C
Cowboy_Pete
Guest
I’d have said “Gospel” instead of Church in that statement, but what you said is still very true, and well said.
How are Mormons, Muslims and non-Catholic Protestant Christians really that different?
- Status
1
1holycatholic
Guest
I was just quoting the Bible:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim. 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]
IIRC the KJV uses “pillar and foundation” instead of “pillar and ground”, but the meaning is the same.
From natural theology we know that change admits imperfection and that God is immutable (incapable of change). The Bible also states that God is immutable.
[BIBLEDRB]Malachi 3:6[/BIBLEDRB]
- God can’t change.
- Jesus Christ is God.
- The Church is Christ - it is His body, it is His bride (two shall become one)…
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
And Jesus and the Church is One. they cannot be separated like so many. they read but do not understand what they read.
You cannot separate the Head from the Body. Heresies have been trying this for centuries. they judge the Church from a heresy point of view. It cannot be done.
You cannot separate the Head from the Body. Heresies have been trying this for centuries. they judge the Church from a heresy point of view. It cannot be done.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/controllers/potcController.jsp?leader=5&topic=quotes
“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.”
( The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.)
Since God is necessarily immutable, Mormonism is necessarily false.
C
Cowboy_Pete
Guest
Anasthasius, Catholic Church Father: “God became man so that man might become God.”
Augustine and Clement addressed the same idea.
Ah. That would explain why it was well-said.
C
Cowboy_Pete
Guest
I’m not comparing those statements re theosis to the King Follet Discourses, which aren’t canon, are questionable in their origins and content, and weren’t actually published until well after Lorenzo Snow made the above remark.
But as for Lorenzo Snow’s remarks, they are virtually identical to the statements by your church fathers. Regardless of how some people (including LDS) may have misread them in the light of the later published King Follet discourses.
But as for Lorenzo Snow’s remarks, they are virtually identical to the statements by your church fathers. Regardless of how some people (including LDS) may have misread them in the light of the later published King Follet discourses.
O
OchsFam
Guest
So does the CCC, number 460.
But like anything else, we must get context. This does not mean we become equal to God. It means we share in his divinity, not become divine beings to be God in our own world.
God Bless
1
1holycatholic
Guest
That’s right, we partake in the divine nature, we don’t literally become God. Anyone who has bothered to even briefly skim the document cited and the other writers referenced knows they absolutely reject the incoherent Mormon concept of god(s).
The philosophically incoherent Mormon concept of god(s) is not terribly surprising, given that Mormonism is an offshoot of Protestant Christianity (which tends to disdain philosophy.) The list of famous Mormon philosophers is very short indeed.
C
Cowboy_Pete
Guest
Really? I wasn’t aware that St. Anasthasius and St. Clement were aware about the Mormons. Is this your personal personal revelation, or has there been some sort of officially recognized communication from the Church Triumphant?
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Obviously they couldn’t been aware of Mormons since Mormonism, or anything like it, never existed until Mormonism was established in the 1820’s in New York by Joseph Smith.
The point is that the specific writing cited claiming to support Mormonism and in fact all of the writers cited do not support the incoherent Mormon concept of god(s), what they write is incompatible with Mormonism.
O
OchsFam
Guest
You are very highly skilled at diversion. You managed to completely ignore the topic and bring up a new one. I am impressed.
To clarify what 1holycatholic was saying, St. Anasthasius and St. Clement wrote about our partking in the divinie nature in such a way that they clearly did not support the concept of a man becoming God in the Mormon sense. They of course did not denounce the Mormon heresey as it did not exist but their teachings could be used to denounce the heresey today.
And yes, this has been revealed to the Church by someone in the Church Triumphant, the Holy Spirit (not to mention that this concept is not scriptural and is contrary to the teachings of Christ as well as multiple statements in the OT).
God Bless
R
Roy5
Guest
Perhaps this point has been made already. I haven’t read all the postings.
I actually find the Mormons much closer to the Catholics than the mainstream Protestants are. Why? Mormonism and Catholicism both claim to be the one true faith and they both have what amounts to a Pope who seems to be infallible when it comes to doctrine under certain circumstances. I recall how the Mormon leader disallowed polygamy back in the 1880s (or so), and how in about 1975 (the precise year evades me) suddenly declared that Blacks could be priests after nearly150 years of discrimination. Both also are fundamentalist in that they have certain doctrines that every communicant must accept to be a good Mormon or Catholic. Mainstream Protestants allow far more freedom among their members. Some may be conservative, others liberals, and most somewhere between the two. These three groups exist among Mormons and Catholics, too, but this makes them viewed as less than true-blue communicants.
** And the Mormons and Catholics also share with strict Muslims the notion that they alone embrace the true religion.** All three don’t permit women to be ordained in their religions, while mainstream Protestantism does.
I actually find the Mormons much closer to the Catholics than the mainstream Protestants are. Why? Mormonism and Catholicism both claim to be the one true faith and they both have what amounts to a Pope who seems to be infallible when it comes to doctrine under certain circumstances. I recall how the Mormon leader disallowed polygamy back in the 1880s (or so), and how in about 1975 (the precise year evades me) suddenly declared that Blacks could be priests after nearly150 years of discrimination. Both also are fundamentalist in that they have certain doctrines that every communicant must accept to be a good Mormon or Catholic. Mainstream Protestants allow far more freedom among their members. Some may be conservative, others liberals, and most somewhere between the two. These three groups exist among Mormons and Catholics, too, but this makes them viewed as less than true-blue communicants.
** And the Mormons and Catholics also share with strict Muslims the notion that they alone embrace the true religion.** All three don’t permit women to be ordained in their religions, while mainstream Protestantism does.
**Evangelical Protestantism is so diversified that comparisons are difficult.** Baptists, for example, have no real hierarchy. Some Baptists, especially in the north, are quite broadminded, while many, especially in the south, are not. The same applies to the ordination of women. The ABC ordains them; the SBC doesn't. Etc.
C
Cowboy_Pete
Guest
The topic is, how different are we.
I pointed out that our official statements on deification aren’t that different from similar statements from your church fathers.
You may wish that was off-topic, but it’s not.
We are very different in some other topics, e.g. our rejection of Original Sin, our lay clergy, our doctrine of marriage lasting past death to heaven, our belief that an apostolic church means having a quorum of actual living apostles, our belief that spirit is a finer form of matter, and our belief that God the Father has a body of flesh and blood, just to name a few.
If you had been paying attention, you’d realize that there isn’t a single “mormon sense” of man becoming God. Our theology is fairly vague at this point – unlike you, we haven’t had the benefit of 1500 years of scholarship. Some LDS folks believe in what you call “the mormon sense” and many of us have beliefs more similar to yours.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
1500 years?
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
I have many Mormon friends, and that is partially base on a desire, especially while in high school to avoid alcohol and drugs and those in high school who use alcohol and drugs but that’s another story, or another thread all together. I’ve have never heard of the term “the Mormon sense” could you please elaborate on its meaning?
Thanks.
D
Defender1
Guest
Mormons founder was Joe Smith in 1805 claimed an angel came to him and provided a book written by God . Many teachings conflicting with core teachings of Christianity including the trinity. Polytheism is also evident here . It teaches that men can achieve Godhood.Muslims religion was founded with man named Muhammad . Muhammad also like Joseph Smith(but in the early 600s ) claimed to see an angel . He claimed that Gabriel (Sounds very original ) came to him with Gods inspired word the Quran taking teachings from Judaism , Christianity, and pagan religion and using them to form Muslim faith . Both he and Joe Smith claimed the same story line on how GOd inspired them.Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ . WE the Catholic church was the very church Christ spoke to his Apostles about building and so he did ( Matt 16) Muslims worship the GOd of Abraham and the first divine person in the trinity as well as the Jews . The Quran however is untrue . The Book of Mormon is untrue , the Bible is true .
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
I agree, I’ll just add that the Catholic Bible is the true book… Unfortunately, there are bad Protestant versions of the Bible out there and anyone who has researched the differences between the real Bible (Catholic Bible) and some versions of the KJV know exactly what I’m talking about. It’s difficult to have a logical, realistic or rational discussion with someone who is using a different book, especially when they aren’t ware of the fact that they are using a different book.
You thoughts?
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
I agree, I’ll just add that the Catholic Bible is the true book… Unfortunately, there are bad Protestant versions of the Bible out there and anyone who has researched the differences between the real Bible (Catholic Bible) and some versions of the KJV know exactly what I’m talking about. It’s difficult to have a logical, realistic or rational discussion with someone who is using a different book, especially when they aren’t ware of the fact that they are using a different book.
You thoughts?
B
Bran_Stark
Guest
I don’t understand. Yes, new and better translations may appear over time, but what does that have to do with when you said the KJV of today is not the same as the KJV of 30 years ago?
C
Cowboy_Pete
Guest
Joseph Smith was barely a week old at the very end of 1805. What smokest thou?
- Status