Mormon Beliefs

[Catholic_Dude]

Catholic Dude:

Your kind of changing the story now. First you made it appear as if it was a nation wide revelation of God appearing as a man to everyone and now your saying only a select few worthy people can really see Him.
…
…
Your changing your story. First you were pushing the notion that it was a nation wide revelation now your limiting it to a select few. Further there is no indication He revealed Himself to Moses apart from an indirect manner.

No, I never said anything to imply any of that. On the contrary, I both said and implied the opposite. You are making that up. If you can’t even be honest about what I actually said, then we have nothing further to discuss.
zerinus

My apologies, you did make it clear it was only to Moses and the elders.

That being said I was half right…
Catholic Dude:

zerinus:

                          Not true. They show that God did not reveal Himself to the Isralites because of their unworthiness; but **DID**

reveal Himself to Moses who was worthy to see Him.
Your changing your story. First you were pushing the notion that it was a nation wide revelation now your limiting it to a select few. Further there is no indication He revealed Himself to Moses apart from an indirect manner.

I made a mistake about the nation wide issue, but the point about God being revealed to Moses is valid. You presented your translation:20. And he said unto Moses, Thou canst not see my face at this time, lest mine anger be kindled against thee also, and I destroy thee, and thy people; for there shall no man among them see me at this time, and live, for they are exceeding sinful. And no sinful man hath at any time, neither shall there be any sinful man at any time, that shall see my face and live.

1. And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen ***as at other times; for I am angry with my people Israel.
   ***Your translation gives the impression Moses was not worthy (at least at that time). Yet the context says otherwise, that He was worthy and yet the passage says God would not let Himself be revealed apart from an indirect manner.

Again, I admit I made a mistake, I must have misread some of your comments. That being said, I made other comments (which Im pretty sure I did read correctly) about the JST and you have not responded to them.

 

[zerinus]

Your translation gives the impression Moses was not worthy (at least at that time). Yet the context says otherwise, that He was worthy and yet the passage says God would not let Himself be revealed apart from an indirect manner.

Moses was made unworthy temporarily because of his close contact with the rebellious Israelites—being their leader. He had unwittingly imbibed some of their rebellious spirits. But he was not inherently unworthy. The fact that Moses talked with God face to face at a personal level is amply taught in modern LDS scripture:

Moses 1:

1 The words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain,

2 And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence.

3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?

4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.

5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

Again, I admit I made a mistake, I must have misread some of your comments. That being said, I made other comments (which Im pretty sure I did read correctly) about the JST and you have not responded to them.

I have reread your posts, and I am not sure what you are referring to. The only other passages I found that required further comment are these:

So the Priesthood was taken away? Whats the difference between the regular and “lesser” priesthood? As far as the Bible says there was the Levites and Aaron who were the only priests.

By the “lesser priesthood” is meant the Aaronic priesthood, which includes the Levitical Priesthood—as distinguished from the Melchizedek Priesthood, which was withheld from them.

So why were you using those passages to try and prove God revealed Himself as with a human body?

I was not.

zerinus

 

[Geocacher]

Humans can’t really understand what 100 percent sinless perfection is like, so much so, that Jesus and Heavenly father are separate beings, but also they are ONE GOD at the same time, so I believe in BOTH interpretations of the Mormon view and the Catholic view of GOD, and that Jesus has a body, but that Heavenly Father might not have a body.

Proof that Jesus, and Heavenly Father were both separate beings, but ONE GOD at the same time was when Jesus was in his mortal ministry, on this Earth 2000 years ago.

Also in many books about Near Death Experiences, I come to the conclusion that I may have pre-existed my body’s creation into this world.

Human comprehension is so far removed from the perfect mind of GOD, and to know the full extent of heaven requires the passage beyond Death into the spirt world, in which the spirit world involves purgatory, in that to enter into GOD’s kingdom will require near 100 percent perfection, minus our sins. This is why I believe in diferent levels of heaven, in that we all are striving to live with our heavenly father, which may have to happen by the time the Final Judgement comes about where we all have to find out if we make it to the pearly gates or not.

I am only human, and realise I don’t have all the facts until I pass through the vail, as I die, and enter heaven.

 

[Geocacher]

I have come to the conclusion that the Mormon church had gotten some of it’s ideas from Near Death Experiences in it’s early years in the 1830’s. Just my Guess, from reading so many books for the past 25 years on the Near Death Experience.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

that Jesus and Heavenly father are separate beings, but also they are ONE GOD at the same time, so I believe in BOTH interpretations of the Mormon view and the Catholic view of GOD, and that Jesus has a body, but that Heavenly Father might not have a body.

Proof that Jesus, and Heavenly Father were both separate beings, but ONE GOD at the same time was when Jesus was in his mortal ministry, on this Earth 2000 years ago.

.

Huh, Geocacher, I don’t know if you realize this or not. but Catholic teaching since the beginning of the early Church followed Jewish teaching that God is El, the Eternal.

That means, He is without a body which is CONTRARY to Mormon beliefs (especially your founder, Jos Smith).

That Jesus is God-made-man is also Catholic teaching that all mainstream Protestant denominations agree with, but that Mormons (being non-Christian) have trouble with in many areas, for example:

1. Jesus and Satan are brothers and sons of the god of this planet.
2. The god of this planet was once a human being and has ‘eternally progressed’ to be a ‘god’
3. Mormons are not Trinitarians (a concept replete throughout the NT and in many places, including Genesis, of the OT)
4. Mormon ‘pantheology’ puts Jesus, in essence, into the same category as any human being: born of a god, just like Mormons believe their ‘spirit children’ are born of a ‘god.’
5. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT, Geocacher, I want you to focus on this: Catholics and Mormons have NOTHING in common, one Faith is grounded in Judaism and evolved, after founding by Jesus through St Peter, into the Catholic Church. The other was cobbled together by a man of questionable character from a popular book called The Book of the Hebrews written by a Congregationalist minister, with chapters lifted from Isaiah of the KJV, and some really goofy self-serving statements to support this new sect from D & C.

Mormonism is a nationalistic reaction to a lot of things then current in America. There were new ‘sects’ sprouting up all over the ‘burnt up region’ (a name given to NY and PA where most of them started) all based on PERSONAL REVELATION and PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

See the problem here, Geocacher??

Mormonism is ONE of MANY ‘fullness of the Gospel’ sects with a charismatic leader.

Remind you of David Koresh or Jim Jones??

Or a host of others throughout our history??

 

[christianley]

Huh, Geocacher, I don’t know if you realize this or not. but Catholic teaching since the beginning of the early Church followed Jewish teaching that God is El, the Eternal.

That means, He is without a body which is CONTRARY to Mormon beliefs (especially your founder, Jos Smith).

That Jesus is God-made-man is also Catholic teaching that all mainstream Protestant denominations agree with, but that Mormons (being non-Christian) have trouble with in many areas, for example:

1. Jesus and Satan are brothers and sons of the god of this planet.
2. The god of this planet was once a human being and has ‘eternally progressed’ to be a ‘god’
3. Mormons are not Trinitarians (a concept replete throughout the NT and in many places, including Genesis, of the OT)
4. Mormon ‘pantheology’ puts Jesus, in essence, into the same category as any human being: born of a god, just like Mormons believe their ‘spirit children’ are born of a ‘god.’
5. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT, Geocacher, I want you to focus on this: Catholics and Mormons have NOTHING in common, one Faith is grounded in Judaism and evolved, after founding by Jesus through St Peter, into the Catholic Church. The other was cobbled together by a man of questionable character from a popular book called The Book of the Hebrews written by a Congregationalist minister, with chapters lifted from Isaiah of the KJV, and some really goofy self-serving statements to support this new sect from D & C.

Mormonism is a nationalistic reaction to a lot of things then current in America. There were new ‘sects’ sprouting up all over the ‘burnt up region’ (a name given to NY and PA where most of them started) all based on PERSONAL REVELATION and PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

See the problem here, Geocacher??

Mormonism is ONE of MANY ‘fullness of the Gospel’ sects with a charismatic leader.

Remind you of David Koresh or Jim Jones??

Or a host of others throughout our history??

Is there any reason the Father could not have a body if he wanted one? I would guess that the Father would not need parents to obtain a body.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Moses was made unworthy temporarily because of his close contact with the rebellious Israelites—being their leader. He had unwittingly imbibed some of their rebellious spirits. But he was not inherently unworthy. The fact that Moses talked with God face to face at a personal level is amply taught in modern LDS scripture:Moses 1: [1-6]

The context of Ex 33 gives no such impression, infact it says the exact opposite. It says God was so pleased with Moses that God was going to show Moses something extraordinary.

I have reread your posts, and I am not sure what you are referring to. The only other passages I found that required further comment are these:

I was talking about how the JST doesnt mesh with the context of Ex33 where it makes it clear God found favor with Moses.

By the “lesser priesthood” is meant the Aaronic priesthood, which includes the Levitical Priesthood—as distinguished from the Melchizedek Priesthood, which was withheld from them.

There was no reference to the “Melchizedek Priesthood” nor did they have any knowledge of it. Melchizedek’s lineage was unknown.

I was not.

You are correct, that was a mistake on my part and was part of my misunderstanding.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Humans can’t really understand what 100 percent sinless perfection is like, so much so, that Jesus and Heavenly father are separate beings, but also they are ONE GOD at the same time, so I believe in BOTH interpretations of the Mormon view and the Catholic view of GOD, and that Jesus has a body, but that Heavenly Father might not have a body.

Proof that Jesus, and Heavenly Father were both separate beings, but ONE GOD at the same time was when Jesus was in his mortal ministry, on this Earth 2000 years ago.

Also in many books about Near Death Experiences, I come to the conclusion that I may have pre-existed my body’s creation into this world.

Human comprehension is so far removed from the perfect mind of GOD, and to know the full extent of heaven requires the passage beyond Death into the spirt world, in which the spirit world involves purgatory, in that to enter into GOD’s kingdom will require near 100 percent perfection, minus our sins. This is why I believe in diferent levels of heaven, in that we all are striving to live with our heavenly father, which may have to happen by the time the Final Judgement comes about where we all have to find out if we make it to the pearly gates or not.

I am only human, and realise I don’t have all the facts until I pass through the vail, as I die, and enter heaven.

Just for your information the idea that the Father had a body appears to me to be a pretty fundamental belief. To deny or question that means your not in agreement with your LDS leaders.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Is there any reason the Father could not have a body if he wanted one? I would guess that the Father would not need parents to obtain a body.

Im not sure what your getting at. A body is a creation, God exists apart from creation.

 

[zerinus]

The context of Ex 33 gives no such impression, infact it says the exact opposite. It says God was so pleased with Moses that God was going to show Moses something extraordinary.

I was talking about how the JST doesnt mesh with the context of Ex33 where it makes it clear God found favor with Moses.

There was no reference to the “Melchizedek Priesthood” nor did they have any knowledge of it. Melchizedek’s lineage was unknown.

In your earlier post you had said:

The ONLY way to reconcile verses like these is to recognize God never showed Himself directly to anyone at any time. The context of the verse I provided above shows God’s glory was revealed from a cloud and other indirect manners.

I had shown you an alternative way of “reconciling those verses”. That alternative way came as a result of additional knowledge we have gained by revelation from the Lord through the prophet Joseph Smith. You are free to reject that revelation if you wish. I don’t dispute that.

zerinus

 

[Catholic_Dude]

In your earlier post you had said:

I had shown you an alternative way of “reconciling those verses”. That alternative way came as a result of additional knowledge we have gained by revelation from the Lord through the prophet Joseph Smith. You are free to reject that revelation if you wish. I don’t dispute that.

zerinus

The point is your “additional knowledge” was in conflict with the context of that passage. Your Joseph Smith Translation said something to the effect “no sinful man can see God” and gave the impression Moses couldnt see God at that time because Moses was not in good standing with God…however if you read the Ex33 passage in context it says God is pleased with Moses and grants Moses a favor because He is pleased with Moses.

 

[zerinus]

The point is your “additional knowledge” was in conflict with the context of that passage. Your Joseph Smith Translation said something to the effect “no sinful man can see God” and gave the impression Moses couldnt see God at that time because Moses was not in good standing with God…however if you read the Ex33 passage in context it says God is pleased with Moses and grants Moses a favor because He is pleased with Moses.

Your understanding of the LDS scripture and the Bible is incorrect. No further comment is required.

zerinus

 

[alexaustralia]

Very long thread a good read. This is the first time I see Mormons use the ECFs to try to prove their theology intersting being that they must also hold that the ECFs went since 100AC into total/complete apostasy. But hey if they think its worth to look into their beliefs here is a little something…I would post more but gotta go out for lunch

Tatian 2nd Century
“Our God did not begin to be in time: He alone is without beginning, He Himself is the beginning of all things. God is a Spirit, not pervading matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works” Oration Against the Greeks Chpt4

St Methodius 2nd Century
“And it seemed to me that it might be said with equal truth, that nothing is eternally co-existent with God distinct from Himself, but that whatever exists has its origin from Him,” On Free Will Chpt2

Origen
“God, therefore, is not to be thought of as a being either a body or as existing in a body, but as an uncompounded intellectual nature, admitting within Himself no addition of any kind; so that He cannot be believed to have within Him a greater and a less” On First Principles Bk1 Chpt1

Tertullian
“And so, [Hermogenes] even prefers Matter to god, and rather subjects God to it, when he will have it that God made all things out of Matter. For if He drew His resources from it for the creation of the world, Matter is already found to be the superior, inasmuch as it furnished Him with the means of effecting His works; and God is thereby clearly subjected to Matter, of which the substance was indispensable to Him. For there is no one but requires that which he makes use of; no one but is subject to the thing which he requires, for the very purpose of being of being able to make use of it. So, again, there is no one who, from using what belongs to another, is not inferior to him of whose property he makes use; and there is no one who imparts of his own for another’s use, who is not in this respect superior to him to whose use he lends his property. On this principle, Matter itself, no doubt, was not in want of God, but rather lent itself to God, who was in want of it-rich and abundant and liberal as it was-to one who was, I suppose, too small and too weak, and too unskilful, to form what He willed out of nothing. A grand service, indeed, did it confer on God in giving Him means at the present time whereby He might be known to be God, and be called Almighty-only that he is no longer Almighty, since He is not powerful enough for this, to produce all things out of nothing” Against Hermogenes Chpt8

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Your understanding of the LDS scripture and the Bible is incorrect. No further comment is required.

zerinus

No, you never disproved my claim.

Here is what it comes down to:
1)Bible alone indicates Moses was not allowed to see God in all His glory. (eg “nobody can see my face and live”). If this is the case then those previous accounts of Moses and God were not direct revelations but indirect (eg burning bush, clouds, etc).

2)If you add the Joseph Smith Translation which basically says “no sinful man can see my face” with the idea that Moses was unworthy at the time, then that conflicts with the context (eg “you have found grace in my sight”)
17And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name. 18And he [Moses] said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. 19And he [God] said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

1. And he said unto Moses, Thou canst not see my face at this time, lest mine anger be kindled against thee also, and I destroy thee, and thy people; for there shall no man among them see me at this time, and live, for they are exceeding sinful. And no sinful man hath at any time, neither shall there be any sinful man at any time, that shall see my face and live.-JST
   There is a conflict here, and as a Catholic I would say it is due to the “additions” in the JST made above.