Mormons and Catholics Get Along Fine!

[dianaiad]

Hang on…wasn’t Joseph Smith born in 1805? :yup:

By my math, that would mean in 1828, when he joined the Methodist Church in Harmony, PA…having been expressly forbidden to do so by the Father and Son in a supposed fantastic visitation in 1820…he cannot possibly have been 14.

Actually, he may not have joined the Methodist church in 1828. It seems that he may have joined a ‘probationary class’ of Methodists…and soon withdrew…prior to 1822. Joseph himself stated that he had investigated the Methodists when he was fourteen; in fact it was one of the things that prompted the excursion into the grove in which he had his vision. There are several reports that he investigated Methodism to the point of ‘probationary’ status during that time–between 1810 and around 1820-22. His flirtation with Methodism was well reported, and admitted to by him.

On the other hand, only the Amboy Journal, in 1839, says that he joined in 1828. Let’s look at that report:

The people who claimed that he had joined were Joseph and Hiel Lewis, the sons of the Rev. Nathaniel Lewis over ten years AFTER the date they claimed Joseph did this. (I’m reading from the article itself, which you can find at this very anti-Mormon site:

Now THEY admit that they 'cannot give precise dates…" but then went on to describe Joseph’s ‘first vision’ in terms that were extremely stupid–and reflected the standard anti-Mormon rhetoric at the time. The story of the joining of the Methodist was especially shady…the claim is that Joseph went privately to the minister who, without telling anybody, privately enrolled Joseph as a probationary member of the Methodist class.
According to the Amboy, two men visited Joseph and gave him a choice; publically withdraw his name or suffer a disciplinary investigation.

I find this a very interesting story indeed.

I mean, it doesn’t bode well for the Methodists either way, does it? If this story is true (and given that it didn’t ‘come out’ for over ten years and, oh by the way, not until after the church records were lost so that there is no way to prove this thing one way or the other) then here we have a man who, having just had his son die at birth, who was having major problems with getting his book published, and whose wife had been a Methodist and her family also being Methodist, seems to have been attempting to steer to another path–to join his wife’s family’s religion and be a ‘true Christian’ (as many of you would see it). But rather than welcome this prodigal back, he was publicly told that he was not welcome, that he wasn’t good enough to join a probationary class, and that he had to humiliate himself and leave.

If this story is true, then I guess I owe the Methodists a huge favor, and so does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are, in fact, their fault.

If it’s NOT true–and we only have the claim of these two men (who are self admitted enemies of Joseph) to prove it–then it’s just another lie told about Joseph—I mean, really. How many times did Joseph try to join the Methodists, anyway? There’s the time he admitted to–when he was around fourteen, (which is when most of the other reports claim he attempted it) and now this?

Wow. Methodists have a great deal to answer for, it seems. It looks like their intransigence in refusing to allow Joseph admittance has damned the souls of millions, doesn’t it? (yes. that’s sarcasm.)

As for me, given what I know about anti-behavior in general and the specific lies told about Mormons (and about Joseph Smith) in particular, I think----he didn’t join the Methodists in 1828, even for the three days these men claimed. I might change my mind if someone could produce the church records, but, oh, yeah----they were lost prior to the Lewis’s claim.

So we have; one story by two men who admitted that they disliked Joseph, and whose other comments about him were inaccurate and couched in extremely uncomplimentary terms.

We have their story that he enrolled secretly…only the minister himself knowing about it…
That Joseph was warned away from attending before he had come to a single class (three days, guys…he was enrolled, allegedly, for three days…)
And only two people know about this, and they neglected to tell anybody about this for ELEVEN YEARS…

After the church records were lost.

So the question is—why are any of you taking this report as gospel gold? The warning signs on this one should be shining solidly red. They would be for me if I read something like this taking aim at any of your belief systems.

But then, hey, I’m terminally cynical.

 

[dianaiad]

May I just ask a very simple question to all mormons on this thread and indeed on CAF?

Why are you even on this catholic site in the first place? If it is to befirend catholics & learn a little about our faith of … The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus and the Apostles thats fine. Why are you telling us about your beliefs?If we want to know anything about LDS we can look on your websites can we not?
I fear you are here for fraudulent reasons to try to convert us you are on a mission literally.

I do think its nice to be friends and i love all my brothers & sisters whatever religion or not they are.We as catholics already know we are following Gods directions.We evangelise and encourage people to learn what God wants them to do.I am very sorry if people have been rude to you on this site or any other catholic forum but im sure if i were to start evangelising on your mormon.org site i would meet the same attitude.
I personally feel you are here on a mission as i have said, and that is unfair of you as i dont want to be preached to by mormons.I think you are really sincere good people in your own right just misguided & mislead in your beliefs.I wish you all well God be with you.

Because the name of this forum is “non-Catholic religions.” it is a place specifically set aside to discuss non-Catholic religions. Mormonism is a non-Catholic religion. Therefore the appropriate place to discuss it is in the ‘non-Catholic religions.’ forum.

You will notice that we are not making nasty accusations against Catholicism, or even treating Catholics with discourtesy. We are not calling YOUR leaders and Popes “criminals’ and 'frauds.” We are not calling Catholicism a cult…we are discussing Mormonism, and the Mormons are defending their faith against attacks.

…in a forum dedicated to the discussion of non-Catholic religions.

I would understand your objection, completely, if we were posting on, say…“Eastern Catholicism” which is for the discussion of Eastern CAtholicism, or on “Traditional Catholicism” which for the discussion of Traditional Catholicism, or “Liturgy and Sacraments” which is for the discussion of Catholic rites; the Eucharist, Mass, baptism, confession, abuses, Vatican rules…

but we aren’t there, are we?

We are on “non-Catholic religions.” Where we are supposed to be.

 

[zerinus]

One of the nice things about this forum is there are probably wavering Mormons who are looking at this discussion and finding out a lot of new information. They may even eventually become Catholic. They may only be lurkers, but by extending these discussions they are likely strengthened in their resolve to leave Mormonism. I know I went to several sites where various Christians were presenting the case against Mormonism. It was easy for me to see the non-Mormons and former Mormons had a better understanding of the issues than the Mormons trying to defend the LDS Church. When I went to the history books I almost always found the non-LDS were more accurate in their evaluation than the Mormons. Often I could tell the Mormons were trying to hide the problems even by lying about Mormon belief in Heavenly Mother, multiple Gods, etc.

Good for you. I am glad you have found a religion you are happy with. Believe it or not, I have found one too.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker and LDS friends:

The simple fact is the issue of Joseph Smith’s later involvement with the Methodist Church is but one of dozens of issues surrounding him which have caused countless people, including many smarter than myself, to doubt the truthfulness of his message.

From his involvement with seer stones to his SEALING TO other men’s wives; plagiarism of contemporary works and the KJV; and also prophecies which did not come true…from any objective viewpoint the man wasn’t the holy and righteous prophet he is held up to be.

Here is another quote from the OT, from Deuteronomy 18:20-22: *’'How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken…" *

From Prophet Smith in Doctrines and Covenants, section 84, regarding a ‘‘New Jerusalem’’ and new temple to be built in Independence, MI, we have: ‘’…which temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away."

Has the generation of 1832 passed away? Has this ‘‘New Jerusalem’’ and temple been built?

Personally, when it comes to Mr Smith, the one quote which says it all indeed comes from his very own mouth in History of the Church, vol. 6: ’'Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.’’

This prophet even dared to say his work exceeded that of the Lord’s.

In Christ and in truth,
Matthew.

Hey, Matthew Crossman,
I hope you are having a good morning by the time you read this.

Many “smart people” are followers of Joseph Smith, and many “smart people” are not. Many “smart people” told about in the Bible did not follow the Lord, but followed their own wisdom instead. Jesus seemed to attract more the people who sought the wisdom of God rather than the people who sought the wisdom of men and the learning of men.

It would seem that if you are honest “in truth” as your tag line says, you would want to develop a first-hand knowledge of whether Joseph Smith engaged in “plagiarism” rather than trusting the words of someone who got the story from someone else who got the story from someone else who looked at a book and jumped to a conclusion without any credible scholarship. These kinds of assertions don’t need to be trusted at face value–you can make your own study and do your own thinking based on analyzing after a thorough and well-thought examination. Otherwise, being truthful would require that you remain silent on a subject you really know nothing about.

If you want to hang your hat on something, you could hang your hat on the statement you quoted from Joseph Smith’s scribe, but then you would have to have studied his life to understand the context and intent of the statement, and his other words about Paul and about Christ. You would want a fair picture rather than taking one statement out of context.

As to the D & C 84 text, it is:
2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.

The “gathering of the saints” did begin in the State of Missouri, and when the saints were driven from the state by mobs and the governor, they built the temple as they had been commanded by God, in Nauvoo, Illinois. If you want to hold a grudge against people, you could hold it against the people who drove the LDS saints out of the state of Missouri and thus prevented their building a temple in the originally planned place. But the temple was built “in this generation.”

The New Jerusalem is an ongoing project, as implied in those verses. You have talked about scholarship. I underlined the phrase you would want to think about with respect to the New Jerusalem. It says “beginning at this place”. The New Jerusalem can’t really be built fully until a people are ready to be that righteous, and are prepared to be a Zion people. The LDS church talks about building places of Zion all over the world, and have built temples in many lands such as in yours as you probably know. The New Jerusalem will be finished when the people are ready for that kind of a city, but not until. Until then, it is an ongoing preparation process. That is what the gospel is all about–seeking to be a Zion people.

 

[MatthewCrossman]

Parker, thanks for your considered reply.

Speaking about truth as we are…Jesus clearly told Peter the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church and to remember he would be with him always. That came from the very mouth of our Lord.

Doesn’t the Mormon church teach the Holy Spirit soon withdrew from the ‘apostate’ church/es? There is no historical evidence (church or secular) to suggest there was such a great apostasy, or divergence from the early Christian truths, which is the foundational belief of Mormonism.

If there was no apostasy, Smith’s revelation means little. Also, nowhere, in any form of Christianity in history, are the beliefs of the Mormon church found until the time of Mr Smith. None of the uniquely Mormon practices are recorded as being followed by the early church.

Also, as outlined, Mr Smith has had many criticisms made of his moral conduct, both from contemporaries within and outside of his church, and since that time.

As far as allegations relating to plagiarism within the Book of Mormon…how did KJV phrases find their way into golden plates supposedly written before 1611? And then there is the matter of Mr Smith’s mother herself (Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches) casting doubt on his tale of the plates, with young Joe having long regaled the family of stories of the original inhabitants of the Americas, and well before he said he found these plates. The BoM also shares many remarkable similarities with two fictional books of that same period in its tales of Hebrews in the New World.

Further, two of the witnesses to Smith’s translation of the plates later admitted they never actually saw them.

There is no archaelogical evidence whatsoever, not even from Mormon sources, of the BoM’s elephants, chariots, bronze and steel etc. in ancient America. Finally, there’s the fact scientists say DNA analysis shows Native Americans share no lineage whatsoever with Semites, as the BoM claims. How does all this sit with Smith’s statement the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth?

In truth, all of this serves to cast considerable doubt on the claims of this prophet, who later so boldly claimed his work exceeded that of Jesus.

 

[dianaiad]

Parker, thanks for your considered reply.

Speaking about truth as we are…Jesus clearly told Peter the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church and to remember he would be with him always. That came from the very mouth of our Lord.

…and they have not. Here we are, after all…

Doesn’t the Mormon church teach the Holy Spirit soon withdrew from the ‘apostate’ church/es?

Not exactly, no. We agree with the Catholics and Protestants that there was no more public revelation after the apostles (the writers of the NT) died. The difference between us lies in the idea of whether or not that was a good thing. You say it is…we say it wasn’t. There is nothing said by Christ or any of His followers that say that such revelation would cease, and since it obviously continued after His death, then we wonder why it didn’t continue further.

In fact, we pretty much agree with the Catholic view of what happened after the apostles died: men got together in conferences, scholars researched well, everybody did their very best to preserve that which they had…but they claimed no revelation for themselves. Why not?

I guess that’s what stopped me; nowhere in scripture do I see anything that says “I will communicate personally with my apostles and prophets until the year 100 (or whenever that last apostle died) and then it’s entirely up to you” So–what happened?

You MIGHT have an argument that direct revelation would cease at the death of the last of the apostles who personally knew Him in life; I’ve actually heard that argument. However, that one is disproved by Paul, who did NOT know Him in life; he received direct revelation.

That is why we believe that there was an apostasy, basically—because we agree with mainstream Christianity that there was no more revelation. We don’t believe that was a good thing.

However, we do not say that individual guidance through prayer and the answer to prayer stopped. Personal relationships with the Savior continued all throughout history as faithful men and women found their way to Him. They still do.

<snip to end…

 

[ParkerD]

Matthew Crossman,
Good day again. I guess that it has become unproductive and repetitive to me to try and answer all the common things you brought up, since I have written about them repeatedly as have others in these threads about Mormon beliefs. The two books you mentioned are so unlike the Book of Mormon that the only resemblance is that they do bring up the lost tribes of Israel, which was not hard to imagine or guess at since the Bible clearly says they will be scattered to all parts of the world. I have no idea why any intelligent person would say it is plagiarism to say that the Bible is true and its prophecies have come to pass in that scattering of Israel.

The gates of hell will not prevail against Christ, the rock, the foundation stone who is the head of the corner, whom the builders rejected. Christ and His work will certainly prevail, in a greater way than you have any conception of.

The Lamanites were conquered by outsiders, as prophesied in the Book of Mormon. Most were killed. Their DNA would be very mixed, and could no way match Old World people’s DNA, especially since their tribal representation was from Manasseh, of whom the Old World has little knowledge today.

Joseph Smith spent four years learning from Moroni about the Nephites and Lamanites, and told his family those stories during the years he was learning about them by dreams and visions and by the visits of Moroni. He was excited to talk about them, and they were excited to hear, including his mother who didn’t think it was strange at all to be hearing those descriptions.

So your “studies” have brought you third hand poor information on which to base your judgment. I suggest you read the Bible intensely and then compare the doctrines of Mormonism and the promises of revelation and hidden wisdom in both books, as well as the marvelous explanations of the atonement of Jesus Christ and how the law of Moses was given as a preparatory law and covenant for Israel to understand the mission of the Savior. Then make your own informed decision–a much better place to be in. Peace to you.

 

[pipper]

Zundrah,
I see you are having a good evening and good fun. Here is an interesting set of quotes:

Jordan Vajda wrote the following in his thesis on the subject:

“…as the [LDS] doctrine of exaltation explains, the fullness of human salvation means “becoming a god.” Yet what was meant to be a term of ridicule has turned out to be a term of approbation, for the witness of the Greek Fathers of the Church . . . is that they also believed that salvation meant “becoming a god.” It seems that if one’s soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity. However, if that is the case, those who would espouse such a soteriology also believe, in fact, that Christianity, from about the second century on, has apostatized and “gotten it wrong” on this core issue of human salvation. Thus, ironically, those who would excoriate Mormons for believing in the doctrine of exaltation actually agree with them that the early church experienced a “great apostasy” on fundamental doctrinal questions.” (All are his words, not mine.)

A careful reading shows he is not saying Catholics don’t believe in theosis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkerD
I agree that theosis was taught in the early church. I don’t get the feeling from the way people react that theosis is taught in the current church doctrinal explanations that Catholics in general rely on. Otherwise, why would so many be so critical of the LDS belief on this particular subject? "

How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: [2 Pt 1:4] “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” [St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939] “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” [St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B] “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” [St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4] [1265, 1391, 1988]

Imprimi Potest
+Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church

This shows we currently teach theosis and the quotes given show we have taught it all along. It is just one entry in the CCC of many that discuss this subject."–Zaffiroborant

I know this is just barely two pages into what is currently a three page thread, but this whooper is just too big to let it go.

First Badja is a mormon and has no place commenting on a Catholic and Orthodox topic.
Second you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes when you opine ( or try and extablish) that Mormon divinisation and Catholic-Orthodox theosis are one and the same.

Catholic and Orthodox Theosis says that we can come to share in the energies of God, but never the essence (the being) of God.

Mormon divinisation says that not only can mormons can share in the essence of God, but indeed become “gods” themselves.

This is an enormous difference, and we are worlds apart. The very different theologies are also worlds apart, even if you do claim they are exactly the same.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I know this is just barely two pages into what is currently a three page thread, but this whooper is just too big to let it go.

First Badja is a mormon and has no place commenting on a Catholic and Orthodox topic.
Second you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes when you opine ( or try and extablish) that Mormon divinisation and Catholic-Orthodox theosis are one and the same.

He was a catholic at the time he wrote what is quoted.

Catholic and Orthodox Theosis says that we can come to share in the energies of God, but never the essence (the being) of God.

Mormon divinisation says that not only can mormons can share in the essence of God, but indeed become “gods” themselves.

This is an enormous difference, and we are worlds apart. The very different theologies are also worlds apart, even if you do claim they are exactly the same.

I don’t see anything in LDS theology about sharing. Their view from my understanding is that we and God the father are of the same make up. It is not a sharing of God’s nature with us it is the logical “progression” of a human being. They don’t become gods, they mature/progress into godhood because it is innate in their nature and it is by their efforts that this is accomplished.

 

[pipper]

Because the name of this forum is “non-Catholic religions.” it is a place specifically set aside to discuss non-Catholic religions. Mormonism is a non-Catholic religion. Therefore the appropriate place to discuss it is in the ‘non-Catholic religions.’ forum.

You will notice that we are not making nasty accusations against Catholicism, or even treating Catholics with discourtesy. We are not calling YOUR leaders and Popes “criminals’ and 'frauds.” We are not calling Catholicism a cult…we are discussing Mormonism, and the Mormons are defending their faith against attacks.

…in a forum dedicated to the discussion of non-Catholic religions.

I would understand your objection, completely, if we were posting on, say…“Eastern Catholicism” which is for the discussion of Eastern CAtholicism, or on “Traditional Catholicism” which for the discussion of Traditional Catholicism, or “Liturgy and Sacraments” which is for the discussion of Catholic rites; the Eucharist, Mass, baptism, confession, abuses, Vatican rules…

but we aren’t there, are we?

We are on “non-Catholic religions.” Where we are supposed to be.

I think calling us Catholics “totaly apostate” and the church the mormons had to “restore” the “true restored church” away from is a pretty nasty accusation.

But maybe that’s just me?

 

[pipper]

He was a catholic at the time he wrote what is quoted.

I don’t see anything in LDS theology about sharing. Their view from my understanding is that we and God the father are of the same make up. It is not a sharing of God’s nature with us it is the logical “progression” of a human being. They don’t become gods, they mature/progress into godhood because it is innate in their nature and it is by their efforts that this is accomplished.

I know that Badja was a Catholic at the time, a disobedient un-orthodox Catholic, when he learned that the church would never go along with his and mormondoms teaching on divinisation he left the church for the Mormons who welcomed him with open arms. BTW it is mormon teaching they become Gods, but don’t catch up to “heavenly Father” due to their eternal progression teaching, they are “lesser Gods” but still Gods.

I still don’t see how the Mormons can possibly confuse “divinisation” with Theosis, since the two concepts are very different, opposites actually.

I really think this is another try to “prove” that Mormonism is “just another denomination” within Christianity as a whole.

Are you sure you are a Catholic?

The reason I know about Mr. Badja is this has already come up before, when Mormon Finrock tried to pass Badja as a Catholic theologian, and I caught him in this lie. He has not “spoken” to me since.

 

[dianaiad]

I think calling us Catholics “totaly apostate” and the church the mormons had to “restore” the “true restored church” away from is a pretty nasty accusation.

But maybe that’s just me?

Oh, come on. That’s saying that you have different beliefs than we do and we are right, and you aren’t.

That is NOT saying nasty things about YOU. OR the Catholic church. We aren’t claiming, for instance, that you are cultish, or non-Christian, or evil, or even damned. There is a difference between explaining why we believe we exist and attacking you as if you should NOT.

Or, to put it in terms more ‘debate worthy,’ our saying that there was an apostasy is addressing the issue, not attacking the person. It is simply not possible to BE LDS and not believe in the apostasy without being incredibly hypocritical.

Tell me: You do not believe that the Protestants have the truth, right? You believe that their worship of God is different from yours, and even though they might be ‘Christian,’ in your view, you don’t agree with how they think or do things. You’d rather be Catholic. You believe that they were wrong to protest…be Protestant. As such, they are, in a very real way, apostate.

Do you consider that belief to be a ‘nasty accusation?’ If you do, then at least you would be consistent. However, if not–then you need to consider the possibility of a double standard going on in your thinking.

 

[MatthewCrossman]

Matthew Crossman,

So your “studies” have brought you third hand poor information on which to base your judgment. I suggest you read the Bible intensely and then compare the doctrines of Mormonism and the promises of revelation and hidden wisdom in both books, as well as the marvelous explanations of the atonement of Jesus Christ and how the law of Moses was given as a preparatory law and covenant for Israel to understand the mission of the Savior. Then make your own informed decision–a much better place to be in. Peace to you.

Hi Parker,

Check and check. In the past five years I have spent many a late night studying many, many books…non-Mormon and Mormon, secular and religious…as part of my exhaustive quest to get a handle on the truth.

So please don’t cast aspersions on the sincerity of my studies, this is not something I began looking into last week. Also, I have not relied on the countless virulently anti-Mormon websites out there in forming my opinion…I am a skeptic by trade and by nature.

If history, the Bible and the words of Christ himself in fact were consistent with Mormonism’s many entirely unique doctrines, beliefs and practices I could well have been wearing sacred undergarments and talking on an LDS forum right now.

Peace be to you also. Take care.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker,

Check and check. In the past five years I have spent many a late night studying many, many books…non-Mormon and Mormon, secular and religious…as part of my exhaustive quest to get a handle on the truth.

…
If history, the Bible and the words of Christ himself in fact were consistent with Mormonism’s many entirely unique doctrines, beliefs and practices I could well have been wearing sacred undergarments and talking on an LDS forum right now.

Peace be to you also. Take care.

Matthew,
I appreciate knowing more about you. The “plagiarism” comment is what had led to my thinking you had not studied very in depth, and I apologize if you had felt like you arrived at an independent opinion about that. I find doctrinal consistency including much greater understanding of the Old Testament and its many prophecies about the latter times, and the New Testament including the importance of the new covenant and of revealed knowledge, but I can see why some would not take that same view and I respect yours. Have a splendid evening.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I know this is just barely two pages into what is currently a three page thread, but this whooper is just too big to let it go.

First Badja is a mormon and has no place commenting on a Catholic and Orthodox topic.
Second you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes when you opine ( or try and extablish) that Mormon divinisation and Catholic-Orthodox theosis are one and the same.

Catholic and Orthodox Theosis says that we can come to share in the energies of God, but never the essence (the being) of God.

Mormon divinisation says that not only can mormons can share in the essence of God, but indeed become “gods” themselves.

This is an enormous difference, and we are worlds apart. The very different theologies are also worlds apart, even if you do claim they are exactly the same.

He was a catholic at the time he wrote what is quoted.

I don’t see anything in LDS theology about sharing. Their view from my understanding is that we and God the father are of the same make up. It is not a sharing of God’s nature with us it is the logical “progression” of a human being. They don’t become gods, they mature/progress into godhood because it is innate in their nature and it is by their efforts that this is accomplished.

Where in the above do you see anything that is trying to prove that LDS is just another Christian denomination?

I know that Badja was a Catholic at the time, a disobedient un-orthodox Catholic, when he learned that the church would never go along with his and mormondoms teaching on divinisation he left the church for the Mormons who welcomed him with open arms. BTW it is mormon teaching they become Gods, but don’t catch up to “heavenly Father” due to their eternal progression teaching, they are “lesser Gods” but still Gods.

Do you have anything showing he was disobedient and unorthodox at the time? Well disobedient anyway, I think his conclusions show unorthodoxy. I’ve wondered how his masters thesis was received.

I still don’t see how the Mormons can possibly confuse “divinisation” with Theosis, since the two concepts are very different, opposites actually.

I agree, and I’ve seen many LDS come here saying see you believe just like we do and equate theosis with exaltation.

I really think this is another try to “prove” that Mormonism is “just another denomination” within Christianity as a whole.

Are you sure you are a Catholic?

The reason I know about Mr. Badja is this has already come up before, when Mormon Finrock tried to pass Badja as a Catholic theologian, and I caught him in this lie. He has not “spoken” to me since.

Like I said I don’t see that I’m trying “to “prove” that Mormonism is “just another denomination” within Christianity”.

 

[kikkichan]

dianaiad,

Some thoughts:

…

You MIGHT have an argument that direct revelation would cease at the death of the last of the apostles who personally knew Him in life; I’ve actually heard that argument. However, that one is disproved by Paul, who did NOT know Him in life; he received direct revelation.

Is this true? Paul was not a follower of Jesus, during Jesus’ time on earth, but Paul probably did know him. He was at least present when Stephen was stoned, and Jesus did appear to him.

…

That is why we believe that there was an apostasy, basically—because we agree with mainstream Christianity that there was no more revelation. We don’t believe that was a good thing.

I don’t see a connection between no more revelation (i.e., something done by God) and an apostasy (i.e., something done by the up-until-recently faithful followers).

And I don’t think that no more revelation is a good or a bad thing, just a thing. Although, I think, there’s this sense that a *need *for further revelation implies an *incomplete *mission on Jesus’ part. And, therefore, I think, more revelation is unnecessary.

–kc

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad,

Some thoughts:

Is this true? Paul was not a follower of Jesus, during Jesus’ time on earth, but Paul probably did know him. He was at least present when Stephen was stoned, and Jesus did appear to him.

Yes…and Stephen was stoned after Jesus was Crucified. Yes indeed, Jesus did appear to Paul. That, m’friend, is the point. That’s called direct revelation; Jesus appearing to Paul after His death and resurrection. Any appearance of His after that point is revelation–by definition.

There is no evidence to show that Paul ever knew Jesus in life. He was a Pharisee, yes (unless he was lying about that…) but in order to be a member of the Sanhedrin he would have had to be at least forty and the father of a son at the time of Jesus’ death. Stephen was killed about three years later…and Paul at that time was described as a young man.

a ‘young man’ at 43, give or take? I don’t think so. Today’s life expectancy is considerably longer than that of the first century, and WE do not consider 43 to be ‘young man’ appropriate.

Then there is the estimated time of Paul’s death…between 62 and 67…during Nero’s reign, anyway. That would make this old young man something like 70, or close to 80, at his death.

Now that’s certainly possible, but not, I submit, all that probable. I think that Paul was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee…and probably in his late teens or early twenties at the time Stephen was murdered. That would fit in with both his zeal and his abilities to do what he did.

Makes considerably more sense, anyway.

I don’t see a connection between no more revelation (i.e., something done by God) and an apostasy (i.e., something done by the up-until-recently faithful followers).

I do, if God didn’t make an announcement that there was to be no more revelation. Since He didn’t, and since He DID say something about '**surely the Lord God will do nothing save it be by His servants, the prophets" ** (Amos 3:7)

he didn’t negate that…in fact, He made rather a point of continuing that. I know I’ve pounded this point into the ground, but if the idea of direct revelation was to cease, why did God make VERY certain that Jesus Himself never wrote anything? Why is everything we know about Him written by someone ELSE? Why did He pull a classic OT prophetic direct revelation stunt with Paul on that road to Damascus, if He didn’t intend for this method of communication with His people to continue?

And I don’t think that no more revelation is a good or a bad thing, just a thing. Although, I think, there’s this sense that a *need *for further revelation implies an *incomplete *mission on Jesus’ part. And, therefore, I think, more revelation is unnecessary.

–kc

Again, the only way we know about Jesus is that there was revelation. Nothing about Him was written during His lifetime, and the real kicker is this: nobody, especially not God or Jesus, said “this is the end of it; we aren’t talking to you any more.”

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon pipper! Glad to see you again.

The reason I know about Mr. Badja is this has already come up before, when Mormon Finrock tried to pass Badja as a Catholic theologian, and I caught him in this lie. He has not “spoken” to me since.

I just wanted to comment on this since you are accusing me falsely of something I am not guilty of. First, the author is Jordan Vajda. Your representation of what actually occurred is false. Also, I responded to your accusation that I was somehow being deceitful, and explained my mistake. So, I have spoken to you since then and I have ever been more than happy to continue to speak to you. But, perhaps you missed my response to you? I’ll try and find it for you.

Insofar as Jordan Vajda is concerned, he was a practicing Dominican priest (ordained in 1998) when he wrote his thesis and he remained so for almost 5 years after the fact. He joined the Mormon church in 2003. It appears that if you’ve read his thesis, you’ve missed some very critical points in regards to his conclusions. Although he saw similarities between theosis and exalation, he never said that they were equivalent. So far, I have yet to see an LDS poster make the claim either that they are the exact same things, only that there are concepts in theosis that are similar to exaltation. Ontological differences aside, both exaltation and Orthodox understanding of theosis leads to a person becoming a god. In theosis, this isn’t just a title or beatific vision, but it has some real consequences to the persons involved. They become god in everyway, except in essence. Exaltation provides more detail as to the activities of those who become god, but both soteriological teachings give to the humans involved godly attributes and status that is beyond their human nature.

Although I’m no subject matter expert, I have observed that Western Catholics aren’t very well versed in how Orthodox Christians understand theosis and what is actually taught. Theosis, as understood by the East, appears to be very foreign to Western culture, and I think this is unfortunate. In and of itself, it is a beautiful doctrine. I can attest that it is a beneficial understaking to try and understand this doctrine of theosis as it is understood by Orthodoxy. Personally, through my studies of the Orthodox religion and particularly Orthodox soteriology, I have come to appreciate more fully aspects of my own religion and even come to understand aspects that I had not seen before.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon zaffiroborant! I hope you are doing well.

I don’t see anything in LDS theology about sharing. Their view from my understanding is that we and God the father are of the same make up. It is not a sharing of God’s nature with us it is the logical “progression” of a human being. They don’t become gods, they mature/progress into godhood because it is innate in their nature and it is by their efforts that this is accomplished.

Thank you for your post. You’ve done a fine job describing the LDS understanding of how we all have a divine potential through having the same fundamental nature as God. Only the last sentence fragment in your post is incorrect: “…and it is by their efforts that this is accomplished.”

Exaltation is possible only because of grace. In Orthodox theosis, you become god by grace, but one has to be actively involved in travelling the path of theosis. In the same way, exaltation is attained as a person actively strives to travel down the path of salvation, but it is only through grace that we can ultimately reach our final goal. The atonement and Jesus Christ is absolutely essential to exalation. Without it, we could not progress to our divine potential.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Jerusha]

Finrock, perhaps you might do better to explain those fine distinctions to some of your fellow LDS who seem to think that they are living gods. I think it is wasted here; most of us already understand humility. Be a missionary to your own people, instead.