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

[Crocus]

in response to someone who said “the idea that men can become gods is blasphemy.”

Understandable, as the words are in the bible however they must be interpreted correctly through the authority given to the CC by Christ himself. I haven’t read Keating. Cardinal Schonborn states the same as @hope, who reiterates:

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.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

First of all, Mary was created through normal means. Not out of nothing.

As for ex nihilo in general, Creation Ex Nihilo | Catholic Answers

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

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.

Well, I claimed that it is not true and I didn’t think it had ever been said by an LDS prophet and AngelaMarie said that yes “mere men” was the teaching of the CoJCoLDS so I am not responding to a straw man, but what she claims LDS believe.

I do not agree.

I believe that Jesus Christ was a man. I also believe the God the Father was a man. I reject the idea that either were “mere men” or that either were “sinful men.”

LDS do not regularly teach that God was once a man either. I hear it from those who wish to make the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint appear to not be Christian. Such a teaching is not part of the current missionary discussions. That does not make it untrue, just it must be properly understood. As I will point out to AngelaMarie (if I ever get caught up), I speak as a LDS who has considered these questions extensively. Blake Ostler’s Exploring Mormon Thought is celebrated widely within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by those who are aware of it. My positions are almost always in alignment with the positions in Blake’s book and other writings.

Now, are you suggesting that PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD Catholics do not WORSHIP Mary?

If that is your point, you do not know your faith.

If that is not your point, I do not know what you are saying.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

First of all, Mary was created through normal means. Not out of nothing.

As for ex nihilo in general, Creation Ex Nihilo | Catholic Answers

Catholicism teaches as I said!
Mary’s soul was created out of nothing at the moment of conception in Anne’s womb. This is the “normal means.”

LDS do not believe in creation ex nihilo and believe that human spirits have pre-existence (and not merely in some Molina-ian mind of God way).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

This is a good and fair question.
I try to point to areas where significant portions of LDS do not agree with me.
I especially try to point areas were significant portions of LDS who have CONSIDERED these issues do not agree with me.

The idea rejection of the idea that God the Father sinned is something that few LDS have thought about, but I do not think I have ever seen a LDS claim that God the Father ever sinned. It is like a third rail they/we won’t touch it. I have considered it and reject it.

The idea that God the Father had a Heavenly Father is a common LDS belief even among LDS who have considered these questions extensively. I like Blake Ostler do not believe that God the Father had a Heavenly Father.

All that being said when I find things I once thought to be true are likely not true I have never felt tempted to through it all out the window. I expect to never be an Atheist as I have experienced God. Perhaps the human in these experiences (me) made mistakes in my understanding, but that does not mean there was no God.
I struggled to drop the belief that God is TIMELESS, but I have. Elder Maxwell seems to have believed that God is/was timeless. Blake Ostler at one point in time (and at the urging and invitation of Trumman Madsen) guided Elder Maxwell to celebrate (and maybe temporarily embrace) Ostler’s view. I was dragged to Ostler’s view by his reasoning. I still embrace a slight deviation here which puts me closer to Carl Mosser (I think it was his position) in this area than Ostler.

Most of these things are in the tall grass and few LDS care about them. And of course the CoJCoLDS does not have anything like the CCC. We are orthopraxic not orthodoxic.
Charity, TOm

 

[Crocus]

LDS do not regularly teach that God was once a man either. I hear it from those who wish to make the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint appear to not be Christian.

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.

Why does this seem so complicated?
Do LDS teach that God the Father was a man?

Two men here: 1. God the Father, 2. God the Son

Is this not significant enough to be regularly taught if it is a legitimate belief? Left to individual opinion as you seem to suggest?

This also is perplexing:

I am saying that IMO God the Father was a man just like God the Son was a man.

What might it mean, for God the Father, to be a man “just like” God the Son. So much room for speculation. So complicated.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I was under the impression that you (incorrectly) believed that the physical body of Mary was created, not that her soul was created.

 

[Stephen168]

First of all, Mary was created through normal means.

And second of all, Mary has alway believed to be sinless, and she is not God.

 

[Lemuel]

I see a lot of discussion about the nature of God. I can confidently say this. Mormons have no official doctrine as to whether or not God was once a sinful man. Everything is just speculation. Period.

Now, just try to get a Mormon to explain the nature of God from the Book of Mormon and things get interesting.

 

[hope]

Well, I claimed that it is not true and I didn’t think it had ever been said by an LDS prophet and AngelaMarie said that yes “mere men” was the teaching of the CoJCoLDS so I am not responding to a straw man, but what she claims LDS believe.

I think you need to reread what she said. I did not read it as what was taught but her interpretation of what was taught. Your answer made me wonder why you object to the term mere?
Again you are confusing

I believe that Jesus Christ was a man. I also believe the God the Father was a man. I reject the idea that either were “mere men” or that either were “sinful men.”

LDS do not regularly teach that God was once a man either.

These statements contradict each other.

Now, are you suggesting that PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD Catholics do not WORSHIP Mary

You know the answer don’t you. It depends on your definition of worship.

n.	The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
n.	The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
n.	Ardent devotion; adoration.

This is a secular definition and under this definition I do not worship Mary as She is not a deity nor do I Adore her. Adoration is reserved to God alone.

I you want to know what the Catholic Church believes the Catechism will help and it is found on the Vatican web site. If you want to find out what the LDS believes you can’t find anything on their website.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

in response to someone who said “the idea that men can become gods is blasphemy.”

Understandable, as the words are in the bible however they must be interpreted correctly through the authority given to the CC by Christ himself. I haven’t read Keating. Cardinal Schoenborn states the same as @hope, who reiterates:

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.

Do you agree with two things.

1. Catholics who say “the idea that men can become gods is blasphemy” need to understand better what Catholicism teaches?

Folks like Lutheran scholar Adolf von Harnack were well versed in patristics, but believed this (he should have read some more from Martin Luther).

1. I fairly presented what Schonborn taught? You might suggest that I fairly presented what Keating taught, but I guess you have not read him.

I also recommend Glories of Divine Grace by Scheeben. I think I was so impressed with this book I give away 2-3 copies to Catholic friends. I expect he agrees with Keating and Schonborn, but his book is far more devotional (Keating is academic and Schonborn is between IMO).
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

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?

Yes, Joseph Smith “translated” Revelation 12:6 to read years instead of days.
Revelation 12:5 JST:

And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore years .

An article in Times & Seasons and Joseph Fielding Smith said the restoration took place 1260 years after the apostasy or the year 570AD. (1830-1260=570)
Times and Seasons Vol.5:

We are informed by the renowned historian, Whelpley, as also in the Revolutions of Europe, that the church of Jesus Christ was overrun, and driven into the wilderness, A.D. 570, and John the Revelator informs us it must remain there 1260 years, which makes exactly the time, the year 1830, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints was organized, with the gifts and blessings.

The Council at Nicaea that formalized the believe in the Trinity and declared the date of Easter was held before the canon of the Bible was established. Mormonism accepts the New Testament and the date of Easter, but rejects the Trinity.

 

[TOmNossor]

Why does this seem so complicated?
Do LDS teach that God the Father was a man?

Two men here: 1. God the Father, 2. God the Son

Is this not significant enough to be regularly taught if it is a legitimate belief? Left to individual opinion as you seem to suggest?

This also is perplexing:

I am saying that IMO God the Father was a man just like God the Son was a man.

What it means to me as a LDS is that God the Father and God the Son are eternally divine. That the incarnation of God the Son did not make him a mere man as ALL Christians believe. That the incarnation of God the Father, a view held by me and by LDS who have studied our history extensively, is substantially the same as the incarnation of God the Son.

Furthermore, in response to you and others, LDS do not talk about God the Father being “once a man.” It is not in our scriptures (except in John 5:19 which is not discussed in this way).

When LDS hear about Jesus and Satan being brothers (like Lacantius believed in the 5th century) it ALWAYS a critic of the CoJCoLDS who says this. When LDS hear about God the Father being a man or having a Heavenly Father it ALMOST always a critic of the CoJCoLDS who says this.

Joseph Smith said:

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it

This is what LDS spend our time on until we are confronted by quotes from past leaders some of which are true, some are true if well understood, and some are just false.

I consider the LDS “appendages” to be truth and the Catholic “appendages” to be errors, but the disconnect is not as huge as many here who claim may faith is evil or from Satan believe.

So, when I use reason to evaluate which faith makes the most sense of all the historical data (data from Christ’s day, data from Arabian archeology, data from Patristic studies, and …) I look at important doctrines and appendages (and I conclude it is the CoJCoLDS, but I am a LDS after all).

But, I consider the Catholic my brother and IRL the only Catholic who made it clear that I was not his brother was a kind (and brilliant) Sedavacantist. The liberal “spirit of Vatican II” priests and believers are very accepting. The conservative non-SSPX folks consider me to be just as the other non-Catholic Christians (these folks have different views of non-Catholic Christians, but they never express hate for my church). Those who worship with the SSPX are small in number, but in my experience treat me the same as other conservative Catholics.

And I think the separation of worship into latria, dulia, and hyperdulia is complicated; but to fairly evaluate and understand Catholicism I NEEDED to evaluate this.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

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.

This is factually incorrect and irrational. (Did you walk to school or carry your books?) It is also contrary to the case made by the scholar you cherry picked.

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.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Well, I claimed that it is not true and I didn’t think it had ever been said by an LDS prophet and AngelaMarie said that yes “mere men” was the teaching of the CoJCoLDS so I am not responding to a straw man, but what she claims LDS believe.

I think you need to reread what she said. I did not read it as what was taught but her interpretation of what was taught. Your answer made me wonder why you object to the term mere?
Again you are confusing

I believe that Jesus Christ was a man. I also believe the God the Father was a man. I reject the idea that either were “mere men” or that either were “sinful men.”

LDS do not regularly teach that God was once a man either.

These statements contradict each other.

I disagree with you that AngelaMarie is not claiming that “LDS believe God the Father was a mere man” I specifically said I didn’t think any LDS prophet EVER said such a thing and she responded as she did.
Concerning contradiction. I am saying that I have never been in a Catholic service or Sunday School were they taught us to worship Mary. I was a Catholic for >20 years, and it was anti-Catholics that introduced me to the idea that Catholics worship Mary.
Concerning contradiction. I am saying that I have almost never been in a LDS service or Sunday School were they taught us God the Father was once a man. I have been a LDS >20 years, and it was anti-Mormons that introduced me to the idea that LDS believe God the Father was a man.

Does that make sense now?

Now, are you suggesting that PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD Catholics do not WORSHIP Mary

I do know that answer and as such I do not use the worship of Mary as a stick to beat upon Catholicism.

I you want to know what the Catholic Church believes the Catechism will help and it is found on the Vatican web site. If you want to find out what the LDS believes you can’t find anything on their website.

That is true. As I mentioned earlier, LDS are orthopraxic not orthodoxic.
I recommend Exploring Mormon Thought book series by Ostler.
And of course CCC 460 does not provide much info on Catholic views of deification so even that is insufficient to get deep in the grass.
Charity, TOm

 

[Crocus]

I fairly presented what Schonborn taught?

You quoted from Schonborn, but incompletely. Your own references refute your claim.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

what Schonborn taught?

You quoted from Schoenborn, but incompletely. Your own references refute your claim.

What claim did I make about what Schonborn taught that my own references refuted?
I of course asked because I thought you would claim that I well explained what Schonborn said (because I thought I did).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I was under the impression that you (incorrectly) believed that the physical body of Mary was created, not that her soul was created.

No worries. I should have said “SOUL created ex nihilo.”
Charity, TOm

 

[Crocus]

What claim did I make about what Schonborn taught that my own references refuted?

You used his book as a reference to support your interpretation of men becoming gods, when in fact it is consistent with CCC.

 

[Crocus]

That the incarnation of God the Father, a view held by me and by LDS who have studied our history extensively, is substantially the same as the incarnation of God the Son.

Furthermore, in response to you and others, LDS do not talk about God the Father being “once a man.” It is not in our scriptures (except in John 5:19 which is not discussed in this way).

To Catholics, this does not look like an “appendage.” It’s fundamental, theologically; God the Father never was a man, never was created.

incarnation of God the Father

surely means the same as “once a man” so not understanding why you reject the phrase. How do you account for the incarnation of God the Father, who is his mother, who is his father, or?