LDS restoration

[gazelam]

"I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed." (2 Maccabees 7:8)

Regarding this verse, James Hubler wrote in his dissertation:

Non-being [in 2 Maccabees] refers to the non-existence of the heavens and earth before God’s creative act. It does not express absolute non-existence, only the prior nonexistence of the heavens and earth. They were made to exist after not existing. (James N. Hubler, “Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 90)

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

St. Thomas would disagree with James N. Hubler, as would I.
For St. Thomas says:
" If therefore God did only act from something presupposed, it would follow that the thing presupposed would not be caused by Him. Now it has been shown above (I:44:2), that nothing can be, unless it is from God, Who is the universal cause of all being. Hence it is necessary to say that God brings things into being from nothing."
2 Maccabees 7 would fully agree with St. Thomas and I. The passage is clear, lets not try and twist with others words.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Here is Haydock’s Bible commentary on verse 28
" Nothing, not out of pre-existent and eternal matter. (St. Augustine, Nat. boni xxvi.) (Romans iv. 17.)"
Again, agreeing with orthodox Christianity and the Saints and the Bible itself.

 

[Horton]

Christ has all of the spiritual gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12. Everyone else is only given a portion.

I think you are confused in this chapter. The use of the phrase “Body of Christ” isn’t talking about his literal body. The Body of Christ is his Church, the believers. Jesus Christ doesn’t the “spiritual gifts”, he is God! The spiritual gifts are for us mere mortals.

> Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.

I know this verse is one the LDS pull out when trying to convince others that their prophets are called for in the bible. However, we know all prophesy ended with the death of Christ, that Christ left the deposit of faith and no one can add to what Jesus Christ left us. To claim there are modern day prophets is to say Jesus Christ did not leave his Church on earth equipped to survive. To claim modern day prophets (or ladder day prophets) is to say once Jesus got to heaven he suddenly had a lot of “oh yeah, I forgot that one” moments of things he forgot to mention. But it couldn’t have been so suddenly since he waited 1800 years to act on it.

Christ is more intelligent than the rest of humanity (Abraham 3:19)
Christ is our example of what we should strive to become. (3 Nephi 27:27)

The books of Abraham & 3 Nephi are not scripture so…
Is Christ more intelligent? Of course he is, he is God (not a god among many but the God)

All through the NT we are called to holiness, to strive to become saints. The Catholic Church has been teaching that for 2000 years without 3 Nephi.

Therefore there is no room for any of us, Joseph Smith included, to somehow outshine Christ

But your religion teaches that you can become a god, that you can become Christ. Just like God was once man and become a god, so too can LDS men. This is your life’s work, to become a god just like God the Father became a god.

God only withdraws from those who reject Him, after giving them a chance to return to Him.

God never tires of giving us chances. His mercy is abundant and will never leave us without him. God never withdraws from any soul no matter a person has done or how much they reject him. This is a concept we can never fully understand because it is outside of human comprehension. We often, as imperfect humans, give up on others, believe there is no chance at redemption for some, but we are not God and it isn’t for us to decide.

The LDS have a difficult time with the mysterious aspects of the Christian faith. Smith and his followers needed answers to questions that don’t have answers so they used their limited human understanding to make up answers, to look as though they’ve solved all of life’s mysteries.

This is where a great deal of the LDS doctrine comes from.

 

[gazelam]

Here is Haydock’s Bible commentary on verse 28
" Nothing, not out of pre-existent and eternal matter. (St. Augustine, Nat. boni xxvi.) (Romans iv. 17.)"
Again, agreeing with orthodox Christianity and the Saints and the Bible itself.

Peter Hayman records:
“Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C. E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism.” (Peter Hayman, “Monotheism – A misused word in Jewish Studies?”)

 

[sainteriksrose]

Tell them that Jesus said He would be with the Church He authorized to bind and loose in Heaven as on earth on His behalf, and commanded to preach His teachings to all nations always…

Until the end of time. Too, 3 times He commanded Peter to feed His sheep. And we know that this is with His Life-giving Body and Blood.

Invite them to the Mass!

 

[gazelam]

For St. Thomas says:
" If therefore God did only act from something presupposed, it would follow that the thing presupposed would not be caused by Him. Now it has been shown above, that nothing can be, unless it is from God, Who is the universal cause of all being. Hence it is necessary to say that God brings things into being from nothing."

The problem with Aquinas’ analysis here is that the Bible says no such thing, and gives an example opposed to Aquinas’ thinking.

2 Peter 3:5 They deliberately ignore the fact that the heavens existed of old and earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God.

There’s no mention of God being the cause of the water of which the earth was made.

 

[Stephen168]

The church Jesus established failed, no? But Smith’s has lasted 200 years, so far.

Therefore there is no room for any of us, Joseph Smith included, to somehow outshine Christ.

But your religion teaches that you can become a god, that you can become Christ. Just like God was once man and become a god, so too can LDS men. This is your life’s work, to become a god just like God the Father became a god.

(A) Also Mormonism believes the Church established by the Son of God failed within 100 years of establishing it.

(B) And Joseph Smith started a church that has been around for almost 190 years.

(C ) Therefore as the OP said, Mormonism believes that Joseph Smith had something more than the Son of God.

As I said earlier: If A and B, therefore C and the question:

Let me put the question another way…what did Smith have/do that Christ did not?

Mormonism can’t answer the question

 

[njlisa]

Hi!

Here’s a lengthy article about the restoration from the LDS Web site. Recently, officials changed the denomination’s name to the Church of Jesus Christ.

I hope this helps.

 

[exiled1]

I think Maccabees isn’t in the protestant/LDS OT, is it?

If we are not willing to consider Nephi (which we shouldn’t) then we cannot use Maccabees with Gazelam. Seems to me that we have to work with what we all accept, as well as reason, and prayer to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Stephen168]

I think Maccabees isn’t in the protestant/LDS OT, is it?

If we are not willing to consider Nephi (which we shouldn’t) then we cannot use Maccabees with Gazelam. Seems to me that we have to work with what we all accept, as well as reason, and prayer to the Holy Spirit.

Maccabees are documents that date to the 2nd century B.C. as a historical fact. While Nephi is a document that is dated to the 19th century A.D. as a historical fact.

If we want to know what Jews believed before the time of Christ, we can use the Maccabees as a historical document.

I agree that if a Protestant wants biblical proof of a belief, they would reject Maccabees and Nephi. But if they are looking for historical facts they would only reject Nephi.

Catholics accept facts and reason while Mormons accept their testimony, so I don’t see any common ground on proving beliefs.

 

[RuthAnne]

Here’s a lengthy article about the restoration from the LDS Web site . Recently, officials changed the denomination’s name to the Church of Jesus Christ.

From that website:

The Prophet Joseph Smith went into the woods near his family home to offer his first vocal prayer to God. He said: “I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

“… When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other— This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” (Joseph Smith—History 1:16–17).

It’s interesting that even Joe didn’t know how many personages he saw. Originally, it was only one. The reasons he went into the woods, the things he was told, even how old he was . . . those things change depending on which version you read. There are multiple, conflicting accounts of this vision, the first one not even recorded until 12 years after it supposedly happened, and the “official” version written 18 years after it happened. It’s all utter nonsense.

 

[exiled1]

I didn’t know Protestants accepted the history of the deutero-canonical books. Good to know!

 

[Stephen168]

I didn’t know Protestants accepted the history of the deutero-canonical books. Good to know!

Not exactly what I said

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

First, Peter Hayman has no authority here. 2 Maccabees is a historical document dating to the 2nd century written by Rabbinical Jews. It has more authority on pre-Christian Judaism than Peter Hayman. Ny reason for posting the commentary of Haydock was to show also that I can throw people’s interpretations on biblical passages as you can, but in the end throwing someones opinion on a passage has no real weight unless its authoritative. If you can show me dogmatic interpretation from the Magisterium on 2 Maccabees about this not referring to creation out of nothing then please do. But if you can’t, then posting some random persons opinions as an answer does nothing.
Second, obviously Peter Hayman is wrong. 2 Maccabees clearly shows creation ex nihilo and this is before Christian times. And you haven’t sufficiently answered that.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

There doesn’t need to be. There is no mention in the Bible that Joseph Smith is a prophet and yet you believe that. Can’t argue a double standard or your position falls apart. And there is no mention that God did not create the waters. But using Aquinas’ arguments before this, which you should read before you try to refute what he said here, he says:
On the contrary, It is said (Romans 11:36): “Of Him, and by Him, and in Him are all things.”

I answer that, It must be said that every being in any way existing is from God. For whatever is found in anything by participation, must be caused in it by that to which it belongs essentially, as iron becomes ignited by fire. Now it has been shown above (I:3:4) when treating of the divine simplicity that God is the essentially self-subsisting Being; and also it was shown (I:11:4) that subsisting being must be one; as, if whiteness were self-subsisting, it would be one, since whiteness is multiplied by its recipients. Therefore all beings apart from God are not their own being, but are beings by participation. Therefore it must be that all things which are diversified by the diverse participation of being, so as to be more or less perfect, are caused by one First Being, Who possesses being most perfectly.

Hence Plato said (Parmen. xxvi) that unity must come before multitude; and Aristotle said (Metaph. ii, text 4) that whatever is greatest in being and greatest in truth, is the cause of every being and of every truth; just as whatever is the greatest in heat is the cause of all heat.

Aquinas words don’t disagree with St. Peters. For my question would then be: Where does the water of which the earth was made come from?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Where does the water of which the earth was made come from?

Mormonism has a pseudoscience associated to it. Smith taught of elements, physical laws and intelligences that are uncreated.

The unspoken assertion being made is that water is one of the Mormon uncreated elements from which the Mormon gods formed the Earth.

 

[exiled1]

Language is fluid, perhaps I misunderstood.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Again this has an issue: Since those elements are eternal, does that mean they are God? For the God to be God, He must always be the First Causer, but within Mormonism that doesn’t exist, again giving more reason not to be a Mormon.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Again this has an issue: Since those elements are eternal, does that mean they are God? For the God to be God, He must always be the First Causer, but within Mormonism that doesn’t exist, again giving more reason not to be a Mormon.

They are not gods but the stuff that they and their gods are made of and what their gods use for divine actions like creating (creating being making for them).

Mormons believe in progressing. So they progressed from that thing they call intelligence, into a material spirit, then into a corporeal being, and believe they are now gods in the making. Their goal is to continue progressing to full godhood. (Those that don’t progress will be stuck for eternity as immortal beings with no divine power or authority. Divine power and authority comes from the god who made them into spirits from that material Smith called “intelligence”.)

Physics is a field Mormons take an interest in, with the hope of providing evidence of eternal laws that they and their gods are bound by.

They have no teaching about a first cause and I have never found a rational explanation for this problem. In the end it falls into the Mormon category of they don’t know and aren’t concerned about it.

There are a lot of good reasons to reject Mormonism.