quotes from the early Fathers very clearly stating that God is an uncreated being who has existed forever and will exist into eternity as the only God. (Isa. 42:8, 43:10-11, 44:6-8).

Mormonism doesn’t have any problems with any of that. As far as the Isaiah passages are concerned, those are often misunderstood. Since the Isaiah passages are another one of those common criticisms frequently thrown at LDS, I have written Blog post to explain it, which you can read here.

Men, while having divinity within them and, through sanctifying holiness can become more Christlike, still will not become Gods of their own worlds as taught by Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith and his successors.

Sorry to disappoint you, but Joseph Smith did not teach that men become gods “of their own planets”. He taught that men can become gods, just as the early Christians did.

When you say that I based my decision to leave Mormonism on the passage in Hebrews regarding Melchizedek, you are mistaken. That was only the beginning of a three-year search.

I didn’t say that you “based your decision” on that. I said that that is how you began to question it, which is what you had said.

And, of course, like you, I use commentaries.

Actually I don’t use commentaries! I prefer to obtain my doctrine directly from the scriptures. After all, the commentators don’t have anything more than the scriptures themselves to go by. Take the Melchizedek issue for example; how much information is available about Melchizedek outside the scriptures? None! So why go to commentaries when you can go to the source and learn the truth directly from the word of God? I would rather follow the advice of Paul to Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

That is what I rely on when answering people’s questions about Mormonism. I don’t go to commentaries.

Just because I quoted one doesn’t mean I believe only that one commentary. I am not a full-time, professional theologian. There are lots of men and women out there a lot smarter than I and their writings help me to better understand Scripture.

I am not a fulltime Christian theologian either. (I am not even a part-time one. LOL! ) So what do you do when there are several conflicting commentaries or opinions? At some point you have to go to the scriptures themselves and come to your own conclusions. I learned to do that a long time ago. The reason why I quoted those commentaries was in order to show you the differences between them, and that relying on commentaries is not the best option.

You can read in my written testimony that there were lots of teachings in Mormonism that I struggled with.

Continued … /

 

[zerinus]

/… Continued

I did, and this is what you said about the Melchizedek issue:

… In other words, this priest told us, we were usurping a title and authority that was only Jesus’ to claim. He encouraged us to go home and read Hebrews, primarily chapters 7 through 12.

I did, and it gave me fits. If his understanding of these scriptures was correct, the Mormon priesthood and the Mormon temple ceremony were completely unnecessary and, yes, blasphemous.

My encounter with the priest was just the beginning. …

Well, since the beginning of your “questioning” was based on such a wrong note, maybe it was not surprising that the rest of it went badly wrong too.

In the same testimony you will find the passages you requested from I Nephiwhere the words “the son of” were injected into key passages to establish Jesus as the Son of the Father and not the Father (although I do understand that some Mormon writers call him Father, as you point out. But you know as well as I do that they believe Jesus is a Father is some sense and some characteristics of fatherhood, but these Mormon writers do not believe Jesus and the Father are one in person.)

You are being rather sloppy and incongruent in your discussion or thinking process. First of all the question you had originally raised related to the words “God the Son” that I had used, not the words “the Son of”. That is point #1. Secondly, identifying Jesus as the “Father” is not done by “some Mormon writers,” but by the Book of Mormon itself. I had quoted you two verses out of the Book of Mormon as examples; and there are more if you wanted to look for them. Therefore criticizing Mormonism, or Joseph Smith, because of those isolated changes as though it is some big deal is disingenuous to say the least. Here is one more example from the Book of Mormon:

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.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

If Joseph Smith had an inherent problem with identifying Jesus as the Father, he should have changed all of them, not changed just a few, but leave the rest unchanged. Those which were unchanged were more numerous than those that were changed. So your objections are based on flimsy argument at best.

I will apologize for not coming back to this as quicky as I should have, but I’m definitely not going to apologize for my convictions. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ and will not cease to proclaim it.

Nobody wants you to apologize for your “convictions;” but if you misrepresented Mormonism on Catholic Radio, as I showed you that you had, then maybe you owe them an apology.

I’m sorry you don’t understand the Sacrifice of the Mass. A lot of Jesus’ earliest followers did not as well, if you read the Gospel of John chapter 6, beginning with the Bread of Life discourse that starts at verse 22 and continues to the end of the chapter. As a matter of fact, after Jesus explains several times that Christians would partake of his very body and blood, many left him (verse 66). The Sacrifice of the Mass is the re-presentation of Jesus’ only and ultimate sacrifice made for us. We step out of the context of time and find ourselves at Calvary as Jesus Christ is offered up to forgive sins “once and for all.” So, there is a sacrifice being offered and it is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the one who is offering the Sacrifice is Jesus in the person of the priest. That answers your questions, as many others to this post have answered it as well. You may not like our answer or agree wtih it, but please do not accuse of not answering your questions.

See my reply to Marie5890 in post #262.

Zerinus, you are an ardent defender of your faith and I applaud you for that!

Thank you. Do you think I might earn the title of “Defender of the Faith” from the Pope some day!

But we don’t make progress when we just try to prove the other wrong. I look at my ministry as primarily to Catholics to help them better understand their faith and not be persuaded to what I believe to be false Christs and false gospels. You are not interested in converting to Catholicism, so I really don’t see a point to all this.

The “point” as far as I am concerned is what you said in your radio interview about Mormonism. That is the only thing I was addressing. If you just want to “minister to Catholics,” by all means minister! But if your “ministry” necessitates that you misrepresent other people’s religions, then others may have something to say about that.

I believe, as the Catechism states, that people of many faiths who have a heart for God, who love Him and place Him first in their lives will dwell with Him forever in Heaven! That includes you, Zerinus! I don’t know your heart, only God does. So, in the end, what is our purpose here? You are not going to be persuaded to my beliefs, nor mine to yours; at least in this context. If there are Mormons truly questioning their faith and interested in exploring Catholicism, that is where I want to invest my time. You appear to have no doubt about your faith, so carry on good man, and God bless you.

Good luck to you too. I wish you well in your endeavors. But what I said in my last paragraph still applies.

 

[Gene_Fadness]

Thank you, Zerinus. God bless you too.

 

[Gene_Fadness]

Kikkichan,
Thank you for your comment. You may very well be correct in that my use of manifestations in trying to describe Trinity is not the best term. The difference between us and our Mormon friends regarding “personages” is in the nature of and origin of them. As you know, Christians believe that God is not created and has forever been God. We also believe that God is Spirit and that He takes on flesh in the person of Christ. Mormons believe in the doctrine of Eternal Progression which teaches that God was once a man, who through his good works, becomes a god and that men on Earth today have the same destiny. They also differ with us in that they believe God and Jesus as forever separate and distinct personages of flesh and bone. The Catholic Church does not accept a Mormon baptism as valid (where it would for Protestant baptisms) because of our very different understandings of the Trinity. Mormons beleive that God and Jesus are one in purpose, but they would not say that Jesus is literally God come in the flesh. The Holy Spirit is yet another entity, but a personage of spirit.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am beginning to see Catholic Answers Forum is being used by Mormons in active communication LDS with their advisors to either refute, ignore, or combat our teachings, experiences, or own findings…same issues being addressed and answered by mutiple posters.

I learned a number of years ago that they were throwing out old materials, and so if they are defensive about that, fine.

But I share the concern, the same people, various Catholic response by number of posters…going in circles…

What is the point…is there a purpose? We are here on all our different levels and charisms to answer and build relationships…in dialogue.

 

[soren1]

The Arian heresy was neither about Jesus being “separate” from the Father, nor even about Him being “less divine” than the Father. The “separateness” of Jesus and the Father was not an issue raised by the Arian controversy, nor in the Council of Nicaea that was held to resolve it.

This is entirely wrong. The separation of the Father and Son in inherent in Arianism, because it follows from the Arian thesis that Jesus was an ex nihilo creation of the Father. The core concern of Arianism was to protect the uniqueness of God. The idea was that since there is only one God, who is uncreated, then no one but God can be God, and no one but God can be uncreated. (Obviously Mormonism would not accept that logic, but that is the claim that defined the stakes in the Arian controversy.) Since Jesus was not God himself, he was a creature. If you imagine a sharp line with the uncreated God on one side and all his creations on the other, the question at hand was “What side of that line is the Son on?” Within the framework of monotheism, anything separate from God belongs on the creaturely side of the line. Therefore, any admission that Jesus is separate from the Father, would devolve to Arianism automatically. Hence, the question “Is Christ created?” reduces to “Are the Father and Son separate?”

All of this was clearly understood by St. Athanasius, for whom the non-separation of the Father and Son was essential not merely to the divine nature, but to the order of salvation. Indeed, it is the thesis of his On the Incarnation that because sin corrupts the created order, redemption has to come from outside the created order, from one who is united to the Father as the one uncreated being. By that account, the separation of the Father and Son not only destroys the divine nature, but undermines the very grounds upon which the Son was able to redeem humanity. Athanasius took this so seriously, that he writes in Contra Arianos that “they who separate the Son and alienate the Word from the Father ought themselves to be separated from the Catholic Church and be alien to the Christian name.”

Even before the Council of Nicaea, the Patriarch of Alexandria (for whom Athanasius was a spokesman) summoned a synod in which 36 presbyters and 44 deacons signed a document contrasting Arius’s teaching with that of the Catholic Church, and condemning the former as heretical. According to the Deposition, the orthodox faith teaches that “… since that divine teacher intended to show that the Father and the Son are two things inseparable the one from the other, he spoke of Him as being in the bosom of the Father.” Accordingly, the Deposition condemns certain “words invented by them [the Arians], and spoken contrary to the mind of Scripture,” which include the statement that “the Word, too, is alien and separate from the substance of God.” It was with this understanding that the Council of Nicaea condemned Arius.

Throughout the following century, one Church Father after another lines up to make the same point: what is at stake in the Arian debate is whether any division of substance exists between the Son and the Father. That includes St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and all the Cappadocian Fathers, who are the foremost defenders of the Nicene Council. The First Council of Constantinople (380-81) affirms the same truth:

By means of these two sacred Councils [Constantinople and Nicaea], we acknowledge the Holy and Inseparable Trinity, one God and one substance of the Trinity: we have learnt to proclaim the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity, so that we confess one God, because of the unity of essence, and teach an inseparable Trinity, because of the difference of subsistences and persons.

It is remarkable what a strong contrast there is between this statement and false representation of the Catholic Councils given by Elder Jeffrey Holland in his General Conference address in October 2007:

In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one.

The error in this passage (and many others in its surrounding context) will be evident to anyone who has done their homework to learn what the Councils taught. Such is the respect for accuracy about other religions that characterizes the ethics of the LDS Church’s leadership.

 

[zerinus]

Kikkichan,
Thank you for your comment. You may very well be correct in that my use of manifestations in trying to describe Trinity is not the best term. The difference between us and our Mormon friends regarding “personages” is in the nature of and origin of them. As you know, Christians believe that God is not created and has forever been God.

Mormonism teaches that God is not created and has forever been God. Here are some quotes:

Alma 34:

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

Moroni 7:

22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

Moroni 8:

18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

D&C 19:

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, …

D&C 20:

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

---

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

D&C 38:

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

D&C 76:

4 From eternity to eternity he is the same, and his years never fail.

Moses 1:

3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; …

The expression “Eternal God” occurs only once in the Bible (Deuteronomy 33:27), and eight times is the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. The expression “Eternal Father” does not occur in the Bible (KJV) at all; and it occurs 18 times in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. (The expression “everlasting Father” occurs in the KJV Bible twice.) The following are a few of the more interesting examples of these:

Mosiah 15:

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Alma 11:

44 … and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

---

38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

Continued … /

 

[zerinus]

/… Continued

We also believe that God is Spirit and that He takes on flesh in the person of Christ.

We believe that God is a Spirit who has taken on flesh. We think that man also is a spirits who has taken on flesh. God made man in His own image. Man, like God, is a spirit who has taken on flesh.

Mormons believe in the doctrine of Eternal Progression which teaches that God was once a man, who through his good works, becomes a god and that men on Earth today have the same destiny.

There are two points here that needs to be clarified: firstly, the idea that God was once a man and progressed to become God was taught by Joseph Smith in one of his sermons he gave shortly before his death; but it is not found in any of the standard works of the Church. Nevertheless, because it came from him, it gained wide acceptance in the Church for many years, and even today there are many Latter-day saints (including General Authorities) who still consider it a valid doctrine. During the past decade, however, a lot of controversy has been generated with regard to that doctrine as a result of two interviews that President Gordon B. Hinckley gave to the public press (to Time Magazine and San Francisco Chronicle), in which to all intents and purposes he repudiated that doctrine. He said effectively that he could not confirm that that doctrine was true. That is what his words amounted to. Now if that comment had come from anyone less than Gordon B. Hinckley, it might have been brushed aside. But coming from him it cannot be easily ignored. He effectively threw a spanner in the works that the Church at some point has to deal with—and which so far it hasn’t! But I don’t think they can avoid it forever. They have to deal with it properly at some point or other. In the Church the proper mechanism exists for dealing with such an occurance. It is outlined in D&C 102:23 as follows: “In case of difficulty respecting doctrine or principle, if there is not a sufficiency written to make the case clear to the minds of the council, the president may inquire and obtain the mind of the Lord by revelation”. I think that now the case exists for the application of this rule; but the decision to do so can only be made by the leadership of the Church. In the mean time I believe that the validity of that doctrine remains in doubt, and therefore cannot be confirmed as an official doctrine of the Church. That is my personal opinion. That doctrine is still to be found in the latest edition of the Gospel Principles Manual that was just published last year. That may have been a mistake. It seems wrong for the Church to continue to teach a doctrine officially that has been practically repudiated by a former President of the Church—without some form of clarification.

The second point I should mention with regard to your comment is that in Mormonism, nobody becomes anything by just doing “good works”. It is through grace that we are saved, by virtue of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, regardless of our good works. Without the Atonement nobody’s “good works” would be able to save them. That includes becoming “gods”.

They also differ with us in that they believe God and Jesus as forever separate and distinct personages of flesh and bone.

That is correct. That is what we believe, and that is one of the differences between our theologies.

The Catholic Church does not accept a Mormon baptism as valid (where it would for Protestant baptisms) because of our very different understandings of the Trinity.

That is a long story, which I have already discussed in my Blog that you can read here.

Mormons beleive that God and Jesus are one in purpose, but they would not say that Jesus is literally God come in the flesh.

I already answered that for you before. It depends on what you mean by “literally God came in the flesh”. If you mean that God the Father came in the flesh, then we don’t believe that, and neither does the Bible. If you mean God the Son came in the flesh, then we certainly do believe that. You need to make up your mind what you mean by “God come in the flesh,” otherwise your comment amounts to a subtle act of misrepresentation which does not go unnoticed.

The Holy Spirit is yet another entity, but a personage of spirit.

True!

 

[Marie5890]

I am beginning to see Catholic Answers Forum is being used by Mormons in active communication LDS with their advisors to either refute, ignore, or combat our teachings, experiences, or own findings…same issues being addressed and answered by mutiple posters.

I learned a number of years ago that they were throwing out old materials, and so if they are defensive about that, fine.

But I share the concern, the same people, various Catholic response by number of posters…going in circles…

What is the point…is there a purpose? We are here on all our different levels and charisms to answer and build relationships…in dialogue.

Kathleen I do hear what you are saying and you have a valid observation.

I just look at it as an act of charity. Often times Mormonism is misrepresented and that can (and was when I was LDS) be very frustrating.

But many sites arent like this where they can vent their frustrations, correct the errors etc.

Im sure CAF is a great forum for our Mormon friends to vent their frustrations and correct the errors that do exist.

As long as they are not trying to evangelize or mis-represent Catholicism (which some seemed to fall into the other day and didnt seem able to let their misunderstandings go…) then I dont have a problem

However I do feel that something should be said to anyone who keep mis-representing the teachings of the Catholic Church even after they have been corrected, and is determined to keep those misrepresentations up…

Its not like they are going to be making any converts here anyway…

People exploring mormonism most likely will be checking out mormon sites, not catholic sites,ya know? …

Most of the post just tend to be about defending and explaining the doctrines of one’s faith.

There is real no power of conversion is stating the beliefs of one particular church over anothers.

Most do believe the power of conversion comes thru the Holy Spirit.

What it is that Fr Pacwa says?..“We arent in management (conversion). That’s God’s department”

Or something like that.

 

[dnu]

I have not read all 19 pages of this, but I can say that the early fathers did NOT, and to that extent the Eastern Orthodoxy do not believe that we can become gods. What the early fathers believed and what the Orthodoxy believe now is called Theosis. It is about coming back into one substance with the only one God. Athanasius said something to the effect of “What God is, we can become.” That is talking about coming back into one substance with God through Jesus.

Mormonism teaches apotheosis. That is, that one can become a seperate substance from God the Father. That is, progress eternally beyond God and become a seperate entity.

Again, apotheosis is NOT what any Orthodoxy Christian has ever believed. THEOSIS, coming back into substance with God, is what the early fathers believed. It began to die out after Anselms “substitution theory” came into existence in the 13th Century.

I crammed alot, alot, alot into those few sentences, but Mormonism doesn’t teach anything that was “lost” in the early centuries. Mormonism teaches something completely different and foreign to any Orthodox Christian view.

David

 

[Marie5890]

I have not read all 19 pages of this, but I can say that the early fathers did NOT, and to that extent the Eastern Orthodoxy do not believe that we can become gods. What the early fathers believed and what the Orthodoxy believe now is called Theosis. It is about coming back into one substance with the only one God. Athanasius said something to the effect of “What God is, we can become.” That is talking about coming back into one substance with God through Jesus.

Mormonism teaches apotheosis. That is, that one can become a seperate substance from God the Father. That is, progress eternally beyond God and become a seperate entity.

Again, apotheosis is NOT what any Orthodoxy Christian has ever believed. THEOSIS, coming back into substance with God, is what the early fathers believed. It began to die out after Anselms “substitution theory” came into existence in the 13th Century.

I crammed alot, alot, alot into those few sentences, but Mormonism doesn’t teach anything that was “lost” in the early centuries. Mormonism teaches something completely different and foreign to any Orthodox Christian view.

David

Thank you, David, for that very clear distinction.

What I now realize is a weakness for me (and when I was LDS) was had to do with not understanding the meaning of the Bible in its original language (Hebrew and Greek)…

I cant speak for the Mormons who frequent this board now, but going back to the original language of the Bible wasnt a priority.

Sort of how many Catholics today havent really read or know what it in the Bible, many Mormons dont know what the original meanings were in the original language.

Im trying to remember if Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek were taught when I was at BYU, but honestly dont remember. If they were, it was limited. Never hear Mormons (even the GA’s) talk a great deal about the meaning of scripture as it was originally was written.

Appreciate you making those difference in meanings clear!

 

[soren1]

I have not read all 19 pages of this, but I can say that the early fathers did NOT, and to that extent the Eastern Orthodoxy do not believe that we can become gods. What the early fathers believed and what the Orthodoxy believe now is called Theosis. It is about coming back into one substance with the only one God. Athanasius said something to the effect of “What God is, we can become.” That is talking about coming back into one substance with God through Jesus.

Mormonism teaches apotheosis. That is, that one can become a seperate substance from God the Father. That is, progress eternally beyond God and become a seperate entity.

Again, apotheosis is NOT what any Orthodoxy Christian has ever believed. THEOSIS, coming back into substance with God, is what the early fathers believed. It began to die out after Anselms “substitution theory” came into existence in the 13th Century.

I crammed alot, alot, alot into those few sentences, but Mormonism doesn’t teach anything that was “lost” in the early centuries. Mormonism teaches something completely different and foreign to any Orthodox Christian view.

David

Bravo, David. Mormon scholars have a penchant for compiling texts from the Early Church Fathers that sound like they are teaching the same thing as Mormonism, when in fact those Fathers distinguish their teachings from those of Mormonism very clearly. While phrases like “We will become gods” are to be found in Patristic literature, it is said within an entirely different conceptual framework from than Mormonism. Because Mormons rarely understand what that framework is, the Patristic evidence seems to them to be very supportive of their position, when in fact it is strongly opposed.

Another way of seeing the difference that you are talking about, is that when we say we will “partake of the divine nature” we mean quite literally, that we do not have the divine nature of our right right, but receive it from another. That is what “partake” means. For Mormons, the basis of deification is the claim that we have eternally possessed the divine nature in our own right. (This is opposite of partaking.) These are inimical teachings. Yet Mormon apologists do not hesitate to treat them as the same or to downplay the differences as small details. Because it is much easier to misunderstand the doctrine of theosis than it is get it right, it is very difficult to prove this case to Mormons, even though 100% of the Fathers they cite would condemn Mormonism as polytheistic.

 

[zerinus]

I have not read all 19 pages of this, but I can say that the early fathers did NOT, and to that extent the Eastern Orthodoxy do not believe that we can become gods. What the early fathers believed and what the Orthodoxy believe now is called Theosis. It is about coming back into one substance with the only one God. Athanasius said something to the effect of “What God is, we can become.” That is talking about coming back into one substance with God through Jesus.

Mormonism teaches apotheosis. That is, that one can become a seperate substance from God the Father. That is, progress eternally beyond God and become a seperate entity.

Again, apotheosis is NOT what any Orthodoxy Christian has ever believed. THEOSIS, coming back into substance with God, is what the early fathers believed. It began to die out after Anselms “substitution theory” came into existence in the 13th Century.

I crammed alot, alot, alot into those few sentences, but Mormonism doesn’t teach anything that was “lost” in the early centuries. Mormonism teaches something completely different and foreign to any Orthodox Christian view.

David

These “distinctions” are entirely your own dreamed up inventions; they have no basis in reality. Mormonism teaches that men become gods, just as the early Christians did. it does not say how you become gods, any more than they did.

 

[dnu]

These “distinctions” are entirely your own dreamed up inventions; they have no basis in reality. Mormonism teaches that men become gods, just as the early Christians did. it does not say how you become gods, any more than they did.

Well, keep telling yourself that.

The early fathers never taught apotheosis, they taught theosis. The burden of proof is on you to provide Patristic evidence to the contrary.

While you are at it, I wouldn’t mind taking a peek at those gold plates either…maybe a photograph of some “reformed egyptian” found in upstate New York…maybe even a photo of Adams altar from Missouri…I’d really enjoy taking a peek at Zelph the white Lamenites skeleton if you have it handy…heck, any Lamenite skeleton would be awsome…you probably prefer re analyzing the kinderhook plates or the funeral scrolls, I mean Book of Abraham as opposed to actually reading the Christian fathers though. I understand.

David

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Marie,
I am not for suspending any Mormon and on different threads have also said I have found many nice people…

What I have an issue with, besides different people telling the same people the same concepts is the perception our threads are being used for other purposes as well…studying scholastic posts, going back to their sources to learn more how we think, then coming back with more reinterpretations and more spinning…or use it in a reverse psychological way to also bring some Catholics more to their way of thinking.

The initial problem for me is multi-…not just one issue but several all at once…I was very open to learning in a most positive way, building relationships, but an experienced stopped me…and then I went online…also in reference to some behaviors I had with a Mormon…and not able to go any farther in genuine friendshp…not just my opinion…and then doing online searches, see references to the same issues. I am not stereotyping either…

I always look at the origins and the source of foundations and go from there.

I have prayed and I am not going to get involved with such disputes and even wondered if I should even enter…because after stumbling on some sources…I didn’t go any further but found supportive information for me to just go on with my life…and cherish the good memories I had.

Blessings!

 

[zerinus]

Well, keep telling yourself that.

The early fathers never taught apotheosis, they taught theosis.

That is a figment of your imagination. Mormonism neither teaches “theosis” not “apotheosis”. Mormonism teaches that men can become gods, as the early Christians did.

The burden of proof is on you to provide Patristic evidence to the contrary.

You are the one who challenging my statements; it is up to you to provide the proof. I have already provided the proof. There are hundreds of passages from the Early Church Fathers which teach that men can become gods. If you think they didn’t mean what they said, it is up to you to prove it, not me to disprove it.

While you are at it, I wouldn’t mind taking a peek at those gold plates either…maybe a photograph of some “reformed egyptian” found in upstate New York…maybe even a photo of Adams altar from Missouri…I’d really enjoy taking a peek at Zelph the white Lamenites skeleton if you have it handy…heck, any Lamenite skeleton would be awsome…you probably prefer re analyzing the kinderhook plates or the funeral scrolls, I mean Book of Abraham as opposed to actually reading the Christian fathers though. I understand.

That is beneath contempt. It is unworthy of a reply.

 

[Answersplease]

Well, keep telling yourself that.

The early fathers never taught apotheosis, they taught theosis. The burden of proof is on you to provide Patristic evidence to the contrary.

While you are at it, I wouldn’t mind taking a peek at those gold plates either…maybe a photograph of some “reformed egyptian” found in upstate New York…maybe even a photo of Adams altar from Missouri…I’d really enjoy taking a peek at Zelph the white Lamenites skeleton if you have it handy…heck, any Lamenite skeleton would be awsome…you probably prefer re analyzing the kinderhook plates or the funeral scrolls, I mean Book of Abraham as opposed to actually reading the Christian fathers though. I understand.

David

Answersplease:

Thanks for the post.

 

[Answersplease]

What I have an issue with, besides different people telling the same people the same concepts is the perception our threads are being used for other purposes as well…studying scholastic posts, going back to their sources to learn more how we think, then coming back with more reinterpretations and more spinning…or use it in a reverse psychological way to also bring some Catholics more to their way of thinking.
…

Blessings!

Answersplease:

I agree.

 

[zerinus]

This is entirely wrong. The separation of the Father and Son in inherent in Arianism, because it follows from the Arian thesis that Jesus was an ex nihilo creation of the Father. The core concern of Arianism was to protect the uniqueness of God. The idea was that since there is only one God, who is uncreated, then no one but God can be God, and no one but God can be uncreated. (Obviously Mormonism would not accept that logic, but that is the claim that defined the stakes in the Arian controversy.) Since Jesus was not God himself, he was a creature. If you imagine a sharp line with the uncreated God on one side and all his creations on the other, the question at hand was “What side of that line is the Son on?” Within the framework of monotheism, anything separate from God belongs on the creaturely side of the line. Therefore, any admission that Jesus is separate from the Father, would devolve to Arianism automatically. Hence, the question “Is Christ created?” reduces to “Are the Father and Son separate?”

All of this was clearly understood by St. Athanasius, for whom the non-separation of the Father and Son was essential not merely to the divine nature, but to the order of salvation. Indeed, it is the thesis of his On the Incarnation that because sin corrupts the created order, redemption has to come from outside the created order, from one who is united to the Father as the one uncreated being. By that account, the separation of the Father and Son not only destroys the divine nature, but undermines the very grounds upon which the Son was able to redeem humanity. Athanasius took this so seriously, that he writes in Contra Arianos that “they who separate the Son and alienate the Word from the Father ought themselves to be separated from the Catholic Church and be alien to the Christian name.”

Even before the Council of Nicaea, the Patriarch of Alexandria (for whom Athanasius was a spokesman) summoned a synod in which 36 presbyters and 44 deacons signed a document contrasting Arius’s teaching with that of the Catholic Church, and condemning the former as heretical. According to the Deposition, the orthodox faith teaches that “… since that divine teacher intended to show that the Father and the Son are two things inseparable the one from the other, he spoke of Him as being in the bosom of the Father.” Accordingly, the Deposition condemns certain “words invented by them [the Arians], and spoken contrary to the mind of Scripture,” which include the statement that “the Word, too, is alien and separate from the substance of God.” It was with this understanding that the Council of Nicaea condemned Arius.

You have twisted and distorted a lot of stuff to get to this point. The Arian controversy took place at the beginning of the fourth century, which is 300 years after Christ. An awful lot of things, controversies, and councils had taken place until we get to the Arian controversy. The separateness of the Father and the Son was generally acknowledged by the Christians prior to that time, and even by this time. Christians generally considered them to be two separate beings. Even during the Arian controversy they were generally regarded to be two separate beings. Now I agree that the Arian controversy and the council of Nicaea was one of the historical steps that led to the eventual formulation of the Trinitarian theology of “three in one and one in three” formulation; but that was not always the theology of the Trinity of Christianity. In earlier times they considered them to be two separate beings. Arius’s doctrine contained two basic elements: (1) that the Father was an uncreated being while the Son was a created being; and (2) that the Father was unchangeable and the Son was changeable. He also taught that the Father and the Son were not of the same “substance” (homoousios), by which he meant that they were not made of the “same stuff”. It was not a statement about their “separateness” or “non-separateness”. It was a statement what they were made of. The last quote you gave is interesting: “the Word, too, is alien and separate from the substance of God.” The emphasis here should be on “substance” not “separate”. The effect of his teaching basically was that Jesus could not be God. When the orthodoxy argued back that they Father and the Son were of the same “substance,” they did not mean that they were one and the same being. What they meant was that they were made of the “same stuff”—i.e. they were both divine. “One substance” was not originally intended to convey “one being”. Even a 100 years later, when they council of Chalcedon of AD 451 was convened to deal with the Christological controversies that had arisen at that time, the word homoousios, (of one substance) did not mean that they were one and the same being. It meant that they were made of the “same stuff”. This is clearly shown in the statement put out by the council of Chalcedon:

Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance homoousios] with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance homoousios] with us as regards his manhood …

The way in which the words “of one substance” is used in this context makes clear how they were meant to be understood. Jesus is “of one substance” with the Father with regard to His Godhead in the same way that He is “of one substance” with us with regard to His manhood. In neither case does it mean that they become one and the same people.

Continued … /

 

[zerinus]

/… Continued

Throughout the following century, one Church Father after another lines up to make the same point: what is at stake in the Arian debate is whether any division of substance exists between the Son and the Father. That includes St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and all the Cappadocian Fathers, who are the foremost defenders of the Nicene Council. The First Council of Constantinople (380-81) affirms the same truth:

By means of these two sacred Councils [Constantinople and Nicaea], we acknowledge the Holy and Inseparable Trinity, one God and one substance of the Trinity: we have learnt to proclaim the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity, so that we confess one God, because of the unity of essence, and teach an inseparable Trinity, because of the difference of subsistences and persons.

Like I said, the Trinitarian theology of the “three in one and one in three” absurdity was not the original teaching of Christianity, neither does it have any support in the Bible. It was gradual development, and it took many centuries of controversy and debate to be arrived at. The councils of Nicaea and Constantinople and Chalcedon and beyond were stages in that development. And it is a false theology. It is not what Jesus and His Apostles ever taught. Neither is it something that the earliest Christians ever believed. The earliest Christians believed in a Trinity of three separate beings, which is also what the Bible teaches.

It is remarkable what a strong contrast there is between this statement and false representation of the Catholic Councils given by Elder Jeffrey Holland in his General Conference address in October 2007:

In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one.

The error in this passage (and many others in its surrounding context) will be evident to anyone who has done their homework to learn what the Councils taught. Such is the respect for accuracy about other religions that characterizes the ethics of the LDS Church’s leadership.

What you are saying doesn’t make any sense. Elder Holland has correctly stated the “Trinitarian theology” of present day Christendom. If there is any absurdity in it, it is in Trinitarianism, not in what he teaches.