Mormon Confusion

[zerinus]

Okay, if you really want me to spell it out for you, I will:

zerinus,

Nope. I can honestly say that the idea of the great apostasy was the last thing on my mind when I realized I could no longer be a Mormon. You can avoid this all day, but the reality is that Mormonism is a GOD denying theology, . . .

False.

that is, denies the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, truly infinite God . . .

False.

All that you have are laws that just happened to exist for eternity and innumberable intelligences helping each other to exaltation.

False.

The sad thing is that Mormons 100 years ago had no problem being different from Christianity, they reveled in it. That was a much more honest response than what is happening now. You either must abandon the basics of your theology and embrace the Judeo-Christian conception of God or remain beyond the boundaries of Christianity.

An awful lot of false premises and conclusions. False, false, false again and false!

Did I spell it out clearly enough for you this time, or would you like me to try again?

zerinus

 

[nebula]

Okay, if you really want me to spell it out for you, I will:

False.

False.

False.

An awful lot of false premises and conclusions. False, false, false again and false!

Did I spell it out clearly enough for you this time, or would you like me to try again?

zerinus

zerinus,

How is any of that false? Yes, I’d like it spelled out please. I understand that there is a Mormon conception of ‘eternity’ which relativizes the term, but let’s just use the absolute notion of infinity because that’s what my original posts dealt with. And it si true that a hundred years ago Mormons knew they were distinct and peculiar, and liked it. Now differences between Mormonism and normative Christianity are being actively downplayed, why?

So yes, tell me, what exactly do you object to and why?

 

[zerinus]

zerinus,

How is any of that false? Yes, I’d like it spelled out please. I understand that there is a Mormon conception of ‘eternity’ which relativizes the term, but let’s just use the absolute notion of infinity because that’s what my original posts dealt with. And it si true that a hundred years ago Mormons knew they were distinct and peculiar, and liked it. Now differences between Mormonism and normative Christianity are being actively downplayed, why?

So yes, tell me, what exactly do you object to and why?

You did not spell out for me why they are true, and I am not going to spell out for you why they are false. When you have done that, I will reply in kind.

zerinus

 

[nebula]

You did not spell out for me why they are true, and I am not going to spell out for you why they are false. When you have done that, I will reply in kind.

zerinus

Okay, I assumed this was common knowledge but I suppose not.
If we prove faithflul to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdmo of heaven. We will become exalted, just like our heavenly father.
…
2. They will become gods.
p 302

Thi sis the way our Heavenly Father became God. JOseph Smith taught: It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God… He was once a man like us; … God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.

p 305

Those are quotations from the Gospel Principles manual, as promised. Interestingly this was the very first lesson I heard in LDS sunday school. Can we move on now? I’d love to continue the discussion but we have to have a basic agreement on what Mormon theology looks like first.

 

[zerinus]

Okay, I assumed this was common knowledge but I suppose not.
If we prove faithflul to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdmo of heaven. We will become exalted, just like our heavenly father.
…
2. They will become gods.
p 302

Thi sis the way our Heavenly Father became God. JOseph Smith taught: It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God… He was once a man like us; … God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.

p 305

Those are quotations from the Gospel Principles manual, as promised. Interestingly this was the very first lesson I heard in LDS sunday school. Can we move on now? I’d love to continue the discussion but we have to have a basic agreement on what Mormon theology looks like first.

Okay, although I have nothing against the Gospel Principles manual, the leadership of the Church have always stated that the doctrines of the Church are defined in the standard works. They are the solid rock and foundation of LDS theology and doctrine. If you are seriously intending to discuss LDS theology with me, I would rather you stuck to that source, rather than to another book.

With regard to the subjects mentioned above, my answer is that LDS scripture supports the doctrine of the deification of man, and the plurality of gods; but it says nothing about God the Father once being a man, and progressing to become God. Therefore I consider that to be more in the realm of speculation rather than solid LDS doctrine. If you have any objections to the doctrines of the deification of man and plurality of gods, bring it along, and I will defend it to the hilt, because that is taught in LDS scripture; but I am not going to defend a doctrine that lies more in the realm of speculation. As President Hinckley stated a couple of times in his interviews, that is something about which nothing has been revealed; and it is not wise to speculate about something that God has chosen not to reveal any information about.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

as you can see zerinus will not admit to actual LDS doctrines. partly because he isn’t familiar with some of them and partly because he has re-interpreted mormonism to suit his view of it but mostly so that he can proselyte with the milk before meat approach.

 

[RebeccaJ]

followed by whyme saying, “It’s all good!”

 

[zerinus]

as you can see zerinus will not admit to actual LDS doctrines. partly because he isn’t familiar with some of them and partly because he has re-interpreted mormonism to suit his view of it but mostly so that he can proselyte with the milk before meat approach.

LOL!

zerinus

 

[nebula]

Okay, although I have nothing against the Gospel Principles manual, the leadership of the Church have always stated that the doctrines of the Church are defined in the standard works. They are the solid rock and foundation of LDS theology and doctrine. If you are seriously intending to discuss LDS theology with me, I would rather you stuck to that source, rather than to another book.

With regard to the subjects mentioned above, my answer is that LDS scripture supports the doctrine of the deification of man, and the plurality of gods; but it says nothing about God the Father once being a man, and progressing to become God. Therefore I consider that to be more in the realm of speculation rather than solid LDS doctrine. If you have any objections to the doctrines of the deification of man and plurality of gods, bring it along, and I will defend it to the hilt, because that is taught in LDS scripture; but I am not going to defend a doctrine that lies more in the realm of speculation. As President Hinckley stated a couple of times in his interviews, that is something about which nothing has been revealed; and it is not wise to speculate about something that God has chosen not to reveal any information about.

zerinus

zerinus,

So I think you can at least see where I’m coming from right? Tying this into the plurality of gods and exaltation of man makes for the picture that I painted-- at least you know I’m not pulling this stuff out of obscure sources.

Do you disagree with the passages that I cited? I know yous aid you don’t want to speculate too much, so maybe we can attack this from a different angle. Do you think that Heavenly Father is infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and eternal in an absolute sense? How about Christ and the Holy Ghost?

 

[hosemonkey]

LOL!

zerinus

Well, I see that all the usual mormon suspects have shown up, including one of whyme’s fellow schzophrenics (Tzuzuki) who believes that he can be both mormon AND Catholic, with the usual parade of mormon lies, evasions and deceptions. The OP may or may not be a true inquirer, but the non-catholic religions forum is not the place to find answers about catholic belief, due to the presence of mormons or mormon trolls. Notice that the same stuff keeps coming up, zerinus trying to lure people to his pathetic blog, whyme trying to sing “Kumbaya”, bdawg posting long irrellevancies with no point and all the mormons joining in a mass tapdance when asked for direct answers. NO, OP, mormons are NOT Christians, they claim to be so as to be taken for just ordinary people, not a bunch of wierdos, but we here know different. So, if you are truly seeking knowlege about catholicism, don’t listen to mormons or to mormons claiming to be half-Catholic. Full stop.

 

[zerinus]

Do you disagree with the passages that I cited?

The passages you had cited do not support the claims you had made, which I had stated to be false.

I know yous aid you don’t want to speculate too much, so maybe we can attack this from a different angle. Do you think that Heavenly Father is infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and eternal in an absolute sense?

Yes. I don’t know what you mean by absolute or not absolute. But LDS scripture teaches that that is what God is, so the answer to your question is yes.

How about Christ and the Holy Ghost?

What about them?

zerinus

 

[nebula]

zerinus,

The passages perfectly support what I said. How do they not?

I mean that God the Father has always been God the Father, never became a god at any point and is not subject to the laws of ht ecosmos. He is the creator of those laws. When I say what about Christ and the Holy Ghost, I mean to ask, are they also truly, absolutely infinite? (that is, are they GOD) That you are so quick to agree is interesting, to say the least.

 

[zerinus]

zerinus,

The passages perfectly support what I said. How do they not?

You are making me do a lot of unnecessary work. I would rather you did not do that.

zerinus,

Nope. I can honestly say that the idea of the great apostasy was the last thing on my mind when I realized I could no longer be a Mormon. You can avoid this all day, but the reality is that Mormonism is a GOD denying theology, . . .

It does not support that.

that is, denies the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, truly infinite God . . .

It does not support that—insofar as neither Joseph Smith nor LDS scripture denies the omnipotence or eternal nature of God.

All that you have are laws that just happened to exist for eternity and innumberable intelligences helping each other to exaltation.

It does not support that.

The sad thing is that Mormons 100 years ago had no problem being different from Christianity, they reveled in it. That was a much more honest response than what is happening now. You either must abandon the basics of your theology and embrace the Judeo-Christian conception of God or remain beyond the boundaries of Christianity.

It does not support that.

I mean that God the Father has always been God the Father, never became a god at any point and is not subject to the laws of ht ecosmos. He is the creator of those laws.

LDS scripture says that that is what He is.

When I say what about Christ and the Holy Ghost, I mean to ask, are they also truly, absolutely infinite? (that is, are they GOD) That you are so quick to agree is interesting, to say the least.

Little is revealed about the Holy Ghost; but of Christ yes, LDS scripture teaches that He is all of those.

zerinus

 

[nebula]

You are making me do a lot of unnecessary work. I would rather you did not do that.

It does not support that.

It does not support that—insofar as neither Joseph Smith nor LDS scripture denies the omnipotence or eternal nature of God.

It does not support that.

It does not support that.

zerinus

It supports the second one. GOD (I capitalized it for a reason) is an infinite being with no beginning. THe passages I quoted gives heavenly father a distinct beginning as a god, therefore NOT eternal as GOD. The rest follows. Heavenly father, according to the passages I cited, cannot be fully omnipotent, since a god made him and he cannot destroy that god. The only way around this is to say something like “well sure, maybe not eternal as a god, but eternal as an intelligence” but we both know that isn’t what I was talking about.

 

[BDawg]

Well, I see that all the usual mormon suspects have shown up, including one of whyme’s fellow schzophrenics (Tzuzuki) who believes that he can be both mormon AND Catholic, with the usual parade of mormon lies, evasions and deceptions. The OP may or may not be a true inquirer, but the non-catholic religions forum is not the place to find answers about catholic belief, due to the presence of mormons or mormon trolls. Notice that the same stuff keeps coming up, zerinus trying to lure people to his pathetic blog, whyme trying to sing “Kumbaya”, bdawg posting long irrellevancies with no point and all the mormons joining in a mass tapdance when asked for direct answers. NO, OP, mormons are NOT Christians, they claim to be so as to be taken for just ordinary people, not a bunch of wierdos, but we here know different. So, if you are truly seeking knowlege about catholicism, don’t listen to mormons or to mormons claiming to be half-Catholic. Full stop.

Yep, and here’s good ol’ hosemonkey, who constantly posts rude comments and assertions without any sort of support from the Bible, church fathers, catechism, historical studies, or, well…anything.

You go, hosemonkey! Because it’s all about how big your mouth is, not how good your argument is.

 

[zerinus]

I just edited the above post to give a more detailed answer.

It supports the second one. GOD (I capitalized it for a reason) is an infinite being with no beginning. THe passages I quoted gives heavenly father a distinct beginning as a god, therefore NOT eternal as GOD. The rest follows. Heavenly father, according to the passages I cited, cannot be fully omnipotent, since a god made him and he cannot destroy that god. The only way around this is to say something like “well sure, maybe not eternal as a god, but eternal as an intelligence” but we both know that isn’t what I was talking about.

Okay, we are now entering into that realm of speculative theology that I said I would rather not get into. The problem with that reasoning is that Joseph Smith produced an awful lot of canonized scripture—the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Perl of Great Price—that portray God as a possessing all those attributes to completeness; and then he preached one uncanonized sermon, that appears to contradict what is said in the canonized scripture. What do you do when you come across passages in the Bible that appear to contradict each other? You find a way to resolve it, don’t you? That is what I do here. I compare his uncanonized sermon with his profusion of canonized scriptures; and if there appears to be a contradiction, I leave judgement on hold pending further revelation; and stick to what is taught in the canonized scripture.

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m not related to any general authorities, not that it saved Steve Benson. It’s all about attitude.

Steve Benson didn’t get excommunicated…he resigned. And i haven’t read where he made any trouble before then. He questioned, he found it all to be hooey, and resigned. No hedging around waiting for things to become “relevant”.

 

[majick275]

Yep, and here’s good ol’ hosemonkey, who constantly posts rude comments and assertions without any sort of support from the Bible, church fathers, catechism, historical studies, or, well…anything.

You go, hosemonkey! Because it’s all about how big your mouth is, not how good your argument is.

hey zerinus seems to think so. and just what assertions have been made here that aren’t verifiable?

 

[majick275]

I just edited the above post to give a more detailed answer.

Okay, we are now entering into that realm of speculative theology that I said I would rather not get into. The problem with that reasoning is that Joseph Smith produced an awful lot of canonized scripture—the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Perl of Great Price—that portray God as a possessing all those attributes to completeness; and then he preached one uncanonized sermon, that appears to contradict what is said in the canonized scripture. What do you do when you come across passages in the Bible that appear to contradict each other? You find a way to resolve it, don’t you? That is what I do here. I compare his uncanonized sermon with his profusion of canonized scriptures; and if there appears to be a contradiction, I leave judgement on hold pending further revelation; and stick to what is taught in the canonized scripture.

zerinus

thus completely negating the “benefit” of living prophets. why listen to any counsel of the “brethren” then? it’s obvious they can’t be trusted except when quoting scripture or “revealing new scripture”. of course even that isn’t safe in mormonism since their scriptures can and have been changed in doctrinally significant ways.

 

[nebula]

I just edited the above post to give a more detailed answer.

Okay, we are now entering into that realm of speculative theology that I said I would rather not get into. The problem with that reasoning is that Joseph Smith produced an awful lot of canonized scripture—the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Perl of Great Price—that portray God as a possessing all those attributes to completeness; and then he preached one uncanonized sermon, that appears to contradict what is said in the canonized scripture. What do you do when you come across passages in the Bible that appear to contradict each other? You find a way to resolve it, don’t you? That is what I do here. I compare his uncanonized sermon with his profusion of canonized scriptures; and if there appears to be a contradiction, I leave judgement on hold pending further revelation; and stick to what is taught in the canonized scripture.

zerinus

zerinus,

THe point is that the passages I cited (as published by the church in order to teach new members) supported what I said, when you said they did not. If you choose to disregard official church teachings because you disagree, that’s your business I suppose, but I’m on firm ground claiming that it’s something that Mormons must grapple with. After all, this is information presented to new members in Sunday School in an official capacity. Your restrictions are artificial and very much your own.