Question for Mormons

[CatholicGuyNY]

As a feeble man, I have never appreciated this phrase, “fully human and fully God”. It causes people to quickly jump to mathmatical equations just as Rebecca has done. Unfortunately, when doing so we are left with the forumla - 1 (fully human) + 1 (fully God), which must then equal = 2 what. Certainly one cannot be proposing that 1+1=1 are you? Even 1st graders know that is incorrect.

Of course. 1+1=2, 2 natures. This was discussed anciently.

 

[ParkerD]

How much more “official” can you get than an official Mormon doctrine teaching manual?

Hi, Amontoya,
I hope you are doing well.

Unless the search tool in lds.org is missing it, I have queried (which anyone can do) the words “half deity” under the topic of “lessons” and not found a match. I have not heard those words used when I have been listening to a lesson or a talk, so it is important to differentiate between one talk by a speaker (a very well respected speaker in the First Presidency, to be candid) and the lesson manuals for doctrinal discussions. The lesson that was cited in the link was primarily for the reference purposes of teachers in high school and university religion classes, and used a chapter of a book by President Clark (a respected leader of the First Presidency) that comprised a talk given by him while he was alive (he died in 1961).

He was known to be candid and compassionate as a speaker. I think it is quite simple to understand where he was coming from with the phrase: a person with a scientific mind would naturally move to a word picture that comes from the standpoint that there is a joining of two cells at conception.

For example, I am “half one side of my ancestry” and “half the other side of my ancestry”. (I think I will leave it at that.)

Obviously, the fact that Christ was already God and was the great Alpha and Omega when He was conceived to become Immanuel, means He was indeed “fully God” come to earth to be with us. But He did have mortal ancestry–through the lineage of David, as prophesied.

 

[JeanMichel]

Of course. 1+1=2, 2 natures. This was discussed anciently.

Forgive me, but this is just a question of personal taste. 1+1=2 always and natures are not exclusive or they do not cross out each other. For me, Jesus was one whole being and while human he was God.

This is only an issue of semantics and neither side is benefitted by attempting to find error in the other. What is more important to those who seek truth, knowing that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God the Father, and he was crucified on our behalf or a conversation about what percentage he was human or divine? The end result was the same, his sacrifice paid the price for all our sin? Give me Jesus, pray that His blood wipes all of my sins away, that I may be a penitent all my days and rely on the sure foundation of his gospel of love and peace.

 

[Todd520]

What you are implying is that you think the LDS truely believe that Jesus was less than fully divine. If true, it would be expanded on in core talks and teachings. I am not aware of any teachings that support Jesus was not fully divine.

Before seeing this argument from Catholics, I could see myself also using the same turn of phrase.
Fully divine + fully human = Jesus

• since he was more than fully divine, he is part divine
• his parts are 100% human and 100% divine (not your standard 50/50).

Regular use of fractions doesn’t work here because we are talking about God who can be more than 1,

Catholic example - Even though the bible has statements that show (me) Mary was not perpetually virgin, I KNOW it is not Catholic doctrine because of the volume of writing that expands on her perpetual virginity.

A turn of phrase is just that, while core doctrine has weight behind it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

What you are implying is that you think the LDS truely believe that Jesus was less than fully divine. If true, it would be expanded on in core talks and teachings. I am not aware of any teachings that support Jesus was not fully divine.

Before seeing this argument from Catholics, I could see myself also using the same turn of phrase.
Fully divine + fully human = Jesus

• since he was more than fully divine, he is part divine
• his parts are 100% human and 100% divine (not your standard 50/50).

Regular use of fractions doesn’t work here because we are talking about God who can be more than 1,

Catholic example - Even though the bible has statements that show (me) Mary was not perpetually virgin, I KNOW it is not Catholic doctrine because of the volume of writing that expands on her perpetual virginity.

A turn of phrase is just that, while core doctrine has weight behind it.

LDS never use the terms or have any concept that Jesus was fully divine and fully human. For one, LDS would first have to accept the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Most LDS have an understanding that is that of a demigod. But like many LDS doctrines and/or beliefs, when you start to break it down, denial ensues.

I don’t blame LDS for not wanting to believe what their teachings of God and in particular, Jesus, ultimately enforces. But, you can’t explain it away by using Christian understanding. LDS denies the nature of Jesus Christ as GOD (not a god), as all of Christianity understands.

There is not more than one god. That is a LDS doctrine alone.

LDS believe Jesus is a literal son of the Father, as in, had DNA from the Father and DNA from Mary, just as any child does. This is wholly and completely outside of Christian doctrine and understanding.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Forgive me, but this is just a question of personal taste. 1+1=2 always and natures are not exclusive or they do not cross out each other. For me, Jesus was one whole being and while human he was God.

This is only an issue of semantics and neither side is benefitted by attempting to find error in the other. What is more important to those who seek truth, knowing that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God the Father, and he was crucified on our behalf or a conversation about what percentage he was human or divine? The end result was the same, his sacrifice paid the price for all our sin? Give me Jesus, pray that His blood wipes all of my sins away, that I may be a penitent all my days and rely on the sure foundation of his gospel of love and peace.

This isn’t that complicated. You erroneously assumed that Rebecca would say something like 1+1=1, and that the 1/2 + 1/2 position made more sense from a mathematical perspective. You asked “2 what”, and the response is “two natures”. Your criticism has already been answered over 1000 years ago.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Using terms like “fully God” and “fully man” doesn’t make sense in Mormonism since they do not accept a difference in “species” between God and man. There is only a difference in progress. It wouldn’t make sense to talk of Jesus having a divine nature and a human nature in Mormonism since they believe that we are all, God and man, of the same nature.

 

[SteveVH]

As a feeble man, I have never appreciated this phrase, “fully human and fully God”. It causes people to quickly jump to mathmatical equations just as Rebecca has done. Unfortunately, when doing so we are left with the forumla - 1 (fully human) + 1 (fully God), which must then equal = 2 what. Certainly one cannot be proposing that 1+1=1 are you? Even 1st graders know that is incorrect.

The simple mathmatical formula you are criticizing is actually more correct from a mathmatical position - 1/2 (man) + 1/2 (god) = 1 Jesus Christ.

Overall, this play of words is not effective conversation. When using it, you confuse those with mathmatical minds. What is absolutely certain for Catholics and Mormons is that they both believe that Jesus was the Son of God, co-Eternal with the Father, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, was crucified for our sins, and rose the third day. They both believe that Jesus is the only way to return to God. These are truths that all humanity should come to know and love.

God cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula. A formula that might come closer is: An ice cube is fully solid while remaining fully water. A stream is fully liquid while remaining fully water. Steam is fully vapor while remaining fully water. Three completely unique charactaristics, yet being of one substance. Christ is a divine being who took on human nature, like water becoming ice. He did not cease to be God, yet he was fully human.

 

[JeanMichel]

Using terms like “fully God” and “fully man” doesn’t make sense in Mormonism since they do not accept a difference in “species” between God and man. There is only a difference in progress. It wouldn’t make sense to talk of Jesus having a divine nature and a human nature in Mormonism since they believe that we are all, God and man, of the same nature.

That would be completely inaccurate given my understanding of the teachings. Man’s nature is carnal and God’s nature is infinite, supernal, and wholly perfect and righteous. This teaching has nothing to do with species or whatever Rebecca is attempting to say. What it does say is that in math 1 + 1 = 2 that is all. Any analogy attempting to force a mathmitichan to state 1 + 1 = 1 is irrational and without logic. It is a new form of math that is not found or used by any other society or group.

This seems to be a point of argument between what you demand Mormons believe and what Mormons state their beliefs are. Rebecca’s position is that nothing a Mormon says has any affect on her position because what she states is “the truth” and Mormons only lie about their beliefs.

I ask both of you, how would Christ handle this type of conversation? Respond in love one to another, share your knowledge of truth, but do not argue or belabor the point. Go slowly, find what first is in common and build upon it. To attack one another is to reject a unity of believers in Jesus Christ.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

That would be completely inaccurate given my understanding of the teachings. Man’s nature is carnal and God’s nature is infinite, supernal, and wholly perfect and righteous. This teaching has nothing to do with species or whatever Rebecca is attempting to say. What it does say is that in math 1 + 1 = 2 that is all. Any analogy attempting to force a mathmitichan to state 1 + 1 = 1 is irrational and without logic. It is a new form of math that is not found or used by any other society or group.

You keep referring to 1+1=1, when no one has brought up that equation except yourself. The correct teaching, and answer to your question of “1 (fully human) + 1 (fully God), which must then equal = 2 what” is 2 natures. As already mentioned, this issue was already addressed over 1000 years ago. No Catholic here is saying that 1+1=1, and you are the only one that brought up such an idea. We fully accept that 1 nature (human)+1 nature (divine)=2 natures.

It seems as if you are not familiar with the Mormon teaching that man and God are of the same nature/species, and the difference is only one of progress, with God being more advanced than us. This idea comes from their belief that we are the literal offspring of God.

This seems to be a point of argument between what you demand Mormons believe and what Mormons state their beliefs are. Rebecca’s position is that nothing a Mormon says has any affect on her position because what she states is “the truth” and Mormons only lie about their beliefs.

Are you Mormon?

What I have stated Mormons believe (in this context, the belief that man and God are of the same species/nature, with the difference being one of progress) is based on their own teachings. If you are not familiar with this, then perhaps you should research more of what they believe.

 

[LongJourney]

I am tiring of all this argument with LDS people. We will not convert to Mormonism, and they probably will never convert to Catholicism. The two belief systems are far different from each other, no matter what the LDS people say. It is pointless slippery semantics.

The number of LDS-related threads on the first page has been running between seven and ten for the past month. It has become as if people arguing just to argue. Egos are deeply involved.

:banghead:

Can’t we just agree to disagree, and leave it at that?

 

[SteveVH]

That would be completely inaccurate given my understanding of the teachings. Man’s nature is carnal and God’s nature is infinite, supernal, and wholly perfect and righteous.

Given your understand of who’s teachings? Man’s “fallen” nature tends toward the carnal, but not his original nature. Christ was without sin, therefore he was perfect even in his human nature. I’m really not sure what you are trying to say here.

This teaching has nothing to do with species or whatever Rebecca is attempting to say. What it does say is that in math 1 + 1 = 2 that is all. Any analogy attempting to force a mathmitichan to state 1 + 1 = 1 is irrational and without logic. It is a new form of math that is not found or used by any other society or group.

I’ll say it again. God cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation. The whole thing is a red herring.

This seems to be a point of argument between what you demand Mormons believe and what Mormons state their beliefs are. Rebecca’s position is that nothing a Mormon says has any affect on her position because what she states is “the truth” and Mormons only lie about their beliefs.

I ask both of you, how would Christ handle this type of conversation? Respond in love one to another, share your knowledge of truth, but do not argue or belabor the point. Go slowly, find what first is in common and build upon it. To attack one another is to reject a unity of believers in Jesus Christ.

How would Christ handle this situation? How did he handle the Pharisees? He called them white washed tombs full of dead men’s bones. How did he handle the money changers in the Temple? He overturned their tables, beat them with a cord and physically threw them out. Jesus didn’t put up with falsehoods spoken by anyone. He always called them on it. Did he ask them to “share their their knowledge of truth”? What happened to the fig tree that would bear no fruit? Jesus loved each and every Pharisee and money changer as much as he loves me or you, but he did not put up with their falsehoods. He corrected them.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I’ll say it again. God cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation. The whole thing is a red herring.

It’s not necessarily “reducing” God to a mathematical equation. The doctrine of the hypostatic union, as defined by the Council of Chalcedon, clearly teaches that Christ had/has two natures: 1 human + 1 divine, due to His incarnation. Therefore, 1+1 certainly equals 2, and this “1+1=1” business was only brought up by JeanMichel, not anyone else.

 

[SteveVH]

It’s not necessarily “reducing” God to a mathematical equation. The doctrine of the hypostatic union, as defined by the Council of Chalcedon, clearly teaches that Christ had/has two natures: 1 human + 1 divine, due to His incarnation. Therefore, 1+1 certainly equals 2, and this “1+1=1” business was only brought up by JeanMichel, not anyone else.

Point taken.

 

[dianaiad]

Publisher, I think you are correct. The topic of this quote was counsel that individuals come to know Christ personally. It was not a statement about doctrine as the full text demonstrates below:

*B. The Goal: To Know Christ in a Real, Personal, and Close Association

The first step in knowing Christ is to learn all that we can about him. President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., has offered the following advice:

“. . . I am quite a believer in studying the life of the Savior as an actual personality. That is not often done. Our students of the Bible and of the New Testament, seem to refrain from trying to build a biography of the Master. . . .

“. . . try to go along with the Savior, live with him, let him be an actual man, half divine, of course, but nevertheless moving as a man moved in those days.” ( Behold the Lamb of God, p. 8.)

Once you have begun to understand Christ’s true attributes and personality, place these characteristics into your life. When confronted by a circumstance, ask yourself, What would Jesus do? “Many of my decisions have been motivated by [this question],” Elder Marion G. Romney has testified, “Doing what I have thought He would have done has always brought satisfaction and joy.” (“Jesus Christ, Man’s Great Exemplar,” Speeches of the Year, 1967, p. 2.)
*

I do believe it was a poor turn of phrase. LDS do believe that Jesus is fully divine, but in my reading they seldom use terminology such as “half divine” or “fully divine”. It is not a question of degrees, but more importantly it is simply not a topic. They seem to satisfy themselves with the concept that Jesus was the Only Begotton Son of God the Father, co-Eternal with God and forever part of the Godhead.

LDS theology has never arrived at a point where essence is contemplated. They seem quite comfortable with being monotheists, but when pushed they are also comfortable with the concept of heno/poly-theism in that they believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God or Gods.

Ousia is a philosophical construct needed to explain how God the Father could have a seperate being, Jesus, as a Son and still honor the absolute need of monotheism. LDS seem to ignore this need entirely and thus fall victim to the claim of being heno/poly-theists.

That’s an interesting viewpoint…and you might have a point. We are quite comfortable with not knowing everything.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That would be completely inaccurate given my understanding of the teachings. Man’s nature is carnal and God’s nature is infinite, supernal, and wholly perfect and righteous. This teaching has nothing to do with species or whatever Rebecca is attempting to say. What it does say is that in math 1 + 1 = 2 that is all. Any analogy attempting to force a mathmitichan to state 1 + 1 = 1 is irrational and without logic. It is a new form of math that is not found or used by any other society or group.

This seems to be a point of argument between what you demand Mormons believe and what Mormons state their beliefs are. Rebecca’s position is that nothing a Mormon says has any affect on her position because what she states is “the truth” and Mormons only lie about their beliefs.

I ask both of you, how would Christ handle this type of conversation? Respond in love one to another, share your knowledge of truth, but do not argue or belabor the point. Go slowly, find what first is in common and build upon it. To attack one another is to reject a unity of believers in Jesus Christ.

I’ll speak for my position, thanks.

I am a former Mormon, as are many who are posting here in the Mormon topics. I’m not going to sit by watching Mormons hide their “deeper doctrines”, pretending that they don’t believe what is taught to their own members. What Mormons have said here, as their belief, and now a syncretic Mormon/Catholic mix is being put forth as Mormon doctrine.

I just don’t think you can see how ludicrous it is.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ll speak for my position, thanks.

I am a former Mormon, as are many who are posting here in the Mormon topics. I’m not going to sit by watching Mormons hide their “deeper doctrines”, pretending that they don’t believe what is taught to their own members. What Mormons have said here, as their belief, and now a syncretic Mormon/Catholic mix is being put forth as Mormon doctrine.

I just don’t think you can see how ludicrous it is.

Yes, I am confused.

I don’t like it when someone professes some whacky doctrine as a Catholic belief.

So I always try to consider whether what someone says about another religion’s beliefs is actually part of their dogma.

However, after reading these posts, I AM QUITE CONFUSED about what Mormons believe.

It seems like they are indeed taking words that Catholics use, making an apparently subtle distinction that must be understood with nuance, and then usurping the word and saying, “yes, that’s what we believe, too!”

But I am quite certain the current teaching of the LDS is that Mary did not have intercourse/coitus with God.

Whether this was a teaching in the past, I dunno…

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, I am confused.

I don’t like it when someone professes some whacky doctrine as a Catholic belief.

So I always try to consider whether what someone says about another religion’s beliefs is actually part of their dogma.

However, after reading these posts, I AM QUITE CONFUSED about what Mormons believe.

It seems like they are indeed taking words that Catholics use, making an apparently subtle distinction that must be understood with nuance, and then usurping the word and saying, “yes, that’s what we believe, too!”

But I am quite certain the current teaching of the LDS is that Mary did not have intercourse/coitus with God.

Whether this was a teaching in the past, I dunno…

Rebecca is an ex-Mormon. Her bias is very much against Mormonism. Even if she were not an avowed opponent (and she is very much an avowed opponent) of Mormonism, her bias would naturally be against her former faith, and she would present the teachings of her former faith in the least positive manner possible. This isn’t because she is Rebecca. It’s because she’s an ‘ex.’

This happens with ALL ex (insert belief system here). Ex-Catholics are just as, if not more, virulently criticial of Catholicism, when they start debating Catholic beliefs in forums such as this one. Those ex-members (of any faith) who are still ‘stuck’ to their former faith enough to actively oppose it have no reason to present their old beliefs in any sort of positive manner–and every reason to twist, deny, missrepresent and outright lie about those beliefs.

And they all do. I’ve never met an ex-member of any faith (that actually tries to teach other people about that faith in order to warn them away from it) that did NOT twist, mislead, misrepresent and downright lie about that former faith.

…and that goes for all belief systems that I’ve attempted to find information about. In my 45+ years of speaking with people of other faiths about their faiths, I’ve never once seen an ex-whatever it is be accurate about the beliefs of his/her old faith, never mind being fair or positive. When you think about it, I think you can see why that would be…it’s not so much a factor of being an ‘ex,’ as it is being an ‘ex’ who feels compelled to go on the attack against their old faith. It’s a product of bitterness and a percieved betrayal that may or may not be valid. The point is, ex-members cannot be used as primary sources of information about their previous faiths.

…and yes, that goes for people who convert TO Mormonism from another faith. I would never use an ex-Catholic (now LDS) as a source of information about Catholicism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Diana thinks if she says ex-Catholics have no valid opinions then that gives cause to accept her biases against former Mormons.

Notice she didn’t address the subject, at all. Somehow she always makes me the subject, which is just really weird.

 

[Todd520]

I ask both of you, how would Christ handle this type of conversation? Respond in love one to another, share your knowledge of truth, but do not argue or belabor the point. Go slowly, find what first is in common and build upon it. To attack one another is to reject a unity of believers in Jesus Christ.

Jean, I think some people are just strongly opposed to “a unity of believers in Jesus,” which makes it impossible for them to respond in love and share knowledge.