Mormons: Henotheists or Polytheists?

[zerinus]

zerinus,

That’s just the thing, I’m not trying to pull a fast one on you, but you seem to be devoted to the idea that I am. There aren’t any judges here to say “you are the winner of the debate” so that seems completely pointless. If I bring up a point, ti’s because I sincerely think it’s valid and important, even if you disagree with that judgement before we even get started. That’s why I wondered if you were tired of getting burned, it wasn’t my intention to imply that you are a poor debater.

Anyway, moving on from that, no it’s not clear to me that the ECFs thought that others could become literal ontological equals to God. With all of them, God pre-exists us, and is the ultimate source of creation, and cannot be. In every case, God is offering something to us, we are not growing up into it (as in Mormonism).

I don’t know how you think you can do theology without philosophy, we all employ philosophy, whether we acknowledge it or not, and you’d be better off acknowledging it so that you can figure out what kind of philosophy you employ. Why not use precision of language? We are all stuck with finite human languages, why not do the best we can with it? If you want, I’ll say “different kind of Being” every time I talk about God, but why not talk about an infinite ontological divide since that expresses my thoughts all the more clearer?

By the way, if you really want to understand things in the simple language of the Bible, are you going to learn the biblical languages and study textual criticism to try to derive the earliest and most authentic version? Nothing about this is really simple, but I doubt we should expect that since we are dealign with the infinite God communicating with finite humans.

Philosophy or no philosophy; I understand deification in the same way that the Early Church Fathers understood it; and that is the same as how Mormonism uderstands it. That is the bottom line.

zerinus

 

[nebula]

Philosophy or no philosophy; I understand deification in the same way that the Early Church Fathers understood it; and that is the same as how Mormonism uderstands it. That is the bottom line.

zerinus

You just threw out quotes as if it contradicted what I said, but from what I see, they completely affirmed what I said. So do you agree with my earlier statement about defining God vs gods or not?

 

[zerinus]

You just threw out quotes as if it contradicted what I said, but from what I see, they completely affirmed what I said. So do you agree with my earlier statement about defining God vs gods or not?

No comment. Have a nice day.

zerinus

 

[nebula]

No comment. Have a nice day.

zerinus

zerinus,

Definitely disappointing. I was enjoying our discussion. Oh well. Just acquiring quotes here and there from the Bible and the ECFs does not equal thorough understanding and research.

 

[BDawg]

Yes, but that is not what your essay says.

Yes it is. I posted the relevant paragraph when I asked if you thought it was ok. (I can’t go back and edit the original post, if that’s what you are looking at.) Here is the relevant paragraph, again.

Note that the word “simple” is a technical philosophical/theological term meaning “completely homogeneous” or “without parts.” If this is what God is, then the Trinity must be a single Being, a single spiritual “substance.” But since the New Testament clearly presents them as three “persons,” the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must somehow all exist as distinct persons within an spiritual “substance” that has no parts. Exactly HOW a “simple” Being can be Three Persons is supposed to be a mystery that is not accessible by human reason. (Note: I do not mean to say that mainstream Christians think their doctrine is unbelievable or irrational. Rather, they simply assert that there are some things about God that the human mind can’t understand. Mormons also believe that there are things about the eternal worlds that the human mind can’t fathom without experiencing them—see D&C 76:114-116)

 

[buffgbob]

I know this post is kind of pointless (at least to zerinus), because in as much as the early Church Fathers “support” his claims they were right, and inasmuch as they blatently deny his claims I’m sure they were “apostate.”

I would like to point out, though, that Catholics do believe through Baptism we become partakers of the divine nature. We become sons of God. 2 Peter : 4

By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature

This is a very different understanding than zerinus has (or I should say Mormons in general as I can’t really speak for zerinus). He, of course, won’t give us his view so I just have to assume he follows his church. I know the early Church Fathers make it clear that we are sons by “adoption” and remain that way by “participation.” I know the early Church Fathers make clear that the Father in heaven is eternal with the Son and the Holy Spirit (who are begotten/proceeded “yet not by abscission”.) This, of course, is in direct contrast to Mormon teaching that the Father was once a man, that matter is eternal, and that there is ontological subordination of the Son.

I know zerinus doesn’t want to use “big philisophical words”, which of course makes it impossible to find out what he believes. He says he believes what the early Church Fathers taught and that is great, but then he says that Mormons do too. Ouch, that is clearly and demonstrably false.

Now here is the meat of what I am talking about above. I am not in the business of re-reading thousands of pages to find tracts and context I need, so I rely on the skills of people who came before me. The page I am going to link is anti-JW, so I’m sure zerinus will refuse to read it on that basis alone. However, the author does a fantastic job of giving the reader a lot of context. The author lifts large portions of the early Church Fathers. This, of course, is in stark contrast to zerinus’ one line quotes (with brackets to tell us exactly what we should take it to mean.) I encourage everyone to read it when they have an opportunity.

catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/antenicene.html