Mormons; and their **THREE** Gods....

[dianaiad]

oh and I bought a book yesterday from Deseret called “The Infinite Apostasy and the Promised Restoration” by Callister. We’ll see how that goes, as I hope to refine my arguments and understand the Mormon perspective on the Great Apostasy more. I also bought a book from Deseret on “Mormons and Masons” that just came out, should be interesting.

It should. I don’t have either book…please let me know what you think of them?

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

It should. I don’t have either book…please let me know what you think of them?

I definitely will! The Apostasy book has gotten great reviews, of course from the LDS side

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

oh and ironically, Elder Callister spoke at Conference on “4 truths”, and he’s definitely speaking as if the Trinity is a belief that the Three are the same Person. He claims that Joseph Smith taught 4 truths that weren’t believed, terming them a “discovery”. We agree with Joseph Smith and Mormons that the Father and Son are separate and distinct. He compared the Father giving the Son to Abraham and Issac, and said that Abraham “was no longer offering up Issac, Abraham is now offering up Abraham”. Of course we don’t believe that, or believe that that’s analogous to the Trinity!

We also agree that Jesus Christ bodily ascended to Heaven, and that He did not shed His body after ascension. I’m assuming some Protestants may disagree?

We also agree that the Heavens are not closed, and that God speaks to us in the same way He did anciently.

 

[PaulDupre]

Of course the “apostles” (who know better) must intentionally and dishonestly mis-characterize Christian beliefs in order to have something to tear down. The Mormons have always concentrated on knocking down straw men, because that’s the only battle they can win.

Mormons lie, it’s the one thing they are consistent about.

 

[georgemiller]

Yea, how about that. But in the end, it really does not matter. When we die, we will not be judged according to our belief about the Trinity. But about our faith in god and our faith in love and in good works.

I 'm not so sure that the above is totally correct. Did not Jesus state that we must love god in spirit and truth. When Jesus states we “must” that sounds like a commandment. Well we not also be judged on our obedience to the revealed will of God? George miller

 

[Zundrah]

Banned? YOU?

I’ll never understand the workings of this forum, I guess.

…

LOL - Dianaiad, I’ve got 15 infractions. 10 had expired but now I how 5 fresh ones! :whacky:

 

[John_Larocque]

Theosis or divinization is one of the central teachings of Eastern Christianity. This link attempts to delineate the differences.

equip.org/articles/mormons-and-patristic-studies

Other early Christian writers used deification terminology; however, most of these writers were careful to safeguard the unity of God, abundantly affirming that there is only one true God. They, therefore, could not have been using deification language in the sense of a human becoming another God in addition to the God presented in Scripture. In other words, they did not mean (as Mormons have continually misrepresented them) that humans become gods by nature (i.e., in actual being) to join a group of gods that includes the “Heavenly Father” God of Christianity.18 The church historian and Eastern Orthodox scholar Jaroslav Pelikan shows that the patristic term deification (or divinization) is synonymous with the patristic term salvation.19 Modern Eastern Catholic theologians have defined deification in the same essential way their patristic forebears did, using it to refer to salvation as participation in the communicable attributes of God’s nature (i.e., those attributes of God’s nature that can be communicated to or possessed by a human, such as holiness, power, and glory) without violating that singular divine nature.20 Eastern Orthodox writer Kallistos Ware makes this clear: "The union between God and the human beings that he has created is a union neither according to [divine] essence nor according to [person], it remains thirdly that it should be a union according to energy. The saints do not become God by essence nor one person with God, but they participate in the energies of God, that is to say, in His life, power, grace, and glory."21

Vladimir Lossky concurs, saying in his interpretation of deification, "If we [humans] were able at any given moment to be united to the very essence of God…we should not at the moment be what we are, we should ,rather,] be God by nature. God would then no longer be Trinity."22 In this case there would be many divine persons beyond the three persons of the Trinity, a notion Lossky rejects as unbiblical. The Mormon doctrine of deification results not only in multiple divine persons beyond the three in the Trinity, as Lossky demonstrates, but also in multiple divine beings beyond the one true God, which is polytheism. Mormons, moreover, not only believe this, but they assume it to have been the theology of the ancients.

Most introductory logic textbooks list a logical fallacy called equivocation that occurs when "some word or group of words is used either implicitly or explicitly in two different senses"23; that is, one word is used to mean two different things. An elephant’s trunk is not a clothes trunk; likewise, patristic and Eastern Orthodox deification is not Mormon deification, despite the fact that Mormon authors would like to think so.24 A classic example of equivocation is when Mormon authors argue that since the Christian community has considered the patristic writers and Eastern Orthodoxy to be Christian, despite having taught deification, so too should Mormons be accorded the title “Christian” despite teaching deification. Mormon deification, however, means attaining godhood within the same basic god-man nature or species as the Mormon “Heavenly Father” God. This pagan notion of deification is sharply divergent from the patristic notion of deification (or salvation), in which a human participates in the presence of God while remaining a distinctly different kind of being.25 In the latter, there remains a sharp qualitative difference between divine and human nature.26 The two natures, divine and human, have been joined only in Jesus.

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

Theosis or divinization is one of the central teachings of Eastern Christianity. This link attempts to delineate the differences.

equip.org/articles/mormons-and-patristic-studies

Thank you for this article! I completely agree with its premise, as far as research goes by LDS apologists into early Christianity, such as Barry Bickmore (who draws heavily from Gnostic gospels). This is the area that I’m primarily interested in, hence why I purchased LDS Elder Callister(of the Seventy)'s book on the “Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration”, since reviews say that he looks at ECF writings to show lost teachings that have been restored in the Mormon church.

 

[PaulDupre]

Thank you for this article! I completely agree with its premise, as far as research goes by LDS apologists into early Christianity, such as Barry Bickmore (who draws heavily from Gnostic gospels). This is the area that I’m primarily interested in, hence why I purchased LDS Elder Callister(of the Seventy)'s book on the “Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration”, since reviews say that he looks at ECF writings to show lost teachings that have been restored in the Mormon church.

The Early Church’s teaching on theosis (what St. Peter called “partaking of the divine nature”) was never lost and is still taught in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“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.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “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.”

• Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 460

But the Christian belief in theosis is not the same as the Mormon belief in exaltation.

Christians believe that we become partakers of the divine nature as a gift of grace (as St. Peter said). God’s nature is not our nature, but by adoption as sons of God, we get to share in His nature, as a poker put into a hot fire will begin to glow, but the glow is that of the fire, never of the poker. The poker never becomes the fire, but only shares in its heat and light,

Mormons believe that our nature is already divine - that their god is a human and thus shares the same nature that we already have. They believe they are “gods in embyro” and that in exaltation they reach their full native potential, as their god did when he became a god.

These are two very different beliefs.

 

[ParkerD]

Of course the “apostles” (who know better) must intentionally and dishonestly mis-characterize Christian beliefs in order to have something to tear down. The Mormons have always concentrated on knocking down straw men, because that’s the only battle they can win.

Mormons lie, it’s the one thing they are consistent about.

Paul,
What happens, IMO, is that the kinds of writings that Nancy posted earlier today are so internally inconsistent and unintelligible, that perhaps some Protestant denominations have misconstrued what they were “supposed” to believe based on the Nicene creed or the teachings of the supposed early “learned leaders”, and been quoted, or perhaps someone has actually tried to put such writing into other words (their own re-statement of what the words they were reading “said”). Every such piece of writing one encounters on this website has an undercurrent of built-in intellectual self-deception or self-deception when compared with the Biblical teachings it is supposedly based on.

 

[dianaiad]

I 'm not so sure that the above is totally correct. Did not Jesus state that we must love god in spirit and truth. When Jesus states we “must” that sounds like a commandment. Well we not also be judged on our obedience to the revealed will of God? George miller

Indeed…the scriptures say that “God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” So…we are spirits, also, if we must worship Him in spirit, yes? Yet here we are, physically touchable, very physical; we have bodies.

So I don’t quite see how the above verse could mean that God is ONLY Spirit, if it goes on to command us to worship Him in Spirit—if we are both.

To interpret it that way is equivocation…and eisegesis.

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

Paul,
What happens, IMO, is that the kinds of writings that Nancy posted earlier today are so internally inconsistent and unintelligible, that perhaps some Protestant denominations have misconstrued what they were “supposed” to believe based on the Nicene creed or the teachings of the supposed early “learned leaders”, and been quoted, or perhaps someone has actually tried to put such writing into other words (their own re-statement of what the words they were reading “said”). Every such piece of writing one encounters on this website has an undercurrent of built-in intellectual self-deception or self-deception when compared with the Biblical teachings it is supposedly based on.

I’m sorry, I don’t agree. I just reread what Nancy posted from Tertullian and Pope Dionysius, and did not see any internal inconsistencies or that they were unintelligible. I see no intellectual self-deception, and I’d be curious if you can point out what you mean by the above post.

I think what Paul is saying, or at least how I see it, is that we can understand when the average Mormon, or even the average “amateur” (as we all are) Mormon apologist, gets traditional Christian beliefs mixed up, or does not accurately state what we believe, since it can be difficult. However, it is different when an authority stands up at an official meeting, and compares his own beliefs to others, but is actually comparing them to something that no one believes. He doesn’t even have to go to the ECF’s, since frankly, everyone “proof-texts” from them to prove their own doctrines, including Mormons. So, for us, it’s just different when an authority, such as one of the Seventy or an Apostle, misrepresents “traditional” beliefs, and I’m not saying that he has to know exactly what we teach, but if it’s being used as an example, it makes sense to at least know the basics.

 

[ParkerD]

Tertullian

“We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics” (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

“And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).

“Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (ibid., 9).

“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number” (ibid., 25).

ThuriferAcolyte,

I realize you don’t think the above has internal inconsistency, but I think it does. How can “three coherent persons” be “inseparable from each other” if those words mean what they mean in English usage? To be coherent would be to be individually identifiable. To be individually identifiable would be to be “separable” in terms of their identity. They can be one in purpose, one in “substance” if substance means “the qualities that make God, God”, but they would be individually identifiable. Plus, the use of the terms “mystery of the oikonomia” sets up a mystery of what one is supposed to believe. That word is not from the Bible or anything close to the Bible. I think it is an intellectually dishonest word.

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,

I realize you don’t think the above has internal inconsistency, but I think it does. How can “three coherent persons” be “inseparable from each other” if those words mean what they mean in English usage? To be coherent would be to be individually identifiable. To be individually identifiable would be to be “separable” in terms of their identity. They can be one in purpose, one in “substance” if substance means “the qualities that make God, God”, but they would be individually identifiable. Plus, the use of the terms “mystery of the oikonomia” sets up a mystery of what one is supposed to believe. That word is not from the Bible or anything close to the Bible. I think it is an intellectually dishonest word.

I think that it is clear what is meant here, as far as inseparability, whether from a Trinitarian perspective or the Mormon perspective. First, let’s look up “inseparable”:

Webster’s:
1 : incapable of being separated or disjoined
2 : seemingly always together : very intimate
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inseparable

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are inseparable. They are united in purpose, will, and intent (I will leave off substance so we can focus on what we agree on,however it has no effect on my argument). As you said to nancy, they are not three powers, but they are one power. Therefore, within the separatness that we both acknowledge, that they really are separate and distinct Persons, they are also inseparable on another level, the level which makes them One. Inseparable here does not mean that they are attached to each other, which I think is how you take it, but that while they are distinct, they are inseparable on a totally different level. There is a real relationship between the Three, and thus they cannot be separated from each other.

Tertullian actually explains this further in that article:

“He says to them “You are not ignorant whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but He that sent me is true, whom you know not; but I know Him, because I am from Him.” He did not say, Because I myself am He; and, I have sent my own self: but His words are, “He has sent me.” When, likewise, the Pharisees sent men to apprehend Him, He says: “Yet a little while am I with you, and (then) I go unto Him that sent me.” When, however, He declares that He is not alone, and uses these words, “but I and the Father that sent me,” John 8:16 does He not show that there are Two— Two, and yet inseparable? Indeed, this was the sum and substance of what He was teaching them, that they were inseparably Two; since, after citing the law when it affirms the truth of two men’s testimony, He adds at once: “I am one who am bearing witness of myself; and the Father (is another,) who has sent me, and bears witness of me.””

newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm

“oikonomia” is actually found in the Bible! “Oikonomia” is Greek for “household management” or “law of the house”, or other related terms. Tertullian defines it as “dispensation”, and this is actually how various versions of the Bible translate it. Ephesians 3, from verse 9 on, is directly related to what Tertullian is speaking of (and clearly calls it a mystery), namely that God was revealed through Jesus Christ. You may be interested in this article:

godseconomy.org/quotes/index.html

Therefore, I still do not see what is internally inconsistent here. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate, distinct Persons, yet, they are inseparable as to their will, intent, purpose, power, etc. They are all related to each other, and come together, with the Father as the source. And “oikonomia” is a Biblical term, and is related to the management of things, as we can read in Ephesians 3, for one.

 

[ParkerD]

I think that it is clear what is meant here, as far as inseparability, whether from a Trinitarian perspective or the Mormon perspective. First, let’s look up “inseparable”:

Webster’s:
1 : incapable of being separated or disjoined
2 : seemingly always together : very intimate
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inseparable

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are inseparable. They are united in purpose, will, and intent (I will leave off substance so we can focus on what we agree on,however it has no effect on my argument). As you said to nancy, they are not three powers, but they are one power. Therefore, within the separatness that we both acknowledge, that they really are separate and distinct Persons, they are also inseparable on another level, the level which makes them One. Inseparable here does not mean that they are attached to each other, which I think is how you take it, but that while they are distinct, they are inseparable on a totally different level. There is a real relationship between the Three, and thus they cannot be separated from each other.

Tertullian actually explains this further in that article:

newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm

“oikonomia” is actually found in the Bible! “Oikonomia” is Greek for “household management” or “law of the house”, or other related terms. Tertullian defines it as “dispensation”, and this is actually how various versions of the Bible translate it. Ephesians 3, from verse 9 on, is directly related to what Tertullian is speaking of (and clearly calls it a mystery), namely that God was revealed through Jesus Christ. You may be interested in this article:

godseconomy.org/quotes/index.html

Therefore, I still do not see what is internally inconsistent here. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate, distinct Persons, yet, they are inseparable as to their will, intent, purpose, power, etc. They are all related to each other, and come together, with the Father as the source. And “oikonomia” is a Biblical term, and is related to the management of things, as we can read in Ephesians 3, for one.

ThuriferAcolyte,
OK. I didn’t know about “oikonomia” but I can see that the word "economy’ approximates the same sound so I get it.

What I am hearing you “say” is that the LDS understanding of God as one in purpose, power, and continuing intimate relationship that includes them being all-knowing at every point in time, differs from the Catholic understanding of God in use of terminology (by not using the word “Trinity”) and in describing God the Father as having a resurrected body, but that’s about it other than somehow Christ is represented as never having really been the “Firstborn” since He always existed as God rather than became the Firstborn when He was brought forth into being a Spirit Son of God by God the Father.

Is that correct in describing the basic differences?

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,
OK. I didn’t know about “oikonomia” but I can see that the word "economy’ approximates the same sound so I get it.

No problem I actually knew about it previously because the Eastern Orthodox Church uses it a lot in terms of “management” of converts (since I did think about converting at one point, and still randomly do…).

What I am hearing you “say” is that the LDS understanding of God as one in purpose, power, and continuing intimate relationship that includes them being all-knowing at every point in time, differs from the Catholic understanding of God in use of terminology (by not using the word “Trinity”) and in describing God the Father as having a resurrected body, but that’s about it other than somehow Christ is represented as never having really been the “Firstborn” since He always existed as God rather than became the Firstborn when He was brought forth into being a Spirit Son of God by God the Father.

Is that correct in describing the basic differences?

I’m sure a lot of people would disagree with me, but yes, on a basic level, there is a difference in terminology used, however we believe many of the same things as far as God. This is why I’m always confused when some say that Joseph Smith’s First Vision was ground breaking because, for one, the Father and the Son were separate. We would agree with that, since the Trinity is founded on the belief that the Three are separate and distinct. And of course like I always say, we don’t believe that Jesus Christ prayed to Himself. This is actually something I need to look into as far as “Unitarians” or “Oneness Pentecostals”, whose beliefs are more in line with what some think the Trinity is.

Yes, a main difference is that we do not believe that the Father has a resurrected body, since we don’t believe that the Father ever had a body to resurrect.

Yes, we believe that Jesus Christ has always existed, eternally as God (the Son). He was not brought forth into being, since He always existed, and was and is always God. We do not believe that “Firstborn” means that He was actually the first born of the Father’s spirit children (I’m assuming you’re referring to Colossians 1:15- “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature”). An analogous statement in the Bible is Jeremiah 31:9, where Ephraim is called the firstborn (and uses the same Greek word “prototokos”), or Psalm 89:27, where David is called the firstborn, or in Exodus 4:22 where God says that Israel/Jacob is His firstborn. We believe “firstborn”/prototokos in these situations actually and clearly refers to preeminence or authority, and not birth order. So, yes, that would be another way that we differ.

I think that there are a few other ways that we differ on the nature of God, however the two major ones are as you said, God the Father having a resurrected body of flesh and bones (and what that implies about His ‘past’), and Jesus Christ being brought into existence.

 

[Stephen168]

Plus, the use of the terms "mystery of the oikonomia

" sets up a mystery of what one is supposed to believe. That word is not from the Bible or anything close to the Bible. I think it is an intellectually dishonest word.
ParkerD;5785232:

OK. I didn’t know about “oikonomia” but I can see that the word "economy’ approximates the same sound so I get it.

 

[Stephen168]

I think that there are a few other ways that we differ on the nature of God, however the two major ones are as you said, God the Father having a resurrected body of flesh and bones (and what that implies about His ‘past’), and Jesus Christ being brought into existence.

I would think the major difference is the number of beings, which is the difference between a Christian belief and a non-Christian belief.

 

[ParkerD]

No problem I actually knew about it previously because the Eastern Orthodox Church uses it a lot in terms of “management” of converts (since I did think about converting at one point, and still randomly do…).

I’m sure a lot of people would disagree with me, but yes, on a basic level, there is a difference in terminology used, however we believe many of the same things as far as God. This is why I’m always confused when some say that Joseph Smith’s First Vision was ground breaking because, for one, the Father and the Son were separate. We would agree with that, since the Trinity is founded on the belief that the Three are separate and distinct. And of course like I always say, we don’t believe that Jesus Christ prayed to Himself. This is actually something I need to look into as far as “Unitarians” or “Oneness Pentecostals”, whose beliefs are more in line with what some think the Trinity is.

Yes, a main difference is that we do not believe that the Father has a resurrected body, since we don’t believe that the Father ever had a body to resurrect.

Yes, we believe that Jesus Christ has always existed, eternally as God (the Son). He was not brought forth into being, since He always existed, and was and is always God. We do not believe that “Firstborn” means that He was actually the first born of the Father’s spirit children (I’m assuming you’re referring to Colossians 1:15- “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature”). An analogous statement in the Bible is Jeremiah 31:9, where Ephraim is called the firstborn (and uses the same Greek word “prototokos”), or Psalm 89:27, where David is called the firstborn, or in Exodus 4:22 where God says that Israel/Jacob is His firstborn. We believe “firstborn”/prototokos in these situations actually and clearly refers to preeminence or authority, and not birth order. So, yes, that would be another way that we differ.

I think that there are a few other ways that we differ on the nature of God, however the two major ones are as you said, God the Father having a resurrected body of flesh and bones (and what that implies about His ‘past’), and Jesus Christ being brought into existence.

ThuriferAcolyte,
I appreciate your candid response. It does not appear to me that the paragraph quoted by Nancy from Tertullian used the word “oiconomia” as synonymous with “economy”, and if it had I see no mystery about the concept that God has a “management plan” meaning basically the plan of salvation. The use of the word “mystery” was unneccessary in that context, unless that word was being used to draw some other meaning.

I have two fairly simple questions for you as follow-up:

1. If you would care to describe in your own words, the description of God the Father. If you use the word “Spirit”, then describe if you will what is meant by that word, based on your personal understanding.
2. Please explain why many Catholics seem to be upset by the idea of anyone saying they are seeking to become “like Christ” whom they believe to be God the Son, yet John wrote in 1 John 3:
   1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
   2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
   3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Do they think John did not know what he was talking about, or didn’t know how to explain himself well?

 

[Stephen168]

1. Please explain why many Catholics seem to be upset by the idea of anyone saying they are seeking to become “like Christ” whom they believe to be God the Son,…

How would the Mormon Church define/describe “like Christ?”