Mormon Church Trying to Keep the Wheels On

[Stephen168]

It would seem there would have to be god the fathers back to infinity. Or to believe god the father had no father would kick the legs out from the other claim of god the father being born as Christ was born; divine.

 

[OKComputer]

Another problem they have.

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168:

. Of course to believe God was once a man would require that he had a father.

I’d love to hear the Mormon response to that question.

I do not know why a Catholic would feel the need to read Ostler’s Exploring Mormon Thought, but since you have not, I will suggest your departure from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not a product of engaging the most rational pro-LDS thought available.
I was just like you. I left a very liberal Catholic parish and due to its liberal teachings AND the beam in my own eye, I missed a great deal of powerful Catholic truth. I attended some Protestant services because it just didn’t seem to matter to me. I re-attended Catholic services because it just didn’t seem to matter. I began exploring the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and became a member because I understood that it did matter.
When I discovered there was much more to Catholicism than I thought when I left, I began learning about Catholicism. I have no desire to stop that learning process, but I no longer think it possible I will return to the Catholic Church even though I know I left ignorant of what I had.

Anyway, the answer to your question is perhaps as simple as Stephen’s imprecise framing of Ostler’s (and my) position.

Stephen168:

. Of course to believe God was once a man would require that he had a father.

I’d love to hear the Mormon response to that question.

The position that Ostler and I espouse (that I will acknowledge is different than the position espoused by most LDS after Joseph Smith and before a few decades ago) is that God the Father does not have a Heavenly Father. But, that God the Father did have an incarnation like Jesus Christ. Thus God the Father does have a body of flesh and bone just like Jesus Christ.

On a previous thread, I offered a great deal of information that I believe shows that the Early Christians originally believed that God the Father was embodied. I continued this discussion on a non-LDS friends blog (he is a former Catholic, never LDS). He offered additional support for the idea that if Catholicism is the fulfillment of Palestinian Judaism, that it likely did originally embrace an embodied God. He and a Catholic poster have suggested that the non-embodied God the Father position is a valid development.
Charity, TOm

P.S. I have never shied away from critiques of my faith. I think I have never dismissed them by saying, “imprecise language” either. If you have a critique you would like for me to think about, send me a PM. I can respond to your critique with or without suggesting that your critique cuts Catholicism also (assuming I believe it does).

 

[Stephen168]

I was also thinking about Mary, the Mother of God. There would have to be other humans on earth before god the father could become a divine man like Christ did.

 

[OKComputer]

Great point. It just doesn’t make sense. None of it.

 

[gazelam]

Just curious, how do you personally go from “Catholicism is a very rational religion” to “therefore Catholicism is true”? Thanks in advance for a very short answer if you care to provide one.

Catholic teaching is clear, that God created us as rational beings, gifted by him with the ability to reason,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. There’s alot to unpack in these few sentences.

So your first phrase is from CCC 1730 - got it.

in order that we can come to understand both creation and Creator.

However, this statement seems (at least to my simple mind) to contradict CCC 230 (which quotes Augustine) saying that God cannot be understood by man.

St. Paul preached against the irrationality of pagan idolatry, as pointing towards the falsehood of pagan religions of his time. So we can reason, that irrational beliefs are a sign of a false religion.

Paul would know!

St. Paul also taught that if the Resurrection did not occur then our faith is in vain. Again, pointing us towards the ability to reason in discerning truth.

It seems to me that the focus here is on using reason to justify belief in the resurrection, not using the resurrection as an example of how reason works in religious discernment.

Catholicism can be discerned rationally, using reason, precise language, and rigor in thought and logic. This points towards true religion.

Are you saying some Catholic belief can be discerned rationally, or all belief, or what? CCC 230 referenced earlier partially refutes that. Also, 1 Corinthians 12:3 says “…And no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the holy Spirit.” A direct communication from the Holy Spirit to a believer can confirm a rationally derived belief of Jesus’ divinity, but such a communication (which is required to know Jesus is a Divine Being) is not rational discernment in and of itself. When Jesus told Peter “…For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.” (Mt 16:17), a divine communication to Peter was referred to, not Peter’s own rational discernment.

A religion that is irrational, does not use reason and even goes so far to declare reason and rigour in thought and logic as of the world and not of God, is declaring that the truth claims of said religion cannot be discerned using reason. Clearly this fails the test of a true religion.

I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches that all Catholicism can be rationally discerned per CCC 230 and the bible verses I also cited. Thanks again for responding.

 

[Stephen168]

Catholic teaching is clear, that God created us as rational beings, gifted by him with the ability to reason, in order that we can come to understand both creation and Creator.

However, this statement seems (at least to my simple mind) to contradict CCC230 (which quotes Augustine) saying that God cannot be understood by man.

CCC230 says God “remains a mystery beyond words” even after revelation.

CCC 1730 says we “might seek his Creator.” We can seek him through reason.

While we may never know God fully, we can seek him through reason and his creation (science). It is this view of a rational God that sparked what we now call science, and then the industrial revolution; natural law, and then natural rights; western culture. I don’t think this would happen with a dominate religion that waited for God to talk to the President about who God is, or how old the earth is, or what inhabits Mars.

A religion that is irrational, does not use reason and even goes so far to declare reason and rigour in thought and logic as of the world and not of God, is declaring that the truth claims of said religion cannot be discerned using reason. Clearly this fails the test of a true religion.

I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches that all Catholicism can be rationally discerned per CCC 230 and the bible verses I also cited. Thanks again for responding.

All? Of course not. There is a difference between a religion that believes in faith and, a rational God, and reason, and his rational creation; and a religion that rejects and scorns reason, and the idea of a rational God. To reject reason is to reject God’s purpose for us, and his creation.

Reasoning together requires rules of logic, and precise language

Catholicism can be discerned rationally, using reason, precise language, and rigor in thought and logic. This points towards true religion.

 

[gazelam]

Here’s a CNN article apropos for this thread that explains why the wheels aren’t coming off of The Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[gazelam]

For those of you who keep up with developments in the Mormon church, there have been a large number of changes over the last couple of years to make the religion more palatable to the membership and keep the wheels from falling off.

Here are some of the changes:

Here’s another change for you to chew on - realignment of the Seminary curriculum with the new home-center gospel learning approach. See here for more information.

 

[lilypadrees]

That’s just the author’s opinion tho. Do you really think the higher ups in your church are going to admit that your church is spiraling out of control because its members are waking up and leaving in droves?

 

[NeuroTypical]

Yesterday, Sunday, saw my own ward fighting against the wheels coming off and people leaving in droves.

We got a new bishop and new counselors. The old one had done around 5 years and moved to another ward. I’m one of the clerks that will help provide stability during the transition. The new bishop managed to handle the million things he had to do pretty well. Including one he obviously thought was very important, standing in the hall after church with a big bowl of candy, offering all the youth a deal - you give me your name, I’ll give you some candy. It’s one big way he’ll get to know his flock. He even managed to fend off his own teenage daughter who kept getting in line to introduce herself again for more chocolate.

Then, out of nowhere (from my perspective), three very excited people showed up and started talking a mile a minute about how they’ve recently decided to get serious about God, and have been looking for a church. Everyone had just lost interest and stopped attending 15 years ago. We LDS were not their first stop, but as they kept on breathlessly repeating, we were their last stop. They knew within 5 minutes of scared, stuttering, new Bishop beginning the sacrament meeting, they had come home. God confirmed to them they were in the right place.

That’s the sort of wheels-falling-off-everyone’s-leaving I saw at my church on Sunday.

 

[AlNg]

these Changes are small in comparison to what Catholics have changed in just the last 50 years.

That is what I was thinking. If the wheels of the Mormon church have come off because of these minor changes, then what can be said about the wheels of the RCC ?

 

[TOmNossor]

Hoosier-Daddy:

these Changes are small in comparison to what Catholics have changed in just the last 50 years.

That is what I was thinking. If the wheels of the Mormon church have come off because of these minor changes, then what can be said about the wheels of the RCC ?

I think the narrative that the CHANGE in the last 50 years within Catholicism is a problem is well founded.
I think it should also be pointed out that as Gazelam’s post hints at, CHANGE within the CoJCoLDS is a very DIFFERENT animal. The CoJCoLDS does not claim to have an infallible authority; the CoJCoLDS does not claim to have received all truth and merely DEVELOP it; the CoJCoLDS explicitly claims there are to be new revelations AND that mistakes that exist are the “mistakes of men.” The almost 2 centuries of existence of the CoJCoLDS looks like the first two centuries of Christianity in MANY ways, including the dismissive way it is treated here and in general, the idea that revelation would continue, and the large amount of diversity of thought.

Know that the following paragraph is written by someone who believed the CoJCoLDS made a more intellectually compelling case than the Catholic Church as lead by Pope John Paul II before the changes of the last 5 years:

It has been during the last couple of years that I have decided the most compelling Catholic position (a heretical Catholic position per Catholic Answers) is the one embraced by the SSPX priests and bishops. Before these last few years there was too much individual discernment for me to think this view had sufficient merit to be viewed as the strongest position. The problems with the SSPX view are the same; but the changes in the last few years are so radical, they IMO undermine the narrative of a consistent truth being developed. This IMO means that the radical skepticism about the post Vatican II church embraced by those who worship with the SSPX (or other Vatican II “deniers”) is a stronger position despite its obvious flaws than the position espoused by Catholic Answers.
Of course, I am a heretic so what do I know.
Charity, TOm

 

[BrentS]

Whether we are right or wrong God is always right .

 

[BrentS]

Read the introductory chapter of Ben Sira before chapter one. It, like the book of Mormon, also says condemn not if our writing is imperfect.

 

[Horton]

Yes, God is always right, even when he tells us the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s Church on earth. Therefore the “great apostacy” could not have occurred as we agree God is always correct.

 

[TOmNossor]

Yes, God is always right, even when he tells us the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s Church on earth. Therefore the “great apostacy” could not have occurred as we agree God is always correct.

No, Horton, God was not lying. You merely subscribe to an understanding of this passage that is common in Catholic circles (but not universal among Catholic scholars who have considered it) and is rejected by virtually all non-Catholics.
Let me start with what it means to prevail. One who prevails may lose many battles, but wins the war. This is really quite a solid way of understanding this passage.

Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic), in Saint Peter and the Popes, p. 17. states concerning Matthew 16:18

“although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.”

In this light I would suggest that Matthew 16:18 is a promise that the apostasy would merely be a set back, but the restoration would shine through ultimately.

Did Christ die? Yes He did. Did death prevail over Christ? No it did not.

Did the Bride of Christ apostatize (die)? Yes this happened. Did death prevail over Christ’s Church? No, it was restored through Joseph Smith.

Hope that helps you to understand that that Matthew 16:18 doesn’t mean “the survival of the church,” but instead means the ultimate “triumph” in the end.

That being said, I don’t think there is a different way to view what God said to Joseph Smith other than that there was something amiss in the churches of his day that needed to be restored.

Charity, TOm

The above is word for word a response I offered you last time you spoke of God lying.

Then you challenged me that Winter was taken out of context. So I acknowledged that I had not read his book and I headed to the library (well the college library near here).
I then offered this and this concluding a number of days later with this.
I did not take Catholic scholar Michael M. Winter out of context. You never evidenced you read any of that or paid any attention to it after accusing me of taking him out of context. Your read of Matthew 16:18 is a popular modern Catholic apologetic, but it is rejected by at least some Catholic scholars (three I listed) and all non-Catholic scholars I have ever encountered.

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Just wait until those three individuals happen to read on the internet the real story of Joseph Smith and what a fraud he was, and then we’ll see whether being in a sacrament meeting for five minutes will be enough to keep them sticking with it. Emotional appeal is fleeting. The facts win out in the end.

It’s very easy to become a Mormon. A couple of missionary discussions and then baptism with a minimal amount of information provided to the prospective convert. This is not by accident, but by design (the milk before meat approach). If the missionaries told you at the beginning that Joseph Smith married 50 women, some as young as 14, others already married to other men whom Joseph sent away on missions for the church; if they told you that Joseph lied to his first wife Emma about all of this and then when she found out about it threatened her with death (by revelation, no less) if she didn’t accept it; if they told you that he “translated” the Book of Mormon by burying his head in a hat to read his magical seer stone (which is already bizarre enough on its own neverminding that his was the same method he used to defraud neighbors out of their money by “finding” buried treasure that somehow they could never dig up because the treasure would “sink into the earth” as they were digging)-- if they told you these things (which are just the tip of the iceberg) at the beginning, you would run for the door. But they don’t do this. They are not honest. The church is not honest.

So once new converts find out what they’re in for a large percentage quickly become inactive or leave altogether. Mormonsim is a religion based on emotion, not facts. It’s all about constantly seeking emotional confirmation while ignoring the serious problems with a very dubious history, bizarre doctrine, and man-made scripture. If you cannot acknowledge these very serious problems then you are burying your head in the sand.

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris,
I do not know what happened there and neither do you. It could have been an emotional response to a loving Christian environment. It could have been a powerful transcendent answer to prayer and sincere seeking.
I agree there are many ex-LDS who today view their “testimony” as emotionalism. Some of these former-LDS also boast about how committed and powerful their testimony was. There is a disconnect here and pointing it out is viewed as offensive by the anti-Mormon apologists.
Emotional rejection of truth has been a problem for a long time. C.S. Lewis tells us, “Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”
I view your post as an invitation to perpetuate such emotional rejection of truth. You have offered a shotgun blast of generally factual things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On a spiritual level, profound transcendent answer to prayer renders them (even in the salacious shotgun blast) irrelevant. On a purely intellectual level, nothing you mentioned changes the fact that the Book of Mormon cannot be explained from a secular perspective and therefore must be supernatural (and a handful of other objective facts weighed).
“If the BOM is not historical then what Joseph pulled of was a level of genius that puts him in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.” This is the assessment of the BOM offered by a critic who believes that LGBT should be allowed to marry and the harm done to these folks by the church was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Compassion for folks who feel this way is admirable, but it is an emotional response not a reasoned response.
If you are not yet convinced, then try this THOUGHT experiment. At the start of your parishes RCIA classes, invite Jack Chick (he is dead so this is truly meant as a thought experiment) to share information about Pope John XII, the modern priest scandal, and other things. Then have Brandon Addison (I doubt he would agree to upset faith at RCIA, but remember thought experiment) detail the best scholarship on the early church’s non-modern-Catholic structure. James White could then use Catholic scholar Robert Eno’s book Rise of the Papacy. Then have an atheist detail the inquisition’s treatment of homosexuals focusing on the clergy and the papacy’s part. Finally, for those not emotional or intellectually swayed by this; switch to a respectful former Catholic scholar who details his movement from Catholic to Sedavacantist to “none” because of changes post Vatican II.
I have little doubt there are faithful Catholics who know more about the above than I do. They may know the intellectual strength of Catholic faith and remain Catholic. They may know the spiritual power of the Eucharist and remain Catholic. I can applaud BOTH of these things. But, they are Catholic because they follow C.S. Lewis’s prescription, “Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”
You do not understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if you cannot see this parallel.
Charity, TOm

 

[GKMotley]

C.S. Lewis tells us, “Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”

Now Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.

Lewis, MERE CHRISTIANITY, Bk II, chap.11, p.109, 1st American ed.

Original appearance, CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR, chap. XI, p. 61, 1st American ed.