Mormon Confusion

[nebula]

(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,

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.”

bdwag,

This is why I explicitly stated absolutely infinite, because I am aware of these attempts to get around the plain meanings of words. A God with a beginning is not an independent Being by definition. That’s what I am talking about, God is completely Independent, He is a different kind of Person altogether than we are. Mormonism posits that God is different in degree (man + billion years) whereas traditional Christianity posits a God who is qualitatively different from us, as a rock is from a cat.

I hope that helps clear up for you what my issue is. I’m not interested in relatively eternal, or he is now beyond time so all that doesn’t count, or he’ll always be greater than us so why worry, or he’s one is purpose with Christ and the Holy Ghost. Those are not solutions to the problem I present above, they do not begin to address it, but I do appreciate the fact that you acknowledge Mormon theology as taught in the most basic of church teaching manuals.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

BDawg, long experience of talking with mormons will bring anyone to the point of the “usual suspects”. And, the truth of the matter is, there are few mormons that stick around these parts. Once mormons figure out that they aren’t going to convert anyone, off they go to find someone who is more gullible.

So, hosemonkey named the mormons who have stuck it out. For some reason, the not-so mainstream mormons do stick it out, and they cause nothing but confusion because they each describe mormonism as if it were different religions.

“Do mormons believe that men become gods?” has been asked so many times, and answered in 20 different ways.

Along comes BDawg, who has the 21st different answer the same question. Why should we listen any more to your view than every other mormon that has been here. To us, it’s just all so much BS to wade through. You can’t answer one, single question with one voice.

It gets to the point where you have nothing to say to a mormon but thanks for playing, but you got it all wrong, and all so backwards, that not even your own members can figure out what a mormon believes.

 

[BDawg]

bdwag,

This is why I explicitly stated absolutely infinite, because I am aware of these attempts to get around the plain meanings of words. A God with a beginning is not an independent Being by definition. That’s what I am talking about, God is completely Independent, He is a different kind of Person altogether than we are. Mormonism posits that God is different in degree (man + billion years) whereas traditional Christianity posits a God who is qualitatively different from us, as a rock is from a cat.

I hope that helps clear up for you what my issue is. I’m not interested in relatively eternal, or he is now beyond time so all that doesn’t count, or he’ll always be greater than us so why worry, or he’s one is purpose with Christ and the Holy Ghost. Those are not solutions to the problem I present above, they do not begin to address it, but I do appreciate the fact that you acknowledge Mormon theology as taught in the most basic of church teaching manuals.

Hi nebula,

I understand that this is different from the mainstream Christian concept. However, for me the issue is how different our concept is from that of the prophets and apostles who wrote the Bible. Where in the Bible does it talk about whether God is a “necessary Being,” or that the Divine Nature is “totally other” than human nature? Where does it say that the Trinity is “one Divine Being” or “Substance”? Where does it say that the word “eternity” should be interpreted in the absolute sense?

If the Bible doesn’t talk about these things, then how about Catholic tradition? How far back can you trace these beliefs in your tradition? The further back they can be found, the more likely it seems that they might have been original to Christianity. If there is a gap between the apostolic Church and how far back you can trace the traditions, are there indications that some other beliefs (e.g., maybe some similar to the Mormon ideas) were even more ancient, and thus more likely to have been original?

Do you see my point? You seem to be saying that we shouldn’t be claiming to be Christians, because our concept of God is so different from other Christians’. But I’m saying that I don’t care if I’m the same as other Christians, as long as I believe that my beliefs about God are consistent with those of the prophets and apostles who founded Christianity. That’s what the argument should be about, IMO. That is, we should be discussing whose concept of God is more consistent with the Bible, since all of us agree that the Bible is at least part of the original “Deposit of Faith.”

All this talk about Mormons being disingenuous for calling themselves Christians when we don’t use some terms in the same way simply misses the point. We freely acknowledge that we have some different beliefs. So what? The question is whose beliefs are true. If we use a Biblical term like “God” in different ways, that doesn’t make anyone dishonest. It just means that we interpret the text differently, and we should be calmly discussing which interpretation is right.

[Note to AMDGtoo: I’m not insisting that the discussion be all “sweetness and light.” I’m just saying that some arguments get to the heart of an issue, and others muck about in superficialities.]

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi AMDGtoo,

Why do you feel the need to defend hosemonkey’s non-stop verbal abuse, sans any hint of a rational argument?

You see it as abuse, I see it as truth-telling. The truth is is that mormonism is a false religion with a false “prophet.” Makes no difference how you try to “explain” or dress it up, it is, fundamentally, wrong. When you cut through the BS, at the end of the day, you are wrong. Looking at mormonism is an interesting excercise, kinda like dissecting a frog, you may learn something, but you can’t eat it.

 

[hosemonkey]

BDawg, long experience of talking with mormons will bring anyone to the point of the “usual suspects”. And, the truth of the matter is, there are few mormons that stick around these parts. Once mormons figure out that they aren’t going to convert anyone, off they go to find someone who is more gullible.

So, hosemonkey named the mormons who have stuck it out. For some reason, the not-so mainstream mormons do stick it out, and they cause nothing but confusion because they each describe mormonism as if it were different religions.

Rebbeca J, you have the same vision as I do. The “usual suspects” mormons are like an annoying fly that buzzes around your face. You can wave your hand until you get tired, but the fly will not leave. You must eventually get the fly swatter and terminate the fly. The fly is stupid and persists until he is smacked. I used to basically ignore mormons until I saw some of the absurdities that they proposed on these forums, then I realized how insidious they really are.
To me, mormons questioning the Catholic Church is like a seaman questioning a five-star Admiral. It is foolish and presumtious and that seaman is going to spend a very long time chipping paint and cleaning bilges.

 

[scipio337]

Hi nebula,

I understand that this is different from the mainstream Christian concept. However, for me the issue is how different our concept is from that of the prophets and apostles who wrote the Bible. Where in the Bible does it talk about whether God is a “necessary Being,” or that the Divine Nature is “totally other” than human nature? Where does it say that the Trinity is “one Divine Being” or “Substance”? Where does it say that the word “eternity” should be interpreted in the absolute sense?

If the Bible doesn’t talk about these things, then how about Catholic tradition? How far back can you trace these beliefs in your tradition? The further back they can be found, the more likely it seems that they might have been original to Christianity. If there is a gap between the apostolic Church and how far back you can trace the traditions, are there indications that some other beliefs (e.g., maybe some similar to the Mormon ideas) were even more ancient, and thus more likely to have been original?

Do you see my point? You seem to be saying that we shouldn’t be claiming to be Christians, because our concept of God is so different from other Christians’. But I’m saying that I don’t care if I’m the same as other Christians, as long as I believe that my beliefs about God are consistent with those of the prophets and apostles who founded Christianity. That’s what the argument should be about, IMO. That is, we should be discussing whose concept of God is more consistent with the Bible, since all of us agree that the Bible is at least part of the original “Deposit of Faith.”

All this talk about Mormons being disingenuous for calling themselves Christians when we don’t use some terms in the same way simply misses the point. We freely acknowledge that we have some different beliefs. So what? The question is whose beliefs are true. If we use a Biblical term like “God” in different ways, that doesn’t make anyone dishonest. It just means that we interpret the text differently, and we should be calmly discussing which interpretation is right.

[Note to AMDGtoo: I’m not insisting that the discussion be all “sweetness and light.” I’m just saying that some arguments get to the heart of an issue, and others muck about in superficialities.]

Are you kidding? An inherently “different” G*d is prevalent throughout the OT, Jewish thought, and are inherent throughout the New Testament. Try Job, etc.

You’ve just participated in the logical fallacy (by assertion, no less) that anything “not mentioned” or “gap” suddenly precludes some conspiracy, or “other” beliefs that were “covered up”.

If you’re using the historical record as some apologetica for LDS beliefs, you’re going to be doing a lot of that.

 

[po18guy]

hosemonkey;4046799:

I love that. So, are any of the other Catholics here still ready to defend Grand Inquisitor TorqueHosemonkey’s behavior?

I didn’t really expect him to understand that the Mormon idea that prophets don’t necessarily always speak “infallibly” is very similar to the Catholic idea that the Pope doesn’t always necessarily speak infallibly. (Yes, hosemonkey, I understand the doctrine of Papal Infallibility pretty well, and I knew that Catholics don’t see every Papal Bull as an infallible statement.) But I absolutely didn’t expect him to actually defend the torture of heretics!!! Priceless!!!

So, what does the term “prophet” mean, exactly? The Pope is not a prophet, he is the leader of the world’s Christians - all of them, not just Catholics. He answers to the Lord for each and every Christian, so he calls everyone to unity, as Christ prayed.

I am still waiting for a tour of the Mormon holy lands, as evidence that anything JS said actually occurred. The One True God has always used persons, times, places and things that are verifiable.

 

[majick275]

hosemonkey;4046799:

I love that. So, are any of the other Catholics here still ready to defend Grand Inquisitor TorqueHosemonkey’s behavior?

I didn’t really expect him to understand that the Mormon idea that prophets don’t necessarily always speak “infallibly” is very similar to the Catholic idea that the Pope doesn’t always necessarily speak infallibly. (Yes, hosemonkey, I understand the doctrine of Papal Infallibility pretty well, and I knew that Catholics don’t see every Papal Bull as an infallible statement.) But I absolutely didn’t expect him to actually defend the torture of heretics!!! Priceless!!!

when the mormon prophet addresses the LDS church in general conference it is understood that he is speaking for God. This was certainly the case regarding the KFD. i’m sure you already know all of the D&C references that go with this. a lot can be gained by context as well. what was done with these “teachings”? were they expounded on by future apostles and prophets? are they taught in lesson manuals to the membership?

the answer here is obvious, eternal progression is a very clear LDS doctrine. it is NOT what was taught be ECFs as theosis or deification or any other dogma. it differs radically from the beatific vision that those ECFs WERE teaching.

regarding papal bulls, they are NOT always infallible. there ARE specific rubrics so that one can KNOW what is infallible. this specific bull is also something that I don’t see as problematic. did you read it? it operates under the circumstances that heresy is a CRIME that is to be dealt with by civil authorities and imposes restrictions on just what can be done by said authorities and the churches involvement. torture was accepted back then as necessary in some cases to prevent further damage to society. (Guantanamo bay? water boarding?) it also explains the necessity of limiting this practice. context is critical here.

 

[BDawg]

BDawg, long experience of talking with mormons will bring anyone to the point of the “usual suspects”. And, the truth of the matter is, there are few mormons that stick around these parts. Once mormons figure out that they aren’t going to convert anyone, off they go to find someone who is more gullible.

So, hosemonkey named the mormons who have stuck it out. For some reason, the not-so mainstream mormons do stick it out, and they cause nothing but confusion because they each describe mormonism as if it were different religions.

“Do mormons believe that men become gods?” has been asked so many times, and answered in 20 different ways.

Along comes BDawg, who has the 21st different answer the same question. Why should we listen any more to your view than every other mormon that has been here. To us, it’s just all so much BS to wade through. You can’t answer one, single question with one voice.

It gets to the point where you have nothing to say to a mormon but thanks for playing, but you got it all wrong, and all so backwards, that not even your own members can figure out what a mormon believes.

So how exactly, would you say that my views are out of the LDS mainstream? (I believe God used evolution in the creative process–that’s probably a minority position, I guess. I can’t think of anything else substantial, though.) Every religion tolerates some difference of opinion on different issues, after all.

And I seem to remember lots of instances where I agreed perfectly with Zerinus–in fact it’s mostly just this one issue on which I remember disagreeing. (I think he holds the more mainstream position about evolution, though, now that I think about it.) There are a couple Mormons here who also seem to consider themselves Catholics, but what can anyone do about that? They have their perspective, and have every right to share it, but us more literal-minded folks can’t be expected to take it very seriously.

Anyway, you have here a forum in which people discuss Mormon belief and practice. Most Mormons who visit here come away with the impression that our beliefs and practices are somewhat caricatured by the non-Mormons here who discuss such things. Since this is not acceptable to us, some of us stick around to try and balance things out. We have varying levels of knowledge about both Mormon and Catholic history and doctrine, however, so sometimes we don’t agree about every question that comes up, and sometimes we make stupid statements about Mormon or Catholic beliefs/practices. (The Catholics here don’t always agree with one another, and sometimes make stupid statements about Mormonism or Catholicism, too, though. Wouldn’t you agree?) Some of us, consequently, get frustrated and leave. Some of us don’t mind a little back-and-forth, and even enjoy it, so we stick around.

It seems simple enough to me. We are a bunch of human beings trying to discuss things from different points of view. We want to refine, but also promote our points of view! Sometimes there are some sticky issues to get through that aren’t clearcut in everyone’s minds. Doesn’t seem like any reason to get all uptight about it and start calling people who disagree with you “liars.”

The fact is that some of us stick around here–both Mormons and Catholics–for various reasons. And yet, some of the same issues keep being brought up by newcomers. Why should you get mad at me, Zerinus, or whomever, just because you didn’t convince us to change our minds about these perennial issues the last time, and we choose to take up the discussion with newcomers who bring it up? Maybe the newcomers will come up with some better arguments that will convince us to change our minds, after all. Maybe some Mormon or Mormon-leaning Catholic lurkers will follow the arguments and be convinced of your POV. If your arguments are already so great, and we’re just recalcitrant lackwits, why don’t you save them up and trot them out when the issue comes up again? Case closed, right?

It seems to me that some of you are just getting mad over nothing. People disagree. People are often stubborn about their beliefs. But public forums are there for more than just the people who participate directly in the discussions. If you remember that, maybe we can coexist peacefully without getting all uptight with one another. And if you take our arguments as a challenge, and try to gather together more and more powerful counterarguments, maybe you will even find it to be fun and rewarding.

If lots of the regulars are more relaxed about the whole experience, maybe you won’t feel the need to defend verbal abuse spewers like hosemonkey, who never makes a single statement that could be considered an “argument.”

 

[BDawg]

Are you kidding? An inherently “different” G*d is prevalent throughout the OT, Jewish thought, and are inherent throughout the New Testament. Try Job, etc.

You’ve just participated in the logical fallacy (by assertion, no less) that anything “not mentioned” or “gap” suddenly precludes some conspiracy, or “other” beliefs that were “covered up”.

If you’re using the historical record as some apologetica for LDS beliefs, you’re going to be doing a lot of that.

Hi scipio,

I’m not kidding. Obviously there are differences between God and man, but nebula seemed to be saying they are completely different in nature. I do not believe this is Biblical. For an example of recent scholarship that validates my point of view, see my signature line at the bottom of this post. I can provide more, if you like, including specific verses from the Bible.

So instead of just putting down my viewpoint without backing up yours, why not trot out the verses you think support you, and make an argument?

And where, exactly, did I say that any gap in the historical record necessarily means a cover-up? There are always gaps. As I remember it, I merely said that the smaller the gaps, the more convincing it is that there was some kind of continuous tradition. Do you disagree with that assessment? It seems kind of obvious to me. And I remember saying that if I can find even earlier examples of Christians who interpreted the Bible like the Mormons, our assertion that our interpretations are more like what the original authors meant seems more convincing. That seems rather obvious to me, too.

These kinds of arguments about historical or textual interpretation can’t absolutely “prove” anything in an absolute sense. They are either more convincing, or less convincing to people who follow the arguments–that’s it.

 

[nebula]

Hi nebula,

I understand that this is different from the mainstream Christian concept. However, for me the issue is how different our concept is from that of the prophets and apostles who wrote the Bible. Where in the Bible does it talk about whether God is a “necessary Being,” or that the Divine Nature is “totally other” than human nature? Where does it say that the Trinity is “one Divine Being” or “Substance”? Where does it say that the word “eternity” should be interpreted in the absolute sense?

If the Bible doesn’t talk about these things, then how about Catholic tradition? How far back can you trace these beliefs in your tradition? The further back they can be found, the more likely it seems that they might have been original to Christianity. If there is a gap between the apostolic Church and how far back you can trace the traditions, are there indications that some other beliefs (e.g., maybe some similar to the Mormon ideas) were even more ancient, and thus more likely to have been original?

Do you see my point? You seem to be saying that we shouldn’t be claiming to be Christians, because our concept of God is so different from other Christians’. But I’m saying that I don’t care if I’m the same as other Christians, as long as I believe that my beliefs about God are consistent with those of the prophets and apostles who founded Christianity. That’s what the argument should be about, IMO. That is, we should be discussing whose concept of God is more consistent with the Bible, since all of us agree that the Bible is at least part of the original “Deposit of Faith.”

All this talk about Mormons being disingenuous for calling themselves Christians when we don’t use some terms in the same way simply misses the point. We freely acknowledge that we have some different beliefs. So what? The question is whose beliefs are true. If we use a Biblical term like “God” in different ways, that doesn’t make anyone dishonest. It just means that we interpret the text differently, and we should be calmly discussing which interpretation is right.

[Note to AMDGtoo: I’m not insisting that the discussion be all “sweetness and light.” I’m just saying that some arguments get to the heart of an issue, and others muck about in superficialities.]

bdawg,

I should clear up a couple of items to help our conversation. The first is that I’m not a Catholic, right now I’m trying to figure out exactly how to formulate my faith. I’m seriously looking at Catholicism as an option because I agree that the Bible is not a stand alone text and according to the Catholics I’m already a Catholic which for some reason makes the choice seem more natural.

The second thing is that my conception of God comes first, then the Bible. How is this so? Well, first of all only a truly infinite independent God satisfactorily answers the metaphysical questions and satisfies the argument from contingency, that is, it really makes a lot of sense. Secondly, this is the God who revealed Himself to me, and who I find that I have secure faith in. It is from that first that I approach the Bible which I see as a record of God’s dealings with humanity because the basic idea makes so much sense: the infinite God must reconcile us dependent, finite beings, to Himself and through Himself= Christ.

Therefore, I agree that early Hebrews were monolatrists (though obviously not ‘MOrmon style’), and many conceived of God as a physical being, but they still saw God as other. Look at the first verse of Genesis, the verb bara as conjugated in the Qal paradigm is only used with God, only God bara-s. By the time of the writing of deuteronomy, a montheism was in play. By the time of Christ, strict monotheism was the order of hte day. That is, I believe that God reveals Himself to real live communities of finite human beings, with limited capacities for understanding, and speaks to them in the language and concepts that they can understand. Just because the earliest Hebrews may have had a ‘rough’ conception of God doesn’t mean that that is the most correct one. If we don’t take that route, if we insist that every conception of God presented in the Bible is absolutely correct with no modification, we have utter confusion on our hands because there are contradictory things being said. So what do we do? We could look at the NT as definitive since Christ Himself had come to earth and taught and influenced thinking about God, and if that is the case, the strict monotheistic position takes the forefront since that was the viewpoint espoused by normative Judaism in Christ’s time, and reiterated in the NT. We could also look to church fathers, traditions passed down by the RCC, to help us understand, which is a possibility I am looking into.

I hope that helps.

 

[po18guy]

(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”? If so, then the Biblical idea of God’s eternity is not necessarily at odds with the Mormon idea of “eternal progression.”

Rife with wiggle words like “if”. This is Mormon propaganda, totally unsubstantiated. It would take far too much of the precious time I have left to dissect these byte-eating posts. Its contents, like Mormonism, looks so close to the actual, but contains small changes that lead slowly, slowly. It has every marker of the invented, and none of the Revealed.

The problem is that the Mormon definitions of nearly everything are different from the rest of the world. And there is where one can be lead off the path to God. I have a problem with any fallible, created human who wants, desires, strives toward godhood. What sort of deranged power trip is this? What makes him better than those he will be subjecting to his will? This thinking appeals to the darkest recesses of the most massive egos alive. Christ calls us to be humble servants, not gods of our own planet. Unfortunately, Mormonism raises many more questions than it provides answers.

Again, the advent of Mormonism falls within the time frame in which our Lord Jesus told us to watch for false prophets, and in the time frame which the Apostle John cautioned that many antichrists have already gone out into the world. I’m sorry, but that is more than good enough for me. Its doctrines and beliefs are so bizarre that I cannot believ that a sentient human being can embrace it. God’s revelation is complete. All prophets to come are false. Word.

 

[scipio337]

Hi scipio,

I’m not kidding. Obviously there are differences between God and man, but nebula seemed to be saying they are completely different in nature. I do not believe this is Biblical. For an example of recent scholarship that validates my point of view, see my signature line at the bottom of this post. I can provide more, if you like, including specific verses from the Bible

So instead of just putting down my viewpoint without backing up yours, why not trot out the verses you think support you, and make an argument?

How about any major school of Jewish thought, YHWH’s speech in the Book of Job, and the very nature of the Tetragrammaton itself?

BDawg:

And where, exactly, did I say that any gap in the historical record necessarily means a cover-up? There are always gaps. As I remember it, I merely said that the smaller the gaps, the more convincing it is that there was some kind of continuous tradition. Do you disagree with that assessment? It seems kind of obvious to me. And I remember saying that if I can find even earlier examples of Christians who interpreted the Bible like the Mormons, our assertion that our interpretations are more like what the original authors meant seems more convincing. That seems rather obvious to me, too.

Actually, 1 Nephi 13 pretty much lays it all out as conspiracy.

If you can find popular early interpretations similar to LDS beliefs, I’m game. What I can’t do is constantly pick the pepper from the fly poop and arrive at a predetermined outcome

BDawg:

These kinds of arguments about historical or textual interpretation can’t absolutely “prove” anything in an absolute sense. They are either more convincing, or less convincing to people who follow the arguments–that’s it.

I find them compelling, but see FARMs tactics falling flat on their face.

 

[hosemonkey]

Rife with wiggle words like “if”. This is Mormon propaganda, totally unsubstantiated. It would take far too much of the precious time I have left to dissect these byte-eating posts. Its contents, like Mormonism, looks so close to the actual, but contains small changes that lead slowly, slowly. It has every marker of the invented, and none of the Revealed.

The problem is that the Mormon definitions of nearly everything are different from the rest of the world. And there is where one can be lead off the path to God. I have a problem with any fallible, created human who wants, desires, strives toward godhood. What sort of deranged power trip is this? What makes him better than those he will be subjecting to his will? This thinking appeals to the darkest recesses of the most massive egos alive. Christ calls us to be humble servants, not gods of our own planet. Unfortunately, Mormonism raises many more questions than it provides answers.

AMEN!

 

[RebeccaJ]

So how exactly, would you say that my views are out of the LDS mainstream? (I believe God used evolution in the creative process–that’s probably a minority position, I guess. I can’t think of anything else substantial, though.) Every religion tolerates some difference of opinion on different issues, after all.

And I seem to remember lots of instances where I agreed perfectly with Zerinus–in fact it’s mostly just this one issue on which I remember disagreeing. (I think he holds the more mainstream position about evolution, though, now that I think about it.) There are a couple Mormons here who also seem to consider themselves Catholics, but what can anyone do about that? They have their perspective, and have every right to share it, but us more literal-minded folks can’t be expected to take it very seriously.

Anyway, you have here a forum in which people discuss Mormon belief and practice. Most Mormons who visit here come away with the impression that our beliefs and practices are somewhat caricatured by the non-Mormons here who discuss such things. Since this is not acceptable to us, some of us stick around to try and balance things out. We have varying levels of knowledge about both Mormon and Catholic history and doctrine, however, so sometimes we don’t agree about every question that comes up, and sometimes we make stupid statements about Mormon or Catholic beliefs/practices. (The Catholics here don’t always agree with one another, and sometimes make stupid statements about Mormonism or Catholicism, too, though. Wouldn’t you agree?) Some of us, consequently, get frustrated and leave. Some of us don’t mind a little back-and-forth, and even enjoy it, so we stick around.

It seems simple enough to me. We are a bunch of human beings trying to discuss things from different points of view. We want to refine, but also promote our points of view! Sometimes there are some sticky issues to get through that aren’t clearcut in everyone’s minds. Doesn’t seem like any reason to get all uptight about it and start calling people who disagree with you “liars.”

The fact is that some of us stick around here–both Mormons and Catholics–for various reasons. And yet, some of the same issues keep being brought up by newcomers. Why should you get mad at me, Zerinus, or whomever, just because you didn’t convince us to change our minds about these perennial issues the last time, and we choose to take up the discussion with newcomers who bring it up? Maybe the newcomers will come up with some better arguments that will convince us to change our minds, after all. Maybe some Mormon or Mormon-leaning Catholic lurkers will follow the arguments and be convinced of your POV. If your arguments are already so great, and we’re just recalcitrant lackwits, why don’t you save them up and trot them out when the issue comes up again? Case closed, right?

It seems to me that some of you are just getting mad over nothing. People disagree. People are often stubborn about their beliefs. But public forums are there for more than just the people who participate directly in the discussions. If you remember that, maybe we can coexist peacefully without getting all uptight with one another. And if you take our arguments as a challenge, and try to gather together more and more powerful counterarguments, maybe you will even find it to be fun and rewarding.

If lots of the regulars are more relaxed about the whole experience, maybe you won’t feel the need to defend verbal abuse spewers like hosemonkey, who never makes a single statement that could be considered an “argument.”

hey BDawg I am not mad, not at all. To me, it is what it is. The gulf between Mormonism and Catholicism is too great to bridge, and we will never agree.

I have been formulating arguments against Mormonism for years, long before I was a Catholic. It helped me get my head around what, exactly, Mormonism is as I looked for ways to sort out my own life.

I have long run out of things to argue against, I am settled in my own mind and soul. I stick to the Catholic forum, I don’t do “Catholic apologetics” anywhere else. Once in a while I stick my head in at MADB, just to see where the latest Mormon apologetics has got off to, always something. (To me, it all looks like excuses.) Once in a while, I’ll answer a question there about Catholicism when someone asks, but I don’t go into theological debates there.

Sometimes people come around who seem to start out like they really would like a conversation, but usually, it is just a lead up to whatever punchline they’ve got waiting in the wings.

Hosemonkey tells you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear. Nine out of ten times a conversation with a Mormon will get to that point eventually, Hosemonkey just skips to the end. I tend to agree with people who cut through the BS.

Do you really want to discuss, or, do you want us to review the latest Mormon apologetic excuse and help you find the holes in it? I find no reward in doing that. What I SEE, is that you put up endless barriers to understanding the truth. So, relax, bring down the shields that protect you against truth and ask God to guide you.

Did you read the Gospel of John? To me, that is far more rewarding than debating with a Mormon.

That’s the way I see it.

 

[po18guy]

I understand that this is different from the mainstream Christian concept.

Excuse me, but “mainstream Christian concept” is not a concept. You have just reduced it, through the error of human relativism, to equality. Christianity is God’s revealed Truth. Period.

I have noticed a "habit’ in which your writings have this tendency to apply human relativism to Christianity with an imagined infusion from Greek mythology. This is yet another bald-faced attempt to suppress God’s revealed truth so as to make your fringe beliefs appear reasonably equal. The LDS suddenly popped up in 1800s America. Where was that prophesied?Oh, it’s in scripture alright, but not in any form that you care to examine. The SDA and JW and many other invented and heretical beliefs appeared within that same time frame and geography. This looks suspiciously like a conspiracy, but not one of this earth.

Simply put, you have been mislead. You desire to be a god, which is the evil opposite of what God wants for us. He is a jealous God, and punishes those who aspire to His status. First example? Satan. The “liar and father of lies” promised Adam and Eve that they “would be like gods”. Of course, the Lord punished them greatly. Satan’s statement has a familiar ring to it. “You will be like gods”. Hmmm. So who, really, is the source of the “revelation” to Joseph Smith? It is clear to me.

But, yes, you will be successful in leading some seeking minds astray - to your eternal peril. Every LDS soul is precious as any other and so I pray for your illumination by the Holy Spirit.

 

[po18guy]

hey BDawg I am not mad, not at all. To me, it is what it is. The gulf between Mormonism and Catholicism is too great to bridge, and we will never agree.

I have been formulating arguments against Mormonism for years, long before I was a Catholic. It helped me get my head around what, exactly, Mormonism is as I looked for ways to sort out my own life.

I have long run out of things to argue against, I am settled in my own mind and soul. I stick to the Catholic forum, I don’t do “Catholic apologetics” anywhere else. Once in a while I stick my head in at MADB, just to see where the latest Mormon apologetics has got off to, always something. (To me, it all looks like excuses.) Once in a while, I’ll answer a question there about Catholicism when someone asks, but I don’t go into theological debates there.

Sometimes people come around who seem to start out like they really would like a conversation, but usually, it is just a lead up to whatever punchline they’ve got waiting in the wings.

Hosemonkey tells you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear. Nine out of ten times a conversation with a Mormon will get to that point eventually, Hosemonkey just skips to the end. I tend to agree with people who cut through the BS.

Do you really want to discuss, or, do you want us to review the latest Mormon apologetic excuse and help you find the holes in it? I find no reward in doing that. What I SEE, is that you put up endless barriers to understanding the truth. So, relax, bring down the shields that protect you against truth and ask God to guide you.

Did you read the Gospel of John? To me, that is far more rewarding than debating with a Mormon.

That’s the way I see it.

Rebecca, it seems the Lord calls out much more to women in the LDS than to the men. I know that there is very little in the LDS for women, and have heard horror stories about their treatment. Some are still bitter, and some have worked past the mistreatment very well. It appears endemic to the LDS belief system. Something evil is occurring to the women. You can see it in the media, in every polygamist cult, as the women and children are seen being lead away during various investigations. So many appear programmed, that they even desire to return. What an evil tyranny!

Praise God that the Holy Spirit spoke directly to you.

Christ’s peace.

 

[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…

Maybe they will when the next edition of the manual is published. I believe the current edition is a reprint of the last edition which was published before Hinckley made those comments. I think it is a policy of the Church that when doctrinal errors of this nature are discovered, to allow them to die out gradually, rather than remove them by a drastic action from the top. The reason for that is that some people’s faith is weak, and a sudden change in something that they have believed in for a long time may be detrimental to their faith. But Hinckley was right about what he said: that doctrine is no longer taught from the pulpit. I don’t recall one instance in the past ten or twenty years that it was taught by a General Authority at General Conference; whereas once upon a time that was not the case. The doctrine is no longer being taught, which means that it will eventually die out of its own accord.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

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. . . .

They are not just my “personal opinions”. I gave you documented quotes form Gordon B. Hinckley, Prophet and President of the Church no less, that that doctrine is questionable. Why are you now ignoring that, and calling it just my opinion? I also gave you a link to an article in my Blog in which I clearly demonstrated the Church’s official position on how the doctrine of the Church is determined—i.e. that it rests exclusively on the standard works. Everything that is not found in there is questionable; and everything that contradicts it is false. I did not invent all of that. It is the Church’s policy position. Why are you now ignoring all of that, and calling it “my opinion”? You are not being very honest with yourself or me by doing that I don’t think.

zerinus

 

[hosemonkey]

Rebecca, it seems the Lord calls out much more to women in the LDS than to the men. I know that there is very little in the LDS for women, and have heard horror stories about their treatment. Some are still bitter, and some have worked past the mistreatment very well. It appears endemic to the LDS belief system. Something evil is occurring to the women. You can see it in the media, in every polygamist cult, as the women and children are seen being lead away during various investigations. So many appear programmed, that they even desire to return. What an evil tyranny!

Praise God that the Holy Spirit spoke directly to you.

Praise God for your insight. You are right! Thinking women should be the last ones to be sucked into this evil that smacks more of Islam than anything else. mormons like bdawg rebel against the truth because it threatens their fantasy world and because they simply cannot handle the truth. po18guy and Rebbecca J, you rock!