Mormons and Catholics Get Along Fine!

[ParkerD]

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.

Zaffiroborant,
You have brought up something that is important to clarify. As noted by Finrock, the grace of Christ, planned by the Father through their love for all of humankind, enables progress past our small condition as imperfect spirits and then imperfect souls to a state of perfection that really does share what they enjoy but is not rightfully ours. It is not “logical progression”–nothing of the kind. It is perfect grace offered by perfectly loving and perfectly united God the Father and His Son. It is not earned, except that repentance and a contrite heart and gratitude and forgiveness of others and seeking spiritual guidance during this process, are expected. But it is always because of grace that anything heavenly will be obtained. Peace to all.

 

[pipper]

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

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

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

zafiroborant (sorry if I got the speeling wrong on your screen name)

I think the original post was not from you at all, I think your name came up in the OP I responded to.

I am sorry for the whole series of posts between us that ensued.

And I am also sorry for questioning your Catholocism.

I had a stroke and I often get things confused in my mind.

 

[pipper]

Zaffiroborant, I did look back and the post I responded to was by Zundra (sp?). so as I expected it was just a big misunderstanding.

Again, sorry

 

[pipper]

Good afternoon pipper! Glad to see you again.

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 first let me say that I am very sorry for the misunderstanding between us, I think we had a very good cyber-relationship (platonic) going, until this misunderstanding happened, can we re-establish it?

I think that it is indeed sad that westerners have a hard time understanding the very Eastern Catholic/Orthodox concept of Theosis.

EC/Os distinguish the difference between the Essence and Energies of God, And I admit I still have not got a complete understanding of it myself after years of study.

Like I said in Orthodox theology we realise there is a difference between God’s Energies, and God’s Essence. We can come to share in the Energies, but never the Essence. Essence basically (in my mind at least) is what makes God…God. And we can share only the Energies, we cannot come to share in the “Godness” of God. Anyway that is the big difference between Mormon Exhaltation, and Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Theosis. That in my understanding is the reason we can never become Gods. We also believe in only one God.

I know that is a very difficult theological concept to understand, but there it is.

It also makes it not so easy for me to explain. Especially since I have had a stroke. Belive me when I say that I am not spelling Bajda (is that it) incorrectly to be hateful, I just get those spellings mixed up in my mind. Maybe I have a touch of dislexia (sp), besides the stroke I also have Parkinson’s Disease, and the Levadopa I have to take for it makes me very sick, sleepy, it also prevents my sleeping well and when I do get to sleep it is usually like 4AM, and then nmy sleep is fitful and plagued with vivid dreams/nightmares.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening pipper!

I don’t have much time, so I cannot give you a full response right now to your post, but I wanted to make a couple of statements, because I think they are important.

Finrock first let me say that I am very sorry for the misunderstanding between us

I was sorry to have lost your trust.

I think we had a very good cyber-relationship (platonic) going, until this misunderstanding happened, can we re-establish it?

I agree, and absolutely we can!

It also makes it not so easy for me to explain. Especially since I have had a stroke. Belive me when I say that I am not spelling Bajda (is that it) incorrectly to be hateful, I just get those spellings mixed up in my mind. Maybe I have a touch of dislexia (sp), besides the stroke I also have Parkinson’s Disease, and the Levadopa I have to take for it makes me very sick, sleepy, it also prevents my sleeping well and when I do get to sleep it is usually like 4AM, and then nmy sleep is fitful and plagued with vivid dreams/nightmares.

I’m very sorry to hear of your difficulties and trials. I will keep those in mind during our future discussions together.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[zaffiroborant]

zafiroborant (sorry if I got the speeling wrong on your screen name)

I think the original post was not from you at all, I think your name came up in the OP I responded to.

I am sorry for the whole series of posts between us that ensued.

And I am also sorry for questioning your Catholocism.

I had a stroke and I often get things confused in my mind.

It’s ok, I have posted a couple of times because my name is given as the author of some quote and it wasn’t me who wrote it. It seems to happen alot lately I wonder why??

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Jerusha, would you kindly give us some quotes from Latter-day Saints who believe that they are living gods?

Or is that just you being snarky?

 

[kikkichan]

dianaiad,

Thanks for your comments.

Stephen was killed about three years later…and Paul at that time was described as a young man
…
There is no evidence to show that Paul ever knew Jesus in life.
…
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.

Don’t know about the 3-years-later date you have for Stephen’s murder. But that might not make any difference. I was thinking out loud re: the ‘Paul Never knew Jesus in life.’ comment, and I’m not sure I covered any ground with that. And if there were evidence to show that Paul knew Jesus in life, that might amount to an interesting fact, (or not).

You mentioned Amos

'**surely the Lord God will do nothing save it be by His servants, the prophets" ** (Amos 3:7)

-or-

Indeed, the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants, the prophets (Amos 3:7–New American Bible)

I believe this states that revelation will be through prophets. It doesn’t imply a continuing revelation (and yes, I know, it doesn’t deny it )

I’ll have to get back to you re: how Paul’s post Jesus’ life revelations are part of the complete revelation brought to fruition by Christ’s mission.

thanks,
-kc

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad,

Thanks for your comments.

Don’t know about the 3-years-later date you have for Stephen’s murder. But that might not make any difference. I was thinking out loud re: the ‘Paul Never knew Jesus in life.’ comment, and I’m not sure I covered any ground with that. And if there were evidence to show that Paul knew Jesus in life, that might amount to an interesting fact, (or not).

You mentioned Amos

I believe this states that revelation will be through prophets. It doesn’t imply a continuing revelation (and yes, I know, it doesn’t deny it )

I’ll have to get back to you re: how Paul’s post Jesus’ life revelations are part of the complete revelation brought to fruition by Christ’s mission.

thanks,
-kc

I’ll be very interested in what you come up with. I will admit, that no matter what I used to look at, this one thing is what I kept bumping into: Christ speaks to us through His apostles–those who knew Him in life and through those who didn’t know Him until after His resurrection, through the sort of revelation that modern Christians say that Christ’s coming stopped.

I haven’t found any way past that.

 

[RebeccaJ]

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
*** DEI VERBUM***
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

 

[kikkichan]

RebeccaJ,

Ah!, The DV referred to in the CCC 66 footnote, Thanks!

-kc

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
*** DEI VERBUM***
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, theosis teaches that we become partakers of the Divine Nature, not that we actually take on that nature. We do not “become god” in the sense that our basic human nature turns into divine nature. Rather, in Theosis, our humanity is perfected into what God originally intended for man to be. I agree, though, it does have real consequences to the person involved. However, Theosis is not “beyond human nature”, it is the becoming of what humanit was created to be, in the nature and likeness of God, a reflection of His divinity. The process of becoming is supernatural(by grace, through faith).

 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

Yes, I agree with what you say about Theosis and Eastern concepts of Soteriology. This is also shared by the Eastern Rite Catholics.

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon guanophone. Happy 4th of July!

Taking for sharing your thoughts on theosis.

No, theosis teaches that we become partakers of the Divine Nature, not that we actually take on that nature. We do not “become god” in the sense that our basic human nature turns into divine nature. Rather, in Theosis, our humanity is perfected into what God originally intended for man to be. I agree, though, it does have real consequences to the person involved. However, Theosis is not “beyond human nature”, it is the becoming of what humanit was created to be, in the nature and likeness of God, a reflection of His divinity. The process of becoming is supernatural(by grace, through faith).

In the material that I have read and studied, the Greek Church Fathers speak of taking part in God’s “Divine Energies”, not nature, per se. Although I’ve seen it expressed that way, but generally only by “Western” authors. I wish to stress that I understand that theosis doesn’t involve mankind taking upon them God’s essence or nature. This is one of the major distinctions between LDS concept of exaltation and Orthodox theosis. However, from reading from those who have written about theosis, particularly from the Russian and Greek Orthodox perspective, they are quite clear in their writings that man is created to “become god” (they use this very same terminology). They are as equally clear that man can become god, by grace, in every way, except in essence. Also, the Russian and Greek Orthodox theologians express the idea that theosis is beyond what Adam and Eve originally experienced, so it is a return to a pre-Fall condition, but theosis also goes beyond that. They also are clear that when a person is fully divinized, they become “unoriginate and eternal” while simultaneously retaining their human nature. In other words, they can be called “god” and have all of the attributes of god, except becoming what God is in essence.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Talevita]

I’ve spent my whole life in Utah except for college. Come to think of it, I don’t have any Catholic friends. Some of my Mormon friends walked as bridesmaid’s in my Catholic wedding two years ago without question. They had no problem with the Catholic Mass service, and I was more than willing to make gowns with the sleeves to cover their shoulders. But there are other people that I work with or live near that ask me what temple I was married in, what ward I belong to, and where my husband went on his mission. I hear those questions so often and the only answer I can give is one I am never ashamed of: I’m Catholic, I don’t argue with those I am talking to. I just can’t help but forget some of the responses I’ve heard, faces I’ve seen, or things I’ve been offered after that response. That doesn’t mean I have anything against the Mormon church and will ever leave my friends, we all have awkward moments.

 

[Christian55]

Thread: Understanding Mormon Doctrine

Thread Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=352785&highlight=understanding+mormon+doctrine&page=3
Finrock’s Post #18
"Joseph never taught that Adam is God. The Church of Jesus Christ understands the Ancient of Days to be a title given to Adam. It doesn’t refer to Adam being our God. The Church understands that the “Ancient of Days” refered to in the Bible, is Adam. Perhaps when you read the scripture in D&C 116 that you referenced earlier, you missed the part explaining this. But, here is the scripture:

‘Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet’ (D&C 116:1)."

THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS (LDS.org has this online-you can order the book or check your library.)

27:11 calls Adam “father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days”

138:11 calls Adam “the Ancient of Days and father of all”

**Definition of “Ancient of Days” in “The Original Catholic Encyclopedia,” which you can access from this website by clicking on the Tab entitled “Encyclopedia:”
**

•Published by Encyclopedia Press, 1913.
**“Ancient of Days, a name given to God by the Prophet Daniel, vii, 9, 13, 22, in which he contrasts His eternal powers with the frail existence of the empires of the world. **

It is from these descriptions of the Almighty that Christian art derived its general manner of representing the first person of the Holy Trinity. Ancient of Days is expressed in Aramaic by `Atiq yomin; in the Greek Septuagint by palaios emeron; and in the Vulgate by Antiquus dierum.” A. J. MAAS (Your usage constitutes agreement with User License :: Permissions :: Copyright © 2009, Catholic Answers.)

In the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Ancient of Days," is defined as a name given to God by the Prophet Daniel, vii, 9, 13, 22, in which he contrasts His eternal powers with the frail existence of the empires of the world.

The LDS D&C calls “Adam” the “Ancient of Days,” in what is referred to as “Revelations given to Joseph Smith the Prophet.”

Could an LDS Forum Member explain this huge discrepancy regarding the identity of the “Ancient of Days?”

This is particularly important since the second Mormon Prophet, Brigham Young, claimed very clearly that he believed that Adam is God.

Since, the title of this Thread is Mormons and Catholics Get Along Fine, I respectfully ask that LDS members explain and clarify the identity of the god of Mormonism.

 

[ParkerD]

Finrock;5397387:

Finrock;5397387:

THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS (LDS.org has this online-you can order the book or check your library.)

**Definition of “Ancient of Days” in “The Original Catholic Encyclopedia,” which you can access from this website by clicking on the Tab entitled “Encyclopedia:”
**

In the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Ancient of Days," is defined as a name given to God by the Prophet Daniel, vii, 9, 13, 22, in which he contrasts His eternal powers with the frail existence of the empires of the world.

The LDS D&C calls “Adam” the “Ancient of Days,” in what is referred to as “Revelations given to Joseph Smith the Prophet.”

Could an LDS Forum Member explain this huge discrepancy regarding the identity of the “Ancient of Days?”

This is particularly important since the second Mormon Prophet, Brigham Young, claimed very clearly that he believed that Adam is God.

Since, the title of this Thread is Mormons and Catholics Get Along Fine, I respectfully ask that LDS members explain and clarify the identity of the god of Mormonism.

Hi, Christian55,
The verses in Daniel 7 that you brought up say as follows:
“9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
15 I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me.
16 I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.
17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.
18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.
19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;
20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.
21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.”

I would like to think that the Catholic church really does teach and believe that verse 9 describes God the Father, since verse 9 is quite clearly depicting a Person with a physical form and physical substance Who sits on a throne and has white hair. But I don’t get the impression that the Catholic church teaches that. Do you?

Verse 21 says that a “horn” “made war with the saints, and prevailed against them”. This would seem to disagree with the Catholic belief that the “gates of hell” never at any point prevail against the saints because of Christ’s promise to Peter. Do you agree with verse 21?

Joseph Smith taught that Adam (called Michael in pre-mortal life and in the book of Revelation) has a patriarchal role as the father of the human race, and held priesthood keys, which “keys of the kingdom” are to be turned over to Jesus Christ as depicted in verses 13 and 14. Michael had an important role in the war in heaven.

God the Father holds all priesthood keys, so it is not unrealistic to believe that verse 9 depicts Him in His glory, but it would seem unusual for Him to have been called the Ancient of Days by the prophet Daniel.

Adam or Michael has a presiding, patriarchal role in the human family, and received his authority from God the Father through the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ will fulfill verse 14 during the Millenium, when “all people shall serve Him,” and “the saints shall possess the kingdom” presided over by Jesus Christ, as envisioned by the prophet Daniel.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I would like to think that the Catholic church really does teach and believe that verse 9 describes God the Father, since verse 9 is quite clearly depicting a Person with a physical form and physical substance Who sits on a throne and has white hair. But I don’t get the impression that the Catholic church teaches that. Do you?

Daniel 7
“1 In the first year of King Belshazzar of Babylon, Daniel had a dream as he lay in bed, and was terrified by the visions of his mind. Then he wrote down the dream; the account began:”

Perhaps you are not aware the Daniel is a form of writing called “apocryphal”. This form of writing was very popular c.200BC-100AD. It is characterized by rich symbolism, that is often mystical in nature. It is also described as coming from dreams, or in the case of Revelations, a vision.

Of course, a Catholic or Jew does not take these passages literally, as they are apocryphal, and the meaning is derived from understanding the symbolism.

Verse 21 says that a “horn” “made war with the saints, and prevailed against them”. This would seem to disagree with the Catholic belief that the “gates of hell” never at any point prevail against the saints because of Christ’s promise to Peter. Do you agree with verse 21?

This work was written during the persecution against the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167-164 B.C.).

The ten horns represent the kings of the Seleucid dynasty, the only part of the Hellenistic empire that concerned the author. The little horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.), the worst of the Seleucid kings, who usurped the throne.The holy ones are the Jews of the time, who were being persecuted quite fiercely.

Jesus Christ will fulfill verse 14 during the Millenium, when “all people shall serve Him,” and “the saints shall possess the kingdom” presided over by Jesus Christ, as envisioned by the prophet Daniel.

Jesus has this dominion now.

There is nothing in any of this writing that support the claims of Joseph Smith.

 

[Christian55]

ParkerD: you quoted Daniel 7:9-22, and then stated the following:

. . . . . Joseph Smith taught that Adam (called Michael in pre-mortal life and in the book of Revelation) has a patriarchal role as the father of the human race, and held priesthood keys, which “keys of the kingdom” are to be turned over to Jesus Christ as depicted in verses 13 and 14. Michael had an important role in the war in heaven.

God the Father holds all priesthood keys, so it is not unrealistic to believe that verse 9 depicts Him in His glory, but it would seem unusual for Him to have been called the Ancient of Days by the prophet Daniel.

Adam or Michael has a presiding, patriarchal role in the human family, and received his authority from God the Father through the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ will fulfill verse 14 during the Millenium, when “all people shall serve Him,” and “the saints shall possess the kingdom” presided over by Jesus Christ, as envisioned by the prophet Daniel.

**It appears that you are avoiding the issue here. Joseph Smith’s claim that Adam is the “Ancient of Days,” fits well with the words of Brigham Young, who stated very clearly that Adam is God. **

This is a quote from the second Mormon Prophet, Brighan Young, April 9, 1852, found in the Journal of Discourses of the General Authorities of the LDS Church, Volume 1 (For Forum Members who do not have access to the LDS Journal of Discourses, it is online at journalofdiscourses.org/volume-01/):

Journal of Discourses Volume 1:50-51
"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken–HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.

**Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. **They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.

** When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve**; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession.

I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone.

I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming “great is the mystery of godliness,” and tell nothing.

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, “it is an immaterial substance!”

What a learned idea! **Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. **Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now remember from this time forth, and forever, that** Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost**.

I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea–“if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties.”

Treasure up these things in your hearts. In the Bible, you have read the things I have told you to-night; but you have not known what you did read. I have told you no more than you are conversant with; but what do the people in Christendom, with the Bible in their hands, know about this subject? Comparatively nothing."

Brigham Young makes such offensive claims. They are not in anyway related to Catholic doctrine or any other Christian doctrine that I am aware of.

 

[ParkerD]

Daniel 7
“1 In the first year of King Belshazzar of Babylon, Daniel had a dream as he lay in bed, and was terrified by the visions of his mind. Then he wrote down the dream; the account began:”

Perhaps you are not aware the Daniel is a form of writing called “apocryphal”. This form of writing was very popular c.200BC-100AD. It is characterized by rich symbolism, that is often mystical in nature. It is also described as coming from dreams, or in the case of Revelations, a vision.

Of course, a Catholic or Jew does not take these passages literally, as they are apocryphal, and the meaning is derived from understanding the symbolism.

This work was written during the persecution against the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167-164 B.C.).

The ten horns represent the kings of the Seleucid dynasty, the only part of the Hellenistic empire that concerned the author. The little horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.), the worst of the Seleucid kings, who usurped the throne.The holy ones are the Jews of the time, who were being persecuted quite fiercely.

Jesus has this dominion now.

There is nothing in any of this writing that support the claims of Joseph Smith.

Hi, Rebecca J,
Thanks for the response and insights into the Catholic teachings about the book of Daniel. It makes me interested in whom the Catholics believe wrote the book of Daniel?

I realize that Jesus always “rules” the earth, but are you saying that He has “all people” serving Him now, or in what respect is it that “all kingdoms, nations, and languages” “serve Him” if that verse (v.14) has been completely fulfilled?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi, Rebecca J,
Thanks for the response and insights into the Catholic teachings about the book of Daniel. It makes me interested in whom the Catholics believe wrote the book of Daniel?

The author(s) is unknown. The book is named for the person, Daniel. The Jewish Encyclopedia has a good entry on the Book of Daniel. (You will note that this book is not considered one of the prophetic books, or, the Nebi’im.)

I realize that Jesus always “rules” the earth, but are you saying that He has “all people” serving Him now, or in what respect is it that “all kingdoms, nations, and languages” “serve Him” if that verse (v.14) has been completely fulfilled?

Certainly, we believe Christ is King, over all kingdoms, nations, languages, the entire earth. You can read Catholic belief regarding Christ The King in the encyclical Quas primas.