https://www.quora.com/What-do-Protestants-and-Catholics-think-of-Mormons/answer/James-Hough-1

[AngelaMarie]

Right.
Mormon theology, or at least Joseph Smith’s teaching, and he is the founder of Mormonism, and it held up as “the prophet of the last dispensation”, is that God was once a man, and progressed to the point were he is now a god.

THAT is what Joseph Smith taught.
THAT is NOT what the ECF taught.

 

[TOmNossor]

Why focus on the early Church and their supposed falling away from the truth?

Why not focus on the teachings of Joseph Smith to prove That Mormonism is true?

Hello SunshineGrandma,

I am not sure what you are suggesting. Joseph Smith taught that men can become gods. This is a teaching that anti-Mormons and faithful LDS such as myself believe Joseph Smith taught. We agree. This proves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true or that this teaching is true?

I would not agree that such is proof.

Now, Joseph Smith was a simple farm boy who lived in then 19th century. He was raised in a culture that considered the IDEA “men can become gods” to be blasphemy. But today the idea that “men can become gods” is present in CCC 460. Educated Christians (like Catholic Professor Daniel Keating) know that it was taught by the ECF. Folks like my Catholic mother and @halogirl still find such things to ring of blasphemy. When asked about CCC 460 a brilliant and well-studied Sedavacantist friend of mine without thinking dismissed CCC 460 as another problem with the modernist post Vatican II Catholic Church. Such ideas were absent in the Baltimore Catechism all American Catholics were raised on.

Does this prove that Joseph Smith was a prophet? Well, no it does not. But IMO it is explained by the fact that Joseph Smith was in contact with God in the same way Peter, James, and John were in contact with God. AND that this idea (that men can become gods) was LOST for centuries and needed to be restored. This restoration is happening in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is also happening in academic circles in both Catholicism and Protestantism as scholars like Keating interact with ancient texts. But, Joseph Smith was not interacting with these ancient texts and he believed such long before these texts were available in English and outside small handfuls of libraries in Greek or Latin.

So, my point is that Joseph Smith restored an ancient Christian belief the mere idea of which is considered blasphemy in all but the most informed and educated circles. This does not PROVE the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be a restoration of ancient Christianity carried out by God, but it lends support to the idea that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of ancient Christianity and Joseph Smith received revelation from God like Peter, James and John.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Mormon theology, or at least Joseph Smith’s teaching, and he is the founder of Mormonism, and it held up as “the prophet of the last dispensation,” is that God was once a man, and progressed to the point were he is now a god.

THAT is what Joseph Smith taught.

Hello @AngelaMarie, @Stephen168, and @Lemuel;

Lawyers are taught to never ask questions to which they do not already know the answer. I however am not a lawyer and I really want to know.

I think it very unlikely that Joseph Smith taught that God the Father was once MERELY a man. What Joseph Smith taught was built upon the John 5:19 in the Bible.

John 5:19:

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

LDS teaching has been consistent in that Jesus Christ was sinless and divine before He was incarnated. Mere men are not sinless AND we only MAY BECOME divine through communion with God the Father, the atonement of Jesus Christ, and the guidance from the Holy Spirit.

After Joseph Smith (and partially in response to the poor capturing of his words in the King Follet Discourse) LDS leaders began to teach that God the Father had a HEAVENLY FATHER. That being said, I do not think they have EVER taught that God the Father was a sinful man like we are.

So, I embrace the Snow Couplet, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.” When referring to Jesus Christ, the Snow Couplet is just the exchange formula which I referenced above and was common in the ECF. When referring to God the Father, I believe (together with Blake Ostler and many -though not all- educated LDS) it is a product of a divine embodiment of God the Father.

I will acknowledge that LDS leaders have suggested that God the Father has a Heavenly Father. I do not believe Joseph Smith taught this and I generally believe it is not true. What I do not think LDS leaders have NEVER taught is that God the Father (or God the Son) was ever a man who SINNED or a MERE man.

So, I have three questions for those who have been LDS for 57 years and leaders and ….

1. Did Joseph Smith ever teach that God the Father (or God the Son) was a MERE man or a man who SINNED even once?

2. Has any LDS prophet (or apostle) ever taught that God the Father (or God the Son) was a MERE man or a man who SINNED even once?

3. If the answer is no to the first (and second), why do you think this is?

Again, I am not sure the answer will be “no” but I think that more likely than not. I think if the answer is “no” the position I embrace is stronger AND it is no longer appropriate for anti-Mormons to say that LDS teach that God the Father was a man unless it is qualified by saying that this teaching is claiming about God the Father what all Christians believe about Jesus Christ.

If the answer is "yes" and yet it is vanishingly rare, perhaps you might also recognize that you are beating a horse you should leave to die, but I doubt anything will change regardless of the answer.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Fully divine as in he is God or fully divine as in he is without sin? ‘Define divine.’

Mary and Jesus were both born without sin and never sinned, yet Christians believe Christ was God incarnate, and Mary was human; a Saint. It seems clear that Christianity does not believe that your sinlessness makes you God or fully divine. Only God is divine, because he is God not because he is sinless. God shared in our humanity while Mary was human.

 

[TOmNossor]

Horton:

Is Jesus fully human AND fully divine?

Fully divine as in he is God or fully divine as in he is without sin? ’ Define divine.’

One of the reasons LDS and non-LDS Christians talk past each other is disagreement about “divinity as such.”
Non-LDS Christians have problems with there own tradition here too. Much of the thought imposed over the Bible included the idea that the anitthisis of human is God and vice versa. This presented great difficulties as the God-man Jesus Christ was trying to be understood.

Here is an excellent paper on divinity as such in LDS thought. To be fair I should point out that conflict (for very different reasons IMO) is evident in this essay if you read closely.

https://www.smpt.org/docs/ostler_element1-1.html

For some modern (20th Century) conflict within Catholicism and non-LDS Christianity see the below essay by Father Thomas Weinandy who is brilliant and was celebrated by the USCCB.

Does God Suffer? by Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M. Cap. | Articles | First Things

I have read Weinandy’s book of the same title and one of his points is that the TRADIRIONAL understanding of the Trinity and Christology depend upon God being totally impassible and immutable. As much as divine passiblists would like to reject this, without it the development of the Trinity and “orthodox” Christology depend upon it. I think he is correct here and as a LDS I reject all of it in the IMO anti-Biblical way it DEVELOPED. This is another place where Joseph Smith setup the right combinations of dominos to be knocked over.

This thread was setup to show those combinations, but was locked.

Doctrines Embraced by the CoJCoLDS and Previously Believed by the Early Church ... Using the ECF and Patristic Scolars Non-Catholic Religions

Hello Stephen, I have no idea what will be shown on this thread, I am going to ask. What I believe could be shown is that the ECF were not Catholic. That when you said, “The ECF were Catholic not Mormon” you were only half right as I pointed out on the other thread. Instead, the earliest ECF were EDS (early day saints). The ECF were EDS. A POST-Apostolic authority developed that relied upon a faith delivered via scripture and public revelation but which maintained that NOBODY could receive a…

I recommend Ostler’s Exploring Mormon Thought books for this. Bickmore’s book is valuable too if you stick to broad strokes important doctrines.
Charity, TOm

 

[AngelaMarie]

“The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”

Reads like, Yes, God was once a mere man, since Smith is comparing him to us.

We are “mere men” now as well as sinners. (God himself was once as we are now, )

(and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!) He is no longer as we are now, he is exalted. He has progressed

So, yes, Tom, he did teach that God was once a mere man.

Smith, you have claimed, was a simple farm boy. Would he get all twisted up in “read my mind and parse my words” kind of game playing?

And what was the context? It was a discourse given after someone had died. So Smith was clearing making a comparison to “mere” mortal life

My question to you, Tom, is why are you so defensive over the clear teachings of Smith? Why can’t you just embrace what he taught as a Mormon, rather than try and find a way for them to mean something other that what Smith clearly meant?

Why are you so defensive over the teachings of the man you hold to be the prophet of this dispensation??

 

[TOmNossor]

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!
Reads like, Yes, God was once a mere man, since Smith is comparing him to us.
…
My question to you, Tom, is why are you so defensive over the clear teachings of Smith? Why can’t you just embrace what he taught as a Mormon, rather than try and find a way for them to mean something other that what Smith clearly meant?
Why are you so defensive over the teachings of the man you hold to be the prophet of this dispensation??

You are neglecting the fact that Joseph Smith taught that God the Father was a man like Jesus Christ. He built this teaching off of John 5:19. And LDS leaders do not say “sinful man” or “mere man.” Not in Joseph’s day and not today (I think). But especially not today (I KNOW as I only hear about his from anti-Mormons).

Joseph Smith IMO was teaching the truth that God the Father (like God the Son) is embodied. Joseph Smith knew this because He saw God the Father and God the Son. Joseph Smith probably didn’t know that divine embodiment was a common belief present in the early church. Augustine whose mother was/is a Catholic saint refused to become a Christian because Christian’s taught God was embodied.

I am 100% comfortable with those who believe God the Father has a Father and I do not think God would damn someone devoted to Him who holds an errant view such as this or many others.

I defend other doctrines that are anti-Mormon saws, I just don’t think this is the best read of anything Joseph Smith said.

The fact that it is not in our scriptures and the fact (I think) that no LDS leader ever suggested that God the Father sinned or was a MERE man, leads me to believe that this does not mean what you think it means.

Why are you so adamant that LDS must believe this? The church @Lemuel left bears little resemblance to the church I attend. This is just true despite his proclamations that Satan is at the head of my church. This is not quite like that, but similar. The CoJCoLDS has in the past taught that God the Father was a man. Most LDS have not questioned if being a man means being a sinful man or a mere man or a man just like Jesus Christ was a man. Of those who have thought about it many agree with me. Perhaps the CoJCoLDS is too obviously true if you allow too many of your anti-Mormon saws to fall in response to considered AND FAITHFUL LDS reflection and further clarification of our doctrine. Maybe it is you that needs to explain why you insist that I should believe something I reject. I will not reject a faith based upon the unwise beliefs possibly faithfully held by folks who left my faith. That would be stupid.
Charity, TOm

 

[SunshineGrandma]

TOm - “anti-Mormon” is still a name used for those who question the Mormon Church? Yikes/lol

My point is, if you have reasons to offer why the Mormon church is the one true church, then prove it by using Mormon sources ONLY.

(That would be Joseph Smith, the BoM and other Mormon scripture and prophets)

 

[AngelaMarie]

Why are you so adamant that LDS must believe this?

To they have to? No one is forced to believe anything against their will.
I just pointing out that Joseph Smith is held up as the preeminent prophet. The prophet that Mormons believe God the Father and Son appeared too. The one who “restored the gospel”, “translated the BoM” etc

I would think that Mormons look to his teachings and believe what he taught. But maybe they don’t.

Perhaps Smith nor his teachings are held up and the way they used to be.
That doesn’t change what he taught, even if the present day LDS church has backed away from what he taught.

I won’t speak for Lemuel. He can speak for himself.

 

[Lemuel]

I won’t speak for Lemuel. He can speak for himself.

To what are you referring? I never read TOm’s posts so maybe I missed something?

 

[AngelaMarie]

A comment he made about how he sees your view of Mormonism.
Moot point since you dont read his posts. No biggie.

 

[Stephen168]

During this Christmas season, Christians celebrate the Incarnation, the Word made flesh (John 1:1-18). God shared in our humanity, so that we might share in his divinity (2 Peter 1:3-4).

Joseph Smith invented the idea that God was a man, of flesh and bone, who lived on a planet thereby rejecting the Judeo-Christian belief in God as the Alpha and the Omega(Isaiah 4:6, Rev 1:8), the uncreated creator. He invented the idea that man can become God, not the Christian belief that God became man.

Joseph Smith did not “restore” Christmas. He invented something else. When Mormons claim that Christ is the example of what any Mormon can do (become God), It does make me wonder what Mormons celebrate on Christmas, and why.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

But the problem with your argument is that the CoJCoLDS teaches that men can become gods by nature. This is wrong, not what the Church teaches and not what the ECF ever taught. Men do become gods, but only because they, in heaven, participate in the divine nature of God and become deified by grace. This is what is meant by CCC 460. You cannot inject your own meaning into anything.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

And separate. Gods of their own planets, with ongoing marital relationship(s).

Not the mainstream Christian viewpoint at all. Not in early Christianity either.

Where is there proof of marriage in heaven in early Church history? Does any other sect, claiming to be historical Christian, teach this other than Mormonism?

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm - “anti-Mormon” is still a name used for those who question the Mormon Church? Yikes/lol

I used the term “anti-Mormon” the same way I would use the term “anti-Catholic.”
Here is a thread:

Protestant Forum I Checked Out Non-Catholic Religions

I took a look at the CARM forums and these people are soooooooooo hostile toward Catholics. I knew anti-Catholicism existed but these people are just so rude. The argument that seems to come up the most is they keep insisting Catholicism is man made. Despite attending a Catholic school for 8 years with a “Religion” class but not Catechism class, most of what I’ve learned about our Faith has come from online, including CAF. So…my question. How do we know that our Faith is the first Christian Ch…

I have spent time defending Catholicism in forums like CARM. They are anti-Catholic. It is easy to dwell on things like worshiping Mary (latria, dulia, hyperdulia … bah humbug) and paint the Catholic Church as an anti-Christian cult. It is necessary to afford a little bit of charity to the defenders of the faith you reject.
Here are the words of a person who was a Catholic priest at the time:
https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2680&index=3

was my eventual perception that one connection between the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lay in the fact that those who sought to deny the label “Christian” to the LDS Church were, more often than not, the very same people who would then turn around and attempt to deny this label to the Catholic Church—with the same reasons often being used in both instances to justify the conclusion. And since it was easy enough for me to see through the many half-truths, misunderstandings, and even outright errors alleged against the Catholic Church, I suspected that similar critiques leveled against the LDS Church—as to its “non-Christian” status—were equally flawed.
If you are tempted to reply “bah humbug” to this assessment from a former Catholic priest then you are stuck too deeply in your Catholic paradigm to even be fair IMO.

I have been around Mormonism for 30 years. They have always taught that god was an actual man. Are you saying something different?

What sort of “around” was this. I have attended 3 hours of services for 20+ years and have heard “god was once a man” 2-3 times (and one time it was specifically in reference to Jesus Christ). I have NEVER heard that God the Father was once “merely a man” or was once a “sinful man.” I suspect your “around” was not the simple and faithful worship of LDS, but rather the critical comments by anti-Mormons.

My point is, if you have reasons to offer why the Mormon church is the one true church, then prove it by using Mormon sources ONLY.

I have posted archeologists, Biblical scholars, linguists, and … that show that the BOM is an ancient text. Many Catholic posters attempt to dismiss these scholars by suggesting they are LDS so I now point to non-LDS archeologist, Biblical scholars, … that support LDS truth claims.

Please read the words of some critics of the CoJCoLDS who I NEVER call anti-Mormons:
Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It
If you have paid attention to intelligent LDS defending our faith for 30 years, please offer a pro-LDS argument of the type you wish I would. If you like, give me some anti-Catholic saw and I will provide a “Catholic Answer.” I have notes.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Why are you so adamant that LDS must believe this?

To they have to? No one is forced to believe anything against their will.
I just pointing out that Joseph Smith is held up as the preeminent prophet. The prophet that Mormons believe God the Father and Son appeared too. The one who “restored the gospel”, “translated the BoM” etc

I would think that Mormons look to his teachings and believe what he taught. But maybe they don’t.

Perhaps Smith nor his teachings are held up and the way they used to be.
That doesn’t change what he taught, even if the present day LDS church has backed away from what he taught.

I won’t speak for Lemuel. He can speak for himself.

I accept the teachings of Joseph Smith, I just claim you do not understand them.

Further, I claim that as a faithful member I am much better suited to engage with them than you are.
I am not shy about telling my fellow LDS how I understand this or that doctrine and why. Sometimes they agree. Sometimes they do not. But never do they claim I am not a LDS because of my understanding or that I reject the prophethood of Joseph Smith. You are just wrong.

I will continue to seek the best understanding of the Catholic Church and compare it to the best understanding of the CoJCoLDS.

Charity, TOm

 

[SunshineGrandma]

You referred to my questions as anti-Mormon. It doesn’t matter to me what anyone else says on other posts.

I’ve heard the term used many, many times in Utah whenever anyone brings up J. Smith or B. Young and their pasts, quotes, or lifestyles.

Why look to early Church history if Mormons claim it was all in apostasy following the death of the last apostle?

I thought what made Mormonism so true was it’s reinvention of a true Church and it’s connection to the United States?

 

[SunshineGrandma]

So, are you saying that Mormonism does not teach, and never has, that God was once a man?

 

[Lemuel]

Why look to early Church history if Mormons claim it was all in apostasy following the death of the last apostle?

There was no death of the last apostle. That’s one of the reasons the restoration of the priesthood did not happen.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

According to…only Mormonism?