HUGE Questions for Mormons

[Catholic_Dude]

(I dont see my reply showing up after posting 1hour ago, so I dont know if it went through, this is the 2nd try)

BDawg:

This is the famous “Johannine Comma,” and is considered by most NT scholars to be a late insertion. …The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants say essentially the same thing.

What do you mean “late insertion”, its in your own Bible? It seems clear to me, “these three are one”, no hint of separation, there are distinctions, but one God. This is one of the best Trinity verses out there. Can you show me a link where it says in the BoM or D&C where it says “Trinity”, I had a link for the Godhead and stuff, but I already asked questions about them. Should we go onto the next questions from post #24. (specifically questions 2 & 3).

Check. The Jews didn’t like Jesus saying he was “one” with the Father. Still doesn’t say anything about the nature of that oneness.

The Jews knew exactly what He was saying, if He simply called Himself a god the Jews wouldnt have cared. He specifically said “I and the Father are one” and the Jews knew just what He was getting across, thats why the stoning part is the key.

The “name” thing is interesting. … they should have obeyed him just as if he were God.

Many people spoke in the Name of God, there are many cases of this. But there is an easy distinction here, we know and the speakers know that they are not God and that authority they hold is a temporary and semi-authority. Having the same name is a sign on oneness, are there any other times where multiple people held the authority “name” of God the way you describe? You misuderstand the extent of the angel’s power. The angel didnt act with full (100%) authority and power (100%), otherwise the angel would be God. That description is used to indicate God is on their side and He is not a force to be messed with, never does it build up created beings to hold such genuine athority.

Maybe we can discuss deification doctrines later? I would like to stick to one topic so the posts don’t get too big. I think our differences about the nature of the Divine Unity and the nature of God should be understood first before trying to understand the extent to which humans can become like God.

Sure. So lets talk about the nature of God. I read those two links concerning “does God have a body”. The FAIR one is actually very shallow. For one it quotes “scholars” (especially British) who I highly doubt even believe in God (or a very watered down view), those guys mean nothing (is there any direct quotes from them concerning Mormonism?). Next it tries to lose the reader by deflecting his attention here and there. The CA page listed stuff in order and many ECF quotes, the FAIR downplayed them. The terminology of the body parts of God in the Bible are simply because we are humans and thats all we can understand, the Orthodox Jews never held the God as a human body position. There is so much to say I dont know where to start. First of all the Body needs food, water, toilet, rest, it ages, gender, etc. God takes on no such restrictions.

There is a little article on Divine Simplicity…
However, it is a little wordy and hard to understand, I think. I hope it helps.

Way over my head. What a way to use the word “simple”, I dont know enough about theology therms to undestand that stuff.

But if you admit that it was “almost always,” then you admit that sometimes the OT talks about “gods,” and we are arguing about semantics. If both elements are there–unity and plurality–then which one receives more emphasis would depend on the circumstances. When the OT was written, all the surrounding cultures had polytheistic pantheons, and so naturally the Divine Unity would be emphasized more.

The number one shif the Bible goes into right off the bat and holds throughout the ages is one thing…Abraham. Abraham maintained one thing and that was that there was ONE TRUE God, not many true Gods, but that God was one. I said “almost always” because “gods” is used many times to indicate anything from false gods, to idols, to a degree of earthly authority like a king.

I don’t get your meaning here. [concerning the Father and Son relationship]

This is an important thing to understand. God is not the father of Jesus in the sense that you are the child of your dad. So why does God use this terminology? Because as humans nothing comes closer to understanding such a relationship than having a child who really is your own flesh and blood. Taking this to heart we know that when the Father and Son relationship is mentioned we know they are one in the same being, there are distinctions, but they are of the same substance. This is very different from what you say in that two separate Gods come together and form such a bond, it doesnt work. You cant have the same bond as a father and son versus a friend to a friend.

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

So what do you call it when the Holy Spirit supposedly moves the church to reject the subordinationism of the earlier fathers. Isn’t it revelation? Isn’t it public? I mean, everyone is supposed to believe it, aren’t they? Am I missing some esoteric definition of “public revelation”?

Maybe we have different definitions of revelation.

 

[BDawg]

Hi Tmaque,

You’re really stretching, here. Let’s examine your “dramatic doctrinal shifts” to see just how dramatic they are.

You glomb onto one statement by Gordon Hinckley, in which he basically just said in a TV interview that the subject of what God did before he was our Father is something we don’t know much about, and turn it into a “major doctrinal shift.” Frankly, he was right. All we know about it is that JS said God was once a man. It isn’t the subject of intense discussion over the pulpit or in Sunday School. It’s just a fact out there at the frontiers of our doctrine that we don’t know much about. In our very next General Conference, GH said that he had received a number of inquiries about this subject, but that he knows what the doctrine of the Church is, and people should not be getting their primary information about such things from highly edited TV spots. From what I have been able to find out through the grapevine, I think GH thinks that the Father was once a man like Jesus, rather than a run-of-the-mill sort of person. Big deal.

Furthermore, I don’t necessarily claim that all changes in policy are guided by revelation. Was the change in policy about the Word of Wisdom a revelation? How should I know? Were the changes in policy about birth control based on a revelation, or just a response to advances in medicine and concern over women who have reproduction-related health problems? In what universe is this a “major doctrinal shift,” rather than a softening of policy? (If you want to see softening of policies, by the way, check out Vatican II.)

Changes in our religious vestments? Are you serious?

Changes in the Book of Mormon? I have examined this issue closely, and there really haven’t been any doctrinally significant changes. People who like to count changes in the Book of Mormon even go after changes in punctuation and grammar fixes, for heaven’s sake! If you really want to see if this issue is a big deal, do what I did and buy a reproduction of an 1830 Book of Mormon and read it. Looks essentially the same to me.

Making the Word of Wisdom mandatory instead of voluntary? Oh, yeah. That’s a huge doctrinal shift.

Polygamy? I already answered that one. The underlying principle laid down in the Book of Mormon stayed the same.

Changes in the Temple Ceremony? I can’t talk about specifics, but I am aware of changes. Through it all, however, the things that Brigham Young (who finalized the first version) said were the essentials have remained the same. The changes aren’t nearly as dramatic as the ones in Catholic masses since Vatican II, I would say. For heaven’s sake, nowadays you can go into a mass and get sold-out hippies singing Kumbaya and strumming the guitar!

Priesthood restrictions? There was a revelation to change this policy, but I am aware of no revelation that started it. Again, this is a change in POLICY, not official doctrine, and even so, it was always stated, even by Brigham Young, that there would come a day when such restrictions would be rescinded. Once again, the policy change was in accord with the stated principle since the beginning.

Don’t you think that a church OUGHT to make changes in policy to keep up with the times, to a certain extent? Can’t the Church ever decide that we might be able to learn something from society at large, e.g., about racial tolerance? Mormons have always been told that our mission is to go gather up all the good out of the world, not to claim that we have all the answers and are perfect.

Oh yeah, we’re on the verge of legitimizing homosexuality.

So you see, the only DOCTRINAL change you propose was not really a change at all, and policy changes do not really bother me.

Now you want to back off your claim to new revelation, and call it “spiritual enlightenment.” What in the world is revelation?

BDawg

 

[Tmaque]

BDawg:

Hi tkdnick,

So what do you call it when the Holy Spirit supposedly moves the church to reject the subordinationism of the earlier fathers. Isn’t it revelation? Isn’t it public? I mean, everyone is supposed to believe it, aren’t they? Am I missing some esoteric definition of “public revelation”?

BDawg

I call it doctrinal development. LDS call their doctrinal development “revelation”, and then claim the Catholic Church has apostatized because we don’t claim new revelation. The LDS Church and it’s apologists have mastered the art of word redefinition. For instance, when a LDS says they “know” their church is true, it means, they believe so strongly that they are absolutely convinced it’s true. The word “know” has a different meaning for the rest of the world than it has for LDS. I “knew” the LDS church was true, until I changed my mind.

The same applies for the word “revelation”. Anytime a doctrine gets tweaked it’s immediately called “revelation” to gain credibility with the faithful. It’s not revelation in the same sense that we, as Christians, would expect. We expect revelation to be in the form of a vision, something dramatic and grand. LDS percieve revelation to be something as simple as a thought that comes across ones mind after prayer on a certain topic. LDS perceive the choosing of a new apostle, by the present apostles, after prayer, to be a form of divine “revelation”. They criticize others because of the words we use, when, in reality, it’s that they simply define words differently than us in order to make themselves feel “set apart”, or, somehow more inspired.

 

[BDawg]

Hi CDude,
Catholic Dude:

What do you mean “late insertion”, its in your own Bible?

Here’s a link with the scoop on the Johannine Comma:

bible-researcher.com/comma.html
Catholic Dude:

The Jews knew exactly what He was saying, if He simply called Himself a god the Jews wouldnt have cared. He specifically said “I and the Father are one” and the Jews knew just what He was getting across, thats why the stoning part is the key.

Upon what do you base this judgement about what the Jews would have done if Jesus meant that he was simply “a god”? Methinks you are just making it up.
Catholic Dude:

Many people spoke in the Name of God, there are many cases of this. But there is an easy distinction here, we know and the speakers know that they are not God and that authority they hold is a temporary and semi-authority. Having the same name is a sign on oneness, are there any other times where multiple people held the authority “name” of God the way you describe? You misuderstand the extent of the angel’s power. The angel didnt act with full (100%) authority and power (100%), otherwise the angel would be God. That description is used to indicate God is on their side and He is not a force to be messed with, never does it build up created beings to hold such genuine athority.

Says who? Again, when you say that the angel didn’t act with full power, etc., I think you are just making it up. You certainly aren’t arguing your cas. Actually, several of the early Christian Fathers said that the Angel of the Lord was really Jesus.
Catholic Dude:

Sure. So lets talk about the nature of God. I read those two links concerning “does God have a body”. The FAIR one is actually very shallow. For one it quotes “scholars” (especially British) who I highly doubt even believe in God (or a very watered down view), those guys mean nothing (is there any direct quotes from them concerning Mormonism?). Next it tries to lose the reader by deflecting his attention here and there. The CA page listed stuff in order and many ECF quotes, the FAIR downplayed them. The terminology of the body parts of God in the Bible are simply because we are humans and thats all we can understand, the Orthodox Jews never held the God as a human body position. There is so much to say I dont know where to start. First of all the Body needs food, water, toilet, rest, it ages, gender, etc. God takes on no such restrictions.

HA HA HA!!! It’s worse than you think. Those British scholars aren’t atheists, they’re ANGLICAN clergy! (Shudders…) And even if you can dismiss them with a wave of your hand, how do you dismiss St. Justin and Origen saying that the Jews of their time (in general) believed God had a body in human form? Were they lying sacks of dung like those cursed Anglicans? I think by calling the essay “shallow,” you actually mean that it made you very uncomfortable.
Catholic Dude:

Way over my head. What a way to use the word “simple”, I dont know enough about theology therms to undestand that stuff.

The short version is that “Divine Simplicity” means that God cannot be divided into “parts,” but is completely homogeneous and unchangeable.

BDawg

 

[tkdnick]

Tmaque:

I call it doctrinal development. LDS call their doctrinal development “revelation”, and then claim the Catholic Church has apostatized because we don’t claim new revelation. The LDS Church and it’s apologists have mastered the art of word redefinition. For instance, when a LDS says they “know” their church is true, it means, they believe so strongly that they are absolutely convinced it’s true. The word “know” has a different meaning for the rest of the world than it has for LDS. I “knew” the LDS church was true, until I changed my mind.

The same applies for the word “revelation”. Anytime a doctrine gets tweaked it’s immediately called “revelation” to gain credibility with the faithful. It’s not revelation in the same sense that we, as Christians, would expect. We expect revelation to be in the form of a vision, something dramatic and grand. LDS percieve revelation to be something as simple as a thought that comes across ones mind after prayer on a certain topic. LDS perceive the choosing of a new apostle, by the present apostles, after prayer, to be a form of divine “revelation”. They criticize others because of the words we use, when, in reality, it’s that they simply define words differently than us in order to make themselves feel “set apart”, or, somehow more inspired.

Thank you for answering! I was stumped on how to respond.

 

[BDawg]

Hi everyone,

I apologize if I have been making some of you uncomfortable. I am not here to bash Catholicism. When I browsed by this forum, I saw that there were several discussions about Mormonism going on, and it was very apparent to me that most of those participating (even those claiming to be ex-Mormons) did not really understand us. (The issue of “polytheism vs. monotheism” is a case in point. It is not possible to address this issue coherently without understanding our doctrine of Divine Unity.) So I decided to participate and see if I could disabuse a few people of their jaundiced notions about us.

For example, on this thread, Catholic Dude was listing off statements from LDS publications that he saw as “contradictory.” Since no LDS people immediately jumped into the fray, a couple other people griped about how it was useless to try to talk sense to a Mormon, because we are all a bunch of brainwashed robots. I decided I could possibly help some of these people understand us a little better, and hopefully they would come off the experience thinking that maybe Mormons might not be brainwashed idiots after all. Maybe, just maybe, it is just difficult to talk to each other because we have some very different background assumptions.

The line of argument I have taken so far is as follows. 1) LDS talk about God as “one” in one sense, and plural in another. This matches conceptually with what the Bible says, and other Christians have exactly the same problem, which they solve differently. 2) There is significant evidence that the earliest Christian doctrine (or at the very least a VERY common early Christian doctrine) was that the Trinity consists of separate beings who are one in will, with the Son and Spirit subordinate in rank and glory to the Father. This is in line with LDS teaching. 3) Therefore, maybe we aren’t a bunch of slobbering morons for describing the Divine Unity in a way that is different than you do.

That’s it. I’m not trying to “prove” Catholicism wrong. I’m trying to get someone on this thread to have an epiphany. “Maybe Mormons aren’t as stupid as I thought!”

Is there anyone here who can admit that what I have said is at least reasonable, even if you don’t accept my conclusions?

BDawg

 

[BDawg]

Tmaque:

I call it doctrinal development. LDS call their doctrinal development “revelation”, and then claim the Catholic Church has apostatized because we don’t claim new revelation. The LDS Church and it’s apologists have mastered the art of word redefinition. For instance, when a LDS says they “know” their church is true, it means, they believe so strongly that they are absolutely convinced it’s true. The word “know” has a different meaning for the rest of the world than it has for LDS. I “knew” the LDS church was true, until I changed my mind.

The same applies for the word “revelation”. Anytime a doctrine gets tweaked it’s immediately called “revelation” to gain credibility with the faithful. It’s not revelation in the same sense that we, as Christians, would expect. We expect revelation to be in the form of a vision, something dramatic and grand. LDS percieve revelation to be something as simple as a thought that comes across ones mind after prayer on a certain topic. LDS perceive the choosing of a new apostle, by the present apostles, after prayer, to be a form of divine “revelation”. They criticize others because of the words we use, when, in reality, it’s that they simply define words differently than us in order to make themselves feel “set apart”, or, somehow more inspired.

Hi tkdnick,

Doesn’t the Bible say that God often speaks in a still, small voice? So maybe your expectations about revelation aren’t based on anything more than a sign-seeking heart? And if you want visions and that sort of things, I know several people who have had them. I have had experience with healings and prophecies coming true. But isn’t it easy to pass it all off as wishful thinking and manipulation, just because YOU never got past your initial warm fuzzies?

I say it is you who are shuffling definitions. If God inspires someone by the Holy Spirit to make some change in doctrine or practice, I call it a revelation. “Doctrinal development” describes the symptom, not the process by which it occurs. “Doctrinal development” can happen in any number of ways, but if the Holy Spirit is supposed to be involved, then that development must be catalyzed by… revelation.

BDawg

 

[Subrosa]

tkdnick:

I like that quote!!! What year was this written in?

The year was 381. Here’s a link:

newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

Therefore, maybe we aren’t a bunch of slobbering morons…

But that’s what you are! Sorry, I just couldn’t resist. You left the door wide open.

I’m not trying to “prove” Catholicism wrong. I’m trying to get someone on this thread to have an epiphany. “Maybe Mormons aren’t as stupid as I thought!”

Hopefully there aren’t too many people out there saying LDS are just plain stupid. I know there are some on this forum who hold that belief, which is sad. Are LDS members wrong? In my opinion yes, but that doesn’t make them stupid. Maybe misguided, but not stupid.

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

Doesn’t the Bible say that God often speaks in a still, small voice? So maybe your expectations about revelation aren’t based on anything more than a sign-seeking heart? And if you want visions and that sort of things, I know several people who have had them. I have had experience with healings and prophecies coming true. But isn’t it easy to pass it all off as wishful thinking and manipulation, just because YOU never got past your initial warm fuzzies?

Huh? I think I missed something…

 

[mormon_fool]

Tmaque:

I call it doctrinal development. LDS call their doctrinal development “revelation”, and then claim the Catholic Church has apostatized because we don’t claim new revelation. The LDS Church and it’s apologists have mastered the art of word redefinition. For instance, when a LDS says they “know” their church is true, it means, they believe so strongly that they are absolutely convinced it’s true. The word “know” has a different meaning for the rest of the world than it has for LDS. I “knew” the LDS church was true, until I changed my mind.

Once again we have a very thoughtful post. I understand that certains words invoke different concepts than they would for those without a mormon background. There is no debate there, as one’s paradigm sometimes effects one’s perception.

However I do not know that mormon perception over some fairly universal terms are in a state of flux. How a mormon defines what it means to know probably is determined by their education level instead of what decade they were born in. Your definition of know seems to be a rephrase of what I posted earlier from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. I would think that is a standard definition that is fairly paradigm independent. I will repost it in context for the benefit of our friends who might be paying attention.

In formal philosophy, “knowing,” in the sense of knowing facts, is often defined to mean true belief together with good reasons. In other words, a person knows some statement X if and only if that person believes X, and if X is true, and if the person has good reasons for believing X. The European-American philosophical tradition recognizes two kinds of reasons that support the claim to know: rational argument and empirical evidence. Within the Church these are tacitly accepted as sources of knowledge, sometimes even of religious knowledge. For example, after reviewing the traditional arguments for the existence of God, James E. Talmage observed that some were “at least strongly corroborative” of God’s existence (AF, p. 29).

However, there is a continuing tradition, based on the scriptures and reinforced by modern Church leaders, that specifically religious knowledge requires a different and distinctively spiritual source. “We believe that no man can know that Jesus is the Christ, but by the Holy Ghost. We believe in [the gift of the Holy Ghost] in all its fulness, and power, and greatness, and glory” (TPJS, p. 243; D&C 76:114-116). It is widely accepted by Latter-day Saints that gospel knowledge must ultimately be obtained by spiritual rather than exclusively rational or empirical means (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:3). Thus, in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is no clear counterpart to the Roman Catholic tradition of natural theology

Tmaque:

The same applies for the word “revelation”. Anytime a doctrine gets tweaked it’s immediately called “revelation” to gain credibility with the faithful. It’s not revelation in the same sense that we, as Christians, would expect. We expect revelation to be in the form of a vision, something dramatic and grand. LDS percieve revelation to be something as simple as a thought that comes across ones mind after prayer on a certain topic. LDS perceive the choosing of a new apostle, by the present apostles, after prayer, to be a form of divine “revelation”. They criticize others because of the words we use, when, in reality, it’s that they simply define words differently than us in order to make themselves feel “set apart”, or, somehow more inspired.

I like what you say that Christians (and let’s temporarily include mormons in this group like a good dictionary would ) expecting dramatic visions when the word is mentioned. And certainly there has been such things in the foundational past of both of our traditional records. I think it is just one of those lessons that has to learned, that revelation can occur in less dramatic fashion. Gordon B. Hinckley loves to quote this passage from the KJV , 1 Kings 19:11:12

11And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
12And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

I do think recieving some type of random inspirational thought in answer to a prayer is ultimately equally credible to, say, dialogic revelation.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Huh? I think I missed something…

I think he confused you with Tmaque, perhaps. I am scratching my head a little, too, on that one.

 

[TomK]

You might enjoy the Catholic Mission to Utah’s website: catholic-rcia.com/I am a recovering Mormon, I recovered by becoming a completed Catholic over the Easter Vigil. BYU education, temple marriage, whole nine yards. The “Tale of Two Cities” book is too kind to the Mormon temple rituals, BTW.

All I can say is good to be gone and glad to be home!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Bdawg,

I just saw something, you said “Jesus and the angels are the same species”, explain what this means. Are they both created beings?
I was looking into the lds site for info on that name marked on the angel stuff, and I found something… There were a few pages that said Adam was actually Michael the ArchAngel.
There are two big articles I found Here and Also here

Also you keep mentioning “subordinate”, I dont know where TomNossor went, but we were talking about this. You seem to say that “subordinate” means inferrior to God, which is the exact same concept the JWs use. There are different degrees of subordination, for example when Jesus was not in heaven but on earth doing the will of His Father. There are passages that say Jesus took the form of a slave/servant. But He was still God. So in a sense there was a level of subordination, but not how you make it sound. Subordination is not a bad or degrading thing, like I said to Tom there are acceptable views of subordination. Jesus doesnt say “I AM” and mean that only His will is inline with the Father, but that He and the Father are one.
BD post56:

The Church publishes various handbooks, and the like, but they are not considered to be infallible guides to the scriptures. …

One thing you have to realize is that LDS are not focused on passing some kind of multiple-choice test on theology before we pass through the pearly gates. …

It seems to me that Catholicism is too much focused on this kind of thing, i.e., systematic theology, moral theology, etc. I just don’t think the scriptures can ever quite fit into the box you make for it.

I dont see how it bothers you that the CC has books that are authorized to be teaching the truth, eg the CCC. True you dont need to pass any advanced tests to get into heaven, but questions do come up, some very important, and they need to be answered. Some people only need a special feeling inside to believe, some only need hard facts and maybe a strong argument. The CC provides for the fullness of BOTH, if you want to be a deciple and follow Jesus the best you can thats fine, if you want to understand the richness of the faith, ask the tought questions, etc, then there should be accurate and open sources to find such info. True you cant fit God or the Scriptures into a perfect box, but that doesnt mean that you cant create books like the CCC which are excellent ways of teaching.

Upon what do you base this judgement about what the Jews would have done if Jesus meant that he was simply “a god”? Methinks you are just making it up.

It says a few verses later:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Says who? Again, when you say that the angel didn’t act with full power, etc., I think you are just making it up. You certainly aren’t arguing your cas. Actually, several of the early Christian Fathers said that the Angel of the Lord was really Jesus.

Moses spoke in the name of God and showed signs of power and authority, but he knew he wasnt God and his scope on God was limited. Its a simple question about the angel, if the Angel acted with the full (100%) power and authority of God what makes that angel any different from God? We know what happened the last time an angel thought he was acting with full (100%) power of God.

HA HA HA!!! It’s worse than you think. Those British scholars aren’t atheists, they’re ANGLICAN clergy! (Shudders…) And even if you can dismiss them with a wave of your hand, how do you dismiss St. Justin and Origen saying that the Jews of their time (in general) believed God had a body in human form? Were they lying sacks of dung like those cursed Anglicans? I think by calling the essay “shallow,” you actually mean that it made you very uncomfortable.

It seems we share the same thoughts on anglicans in general. I must have missed it, but could you show me which posts where Justin and Origen said those things?

 

[BJ_Colbert]

tkdnick:

Wow, that was pretty harsh! You’re usually more graceful and patient than that.

Hi Tkdnick,
I apologized to her in my next post, I admit I embarassed myself. I was tired and it just hit me wrong when she said all the church money was in a vault in Salt Lake and the LDS church had no charitable works. Then I realized she was 13 when she said she belonged to the church and being in Australia she simply mixed up the genealogy with tithing. Perfectly logical for a 13 year old who has not had any contact with the LDS church for over 20 years. But, she still was being unfair in her post. I simply apologize for being rude and unkind in my response.
I hope again that others in this forum will accept my apology and the girl who posted will feel free to post again, and not be discouraged by my response. Remember when I was new and you Catholics chewed me up and spit me out until you knew me a
little better. Since then you have all been very kind and patient with me and my ignorance over your religion, and your own struggles to understand mine.
BJ

 

[ex-mormon]

BDawg:

Hi everyone,

First, ex-mo’s points about monotheistic statements in the Bible, Fathers, and Book of Mormon are well taken. I agree with all of them, except for some specific things in some of the Fathers. (I’ll get to that later.) But the question is still, “How can more than one person be spoken of as 'one God?” None of the quotations you gave address this question. Brigham Young said, “Is he one? Yes. Is his trinity one? Yes. Is his organization one? Are the heavens one? Yes.” (Journal of Discourses 14:93-94) And yes, we do believe that men can become deified, but how? By becoming ONE with the Trinity. BY also said, “If men are faithful, the time will come when they will possess the power and the knowledge to obtain, organize, bring into existence, and own. ‘What, of themselves, independent of their Creator?’ No. But they and their Creator will always be one, they will always be of one heart and of one mind, working and operating together; for whatsoever the Father doeth so doeth the son, and so they continue throughout all their operations to all eternity.” (JD 2:305-306)

Bdawg,

Brigham Young would be a discredited source on any topic with relation to quotes from the Journal of Discourses, the Seer and the Deseret News. Unless you acknowledge the fact that he taught the Adam God Doctorine. Almost all mormon apologist get upset when you talk about teachings of past church leaders that are considered heretical by modern Prophets, Apostles, and General Authorties. LDS apologist always convienently refer to th JD, Seer, and DN when it supports their opinion. You can’t have it both ways

I understand that it bothers you that we sometimes also say there are “Gods,” but until you accept the fact that we also believe they are ONE, no matter how many “persons” are involved, you will never understand our doctrine. Perhaps this is why you left the Church–you never really bothered to understand it fully.

Does this include the Heavenly Mother? The reason no one person can understand LDS doctorine is because it constantly changes or covers up past doctorine. I think the US tax code is alot clearer than the LDS history and doctorine. And yes I really bothered to understand it fully with the goal to prove to my wife that it is the true and restored gospel. What I found was the simple truth and the LDS church was a maze of cover-ups by men who would dictate the exact way to get into heaven and be exhalted through a temple ceremony. Try not to judge me by my name instead read my other posts.

Second, you have been quoting the early Fathers quite selectively. I suspect you either cherry-picked them from Father Jurgens’ collection, or from a Catholic Answers tract that cherry-picked them from Father Jurgens. Yes, the early Fathers did believe that God is ONE, and that Jesus is really God, and yet, not in the way that later Trinitarian dogma would dictate. The fact is that prior to about A.D. 300, everyone but the Modalists believed that the Son and Spirit were SUBORDINATE to the Father, i.e., lower in rank and glory. Here is a quotation from a well-known patristics scholar to support this point.

Justin be stripped of his sainthood for teaching gross heresy, a blasphemer, or should we conclude that the Trinity doctrine was a bit different in A.D. 150, or so?

Call it cherry-picking if you like, I will call it the simple truth. I gave you several early church fathers that discussed the trinity prior to 300 A.D. and you give me examples from one scholar…tisk,tisk.
I believe my response was more than adaquate. I thought we are discussing mormon beliefs not attacking others personally for their (name removed by moderator)ut to the disscusion. I would never accuse you of being ignorant of your faith so the same should apply to you.

God Bless

ex-mo

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Subrosa and Tmaque,
Thank you for the information on the Didache way back in one of those past posts, and the information on Mary sightings. I did look at the Zeitun site and found it fascinating, but in some photos it looked a lot like a woman’s form while some would be a stretch of the imagination to see Mary in the form. I will look at some of the other sites you suggested when I have more time.
I will leave the answering of Catholic Dude’s questions to some more versed in scriptural references than I am and I think Bdawg and mormon fool are probably doing a pretty good job. For now I am just happy to have had some of my questions answered. It is good to get a little knowledge so I may talk with my husband with some understanding about his beliefs.
BJ

 

[flameburns623]

I note that this thread has wavered between those who are determined to refute Mormonism despite being poorly-read in the subject and those who are better-informed and willing to listen and dialogue. The Mormons in this thread have pretty much run the same gamut–some know nothing about Catholicism and seem not particularly interested; others have at least seemingly given the subject a fair hearing. Excuse me for quoting myself but I would like to recommend some few books for the Roman Catholics to use to ‘bone up’ on this subject a tad:

flameburns623:

The Articles of Faith by James Talmage

Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage

**A Marvelous Work and a Wonder **by LeGrand Richards

The House of the Lord by James Talmage (Talmage is a classic LDS writer, greatly revered).

**Church History in the Fulness of Times **distributed by the LDS Church (Church Distribution)

Gospel Principles Church Distribution

An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley

The Mormon Doctrine of Deity by B.H Roberts (another much-revered classic LDS apologist–who is rumored to have suffered doubts about his Mormon faith in his declining years, btw).

Encylopedia of Mormonism (Not suggesting anyone read the whole set but selected articles as needed)

**The Work and the Glory **Gerald Lund (9-volume fictional account of Joseph Smith–good intro to LDS history).

You’ll find many of these in a public library or available there via inter-library loan. Your girlfriends’ Ward library may also lend you some of them as well. And offer to lend you gobs of others. No need to buy them all nor to read them all: you simply want to gain real insight into the mind and spirituality of Mormonism. These, plus the LDS ‘Standard Works’ (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, along with the King James Bible) will give you plenty of grasp of basic Mormonism.

Just making the effort to learn will help keep dialogue open. If all you do is read ‘anti-Mormon’ stuff and regurgitate this back to your Mormon acquaintances–you’ll hit the shoals of irresolvable disagreement pretty quickly. Especially when you stumble across something which is clearly inaccurate and/or hateful in it’s presentation. The Mormons will spot the inaccuracies immediately and ‘mark’ you mentally as someone who is simply uninterested in knowing the truth about their faith. They will usually cease giving you a hearing, and often they won’t bother even to pretend to listen

Over and beyond this I heartily advise people to read and study orthodox Christian doctrine and learn how to explain it to others and answer the most-common objections raised. Far better to learn the attributes of the authentic than to try to recognize every possible manifestation of the counterfeit.

I notice that CatholicDude started this thread by claiming he spent “four hours on the Mormon website”. From the looks of things he spent his time there not listening and analyzing what Mormons believe but with the preupposition that they believe things which are self-evidently contradictory and patently absurd. Jack Chick approaches Roman Catholicism in exactly the same way and with similar results–though Chick has the luxury of including artwork, which this forum doesn’t support (LOL). First rule of thumb if one is going to refute complex system of beliefs–learn to actually set aside your own presuppositions for awhile and just listen to what the other side really has to say for itself.

By the way–it isn’t difficult to figure out the fundamental doctrines of Mormonism–I have even posted links to the LDS Missionary Discussions elsewhere in this forum. These, or such books as Gospel Doctrine would provide any interested person with a rather basic overview of the essentials. It is relatively easy to compare and contrast these with essential Christian doctrine as it has been historically taught and explained, and I tend to think that this is the most fruitful way to engage a Latter-day Saint in a consideration of orthodox Chrisitanity. What does get more complex are the peripheral doctrines, as well as a lot of the apologetic explanations for Mormonism.

Critics of Mormonism tend to want to focus on those peripheral areas, the ‘frontiers’ of LDS theology I think someone here has called them. It is interesting to try to trip a Mormon up with citations from the Journal of Discourses or Joseph Smith’s somewhat checkered early history. But those sorts of issues have been dealt with by LDS apologists. For many LDS the answers offered are as satisfactory for them as the explanation of Catholics that there never was a female pope named “Joan”; or that the exhumation of one pope’s bones so that another pope could excommunicate him does not militate against the doctrine of papal infallibility properly understood.

 

[flameburns623]

BDawg:

Were they lying sacks of dung like those cursed Anglicans?

CatholicDude:

It seems we share the same thoughts on anglicans in general.

You have each wounded me to the quick:crying: :tsktsk: !!!

flameburns623–a traditionalist Anglican. :bigyikes: