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

[Stephen168]

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.

True

In fact, the same article that Tom quoted to prove that “The ECF before the 4th century believed that whatever Jesus Christ was men may become,” contained the following:

What Theosis is Not
Having reached this point, it is now appropriate to identify two key things that

theosis, or divinization is not. A full understanding of these points is needed lest proponents and potential opponents of this important doctrine needlessly clash. Just as important, understanding is also needed so as to insure against grave anthropological and theological error.

The first thing the patristic, orthodox doctrine of divinization is not, is a proposition for the mingling of the divine with the human essence. As clearly set forth by the Holy Fathers, the doctrine of theosis does not entail or imply confusion or mingling of the essence of God and man. Kärkkäinen, like many others, emphasizes this point, referencing St. Macarius , who taught that “persons to be deified . . . retain their own identity (i.e., do not overstep the distinction between God and humans).” Kärkkäinen also cites St. Maximus , who explains that a person “who becomes obedient to God in all things hears God saying: ‘I said; you are gods’ (Jn 10:34); he then is God and is called ‘God’ not by nature or by relation but by divine decree and grace.” Lossky’s explanation on this point is more specific while also being more layered.

The union to which we are called is neither hypostatic—as in the case of the human nature of Christ—nor substantial, as in that of the three divine Persons: it is union with God in His energies, or union by grace making us participate in the divine nature, without our essence becoming the essence of God. In deification we are by grace . . . All that God is by nature, save only identity of nature . . . We remain creatures while becoming God by grace, as Christ remained God in becoming man by the Incarnation.

Keating underscores this important clarification, humorously clarifying, “deification does not mean the change of our nature into something other than it is—it is not an ontological promotion.”

It is clear that Theosis is not Mormon eternal progression. It is not the Mormon belief that men are “Gods in embryo.” As much as Tom wants unique Mormon belief to be reflected in the early church, it is not there. When St. Peter says we will partake of the “divine nature” it is clear that it is not the nature of man; human nature.

The ancient Christian belief in the incarnation that we celebrate at this time of year is the exact opposite of what Joseph Smith and Mormonism teaches.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Wasn’t the whole reason Joseph Smith stated that God wanted a new church is because the “other” one(s) got it all wrong?

JS denied everything that was mainstream Christianity- from the trinity to God once being a man “like you and me”.

Why now the desire to insert Mormonism into what God supposedly said was corrupt and beyond repair?

How could these corrupt early Christians have any redeeming value to Mormonism?

 

[Lemuel]

Yeah according to Mormonism. They believe that the apostle John never tasted of death but will tarry upon the earth until Jesus returns at which time he will be twinkled from mortality to immortality. So either John was somehow stripped of the priesthood or it was never actually taken from the earth in the first place, in which case, there couldn’t be a restoration. You can’t restore something that was not removed. The Mormonites will throw out arguments like John had the priesthood but not the keys of authority, and it was the keys of the priesthood that were restored.

So I guess that when the angels Peter and James appeared to Joe and Oliver, John strolled in from the woods and participated in restoring keys that he didn’t even have.

None of it makes any sense. Mormonites can’t even agree on what happened that day. You should do what I’ve done several times. Go chat with the Church of Mormon missionaries and have them explain it. You’ll get as many different conflicting versions as people you talk to. And in the end, it is always the same. The young sister missionary said that she couldn’t explain it but God could and I just needed to ask Him.

And then there’s the three Nephites.

It’s all part of the giant hoax.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

I have met with Mormon missionaries. And lived in Utah for many years.

You are right- they couldn’t answer any of my questions.

In fact, when they came to our home, I read to them out of several books about early Church history (pre-internet days) and they had ZERO knowledge about any of it.

I remember reading to them about where each of the apostles went to spread Christianity after Jesus died. I asked how it could have all died off if the apostles had gone to different regions preaching and baptizing many.

They sat looking at me in stunned silence. Then the snarky one started attacking “my love of history”.

How ironic!!

 

[Stephen168]

Wasn’t the whole reason Joseph Smith stated that God wanted a new church is because the “other” one(s) got it all wrong?

JS denied everything that was mainstream Christianity- from the trinity to God once being a man “like you and me”.

Why now the desire to insert Mormonism into what God supposedly said was corrupt and beyond repair?

How could these corrupt early Christians have any redeeming value to Mormonism?

It seems this desire to find Mormonism in the early church is recent. In the 1970’s, my Mormon friends never talked about the early church being Mormon. It was all about the Book of Mormon being ‘true.’

Mormonism started by claiming the apostasy occurred in 570, but then changed it to about 100. It would have made sense for early Mormonism to look to the early Church except they would have to agree with the first 5 ecumenical councils of the Church. After Joseph Smith rejected most of Christian theology, it seems they had to move the apostasy to an earlier date before the councils. While the earlier date gives the Mormon Church the freedom to invented new teaches, it makes it seem irrational to want to find early Mormonism in an apostate church.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Excellent points.

Maybe this is part of their attempt at re-branding. Which in and of itself is so strange because it seems to say to the world “hey, we are moving away from all that makes us Mormon so you’ll like us better”.

Hopefully, they will continue to study early Church history and end up as the early Church was- Catholic!

 

[AngelaMarie]

Mormonism started by claiming the apostasy occurred in 570, but then changed it to about 100. It would have made sense for early Mormonism to look to the early Church except they would have to agree with the first 5 ecumenical councils of the Church. After Joseph Smith rejected most of Christian theology, it seems they had to move the apostasy to an earlier date before the councils. While the earlier date gives the Mormon Church the freedom to invented new teaches, it makes it seem irrational to want to find early Mormonism in an apostate church.

Interesting. I had never heard this before in terms of time frame.
I do recall that in his professed vision, Smith recounted how, either the father or the son, told him to join no church as they all were an abomination, etc.

And yet, the Bible, an essentially Jewish and Catholic book, is accepted.

The idea of a universal and total apostasy to me, if one really takes the time and think about, falls like a house of cards. Why even bother with the Bible if it’s the fruit of a time in full blow apostasy?

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

I am not “injecting my own meaning into CCC 460.” I claim that the meaning as elaborated by Catholic scholar Daniel Keating in his book Deification and Grace is the most faithful (to the ECF) meaning present in educated Catholic circles. I claim that the Catholic Answers documents focus on things like the use of a capital “G” in God rather than spend 120 pages (like Keating) or about 30 pages like Cardinal Schonborn) explaining what is really present in CCC 460. Furthermore they do violence to the spirit of CCC 460 in such a focus as the author of CCC did not accidentally use a capital “G.”

Here is some from From Death to Life by Cardinal Schonborn (who was one of the main authors of the CCC).

Here is his introduction capital “G” in the original:

The Greek Fathers often said that the Son of God became a man on earth so that man might enter the sphere of God. The statement “God made himself a man in order that man might be able to become God” was one of the most influential formulation of the Christian message in that period. To becomd God, to be deified: this seemed to be the highest goal of all human yearnings. Saint Basil indeed can state this as a conviction with which his contemporaries were familiar: “The summit of all that can be wished: to become God.”

Now as I pointed out earlier in this thread, Keating offers this extraordinary clarification:

Keating uses two words for this becoming claiming they are related and both used. Christ partook/participated in our humanity so we can partake/participate in His divinity.

Unlike any ECF before the 4th century, Keating claims that the ECF who said, "Christ became what we are so that we may become what He is," they really meant that Christ fully and completely became what we are so that we may partially/derivatively become what He is.

Keating’s book is excellent, but this is a glaring weakness. I do not believe the ECF would say what they said and clearly communicate what they did if they meant what Keating claims from his MODERN / DEVELOPED Catholic position.

Cardinal Schonborn uses the capital “G,” but he agrees with Keating without trying to explain how the “exchange formula” is compatible with Christ’s actually/completely/fully taking out human nature and us partially/derivatively/”by Grace” taking on divine nature.

So, I understand WELL what has been said about CCC 460 and have read from other works of one of the main authors of the CCC. I conclude that your statement is accurate as far as it goes, the Catholic Answers document is poor, but Keating and Schonborn are in a tradition that has departed from the Bible and the earliest ECF in this area.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

But the problem with your argument is that the CoJCoLDS teaches that men can become gods by nature. This is wrong, … 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.

I am not claiming that the Catholic Church believes exactly as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes. I am claiming that they believe “the idea that men can become gods” is important. This almost disappeared in the West and has had a RADICAL resurgence. But on to the differences.
I believe the earliest ECF did not use the Greek phrases for partake/participate in radically different ways as Keating explicitly claims and as Cardinal Schonborn would also attest if he touched upon this.
Catholics must believe that Christ is consubstantial with God the Father and that Christ is consubstantial with humans. This is based on ousia or nature The word “homoousian” is literally “one nature.” In Latin it is consubstantial. Furthermore the very earliest of ECF rejected “creation ex nihilo” further demonstrating that that this “nature” was not part of the original/Biblical understanding. This focus on nature has perverted truth and is not Biblical.

For LDS Christ’s divinity wasn’t predicated upon his consubstantiality with the Father. Many/most educated LDS are Social Trinitarians. I believe that Christ’s divinity is a product of His perfect union with the Father. I am in rebellion and disconnected from God. Through the atonement of Christ and the witness of the Spirit, man can completely and fully enter this union. At which time we will be like the 11th hour servant (see Matthew 20:1-16), gods, who arrived late; but God will not be like the unrighteous early laborers who desire to point out how they were here first. As 11th hour servants we will ALWAYS look to God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and never be separate deities (which would be impossible). We like Christ will ALWAYS subordinate our will to the will of the Father. But that which is necessary to be called gods we will possess fully and, in the communion, God will not ask that we recognize our former failures (He will forget, see Isaiah 43:25). This is the message of the Bible and this is the message of the earliest ECF and this is the message of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Keating and Schonborn (and Aquinas) are great, but if they had “looked into heaven” as did Joseph Smith and as did Aquinas about 6 months before his death they would reject all this nature and “only by Grace” and … This is not God’s way of inviting us into His divinity, this is the way of a good church that rejected “public revelation” long ago. Aquinas couldn’t change this and thus never explained what he saw as he “looked into heaven” (only that EVERYTHING he ever wrote was “straw”). God called Joseph Smith and the CoJCoLDS is busy receiving public revelation and pondering upon what it all means to complete the mission of explaining what God offers humans.
Charity, TOm

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

If deification is about sinlessness, why wasn’t Mary a god?

 

[Crocus]

Here is some from From Death to Life by Cardinal Schonborn (who was one of the main authors of the CCC).

Here is his introduction capital “G” in the original:

The Greek Fathers often said that the Son of God became a man on earth so that man might enter the sphere of God. The statement “God made himself a man in order that man might be able to become God” was one of the most influential formulation of the Christian message in that period. To becomd God, to be deified: this seemed to be the highest goal of all human yearnings. Saint Basil indeed can state this as a conviction with which his contemporaries were familiar: “The summit of all that can be wished: to become God.”

He goes on to say:

the entrances through which we attain to this life are “the mysteries”, the sacraments of Christ, through which our life is configured to his

which can be none other than the sacraments of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, the Catholic Church. Insofar as truth is spoken, and not distorted, it conforms to the teaching of the CC.

as Cardinal Schonborn would also attest if he touched upon this.

And yet, Cardinal Schonborn does say in the book you referenced

we become gods and sons through designation (thesei) and not through nature (phusei), through grace and not through nature

It is useful to read in entirely, rather than pick, choose and form to another likeness.

 

[TOmNossor]

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?

I did not call your original question "anti-Mormon." I claimed that offering what Joseph Smith taught would not demonstrate the TRUTH of the teachings as two groups of people (LDS and anti-Mormons) agree about SOME of what he taught and have very different views of the truth in those teachings. I could add that folks who have never demonstrated the willingness to be anti-Mormon such as Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, David Waltz, and njlisa (from this thread) can be powerful critics of the CoJCoLDS without being anti-Mormons. Furthermore, I seek to be a powerful critic of what Catholics teach without being anti-Catholic.

When you say you have been around Mormonism for 30 years and LDS believe that God was once a man, I think that is likely a product of anti-Mormonism. It is not a product of trying to understand what LDS actually have believed and taught over the last 30 years.

How does this sound, “I have been around Catholicism for almost 50 years, and Catholics worship Mary.” …. “Are you saying that Catholics do not worship Mary?”

This is what you sound like to me. The difference is I do not say these things AND I have dug deeply into discussions of stuff like “latria, dulia, and hyperdulia.”

The ECF were not Catholic. They were EDS. There are volumes of things in the ECF that support that the CoJCoLDS is a restoration of God’s church as taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles (who received “public revelation.”

The CoJCoLDS is true because God started it, God leads it, and we seek to follow God. It has nothing to do with the United States.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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

I am saying that I do not think LDS have ever taught that God the Father was a “mere man.” I do not think that LDS have ever taught that God the Father was a “sinful man.”
I am saying that ALL Christians, LDS included, teach that God the Son was a man. I am saying that ALL Christians, LDS included, teach that God the Son was not a sinful man.
I am saying that LDS do not talk about the idea that God was a man regularly except in response to critics who typically do not care how or why we believe this.
I am saying that IMO God the Father was a man just like God the Son was a man. God the Father was divine pre-incarnation and God the Father never sinned. This is what Joseph Smith taught when he used John 5:19 to explain this.
I will also say that my view about God the Father’s pre-incarnational divinity and His not having a Heavenly Father is not shared by ALL informed LDS. Most LDS have no thoughts on this as we discuss it in our services almost never. Many informed LDS agree with me. Many do not.

Please review your feelings when I claimed I could say, “Catholics worship Mary.” Where do you think I would get this idea from? What do you think I would mean by saying it? When a non-Catholic says it, is it anti-Catholicism MOST of the time?

One of the things I hope to do is get folks at Catholic Answers to see how it feels to have a faith that I believe to be true treated as it is treated here. I have positive feelings when I read your name, “SunshineGrandma.” I do not have positive feelings what I read, “I have been around Mormonism for 30 years and they teach that God was once a man … Are you saying Mormons do not teach God was once a man?”

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You are right- they couldn’t answer any of my questions.

I will send you a PM. The number of questions I do not have thoughts about answers too is quite small. If you have a question, respond and I will answer. If you like I will even refrain from any comparisons to problems with Catholicism.
Charity, TOm

 

[hope]

I am saying that I do not think LDS have ever taught that God the Father was a “mere man.” I do not think that LDS have ever taught that God the Father was a “sinful man.”

I haven’t seen anyone here say that. It seems to be a strawman but I may just be misunderstanding you. It is either true or not that LDS believe that God was once a man like us. It was what was told to me by numerous LDS members but like other faiths the members get it wrong sometimes. I believe your comparison of we worship Mary is not a fair comparison. No where in our beliefs will find anything close to that statement. You have been confusing on what the belief of LDS is concerning what you do believe. You seem offended by the statement that LDS believe God was a man. Since I have been told this by your own missionaries, I am confused.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Stephen168,
I have made quite clear why I point to Keating. Keating and Schonborn (and Scheeben) all embrace “the idea that men can become gods.” The Catholic Answers document often referenced in these discussion is not a good representation of what Schonborn meant in the CCC.
Here is where I explain what Schonborn and Keating mean/meant:

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

I am not “injecting my own meaning into CCC 460.” I claim that the meaning as elaborated by Catholic scholar Daniel Keating in his book Deification and Grace is the most faithful (to the ECF) meaning present in educated Catholic circles. I claim that the Catholic Answers documents focus on things like the use of a capital “G” in God rather than spend 120 pages (like Keating) or about 30 pages like Cardinal Schonborn) explaining what is really present in CCC 460. Furthermore they do violence t…

Here I offer some of why they are better than those who deny deification, but they are still wrong and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is right:

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

I am not claiming that the Catholic Church believes exactly as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes. I am claiming that they believe “the idea that men can become gods” is important. This almost disappeared in the West and has had a RADICAL resurgence. But on to the differences. I believe the earliest ECF did not use the Greek phrases for partake/participate in radically different ways as Keating explicitly claims and as Cardinal Schonborn would also attest if he touched up…

As I have told you many times, the earliest ECF rejected creation ex nihilo. AND before the 4th century all ECF who spoke of deification placed no limits upon the FINAL state of deified man.

Keating and Schonborn are offering the DEVELOPED view. Joseph Smith who glanced into Heaven is offering the original (and true) view.
Charity, TOm

 

[hope]

[Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman](https://forums.catholic-questions.org/u/Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman)

TOmNossor

1d

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.

 

[TOmNossor]

If deification is about sinlessness, why wasn’t Mary a god?

The “sinlessness” of Mary is a Catholic doctrine. It is not a doctrine embraced by the majority of non-Catholic Christians.
It has been a while, but the ECF did not all embrace the sinlessness of Mary either.
It is my position that Mary was not eternally and perfectly united to God the Father. Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost were.
The Catholic position is that Mary was created ex nihilo at her conception in Anne’s womb and afforded a special grace through the atonement of Christ to remove the stain of original sin.
I reject the “stain of original sin” argument AND that Mary was created ex nihilo.

I have read a great deal of Catholic apologetics on Mary and I do not have a huge problem with them (though an unbiased reader of the Bible would not come to ALL of the Catholic conclusions). If I adopted the Catholic view that Christ was consubstantial with the Father and this made Him divine and Christ became consubstantial with humans and this made Him human, Mary’s sinlessness would have no bearing on her divinity or lack of divinity. But I am not Catholic.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Crocus,
Again, I first referenced Keating and then brought in Schonborn (both of which I have read in their entirety, but Schonborn was LONG ago) in response to someone who said “the idea that men can become gods is blasphemy.”

Here is where I explain what Schonborn and Keating mean/meant:

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

I am not “injecting my own meaning into CCC 460.” I claim that the meaning as elaborated by Catholic scholar Daniel Keating in his book Deification and Grace is the most faithful (to the ECF) meaning present in educated Catholic circles. I claim that the Catholic Answers documents focus on things like the use of a capital “G” in God rather than spend 120 pages (like Keating) or about 30 pages like Cardinal Schonborn) explaining what is really present in CCC 460. Furthermore they do violence t…

Here I offer some of why they are better than those who deny deification, but they are still wrong and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is right:

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

I am not claiming that the Catholic Church believes exactly as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes. I am claiming that they believe “the idea that men can become gods” is important. This almost disappeared in the West and has had a RADICAL resurgence. But on to the differences. I believe the earliest ECF did not use the Greek phrases for partake/participate in radically different ways as Keating explicitly claims and as Cardinal Schonborn would also attest if he touched up…

I am not claiming that Keating and Schonborn are LDS. I am claiming they are Catholics who embrace “the idea that men can become gods.”
Charity, TOm

 

[AngelaMarie]

Tom,

How much of what you post is reflective of Mormon theology and how much of it is your own personal theology? I honest don’t know, so I am asking for some clarification.