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

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

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.

I am sorry if I was unclear. I TRIED to say that I was using Schonborn AND Keating to respond to the statement that “the idea that men can become gods is blasphemy.”
In post #396 (and post #399 I think) I tried to make my purposes for using CCC 460, Schonborn, and Keating clear. I referenced two earlier posts.

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 a LDS. Schonborn and Keating are informed Catholics. They do not believe that “the idea that men can become gods” is blasphemy, but they are immersed in a Catholic tradition which I believe embraced a number of “theological slips” which lead to the rejection of the teachings present in the very early ECF. Keating’s argument is remarkable in that he claims that the ECF used the same word and applied different meanings to it in the same sentence. Schonborn doesn’t reference the fact that Christ became consubstantial with humans, but I expect he would agree with Keating.

I do not intend for folks to believe modern Catholics agree with LDS on the doctrine of deification. My argument is the LDS are right and Catholics are wrong, but I typically start by showing that it is not about the idea that “men becoming gods” is blasphemy.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

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?

I believe that Joseph Smith gazed into heaven multiple times and knows that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (this was a common belief in the early church too). I believe this was the genesis for the teaching that God the Father was “once a man.”
I further suggest that if Christ being “once a man” does not scandalize the Christian world, God the Father being “once a man” might sound weird but should not create the conflict it does.

Now, believing God the Father or God the Son were “mere men” or “sinful men,” would IMO cause more difficulties, but I do not think this is what Joseph Smith understood from his “gazing into heaven.”

So, LDS believe that God the Father is embodied. Almost all LDS believe as I do that God the Father was once a man. I believe as do many LDS who have thought about this that God the Father was once a man in the same way God the Son was once a man.
Catholics do not believe that God the Father is embodied (if I remember correctly God the Son is embodied even today). Catholics do not believe that God the Father was once a man (though they absolutely believe that God the Son was once a man).

We have differences.

If the Catholic Church is God’s Church and it is half as obvious as proclaimed here, or if the CoJCoLDS is not God’s Church and this is one tenth as obvious as proclaimed here; I am going to hell. I am not arguing this is not the case.

It is my position that the CoJCoLDS has restored original Christianity in a number of interlocking ways. One of two of these ways would create hopeless contradictions, but somehow Joseph Smith made changes/restorations that fit together. The rejection of creation ex nihilo, the reject of ousia based Trinity, the belief in deification, …
Charity, TOm

 

[SunshineGrandma]

TOm- There are many things in Catholicism that are not discussed during mass on Sundays. That doesn’t mean these unspoken teachings are not part of Catholic teaching. I would think the same happens at the now two hours you spend at church on Sundays.

Here is a link explaining LDS teaching on God being man.
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no110.htm#God

 

[Crocus]

And the father of God the Father, and the mother, or?

Godthe Father has a body of flesh and bones (this was a common belief in the early church too).

Citation from early church?

I further suggest that if Christ being “once a man” does not scandalize the Christian world, God the Father being “once a man” might sound weird but should not create the conflict it does.

As posted earlier, not possible, fundamental theological difference, as you have said yourself you reject ex nihilo (uncreated, One God in three divine persons).

 

[Stephen168]

Citation from early church?

There isn’t one.

But a Mormon claimed that because the early church preached against it there must be Christians who believed it. Therefore the early church preaching against it was a ‘witness’ to the fact that the early church preached for it.

Like that fact that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a ‘witness’ to the fact that the Catholic Church believes the opposite of what is written in the Catechism.

Using this reasoning, Mormons win either way.

 

[Stephen168]

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!

The Mormon Church has stopped using the book Mormon Doctrine as a source of its doctrine because it was too anti-Catholic. I think this is one step toward being liked better and less Mormon.

As I said earlier, I think there is a desire for Mormonism to look more rational and more in line with the early church. I think this desire will lead Mormonism back into Christian Orthodoxy.

The “we have a Prophet who talks to God and writes scripture” seems to be fading away. I mean, no new scripture in a hundred years. And from an outside, it seems like no real new revelation in 40 years.

 

[Crocus]

Ok I see. This is my first time ‘round. Good to know where the many paths lead. Thanks.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm- There are many things in Catholicism that are not discussed during mass on Sundays. That doesn’t mean these unspoken teachings are not part of Catholic teaching. I would think the same happens at the now two hours you spend at church on Sundays.

Here is a link explaining LDS teaching on God being man.
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no110.htm#God

You do know that UTLM is devoted to convincing folks to reject the CoJCoLDS. I strongly suspected that your “over 30 years” was a product of interaction with UTLM or such organizations and not like njlisa’s interaction with faithful LDS trying to understand how they see their faith.
UTLM provides some reasonable resources and a former Catholic friend of mine found Sandra Tanner very nice when he visited.
I am aware of the history and the manuals, the last of which will cease to be used after today.
That being said, I am not rejecting the teaching that God the Father was a man, only that God the Father in His incarnation was anything other than what Jesus Christ was in His incarnation. I think that is the most reasonable read of LDS history. Furthermore LDS scripture virtually demands that God the Father was never not-God. The Tanners do not present the view they reject at all and that is why you are left with a distorted view of my faith (there are many nice Sandra and Jerald Tanner like folks who write against the Catholic Church, I doubt you would think I had a true picture of Catholicism had I primarily interacted with them for 30 years).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

And the father of God the Father, and the mother, or?

TOmNossor:

Godthe Father has a body of flesh and bones (this was a common belief in the early church too).

Citation from early church?

I further suggest that if Christ being “once a man” does not scandalize the Christian world, God the Father being “once a man” might sound weird but should not create the conflict it does.

As posted earlier, not possible, fundamental theological difference, as you have said yourself you reject ex nihilo (uncreated, One God in three divine persons).

We do not know of God the Father’s potential earthly father. IMO it is non-negotiable for a LDS that God the Father is embodied. That John 5:19 means that God the Father lived on an earth is a possibility that I embrace as most likely true. I do not think John 5:19 means that God the Father was born of a virgin named Mary and lived in a region called Palestine.

---

Concerning divine embodiment being “a common belief in the early church,” this is true. If you can access the Harvard Theological Review I would recommend reading Paulsen’s paper there, but you will need a good library or a paid subscription. Here is a similar paper from Paulsen (I have read both, but if they are identical or different I cannot say).

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi....com/&httpsredir=1&article=3081&context=byusq

In this paper you will find quotes from Origin, Tertullian, and Augustine (and from non-LDS patristic scholars too).
You will find that Origin claims that Jews, many Christians, and a Bishop Melito believed in an embodied God. Origin rejects this view, but argues that philosophy, not scripture or Jewish tradition demands this rejection.
You will find that Tertullian believes in an embodied God and laments the impact of philosophical through that is CHANGING Christianity.
You will find that Augustine (whose mother is a Catholic Saint) refused to become a Christian for many years largely because he could not believe in an embodied God and Catholics believed in an embodied God. Augustine will tell us of two Christian communities that still embrace an embodied God.
Paulsen also offers information from the ECF about an Egyptian monastic community that moved with great pain from believing in an embodied God to believing in an incorporeal God around 385-400AD.

So, is Stephen168 correct? I do not think he well represents the strength of the argument that he rejects.

---

Finally, I am not sure if creation ex nihilo precludes divine embodiment. All Christians believe that Christ has a body of flesh and bone, but most Christians believe in creation ex nihilo (see Gerard May’s book Creatio ex Nihilo for the development of this doctrine), so I am not sure that such are incompatible. That being said, LDS (like very early ECF) reject Creation ex Nihilo too.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

TOm- There are many things in Catholicism that are not discussed during mass on Sundays. That doesn’t mean these unspoken teachings are not part of Catholic teaching. I would think the same happens at the now two hours you spend at church on Sundays.

Here is a link explaining LDS teaching on God being man.
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no110.htm#God

I found the section on Hugh Nibley’s Footnotes most interesting. It was a lesson in Mormon apologetics.

I have experienced Mormon’s at CAF use the same strategies Nibley used in his footnotes. And the same strategies used to defend Nibley are used to defend Mormonism.

Well worth a read.

 

[Stephen168]

St. Melito of Sardis’ work, “Peri ensomatou theou, on the corporeity of God, of which some Syriac fragments have been preserved. It is referred to by Origen (In Gen., i, 26) as showing Melito to have been an Anthropomorphite, the Syriac fragments, however, prove that the author held the opposite doctrine.”

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/melito-cathen.html

 

[SunshineGrandma]

Your suspicion is incorrect. I lived among and socialized with Mormons for all of that time. I had multiple meetings with missionaries. I attended craft nights and luncheons at the ward and at member’s houses. I attended many, many Sunday dinners at Mormon homes. I received enough Books of Mormon to open a bookstore.

I have recently moved away from Utah and now see the dysfunction, negativity and tail-chasing that I was surrounded with for many years.

Being surrounded by people on a sinking ship is a terrible place to be. The Mormon church is a sinking ship. People are panicking. The internet has exposed their founding members to be different than what they were taught and the members are heartbroken.

But, don’t be heartbroken! Take a Prozac! Go to Disneyland twice instead of once this year! Send missionaries out younger! Cut church meetings by an hour! Change the name of the choir!

I have had Mormonism up to my eyeballs for thirty years.

I was criticized for being Catholic now the Mormons want to embrace early Church history.
Heck, I was criticized for years for putting out a nativity at Christmas then my Mormon friend showed me her nativity that she was finally “allowed” to buy and display.

Have you seen the Christmas billboard (somewhere between Beaver and Nephi) of the Blessed Mother holding the Baby Jesus? My whole family was going crazy “mom, that’s a Catholic image!”

Anyway, my point is, I have files upon files of Mormon teachings that I got off the internet years ago before they took it down. Please don’t tell me “we never taught this” and “I never heard that”.

That is disingenuous. Just be truly Mormon. Give it to us straight without all the tail-chasing verbiage trying to make it look like Joseph Smith really meant Mormonism to be part of mainstream Christianity. And let’s not even mention the name of the guy -and definitely don’t discuss his life or quote his teaching- the Mormon church named their university after for fear of being called “anti” (how I loathe hearing that term again!)

I sincerely hope in all this whitewashing and backpedaling you and your fellow church members find the truth and can finally stop expending energy on things that don’t matter.

Jesus established a Church almost two thousand years ago. Despite its motley crew, the Holy Spirit has protected it from total destruction and the goodness of the Gospel has spread all over the world. It’s already been done. No need to restore, recreate, rebrand. God is good!

 

[Horton]

You do know that UTLM is devoted to convincing folks to reject the CoJCoLDS. I strongly suspected that your “over 30 years” was a product of interaction with UTLM or such organizations and not like njlisa’s interaction with faithful LDS trying to understand how they see their faith.
UTLM provides some reasonable resources and a former Catholic friend of mine found Sandra Tanner very nice when he visited.
I am aware of the history and the manuals, the last of which will cease to be used after today.
That being said, I am not rejecting the teaching that God the Father was a man, only that God the Father in His incarnation was anything other than what Jesus Christ was in His incarnation. I think that is the most reasonable read of LDS history. Furthermore LDS scripture virtually demands that God the Father was never not-God. The Tanners do not present the view they reject at all and that is why you are left with a distorted view of my faith (there are many nice Sandra and Jerald Tanner like folks who write against the Catholic Church, I doubt you would think I had a true picture of Catholicism had I primarily interacted with them for 30 years).

Charity, TOm

Tom IIRC you are a fallen away Catholic. You accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with the LDS as anti-Mormon and therefore not worthy of hearing. That their anti-Mormon thought MUST come from misinformation written by other anti-Mormons. Why is it so hard for you to believe that a rational person can learn what the LDS teach and reject it outright.

I went to college in Utah, the land of the LDS. Being surrounded by LDS I decided to learn about it. I knew some basics but not much more. I went to the college library, this long before internet, and did some research. I don’t remember the books and articles I read or the source, but I do know I was appalled by the claims made by the LDS. At that time I was not yet Catholic but was a Christian, raised in a mainline Protestant faith. I knew with all certainty I could never believe the claims of the LDS. I knew with that same certainty the claims made by the LDS were not of God. Nothing in the last 30 or so years has change that original conclusion.

Does this make me anti-Mormon? No, it make me a Christian who rejects non Christian theology. I also reject Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, and other types of faith. I’m not anti any of those, I just reject their theology.

IMO You are so intent on proving the Catholic Church is wrong so you can justify your rejection of the Catholic Church.

 

[Horton]

Wish I could love this 100 times!

 

[Stephen168]

So, is Stephen168 correct?

Yes, there are no quotes from the early church which support your claim that God the Father having a body of flesh and bones was a common belief in the early church.

Paulsen listed two small heretical groups who lived in the fourth century.

The story of the Egyptian monk named Serapion seems to be popular in Mormonism, but like most stories it is incomplete and twisted to their desires. The story comes from the Conferences of St. John Cassian. In Conference 10, he talks about how common the heresy of anthropomorphism is among the Egyptian monks and that it is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church. When John Cassian asked the monk Isaac how Serapion could believe, and continue to believe this heresy, Isaac said, “We need not be surprised that a really simple man who had never received any instruction on the substance and nature of the Godhead could still be entangled and deceived by an error of simplicity and the habit of a longstanding mistake, and (to speak more truly) continue in the original error which is brought about, not as you suppose by a new illusion of the demons, but by the ignorance of the ancient heathen world, while in accordance with the custom of that erroneous notion, by which they used to worship devils formed in the figure of men, they even now think that the incomprehensible and ineffable glory of the true Deity should be worshipped under the limitations of some figure, as they believe that they can grasp and hold nothing if they have not some image set before them, which they can continually address while they are at their devotions, and which they can carry about in their mind and have always fixed before their eyes. And against this mistake of theirs this text may be used: “And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man.”-Romans 1:23”

Basically, simple men with no instruction need an image, they understand, as an object of prayer.

Like Audaeus, Joseph Smith, a simple man with no instruction, changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man.

 

[Crocus]

TOm- There are many things in Catholicism that are not discussed during mass on Sundays. That doesn’t mean these unspoken teachings are not part of Catholic teaching. I would think the same happens at the now two hours you spend at church on Sundays.

Here is a link explaining LDS teaching on God being man.
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no110.htm#God

Your link provides the straight answer I have been trying to get, plus more. Got all the FAQS here:
http://www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm

I found the section on Hugh Nibley’s Footnotes most interesting. It was a lesson in Mormon apologetics.

I have experienced Mormon’s at CAF us the same strategies Nibley used in his footnotes. And the same strategies used to defend Nibley are used to defend Mormonism.

Well worth a read.

This. This. This. Hugh Nibley’s Footnotes are a real eye opener as the strategies described have recently been experienced firsthand.

 

[Crocus]

Wish I could love this 100 times!

Ditto your post above the above one.

I really learned a lot about LDS doctrine from this thread.

 

[gazelam]

gazelam:

I do not recall ever saying that you lied. Please point me to my accusation about you if I am in error. This is a debate forum and debate participants call out incorrect statements of other debate participants. That I do often, hopefully in a charitable manner.

You have stated I am 100% incorrect more times than I can count. You have said I make false statements more times than I can count. In essence, making the claim I am not truthful, thus a liar.

From post #76

The dictionary definition of “incorrect” is “imprecise”, “in error”, mistaken", or “inaccurate”. When a school teacher corrects a student’s test and marks as wrong incorrect answers, the teacher is not calling the student a liar. Neither have I called you a liar.

 

[Horton]

Why won’t you answer the questions I’ve asked of you in this thread?

 

[gazelam]

Horton:

Look at my statement and tell me what I wrote was wrong. Is Jesus God? Is Jesus the second person of the Trinity? Is Jesus fully human AND fully divine? If you cannot claim these statements as truth, you are not a Christian.

You did not answer this question. What it is to be called Christian. I very specifically asked for your own answer, to speak for yourself. I don’t want Fair Mormon’s answer, nor the lds org answer. I want to know what you, as a Mormon, has to say.

My own opinion is that a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. I hope this helps…