Mormons: this is a BIG DEAL

  • Thread starter Thread starter nebula
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tsuzuki said:
Yet it is not blasphemy to say that one can become God through participation with Him. If God is eternal, then it’s possible for this pattern to have played out before.
Click to expand...
Then you are misdirecting your worship to a finite god instead of the eternal source- GOD,a nd that too is blasphemy.
 
Tsuzuki said:
I don’t know about anyone else, but my worship is focussed on the eternal source. In deification/theosis that tends to get blurred a bit (the energies, anyway), but I still know who and what I worship.
Click to expand...
tsuzuki,

Pinning down what you believe really isn’t the point of this post ;). Of course I could ask what you are doing in a religion that is explicitly blasphemous in that it worships a finite being, but I doubt that would get anywhere.
 
Tsuzuki said:
I am referring to official Catholic teaching here (if anyone wants to correct me, please do so). The Catholic Church teaches that we may become God through participation in His energies, but not in His essence. This is not blasphemy.
Click to expand...
I never denied that. Reread my post. THe point is that Mormonism has its members worship an exalted, and therefore finite, being. I never took issue with theosis.
 
Tsuzuki said:
Which is more important to you, condemning Mormonism or showing Mormons genuine theosis in their own doctrines? (And yes, the Catholic/Orthodox interpretation of theosis is one legitimate way to interpret Mormon exaltation.)

Instead of a blanket condemnation of blasphemy, it might be better to do something more productive, like fostering mutual understanding. Partially founded accusations only make people defensive, and you’ll never get anything done that way.
Click to expand...
Right, and officially belonging to an organization which does promote blasphemy is going to help too. I COULD be deceptive, become active in the LDS church just to try to undermine traditional Mormon doctrine at every turn, OR I could be honest and upfront about my thoughts on the topic.

There is a time for everything, and when the time calls for it I speak softly and gently, but on a Catholic debate board frankness is called for.
 
SchonGirl1 said:
My sister happened to read The Book of Mormon and found some very weird things about what they believe.

They believe that if we live a nearly flawless life, give money to the Mormon church, among other things, then when we die we will be given a planet of our own to rule over as a god-figure. So basically, we will become like gods, with the supreme God being equal to us. Pretty sure that is the gist if it… Kind of odd, don’t you think? Because if I remember correctly, Satan told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the tree of good and evil, then they would become like gods. Which means we are already like God in that we have knowledge of what is good and what is evil. Plus, we were made in God’s image. The characteristics we posses are things which God posses, with the exception of sadness, anger, despair, and all other negative feelings or emotions.

Okay now on to the major stuff. How to defend the divinity of Jesus… A great starting point is that there a lot of places in the Bible where God tells a prophet that he will send a Savior, his Son. Another great thing is that Jesus rose from the dead, as well as raising other people from the dead. NO ONE else has ever done this!!! Isn’t it amazing!!! Who else but GOD could defeat death? Certainly not Satan, as he IS death and destruction.

I am going to assume that you (nebula) were not involved in the Mormon church (which should actually be considered a cult) for an extremely long time. It appears to me that the deeper you got into some of the stuff, the more contradictions you found. This is the fact with many churches now a days, there is division.

Take the issue of contraception (Birth Control Pills, rings, etc.). Many churches used to be against these things, but they all fell to pressure from the populace, all except the Catholic Church which maintains the teachings against use of contraceptives. There are many reasons why the Church has the teachings it does. But most importantly is the fact that the Church does not give in, it is the ROCK which Jesus talked of.

There are several good books out there which address the weaknesses of Mormonism. I do not know all of them, but you may want to check out “When Mormons Call” or Catholic Answers has “Inside Mormonism.” Both of these are really good.
Click to expand...
Cool. I’ll have to check these out. 😉
 
nebula said:
That’s pretty much the definition of blasphemy- confusing the created order for the creator. By claiming that God is God by virtue of preexisting natural laws is falling right into the blasphemy trap.
Click to expand...
OOPS couldn’t last forever. Now you’re getting cranky.
 
Tsuzuki said:
Yet it is not blasphemy to say that one can become God through participation with Him. If God is eternal, then it’s possible for this pattern to have played out before.
Click to expand...
Dang. I have to agree with you again? 😉
 
Tsuzuki said:
It’s not undermining anything or being deceptive if it’s a legitimate interpretation of LDS doctrine.
Click to expand...
How do you know what counts as a ‘legitimate’ interpretation when in the short history of Mormonism the standard has been worship of heavenly father a finite God?

You seem keen on constructing everything yourself, a little of this, a little of that and putting together as YOU see fit. Both Mormonism and Catholicism require submission to a higher authority. That’s why you don’t get it and aren’t likely to, for now.
 
Tsuzuki said:
When a significant number of TBM Mormons on and offline, and in various levels of ecclesiastical and educational leadership, begin to agree with my interpretations of exaltation after learning of the orthodox interpretations of theosis, I can surmise that it has a degree of validity in a Mormon context. I am not constructing anything.

What Mormons ultimately worship is the glory of God, which is not possible to become, but is possible to share in through exaltation.
Click to expand...
Not if you take the words heard in say, General Conference, at face value. If I put in the word ‘worship’ into the lds.org search engine I don’t see a bunch of information about worshiping the glorfy of God, I see things about worshipping heaven father and Jesus Christ. Should I believe that you are the authority to determine the normative Mormon stance, or the words of the leaders of the LDS church?
 
Tsuzuki said:
When a significant number of TBM Mormons on and offline, and in various levels of ecclesiastical and educational leadership, begin to agree with my interpretations of exaltation after learning of the orthodox interpretations of theosis, I can surmise that it has a degree of validity in a Mormon context. I am not constructing anything.

What Mormons ultimately worship is the glory of God, which is not possible to become, but is possible to share in through exaltation.
Click to expand...
Wrong. We can BECOME LIKE HIM.

Bold and clear enough? Even John 17 says that. We will sit in his throne as one with him as Jesus is one with him. I don’t know what the “glory of God” is, and I don’t worship it. I worship my Father and want to “grow up” to be just like him.

What you are describing is orthodox theosis, which is to me an apostate watered down version which is interesting for its historic value only and an evidence that the true doctrine was once taught.

Just as I believe the Kabballah and occult teachings are apostate versions of what was originally revealed to Adam in the temple ceremonies. Interesting for historic value only.

And the “satan stuff” comes in with your alteration of the latin for John 1-5 about the savior shining in the darkness, where you have lucifer (yes I know that means light bearer so it could be the savior but is not) shining in the darkness. Clever pun but no cigar for me. Sounds pretty satanic to have lucifer taking the place of the savior. Gave me that impression from day 1 first time I saw it
 
mfbukowski said:
.

Just as I believe the Kabballah and occult teachings are apostate versions of what was originally revealed to Adam in the temple ceremonies. Interesting for historic value only.
Click to expand...
Including masonry. Albert Pike says it comes from Solomon’s temple and who am I to argue with him about masonry?
 
"John
Chapter 1
in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum
hoc erat in principio apud Deum
omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est
in ipso vita erat et vita erat lux hominum
**et lux in tenebris lucet **et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt "

“lucifer in tenebris lucet”

Big difference. The implication is clear. If you wanted to say light why did you change it to lucifer?
 
mfbukowski said:
"John
Chapter 1
in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum
hoc erat in principio apud Deum
omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est
in ipso vita erat et vita erat lux hominum
**et lux in tenebris lucet **et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt "

“lucifer in tenebris lucet”

Big difference. The implication is clear. If you wanted to say light why did you change it to lucifer?
Click to expand...
mf, I see we’re on a roll again! Keep this up I might just have to get you a hot chocolate. I mean that about your last three statements as well.

I’ll say this mf, we disagree, but I appreciate the fact that you say what you are and there are no games that way. I respect that.
 
Tsuzuki said:
Um, you do know that Joseph Smith, and a large portion of other early Mormon leaders, were masons, right? There are a significant number of Mormon masons nowadays too. Joseph Smith used much of the symbolism and methods of freemasonry to tell a different message in the endowment. Also, freemasonry originated in England in the 16th century, not the temple of Solomon.
Click to expand...
Did you not read my post? I know what people say about masonry. Do you not know Pike?

Yes I know Joseph was a mason. I don’t know we are not communicating here. I thought you were familiar with this stuff – I will go back and re-wite it at lenght
 
Tsuzuki said:
"Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem: cui benefacitis attendentes quasi lucernæ lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies elucescat, et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris:"
- 2 Peter 1:19 (Latin)​
Click to expand...
I ain’t buying it dude. Yes that passage uses it that way, but of course there is the Isaiah passage which is definitive

Isaiah 14:12

"quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes "

And then there are these two which use forms of matutinus and stella for “morning star”

Rev 2:28
sicut et ego accepi a Patre meo et dabo illi stellam matutinam

Rev. 22:16

ego Iesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis haec in ecclesiis ego sum radix et genus David stella splendida et matutina

There is absolutely no reason to use “lucifer” in your signature in that context unless you are deliberately substituting lucifer for “lux”.

You have said “The light bearer (lucifer) shines in darkness” instead of “the light shines in darkness”

If there was no pun intended, why pick such a passage and then alter it for your signature?

And as far as I can tell, the symbol you use for your signature includes a stylized mixture of the miraculous medal with the compass and square - am I right? I have not problem with that considering where you are coming from, but changing that scripture that way definitely gives me the willies.

We’ll get to Solomon tomorrow
 
books.google.com/books?ct=result&id=5TBpsD7Mt38C&dq=Albert+Pike&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&sig=ACfU3U1eZYOwo9RYAVw9MuMDEWzzkeR5Vw&q=page+785#PPA785,M1

If this works, this is the link to Pike’s book Morals and Dogma, page 785

In this section of the book he is describing a Kabbalistic ritual which mention’s Solomon’s “True Philosophy”

Pike was a 33rd degree mason, who lived this stuff his whole life and knew the “craft” inside and out.

If he believed it, it was definitely part of masonic teachings.

I don’t want to make a big deal about this-- just that it was Pike’s teaching that it came from Solomon
 
PaulDupre said:
Yes, of course. It’s in the bible.

Yes, no one ever said he doesn’t.

Yes. The bible tells us so.

Yes, if we are faithful and repentant.

Yes.

The meek. But the bible doesn’t say when, for how long or under what circumstances.
Click to expand...
Paul thanks for your answer.
What I am thinking is this ----
I am trying to put this thought together from what I am understanding from what is said from the Catholic point. ?
If the meek are to inherit the earth we have to assume that it includes those who have passed on.
This means that all the meek will inherit it when they are resurrected, and if it is an inheritance surely its for eternity. ?
Therefore the disciples of Jesus are to live on the earth and Jesus with them and if Jesus is God then God will live on a planet / sphere

YES / NO ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top