How can Mormons be Christians?

[Tmaque]

arieh0310:

The traditional view of the Trinity is that in the Godhead there are three Persons, not manifestations. This is a good article on the Trinity and early Church teachings: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307frs.asp

I didn’t say God WAS a manifestation. I said God could manifest (show) himself as anything he chooses. He’s God after all. We know he did choose to show himself as a burning bush. We know he wrestled all night with Jacob. We know he has talked to men, fact to face, as one friend talks to another. It’s obvious to me that he can manifest, or show himself in this way if he chooses to. I believe he is a spirit but why does that preclude him from appearing otherwise? It doesn’t, and the Bible supports that view.

 

[Jerusha]

There is also a teaching within LDS that God came down to earth in the form of a human male to conceive Jesus with Mary. That teaching is offensive to all Catholics. If God is all-powerful, couldn’t He have just willed the conception?

 

[Tmaque]

Jerusha:

There is also a teaching within LDS that God came down to earth in the form of a human male to conceive Jesus with Mary. That teaching is offensive to all Catholics. If God is all-powerful, couldn’t He have just willed the conception?

That is not taught in the modern LDS Church. It was believed by many LDS for quite a while, although I don’t think it was ever official doctrine.

 

[arieh0310]

Tmaque:

That is not taught in the modern LDS Church. It was believed by many LDS for quite a while, although I don’t think it was ever official doctrine.

Never official doctrine? Check out these quotes:
**
Brigham Young: “The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. [The babe in] the manger was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our heavenly Father” (Journal of Discourses 2:268).

Joseph F. Smith, sixth Mormon prophet (speaking to young children): “You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers. . . . You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in Scripture that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father” (Family Home Evening, 1972, 125).

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon apostle and theologian: “Christ is . . . the Only Begotten Son . . . of the Father. . . . Each of the words is to be understood literally. ‘Only’ means only. ‘Begotten’ means begotten; and ‘Son’ means son. Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers” (Mormon Doctrine, 546-547).

Orson Pratt, early Mormon apostle and theologian: “The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of husband and wife: hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father” (The Seer, 158-159).**

How do you get any more official than these dudes?

 

[arieh0310]

Tmaque:

I didn’t say God WAS a manifestation. I said God could manifest (show) himself as anything he chooses. He’s God after all. We know he did choose to show himself as a burning bush. We know he wrestled all night with Jacob. We know he has talked to men, fact to face, as one friend talks to another. It’s obvious to me that he can manifest, or show himself in this way if he chooses to. I believe he is a spirit but why does that preclude him from appearing otherwise? It doesn’t, and the Bible supports that view.

I would counter with the eternal Sonship of Christ. The incident with Jacob could be an appearence of the pre-Incarnate Christ (similar to the appearance of a fourth Person in the furnace with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego).

 

[Tmaque]

arieh0310:

Never official doctrine? Check out these quotes:
**
Brigham Young: “The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. [The babe in] the manger was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our heavenly Father” (Journal of Discourses 2:268).

Joseph F. Smith, sixth Mormon prophet (speaking to young children): “You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers. . . . You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in Scripture that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father” (Family Home Evening, 1972, 125).

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon apostle and theologian: “Christ is . . . the Only Begotten Son . . . of the Father. . . . Each of the words is to be understood literally. ‘Only’ means only. ‘Begotten’ means begotten; and ‘Son’ means son. Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers” (Mormon Doctrine, 546-547).

Orson Pratt, early Mormon apostle and theologian: “The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of husband and wife: hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father” (The Seer, 158-159).**

How do you get any more official than these dudes?

None of the texts quoted are considered “official” and binding in a doctrinal sense. I could quote many prominent Catholics, even Popes whose statements you would condemn.

The fact is modern day LDS do not teach that doctrine.

 

[papist1]

They cannot be. They do not have and never had a valid baptism.

the devil works in amazing ways also, and this is one of his less than 200 yr old ways.

 

[arieh0310]

Tmaque:

None of the texts quoted are considered “official” and binding in a doctrinal sense. I could quote many prominent Catholics, even Popes whose statements you would condemn.

The fact is modern day LDS do not teach that doctrine.

I found the following LDS answer to the Virgin Birth:

lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/virgin_mary.htm

Notice that they don’t discount what Young or McConkie say. What they resort to is semantic gymnastics to whitewash previous beliefs.

Also what is eye opening is this article’s description of the LDS understanding of the Trinity. There have been several LDS apologists on this forum that have insisted that Mormons believe in the Trinity when in fact they believe is something in total opposition to the Trinity.

 

[papist1]

Yes, very good point, and so we see that Mary truly is a Virgin to this very day and never knew man, not even a God - man.

 

[PaulDupre]

The LDS god is not my God. My God is omnipotent, their god is not:

Joseph Smith wrote (Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, pg. 615) “I have another subject to dwell upon … the soul, the mind of man, the immortal spirit. All men say God created it in the beginning. The very idea lessens man in my estimation; I do not believe the doctrine, I know better. … for God has told me so …The mind of man is as immortal as God himself … All the fools, learned and wise men, from the beginning of creation, who say that man had a beginning, proves that he must have an end and then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right … God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all … intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle, it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it …”

 

[stillsearching]

Tmaque:

None of the texts quoted are considered “official” and binding in a doctrinal sense. I could quote many prominent Catholics, even Popes whose statements you would condemn.

The fact is modern day LDS do not teach that doctrine.

There has been constatn dispute on thise forum as to whether the LDS have an “official” or binding doctrines. It seems to be absent in their theology. Therefore, it would seem you have a rather moot point. In the absence of any doctrines, considering their covenants and doctrines having bee repeated ly denied here on this forum has having any value or binding, it does not matter which doctrine they do or do not espouse, now does it?

As far as what the Catholic Church did or did not do, even converts to the Church are aware that the two wrongs make a right argument doesn’t wash in any non frivolous discussion.

 

[papist1]

so the mormon religion is actually a truly cafeteria style one. Instead of a cafeteria catholic, you might call it a Lubys LatterDaySaint.(for those from the south)

The heirarchy can claim that God is telling them something different at anytime they want to and therefore this totally takes accountability out of the question, which also takes common sense out of the question for its members because they are truly living within a floating theological hindenburgh.

have FUN!

 

[Jerusha]

also takes common sense out of the question for its members because they are truly living within a floating theological hindenburgh.

Not just a theological hindenburg-- but a historical one, for they pick and choose historical information according to their agenda, too.

 

[Jerusha]

Their theology is like jello-- you try to grab a hold of it, and it disintegrates in your hand. You apply a bit of heat to it, and it disappears. It conforms to the mind-set of the holder.

 

[Tmaque]

stillsearching:

There has been constatn dispute on thise forum as to whether the LDS have an “official” or binding doctrines. It seems to be absent in their theology. Therefore, it would seem you have a rather moot point. In the absence of any doctrines, considering their covenants and doctrines having bee repeated ly denied here on this forum has having any value or binding, it does not matter which doctrine they do or do not espouse, now does it?

As far as what the Catholic Church did or did not do, even converts to the Church are aware that the two wrongs make a right argument doesn’t wash in any non frivolous discussion.

The LDS Church does not teach that God had physical relations with the BMV. Can I be any clearer? To bring up some past book or speech as evidence to the contrary changes nothing. Now, if you want to discuss doctrinal development in BOTH churches that is another discussion.

I didn’t say two wrongs make a right. It’s not about that, it’s about consistency. If we say LDS Church leaders can never have opinions contrary to current church teachings, that such opinions prove the falseness of the church, then we implicate our own Catholic Church with that very statement. This is because our own leaders and notables throughout history have said and done all sorts of things which we would disagree with as modern Catholics.

 

[Tmaque]

papist1:

so the mormon religion is actually a truly cafeteria style one. Instead of a cafeteria catholic, you might call it a Lubys LatterDaySaint.(for those from the south)

The heirarchy can claim that God is telling them something different at anytime they want to and therefore this totally takes accountability out of the question, which also takes common sense out of the question for its members because they are truly living within a floating theological hindenburgh.

have FUN!

I would agree that LDS theology seems to have no grounding element to it. That is one of the reasons why I am no longer LDS.
I would say that LDS theology seems to be settling down now to a form more in line with mainstream Christianity. I would also remind everyone that Catholic theology has changed or developed over the centuries. The one major difference being is the LDS Church claims their changes came directly from new revealed truth, the Catholic Church (and I agree) claims their changes came from a better understanding of the truth revealed centuries ago with the apostles and Christ himself.

 

[arieh0310]

Tmaque:

I would agree that LDS theology seems to have no grounding element to it. That is one of the reasons why I am no longer LDS.
I would say that LDS theology seems to be settling down now to a form more in line with mainstream Christianity. I would also remind everyone that Catholic theology has changed or developed over the centuries. The one major difference being is the LDS Church claims their changes came directly from new revealed truth, the Catholic Church (and I agree) claims their changes came from a better understanding of the truth revealed centuries ago with the apostles and Christ himself.

If you haven’t read Cardinal Newman’s book “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” I would suggest that you do. Christian theology and doctrine has not changed, it has developed (there is a big difference between the two). For example, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t developed until there was controversy and heresy. The original deposit of truth was always there and the orthodox church always believed in the current doctrine of the Trinity, but it was not defined until it became nessesary to stop heretical teachings.

Compare this to Mormon “continuing revelation” like: polygamy, dark-skinned people in the priesthood, etc., etc.

 

[Paul_G]

arieh0310:

St. Stephen did not see two bodies:

The Stoning of Stephen, Acts 7:54-56
54When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Sitting at the right hand of God is an expression of Christ’s power and authority, not that He was literally sitting at next to God’s right hand. If we were to take the above passage as evidence that the Father has a body consider the following verse:
**
Isaiah 40:12
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?**

Jesus would just be a little dot next to the Giant He was sitting next to. By the way, how could JS see both Jesus and the Father is the Father’s hand alone can span the heavens?

The Isaiah passage is poetic license using metaphor. Stephen described his eye witness observation of the reality of what he saw. He said “…standing at the right hand…” not at all the condition that you are referring to.

 

[Tmaque]

arieh0310:

If you haven’t read Cardinal Newman’s book “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” I would suggest that you do. Christian theology and doctrine has not changed, it has developed (there is a big difference between the two). For example, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t developed until there was controversy and heresy. The original deposit of truth was always there and the orthodox church always believed in the current doctrine of the Trinity, but it was not defined until it became nessesary to stop heretical teachings.

Compare this to Mormon “continuing revelation” like: polygamy, dark-skinned people in the priesthood, etc., etc.

I suggest you re-read my post. I said that Catholic theology had developed(which is a nice word for changed). How does something develop and yet remain unchanged? By the way, I have read Cardinal Newmans book so I “get” the concept and the difference between the two as stated in my post.

 

[TOmNossor]

arieh0310:

If you haven’t read Cardinal Newman’s book “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” I would suggest that you do. Christian theology and doctrine has not changed, it has developed (there is a big difference between the two). For example, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t developed until there was controversy and heresy. The original deposit of truth was always there and the orthodox church always believed in the current doctrine of the Trinity, but it was not defined until it became nessesary to stop heretical teachings.

Compare this to Mormon “continuing revelation” like: polygamy, dark-skinned people in the priesthood, etc., etc.

Yes, I would highly recommend Cardinal Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. I believe that his seven characteristics of a true development are a fairly powerful apologetic for the Catholic Church. I would phrase my argument like this, “God has guided the Catholic Church through many developments. Those things that have not abided by these seven characteristics have fallen away; those things that have abided by these seven characteristics have been clarified, accepted, and generally ratified infallibly. Surely God’s hand must have been involved in such a perfect path.”

However, when you say, “Christian theology and doctrine has not changed, it has developed (there is a big difference between the two). For example, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t developed until there was controversy and heresy. The original deposit of truth was always there and the orthodox church always believed in the current doctrine of the Trinity, but it was not defined until it became nessesary to stop heretical teachings.” I think you over step Newman just a little.

As I read Newman he says this. The Catholic Church has an authority from God. The faith that was once delivered in seed form is developed into ripe bushes and trees by the Holy Spirit interacting with the infallible authority of the church. So while we can say that the doctrine was deposited by Christ and the apostles, we cannot suggest that it has merely been defined through some obvious method of collecting the facts from the “deposit.” Newman’s essay makes it quite clear that development occurred. Things that were believed, not believed, and/or not mentioned by past Catholic Saints have become dogma or binding belief.

I do agree with you that wholesale about faces, “Polygamy … No Polygamy.” Have not occurred.

I would suggest that if women are ordained to the Catholic priesthood, the Catholic Church ceased to be the Catholic Church. If women are ordained to the LDS priesthood, it may be just another revelation delivered from God (or in your opinion derived in the mind of an old man).

By my review, Newman opened up a new way of understanding “Tradition.” He brilliantly explained what he saw as a theistic historian. In doing so he did what few of us have been able to do, he left behind a religion he was very committed to and very well versed in. (And I would add he did so when he compared Best to Best, because his career as a Catholic critic gave him many “worsts” to concider.)

Charity, TOm