Let's talk about Mormonism

[vsedriver]

CCC 460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:

this is easily misunderstood since most people fail to read the supporting documents. But the real meaning of this isn’t that we become ‘gods’ but that we can be in a full relationship with God’s divine nature. A relationship originally enjoyed by Adam and Eve but lost in original sin. It is through Jesus that we can once again enjoy that complete relationship with the divine nature.

It’s in the Bible.

Job 1:6 One day, when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, the satan also came among them

Job 2:1 One day, when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, the satan also came with them.

this says nothing about Satan being a brother of Jesus. It simply says that Satan hung around with the sons of God (those who knew God as the one true God). So from this how did you get to the statement that Jesus and Satan are brothers? Satan is neither human nor divine. Jesus is both human and divine.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Yeah, I’ve noticed that some of the posters here really misquote the Bible to support the LDS position. This is why I warn people against taking quotes out of context. You can’t just read the Bible in isolation.

 

[Benadam]

A relationship originally enjoyed by Adam and Eve but lost in original sin. It is through Jesus that we can once again enjoy that complete relationship with the divine nature.

Taking part in the divine nature is what happens when one enters into the Beatific Vision.

Adam and Eve weren’t in that state. That is a reward that can only be received in heaven

 

[vsedriver]

Taking part in the divine nature is what happens when one enters into the Beatific Vision.

Adam and Eve weren’t in that state. That is a reward that can only be received in heaven

Yes, we take part in the divine nature when we enter into the Beatific Vision.

But Adam and Eve were already witnesses to the Beatific Vision while in the Garden of Eden. So they were already partaking of the Divine Nature as God had intended all of us to have. They walked with God. It was only through the sin of Adam that we lost that privilege and it was Christ sacrifice on the cross that redeemed us so that we can once again enjoy that unique privilege.

 

[Benadam]

I think I can see the tree of life as a foretaste of the divine nature. I think maybe thats how they got to heaven how they might have ended their earthly life. Eating from the tree of life then taken up body and soul to heaven to enter into Beatified Life. Yeah. Thanks vsedriver

 

[AnnetteJoan]

They had to give up polygamy, the US government was not going to admit Utah to the Union in 1890 otherwise.

 

[TOmNossor]

No not at all its ridiculous - I guarantee you will not be converting any Catholic here to the Mormon faith

Calling my faith “ridiculous” may create a wall to “conversion,” which it seems to be your main concern, but I actually post not so Catholics convert, but so that my church is properly represented and to invite others to not sneer at my faith.
You are welcome to a “non-ridiculous” faith, but it is very unlikely it is the faith of Christ or Peter, James, and John. It is not the faith of St. Monica (St. Augustine’s mother). It is not the faith of Serapion. (A devote 4th century monk who worshiped God knowing man was created in the image of God before being stripped of this truth).
It is the faith of St. Ambrose and the sophisticated Christians that followed the de-ridiculous-ifying of Christ’s Church.

You mock what you do not understand just like the Greeks and Jewish thinkers did Christ’s Church. Just like St. Augustine did the church of his mother St. Monica. But, St. Monica was the real Christian and St. Augustine would only embrace the ACCEPTABLE version taught him by St. Ambrose.

St. Francis is busy making Catholicism even more acceptable, which according to the Blessed Cardinal Newman means that St. Francis’ DEVELOPMENTS are not valid developments but are changes. Only a faith that is viewed as ridiculous could be the real Christian faith (that is the position of Cardinal Newman and even Fulton Sheen).

I love that word “ridiculous.” May I suffer that appellation if I am in Christ’s Church and not man’s non-ridiculous church.

Like Cardinal Newman said, I embrace a faith that folks do not think they must learn about before they declare it to be ridiculous. So I can embrace a faith that does not violate the basic laws of logic and yet is still called ridiculous because nobody takes the time to read and learn before dismissing. Awesome!
Keep “sneering” at my faith while Pope Francis makes yours acceptable to the world and we will see who Archbishop Fulton Sheen would embrace as Christ’s church (based on reading what he says not withstanding his incomplete knowledge of Mormonism).
Keep accusing me of “folly and falsehood so distinct that a glance suffices to judge of it, and that careful examination is preposterous” while Pope Francis makes your church acceptable to the world and we will see who Cardinal Newman would embrace as Christ’s church (based on reading what he says not withstanding his incomplete knowledge of Mormonism - though Newman did mention Mormonism favorably in the only place I have found him mention it).
I think uninformed sneering is not nice. So actually, I encourage you to not do this. But, I will point out how your comments support my view that the CoJCoLDS is Christ’s church. If your church is not the subject of such sneering (before or after Francis), it CANNOT possibly be Christ’s Church (at least that is the position of Sheen &Newman).
So, please stop sneering, please stop calling my church “ridiculous.” It might prevent Catholics from “converting,” but at what cost? I am not asking for converts.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

gazelam:

CCC 460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:

this is easily misunderstood since most people fail to read the supporting documents. But the real meaning of this isn’t that we become ‘gods’ but that we can be in a full relationship with God’s divine nature. A relationship originally enjoyed by Adam and Eve but lost in original sin. It is through Jesus that we can once again enjoy that complete relationship with the divine nature.

It is easily misunderstood. Before Athanasius no ECF placed an limit on the FINAL state of deified mankind. Christ truly became what we are so that we might become what He is.
Your restoring of the Adam and Eve position is a profound misunderstanding of the Catholic and the Early Church position.
I recommend to Catholics Deification and Grace by Daniel Keating.
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

 

[Horton]

I find it really ironic that your total belief in what you call the “true church” and use a very Catholic symbol as your photo. Or are the LDS claiming “The Creation of Man” as LDS truth?

 

[Stephen168]

Before Athanasius no ECF placed an limit on the FINAL state of deified mankind.

This claim is not true.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Well, this is getting interesting.

 

[Stephen168]

You know, there are groups that do not believe what Christians believe about God. But, they still affirm that there’s a single God. Judaism for instance. Judaism not only believes in God, but believes in the same God Christians do. However, once you start adding other gods to the mix, what you believe is not Christian nor could it be. The defining traits of Christianity are its monotheism, and its trinitarianism. Since Mormons are not monotheistic and are not trinitarian, they are not by definition Christian. You can’t really say that Mormons worship the same God, because they believe in multiple gods. This is where the problem lies. I don’t doubt many Mormons are sincere people, that really do want to do the will of whom they have been taught is God, but at the same time, I find it very hard to believe that that is the same God I believe in. God becoming man, is not that hard to believe. But man becoming god, honestly you see a lot of that in Greek mythology. I’m just asking for a sincere discussion, and not proselytism which is what I seem to be getting.

Also the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is THE creator. The Creator lives outside his creation. The Mormon god lives within his creation. The god of Mormonism is subject to scientific review. I believe that is one reason most ex-Mormons become atheists.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I don’t doubt that, I’ve actually noticed that.

 

[Stephen168]

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]

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.

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

The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter. Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6.

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?”)

 

[TOmNossor]

I find it really ironic that your total belief in what you call the “true church” and use a very Catholic symbol as your photo. Or are the LDS claiming “The Creation of Man” as LDS truth?

LDS do believe that God placed Adam’s spirit into Adam. LDS believe Genesis which of course is where “The Creation of Adam” came from.
Really, I just liked the image.
If it offends you I can change, but I want to keep a consistent image in general.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Before Athanasius no ECF placed an limit on the FINAL state of deified mankind.

This claim is not true.

Hello Stephen168,
I first started saying this after a Catholic friend of mine said it. I then found (I think I found, but it might have been someone else and maybe even you) a quote from Athanasius’ time that I thought limited the final state of deified man.
If you have a quote from before Athanasius in mind, I would be interested in seeing it. I have a memory of something that might have come from you, but I didn’t complete my review of it. If it is yours I would love to look over it, but I have not found anything on my own study to make my claim untrue.
You can post here to greater or lesser fanfare or send me a PM or just keep repeating that I say untrue things.
Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

It does not offend me in any way. I have a very large print hanging in my home. The irony stems from the fact Michelangelo painted the original as part of the Sistine Chapel which is part of St Peter’s basilica and the Vatican museums. The commission was from the Pope. You have a very Catholic picture, in a very Catholic place, commissioned by a very Catholic Pope while denying the truth of the very Holy Catholic Church.

 

[TOmNossor]

adamhovey1988:

You know, there are groups that do not believe what Christians believe about God. But, they still affirm that there’s a single God. Judaism for instance. Judaism not only believes in God, but believes in the same God Christians do. However, once you start adding other gods to the mix, what you believe is not Christian nor could it be. The defining traits of Christianity are its monotheism, and its trinitarianism. Since Mormons are not monotheistic and are not trinitarian, they are not by definition Christian. You can’t really say that Mormons worship the same God, because they believe in multiple gods. This is where the problem lies. I don’t doubt many Mormons are sincere people, that really do want to do the will of whom they have been taught is God, but at the same time, I find it very hard to believe that that is the same God I believe in. God becoming man, is not that hard to believe. But man becoming god, honestly you see a lot of that in Greek mythology. I’m just asking for a sincere discussion, and not proselytism which is what I seem to be getting.

Also the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is THE creator. The Creator lives outside his creation. The Mormon god lives within his creation. The god of Mormonism is subject to scientific review. I believe that is one reason most ex-Mormons become atheists.

I would suggest that FEW ex-LDS (especially ex-LDS atheists) have thought much about “creation ex nihilo,” the rejections of creation ex nihilo, and/or the philosophical underpinnings of the LDS rejection of creation ex nihilo.
I think many Christians and atheists invite LDS to think about the historical evidence associated with the origins of the CoJCoLDS in a way that if the methods are consistently applied to the Bible and the origins of Christianity those too will be decimated.
In addition to this, most LDS have spiritual experiences that they believe confirm the truth of the CoJCoLDS. When invited to reject these, it is tough to escape the trap of doubting God cares or even exists.
Anyway, those two I think provide way more explanatory power largely because few LDS even know what Creation ex Nihilo (just as few other Christians do either).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

It does not offend me in any way. I have a very large print hanging in my home. The irony stems from the fact Michelangelo painted the original as part of the Sistine Chapel which is part of St Peter’s basilica and the Vatican museums. The commission was from the Pope. You have a very Catholic picture, in a very Catholic place, commissioned by a very Catholic Pope while denying the truth of the very Holy Catholic Church.

I was Catholic and attended confession at the Vatican.
I am glad it does not offend you.
I hope if I was alive in 1512, I would be a committed Catholic.
If I didn’t believe God was the source of the restoration through Joseph Smith, I would be Catholic again.
Charity, TOm