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

[Stephen168]

True.
Some wonder what the purpose of the Book of Mormon will be when it becomes an allegory.

 

[TOmNossor]

@AngelaMarie The people in my church are not the only reason why I no longer practice Catholicism. In addition, I do not agree with the teachings of the Church. When I was very young, (I was somewhere around 4 or 5) I got into an argument with my father about the Trinity, because I did not believe that they were the same divine being, as taught in Catholicism. To this day, I still don’t believe that, and this is only one of such things I disagree with in the Catholic faith and have disagreed with for as long as I can remember.

I remember the missionaries thinking that the Trinity would be a big deal, but I can say I have never thought the Trinity was well defined.

1. There is one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.

When one says the above it is impossible for there to be 1 God in the same way the divine persons are God. The equality that is the word “is” can be compromised. Or the tern “God” that is one can be one thing (there is one divine being) and the God that is the divine person can be a different thing (the Son is a divine person), but the term “God” cannot be the same thing when it refers to the one divine being AND the three divine persons. This of course means when you use the term God as it is meant for for the divine person, you can say there are 3 Gods in this sense which is forbidden.
There is a via negativa way. Orthodoxy is not tritheism, and orthodoxy is not modalism, and orthodoxy is not …
There are figurative / artistic things like three leaf clover; fire, tree, triangle, …
Then there is IMO the best thing someone who embraces the Trinity can say, “it is an incomprehensible mystery.” To which i respond, I recognize things I don’t and even can’t know, but I shouldn’t be damned for rejecting something not just unknowable, but which violates the most basic law of logic, the law of non-contradiction.

Anyway, I was 24 or something and the Trinity didn’t fit in my western engineering mind so I was not scandalized when I was told it was not true. The idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God was tough for me, but in retrospect I struggle to see why.

I want to add a clarification to this an my next post. I did so here:

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

Hello Stephen168, I am not sure if I can rise above “damning with faint praise,” but I did hit like on your last post. My two posts before this should not suggest that I ceased to be a Catholic because I could not understand what the Trinity was in a rational way. I do not think Edward Fesser does and I do not think you do. If one does not provide a supposedly rational explanation of the Trinity and use it as a stick to condemn the CoJCoLDS, I think the understanding had by many can exist w…

I think the Trinity as embraced by the Catholic Church should be called a mystery. It can be contemplated, but not explained perfectly. I do not remember feeling great stress because I couldn’t explain it, I only knew I couldn’t explain it and nobody had explained it.
Charity, TOm

 

[Lemuel]

TOm has a long history on this forum. He has engaged with many knowledgeable and faithful Catholics. At this point, I just scroll past his excessively convoluted and lengthy posts.

Amen to that. I scroll past gazelam’s as well. I’m not into feeding the trolls.

 

[TOmNossor]

And you’ve looked at all the trinitarian apologetics out there to stop having this problem?

I have looked and looked and looked. I really do not think this is a battlefield you want to make a stand upon. If Catholicism fails provided you cannot explain the Trinity in a way that an intelligent rational westerner (one not willing to put the law of non-contradiction aside) doesn’t find problematic, I think Catholicism will fail.
If one listed all the problems with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there would be between one and 0 that are as large as the potential need to explain the Trinity rationally.

Christianity has felt this for centuries. That is why Plantinga offered the Social Trinity (which is part of what I believe). Or scholars offer monarchical monotheism (the Father is supreme, which is the other part of what I embrace). Or Barth’s modalistic Trinity. Or oneness pentecostals (who are modalists). Or the machinations of the 3rd-6th centuries with the radical confusion concerning the word “homoousian.” Or …
Again, unless you wish to suggest mystery without rigorous use of REASON, I do not think this is a good battle to choose. If “mystery” without reason is good, I recommend praying to God to know the truth.

Charity, TOm

 

[hope]

When I was very young, (I was somewhere around 4 or 5) I got into an argument with my father about the Trinity, because I did not believe that they were the same divine being, as taught in Catholicism.

I don’t know if you have ever heard this story of St Augutsine

There is a story that St. Augustine was walking on the beach contemplating the mystery of the Trinity. Then he saw a boy in front of him who had dug a hole in the sand and was going out to the sea again and again and bringing some water to pour into the hole. St. Augustine asked him, “What are you doing?” “I’m going to pour the entire ocean into this hole.” “That is impossible, the whole ocean will not fit in the hole you have made” said St. Augustine. The boy replied, “And you cannot fit the Trinity in your tiny little brain.” The story concludes by saying that the boy vanished because St. Augustine had been talking to an angel

The Trinity is not easily understood but you at 4 or 5 had a theological discussion with your father because you didn’t believe the Catechism. Tell me did you read the Catechism or was it read to you. It is impressive that you could have a theological discussion with your father at such an age when most children have only been talking in sentence for two years not to mention being able to understand the Catechism.

 

[lilypadrees]

It’s almost like he inserted that word to get the passage to mean what he wanted…

He certainly did.

 

[lilypadrees]

If you are that opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church, @lokisuperfan, then you were right to leave. We don’t force anyone to remain where they feel uncomfortable.

Often, the truth taught by the Catholic Church, HIS Truth, is difficult for people to follow and obey. The Catholic Church preaches and teaches Sacred Scripture correctly.

It is my prayer that you will come to see the errors in the Mormon church’s teachings inc the way they misinterpret the Bible and return to the Church Jesus NOT Joseph Smith is the Founder of.

 

[Stephen168]

I got into an argument with my father about the Trinity, because I did not believe that they were the same divine being, as taught in Catholicism. To this day, I still don’t believe that, and this is only one of such things I disagree with in the Catholic faith and have disagreed with for as long as I can remember.

The fact that we are communicating via the internet can be traced back to a world religion that believed in one uncreated creator. A creator who created a rational world, and man who is created in his imagine; rational. Because the world was believed to be rational, it could be discovered; figured out with science.

A world view without this God, a view that believes things could happen randomly either by a god or by chance would have never attempted science.

A religion that believes in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, but knew there was only one rational creator God, knew that trying to understand this mystery like all the mysteries of the universe was worth pursuing. I am thankful that there was a Christendom, a Catholicism, which gave us a fertile bed for science to grow.

 

[lokisuperfan]

Tell me did you read the Catechism or was it read to you.

I think it was read to me, but it was so long ago I barely remember it.

It is impressive that you could have a theological discussion with your father at such an age when most children have only been talking in sentence for two years not to mention being able to understand the Catechism.

Umm…I wouldn’t call it theological. It was more of a “Yes it is” “No it isn’t” stubborn childish discussion than it was theological (my father is very childish so he did argue with me like this for quite some time, it was 2 hours I think before my mom butted in, at which point he did attempt to turn it into an actual theological argument, but I still retaliated with “No it isn’t” because, of course, I was too young to understand theology).

 

[TOmNossor]

A religion that believes in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, but knew there was only one rational creator God, knew that trying to understand this mystery like all the mysteries of the universe was worth pursuing.

Hello Stephen168,
I am not sure if I can rise above “damning with faint praise,” but I did hit like on your last post.
My two posts before this should not suggest that I ceased to be a Catholic because I could not understand what the Trinity was in a rational way. I do not think Edward Fesser does and I do not think you do. If one does not provide a supposedly rational explanation of the Trinity and use it as a stick to condemn the CoJCoLDS, I think the understanding had by many can exist with a good dose of mystery and not create great stress for those who embrace a statement of faith on the Trinity that can be articulated if not perfectly understood.
All that being said, you are the one who claims that reason directs to your faith and that “you have to be kinda smart to be Catholic.” I claim that reason happened to direct ME to my faith and still does, but that praying to KNOW God’s will is important and a valid way of KNOWING. I suppose I think joining a faith without seeking God’s will concerning such a decision is unwise. It is especially unwise if such a course of action is taken to run from a faith tradition with problems rather than to run to a faith tradition where God is beckoning.
I was careful enough in my previous two posts that I said IF a rational explanation of the Trinity is the sine que non of Catholicism, then there would be no victory for Catholicism. I do not believe that a rational explanation for the Trinity is the sine que non of Catholicism. If there are those who think they have this rational explanation of the Trinity, then based on my research I think they are probably wrong. And those who speak as you do concerning reason might reflect on how embracing the mystery of the Trinity might inform your worship or reason. In fact, that you find yourself in a faith tradition that has had centuries of wrangling and schism based on a doctrine that must be called at best a mystery and yet was understood differently by so many folks might lead you to recognize that not everybody does their “sums” the same. Perhaps your appellation of “irrational” is a product of how you weight and align your problems and evidence and not a product of actual irrationality on the part of those who disagree with you.
I expect I will continue to engage in areas of objective evidence. I expect that I will continue to disagree with what you come up with that “proves” my church false. I will hope that my request that you reflect on the Trinity might create a different mindset. And, my reflecting upon the Triune God and my connection with the mystery that is Him lead me to think I should offer this rejoinder to my last two posts. So here it is.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Do you also believe that Jesus and Lucifer were bros?

Lacantius from the 4th century and I understand well the philosophical and Biblical roots for this teaching. That being said, I have not heard this taught in all my time in the CoJCoLDS. I have ONLY ever heard it from critics of my faith. I know were it comes from and even why it is true.

It FEELS anti-Mormon to declare this part of the CoJCoLDS as you have.

I suspect you are carrying out what I call “boundary maintenance.” Such things tend to destroy conversations between anti-Mormons and LDS, because it becomes obvious you are not interested in understanding what I believe and why. But, it can make the CoJCoLDS sound weird or ugly to those who haven’t learned and embraced this nugget.

I guess that is fine, but it FEELS anti-Mormon.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:

It’s almost like he inserted that word to get the passage to mean what he wanted…

He certainly did.

Let me add you as a 4th person who now acknowledges (well 3rd as Faulken has withdrawn his concurrence with you and the other two) that this verse with the meaning attributed to it by Gazelam (“life” is equivalent to “eternal life") support eternal marriage.

I think you are right to recognize that when “life” in this passage means “eternal life” it does provide support for “eternal marriage.”

That Gazelam is a scoundrel putting brackets around a word to clarify a meaning!!!

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Joseph Smith teaches the “God was an exalted man” theory, that God once walked the earth like all of us and earned his deification.

Yes, he taught that in 1844, 14 years after he started the Mormon Church. The Mormon Church taught a triune God of spirit for its first 4 years or so. When Mormons claim that Joseph Smith “restored” Christianity, which God(s) did he restore? Was it a actually a restoration or an invention?

 

[TOmNossor]

If you have a complete understanding of the Mormon trinity, then explain it to me so I can understand it too.
-Explain how the God of the Old Testament and Judaism is different than the God of Mormonism.
…
-Explain how the Trinity in the Book of Mormon is different than the Trinity taught by Joseph Smith (I’ve been waiting years for an explanation!!)
-Explain how Joseph Smith came to know that God the man had sexual relations with Mary and other women (?) and had many children including Jesus and Lucifer.
-Explain how Jesus said the Holy Spirit would stay with his church until the end of time, but then it didn’t happen. Was Jesus wrong? The Holy Spirit went on vacation?

Here is another thing that I think is anti-Mormon.
Over 3 days ago you claimed LDS cannot answer your questions. I responded by saying that I would send you a PM. I did this. You didn’t respond, you didn’t ask me questions. Nothing.
I even offered to tread VERY lightly and make sure I didn’t say anything that would threaten your Catholic faith (claiming that if you asked things like, “show me evidence of the apostasy,” I would tell you I couldn’t answer without …).
But, you want to ask a Catholic considering becoming a LDS these questions. You are not interested in the answers. This is “boundary maintenance.”
Again that is fine but you seemed to CLAIM you want answers. If you do, send me a PM. Or if you like search for “anti-Mormon” and whatever saw you currently actually want to have “Mormon Answer” to.
A Catholic priest who studied and wrote a lot about the CoJCoLDS said this (when he still thought he would always be Catholic, before he decided to become a LDS):
https://publications.mi.byu.edu/periodical/occasional-papers-3/

To put it most simply: upon reading The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ for the first time, and after having been taught the restored gospel of Jesus Christ by a pair of sister missionaries—now some eighteen years ago—I began to see patterns and make connections between my own (Catholic) faith and that of the Latter-day Saints; and I have never ceased to benefit from the insights gained as a result.

More to the point though, as regards the underlying motive for this thesis, 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.

I do not think you want answers, but you can send me a PM with one question at a time or you can do your own research (which is what I did).
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Just got back from Mass this morning and the second reading reminded me of this thread.

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. -Gal 4:4-7

Christ is the begotten son, while we might become sons by adoption.

 

[lokisuperfan]

In the LDS version of the bible, it has the word “adoption” marked for a footnote, and it says that the word “adoption” is supposed to mean “election.” I’m not sure how that helps differentiate the meaning from the Catholic bible (which explains it as you said).

 

[Stephen168]

In the LDS version of the bible, it has the word “adoption” marked for a footnote, and it says that the word “adoption” is supposed to mean “election.” I’m not sure how that helps differentiate the meaning from the Catholic bible (which explains it as you said).

I don’t know what they would mean by ‘election’ but the same greek word is also used in Romans 8:23 and Ephesians 1:5. Strong’s says its usage is “divine adoption as sons” in all three places.

 

[lokisuperfan]

In the LDS version of the bible, the footnote for the word “adoption” in Romans 8:23 directs to 2 Corinthians 5:2, which says:

“For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be *clothed upon with our house which is from heaven…”

The word “clothed” is used to direct back to Romans 8:23 in footnotes, so I’m guessing that’s what they meant by “adoption” in that verse. Still no idea what it means by that.

For Ephesians 1:5 it simply says for the footnotes of “adoption,” “Sons and Daughters of God.” Not sure if they mean to say what you said, or if they’re implying something else.

 

[AngelaMarie]

I think that is why Stephen points out what the original word in the Greek was, and what Strong says the usage meant.

I don’t know how true to the Greek that the KJV is?

I admit I don’t know Greek, whether present day, or the Classical Greek of the New Testament or the Septuagint.

Plenty of Biblical scholars who do, though.

 

[lokisuperfan]

@Stephen168 Would you be willing to specify the Greek word used in all three contexts?