LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[Javl]

And I pray that someday soon you will understand as well.

Again, I learned and understood quite a long while before you were born. Now it’s your turn. I hope the lessons stick.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[paul_c]

Hi, Anna,
I had attempted to provide greater context with respect to the idea of gaining the knowledge and power and love related to becoming like Christ, or in other words, like God, with my prior post.

Here are specific responses to your questions from above:

(1) Joseph Smith taught that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have become “gods”, and “entered into their exaltation”. (D & C 132:37–note the use of a small “g” for the word.) Note also that “entered” has a similar connotation to the phrase “exaltation to exaltation”, which to me means that one enters into exaltation which is a type of resurrection, and then begins to learn their exaltation, which is that they learn how to really be like Christ which at that beginning point they do not know as yet. “It will be a great while beyond the grave before learning one’s exaltation.” (paraphrased)

So I myself doubt that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob “have their own kingdoms somewhere” as yet, but they are learning their exaltation at this point. I would only be speculating as regards any other situation.

(2) There is no connotation of “multiple lives on earth”. At the beginning point of being exalted, one receives the type of body that is an exalted body in their resurrection. Then, they begin the learning process and the continuation of a growth process that leads them to “exaltation” meaning to really become like Christ in their knowledge, righteous power, and love. Christ helps at every step of the way, so “yes” Christ helps man become a “god.” (I also loved TheosisM’s comment about whether to capitalize the “g” or not.) “Grace to grace” means to grow from one stage of understanding and development to a higher stage of understanding and development, all through the grace Christ has offered.

(3) The use of the words “fear and trembling” would have to do with the exactitude and careful focus on the goal, that a perfect Being (God the Father or His Beloved Son) had when they dwelt on an earth. It is not human fear. It is Godly faith in the result, and “trembling” lest One should be tempted and give in to the temptation. Neither of Them did give in to temptation at any point.

(4) “Higher exaltation” would not have to do with gaining more knowledge or more power in the universe, but connotes that as humankind become like Christ, God the Father has an expanded “glory” inasmuch as by Christ having provided access to the full grace required for exaltation, some of His children (and Christ’s children by His adoption) gain an exalted, eternal weight of glory and that adds to the “glory” of the Father because it means Christ’s victory is His victory also. So "no–it is not “becoming more God”. It is “becoming more victorious in bringing and leading souls to a condition of exaltation.”

Parker,
How do the LDS deal with the problem of creation with this theology?
Let me explain. In the Catholic Faith, we believe that there is one God, completely spiritual who always existed (I am who AM). This God created all things from his mind, including all matter. (We could describe that as the big Bang). He set the physical laws in place (like gravity) and maintains order in the universe. He is omnipotent and omniscient.

How is this role filled in Mormonism? There has to be a beginning of matter and an all powerful, all-knowing being that creates order out of nothing. But in my feeble understanding of your theology, I understand that you believe that God was formerly a man. Well, someone had to be his God if that’s the case because where did matter come from? How do you explain this? What is the true beginning?

 

[paul_c]

This is a great thread and appreciate everyones tone on both sides. Have posted and viewed on other threads regarding LDS and have seen so much hatred that this thread is really really refreshing. I have had many questions about the Mormon religion and am getting alot of information that answers those questions. Thanks Everyone.

Well, here’s the thing. Catholics and Mormons share most of the same moral code, which makes sense since it is the natural law common to all men through conscience… Although the Mormon’s have taken certain parts to the extreme. For instance , how do you explain the total prohibition on alcohol, when Jesus’ first miracle was to turn water into wine. Why would the savior deliberately do this, if wine was to be prohibited. And why would use wine for the eucharist if it was to be prohibitive. He clearly took wine at the last supper, not water as the Mormon’s use.

the real differences are in theology. There are very different views of the nature of God, Jesus, eternal life and what it takes to get there between the two religions. Both can’t be true. Joseph Smith claimed the Catholic Church apostisized and claimed to restore the original Apostolic Church. This obviously irritates Catholics, who point out that Joseph Smith didn’t restore anything, but changed it, creating a whole new set of scriptures and doctrines and amending those that previously existed. Catholics ask for proof of the Apostasy and bear down on the credibility of the Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith, on whose word the entire Mormon religion rests. This obviously irritates Mormons,

Catholics and Mormons can live peacefully side by side, because they share similar moral values but they can never agree on theology since each demands fealty to very different views of God and salvation. All we are left to do therefore is to educate each other and try to find the truth.

 

[scottj]

Well, here’s the thing. Catholics and Mormons share most of the same moral code, which makes sense since it is the natural law common to all men through conscience… Although the Mormon’s have taken certain parts to the extreme. For instance , how do you explain the total prohibition on alcohol, when Jesus’ first miracle was to turn water into wine. Why would the savior deliberately do this, if wine was to be prohibited. And why would use wine for the eucharist if it was to be prohibitive. He clearly took wine at the last supper, not water as the Mormon’s use.

the real differences are in theology. There are very different views of the nature of God, Jesus, eternal life and what it takes to get there between the two religions. Both can’t be true. Joseph Smith claimed the Catholic Church apostisized and claimed to restore the original Apostolic Church. This obviously irritates Catholics, who point out that Joseph Smith didn’t restore anything, but changed it, creating a whole new set of scriptures and doctrines and amending those that previously existed. Catholics ask for proof of the Apostasy and bear down on the credibility of the Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith, on whose word the entire Mormon religion rests. This obviously irritates Mormons,

Catholics and Mormons can live peacefully side by side, because they share similar moral values but they can never agree on theology since each demands fealty to very different views of God and salvation. *** All we are left to do therefore is to educate each other and try to find the truth***.

Well put and Thank You so much for that. If someone else thinks differently, believes a different theology than yourself, your are ABSOLUTELY correct, all we are to do is therefore educate each other and find out or more deeply confirm our own personal truths. And since there are similar moral values, I say on those that are agreed upon- work together. What disturbed me about other threads was the hateful tones involved. If we ‘wanted’ to convert any mormons out there, does anyone think that “shouting” and name calling would do that??? I certainly know that when another denomination goes into over drive telling ME that I am involved with the “wrong” religion- walls go up so high it is not even funny, which is a shame because I feel we should (all believers in Christ) should be able to speak to each other, educate one another and be CIVIL when speaking of these things. Bottom line for ANY topic is you can present your case, but you CAN NOT make someone else believe it (lead a horse to water, but can’t make them drink). Peace to all. And Thanks Again. I appreciate it.

 

[TheosisM]

Again, I learned and understood quite a long while before you were born. Now it’s your turn. I hope the lessons stick.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Learning never ends. I hope the lessons stick for you as well.

(why not give up the age fallacy and move on, it’s not working, thank you Georgetown University Psychology and Logic )

 

[dianaiad]

They are off limits because they are private areas in a personal sense, the same as your bedroom or place of employment or a Catholic’s home altar. And even if the entire monastery was off limits there are no Sacraments that are only available within the walls of the monastery. So this is comparing apples to oranges.

No, it’s comparing “you can’t come in here” to “you can’t come in here.” You DO realize that I cannot take communion or participate in any Catholic sacraments, right? That would make those a bit on the exclusive side, seems to me.

…and your point about ‘private areas in the personal sense’ only works in so far as their personal sleeping areas and altars are concerned (and they do have those.) NOT the chapel that the monks in general use, but which is off limits to visitors or anybody but visiting Catholic priests.

The rest? That’s moving the goal posts. What difference does it make if a sacrament is available outside the walls of a monestary, if they are restricted only to those who are worthy to participate in them? That’s the only restriction Temple ordinances have, y’know; they are restricted to those who are worthy to participate. If we choose to keep them private as well, that is, frankly, none of your concern. As I have stated before, it’s not as if anything we do in the Temple is secret…it is incredibly easy for you to find the script for it, and to know precisely what we do there. Nobody is going to send black helicopters after you if you go looking, either.

Sheesh…we don’t sue people, or threaten them…you want to publish the Temple script? Fine. Go knock yourself out. Just do not expect Mormons to talk to you about it. WE consider what goes in there to be sacred.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, here’s the thing. Catholics and Mormons share most of the same moral code, which makes sense since it is the natural law common to all men through conscience… Although the Mormon’s have taken certain parts to the extreme. For instance , how do you explain the total prohibition on alcohol, when Jesus’ first miracle was to turn water into wine. Why would the savior deliberately do this, if wine was to be prohibited. And why would use wine for the eucharist if it was to be prohibitive. He clearly took wine at the last supper, not water as the Mormon’s use.

It’s not about the alcohol or the wine itself, Paul. It’s about keeping a promise. For instance, I imagine that you will make some promise to God during Lent, either to abstain from something that is otherwise permissible (a sacrifice–for instance, you promise not to drink beer) or to do something that is usually not required (also a sacrifice …for instance, you promise to do something special for a neighbor every day). These things are not, in the usual event, considered sins. However, once you commit to abstaining…or to doing…the commitment is made; you promised. If, after making this promise, you have a beer, or forget to see your neighbor…what is the sin? Is it the beer drinking that is sinful…or the breaking of the promise?

I hope this helps clear this up.

the real differences are in theology. There are very different views of the nature of God, Jesus, eternal life and what it takes to get there between the two religions. Both can’t be true. Joseph Smith claimed the Catholic Church apostisized and claimed to restore the original Apostolic Church. This obviously irritates Catholics, who point out that Joseph Smith didn’t restore anything, but changed it, creating a whole new set of scriptures and doctrines and amending those that previously existed. Catholics ask for proof of the Apostasy and bear down on the credibility of the Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith, on whose word the entire Mormon religion rests. This obviously irritates Mormons,

Catholics and Mormons can live peacefully side by side, because they share similar moral values but they can never agree on theology since each demands fealty to very different views of God and salvation. All we are left to do therefore is to educate each other and try to find the truth.

Very well put.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I know that you aren’t Catholic, but here is an interesting quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
**
460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God**.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/460.htm

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church believes man becomes god, as Joseph Smith taught?

Most of your posts, so far, consist of your telling others what Mormons believe. Are you willing to tell us what you believe?

Do you agree with Joseph Smith’s portrayal of salvation?

JD 6:4, Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844
Here, then, is eternal life - to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, - namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one, - from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me.

I think in both cases, the issue is, what is deification referring to (not really whether a letter is capitalized or not, since the Catechism clearly uses a capital G in saying that “we might become God”, then a lower-case G in saying “might make men gods”

ParkerD brought up the capitalization issue:

. . . . .Joseph Smith did not choose the capitalization of the word “Gods” when he said “gods yourselves”, by the way. There is the distinction between “the only wise and true God” and those who become like God just as John wrote that man could become like Christ, through the grace and atonement of Jesus Christ and the faith of the person doing the living and the repenting.

My response:

God is capitalized in reference to exaltation of man in JD. Where did Joseph Smith say man is to become “like God”?

Seems clear that exaltation is becoming “a God” (capitalized,) not becoming “like God.” . . . .

. . . . .I suppose there are two trains of thought when an editor decides whether to capitalize the word “God” or any word that would be one of His names. One train of thought would follow the KJV Bible practice of using a capital letter when speaking of the Father or the Son, and a small letter when there is any other connotation.

I was in that mode when I suggested that Joseph Smith didn’t edit his own talk and make a decision about the use of a capital G or not. He did distinctly differentiate in the same talk (as I earlier had quoted) between God the Father, God the Son, and any other Being who became a god through reliance on the Savior’s atoning grace and through keeping their covenants faithfully. (My choice is not to capitalize, to preserve the differentiation that was clear in Joseph Smith’s discourse.)

The “editors” of the Journal of Discourses used God, capitalized, for those who become gods by exaltation. Not sure why these editors made a different assumption from yours regarding Joseph Smith’s intentions. . . . .

Deification in Catholicism/Orthodoxy is of course different from deification in Mormonism.

How would you explain the difference in the definition of “deification”?

Do you agree with Joseph Smith’s teaching that “Christians” are to inherit the same power, glory–the same exaltation-as God, until arriving at a station of god, and ascend the throne of eternal power?

Do you agree with Joseph Smith’s teaching that God the Father “worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling”?

Do you agree with Joseph Smith’s teaching that God the Father is to “obtain kingdom upon kingdom,” that will “exalt him in glory,” and take Him to a “higher exaltation”?

I believe the above statements are from St. Athanasius.

Your quote from CCC draws from several sources: 2 Pt 1:4; St. Athanasius; and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Await your comments,
Anna

 

[TheosisM]

Parker,
How do the LDS deal with the problem of creation with this theology?
Let me explain. In the Catholic Faith, we believe that there is one God, completely spiritual who always existed (I am who AM). This God created all things from his mind, including all matter. (We could describe that as the big Bang). He set the physical laws in place (like gravity) and maintains order in the universe. He is omnipotent and omniscient.

How is this role filled in Mormonism? There has to be a beginning of matter and an all powerful, all-knowing being that creates order out of nothing. But in my feeble understanding of your theology, I understand that you believe that God was formerly a man. Well, someone had to be his God if that’s the case because where did matter come from? How do you explain this? What is the true beginning?

Paul c, it’s important to realize that LDS do not believe in creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. They instead believe in creation from pre-existing matter (which had no beginning). So in Mormonism, there is no assumption that “there has to be a beginning of matter and an all powerful, all-knowing being that creates order out of nothing”. Instead, they believe that there is an all powerful, all knowing being that creates order out of chaos (which is something, not nothing). There really isn’t a…beginning as it is understood in traditional Christianity. “The beginning” of Genesis is seen as the beginning of creation, however they believe that things were happening before “the beginning” (i.e. a pre-mortal existence).

I hope that made sense.

 

[jake23]

Mormonism is not a cult nor is it recognized as a cult by the US government or law enforcement agencies.

The heavenly father considers it an occult and a heritic based of his churches teachings and biblical scripture. You will find the book of mormon and other books of the occult placed in the occult sections unless of course you live in Utah or its close neighboring states. Most poeple know the mormon practices to of the occult.

 

[sablouwho]

It’s not about the alcohol or the wine itself, Paul. It’s about keeping a promise.

Well, I honestly think it is great that can you make this distinction Diana. I respect your ability to have an insightful opinion here. Unfortunately, in my experience, you are a rare breed among orthodox Mormons in that respect.

I have heard so many LDS talk about the inherent evils of all substances included in the WoW. Alcohol abuse is tragic and I don’t mean to minimize it, but the fact is, it is not universal. I know too many people who consume modest amounts of alcohol will no ill effects. But after hearing so many LDS, all of whom had presumably never had a sip of alcohol ever, talk on and on about how universally evil it is… Well, I admit, I got a little impatient and began to tune out these monologues after hearing them for the umpteenth time.

And I myself am a tea drinker. And while I admit I drink it because I like tea and find it very comforting, I was pretty jazzed when I found out that there are studies that show that tea is a healthful thing to drink. (Of course there are opposite studies as well, that being the nature of science and all.) For me, a female with a significant family history of breast cancer – well, when some scientific studies indicated that tea seemed to be helpful wrt breast cancer, it made me glad, since I’ve been drinking it for years.

But tea according to some Mormons who don’t see things as you do…well, it’s bad in their view, and I was felt as if I was somehow “less than”, an inferior human being, because I drink it.

 

[kozlosap]

Paul c, it’s important to realize that LDS do not believe in creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. They instead believe in creation from pre-existing matter (which had no beginning). So in Mormonism, there is no assumption that “there has to be a beginning of matter and an all powerful, all-knowing being that creates order out of nothing”. Instead, they believe that there is an all powerful, all knowing being that creates order out of chaos (which is something, not nothing). There really isn’t a…beginning as it is understood in traditional Christianity. “The beginning” of Genesis is seen as the beginning of creation, however they believe that things were happening before “the beginning” (i.e. a pre-mortal existence).

I hope that made sense.

Theosis I have read different opinions by LDS followers as to the age of the earth and it’s existence. Is it true that even in educational settings that the age of the earth is taught to be 5000 years?

 

[TheosisM]

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church believes man becomes god, as Joseph Smith taught?

I said in my post that the concept of deification/theosis (i.e. my name ) in Catholicism and Orthodoxy is different from deification/exaltation in Mormonism.

Most of your posts, so far, consist of your telling others what Mormons believe. Are you willing to tell us what you believe?

What I believe is not relevant to this discussion (I believe I explained my views on this in my PM to you). I will say that theosis (generically, not specific to any church) is very important (and is salvation). It is sad that it does not receive as much emphasis in Western Christianity as it does in the East, especially when it is Biblical and Apostolic.

Do you agree with Joseph Smith’s portrayal of salvation?

What I personally believe is not relevant.

How would you explain the difference in the definition of "deification?

One of the major differences between the two traditions is in the nature of humanity. Mormons believe that, as spirit children of the Father, we basically have the same nature as Him at our core. Catholic/Orthodox deification is based on the concept of creatio ex nihilo, and therefore there is a chasm between human nature and divine nature (this was part of the whole problem of defining how Jesus was both divine and human in early Christianity, i.e. the hypostatic union). Catholic/Orthodox deification is therefore about becoming “gods” through adoption, but never becoming exactly like the Father or the Son. Eastern Orthodox theology emphasizes this in its “essence vs. energies theology”, which basically says that theosis is a participation in the “energies” of God, however no one can ever become the “essence” of God, which remains transcendent.

Another major difference is that LDS exaltation involves having spirit children. Of course this is not something found in traditional theosis.

Another difference is the requirement of [eternal] marriage for exaltation. Marriage is not required for traditional theosis.

Check out this link to the OrthodoxWiki article on “theosis”:
orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

You may also be interested in reading Jordan Vajda’s dissertation on theosis vs. exaltation:
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=7
Vajda was a Catholic priest who converted to Mormonism. His dissertation was written before that.

Do you agree with Joseph Smith’s teaching that “Christians” are to inherit the same power, glory–the same exaltation-as God, until arriving at a station of god, and ascend the throne of eternal power?

Do you agree with Joseph Smith’s teaching that God the Father “worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling”?

Do you agree with Joseph Smith’s teaching that God the Father is to “obtain kingdom upon kingdom,” that will “exalt him in glory,” and take Him to a “higher exaltation”?

Again, what I personally believe is not relevant to the purposes of this thread.

The quote CCC draws from several sources: 2 Pt 1:4; St. Athanasius; and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Yep

 

[TheosisM]

Theosis I have read different opinions by LDS followers as to the age of the earth and it’s existence. Is it true that even in educational settings that the age of the earth is taught to be 5000 years?

Perhaps one of the LDS can comment on this, I’m not sure (though my assumption is that they view it in the same way Catholics do).

I’m a post-bacc pre-medical student who studied human biology (and psych) in undergrad, and my scientific mind can’t see how it is logical to say that the earth is 5000-6000 years old. I couldn’t imagine BYU teaching that.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .What I believe is not relevant to this discussion (I believe I explained my views on this in my PM to you). . . .Again, what I personally believe is not relevant to the purposes of this thread.

Theosis,
Since, you have stated that your beliefs are not relevant to this discussion; and I would not look to you as a source for Mormon beliefs–there is not really anything for the two of us to discuss.

Thank you for your comments, and for stating your position in terms of the discussion.
Anna

 

[paul_c]

Paul c, it’s important to realize that LDS do not believe in creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. They instead believe in creation from pre-existing matter (which had no beginning). So in Mormonism, there is no assumption that “there has to be a beginning of matter and an all powerful, all-knowing being that creates order out of nothing”. Instead, they believe that there is an all powerful, all knowing being that creates order out of chaos (which is something, not nothing). There really isn’t a…beginning as it is understood in traditional Christianity. “The beginning” of Genesis is seen as the beginning of creation, however they believe that things were happening before “the beginning” (i.e. a pre-mortal existence).

I hope that made sense.

I realize that the LDS consider that there was always matter. This is my issue with them. I don’t see how that can be logically explained. There can’t be physical laws or order without some “lawmaker” or “maintainer” of the order. The Mormon theology doesn’t address this. And God in there view wasn’t always all powerful. In fact, if he didn’t create everything, he was never “all-powerful”. This seems to be a logical failing in Mormonism.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
Well, here’s the thing. Catholics and Mormons share most of the same moral code, which makes sense since it is the natural law common to all men through conscience… Although the Mormon’s have taken certain parts to the extreme. For instance , how do you explain the total prohibition on alcohol, when Jesus’ first miracle was to turn water into wine. Why would the savior deliberately do this, if wine was to be prohibited. And why would use wine for the eucharist if it was to be prohibitive. He clearly took wine at the last supper, not water as the Mormon’s use.

This doesn’t ring true. Look. Its not like I’m an advocate of drinking alcohol. I never drink (other than the wine turned into Christ’s blood in the eucharist). But your explanation doesn’t explain wny NO Mormons drink alcohol and why it was eliminated from your version of communion. its more than soomeone making a sacrifice. Why do you all sacrifice alcohol? Jesus turned water into wine and used wine in the eucharistic sacrament so he deemed it okay. Why do you choose to do differently?

 

[TheosisM]

I realize that the LDS consider that there was always matter. This is my issue with them. I don’t see how that can be logically explained. There can’t be physical laws or order without some “lawmaker” or “maintainer” of the order. The Mormon theology doesn’t address this. And God in there view wasn’t always all powerful. In fact, if he didn’t create everything, he was never “all-powerful”. This seems to be a logical failing in Mormonism.

I think the question here, which a Mormon can answer, is whether in their view God (the Father) originated the laws (are you talking about the laws of physics, or just “physical laws” as a general principle), or if they existed eternally along with the matter.

 

[zerinus]

I think the question here, which a Mormon can answer, is whether in their view God (the Father) originated the laws (are you talking about the laws of physics, or just “physical laws” as a general principle), or if they existed eternally along with the matter.

That is a difficult question to answer, but I believe the scriptures point to the belief that the laws of the universe are determined and controlled by God. Here is a reference:

D&C 88:

7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

---

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

 

[zerinus]

Perhaps one of the LDS can comment on this, I’m not sure (though my assumption is that they view it in the same way Catholics do).

I’m a post-bacc pre-medical student who studied human biology (and psych) in undergrad, and my scientific mind can’t see how it is logical to say that the earth is 5000-6000 years old. I couldn’t imagine BYU teaching that.

I believe that the history of the earth from the fall of Adam to the present day can be correctly (and approximately) determined from Bible chronology; but the age of the earth itself, or how long it took to be created (and how long Adam was in Eden before he fell), is something that cannot be determined from what has been revealed.