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

[ColorMomma]

It’s not us, it’s Tom. He’s not making sense.

 

[TOmNossor]

Origen himself believed God to be incorporeal:

I have never disputed this. Origen believed this because of his Platonism (as your paper points to), not because of Judaism, Scripture, or new revelation.

Origen witnesses to the fact that Jews and some Christians believed in an embodied God. That has always been my point.

Also, Origen’s opinion about the Jews believing God had a body, as stated by TOm, is discredited.

That Origen believed this (Jews believe God had a body) and that his belief was a product of substantial contact with Rabbinic thought was specifically AFFIRMED in your article.

The value of this testimony has been unduly belittled in recent research. Origen’s knowledge of Juda-ism was based not only upon Jewish Alexandrian traditions transmitted through Christian writings, but also on third-century Palestinian rab-binic thought. There is little doubt that Origen’s remark reflects a rab-binic conception known to him.

In fact the author claims Jewish corporeal teachings were “notorious in the first centuries C.E.”

Again, Stroumsa’s point is that Jews EMPHASIZE an embodied corporeal God in response to Christianity’s rejection of an embodied corporeal God the Father (and Christianity embrace of an embodied God the Son).

But, he does nothing to refute the pre-Christian corporeal God tradition I offered in the link I suggested you follow.

He may be correct that the Jews follow Platonism MUCH later than the Christians because they were contrasting their God with the Christian God, but Platonism as a reason for the rejection of ALL corporeal God teachings is ALSO one of his points. I claim it is a corruption. Stroumsa may or may not believe it is a “good development.”

BTW, because I do not need for everyone to agree with me let me say this.

If God was incorporeal and not embodied as MODERN Christians teach, it is quite possible that humans who understand things as humans would impute to an incorporeal God human characteristics. This included emotions and a body.

BTW, SunshineGrandma, do you believe that God is impassible? This is another difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the rest of Christianity that is linked by non-LDS scholars (and me) to Platonism. Today many Christian theologians are passiblists, but this was not true until the 20th century (LDS have been and continue to be passiblists).

Charity, TOm

 

[SunshineGrandma]

I have never disputed this. Origen believed this because of his Platonism (as your paper points to), not because of Judaism, Scripture, or new revelation.

You have repeatedly used the early Christians and ECF’s as proof that they believed God was corporeal ALONG WITH the Jewish people prior to Maimonides (~1200).

Origen did not believe in God’s incorporeal nature and therefore:

1). Origen was an early Christian who is a witness to the belief that God was/is incorporeal

2). Origen’s testimony refutes the LDS belief in a corporeal God.

Origen witnesses to the fact that Jews and some Christians believed in an embodied God. That has always been my point.

Some Jews and some Christians. You are being misleading in your posts when you state:
“(all) Jews and some Christians believed in an embodied God”.

3). There has been nothing presented in any post to support this claim.

4). Because some Jewish people were using anthromorphic language to discuss God does not mean they believed in an embodied God.

5). “God put his loving arms around me” does not equate to:

-“I believe God has arms”.

-“I believe God was, and is, an actual man like you and me”.

 

[lokisuperfan]

He’s making sense, like it’s clear what they’re arguing about and what they’re presenting as evidence, but I don’t understand because I have absolutely no knowledge of the beliefs of Judaism, save a few basic things that make them distinct from other religions.

 

[lilypadrees]

I didn’t say the mark on the soul could be lost. I was speaking of rejecting the Catholic Church which TOm did when he left and became a member of the Mormon church.

It is my fervent prayer that TOm and all Mormons realize their error, learn the Truth and come home to the Church Jesus is the Founder of.

 

[Horton]

Regardless of whatever religion he practices, he remains Catholic. A non practicing Catholic, rejecting the truth Catholic, but still Catholic.

 

[lokisuperfan]

Shouldn’t LDS baptism wash away Catholic baptism since it erases all previous sin (since they don’t believe other religions’ baptisms are valid)?

 

[Fauken]

Shouldn’t LDS baptism wash away Catholic baptism since it erases all previous sin (since they don’t believe other religions’ baptisms are valid)?

What do you mean by wash away Catholic baptism? Catholics believe baptism makes an indelible mark on the soul that can never be taken away, so the answer would be no. On top of that the Catholic Church not only does not believe in re-baptizing, but that the LDS baptisms are invalid, so nothing happened either way.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

That Origen believed this (Jews believe God had a body) and that his belief was a product of substantial contact with Rabbinic thought was specifically AFFIRMED in your article.

“A tendency to attribute to God not only human feelings, but also a body of gigantic or cosmic dimensions is not, of course, a specifically Jewish phenomenon in Antiquity. Indeed, such representations, which had been current in Greek thought for a very long time, find their probable origin in pre􏰀Platonic Orphic conceptions. Inside the Greek world, representations of the cosmos as a macranthropos, with a head…”

No, TOm. The author states that it was a phenomenon that Jews began using anthromorphic language when discussing God.

6). Phenomenon means an unusual occurrence

7). The unusual use of anthromorphic language among Jews seems to have been influenced by Greeks etc. and therefore, did not exist prior

8). Attributing human feelings to God does not equate to believing God is an actual man.

 

[lokisuperfan]

It doesn’t matter what Catholics believe about baptism if LDS believe something different. If their point of view is that it washes away previous baptisms, then that’s what they believe. Especially if they believe getting baptized or confirmed in another church is a sin, and as someone said before, when you are baptized in the CoJCoLDS (I don’t remember if they specified the church or not, it was either the CoJCoLDS or the Catholic Church), it erases anything you did before baptism that would be considered a sin according to the teachings of the CoJCoLDS. Maybe @TOmNossor would be willing to specify whether or not baptism in the CC is washed away according to LDS teachings.

 

[Stephen168]

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1:14

But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
John 4:23-24

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Romans 1:19-23

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Philippians 2:5–8

 

[SunshineGrandma]

In fact the author claims Jewish corporeal teachings were “notorious in the first centuries C.E.”

The author never claimed the Jews were teaching that God was incorporeal. The whole paper deals with the emergence of anthromorphic language.

Whether you are purposely conflating the two-or-
You are unable to see the difference is unclear.

No evidence has been presented that shows that early Jews and/or Christians ever taught or believed that God was an actual man.

There has been ample evidence presented illustrating that, at some point, anthromorphic language entered the Jewish discussion about God.

-To say that because, at some point in history, Jews began to refer to God using human terms they believe God was an actual man is both unsubstantiated and myopic.

-To ignore the evidence regarding the fact that anthromorphic language emerged, which proves that it did not exist before, shows a lack of willingness to engage in honest discussion.

-To try and connect the LDS God, who they teach is a man like you and me, who had a father, who has flesh and bones to the incorporeal God of Judaism is ridiculous.

-Even if some Jews, at some point in history, referred to God using human terms, that in no way justifies the leap claiming “Jews used to teach and believe God was a man of flesh and bones”

 

[ColorMomma]

Catholic teaching is that Catholic baptism makes an indelible mark on the soul.

in·del·i·ble

/inˈdeləb(ə)l/

adjective

1. (of ink or a pen) making marks that cannot be removed.

synonyms: ineradicable, inerasable, ineffaceable, unexpungeable, indestructible, permanent, lasting, persisting, enduring, stubborn, ingrained, unfading, imperishable; More

• not able to be forgotten or removed.

“his story made an indelible impression on me”

synonyms: ineradicable, inerasable, ineffaceable, unexpungeable, indestructible, permanent, lasting, persisting, enduring, stubborn, ingrained, unfading, imperishable; More

 

[ColorMomma]

Their point of view is wrong. Catholic teaching on Baptism began with Jesus. The Mormon teachings on their baptism began in 1829.

If someone has been teaching that the sky is blue for thousands of years and then someone else comes along and says that the sky is really purple, the second person is incorrect. The sky is still blue.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

It doesn’t matter what Catholics believe about baptism if LDS believe something different. If their point of view is that it washes away previous baptisms, then that’s what they believe

Does it matter to you that the LDS have a baptism different than all mainstream Christianity?

That they changed it after 1800 years?

Isn’t the question-

Why did Joseph Smith teach a new Trinity therefore a new baptism rejecting mainstream Christian baptism?

 

[lokisuperfan]

If someone has been teaching that the sky is blue for thousands of years and then someone else comes along and says that the sky is really purple, the second person is incorrect. The sky is still blue.

I never said they were right, nor did I ever say they were wrong. I’m not arguing with you. I’m just saying that they believe differently.

 

[ColorMomma]

Got it. My opinion, take it or leave it, is that Mormonism does a lot of changing of accepted definitions and accepted principles of faith. They use the same words, but the meanings are completely different than what everyone else thinks. This makes it hard to have reasonable conversations with them because it feels like a dog chasing it’s tail when we can’t even agree on what a tail is.

Their founder did not understand the basic principles of Christianity so altered them and made up his own.

 

[ColorMomma]

It all comes down to the credibility of Joseph Smith. Would God really choose a con man to be a prophet of God? If Mormonism describes the second coming of Christ, wouldn’t it stay true to the teachings of Christianity before it?

I think he was just a con man making stuff up to gain a dedicated following of people. It worked for him on earth, but I believe he is paying the price now.

 

[SunshineGrandma]

It takes great humility to be open to the research findings of those academics who have studied ancient history and religious history.

We might learn something that challenges our beliefs.

To fail to admit that the LDS are making a giant leap from anthromorphic language about God to God is a man of flesh and bones is outrageous.

To move forward, promoting the false teaching that the early Christians and Jews taught and believed, that God was a man of flesh and bones is theologically irresponsible.

 

[lokisuperfan]

That’s what I was saying in an earlier post, the one where I told Stephen to use the KJV Bible. The whole point of an argument is to get someone to agree with you, and it’s easier to convince someone of something if you can convince them that what you’re saying is actually probable. For example, making the argument that “the teachings contradict,” and then using sources from the KJV bible and the D&C to prove it. The LDS believe that the D&C does not contradict their bible and is therefore credible.

The point is, I’m not taking sides when I butt in. I’m just trying to make sure that there’s no ignorance towards what each side believes. An uneducated argument is the most pointless and hateful kind, in my opinion.