Mormons; when and why did Jesus come to America?

[SnakeMauler]

Wheres the arachaelogical evidence of all the claims in the book of Mormon? And there’s no way Jesus went to America. After the crucifixion, he was ressurected and breathed the holy spirit into his disciples or something like that.Right?

 

[TOmNossor]

I most certainly do not accept Mormon claims on their own warrant, for that would require me to have faith in the Mormon religion, which I disavow publicly in the strongest and clearest terms. I also do not make any assumptions at all, let alone illogical ones. On the contrary, I use logic to point out that Mormon beliefs are self-contradictory, and therefore cannot be true. The Mormon god cannot have been born as an ordinary man on another planet if he had created the universe, for in that case he was no ordinary man. On the other hand, if he was god and creator from the outset, then that was simply the immutable reality of his existence and there was no “theosis” (the belief that humans can rise to godhood). Patently, without this precedent the very concept of “theosis” is invalidated, even within the context of Mormon theology.

I will the first one to admit that, any question of character aside, Joseph Smith was wonderfully imaginative and certainly possessed a masterful understanding of human nature, but a logician he was not.

You make some assumptions above that are not necessary and you make large perceived inconsistencies in LDS theology while presumably allowing for similar inconsistencies in Catholic theology.

1. It is easy to say, “the Bible says, ‘call no man father,’” Catholics call men “father;” therefore, Catholicism contradicts the Bible while claiming to embrace the Bible.
   I think this is rather easily explained, but I didn’t find an explanation within “the truth about Catholicism.”
2. How about this, Catholics believe that God the Father is non-begotten and non-proceeding, God the Son is non-proceeding but begotten, and God the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. How is it possible that these three are co-equal? Or co-eternal?
3. How is it true that God is impassible and unchanging and yet He love us individually.
   Or
   3a. How can we freely choose between two available options and God know (before or after our choice it does not matter) what we did choose and yet He is impassible.

While I have no problem with the Catholic explanations from #1, #2 is a little more difficult for me. I am quite convinced that much of the early controversies “solved” by the first 4-7 councils were around #2. #3 in its Christological components was also part of the first 4-7 councils, but IMO it is unsolved.

I generally believe that God gave me the ability to reason. I thus attempt to not postulate “A” and “not A” are both true even if the subject is God. I believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are not just like us. All LDS recognize that Christ was God before He received a body and the Holy Spirit is God and has never received a body. So we who are not God now and were not God before we receive a body MUST have something different going on. I choose to take what I think a LDS must believe and define a consistent path through the different issues.

I do not see said path for the Catholic and #3. Much of the foundation of the first councils would need to be scraped in favor of a consistent path through #3.

Now, I am not opposed to discussing the Blake Ostler’s way through the problem you define with deification. I am also not opposed to discussing why I do not think there is a way through 3/3a for the Catholic. However, my point is that 1 &2 are sufficient for the unreflective LDS (or Protestant) to ridicule and dismiss Catholicism. I think a Catholic should be careful when they believe it is so simple to dismiss Mormonism as hopelessly contradictory. Such is only done through shallow engagement or uncharitable engagement IMO.
Charity, TOm

 

[Jay53]

I think that is derailing the thread. I would rather stick to the OP. If you have other subjects to discuss, best to start a new thread.

OK. I’ll move my question to the other thread about angels. Thanks.

 

[Stephen168]

If the Mormon god was a man on another planet, then he did not create the universe because it had already been created when he was born on that planet. Therefore, the Mormon god did not create the universe. But since Mormons still worship this god who did not create the universe, then they worship a false god because the One True God is the Creator.
It is simple logic.

That seems rational:

God was a Man
As a Man he lived on a planet.
So the universe had already been created (at least that planet)
Therefore God did not create the universe.

Only if you make unsound and illogical assumptions, which you have. First, you MUST accept the fact that WE say we believe that God created the universe. All of it. Every speck. Everything we see, or astronomers see, or has ever existed back to the Big Bang or that singularity that erupted in the Big Bang.

But just insisting doesn’t explain the irrational Mormon theology.

You make some assumptions above that are not necessary and you make large perceived inconsistencies in LDS theology while presumably allowing for similar inconsistencies in Catholic theology.

Instead of dredging up perceived inconsistencies in Catholic theology, maybe you could explain how the perceived inconsistencies in Mormon theology are actually consistent.

 

[Holly3278]

Jesus came to America shortly after His resurrection in order to preach the Gospel messages to the descendants of the Hebrews in the Americas.

 

[TOmNossor]

Instead of dredging up perceived inconsistencies in Catholic theology, maybe you could explain how the perceived inconsistencies in Mormon theology are actually consistent.

Ok. Will you do the same?
A consistent theology is important to me. I do not think it is necessary for everyone however. I have never felt like Catholics when pressed have not punted to “it’s a mystery.”
Here is a thread where I explore some questions with an EO, but I don’t think any Catholic had anything to say:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217932
Here is the same thing with a slightly different introduction, but even less response:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217571

So my point in demonstrating what I believe to be insurmountable Catholic problems is two fold. First, any LDS who wishes should not feel stymied by a recognition that within LDS thought there are contradictions that have not been authoritatively solved. Aquinas as a single person has contradictions he doesn’t solve how much more likely is it that the writings of a few hundred LDS thinkers and general authorities would have contradictions. Second, Catholics condemning LDS thought because of these contradictions are attacking from a very flawed philosophical (reason-based) position as Catholic thought is full of similar issues. (You know the man in a glass house).
From Fkjuliano we read:

I will the first one to admit that, any question of character aside, Joseph Smith was wonderfully imaginative and certainly possessed a masterful understanding of human nature, but a logician he was not.

I agree that Joseph Smith was not a “logician.” I would suggest Aquinas was and IMO he moves from irreformable “truths” within Catholic dogma, to insurmountable logical contradictions.
As a LDS who seeks to pay attention to logicians, I do not believe I must walk into insurmountable logical contradictions. Thus, reason allows my Mormonism, but forbids my Catholicism.

cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

Now, on to the solution to Fkjuliano’s issue which you seem to ask I “solve.”:

The Mormon god cannot have been born as an ordinary man on another planet if he had created the universe, for in that case he was no ordinary man. On the other hand, if he was god and creator from the outset, then that was simply the immutable reality of his existence and there was no “theosis” (the belief that humans can rise to godhood). Patently, without this precedent the very concept of “theosis” is invalidated, even within the context of Mormon theology.

First, As Dianaiad and I have both said, “born as an ordinary man on another planet” does not describe God the Father any more than it describes the birth of God the Son in the New Testament. So from the beginning Fkjuliano’s definition of LDS belief is wrong so any development to a logical problem is questioned by this error.
Second, one might infer that for a human to become what God is would require that a human be precisely what God once was, but this is not logically required. So that we can all agree, God the omnipotent can re-make us into whatever He chooses. Thus via the action of omnipotence, what was once not God can become god. My true beliefs on this are quite congruous with this assertion, but all that is important is to demonstrate that what one (or Fkjuliano in this case) might infer is not logically necessitated.
Finally, LDS cannot embrace the idea that God created ex nihilo (or from absolutely nothing). While I believe the person (or personage if you prefer) we call God the Father did create the universe, I believe this creation was an organizing of chaos. Before (logically before since I still have some thoughts on time that seem to differ from Ostler BTW) God the Father created the universe, there was not an absolute NOTHING. Instead what existed logically before God’s creation was an unorganized chaos that cannot be experienced, notices, weight, sifted, timed, measured, … by non-God. God organized the chaos into the universe, into us, into all that IS. (BTW, most Biblical scholars now acknowledge that this is the “creation” spoken of in the Bible. Many (most even) theologians still believe in Creation ex Nihilo, but even some of these theologians place the ex nihilo creation pre-Genisis).

So to recap, I suggest that when a LDS says that God the Father was once a man, many believe that this does not involve God the Father being a man more like sinful TOmNossor and less like perfect Jesus of Nazareth. Second, there is nothing logically contradictory in the idea that omnipotence can change a person into a god regardless of what God the Father was or was not an eternity ago. And finally, LDS do not mean creation ex nihilo when we say, “God created everything.”

If there is a logical contradiction in the above, I hope you will point me to it. If you find it weird, unpalatable, or … then I am fine with that.
Now, do you want to solve the Catholic logical problems (without denying dogma)?

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

If there is a logical contradiction in the above, I hope you will point me to it.

You called it a ‘perceived inconsistency’. I thought it was logical:
fkjuliano on Mormon Theology:

God was a Man
As a Man he lived on a planet.
So the universe had already been created (at least that planet)
Therefore God did not create the universe.
Therefore Mormons worship a false god; not the one true God of creation.

You don’t seem to disagree much with fkjuliano.
TomNossor on Mormon Theology:

1. God was a man; not an ordinary man
2. God can make anyone God
3. God did not create everything.

The only difference seems to be that Mormons don’t worship the God of all creation and are fine with it. Because Christians worship the God of all creation most would believe Mormons worship a false god.
THE KING FOLLETT SERMON by Joseph Smith:

He God himself. was Once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!

THE KING FOLLETT SERMON by Joseph Smith:

He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

 

[Answersplease]

Instead of dredging up perceived inconsistencies in Catholic theology, maybe you could explain how the perceived inconsistencies in Mormon theology are actually consistent.

Answersplease:

I agree with you that many posters here use the “Tu quoque” argument.

I have noticed that when a poster can’t answer a question or argument,

then they either use a “personal attack” (Ad hominem argument) and attempt to belittle their opponent,

or

they use the “Tu quoque” argument and attempt to silence their opponent by saying “You do it too!”

Well, so what.

You are not allowed to make a criticism because the same criticism can be directed back at your organization?

Hmmm…

**
So, lets say you are on a city bus, and the bus driver goes past a red light and is speeding, and you tell the bus driver to slow down and to pay more attention to the stoplights.

Then, the bus driver responds by saying, “What? I recognize your uniform, you are from a rival bus company and they go past red lights and speed too! You can’t criticize me!”

Are you supposed to just be quiet and keep silent then?**

The “Tu quoque” (You too!) argument:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Tu quoque (…from Latin for “You, too” or “You, also”) is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy.

A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[1]

If they can’t deal with the argument itself, then they attack person who made the argument (Ad hominem):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument toward the person” or “argument against the person”), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1]

 

[catholic-rcia]

As a child I was taught about Jesus coming to the Americas. For a child it is very intriguing. When it is told to you by those you love and trust it is also very much real. As an adult I had an encounter with this Saint of the Church.
http://www.utahmission.com/pages/cJouges_page.html

If I was to continue this belief I would have to deny this missionary, his life, his love for Jesus. His story helped lead me to my conversion to Christ’s Church. Why? It is a real story among thousands and thousands of other real stories. I was never taught about these in the Mormon faith. This is authentic history of the Americas, how Christ came to be here among us.

God Bless
Rich Horrell
www.utahmission.com
www.chooseyourcross.com

 

[RebeccaJ]

As a child I was taught about Jesus coming to the Americas. For a child it is very intriguing. When it is told to you by those you love and trust it is also very much real. As an adult I had an encounter with this Saint of the Church.
http://www.utahmission.com/pages/cJouges_page.html

If I was to continue this belief I would have to deny this missionary, his life, his love for Jesus. His story helped lead me to my conversion to Christ’s Church. Why? It is a real story among thousands and thousands of other real stories. I was never taught about these in the Mormon faith. This is authentic history of the Americas, how Christ came to be here among us.

God Bless
Rich Horrell
www.utahmission.com
www.chooseyourcross.com

Also Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha.

 

[lax16]

LDS - Do you teach your children that the Native Americans are related to the Israelites (which would be the Jews of today)?

My Jewish family members (by marriage) are shocked at this. Then, they usually say something like “Does that mean we can open a casino?” or “Can we mark Native American on our college application?”

I’m curious if this is an actual teaching or more of a legend.

 

[Stephen168]

I agree with you that many posters here use the “Tu quoque” argument.

I have noticed that when a poster can’t answer a question or argument,

Yes, they claim:
We are not here to proselytize.
We just want to defend Mormonism
Only active Mormons can explain Mormon beliefs.

When an accusation is made about Mormonism, we get a tu quoque, usually wrapped in a strawman, argument. This has the effect of us defending the tu quoque / strawman instead of us learning about Mormonism. Then at some point an ex-Mormon will explain the original accusation; often with references.

I’ve seen this repeated so often, I seriously doubt the Mormon claims as to why they visit us here. Especially in cases like this thread:
Catholic: Using reason Mormons do not believe God made the universe
Mormon: Yes, we do.
Catholic: There were things here before God, therefore he could not have created them
Another Mormon: Catholics believe stuff that seems irrational, so try to explain that. By the way; Mormons don’t believe God made everything.

So the Catholic was right all along and the Mormon seemed to only want to attack the Catholic Church as a lead in to proselytize.

Have we still been told why Christ would visit the Americas and what good it did?

 

[lax16]

Unlike many other Christian belief systems, we believe that “Angel” is a job description, not a species classification. If God sends a resurrected being (like Moroni) to tell someone something, he is an angel–because he is relaying that message. Angels can be the spirits of men before their physical birth (remember, we do believe in a ‘pre-existance’) or a resurrected being. Whatever, angels are—just people, being messengers of God.

…well, except for those of us who are in that period between mortal birth and death. We are the audience and recievers of such messengers, not the messengers.

You are aware that our Christian belief system about angels is the same as the Jewish belief about angels?

Why do you think Jesus/God would re-define/change angels after thousands of years?

I accept the Mormon teaching on angels as you have explained, however, it always brings me back to the question if JS/LDS have redefined God (that he has a body, is not eternal) and angels (coming from man) then why quote the Old Testament? How can a religion completely redefine the God and angels of the Jewish people and yet still quote scripture based on the teachings of Judaism???

(The Thirteen Pinciples of Faith of Judaism state that God is incorporeal and that He is eternal)

I know some of this was discussed on another thread, however the angel Moroni ties into Jesus coming to America and the Book of Mormon story.

 

[Annie_B]

Yes, they claim:
We are not here to proselytize.
We just want to defend Mormonism
Only active Mormons can explain Mormon beliefs…

We are not here to proselytize.TRUE
We just want to defend Mormonism TRUE Only active Mormons can explain Mormon beliefs NOT TRUE

 

[dianaiad]

You are aware that our Christian belief system about angels is the same as the Jewish belief about angels?

Actually, no, I am not aware of that. In fact, when I go to “Ask Moses.com” (a website specifically written BY Jews to explain the beliefs of Judaism) I find that the idea of 'angel" as messenger and as a one dimensional spiritual (and temporary) representation of a specific emotion or state of intellect…but NOT a separate species…is considerably more reconcilable with our beliefs than is the idea of a hierarchy of created, individual and unique beings apart from men that I understand mainstream Christianity has.

Why do you think Jesus/God would re-define/change angels after thousands of years?

We don’t believe that He did, actually.

I accept the Mormon teaching on angels as you have explained, however, it always brings me back to the question if JS/LDS have redefined God (that he has a body, is not eternal) and angels (coming from man) then why quote the Old Testament? How can a religion completely redefine the God and angels of the Jewish people and yet still quote scripture based on the teachings of Judaism???

(The Thirteen Pinciples of Faith of Judaism state that God is incorporeal and that He is eternal)

For Jews and the OT, He most certainly was; after all, we do believe that the God of the OT is/was Jehovah, Who is Jesus. Before His physical birth, He most definately was a spirit (incorporeal,) and we do believe that He is eternal.

I know some of this was discussed on another thread, however the angel Moroni ties into Jesus coming to America and the Book of Mormon story.

Ok…but I accept thread drift with a great deal more equinamity than some. I figure that it just goes with the territory; conversations evolve!

 

[dianaiad]

We are not here to proselytize.TRUE
We just want to defend Mormonism TRUE Only active Mormons can explain Mormon beliefs NOT TRUE

Oh, ANYbody can explain Mormon beliefs; all they have to do is type. The question is whether their explanations have any merit, or are credible…and whether they actually SHOULD try explaining Mormon beliefs.

As for me, there’s so much…stuff…out there from people attempting to ‘explain’ the beliefs of others that I have to filter things. One of the filters I use is this: I will only accept as a primary source explanations from ‘true believers’ in whatever belief system I"m interested in. Others might have interesting…stuff…to say, but when I’d have to confirm their information by going to a true believer anyway, why waste the time?

That may or may not include ‘active’ members. It DOES include ‘true believers.’ Not all true believers are active…I can think of several reasons why a true believer might not be able to attend meetings. On the other hand, not all ‘active members’ are true believers.

Diana, just trying to put off working on her thesis. (sigh)

 

[Jay53]

For Jews and the OT, He most certainly was; after all, we do believe that the God of the OT is/was Jehovah, Who is Jesus. Before His physical birth, He most definately was a spirit (incorporeal,) and we do believe that He is eternal.

This part has completely thrown me off. LDS believe that the God of the OT is really just Jesus (not God the Father since you believe them to be separate)? Do you then believe that it was Jesus (as Jehovah) giving Moses the Ten Commandments? Which would then confuse me as to the First Commandment since my understanding is that LDS do not pray to or worship Jesus as God. ??? Would you expound on this or explain your belief a little more clearly please?

 

[dianaiad]

This part has completely thrown me off. LDS believe that the God of the OT is really just Jesus (not God the Father since you believe them to be separate)?

There is never any such thing as “JUST Jesus.” However, we do believe that since God created all things through Jesus, that Jesus was the conduit through which we worship God the Father, yes…and that goes for the OT peoples, as well.

Do you then believe that it was Jesus (as Jehovah) giving Moses the Ten Commandments?

Yes, actually.

Which would then confuse me as to the First Commandment since my understanding is that LDS do not pray to or worship Jesus as God. ???

We do not pray TO Jesus, but we pray to the Father in Jesus’ Name (the only Name by which any might be saved, remember that one?) because He indeed 'bought us with a price." However, that does not mean that we do not consider Him to be fully God.

Putting this in trinitarian terms, you do not believe that God the Father was born to Mary, lived a mortal life, sacrificed His life for us, and was resurrected upon the third day, do you? That was Jesus, the Son of God. Yet you have no problem considering that Jesus is indeed God.

Well, neither do we.

Would you expound on this or explain your belief a little more clearly please?

Well, it’s perfectly clear to ME!!! (OK, I’m hiding from a solid and well deserved virtual clobbering now…)

Please stop trying to interpret LDS beliefs through a Catholic lens. It will give you a headache.

 

[Jay53]

There is never any such thing as “JUST Jesus.” However, we do believe that since God created all things through Jesus, that Jesus was the conduit through which we worship God the Father, yes…and that goes for the OT peoples, as well.

Well, I would agree that there is never JUST Jesus - because He is One with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but I thought LDS believed that they were separate, but one in purpose.

Yes, actually.

That’s what threw me off, because when God says “I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me”, I take that to mean God: Father, Son & Holy Spirit (the Trinity). Perhaps I just don’t fully understand the Mormon idea of the Godhead. Sometimes Mormons say things that sound like they believe in the Trinity, (such as you saying that there is never JUST Jesus), but then say other things that don’t or, in fact, emphatically deny that they believe in and that they can’t understand the Trinity.

We do not pray TO Jesus, but we pray to the Father in Jesus’ Name (the only Name by which any might be saved, remember that one?)

I’m not sure why you had to make a snotty comment here. I was just asking a question.

because He indeed 'bought us with a price." However, that does not mean that we do not consider Him to be fully God.

Putting this in trinitarian terms, you do not believe that God the Father was born to Mary, lived a mortal life, sacrificed His life for us, and was resurrected upon the third day, do you? That was Jesus, the Son of God. Yet you have no problem considering that Jesus is indeed God.

Well, neither do we.

Again, this is where I think my knowledge of the LDS belief in the Godhead is lacking. Perhaps I should re-read that thread for more insights.

Well, it’s perfectly clear to ME!!! (OK, I’m hiding from a solid and well deserved virtual clobbering now…)

Please stop trying to interpret LDS beliefs through a Catholic lens. It will give you a headache.

That’s kind of hard to do since I am enthusiastically Catholic, but I’m giving it a try!