List of similarity in doctrine with catholics and mormons

[StrawberryJam]

So are Joseph Smith and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism wrong in saying that the Father is an “exalted man”?

I am not sure if that term means the same thing to catholics as it does to mormoms. Maybe it is a thing lost in translation.

If they deny original sin, and I do not know they do or do not- it could make sense to state it that way.

Again, I am not arguing for or against the original sin doctrine.

I am admittedly, a person with catholic leanings. Just need to make sure I have a good understanding of the ramifications.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I so much like the clarity here in this post.

My only concerns are that, the Orthodox deny original sin.

Could this mean, that they are closer in thought to Mormonism?

Just thinking out loud.

Original sin seems to be the cornerstone, everything else seems to be less important in my study and investigation.

I want to evaluate both sides.

I think we have to be clear on what is meant by “original sin”. Many tend to think of “original sin” as meaning that we are personally guilty of Adam’s sin, as if we inherit a personal sin from him. While some may hold that view, the Catholic Church does not. From the Catechism:
*
“405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."*

Eastern Orthodox tend not to speak of “original sin”, but call it “ancestral sin”. Eastern Orthodox fully reject the idea that we inherit “guilt” from Adam. From the Catechism excerpt, we see that the Catholic Church also rejects that idea.

Eastern Orthodox also practice infant baptism. Mormons do not, and tend to say that it is unnecessary because the atonement of Jesus took care of original sin. Catholics agree that the atonement of Jesus took care of original sin, and believe that it is applied through baptism.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I am not sure if that term means the same thing to catholics as it does to mormoms. Maybe it is a thing lost in translation.

If they deny original sin, and I do not know they do or do not- it could make sense to state it that way.

Again, I am not arguing for or against the original sin doctrine.

I am admittedly, a person with catholic leanings. Just need to make sure I have a good understanding of the ramifications.

Some interpret the Mormon idea that the Father is an exalted man as meaning that when He was a man (presumably on some other world), He was a sinner. Mormon apologists instead say that just like how Jesus was a man on this earth (while still remaining divine), He was not a sinner, so this can be analogous to the Father’s situation.

Here is some of what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism states on this subject, which shows that Catholic20064 did not say anything wrong:
*
Gods and humans represent a single divine lineage, the same species of being, although they and he are at different stages of progress. This doctrine is stated concisely in a well-known couplet by President Lorenzo Snow: “As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be” (see Godhood). This principle is clearly demonstrated in the person of Jesus Christ, a God who became mortal, and yet a God like whom mortals may become (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). But the maxim is true of the Father as well. As the Prophet Joseph Smith said, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret” (TPJS, p. 345). Thus, the Father became the Father at some time before “the beginning” as humans know it, by experiencing a mortality similar to that experienced on earth. There has been speculation among some Latter-day Saints on the implications of this doctrine, but nothing has been revealed to the Church about conditions before the “beginning” as mortals know it. The important points of the doctrine for Latter-day Saints are that Gods and humans are the same species of being, but at different stages of development in a divine continuum, and that the heavenly Father and Mother are the heavenly pattern, model, and example of what mortals can become through obedience to the gospel (see Mother in Heaven). *

eom.byu.edu/index.php/God_the_Father

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think we have to be clear on what is meant by “original sin”. Many tend to think of “original sin” as meaning that we are personally guilty of Adam’s sin, as if we inherit a personal sin from him. While some may hold that view, the Catholic Church does not. From the Catechism:
*
“405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants*. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."

Eastern Orthodox tend not to speak of “original sin”, but call it “ancestral sin”. Eastern Orthodox fully reject the idea that we inherit “guilt” from Adam. From the Catechism excerpt, we see that the Catholic Church also rejects that idea.

Eastern Orthodox also practice infant baptism. Mormons do not, and tend to say that it is unnecessary because the atonement of Jesus took care of original sin. Catholics agree that the atonement of Jesus took care of original sin, and believe that it is applied through baptism.

I can not thank you enough for walking me through that one.

 

[RebeccaJ]

In regards to the catholic doctrine of theosis compared to mormon exaltation. Catholic doctrine is, man becomes by grace what God is by nature. Mormon doctrine is, man is the same nature as their god.

C.S. Lewis describes “begotten”, as, man begets man, God begets God. There is a distinction that Mormon doctrine does not make. The question is, “Are you God?” Mormon theology (as it is) says yes, you are. Christian theology is that God alone is God, and there is no other.

Jesus IS GOD for the majority of Christianity. For LDS, Jesus is A god…which is where polytheism can be seen, looking out from under the Christian words that LDS use.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Well, you are confirming you only have a juvenile understanding of the LDS faith. Please do serious research before making such blanket statements. Our God is your God.

And to take it one step further, where in the Bible do we disagree on the definition and power of God?

Sorry but it is you who have no understanding of the Catholic faith. If you did understand it you would realize just how vast the difference is between the Catholic and LDS view of God. For instance in the Catholic understanding we (humans and God the Father) did not start out as eternal “intelligences” and begin progression.

 

[Todd520]

In regards to the catholic doctrine of theosis compared to mormon exaltation. Catholic doctrine is, man becomes by grace what God is by nature. Mormon doctrine is, man is the same nature as their god.

C.S. Lewis describes “begotten”, as, man begets man, God begets God. There is a distinction that Mormon doctrine does not make. The question is, “Are you God?” Mormon theology (as it is) says yes, you are. Christian theology is that God alone is God, and there is no other.

Jesus IS GOD for the majority of Christianity. For LDS, Jesus is A god…which is where polytheism can be seen, looking out from under the Christian words that LDS use.

Rebecca, i think you are splitting hairs and missing the real points

rephrasing what you said,

• Catholic through grace, man becomes what God is
  The moromon’s also believe that through grace, man can become what God is.

Mormon’s do not believe they become God’s equal, so maybe the terms Saint or Angelic would work better for a Catholic.

And let’s not start disceting the subtle differences in our definitions of the Trinity. We leave it at there are differences. Incidently, this stems from the nicene creed and not the Bible.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Rebecca, i think you are splitting hairs and missing the real points

rephrasing what you said,

• Catholic through grace, man becomes what God is
  The moromon’s also believe that through grace, man can become what God is.

Mormon’s do not believe they become God’s equal, so maybe the terms Saint or Angelic would work better for a Catholic.

And let’s not start disceting the subtle differences in our definitions of the Trinity. We leave it at there are differences. Incidently, this stems from the nicene creed and not the Bible.

I think that you are misunderstanding what Rebecca is talking about, which is a fundamental difference in our understandings of the relationship between God and man. Catholics believe that God and man are of different “species”. In contrast, Mormons believe that God and man are of the same species. To put it another way, for Catholics, the difference between God and man is one of “kind” (nature, species). For Mormons, the difference between God and man is one of “progress”, since we are already of the same species as God.

 

[StrawberryJam]

In regards to the catholic doctrine of theosis compared to mormon exaltation. Catholic doctrine is, man becomes by grace what God is by nature. Mormon doctrine is, man is the same nature as their god.

C.S. Lewis describes “begotten”, as, man begets man, God begets God. There is a distinction that Mormon doctrine does not make. The question is, “Are you God?” Mormon theology (as it is) says yes, you are. Christian theology is that God alone is God, and there is no other.

Jesus IS GOD for the majority of Christianity. For LDS, Jesus is A god…which is where polytheism can be seen, looking out from under the Christian words that LDS use.

This starts to get into the Trinity, and while I am not debating the points for or against- I am more interested in what you explained about theosis.

I know this is a very frustrating topic to all here, and I apologize for that.

I am simply relying on people here of good will to give me more information for me to digest, rather than getting pre-digested versions.
Your reply is helpful, and is giving me more to think about on a seperate topic.
I just want to focus on the original sin thing, theosis, and the other topics I see are in same yet not mentioned explicitly.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think that you are misunderstanding what Rebecca is talking about, which is a fundamental difference in our understandings of the relationship between God and man. Catholics believe that God and man are of different “species”. In contrast, Mormons believe that God and man are of the same species. To put it another way, for Catholics, the difference between God and man is one of “kind” (nature, species). For Mormons, the difference between God and man is one of “progress”, since we are already of the same species as God.

Ahh.

Thank you for sticking it out with me and reminding me of this.
While I am not able to defend this position, and admit I can not- It seems most probable.

 

[StrawberryJam]

To Todd,

I am simply replying back as the posts come and not ignoring your views or putting them on less priority.
Your ideas are expressed very clearly.

Have a quick question for you Todd. What are your views on Carl Sagan?

 

[Todd520]

CatholicGuy, discussions on the afterlife are not very constructive

Be you Catholic or LDS, the afterlife is unknowable and indescribably. It’s not really clarified in the Bible, nor is the nature of a soul contrasted with the esence of God.

I’m reminded of the blind men feeling an elephant and then describing it to other people - Our prophets/Popes are the blind men who got to touch the elephant. The gaps are filled in and stories told, and paintings made that show God on an earthly throne, etc etc.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

CatholicGuy, discussions on the afterlife are not very constructive

Be you Catholic or LDS, the afterlife is unknowable and indescribably. It’s not really clarified in the Bible, nor is the nature of a soul contrasted with the esence of God.

I’m reminded of the blind men feeling an elephant and then describing it to other people - Our prophets/Popes are the blind men who got to touch the elephant. The gaps are filled in and stories told, and paintings made that show God on an earthly throne, etc etc.

Unfortunately, none of this addresses the actual issue, which is the fundamental difference in understanding of the nature of man vs. the nature of God. As already stated, LDS believe that we are of the same nature of God (and our difference is one of progress, not of “kind”), and Catholics believe that we are of a different nature from God (a difference of “kind”). This has nothing to do with the afterlife, but ontology.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Rebecca, i think you are splitting hairs and missing the real points

rephrasing what you said,

• Catholic through grace, man becomes what God is
  The moromon’s also believe that through grace, man can become what God is.

Mormon’s do not believe they become God’s equal, so maybe the terms Saint or Angelic would work better for a Catholic.

And let’s not start disceting the subtle differences in our definitions of the Trinity. We leave it at there are differences. Incidently, this stems from the nicene creed and not the Bible.

I’ve have read numerous times from LDS who try to describe our relationship to God as being of the same species. While this may be a problem with describing belief (like the Trinity described as Modalism) and perhaps you would not describe it this way, but when it comes down to it this is an idea that is utterly impossible in the Catholic understanding of God. You may get and incoherent and unsatisfactory explanation of the Trinity but you will never get from a Catholic that we (God and man) are inherently the same, as a “species” must be. It just doesn’t fit with our understanding of God.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I’ve have read numerous times from LDS who try to describe our relationship to God as being of the same species. While this may be a problem with describing belief (like the Trinity described as Modalism) and perhaps you would not describe it this way, but when it comes down to it this is an idea that is utterly impossible in the Catholic understanding of God. You may get and incoherent and unsatisfactory explanation of the Trinity but you will never get from a Catholic that we (God and man) are inherently the same, as a “species” must be. It just doesn’t fit with our understanding of God.

It’s right in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which I personally will trust over Todd’s opinion.

**“Gods and humans represent a single divine lineage, the same species of being, although they and he are at different stages of progress. This doctrine is stated concisely in a well-known couplet by President Lorenzo Snow: “As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be” (see Godhood). This principle is clearly demonstrated in the person of Jesus Christ, a God who became mortal, and yet a God like whom mortals may become (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). But the maxim is true of the Father as well. As the Prophet Joseph Smith said, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret” (TPJS, p. 345). Thus, the Father became the Father at some time before “the beginning” as humans know it, by experiencing a mortality similar to that experienced on earth.”

“Latter-day Saints believe that God achieved his exalted rank by progressing much as man must progress and that God is a perfected and exalted man: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,-I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another” (TPJS, p. 345).”**

eom.byu.edu/index.php/God_the_Father
eom.byu.edu/index.php/Godhood

 

[Todd520]

To StrawberryJam,
I liked what I knew of Carl Sagan but am not deep on his writings or philosophy

On the Trinity, I think Catholics and Mormons are describing the same thing, but from different sides of the same Elephant.

Catholic (I think i have this right) Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of the “same substance”; three persons in one being

Mormon: Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct beings who are “one in purpose”

If you ask me, both definitions tells a story that yields the same results.
So it’s 3 persons in one being vs. 3 persons in one purpose

Remember that we are talking about the unknowable, the substance of God. And this was written long before we had our minds expanded watching capt kirk meet new life forms

Mormons will argue that the Catholic description doesn’t work logicaly for humans to comprehend.

Mormon - Jesus prayed to his Father,who repliedf, and the Holy Ghost came down as a dove.
Catholic - God prayed to himself, respnded, then sent himself down to visit himself.

Thinking of three distinct beings united in purpose makes sense to human beings (vs God having a multiple personality disorder). This question can’t be answered until we know the true essence of God (next life)

 

[Todd520]

To CatholicGuy,

So where do the Catholics get their clear guidance on the essence of a soul vs the essence of God?
I don’t think it’s in the Bible. I expect it’s been made up by Theologians over the centuries.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

To StrawberryJam,
I liked what I knew of Carl Sagan but am not deep on his writings or philosophy

On the Trinity, I think Catholics and Mormons are describing the same thing, but from different sides of the same Elephant.

Catholic (I think i have this right) Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of the “same substance”; three persons in one being

Mormon: Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct beings who are “one in purpose”

If you ask me, both definitions tells a story that yields the same results.
So it’s 3 persons in one being vs. 3 persons in one purpose

Remember that we are talking about the unknowable, the substance of God. And this was written long before we had our minds expanded watching capt kirk meet new life forms

Mormons will argue that the Catholic description doesn’t work logicaly for humans to comprehend.

Mormon - Jesus prayed to his Father,who repliedf, and the Holy Ghost came down as a dove.
Catholic - God prayed to himself, respnded, then sent himself down to visit himself.

Thinking of three distinct beings united in purpose makes sense to human beings (vs God having a multiple personality disorder). This question can’t be answered until we know the true essence of God (next life)

Todd,

What you have described as the “Catholic” belief (God praying to Himself and sending Himself down) is actually a heresy known as modalism, and is not what Trinitarians believe.

Catholics quite clearly believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons, who are not each other. Therefore, the reference to “multiple personality disorder”, or God praying to Himself, does not work, since each Person of the Trinity is “other”, distinct from the other Two.
**
254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune. **

Catholics therefore believe that Jesus prayed to the Father, not to Himself, since the Father is a distinct Person from Jesus (the Son). The Father sent the Son, He did not send Himself. Etc. The “oneness” of the Persons of the Trinity is a oneness of “nature”, not “personhood”. This goes back to the issue of the relationship between God and man. Catholics believe that there is only one “God nature”, and that only the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of it. Mormons may agree that there is only one “God nature”, however they believe that we are all of that nature, since we are literal offspring of the Father and Heavenly Mother.

It is very important to understand the differences between Modalism and Trinitarianism. Many Mormons argue against Modalism instead of Trinitarianism, such as in your post. It is also true that some Trinitarians end up defining the Trinity as modalism, in their fervent need to defend the “oneness” of the Trinity. Both are wrong. Trinitarians accept that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, where the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They are “one” in their nature, not one Person.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

To CatholicGuy,

So where do the Catholics get their clear guidance on the essence of a soul vs the essence of God?
I don’t think it’s in the Bible. I expect it’s been made up by Theologians over the centuries.

Todd, you keep avoiding what the posts are saying and bringing in side issues.

As you may remember, Catholics do not rely on the Bible alone for our beliefs, especially since the Bible itself never claims that all beliefs should come from itself (which makes sense since the Church came long before the Bible was compiled). Mormons also are not Bible-only, so this is a false dilemma.

Catholics agree with 2 Peter 1:4 where we “partake of the divine nature”. The implication of this is that if, because of Jesus Christ, we are able to partake of the divine nature, then clearly we do not already possess that nature. It is something 'other".

In contrast, Mormons state that we are of the same nature as God, we are just less advanced than him (and that the Father progressed himself). Such a view cannot be entertained in Catholicism.

 

[zaffiroborant]

To StrawberryJam,
I liked what I knew of Carl Sagan but am not deep on his writings or philosophy

On the Trinity, I think Catholics and Mormons are describing the same thing, but from different sides of the same Elephant.

Catholic (I think i have this right) Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of the “same substance”; three persons in one being

Mormon: Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct beings who are “one in purpose”

If you ask me, both definitions tells a story that yields the same results.
So it’s 3 persons in one being vs. 3 persons in one purpose

Remember that we are talking about the unknowable, the substance of God. And this was written long before we had our minds expanded watching capt kirk meet new life forms

Mormons will argue that the Catholic description doesn’t work logicaly for humans to comprehend.

Mormon - Jesus prayed to his Father,who repliedf, and the Holy Ghost came down as a dove.
Catholic - God prayed to himself, respnded, then sent himself down to visit himself.

**Thinking of three distinct beings united in purpose makes sense to human beings (vs God having a multiple personality disorder). ** This question can’t be answered until we know the true essence of God (next life)

(vs God having a multiple personality disorder)

Must you be insulting, I know your prophets mock our belief in your general conferences, but I think you should be well mannered enough not to do it here.