Let's talk about Mormonism

[adamhovey1988]

Oh no, I’m not arguing about that I just think it’s pretty lame that some of them try to change information to something they know is false to bolster their claim. I just wish they would be intellectually honest.

 

[vsedriver]

CCC460 doesn’t quite mean what LDS mean (nor what the ECF, like Irenaeus, meant based on my study of this - which is closer to the LDS position IMO), but Keating and many Catholics who have read Irenaeus, Athanasius, and others do not embrace the position that was and is very common in the Catholic pews.

Charity, TOm

it’s not about what is embraced in the pews. It is what the Catechism is teaching. The fact is we can never become ‘God’ or becomes ‘gods’. We will always be creatures. We will never possess a divine nature only a human nature. We can however have an intimate relationship with the divine nature. We were designed by God to have this relationship when he created Adam and Eve. But our first parents rejected this and we were separated from God by their actions.

 

[vsedriver]

If I didn’t believe God was the source of the restoration through Joseph Smith, I would be Catholic again.

Charity, TOm

so, Jesus never promised his followers that his church would endure for all time? Would apostasy be an example of the gates of hell prevailing against the church?

I only ask because if the church went off the rails once, then what point is there to believing anything the church says then or now? For if it happened once then there can be no guarantee it won’t happen again.

 

[Horton]

If I didn’t believe God was the source of the restoration through Joseph Smith, I would be Catholic again.

Charity, TOm

so, Jesus never promised his followers that his church would endure for all time? Would apostasy be an example of the gates of hell prevailing against the church?

I only ask because if the church went off the rails once, then what point is there to believing anything the church says then or now? For if it happened once then there can be no guarantee it won’t happen again.

This is one of my sticking points with LDS thought. If the Church Christ founded had such an event as “The Great Apostasy” then why isn’t more known about it. We have documentation going back thousands of years on religion, but a major catastrophe such as Christ’s Church falling into apostasy isn’t recorded or discussed anywhere until a boy in up state New York finds “golden plates”?

Yet we have continuous writings, for or against the Church, going back to the first century. Where are the records of the apostasy?

 

[vsedriver]

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

I think you have an incorrect understanding of what ‘omnipotent’ means. Can God violate his own nature?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

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.

once again you are missing what it means to be ‘adopted’ sons of God. Yes, Jesus was fully man and fully God. But we can never be ‘fully’ God. We can share in the divine nature but can never be ‘divine’. We can share this only through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

Were Adam and Eve divine in the Garden of Eden?

 

[vsedriver]

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.

why would they? Limbo is not a Catholic Dogma.

As far as few knowing about no divorce etc, well, it has been awhile since you were in the Catholic Church. Why do you think there has been such a hullabaloo all of a sudden over divorced and remarried Catholics. It’s because the Church is espousing this teaching very clearly and like sinful people the people in the pew are trying to get around it.

But you really need to stop acting like Catholics in the pew are the ones deciding on what the Catechism means. The Catechism is clearly spelled out. But just there are those who make mistakes trying to interpret Scripture there are also those who make mistakes trying to express the Catechism.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I do not agree that I support your claim. I think you are not reading, but I am not going to be able to care on this conversation much longer so I guess all will know you are right.

My claim was, “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.“

I had a Mormon make the claim that God changed the DNA of the American Indians to test the faith of Mormons.

You responded with:

“Do you believe God is incapable of changing DNA?”

“The God you embrace Stephen who CANNOT change DNA is very limited indeed.”

It seems to me that you are hanging a great deal of tenuous conclusion on a very small bit from some unnamed LDS fellow you dialogued with long ago.

Let me see if I can follow.

Some LDS is asked to defend the absence of DNA evidence that American Indians descend from Lehi who has some Hebrew lineage. This unnamed LDS fellow claims that perhaps God changed the DNA of the American Indians (and if he was remotely thorough he would quote some BOM passages that lends support to this view LONG before there was any DNA questions). You conclude that all LDS believe God is omnipotent, but not just omnipotent; that He acts regularly and randomly for the purpose of confusing future generations with DNA and any number of other things. You conclude that because of this LDS distrust science and reason. You conclude that atheism results when LDS lose faith because God is already a random meddler and when they see that such is not tenable they just abandon God.

To hold this position you dismiss me saying that I have never claimed God meddled with DNA and do not think this is necessary (I should have said scientifically necessary, but I have said this to you in the past). You also must dismiss studies conducted by Pew research that at the very least should cause you to re-exam your position. You also must be unaware or ignore numerous LDS works on faith and reason including Ostler’s Exploring Mormon Thought which specifically rejects the idea that God regularly suspends natural laws because to do so would be to create chaos not faith.

Instead you focus on the fact that I said Omnipotence (ALL POWER) entails that God COULD do xyz. You double down on your weak God who not only doesn’t, but presumably couldn’t.

I think your conclusion is radically weak and is based on numerous tenuous jumps, not to mention it starts from some unnamed LDS apologist confronted with arguments from critics that have been debunked by LDS and non-LDS DNA scientists.

So, you conclusion does not stand IMO.
Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Furthermore, the God of the Bible suspended the natural order so 3 fellows could stand in fire and not burn. The God of the Bible suspended the natural order so the Sun “stood still” (which is an interesting thing since a Catholic Doctor of the Church claimed that the sun rotating around the earth was “de fide” partially because of this Biblical passage). The God of the Bible suspended the natural order so that a donkey could speak. The God of the Bible suspended the natural order such that dipping 7 times in a river could heal leprosy.

I suppose you disbelieve all these things because God cannot (or if I am generous to you would not) suspend the natural order because that would undermine reason and science.

I personally see supernatural action in all of them (though not necessarily the most obvious supernatural action in the case of the Sun). I personally see the violation of natural laws in all of them. I however do not believe God changed Lamanite DNA and I do not think the evidence for evolution is God’s trick to confuse us when in reality he created in 7 – 24 hour periods. I simply say that God’s omnipotence is such that He could, but that it is important to God both that we live in an ordered universe AND that we can act within that natural order having faith that God will not regularly suspend it.

Anyway, you have not proven your conclusion IMO.

Charity, TOm

 

[vsedriver]

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?”)

‘all recent studies’ ? So those who were with in 1 generation of the Apostles were clueless?

‘not native to Judaism’? which version of Judaism? Those Jews who followed the Torah most definitely believed that only God existed when He created the universe.

"probably arose’ as in I really don’t know exactly but I’ll make a guess.

I wouldn’t put much stock in any of this. What does the Church say? Now that I would put stock in since the Church has the authority to teach infallibly.

 

[vsedriver]

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).

ok, I’m confused. First you condemn Catholicism for Doctrinal Development yet when LDS make changes to doctrine it is OK to do.

Perhaps you don’t understand what Doctrinal Development is all about? But you are correct, Catholic doctrine doesn’t and can’t change.

 

[vsedriver]

Concerning some things LDS emphasize extra-Biblical revelation because the CoJCoLDS is not based on the Bible, it is based on the same thing the Bible is based on, the revelation of God to man. Catholicism is in the same boat. Do you disagee?

Not exactly the same boat. Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Catholicism is based on sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and sacred teaching authority.

the LDS do not have sacred tradition, expanded sacred scripture (which you can’t do according to sacred scripture) and have no sacred teaching authority.

basically, the LDS are no different than Scientologists or any other start up religion.

 

[vsedriver]

If you sat at the feet of St. Peter in 35AD and he told you that you were called to be “partakers of the divine nature,” would you walk away because the words of God in the Old Testament are more important than inspired teachers authorized by God teaching you directly

there would be no need since the New Testament (what St Peter was teaching) doesn’t contradict the Old Testament.

I find it much more valuable than when the non-inspired Pope tells me what Jesus meant.

how do you know the Pope is ‘non-spired’ when teaching ex cathedra?

 

[Stephen168]

Mormonism lives in a world of random acts of god given to them by their leader. The Mormon world is unknowable because it can change tomorrow. God is Adam today and not tomorrow. Ban blacks from the priesthood today, allow it tomorrow. The apostasy happened in 570AD today, 100AD tomorrow. Abortion is wrong today, it is OK tomorrow. The Book of Mormon is about all the American Indians today, just a few tomorrow. Their god as revealed by their prophet is very random.

I hang this on every Mormon I have ever dialogued with, including Tom as I pointed out in this thread.

Mormons have a testimony which is faith over reason. Every Mormon I have dialogued with, including Tom, has affirmed that faith trumps reason and given their testimony when reason conflicts with Mormon faith.

Mormons follow the current prophet who is free to change the “truths” of the dead prophet. “Truths” which can be on any subject both temporal and spiritual without training on either. Ref: LDS website

Popularizing the belief that God’s omnipotence was limited by the Catholic understanding of God’s nature was a product of the Protestant revolt, and adopted by Mormonism. Mormons, and Protestants who have adopted this view, have preferred faith over science.

Many ex-Christian Atheists chose science over religion because as Christians they bought into this conflict, and felt they had to make a choice. Catholics don’t have to do this.

Mormons have the same problem but with one more addition; they believe their god is a creature which makes him like any mythical creature which would be subject to scientific analysis. Science tells us their are no leprechauns. Of course this is a tangent and not the point of my post.

The point is that Mormons have a history of rejecting science from its beginning to this day. And a “proud history” of following the prophet. There is nothing in Mormonism that would give them a DESIRE to reason about God’s creation. The ONLY reason Mormons do it TODAY is because the Catholic Church has shown them the way and its worth. But at the same time Mormon’s reject the science which proves Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon wrong, because their prophet said so.

 

[Lemuel]

Mormons have a testimony which is faith over reason. Every Mormon I have dialogued with, including Tom, has affirmed that faith trumps reason and given their testimony when reason conflicts with Mormon faith.

That is always the default button for Mormons. Once you back them into a corner, the answer is that none of that matters because God told them that the Mormon Church is true and how can you argue with God?

In my case, it’s easy. God told me to flee the Mormon Church and that’s exactly what I did and He has blessed me abundantly ever since.

 

[Stephen168]

ok, I’m confused. First you condemn Catholicism for Doctrinal Development yet when LDS make changes to doctrine it is OK to do.

Yes that is the hypocrisy of Mormonism. It is changing doctrine and practice which is the “proof” of the Great Apostasy, but they are proud of their prophet, “continuing revelation,” and its ever changing doctrine.

Of course no unique Mormon practice or belief can be found in the early Church to validate a “restoration.”

 

[TOmNossor]

gazelam:

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?”)

‘all recent studies’ ? So those who were with in 1 generation of the Apostles were clueless?

The studies conclude that in the 2nd century, Jews and Christians BEGAN to claim that God created everything from nothing. St. Justin Martyr didn’t believe this. St, Clement of Rome didn’t believe this. But it became the Christian belief.
This is what the scholars say.
There is no one within the 1st generation of the Apostles who taught creation ex nihilo. You are simply not well informed.
Charity, TOm

 

[CatholicSpirit]

I always wondered, if polygamy is required, where are all these women coming from?

Are you a mind reader?

 

[adamhovey1988]

How about reading the rest of the conversation? Since the person that posted that is a former Mormon.

 

[CatholicSpirit]

750 posts would give me an aneurysm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

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).

ok, I’m confused. First you condemn Catholicism for Doctrinal Development yet when LDS make changes to doctrine it is OK to do.

Perhaps you don’t understand what Doctrinal Development is all about? But you are correct, Catholic doctrine doesn’t and can’t change.

This is not hard to understand. Catholics claim that Public Revelation ENDED.
Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine was viewed with suspicion in Rome, condemned by a number of Bishops as non-Catholic (a product of his Anglican past), and well argued against by folks like Orestas Bronson. But Newman won the day and now Catholics embrace Newman’s theory. Now Vatican II is the Newman Council. Now colleges have LIBERAL congregations at their Newman center. I doubt Cardinal Newman would be pleased with all that was done in his name.

But, LDS do not claim to have infallible authority, LDS do not claim to have irreformable doctrines. Our CHANGES are sometimes problematic and sometimes less so, but they are not a “fatal flaw.”

Catholics judged by LDS rules are clearly flawed, If God’s human church leader cannot receive revelation and write scripture they are not truly God’s church leader. The Pope doesn’t even make this claim so he is not the Vicar of Christ. Simple!

LDS judged by Catholic rules are clearly flawed. God’s human church leader must protect the deposit of faith. This deposit of faith does not CHANGE. LDS leaders do not have a fixed set of teachings and there clearly has been changed. The LDS President is not Christ’s Prophet. Simple!

But, I submit that when you judge the Pope by the standards established by 2000 years of Catholic tradition, it becomes quite unlikely the Pope Francis is truly the Vicar of Christ. Some Catholics are now Sedavacantist because this has become clear enough that they have departed from Rome. Some are concerned. As an outsider, the Catholicism with Pope Francis at its head is far less likely to be God’s church than the Catholicism with Pope JPII at its head, because Francis says and does things that Catholic Answers taught me would NEVER be said or done.

CHANGE in the Catholic teachings, CHANGE in Catholic Dogma violates the teachings of the Catholic Church concerning what CAN happen.
Change for the CoJCoLDS does not violate what the CoJCoLDS claims can happen.
Charity, TOm