Mormon Confusion

[AMDGtoo]

Are you saying that Mormons actually do believe that every word that comes out of the prophet’s mouth is Absolute Truth? Well, if that’s what you are saying, then you are flatly WRONG.

Hi BDawg–

So there are times your prophet “speaks like a man” and not a prophet. The thing is–he’s your prophet, the founder, the one who claimed that he was better than Jesus (in that he supposedly kept his church together) and you folks give him mountains and mountains of accolades (you even sing praise to JS). You can’t just assume that JS was just “talking like a man” in some idea of his–if you do, you’ll probably end up excommunicated like the researcher Jerald Tanner was, or at the very least disfellowshipped like the Seminary Instructor Grant Palmer. So how do you folks know when JS was speaking (and acting) like a man instead of a prophet and that some of what he said is not to be taken as “gospel”? You guys have this “feeling”? You mean that people like Grant Palmer or Jerald Tanner or any number of others are presumed not to have “feelings” as well? How do you know?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,

You know, different people show up on this forum, and often ask the same questions. Why shouldn’t I re-use an argument that nobody could refute last time? Do you expect me to come up with a brand new argument every time someone new shows up asking about the LDS doctrine of God?

Lost me there. But notice that I typically only post on threads where people are asking or making comments about Mormonism. If that’s my sneaky strategy for undermining the faith of all Catholics, it seems fairly inefficient.

Lost me there, too. What about Tertullian?

Wow. Quoting Tertullian is a common Mormon proselyting technique? Or was it re-using the same argument when the same point comes up at a later time? Boy, I feel so dirty!

I’ll come clean for you, Rebecca. I am PURPOSEFULLY quoting Tertullian and other ECFs, REPEATEDLY. And here’s my nastiest little secret. I would LOVE it if Catholics around the world flocked to the LDS Church because of my posts on this forum. But I don’t really expect that, so I would be satisfied if my posts helped some people understand what Mormons believe and why they believe it. So while I am a skulking, nasty RM who can’t stop my urge to proselytize, at least I’m a minimalist about it.

BDawg, your argument has been dealt with…you believe everyone is as polytheist as you. They aren’t. You see polytheism everywhere, and instead of thinking, hmmmm, those people got it wrong, you think, hmmmm, they were Mormon!

Sorry if I don’t see that as you having an outstanding argument, more like, I see it as you have an outstanding issue that you need to deal with.

 

[BDawg]

BDawg, your argument has been dealt with…you believe everyone is as polytheist as you. They aren’t. You see polytheism everywhere, and instead of thinking, hmmmm, those people got it wrong, you think, hmmmm, they were Mormon!

Sorry if I don’t see that as you having an outstanding argument, more like, I see it as you have an outstanding issue that you need to deal with.

Hi Rebecca,

I don’t mind if we disagree about how good my argument is. I like you, anyway, and I hope you feel the same about me.

 

[scipio337]

“Milk before meat”:

Lying by omission, or just obfuscation?

 

[BDawg]

Hi BDawg–

So there are times your prophet “speaks like a man” and not a prophet. The thing is–he’s your prophet, the founder, the one who claimed that he was better than Jesus (in that he supposedly kept his church together) and you folks give him mountains and mountains of accolades (you even sing praise to JS). You can’t just assume that JS was just “talking like a man” in some idea of his–if you do, you’ll probably end up excommunicated like the researcher Jerald Tanner was, or at the very least disfellowshipped like the Seminary Instructor Grant Palmer. So how do you folks know when JS was speaking (and acting) like a man instead of a prophet and that some of what he said is not to be taken as “gospel”? You guys have this “feeling”? You mean that people like Grant Palmer or Jerald Tanner or any number of others are presumed not to have “feelings” as well? How do you know?

Hi AMDGtoo,

Actually, if you read the linked discussion I provided above, you will see that Pres. J. Reuben Clark (LDS First Presidency) explained that it is the responsibility of every member of the Church to live so that the Holy Spirit can help us recognize when others (not just the prophet) speak by inspiration. Yes, that’s a hard thing for humans to do. Yes, people will disagree sometimes about what was inspired, and what wasn’t, because we are struggling humans, as well. And yet, from our point of view, becoming one with God through the Holy Spirit is one of the main purposes of our existence here. We see our prophets as having great experience and a special gift from God to help guide us as we struggle to become one with God. If they were perfectly infallible in everything, then that would actually be detrimental to the cause, because we would tend to be too complacent about our own quests to make our hearts and minds conform to the will of God. We might just think of the Judgment as a multiple choice theology test, and forget the real purpose of life.

So you may not like it, but that’s how we view the issue of “infallibility.” And BTW, the Holy Spirit often communicates through “feelings,” but that is not all. Thoughts come to your mind about things that later come true. Sometimes the Spirit speaks with an audible voice (this has happened to me a few times.) I believe it is the Holy Spirit talking to me, not because I feel warm and fuzzy inside, but because experience has convinced me that it is God talking. So dismiss experiences like mine if you like, but I think you caricature them by just chalking them up to “feelings.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,

I don’t mind if we disagree about how good my argument is. I like you, anyway, and I hope you feel the same about me.

I would you like you better if you were nicer to hosemonkey. I have lot of respect for him and I know that he does not deserve the name calling.

 

[BDawg]

“Milk before meat”:

Lying by omission, or just obfuscation?

Why don’t you ask Paul?

“I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.” (1 Corinthians 3:2)

Anyway, I assume you are talking about Zerinus’s discussion of the nature of God? I actually disagree with Zerinus, in that I believe Joseph Smith’s teaching that God the Father has a Father, and so on. And yet, he is right that this teaching is not in our scriptures, so it isn’t exactly “official.” I know a lot of Mormons who believe as he does about this issue, and it is considered a legitimate point of view to us. So why do you people feel the need to call him a liar, and refer to the practice of teaching “milk before meat,” when he clearly admitted that Joseph Smith taught the doctrine in question? It’s ridiculous.

 

[BDawg]

I would you like you better if you were nicer to hosemonkey. I have lot of respect for him and I know that he does not deserve the name calling.

How about I just ignore him from now on? I actually had some really good names to call him, but I tried to tone down my posts a bit. I have no respect for people who just verbally abuse others without ever trying to understand or engage them in a real conversation. His post about “the usual Mormon suspects” just struck me as so ridiculous that I couldn’t completely quell my mean and nasty side.

 

[nebula]

Actually, they are not. That is what Church leaders have counselled us to do. I refer you to this post on my Blog for further explanation:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-constitutes-official-lds-doctrine.html

With regard to Joseph Smith’s teaching in the King Follett discourse, Gordon B. Hinckley has made some comments about that which has already been discussed here several times, such as in the following posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3872977
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1779012

See the discussion that followed the second link.

zerinus

zerinus,

If that were so, then Hinckley should’ve taken those quotes from the church published teaching manuals, don’t you think? Unless he was unaware that this was continued to be taught as basic doctrine in sunday school classes…

 

[scipio337]

Why don’t you ask Paul?

“I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.” (1 Corinthians 3:2)

Anyway, I assume you are talking about Zerinus’s discussion of the nature of God? I actually disagree with Zerinus, in that I believe Joseph Smith’s teaching that God the Father has a Father, and so on. And yet, he is right that this teaching is not in our scriptures, so it isn’t exactly “official.” I know a lot of Mormons who believe as he does about this issue, and it is considered a legitimate point of view to us. So why do you people feel the need to call him a liar, and refer to the practice of teaching “milk before meat,” when he clearly admitted that Joseph Smith taught the doctrine in question? It’s ridiculous.

Context, sir, context. The Greek in the previous passages are key in that discussion. See anthropoi, pneumatikoi, and the reference to 1 Cor 2:6. Witholding concepts really wasn’t what Paul was talking about.

I think you described the concept and LDS feeling towards in rather well in the other thread.

I know its a controversial subject among LDS, but from the outside looking in, Hinckley’s him-hawing and missionaries instructed not to discuss those “meat” topics is maddening.

 

[nebula]

Context, sir, context. The Greek in the previous passages are key in that discussion. See anthropoi, pneumatikoi, and the reference to 1 Cor 2:6. Witholding concepts really wasn’t what Paul was talking about.

I think you described the concept and LDS feeling towards in rather well in the other thread.

I know its a controversial subject among LDS, but from the outside looking in, Hinckley’s him-hawing and missionaries instructed not to discuss those “meat” topics is maddening.

I agree with this. The basic nature of God is not ‘meat’, you can’t get more basic than that! WHat is happening is withholding potentially embarrassing information from prospective converts in order to baptize them before they find out about this stuff. That is unethical.

 

[AMDGtoo]

I couldn’t completely quell my mean and nasty side.

Well, please “quell” it. I for one, have met Missionaries who have not “quelled” their “mean and nasty sides” (in addition to their “arrogance” and continued–for want of a better word–“harassment”.) Isn’t it just possible that Hosemonkey has as well?

As far as his defense of the Church and her members (like a protector) he reminds me of some of the early Church priests and laymen (particularly your favorite, the firey Tertullian).

As Mike Aquilina pointed out in his book The Fathers of the Church, Tertullian vigoriously confronted those who embraced heresy as poachers on his family’s estate, trespassers who threatened his patrimony: “I hold sure title-deeds from the original owners themselves, to whom the estate belonged. I am the heir of the Apostles.” He wasn’t all “sweetness and light” in his defending right.

 

[hosemonkey]

I read your post carefully. I just thought your point was ridiculous, because we aren’t trying to “evade” anything. We actually don’t believe in prophetic infallibility.

, in which Pope Innocent IV authorized the torture of heretics? Do you believe heretics ought to be tortured? Or was the Pope simply speaking as a fallible human being in this instance? Oh, so he was just speaking as a fallible human being?

[Note: The following is a direct quotation of hosemonkey, with words like “prophet” replaced by “Pope” and “mormon” replaced by “Catholic.” For those inclined to take this argument seriously, please realize that I am parodying hosemonkey’s point to show that said point is utterly worthless, coming from a Catholic. I’m not holding my breath for him to get it, though.]

While Catholics believe that they have an “infallible” Pope, they will evade scrutiny by saying that “well, the Pope is only stating his own opinion” while at the same time believing that he speaks “infallibly.” Is this not Catholic belief? If not, why bother listening to some old man in the Vatican? It is only when you people get backed against the wall that you attempt to weasel out by saying that the “Pope” does not speak for God, but for himself. Who IS the authority in your “church?”

So what do you say, hoseweasel? Your back is against the wall–are you going to own up to accepting every word of every Papal statement as infallibly correct? Be a man!

It is obvious from your post that you have no idea of the doctrine of papal infallibility. The Pope has spoken infallibly on fewer than four occasions in the history of the Church. He must be teaching on faith and morals, he must be speaking with the intention of teaching the whole Church with the support of the entire Magisterium. He does not speak infallibly when he comments on the weather. Papal Bulls are NOT infallible statements unless they meet the above criteria. Besides, it’s not a bad idea to burn a few heretics once in a while. keeps the rest of them in line. I do not vary one iota from my contention that mormonism is false and that mormons are duped. If that sounds like weasel words to you, I’ll see if I can be even more direct.

 

[BDawg]

I agree with this. The basic nature of God is not ‘meat’, you can’t get more basic than that! WHat is happening is withholding potentially embarrassing information from prospective converts in order to baptize them before they find out about this stuff. That is unethical.

Hi nebula,

The problem here is that Zerinus was not withholding information. He was giving his perspective on the information already provided. Just because his perspective isn’t as easy to attack, that’s no reason to get all worked up about it.

 

[BDawg]

As Mike Aquilina pointed out in his book The Fathers of the Church, Tertullian vigoriously confronted those who embraced heresy as poachers on his family’s estate, trespassers who threatened his patrimony: “I hold sure title-deeds from the original owners themselves, to whom the estate belonged. I am the heir of the Apostles.” He wasn’t all “sweetness and light” in his defending right.

Hi AMDGtoo,

Tertullian was a lawyer, for Pete’s sake. He may have been “fiery,” but he was all about making rational arguments. THAT is why his writings have been preserved all these years by Catholics–not because he piled on non-stop verbal abuse without ever supporting his claims.

(And I don’t get why you guys keep saying he is my “favorite.” I find his admission that he believed the Father was essentially identical to “the god of the philosophers” to be useful when arguing that Greek philosophy had influenced the Christian concept of God. However, if I had to pick a favorite ECF, I would probably go with Justin Martyr or Hermas.)

BTW, I understand that some Mormon missionaries can get too aggressive. They are not taught to do that, on the other hand, and I feel no need to defend their actions. I condemn their actions. Why do you feel the need to defend hosemonkey’s non-stop verbal abuse, sans any hint of a rational argument?

 

[why_me]

Mormons are not the only ones confused at times. I am sure that many catholics are also confused about the dogma of the catholic church. Religion dogma is not easily understood. When I was a good catholic boy, the concept of heaven that was taught was: harps, angels with wings, sitting on a cloud and pious bliss. That was so simple to understand but not exactly true. Not to mention a devil with horns and a redtail

 

[BDawg]

Besides, it’s not a bad idea to burn a few heretics once in a while. keeps the rest of them in line.

 

[nebula]

Hi nebula,

The problem here is that Zerinus was not withholding information. He was giving his perspective on the information already provided. Just because his perspective isn’t as easy to attack, that’s no reason to get all worked up about it.

I’m not worked up about anything bdawg, I heartily enjoy these conversations as I hope everyone does. The problem is that he is pitting himself up against official church publications which are a better representation of Mormon orthodoxy than what his personal opinion of how things ought to be is. What is taught worldwide to new members in a basic sunday school class ought to be taken seriously as representative of basic Mormon beliefs. If he wants to disagree with those manuals at the end of the day, that’s his business, but he hasn’t negated their existence or their worldwide use.

 

[BDawg]

Hi nebula,

Please understand that Zerinus has been arguing from what is considered a legitimate (though minority) LDS position on “eternal progression.” He has not been lying or holding back any information. On the other hand, I can understand your frustration when you expected to engage with people who have a more mainstream LDS viewpoint, against which at least some of your arguments make more sense.

So I wrote a little essay to help you understand a couple of things about the LDS doctrine of God that are related to your charges against us. I hope it helps. (And yes, Rebecca, I reserve the right to re-use this essay if someone else brings up questions about the same issues.)

One Infinite and Eternal God

Mormons believe there is “one God, infinite and eternal, without end” (D&C 20:28). And yet, we also speak of multiple “Gods” (Abraham 4-5), and often teach that God was once a man (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345), and so forth. These assertions may seem contradictory, but Mormons see them as different sides of the same coin. Here I will try to explain how Mormons generally understand them, and give some reasons for our beliefs.

God in the Singular and Plural
Essentially all Christians believe that God is in one sense “singular,” and in another sense “plural.” The Bible says there is “one God” (e.g., Deut. 6:4; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 Cor. 8:6), and yet it calls three different persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, “God” (Eph. 4:6; John 1:1; John 20:28; Acts 5:3-4). Mainstream Christians believe that “God” is

one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, [so] he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined. (1st Vatican Council, Chapter 1)

Note that the word “simple” is a technical philosophical/theological term meaning “completely homogeneous” or “without parts.” If this is what God is, then the Trinity must be a single Being, a single spritual “substance.” But since the New Testament clearly presents them as three “persons,” the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must somehow all exist as distinct persons within an spiritual “substance” that has no parts. It’s supposed to be a mystery that is not accessible by human reason.

On the other hand, Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate Beings, whose spirits are human in form, and that physical bodies actually clothe the bodies of the Father and Son (1 Nephi 11:11; D&C 130:22). Furthermore, Mormons believe that men can become “gods” (D&C 132:20). Although it isn’t in our scriptures, Joseph Smith also taught the doctrine that God the Father was once a man like us, who has a Father, and who was exalted to be God (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345). How can we say that there is “one God”? For us, God is “one” in three senses.

1. First, God the Father is the absolute monarch of the Universe. If there are other gods ruling over other Universes, we don’t have anything to do with them. “The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God; of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.” (Boyd K. Packer, Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991, 293.)
2. Second, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are completely One in will, purpose, love, and covenant. This unity is so complete that they can be spoken of as “one God,” because they act as a single, perfectly unified, entity. (See “The Father and the Son,” in James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, vol. 5, 23-34.)
3. Third, all those who are exalted to become gods are perfectly one in each other, just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in each other. Brigham Young explained this in the following quotations.

If men are faithful, the time will come when they will possess the power and the knowledge to obtain, organize, bring into existence, and own. “What, of themselves, independent of their Creator?” No. But they and their Creator will always be one, they will always be of one heart and of one mind, working and operating together; for whatsoever the Father doeth so doeth the son, and so they continue throughout all their operations to all eternity. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 2: 305–306.)

When shall we become entirely independent? Never, though we are as independent in our spheres as the Gods of eternity are in theirs. (Brigham Young, JD 8:190.)

Is he one? Yes. Is his trinity one? Yes. Is his organization one? Are the heavens one? Yes. (Brigham Young, JD 14:93–94.)

Gods exist, and we had better strive to be prepared to be one with them. (Brigham Young, JD 7:238.)

So whose definition of the Divine Unity is right? Mormons argue that the only time the Bible says anything about how God is one, it implies that humans can be one with each other and one in the Father and Son in the same way that the Father and Son are one in each other. This seems to us to fit very well with our definition of the Divine Unity, but to be at odds with the mainstream Christian definition.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

(Cont’d in next post.)

 

[BDawg]

(Cont’d from last post.)

The Eternal God

But if God the Father had a Father, and was once a man like ourselves, how could he be said to be “eternal”? Mainstream Christians see God as completely disconnected from time. God sees the past, present, and future as one reality, so there is no question of Him “once” being something other than God. Mormons have a different take on the meaning of “eternity,” however. Here I will explain a couple different ways we reconcile the idea of an “eternal” God with our idea of “eternal progression.”

First, we also believe that all things past, present, future are continually before the Lord. Those who are exalted live with God, “where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord” (D&C 130:7). Therefore, “all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men” (Alma 40:8). From this point of view, when one dwells in the eternities as God, changes in the “past” are all as one with the present and future, so in a sense, that person has always been and always will be God. That is, a person who dwells in Eternity as God is Eternally God.

Second, although we believe that Eternity is a place where past, present, and future are all continually before you, we still hold that God does experience time in some manner, even if it isn’t the same as the way we experience it (see Abraham 3:4-6). But even from this perspective, it is possible to reconcile this to our idea of “eternal progression” by noting that in the scriptures, the word “eternal” is not used in the sense of an infinite length of time. When the Hebrew authors of the Bible wrote about God, they often used terms like this in a relative sense, whereas I believe mainstream Christianity has adopted a more absolute interpretation of such terms because of the influence of pagan Greek philosophy from the second century onward. Christopher Stead (emeritus professor at the Cambridge Divinity School) explains,

The Old Testament writers sometimes speak of God as unchanging… In Christian writers influenced by Greek philosophy this doctrine is developed in an absolute metaphysical sense. Hebrew writers are more concrete, and their thinking includes two main points: (1) God has the dignity appropriate to old age, but without its disabilities…; and (2) God is faithful to his covenant promises, even though men break theirs… (Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, 102. Cf. Isaiah 40:28; Exodus 34:9-10)

For example, when God is described as “From everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 41:13 NEB), the word translated as “everlasting” is the Hebrew olam, which means “(practically) eternity” or “time out of mind”. (Strong, J., The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996, 470.) Another Psalm (104:5 NASB) says that God “established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever.” And yet Isaiah (24:20 NEB) saw a future time when “the earth reels to and fro like a drunken man…” Similarly, God told Abraham that circumcision would be an “everlasting” (olam) covenant (Gen. 17:13), but then revoked circumcision in the New Testament (Acts 9-11). Did you catch that? The Biblical writers used the same word to describe the eternity of God and the eternity of the covenant of circumcision. What they apparently meant by this word was “a really, really long time, beyond human experience.” If so, then the Biblical idea of God’s eternity is not necessarily at odds with the Mormon idea of “eternal progression.”