Mormons; when and why did Jesus come to America?

[zerinus]

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

We believe that the Native Americans are partly related to the Israelites (not just Jews) of ancient Palestine; but we don’t know how much racial mixture has taken place between them and other races that might have found their way to that continent since the demise of the Nephites as recorded in the Book of Mormon.

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?”

Now that is an odd comment! If they are related, they would be by race, not by religion. If you were born a Catholic, and your uncle was born a Hindu, does that mean that you have to go to the Hindu temple and recite the Rigvedas?

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

The “actual teaching” is that the Book of Mormon is true, and it is record of a group of people of Israelite descent who were brought to the Americas by the hand of the Lord, and there flourished as a homogeneous group for about a thousand years (from 600 BC to 400 AD). That is the “actual” doctrine. It is assumed that the Native Americans are a partial descendants of those people; but nothing is known for certain.

 

[lax16]

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.

That is your OPINION. However, by the Jewish definition of an angel, Moroni is not an angel. Rabbi Ari Enkin on About.com Judaism answers the questions re: angels as “Judaism believes in the existence of angels. Angels are independent beings created by God intended to fulfill specific roles. They have no form or shape. Unlike commonly thought - people do not become angels after death. There is no relation to the soul of a person and the angels in heaven.”
LDS teaching: MAN becomes an angel. Angels have glorified resurrected BODIES. Born of a father (Mormon).

We don’t believe that He did, actually.

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.

The God of the Old Testament, the God of the Jewish people, believe that God has no body and is eternal. The LDS God has a body and was born.

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!

It’s not too much of a thread drift. In order to believe the Book of Mormon to be true and that it is a restoration of all that was set forth in the Old and New Testament, the concept of angels would have to be the same. This thread is about Jesus coming to the Americas and eventually it is recorded in “a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible,” the Book of Mormon given to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni.

 

[dianaiad]

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, one in purpose…and in that…whatever it is…called ‘being God.’ It is not the same thing as ‘one in substance,’ but it is more than simply the two having the same goal in mind. A very limited analogy might be…two people sharing the same job. A collegue and I share teaching duties for an online class. There are two of us, but we teach the same course, and even though we are both individuals (I have never met him, actually, though I’ve worked with him for nearly a year now…don’tcha love the internet? ) we are still 'the teacher."

We don’t share a ‘substance,’ though. the problem is that I don’t think there is a word that describes the relationship we believe They have, except that ‘substance’ isn’t it.

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 don’t. That is, we don’t understand the Trinity as it is too often presented to us. Frankly, the Catholic version is a LOT closer to our beliefs than most descriptions of it, I’m not kidding when I tell you that most Trinitarians, when they try to describe the concept to me, end up describing modalism. Most Catholics understand that ‘not confounding the persons’ is as important as 'not dividing the substance."

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

I’m sorry that came off as 'snotty." It wasn’t meant to be.

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.

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

I’ve been working on seeing things through a Catholic lens rather than a Mormon one for months now. T’aint easy, but I’m trying!

 

[AtticusFinch]

The LDS church can easily back up there doctrine with scripture.

In all honesty, it is easy to make that claim when you can make up Scripture to support what you want. For example, there is nothing in Scripture that says to use a loaf of white bread and water for sacrament. In fact, the only place you ever hear of bread and water is in prison. But, if you ask a Mormon to support it with Scripture, they say Joseph Smith got a revelation…

It is hard to argue Scripture with anyone who can make up Scripture when it pleases them.

 

[Jay53]

Yes, one in purpose…and in that…whatever it is…called ‘being God.’ It is not the same thing as ‘one in substance,’ but it is more than simply the two having the same goal in mind. A very limited analogy might be…two people sharing the same job. A collegue and I share teaching duties for an online class. There are two of us, but we teach the same course, and even though we are both individuals (I have never met him, actually, though I’ve worked with him for nearly a year now…don’tcha love the internet? ) we are still 'the teacher."

We don’t share a ‘substance,’ though. the problem is that I don’t think there is a word that describes the relationship we believe They have, except that ‘substance’ isn’t it.

How does that work for the first commandment then? When Jesus says “I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me”, how do Mormons understand that to mean to worship God the Father and not the Son? (I can’t use your teacher analogy, because I don’t believe you are worshipping the “office” or “job description” or “purpose” of God.)

 

[TheQuestioner]

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.

Last time I got into it with a Mormon the thread went on for 20 more pages than it needed to. However I have to point out a couple of contradictions…I may regret getting involved here…

From AskMoses: askmoses.com/en/article/224,2196246/What-is-the-Jewish-view-on-angels.html

**

The Short Answer:

Judaism believes in angels. Not human like creatures with white wings, but entirely spiriutal entities with no physical imagery (although they may some times take on a temporary physical form). Angels are either created by G-d for specific actions, or by humans as a result of and through their various actions.

So far consistent with the Catholic view…

**

Organic Angels

**

An angel is a spiritual reality with its own unique content, qualities and character. What distinguishes one angel from another is not the physical quality of spatial distance but rather a disparity with respect to the fundamental purpose of such an essence. The substantial quality of an angel may be an impulse or a drive, i.e. an inclination to love, fear, or pity.

Somewhat close to what Thomas Aquinas claimed, that being an angel’s name often describes what it represents (Raphael means “cure of God”, and Raphael did heal. Michael means “Who is like God?” a most interesting name I have been pondering, and Michael sought to fight Satan because of his pride and wish to become like God)

Whereas among human beings emotions change and vary either as persons change or according to the circumstances of time and place, an angel is totally the manifestation of a single

emotional essence.

This is a point of disagreement between us, obviously, since we believe spirits do not have emotions, but such language is used by God and the prophets for metaphors conveying what they will or are planning to do.

(In higher spiritual worlds there are higher angels, such as "serafim

", from the Hebrew word for “burn”, “saraf”. Like the *angels *(of the lower spiritual worlds), the seraphim are singular abstract essences, not given to change, but whereas angels are embodiments of pure emotion, seraphim are essences of pure intelligence.)

hmmmm…I never knew the Jews believed in a hierarchy of angels. Well…the more you know.

The word for angel in Hebrew,"malach

", means also “messenger”. As its name in Hebrew signifies, the nature of the angel is to be an envoy to a degree, thereby constituting a permanent contact between worlds.
An angel’s missions transpire in two directions: it may serve as an emissary of G-d toward the earthly, to other angels and to lower worlds and creatures, and/or it may also serve as the one who carries heavenwards from below, from our world to the higher worlds.

Clearly there is a distinction between humans as angels and spiritual beings.

The real difference between man and angel is not the fact that man has a body, because the essential comparison is between the human soul and the angel.

Again, in agreement with the Church.

Its honestly uncanny as to how much we (Catholics and Jews) agree on about angels.

So anyway, obviously we both saw the same page, so there is no way you could have missed even half of the things I posted. Try to be honest when posting information from sites. Post what is relevant, but not only to one side, but both sides.

So, when did the Jews go into apostasy about the angels?**

 

[TOmNossor]

You called it a ‘perceived inconsistency’. I thought it was logical:

You don’t seem to disagree much with fkjuliano.

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.
Stephen,
I suspect you didn’t intend to misrepresent what I said, but you gave the impression you were quoting (by using the quote function) and then your summarization of my statements was IMO lacking.

Catholics simply must believe:
That God desires to make men gods.

Finally, I do not believe that throwing around the “worship a false God” accusation is particularly helpful. The reality is IMO we both seek to worship the God of the Bible. We have different opinions on the attributes of this God, but the God I worship will hardly ignore the prayers of those who do not understand Him as well as I think I do.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Answersplease,
If you followed my posts, you will find that I did respond to the suggestion that LDS do not have a logical theology by explaining it logically and pointing at the incorrect assumptions of Fkjuliano. Stephen168 acknowledged that I presented a logical explanation.
Part of my response is regularly to invite a consistency from critics of my church. Since Catholicism is decimated by irreconcilable contradictions (IMO and perhaps in Aquinas’s opinion), I invite Catholics to be a little more introspective in their charges of inconsistency.
Here I speak about why I think instead of a straight Tu Quoque argument I offer a slight variation frequently. But of course this time the criticism of illogical theology was answered (well answered from the LDS side, not from the Catholic side).
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=39587&highlight=quoque#post39587

So, my point is not that my personal understanding of LDS theology is untouched by the criticism of “illogical” because Catholic theology is illogical. My actual point is that to be fair the Catholic cannot condemn LDS theology for being illogical when there theology is illogical.
I have decided that being able to use reason when engaging religion is something God desires of me. As such, I cannot presently be Catholic. Aquinas said all he ever wrote was as straw compared to his (near end of life) encounter with God. Aquinas refused to offer corrections to his work in light of this encounter and stopped writing. I believe most Christians either don’t dig deep into thorny issues or resort to “mystery” / “paradox” when they get there. Such seems necessary for the Catholic IMO.
I do not think not digging into thorny issues OR resorting to “mystery” is disqualifying of a relationship with God. There are simply truths about God that we cannot comprehend. I only ask that those who cannot solve these problems for their theology not condemn my theology when they think we cannot solve them.
Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

Answersplease,
If you followed my posts, you will find that I did respond to the suggestion that LDS do not have a logical theology by explaining it logically and pointing at the incorrect assumptions of Fkjuliano. Stephen168 acknowledged that I presented a logical explanation.
Part of my response is regularly to invite a consistency from critics of my church. Since Catholicism is decimated by irreconcilable contradictions (IMO and perhaps in Aquinas’s opinion), I invite Catholics to be a little more introspective in their charges of inconsistency.
Here I speak about why I think instead of a straight Tu Quoque argument I offer a slight variation frequently. But of course this time the criticism of illogical theology was answered (well answered from the LDS side, not from the Catholic side).
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=39587&highlight=quoque#post39587

So, my point is not that my personal understanding of LDS theology is untouched by the criticism of “illogical” because Catholic theology is illogical. My actual point is that to be fair the Catholic cannot condemn LDS theology for being illogical when there theology is illogical.
I have decided that being able to use reason when engaging religion is something God desires of me. As such, I cannot presently be Catholic. Aquinas said all he ever wrote was as straw compared to his (near end of life) encounter with God. Aquinas refused to offer corrections to his work in light of this encounter and stopped writing. I believe most Christians either don’t dig deep into thorny issues or resort to “mystery” / “paradox” when they get there. Such seems necessary for the Catholic IMO.
I do not think not digging into thorny issues OR resorting to “mystery” is disqualifying of a relationship with God. There are simply truths about God that we cannot comprehend. I only ask that those who cannot solve these problems for their theology not condemn my theology when they think we cannot solve them.
Charity, TOm

ToM - Please explain why you think Catholic theology is “illogical.” Thanks!

 

[TOmNossor]

ToM - Please explain why you think Catholic theology is “illogical.” Thanks!

I mentioned some earlier.

1. 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?
2. 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.

Now, one is stupid. I have defended Catholicism from such idiocy myself. (But I think LDS are attacked similarly here).

Two is more complex.

3a is very philosophy heavy, but I believe Aquinas struggled with this and didn’t solve it.

Let me state it somewhat differently.

1. All that God is and knows is uncaused. God is what He is independent of anything that is not-God. He possesses Aseity. Or he exists absolutely “a se” of Himself. Nothing predicated of God may be said to be caused by anything that is not-God.
2. Humans possess genuine freedom. What this means exactly is debated, but Aquinas and Augustine seemed married to the idea that we act by choosing what we think we should such that our actions are caused by our will. We act in a way that is the result of our choice.
3. God knows all things. While philosophers have debated what “all things” are, nobody would suggest that God does not know what I choose to do yesterday. God knows what I did yesterday.
4. It is impossible for what I did yesterday to be independently caused by me such that I was free act as I saw fit and for God to know what I choose to do yesterday without some component of His knowledge being caused by my choice.

So if I cause my acts FREELY, God cannot know what I FREELY caused and still not be affected by me.

While it may seem trivial to the casual observer how God could know what I did yesterday, it is not if God possesses Aseity. One might say, surely God can “watch” me make a choice (some might even talk about watching from “eternal time,”) but to observe me do something is to be affected by me and God is not.

The reason I link it with #3 is that this is a big deal for me. If God is unchanged, immutable, and impassible; I cannot believe He loves me. Believing God loves me is IMO necessary for having a proper relationship with God. Therefore I reject the idea that God is immutable, impassible, absolutely unchanging, and exists a se. The God I know loves me as an individual and is affected by me. He hears my prayers because I choose to offer them. He feels my love because I express it to Him. He has an I-Thou relationship with me, not an I-It relationship with me.

BTW, I have read
Father Thomas G. Weinandy Does God Suffer?
Here is a brief essay, but I read the book to see if I could reconcile God’s impassibility and His love: http://www.mrrena.com/2004/suffer.shtml
And Eastern Orthodox Scholar: Paul L. Gavrilyuk** The Suffering of the Impassible God**

I cannot make it work.

Here are two threads from long ago where I explored this with an EO

…

I re-arranged this a little from the quote that I deleted.
This is a thread that got no response for >1 month.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217571

Here I restarted it and changed the intro. I spoke with EOs about it, but no Catholics.
I do mention the Aseity problem in this thread.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217932

Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

I mentioned some earlier.

Now, one is stupid. I have defended Catholicism from such idiocy myself. (But I think LDS are attacked similarly here).

Two is more complex.

3a is very philosophy heavy, but I believe Aquinas struggled with this and didn’t solve it.

Let me state it somewhat differently.

1. All that God is and knows is uncaused. God is what He is independent of anything that is not-God. He possesses Aseity. Or he exists absolutely “a se” of Himself. Nothing predicated of God may be said to be caused by anything that is not-God.
2. Humans possess genuine freedom. What this means exactly is debated, but Aquinas and Augustine seemed married to the idea that we act by choosing what we think we should such that our actions are caused by our will. We act in a way that is the result of our choice.
3. God knows all things. While philosophers have debated what “all things” are, nobody would suggest that God does not know what I choose to do yesterday. God knows what I did yesterday.
4. It is impossible for what I did yesterday to be independently caused by me such that I was free act as I saw fit and for God to know what I choose to do yesterday without some component of His knowledge being caused by my choice.

So if I cause my acts FREELY, God cannot know what I FREELY caused and still not be affected by me.

While it may seem trivial to the casual observer how God could know what I did yesterday, it is not if God possesses Aseity. One might say, surely God can “watch” me make a choice (some might even talk about watching from “eternal time,”) but to observe me do something is to be affected by me and God is not.

The reason I link it with #3 is that this is a big deal for me. If God is unchanged, immutable, and impassible; I cannot believe He loves me. Believing God loves me is IMO necessary for having a proper relationship with God. Therefore I reject the idea that God is immutable, impassible, absolutely unchanging, and exists a se. The God I know loves me as an individual and is affected by me. He hears my prayers because I choose to offer them. He feels my love because I express it to Him. He has an I-Thou relationship with me, not an I-It relationship with me.

BTW, I have read
Father Thomas G. Weinandy Does God Suffer?
Here is a brief essay, but I read the book to see if I could reconcile God’s impassibility and His love: http://www.mrrena.com/2004/suffer.shtml
And Eastern Orthodox Scholar: Paul L. Gavrilyuk** The Suffering of the Impassible God**

I cannot make it work.

Here are two threads from long ago where I explored this with an EO

I re-arranged this a little from the quote that I deleted.
This is a thread that got no response for >1 month.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217571

Here I restarted it and changed the intro. I spoke with EOs about it, but no Catholics.
I do mention the Aseity problem in this thread.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217932

Charity, TOm

ToM - You make some very interesting points. I know I would like to discuss it further and I think others would as well.
Should it be started on a new thread? There’s alot here that you have stated and I think it deserves its own thread.

 

[RebeccaJ]

TOm

-God is Love.
-God most certainly is moved. The evidence for this is Jesus Christ.
-Begin from the premise, the foundation, that God does indeed love you.

Recommended reading.

The premise is not that God is unloving and it requires us to cause Him to love us. His nature is love. Freely given, never withheld. If He were to change it would be that He stopped loving us. Which, He has not, and never will. If He were not immutable, it would mean that we (the human we) could cause Him to stop loving us. He is moved by His Love for us, which is not a change in nature, or even a effect because of a cause, it is because it is WHO GOD IS. This nature is expressed in the words “I AM”.

 

[TOmNossor]

ToM - You make some very interesting points. I know I would like to discuss it further and I think others would as well.
Should it be started on a new thread? There’s alot here that you have stated and I think it deserves its own thread.

I will append my above post to the thread I started long ago.
I regularly feel out number at Catholic.com so my thread from long ago was an attempt to get EO, Catholics, and heretics dialoguing in a way that everyone would have a partner in the points they supported. It didn’t go well.
Anyway, since the thread is not locked, I can post and bump it up.
I will try.

I will also respond to Rebecca J. there. I will create a link here shortly.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Here is the link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6545241#post6545241

I will try to quote and respond to RebeccaJ there.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I suspect you didn’t intend to misrepresent what I said, but you gave the impression you were quoting (by using the quote function) and then your summarization of my statements was IMO lacking.

I tried to summarize the salient points. If there was something of significance lacking, please point it out.

Catholics simply must believe:
That God desires to make men gods.

No, because it is irrational.

Finally, I do not believe that throwing around the “worship a false God” accusation is particularly helpful. The reality is IMO we both seek to worship the God of the Bible. We have different opinions on the attributes of this God, but the God I worship will hardly ignore the prayers of those who do not understand Him as well as I think I do.

I personally don’t believe in false gods; I was using fkjuliano’s words. Yes, I believe Mormons do not have a proper understanding of the God of the New Testament. Some would call that a false god.
I understand the Mormon reasoning: In order for a Mormon to become god, there must be more than one god. If God created the universe ex nihilo, then there can only be one God; therefore Mormons can never become God. Therefore god did not create the universe ex nihilo.
It just is irrational to me.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:
Catholics simply must believe:
That God desires to make men gods.
No, because it is irrational.
The idea that God acted in history “to make men gods” is part of Catholic theology. If it is “irrational” and rationality is important, then perhaps you should become a LDS like me! Of course we also believe that God acted in history for the purpose of making men gods.

Or perhaps your problem is that you just do not understand Catholicism and the idea of God making men gods very well. Perhaps when you boldly claim that this is an irrational idea you speak without knowing sufficiently. And perhaps the same is true of some or many of your criticisms of Mormonism.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Or perhaps your problem is…………… Perhaps when you …………… And perhaps …….

Or perhaps, I know exactly what I’m talking about, but you would rather belittle people than find out.

Charity

Appears to be meaningless. Take care

 

[TheosisM]

The idea that God acted in history “to make men gods” is part of Catholic theology. If it is “irrational” and rationality is important, then perhaps you should become a LDS like me! Of course we also believe that God acted in history for the purpose of making men gods.

Or perhaps your problem is that you just do not understand Catholicism and the idea of God making men gods very well. Perhaps when you boldly claim that this is an irrational idea you speak without knowing sufficiently. And perhaps the same is true of some or many of your criticisms of Mormonism.

Charity, TOm

Yes, Catholicism (and the patristics) does teach deification/theosis (though in my opinion such a belief seems to be more understood/emphasized in Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy), that God makes men gods.

460 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.”

The difference between LDS and Catholicism is of course in what it means to “become God”. But that’s for another thread.

 

[Stephen168]

The difference between LDS and Catholicism is of course in what it means to “become God”. But that’s for another thread.

True, and we saw it coming.

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

This has the effect of us defending the tu quoque / strawman instead of us learning about Mormonism.

I understand the Mormon reasoning: In order for a Mormon to become god, there must be more than one god. If God created the universe ex nihilo, then there can only be one God; therefore Mormons can never become God. Therefore god did not create the universe ex nihilo.

It just is irrational to me.

If they can’t deal with the argument itself, then they attack the person who made the argument (Ad hominem)

Or perhaps your problem is that you just do not understand Catholicism

and the idea of God making men gods very well.

 

[TheQuestioner]

The above post is incredible:thumbsup: