K
KathleenGee
Guest
I also will add it is absolutely no easy feat whatsoever to go through the Summa on ‘God’ by Aquinas and pull out some zingers here and there…I might try to gleans something to add…
- Status
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Jesus was not always God, according to LDS, because God was not always God. God was once a sinful man who worked really hard and became a God, just like you can.
This is why many of us say that the LDS God and the Catholic God are not the same God. The Catholic God is the alpha and omega. The ONLY God…where the LDS God is a glorified man.
This is why many of us say that the LDS God and the Catholic God are not the same God. The Catholic God is the alpha and omega. The ONLY God…where the LDS God is a glorified man.
M
Miriam1947
Guest
T
TexanKnight
Guest
P
Pepband_Mom
Guest
Parker
You’ve spend time posting on these forums, over 5000 of them. Many knowledgeable, earnest Catholics have directed you to read & research for yourself, me included. If God is inspiring these Catholics to respond to you & you blow it off = So much for God directing your path.
You’ve spend time posting on these forums, over 5000 of them. Many knowledgeable, earnest Catholics have directed you to read & research for yourself, me included. If God is inspiring these Catholics to respond to you & you blow it off = So much for God directing your path.
P
Pepband_Mom
Guest
Parker
Another thing. You are right God has come down to earth.
God the Father - burning bush, Ark, Holy of Holies
Wasn’t Jacob the only person according to scripture to see God’s face and live?
Another thing. You are right God has come down to earth.
God the Father - burning bush, Ark, Holy of Holies
Wasn’t Jacob the only person according to scripture to see God’s face and live?
J
Janderich
Guest
Indeed, for LDS Christ was a son, as understood by any person the world over. And he “increased in wisdom and statue and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52). What could be more simple? What could be more straight forward? “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29).
And from that simple beginning we logically follow the idea to the end. For, “the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:16-17).
What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
In shaded sympathy that Christ was once a man,…the title He used most for Himself was Son of Man…coming after Adam as Man…because Man failed.
God who was once a man had to work on himself…so who is this former man…but not Christ in Mormonism…who already worked on Himself before becoming a god…no wait…He was a man then became god…then He became a man again…
confusing…St. Thomas Aquinas…where are you?
Mormons should take their beliefs and instead of pulling and twisting from SS Irenaeus and Athanasius, compare them to St. Thomas…he will teach you everything about the nature of God and the Three Persons in one God…
God who was once a man had to work on himself…so who is this former man…but not Christ in Mormonism…who already worked on Himself before becoming a god…no wait…He was a man then became god…then He became a man again…
confusing…St. Thomas Aquinas…where are you?
Mormons should take their beliefs and instead of pulling and twisting from SS Irenaeus and Athanasius, compare them to St. Thomas…he will teach you everything about the nature of God and the Three Persons in one God…
T
Telstar
Guest
Yes, when Jesus was born and lived on the earth, He did “grow in stature” (not ‘statue’
), just like any human being does. That’s how everything on the earth grows from a seed/egg to a fully mature plant, animal or human being. That just means that He got bigger and more mature, physically, as He got older. He was not born as a fully formed adult.Also, during that process, He grew in wisdom as a human being. To be more like all other human beings, His Father clouded His mind from the full knowledge of God, so that His earthly experience would be more like other people, even though He was still fully God. As He physically matured, His Father lifted the cloud more and more, until it was time for Him to begin preaching. Some things that He knew were much more than any man ever knew, but there were always some things that were still hidden from Him by the Father (Like, when Jesus said that only the Father knew the day and the hour of the end. At that point, it was still one of those things that remained hidden from Him.).
Your quote from Acts:*[28] For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring. [29] Being therefore the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art, and device of man. [30] And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should everywhere do penance. *Paul is speaking to the Greeks and other Pagans that worshiped “gods” made of gold, silver and other earthly materials, that were not true gods at all. But, the God that He was teaching them about (Jesus), was the true God that had created the universe, as well as all of that earthly ‘material’. He was the only God truly worthy of their worship. Paul told them that we who choose to follow Jesus are the children of God (by adoption). Therefore, we’re above all other creatures on the earth because God has made us in His “image and likeness”. (In other words, we have both a spiritual soul and a physical body, just like Jesus does.)
The part that LDS conveniently ignore in Paul’s teachings, is that there is much more to becoming “joint-heirs with Christ” than following the ordinances and rituals that Joseph Smith and his followers have made up over the past 200ish years. In fact, most of those things are not really relevant to following Jesus, at all, because they’re based on masonic rituals and oaths, which are typically anti-Christian. That’s why the Church forbids Catholics from becoming Freemasons.
We only become fully adopted children of God, and His heirs, if we believe in One God in the Holy Trinity, are properly Baptized into the Church that Christ established, and follow His teachings according to the instructions that He gave to His Holy Apostles, throughout His public ministry. Others may follow some of those teachings, but only Catholics follow all of them, and have the “fullness of Christ”.
Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, the Alpha and the Omega, the Creator, the beginning and the end of all things that have ever existed. He is God Incarnate. He has existed for all eternity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Before God created it, nothing else ever existed, at all. Jesus is the One and Only Begotten Son of the One True God. He is eternal and completely inseparable from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
I think that pretty much sums it up, clearly. Don’t you?
J
Janderich
Guest
Telstar, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Sorry about the incorrect spelling (it’s one of those words the spell check doesn’t catch). I don’t have a huge complaint with much of you’re explanation except so far as the nuance of words are concerned. Such things like “Father”, “Son”, “grow”, and “Godhead” vs “divinity”. Of course the difference in interpretation of these words does lead to some major disagreements but, I’m really not really interested in debating these terms right now. However I do want to explain one item.
I of course disagree with you here about Joseph Smith and “made up” rituals. But I will say, there is much more to becoming “joint-heirs with Christ” then just a one time performance of ordinances and rituals. Of course these are vital - and no doubt we could argue about them. But my point is, if that was all it took, any religion would be laughable. There is a great gulf that separates us from God. He has all power and all dominion but we are as nothing even less then the dust of the earth. This is our position with respect to Him.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
But Mormons teach (or at least used to teach) that Heavenly Father was once the dust of another earth. They teach that Mormon males can also have all power and all dominion and in fact can become gods, have spirit children like Heavenly Father and rule over planets (or universes depending on which Mormon you ask).
It mystifies me that Mormons, when discussing with non-members, always try to disguise their true beliefs in language designed to make Christians think that LDS beliefs are the same as Christian beliefs. They are not. Why the deception? Are you that desperate to be accepted and liked?
Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)
K
KathleenGee
Guest
As I suggested…Mormons should stick with Joseph Smith and his books and leave Christianity alone.
Stay with your own beliefs and stop mixing them or denying them, and trying to find ground with Christianity. It doesn’t work.
Stay with your own beliefs and stop mixing them or denying them, and trying to find ground with Christianity. It doesn’t work.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Nice twist. But not totally honest. LDS have taught that God the FATHER (not Jesus) was a sinful man who became a glorified god. It will not work to change it now.
J
Janderich
Guest
Paul, I am trying to be understood in this matter and not create confusion. However, I can understand how confusion can be created. Particularly on the internet because our most sacred beliefs are discussed as if they were regulaly taught each week in church. The confusion here is largely one of who we are versus who we may one day become. Here is the truth as best I can express it.
Who We Are
We are as nothing. Let me quote a couple of our scriptures. Scriptures of course define our core doctrine. “Now for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed” (Moses 1:10). “O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea even they are less than the dust of the earth. For behold, the dust of the earth moveth higher and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the comman of our great and everlasting God” (Hel 12:7-8). “I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures,…” (Mos. 4:11).
Who We May Become
We are literally spirit sons and daughters of God. Because of this, there is a tiny spark of divinity in us. Well after the resurrection and over eons of time we believe we may become like god. Note: not the God. He will always be greater than us. “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject to them” (D&C 132:20)
Because we are his sons and daughters we mean everything to Him. We have the greatest potential. But it is now simply that: “potential”. But, because of the atonement in some far future day we may yet become gods. I hope that is clear.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Wow, candor from a Mormon. How refreshing! Thank you, Janderich.
Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)
P.S.: Have you ever noticed that in the BoM there is only one God and we are mere creatures, whereas later on in JS’s writings were are actual offspring of (one of many) Gods and gods in embryo? Doesn’t that seem incongruous to you?
Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)
P.S.: Have you ever noticed that in the BoM there is only one God and we are mere creatures, whereas later on in JS’s writings were are actual offspring of (one of many) Gods and gods in embryo? Doesn’t that seem incongruous to you?
T
Telstar
Guest
And thank you, for not taking my little spelling correction too seriously, because I was just busting your chops a little. I thought it was almost Freudian that it happened to be the word “statue”, when part of your post was referencing pagans and their false gods made of stone, gold and silver.
I know spell check won’t tell you it’s incorrect as long as what you type is an actual word, so you still end up having to proof-read everything. I’ve had the same kinds of things slip by me, so don’t worry about it. I meant what you knew. 
I know all too well that LDS use their own definitions of certain terms and phrases that no one else would ever use, or find in any standard dictionary. Joseph Smith made an art of redefining words, especially in regards to the ways they’re used in the Bible. It was the only way he could convince anyone to believe his interpretations of God, creation and everything else. If he didn’t redefine God, he couldn’t make the outlandish claims that he made, believable, to anyone that knew anything about the Bible. We’ve had many go-arounds with LDS on this forum because of their erroneous definitions that they defend, even when others post actual dictionary definitions that are totally different from what they claim.
I totally agree that it’s much more than rites and rituals, although they’re still a very important factor. But, they must have a significant purpose or else they’re just empty acts that are a total waste of time, and completely irrelevant to salvation. The most important thing of all is in defining God, correctly. Without our recognizing Who God really is, how can we ever expect Him to be able to recognize us as His children? LDS completely reject the Trinity as the rest of Christianity has defined it for almost 2000 years, and that’s the most serious problem they have in their whole belief system. Without understanding God, they can’t possibly understand Jesus, or His true mission.
Joseph Smith combined so many different kinds of religions along with other kinds of ritualistic beliefs, into his version of religion, that it has no real consistency with any of them. He tried to use Jewish Temple rituals, but he didn’t have any real knowledge of what they were, or what they really meant. He completely twisted the parts that he took from Christianity, to the point of them being unrecognizable by any other Christian religion. Then, he threw in a few of the oaths and rituals from freemasonry, to come up with something that even God couldn’t recognize as anything but a strange form of paganism, a little more like Santería than real Christianity.
I’m sorry, and I’m sure you’ll disagree with me, but it’s the truth as I see it, from my perspective. LDS certainly do have many good things going for them, for sure. But, I think they have some serious issues that are a real hindrance to them, as well.
J
Janderich
Guest
Not particularly. The Book of Mormon does not hold all of our beliefs. After all it was written to convince the world that Jesus is the Christ not really to takle deeper doctrine. For example, It speaks nothing of the three degrees of glory and very little on temple worship. As a matter of fact these two subjects are covered more completely in the Bible than the Book of Mormon. However, there are still other teaching about personal revelation, the fall, and the resurrection that I consider profound.
Even if such a tenuous possibility really does exist it’s rather a minor issue. Someone could more directly argue about how unbelievably incredible it is that Joseph Smith saw God the Father, Jesus Christ, Moses, Elijah, Peter, etc. This would seem to be more to the point and hit more at the heart of the matter.
N
NewSeeker
Guest
Three degrees of glory, endowment, and eternal marriage are not found in the bible. Regarding the first of these, 1 Cor 15 is typically quoted by mormons out of context and by no means does it refer to any gradations in heaven. The endowment is a rip off and elaboration of masonic rites. JS did not see God and Jesus in the woods. Nor did he see Moses, Elijah, Peter, etc. He made all of that up.
J
Janderich
Guest
Interestingly, we agree in form but not in details. For instance I could say the same to you as what you have said to me but I would modify “LDS” to “Catholic”, “Trinity” to “Godhead” etc. However, I think we could both also add priesthood as vital to ordinances. Some time it may be interesting to take up this Trinity debate but I suspect I would be severly out numbered.
I am more interested in clarity regarding the LDS church rather then argument anyway.
Joseph Smith was not concerned about consistency with other Christian religions. If he was he could have made slight modifications to existing ordinances. While we see similarities we claim no such purpose. To us the similarities are more interesting then necessary.
I, of course, disagree with you about “something that even God couldn’t recognize”. But, I do understand it is the truth as you see it and I can accept that.
J
Janderich
Guest
Interestingly, we agree in form but not in details. For instance I could say the same to you as what you have said to me but I would modify “LDS” to “Catholic”, “Trinity” to “Godhead” etc. However, I think we could both also add priesthood as vital to ordinances. Some time it may be interesting to take up this Trinity debate but I suspect I would be severly out numbered.
I am more interested in clarity regarding the LDS church rather then argument anyway.
Joseph Smith was not concerned about consistency with other Christian religions. If he was he could have made slight modifications to existing ordinances. While we see similarities we claim no such purpose. To us the similarities are more interesting then necessary.
I, of course, disagree with you about “something that even God couldn’t recognize”. But, I do understand it is the truth as you see it and I can accept that.
- Status