Let's talk about Mormonism

[TOmNossor]

The limit to deification (becoming gods) is God.

I think you mean this in a more nuanced way, but let me agree that you must believe this.
Could God change man such that man was fully divine? If God is omnipotent as most Catholics claim, the answer is yes. In fact, if Christ is fully man and fully divine, it would seem that there is some way in which full divinity and full humanity can exist within a single person so the question is why does God refuse to do this for His adopted children?
Is it jealousy? Does God believe deifying man would lessen His glory? Seems un-God-like.
Is it because being as God is, is unpleasant? That is not good theology either. God is supremely joyous as God.
Is it because God doesn’t want what is “supremely joyous” for His children. Again not good theology.

More simply, either God cannot make us fully divine our He doesn’t want to make us fully divine.

The limit to deification (becoming gods) is God. The church fathers believed God is uncreated and they also believed in creation ex nihlio. God is uncreated and everything else is created. Part of the divine nature is eternal life. We will share/participate in God’s nature but we will never be God.
Mormons believe that god was once a man and as men they will become god. This belief has never been Christian.

Gazelam had done a great job showing that the Bible and even the earliest of the ECF writings (St. Clement of Rome possibly and St. Justin Martyr for sure) do not teach creation ex nihilo.
Other than some Gnostics, St. Irenaeus I think was the first to teach creation ex nihilo. But, he also said that when men are “at length made gods,” they “receive the faculty of the Uncreated” and “overcome the substance of the created nature.”
Also, does Christ share/participate in our humanity? The ECF tell us that He does. Does this mean He is not fully human? The orthodox position (developed or early we could debate) is that He was fully human. The witness of the ECF is abused when Catholic theologians claim that Christ shared/participated in our humanity in one way (fully) and we are to share/participate (same word same sentence strongly implying parallelism) in a DIFFERENT way (partially/derivatively). This is 100% reading developed theology into text that nowhere evidences this is appropriate.

cont…

 

[Stephen168]

Stanley L. Jaki, a Catholic priest of the Benedictine Order, stated:

Two commonly used quotes used by Mormons which don’t address the non-Christian, Mormon belief in god as a creation.

Mormons also will argue from silence not realizing that reason is not silent on a subject; such as deification.

Stanley Jaki died a Catholic Priest and if you read his quote carefully he does not disagree with what I said. Mormons do not worship a Judeo-Christian-Islam God, so when they claim to “become a god,” it has a completely different meaning from the meaning a Christian would give that phrase.

 

[TOmNossor]

Mormons believe that god was once a man and as men they will become god. This belief has never been Christian.

And you of course know that Blake Ostler rejects this position in his widely celebrated Exploring Mormon Thought. I personally agree with all Christians that Christ lived as a man and is God. And I agreed with Blake that God the Father analogous to Christ lived as a man and is God. We however can become gods (fully divine) through union with God the Father, the atonement of God the Son and the witness of God the Holy Spirit. The view I hold, the view Blake holds, and the virtual absence of any LDS leader espousing the view you claim LDS hold for 2-3 decades or more does not change the fact that some LDS leaders absolutely taught that God was once not God but a man. I think they were wrong in that God the Father like God the Son may have emptied Himself for the purpose of having a human experience, but that God the Father (like God the Son) was never a sinful human being like I am (I am not aware of any LDS leader who has ever said God was a SINFUL human like we are BTW, but perhaps you know of some).
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

If God is omnipotent as most Catholics claim, the answer is yes.

The answer is no. Your Mormon meaning of the word omnipotent is non-Catholic and an example of why Mormonism has a history of being anti-science. While Catholicism has been the source of science.

 

[Stephen168]

And you of course know that Blake Ostler rejects this position

Did he have a revelation which changed the teaching of the Mormon Church?

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

And you of course know that Blake Ostler rejects this position

Did he have a revelation which changed the teaching of the Mormon Church?

Blake Ostler could not receive a revelation for the entire church. But …
The teachings of the CoJCoLDS have clearly changed. Blake Ostler documents the positions espoused by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, and others. He then puts forth a position with an emphasis upon our canonized scripture. And LDS can know this teaching has changed because the ONLY place we hear that God was once a man is when our critics hoist this upon us.
This is the same thing the that Catholic theologians do. It is same thing that Catholic cardinals do when they exam the historic teachings of the Catholic Church (sometimes looking for ways to fit NEW teachings into old Tradition, like the “hope for unbaptized infants” we have talked about). And I suspect Catholics in the pews never hear about Limbo today. Few hear about the indissolubility of marriage and that second marriage relations are adultery.

There are at least two important differences:

1. LDS leaders COULD seek revelation from God on these questions. LDS believe that God could then give revelation on these questions. If such were to happen and Blake Ostler was told that he was wrong and should change what he is teaching, then I am sure he would. The closest thing I know to this concerns Elder Maxwell’s teaching on the timelessness of God and Blake’s disagreement. Elder Maxwell provided Blake with a letter that explained why Elder Maxwell taught the way he did and encouraged Blake to continue teaching the way Blake had been teaching. Elder Maxwell’s teaching was practical and Blake’s was philosophically precise. While Elder Maxwell communicated truth God revealed and lead Elder Maxwell to share, this did not end the discussion with respect to timelessness and Blake was encouraged to continue to hold his view and to teach it (at BYU among other places). Catholics claim that public revelation has ceased and have claimed this since the 3rd century.
2. LDS do not claim we have Tradition once delivered and irreformable. Catholic do. When LDS teaching changes it is not a fatal flaw. According to what Catholic Answers taught me, Catholic doctrine does not and cannot change (at least that was what they taught 10 years ago).

You do not understand how LDS revelation comes and seem to believe that all past teachings of LDS prophets are binding, which is not and cannot be the case. Of course, I have told you this before.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

God has a nature and he created a natural and moral world which is in harmony with his nature. According to Genesis, he created everything from nothing; only his Word. He gave man reason to discover the world God created. This world is consistent and therefore knowable. This Christian view gave man the desire for scientific and moral reasoning. Reasoning we still do today.

Mormons reject the ancient Christian understanding of the nature of God. Joseph Smith tells us his god is not the creator, but a creation. When a Mormon says his god is omnipotent, he means god can do anything. Anything at random; like change the DNA of the American Indian to trick us into believing the Book of Mormon is fiction, or that Adam was God and now he’s not. The Mormon god takes away man’s desire for science, and moral reasoning, because what is true today, god could change tomorrow. Mormons have just waited for the changes to come out of Salt Lake. Even if these changes make Joseph Smith appear to be wrong in every claim he ever made; the new claims are true. True without any reflection on what this tells us about Joseph Smith.

While Mormons claim that Mormonism has begun to reason and no longer wait for Salt Lake, the implications for Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, and others are still the same.

 

[TOmNossor]

God has a nature and he created a natural and moral world which is in harmony with his nature. According to Genesis, he created everything from nothing; only his Word.

As Gazlem already point out to you, few scholars (and virtually no textual scholars of the Bible) believe that Genesis teaches that God created out of nothing. This is a theological belief not supported by the text of Genesis.

Mormons reject the ancient Christian understanding of the nature of God.

LDS embrace the ANCIENT Christian understanding of God. LDS reject the DEVELOPED understanding of the nature of God. That God created ex nihilo is a developed position as is acknowledged by Catholic and non-Catholic scholars. That you claim it is not a developed position or that Genesis supports your view is a product of your dogmatic reading of texts based on developed theology.

Joseph Smith tells us his god is not the creator, but a creation.

Please show me where JOSEPH SMITH claims God is a creation.

When a Mormon says his god is omnipotent, he means god can do anything. Anything at random; like change the DNA of the American Indian to…

I do not think I have claimed that God changed DNA and I do not think such is necessary to align with an ancient and true BOM,. That being said, I claim that God possesses the POWER to change DNA.
Do you believe God is incapable of changing DNA?
Do you believe God has hid the evidence of the Exodus from scholars, that God is not powerful enough to hide the evidence of Exodus from scholars, that Exodus is a false book, or that Exodus claims ALL Jews when it was really a much more limited exodus? I believe Exodus is inspired scripture, but that when it claims that ALL Jews escaped captivity in Egypt it only means that ALL Jews recognize their descendency as a people from those who were captive in Egypt (just like I recognize my descendency from those who escaped persecution and migrated across America to Salt Lake City in the 19th century and yet I joined the CoJCoLDS in the 1990’s while I was in my 20’s).
The God you embrace Stephen who CANNOT change DNA is very limited indeed. I merely say things like God didn’t systematically wipe out evidence of large scale Jewish captivity for the purpose of TRICKING us. He could have done so, but I think the inspired Bible is explaining how Jews came to be the children of God not how every Jew alive at a certain time in history escaped Egyptian captivity.
You know this is my position, just like I know your zeal to paint LDS as “ridiculous” is the only reason you claimed God couldn’t do something like change the DNA of a group of folks.
Of course as I pointed out in my first post on this thread, if critics do not claim a faith is “ridiculous” it is unlikely that faith could be Christ’s faith. This was the position of Cardinal Newman and Fulton Sheen. It seems likely this is not the position of you and Pope Francis.
cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

All that being said, I really just want you to treat my faith with respect. Do not do things like use a lower case “g” when speaking about God to emphasize how you disrespect my understanding (or more frequently the understanding you place upon me) of God. And perhaps recognize that LDS rationally engage with our history and theology and do not deserve to be painted as those who believe God is trying to “trick” us. I do not think this is too much to ask.
Charity, TOm

 

[Lemuel]

I really just want you to treat my faith with respect.

I was a Mormon for 57 years and I have no respect for it.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I really just want you to treat my faith with respect.

I was a Mormon for 57 years and I have no respect for it.

I was Catholic for over 20 years and have been a LDS for slightly longer than that. I have respect for both faiths. Concerning Protestantism, I have major concerns associated with embracing a DEVELOPED theology developed by folks who were developing their concepts of ordained authority at the same time they developed the theology. That being said, I have holy envy for the zeal I see in some Evangelical congregations. I have holy envy for the explosion of passion and love for God I have experienced in those leading and following the music in some Evangelical congregations. I have holy envy for the committment that JW adults make to share the gospel door to door. For Catholics, I have holy envy for the real presence in the Eucharist. That is a beautiful doctrine and I think John 6 supports it well. I have holy envy for the concept of holy envy (though I can COMPLETELY embrace holy envy so it is a little different) which comes from Lutheran Bishop Krister Stendahl (https://www.svenskakyrkan.se/default.aspx?id=580659).

All that being said, I didn’t actually say you had to respect my faith, I just said that I asked that you TREAT my faith with respect. I do not think this is too much to ask. Mocking others faith is not what I think my savior desires of me.
Charity, TOm

 

[Lemuel]

I didn’t actually say you had to respect my faith, I just said that I asked that you TREAT my faith with respect. I do not think this is too much to ask. Mocking others faith is not what I think my savior desires of me.

I respect people, but not necessarily their faith. As far as mocking your faith, or treating it with respect, I’m not exactly sure what that means. Would that prohibit me from discussing Joseph Smith’s lies, adulteries, and other crimes? Would that prohibit me from telling others about the lies of your current leaders? Would that prohibit me from telling others about what a giant fraud the LDS church is? Because as long as I live, I will do everything I can to tell the truth about it and to get as many people out of its clutches as I possibly can. I have managed to get all but one of my children free of your evil cult and I won’t stop until the last one is out. I have worked on some of my LDS friends and am having some success there as well. A lot of work has yet to be done and I am not about to back down.

 

[Stephen168]

This is a theological belief not supported by the text of Genesis.

God made his creation from only his Word, is a belief not contradicted by Genesis; “God said, Let…” The rest of your response also did not contradict my premises, either. In fact, it did much to support, and agree with them. So my conclusions stand.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I didn’t actually say you had to respect my faith, I just said that I asked that you TREAT my faith with respect. I do not think this is too much to ask. Mocking others faith is not what I think my savior desires of me.

I respect people, but not necessarily their faith. As far as mocking your faith, or treating it with respect, I’m not exactly sure what that means. Would that prohibit me from discussing Joseph Smith’s lies, adulteries, and other crimes? Would that prohibit me from telling others about the lies of your current leaders? Would that prohibit me from telling others about what a giant fraud the LDS church is? Because as long as I live, I will do everything I can to tell the truth about it and to get as many people out of its clutches as I possibly can. I have managed to get all but one of my children free of your evil cult and I won’t stop until the last one is out. I have worked on some of my LDS friends and am having some success there as well. A lot of work has yet to be done and I am not about to back down.

Some of the words in your post I think are poorly choosen. Expressing your opinion about those things is fine (especially in the context of an online message board).
If virtually every interaction you have with your believing child is about how obviously fraudulent their beliefs are, I think that might damage your relationship. It is also my opinion that IRL it can be abusive to acost friends and families like that.
Charity, TOm

 

[lilypadrees]

Having the name “Jesus Christ” in your church’s title doesn’t mean you are in Christ’s Church. You are in Joseph Smith’s church. Joseph Smith is not Jesus Christ. Many of us have pointed out your church’s errant beliefs and teachings which are in no way the beliefs and teachings of His true Church and Christianity.

The word “ridiculous” as stated by BT3241 was extremely generous and kind. Most people would be more blatant in their expressions regarding your church.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I had a friend of mine, a convert to Catholicism. He grew up in a denomination, called Disciples of Christ. Eventually, after going through several Protestant denominations, he became Catholic. Now, he was well aware that Jesus Christ started the Catholic Church. The logic that having the name of Christ in it means that it is Christ’s Church is just absurd. I know of at least one group in the Philippines, that makes that same argument. And they’re not the Church of Jesus Christ for the same reason the LDS church isn’t, they were not founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[Lemuel]

If virtually every interaction you have with your believing child is about how obviously fraudulent their beliefs are, I think that might damage your relationship

That is by far not what most of my interaction with him is about. I’m just a loving father who at the appropriate times in our conversations will warn him about certain evils that are prevalent among his peers, one of which is the evils of Mormonism.

 

[Horton]

All that being said, I didn’t actually say you had to respect my faith, I just said that I asked that you TREAT my faith with respect. I do not think this is too much to ask. Mocking others faith is not what I think my savior desires of me.

Charity, TOm

We really don’t have to respect your organization. It is one based on lies and deceit. I respect for you, it is difficult to see it how we see it, but no one HAS to respect dishonesty.

I’ve in or near LDS communities for over 30 years. While in college in Utah I actually did some study of the LDS faith in order to be able to guard against it’s missionaries and to be able to debate with others why I could never believe it’s claims. My knowledge of the LDS is not from internet forums or any other online source. That type of research wasn’t even available back then. My knowledge comes for careful research of what LDS beliefs are and from living among them for so long.

Have you ever had to tell your child he could not participate in a school activity because he wasn’t LDS? Has your child ever been systematically excluded from community activities because of his religion? I have had to explain this to my children on many occasions. I even sold our home in a small community I thought would be a good one to raise kids in, so we could move to a bigger city with more religious diversity to protect my kids from this.

So yes I have learned about the LDS and for 30 years have found absolutely nothing that compels me to respect it.

 

[Lemuel]

I was raised in Northern Utah. The first question my parents always asked me when I asked to go see a friend was whether or not they were Mormon. If my answer was “no” then their answer was “no”.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

This is a theological belief not supported by the text of Genesis.

God made his creation from only his Word, is a belief not contradicted by Genesis; “God said, Let…” The rest of your response also did not contradict my premises, either. In fact, it did much to support, and agree with them. So my conclusions stand.

Stephen,
Here is what we said before (bolding added by me to show what you missed in your response):

Stephen168:

God has a nature and he created a natural and moral world which is in harmony with his nature. According to Genesis, he created everything from nothing; only his Word.

As Gazlem already point out to you, few scholars (and virtually no textual scholars of the Bible) believe that Genesis teaches that God created out of nothing. This is a theological belief not supported by the text of Genesis.

What you claim is in Genesis is not what I claimed was not in Genesis. You ORIGINALLY said, “everything from nothing.“
The part that most scholars believe is not in Genesis is the part “from nothing.” This is also the point of contention between LDS and Catholics. Genesis weakly supports the LDS view and weakly speaks against the Catholic view. This is the view of Catholic and non-Catholic scholars.

The rest of the response was also relevant, but you probably didn’t read it either. I expect others do read though.
Charity, TOm