Please clarify Mormon exaltation

[ryanoneil]

Eternal Progression is the same lie that the serpent told Adam and Eve, that they would become as God.

THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD!

Mark 12:29-32; Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he`.

Gal. 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods`.

Psalm 86:10; For thou art great and doest wondrous things, thou alone art God.

Is. 43:10; “You are my witnesses,” says the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

Is. 44:6; Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god

Peace,

Ryan

 

[Albina]

I have loosely been following previous threads to answer some of my questions about Mormonism, but it is sometimes hard to keep up with all of the posts unless you stay right on top of it. If this has already been answered, I apologize.

I am a Catholic who has Mormon friends, and I wish to be informed when we discuss our religions with each other. I am finding so many contradictions in Mormon beliefs and so I would like some clarification.

The following quote is from the LDS website:

So according to Mormon beliefs, man can become a god. I was under the understanding that Mormons believed that when a man became god through exaltation, he was ruler of his own universe or planet. Therefore, he would not be living with “Heavenly Father” in the afterlife, but instead would live separately on another planet that he would rule.
So which is it??? Living with god in the afterlife or not? …This is very confusing.

**Here is a great link that will give you answers to your questions about mormonism

aomin.org/Mormonism.html**

 

[rmcmullan]

The only reason I brought any of this up is because just as I don’t understand your scripture, you don’t understand what is being said in 1 Cor 15:29. Paul is refering to quasi-Christian groups which practiced variations of orthodox Christian doctrines. (baptism for the dead)

Paul wasn’t referring to orthodox Christians baptizing the dead. There’s no other scriptural reference to it, and none of the Church Fathers discuss it in any of their writings. There is simply no evidence indicating that the early Christian Church practiced baptism for the dead.

You are an engaging fellow to talk to! I’m trying to imagine how you got to know the innermost workings of Paul’s mind so well when so little of the interpretation you claim is in the 1 Cor 15 scripture. Did Paul appear to you as a resurrected being and explain his thinking? I must point out here that if he did, it is only private revelation which is not binding on anyone, it’s just for your edification.

 

[valient_Lucy]

You are an engaging fellow to talk to! I’m trying to imagine how you got to know the innermost workings of Paul’s mind so well when so little of the interpretation you claim is in the 1 Cor 15 scripture. Did Paul appear to you as a resurrected being and explain his thinking? I must point out here that if he did, it is only private revelation which is not binding on anyone, it’s just for your edification.

If Paul approved of baptisms of behalf of the dead, why did he not instruct the church at Corinth, or any other church for that matter, to do such a practice? He mentions it in passing, but he does not commend those who are baptizing on behalf of the dead, and he never mentions this practice to any other church. Also, why when St. Peter first instructs the crowds at Pentecost, and tells them that “the promise is for you and your children,” why does he not mention their ancestors?

 

[ryanoneil]

You are an engaging fellow to talk to! I’m trying to imagine how you got to know the innermost workings of Paul’s mind so well when so little of the interpretation you claim is in the 1 Cor 15 scripture. Did Paul appear to you as a resurrected being and explain his thinking? I must point out here that if he did, it is only private revelation which is not binding on anyone, it’s just for your edification.

You are engaging as well! No, Paul dindn’t appear to me. Sacred tradition and apostolic succesion has handed down the proper interpretation of scripture since the beginning. The debate we are having is a perfect example of the need for oral tradition. I personally couldn’t tell you who every succesor was from Paul to the modern times, but I do know there is an unbroken chain of people carrying his teaching, down through the ages, in the Catholic Church.

Can you say the same about the founder of your church? Which patriachs did he succeed? Who passed down the information to him? Oh that’s right, he got his knowledge directly from God and Jesus. Lucky for me that was only his private revelation which is not binding on anyone. It was just for his personal edification

Peace,

Ryan

 

[rmcmullan]

Sacred tradition and apostolic succesion has handed down the proper interpretation of scripture since the beginning. The debate we are having is a perfect example of the need for oral tradition.

At this point I would again have to say that since there is no more public revelation, there’s no point in turning to tradition. All the tradition was after Christ and not binding on any Catholic and to say it is is only to make the argument for continuing revelation, an LDS theme.

Admittedly, with regards to 1 Cor 15:29, he mentions baptism for the dead in passing and seems to not disapprove but it’s such a cursory comment, it’s hard (without a prophet seer and revelator, nudge, nudge, wink, wink) to draw any definite conclusion.

Moving along, I think it’s difficult to explain 1 Cor 15:29 and the two revelation scriptures for most people without an LDS background. I know most people here at this forum would vehemently disagree both that and the interpretation but heck, that’s the whole fun of the forum. Just food for thought…

 

[majick275]

At this point I would again have to say that since there is no more public revelation, there’s no point in turning to tradition. All the tradition was after Christ and not binding on any Catholic and to say it is is only to make the argument for continuing revelation, an LDS theme.

That’s not correct. Sacred Tradition is part of the deposit of faith and thus IS binding. You seem to misunderstand what sacred Tradition is. We know what the scriptures meant because the same church that preserved these writings and canonized them also wrote down what was taught about them in order to understand the context and meanings. Christ taught the Apostles, the Apostles taught the bishops that they ordained to be their successors. We have this handed down to us so that the Church that Christ established could preserve the proper meanings of these important lessons. contrast that to the LDS who SHOULD have a clearer picture with living prophets who claim to speak directly to the Lord with direct question and answer BUT in fact have rapidly shifting doctrine and changing scripture to “correct” the teachings of previous prophets not in a doctrinal development sense but in a reinvention of their religion sense.

Admittedly, with regards to 1 Cor 15:29, he mentions baptism for the dead in passing and seems to not disapprove but it’s such a cursory comment, it’s hard (without a prophet seer and revelator, nudge, nudge, wink, wink) to draw any definite conclusion.

which is why it is insignificant. The emphasis in that scripture is on the resurrection NOT baptism.

Moving along, I think it’s difficult to explain 1 Cor 15:29 and the two revelation scriptures for most people without an LDS background. I know most people here at this forum would vehemently disagree both that and the interpretation but heck, that’s the whole fun of the forum. Just food for thought…

No it’s difficult for non-LDS to understand how the LDS come the THEIR conclusion on the meaning of that scripture. Most everyone else looks at this as Paul teaching that the resurrection is real and that everyone really is going to be raised from the dead and will have an eternal fate.

 

[PaulDupre]

Note the St. Paul says that “they” baptize for the dead, not that “we” baptize for the dead.

I think that’s important.

Paul

 

[rmcmullan]

That’s not correct. Sacred Tradition is part of the deposit of faith and thus IS binding. You seem to misunderstand what sacred Tradition is. We know what the scriptures meant because the same church that preserved these writings and canonized them also wrote down what was taught about them in order to understand the context and meanings. Christ taught the Apostles, the Apostles taught the bishops that they ordained to be their successors. We have this handed down to us so that the Church that Christ established could preserve the proper meanings of these important lessons.

Oh, now that’s a new teaching to me. I guess I have heard it mentioned before but the fact that it’s a device whereby private revelation can become public has previously escaped me. Now you say the Apostles taught the Bishops. And then? The Bishops excused all the Apostles and said, “Great. We understand it perfectly well enough to guide the church for the next however many thousands of year after we’re all dead?” What exactly is the mechanism whereby private interpretations of the scripture become binding? Is the Sacred Tradition binding, or no? This is interesting.

 

[dosdog]

Oh, now that’s a new teaching to me. I guess I have heard it mentioned before but the fact that it’s a device whereby private revelation can become public has previously escaped me. Now you say the Apostles taught the Bishops. And then? The Bishops excused all the Apostles and said, “Great. We understand it perfectly well enough to guide the church for the next however many thousands of year after we’re all dead?” What exactly is the mechanism whereby private interpretations of the scripture become binding? Is the Sacred Tradition binding, or no? This is interesting.

Similarly, such commandments as tefillin and tzitzit are found in the Torah, but no details are given, and they are assumed to be in the Oral Torah. Although observing Shabbat is one of the Ten Commandments, no details are given as to how it should be kept, and these are also in the unwritten tradition. God thus said, “You shall keep Shabbat holy, as I have commanded your fathers” (Jeremiah 17:22).
aish.com/literacy/concepts/The_Oral_Tradition.asp

message 33 of 46 in Discussion
From:Shalom
While Torah is silent on the details it is loud on telling Israel that they should judge for itself how to implement the commandments. Moses delegated, there was a time we had Judges, Sannhedrin etc.

Here You Go - How to keep Shabbat is Man-Made

And Where is it recorded in the TORAH - Moses delegated his authority to the Sannhedrin ?
Nowhere I know

From: Shalom-שלום_אתם Sent: 10/4/2007 12:23 PM
I didn’t say Moses delegated authority to the Sanhedrin. Setting up governing bodies is one of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) given to Israel. Under the advice of his father in law Yitro (Jethro in English) Moses assigned governance over the tribes. He later appointed Joshua, but even so, once Torah was given, Israel knew they had to appoint governing bodies. Governance took the form of Judges, Kings (bad choice) and Sanhedrin at different periods in our history.

While Bible is silent on the details it is loud on telling Catholics that they should judge for itself how to implement the Christs Teaching. Jesus delegated, there was a time we had Apostles, Churches etc.

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Many Catholics have heard that “kepha” is used in both places in this verse ("You are Peter [kepha] and on this rock [kepha] I will build my Church . . . "), but few have seen it with their own eyes.

So here 'tis:
jimmyakin.org/2005/04/while_were_at_i.html

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
aish.com/literacy/concepts/The_Oral_Tradition.asp

 

[majick275]

Oh, now that’s a new teaching to me. I guess I have heard it mentioned before but the fact that it’s a device whereby private revelation can become public has previously escaped me. Now you say the Apostles taught the Bishops. And then? The Bishops excused all the Apostles and said, “Great. We understand it perfectly well enough to guide the church for the next however many thousands of year after we’re all dead?” What exactly is the mechanism whereby private interpretations of the scripture become binding? Is the Sacred Tradition binding, or no? This is interesting.

What private revelation? The Apostles were taught by Christ in person. Sacred Tradition is the passing down of these lessons. We have the written word itself in scripture and how it was applied in tradition. Sacred Tradition is NOT some guys personal interpretation. It is the Teachings of Jesus Apostles on the scriptures based on what the Apostles were taught by Jesus. The Bishops didn’t “excuse” the Apostles. When the Apostles dies the Bishops faithfully preserved and and promulgated these apostolic teachings. that is how we have both scripture and tradition. The Holy Spirit was with them because God established his church and sent him to guide it. The entire deposit of faith is binding.