Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[TOmNossor]

Katholikos:

The superiority of creation ex nihilo comes from the fact that it is true. Catholicism is true. Mormonism is not.

Please provide Father Jaki’s quotations and their source, which you claim support your “biblical exegesis.”

JMJ JayYour assertions about what is true and what is not carry little weight in logically deciding what is true and what is not.

I can also show you where St. Justin Martin very clearly taught that he in fact believed in creation ex materia. In addition to this, I can make a pretty strong case for the idea put forth by Gerard May that Creation ex Nihilo was a second century invention having no adherents before this. And as I have suggested it is the uncritical acceptance of creation ex nihilo that lead to the third century modalist controversy and the fourth century Arian controversy. Without this non-Biblical invention, we would have been in a much better position to understand the nature of Jesus Christ and His divinity.

Here is you Father Jaki quote.

Father Stanley L. Jaki, *Genesis 1 Through the Ages *(Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6

The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter.

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

But I consider creation ex matria to not only be a possible read of the Bible, but to be a better read of the Bible. I can point to Catholic priest, Father Jaki, as support for some of this Biblical exegesis. And I consider creation ex matria as a far superior foundation upon which to build a theodicy than is creation ex nihilo.

Charity, TOm

Tom, I’ve been busy with work so have been unable to follow this ever growing thread, so I’m going to blindly jump in here and hope I’m not repeating someone else.

First of all, you pointing to one Catholic priest who supports your position on any subject doesn’t have much merit. We all know that among one billion current Catholics, plus the billions of others whom have died in the last two-thousand years, anyone can find support for any position they want. That’s simply a matter of statistical probability. If I look hard enough, I’m sure I could find a Catholic who supported current Mormon ideas on certain subjects. But if you are going to use them for supporting your ideas on certain items, I think it’s unfair to reject the rest of their ideas when they don’t fit your belief in what is true.

This is especially true of the church fathers. You can go and find a quote here or a line there that supports Mormon theology, but taken as a whole, the church fathers are thoroughly Catholic, not Mormon. No one says their writing is perfect. That’s why it isn’t sacred scripture. But if read in totallity, not in bits and pieces, Catholic doctrine emerges.

When you read the chruch fathers, you appear to be looking for support of Mormon doctrine and ignoring the remaining 95% of the material. Protestants come into the Catholic church time and time again in part because of their discovery of the church fathers.

 

[Katholikos]

But I consider creation ex matria to not only be a possible read of the Bible, but to be a better read of the Bible. I can point to Catholic priest, Father Jaki, as support for some of this Biblical exegesis. And I consider creation ex matria as a far superior foundation upon which to build a theodicy than is creation ex nihilo.

TOm, you seem not to be totally comfortable with your religion, and are constantly picking words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, pages out of some Catholic’s writing – and even out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church – that you feel will support your beliefs. You say such things as “I am pretty convinced that my concept of (fill in the blank) is solidly in line with the Catholic Church.” You’ve been posting at Catholic Answers now for quite some time, and I’ve observed that this is a constant with you – proving to yourself (and trying to convince others) that the LDS and Catholic teachings are the same or very similar. Well, Tom, they are not.

The Supreme Being gives existence to all other things. He made all other things out of nothing. Where nothing was, he gives existence, calls into existence. That’s what creation means in the strict sense of the word. Man can’t create, though we have appropriated and misuse the term. Man makes something out of something that already exists. God is the Supreme Being who creates something out of nothing. That’s Catholic doctrine, set in concrete. The Supreme Being, called the Almighty by the Jews, creates – gives existence – to that which previously was not – like the universe, and the soul of each of us.

As I’ve told you several times on other threads, Catholic Doctrine does not come out of the Bible. It comes from the lips of the Apostles and is confirmed in the Scriptures. The NT writings were chosen for canonization because they are a reflection of the teaching Church. Writings that did not mirror the Church were not accepted into the canon.

As for Father Jaki, I cannot tell what his point was from what you provided. I would have to read the entire chapter, or perhaps the book, to be sure I understood the significance of these few words. I’d certainly be reluctant to conclude that Fr. Jaki was a heretic on the basis of this excerpt, as you have suggested. You tend to proof-text Catholic writings.

Peace,

JMJ Jay

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:

First of all, you pointing to one Catholic priest who supports your position on any subject doesn’t have much merit. We all know that among one billion current Catholics, plus the billions of others whom have died in the last two-thousand years, anyone can find support for any position they want. That’s simply a matter of statistical probability.

I would beg to differ with the above in a few ways.

First, the specific support I derived from Father Jaki was in fact associated with Biblical exegesis. As Catholics must surely realize there are many ways to read the Bible, but generally people have found within the Bible things that support their faith traditions. When one sees in the Bible something that shakes their foundations and they hold onto it, it is worth noting. Most LDS do not see Creation ex Nihilo in the Bible. This is not really too exciting. Father Jaki and quite a number of Protestant scholars do not see Creation ex Nihilo in the Bible. This is worth noting. The fact is the Bible does not demand Creation ex Materia, but verb “bara” does lend support to the idea and as LDS understand Creation ex Materia it is solidly Biblical. Assuming that you are not a Hebrew scholar it seems unlikely you would take my word for it so I point to someone who is a Catholic Priest.

Second, to suggest that I can find a Catholic Priest to support any idea under the sun is to not understand the extensive amount of training Catholic Priest go through (not to mention how creative I could be, but that is prolly not too important for our discussion).

The fact is when a Catholic Priests suggest that the ECF teach a particular thing or that the Bible does not teach a particular thing, there is something to said claim. So I am not pointing to Father Jaki to say that Catholic’s believe this, but rather to say that this is a solid read of the Bible. The 4th Lateran Council should decide for Catholics in this matter. I am not convinced that Father Jaki does not believe that God created ex nihilo ultimately (in fact, I suspect that is what he beliefs), but concerning the Genesis account, Father Jaki is honestly evaluating the Biblical Hebrew. “Bara” has come to mean creation ex nihilo, but it seems unlikely that it did originally. That only God can “Bara” is perfectly inline with LDS theology, we just say that “Bara” is to form from pre-exiting matter.

Chris-WA:

I think it’s unfair to reject the rest of their ideas when they don’t fit your belief in what is true.

Again it is not my purpose to say that I wish to align myself with Father Jaki or Mr. Winter, but rather to suggest that the LDS read on various things is quite reasonable. I recognize that I am BIASED. I recognize that you are unlikely to accept my exegesis on the word, “bara.” But solid scholars even Catholic priests are not biased in the same way I am. Bias in religious discussion will always be with us, to ignore this in ourselves or the sources we learn from will blind us.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA:

This is especially true of the church fathers. You can go and find a quote here or a line there that supports Mormon theology, but taken as a whole, the church fathers are thoroughly Catholic, not Mormon. No one says their writing is perfect. That’s why it isn’t sacred scripture. But if read in totallity, not in bits and pieces, Catholic doctrine emerges.

My response to this is yes and no. If you walk with the ECF and take the views of later father with equal weight to earlier fathers, you will certainly find orthodox Catholic views. But if you place increased weight upon the earlier writings and/or apply the test of St. Vincent De Lerins, you will in fact not arrive at Catholic views. Cardinal Newman in his excellent essay, on the development of Christian doctrine acknowledges the inadequacy of St. Vincent De Lerins maxim.

It is my position that you can see the apostasy in the writings of the ECF. As I pointed to in post #363 you can see the acceptance of non-LDS beliefs over time. Creation ex Nihilo is perhaps the best example. St. Justin Martyr solidly believed and defended Creation ex Materia (it seems Clement of Rome, earlier than Justin, also embraced creation ex materia). Shortly after Justin’s writings Christians began to embrace Creation ex Nihilo and a truth that was solidly Jewish and Christian was lost in the apostasy of authority.

Barry Bickmore a LDS apologist has written a book on this. It is his position that you can in fact see that the early church was more in alignment with the CoJCoLDS than the later church. I think he does a fair job of this. Barry Bickmore “Restoring the Ancient Church”.

Chris-WA:

When you read the chruch fathers, you appear to be looking for support of Mormon doctrine and ignoring the remaining 95% of the material. Protestants come into the Catholic church time and time again in part because of their discovery of the church fathers.

I am certainly guilty of NOTING when the ECF support LDS positions. If you however look earlier in this thread, I call it like I see it. I linked to an extensive review of the material on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is my conclusion that while there is room for the rejection of the Real Presence and while St. Vincent de Lerins maxim does not apply, the real presence is a significantly stronger position than is the rejection of the real presence. How I see it is surely BIASED, but in this case I am speaking against my BIAS.

I believe that the early writers that supported less orthodox position have survived to this day substantially less frequently than those who support orthodoxy. That being said, there is still a need to recognize the development of the Papacy, the development of doctrines that are not clearly the prevalent from historical record, and other difficult Newman-answered things.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Katholikos:

TOm, you seem not to be totally comfortable with your religion, and are constantly picking words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, pages out of some Catholic’s writing – and even out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church – that you feel will support your beliefs. You say such things as “I am pretty convinced that my concept of (fill in the blank) is solidly in line with the Catholic Church.” You’ve been posting at Catholic Answers now for quite some time, and I’ve observed that this is a constant with you – proving to yourself (and trying to convince others) that the LDS and Catholic teachings are the same or very similar. Well, Tom, they are not.

I am not trying to cause you to conclude that I am not “totally comfortable with [my] religion.” But, I am of the opinion that there are many false conflicts created by misunderstand LDS doctrine primarily and the spectrum of available Catholic beliefs on rare occasions.

Katholikos:

The Supreme Being gives existence to all other things. He made all other things out of nothing. Where nothing was, he gives existence, calls into existence. That’s what creation means in the strict sense of the word. Man can’t create, though we have appropriated and misuse the term. Man makes something out of something that already exists. God is the Supreme Being who creates something out of nothing. That’s Catholic doctrine, set in concrete. The Supreme Being, called the Almighty by the Jews, creates – gives existence – to that which previously was not – like the universe, and the soul of each of us.

Good Catholic doctrine. Not espoused before the second century. Not declared at a GC until the 4th Lateran Council (although readily accepted). Not Biblical. Defective towards producing a solid theodicy (in my opinion). Not true as I see it. Here is a difference for you.

Katholikos:

As I’ve told you several times on other threads, Catholic Doctrine does not come out of the Bible. It comes from the lips of the Apostles and is confirmed in the Scriptures. The NT writings were chosen for canonization because they are a reflection of the teaching Church. Writings that did not mirror the Church were not accepted into the canon.

I would be interested where you believe you educated me upon this truth about Catholic doctrine. I spent a good amount of time on another Catholic board where I thought I learned this. You however might note that earlier in this thread it was I who explained this truth to a Catholic on this board (not that said Catholic was not aware of this truth, but you are not revealing something new to me now)

And yes, writings used more frequently in the early church than some canonized words were not canonized. One of these writings was fairly clear that the total apostasy of Christ’s Church was upon us and a lesser organization would replace Christ’s Church. This was not canonized. I am not surprised.

Katholikos:

As for Father Jaki, I cannot tell what his point was from what you provided. I would have to read the entire chapter, or perhaps the book, to be sure I understood the significance of these few words. I’d certainly be reluctant to conclude that Fr. Jaki was a heretic on the basis of this excerpt, as you have suggested. You tend to proof-text Catholic writings.

His point was simply that “bara” should not be read as to demand creation ex nihilo. That was my only point in referring to him. I am not suggesting that he rejects the conclusion of the 4th Lateran council, but rather that he recognizes that the Bible does not demand said conclusion.

Charity, TOm

 

[Sophie]

Catholic-RCIA,

Excellent apologetics!! You are truly blessed!!
As you know, it is difficult to prove that our Lord established the Catholic Church to someone who doesn’t believe that our Lord is God. Faith remains a true gift of God. If He does not give it, we cannot have it.

How ironic a Mormon hymn states, "Come, come ye saints…All is well, all is well! - The Book of Mormon, “Woe be unto him that crieth: All is well!” (2 Nephi 28:25)
They certainly are full of sophistry, aren’t they!

God continue to bless you abundantly!

 

[Sophie]

Katholikos:

Ah, a clear-thinking relativist. And when you say Trinity, you do not mean the Christian Trinity – you mean a polytheistic, three-god ensemble that you call a ‘trinity.’ It’s so hard for a man who believes he’s going to be a god and rule over his own planet and have endless sex with his goddess wives and produce countless spirit children to give that up, huh? Believe whatever you wish, Tom, but don’t call it Christian.

JMJ Jay

AMEN TO THAT SISTER! AMEN TO THAT! Planning on a “Hugh Heffner” playboy eternity is an awful high-horse for any man to give up!

Phil. 3:1 - For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly and whose glory is in their shame, who set their mind on earthly things.

 

[Katholikos]

TOmNossor:

Since Christianity (Catholicism) grew out of Judaism, it incorporated the Jewish concept of God – one God. Jesus was the expected Messiah. Jesus was a Jew, a monotheist.

A polytheist like you could believe that a god “created” something out of something. But if something preexisted a god that the god used to “organize” the world (I believe that’s the word the BOM uses, not create), obviously another god preceded him in existence because the very definition of creation is to make something out of nothing.

But because God is perfection: Pure Truth, Pure Love, Omnipotent, Omniscient, and nothing pre-existed Him, or else He would not be God, He had to have created out of nothing – ex-nihilo.

If you already knew the source of Catholic doctrine, well and good. I was just making the point that I had given you this information previously – on other Mormon threads at Catholic Answers.

Then you also know that the date a doctrine is defined or formally declared by the Catholic Church is not an indication that it wasn’t believed from day one. Historically, doctrines have usually been defined when they are questioned or denied by some heretic.

It concerns me that Mormon doctrine necessarily makes Jesus Christ a liar. If Jesus (who was God) couldn’t keep his first Church together, what reason would there be for believing that he’d succeed with a second one? The silly idea that God “removed the true church from the earth” is preposterous. Historically it has been here since Christ founded it – without interruption. The “great apostacy” is more Mormon bull-oney.
JMJ Jay

 

[catholic-rcia]

Sophie

Thank you, praise God.

It is clear to me that our Christ is true, that which makes our Church true, our hospital so to speak. I have no need to convince mysel and this makes for a very light yoke. Humility is so important in our lives. By putting Trinity above all other things we can never go wrong even when we do. Just knowing that what we have been given is enough as you know. We as Catholics have been accused of many things by those who also need to be loved, are loved by God.

It is easy to worship even our families, I know - I have, but now I know that what I loved about all that I have loved is God himself in each of them. Of course we are each unique and we certainly are not mere puppets. “We are puppets of God!” We could never sever the strings. Thank God we have the beautiful Sacrament of confession. It is the Eucharist along with confession that keeps our feet to the fire. It is a battle to give all glory up to God. But the peace that one receives from Him makes it all of worth. Only to be passed on to others in need of Him. It is good to come face to face with our fallen nature in order to not be tempted by those who desire the world and the flesh as we know it, as we of course have come to know it. But gazing past it is a very good thing. If I were to put myself in a mind set to progress into something better I would be instantly surrounded by darkness and a very sick feeling. If I have such thoughts I have a cross in my Parish to kneel under. Tom asked, where does evil come from? It comes from Gods love for each of us, it’s when we reject it for something better. It’s the offer to a free people in a garden by Satin, when we turn from our Creator for something we perceive as more rewarding. God comes to us through Christ, to show us that there is not anything in heaven or on earth that can surpass Him.

Our eyes must be fixed solely on Him. Otherwise we will be tempted through our pride.

God Bless

 

[catholic-rcia]

We are to be as Jesus…
Look at how Jesus was while on earth. Did He ever speak about obtaining something for Himself other than us to be with Him, to be one with Him and the Father? Tell me if you will what else there might be that I can look foreword to in heaven? If you want to understand sin, understand Him and how as a man he overcame it. The only one that ever can and ever will. This is our Hope, this is our salvation. He never would have had a certain place only for the worthy, such as a Temple or a certain designated chair at a wedding feast for the elect. No way! As to the elect there is none. Only Him and through Him we are saved. I do at times steer my own family’s Titanic with a head held high, that little ship of which I am the Captain, a foolish one indeed. I know my measure when an Iceberg appears at the bow. My pride shrinks to a level of real worthiness because I then hand the wheel over to Jesus. Knowing that I really cannot steer this little ship through the oceans of my own pride and foolishness. Especially knowing my own children and wife are aboard. Because they to know Christ, in Him they know me better. This would be pure folly to think that I could obtain some sort of degree in Captainship. Whom could I fool in this? It is my hope to remain only a mere seaman, because I will tell you this. The Christ does know how to avoid very large icebergs, He needs no help from me, and I like it this way. So does my wife!
Now I will hang my head low and go to work. But by Sunday morning it will probably be touching the ceiling. Until I receive the Eucharist one more time while gazing up at the Crucifix.

 

[TOmNossor]

Katholikos:

Since Christianity (Catholicism) grew out of Judaism, it incorporated the Jewish concept of God – one God. Jesus was the expected Messiah. Jesus was a Jew, a monotheist.

Respected Old Testament Scholar (and Methodist minister), Margaret Barker has been producing a great deal of evidence for her position that the ancient Jews were not as monotheistic as modern Jews claim they were. In fact the terms she uses are more at home in the LDS Social Trinity than they are in modern Jews strict monotheism or the less strict monotheism of Augustinian Trinitarians.

Katholikos:

A polytheist like you

You may continue to label me if you wish, but you are not dealing with the evidence I provide and you are not accepting that I do not embrace the labels you apply. You have not attempted to engage what I really believe.

Katholikos:

A polytheist like you could believe that a god “created” something out of something. But if something preexisted a god that the god used to “organize” the world (I believe that’s the word the BOM uses, not create), obviously another god preceded him in existence because the very definition of creation is to make something out of nothing.

Perhaps I have not been clear. Nothing pre-existed God. God created from eternal matter. St Justin Martyr absolutely agrees with me and St. Clement of Rome probably did as well. If this knowledge is incompatible with being a Trinitarian than SAINT Justin Martyr must not have been a Trinitarian. Of course, SAINT Justin Martyr was absolutely not a Trinitarian as you are today. He used terms like “duetros theos,” that are not inline with the Trinity as developed.

Katholikos:

But because God is perfection: Pure Truth, Pure Love, Omnipotent, Omniscient, and nothing pre-existed Him, or else He would not be God, He had to have created out of nothing – ex-nihilo.

Solid Catholic doctrine asserted with no support by you. Developed during the 2nd century with no apostolic or ECF witness evident in any text before this. And ECF witness to the contrary position of creation ex materia present before this development.

Katholikos:

If you already knew the source of Catholic doctrine, well and good. I was just making the point that I had given you this information previously – on other Mormon threads at Catholic Answers.

Then you also know that the date a doctrine is defined or formally declared by the Catholic Church is not an indication that it wasn’t believed from day one. Historically, doctrines have usually been defined when they are questioned or denied by some heretic.

Two things, I am still curious as to where you “gave me this information,” but I guess that is not important.

And yes, I know that it is the position that doctrine is defined that has been known before and ultimately came from the apostles. Creation ex Nihilo as a pointed out above does not APPEAR to follow this pattern. No Subordination in the Godhead is also something that does not APPEAR to follow this pattern.

Cardinal Newman in the Essay from your tagline seem to address this, but the development of doctrine is not as simple as most Catholics seem to suggest.

Katholikos:

It concerns me that Mormon doctrine necessarily makes Jesus Christ a liar. If Jesus (who was God) couldn’t keep his first Church together, what reason would there be for believing that he’d succeed with a second one? The silly idea that God “removed the true church from the earth” is preposterous. Historically it has been here since Christ founded it – without interruption. The “great apostacy” is more Mormon bull-oney.

No, Jesus Christ is not a liar; you just misunderstand what He has to say. Jesus Christ told us that the apostasy would occur, but His church would prevail in the end. God revealed to Ignatius (perhaps), Polycarp(perhaps), and the Pastor of Hermas that the apostasy would occur and be total. Hermas is very clear that there will be a lesser organization that replaces Christ’s church.

Logic does not demand that the “great apostasy” occurred, but our position is stronger than yours IMO even if you use arguments like, “Mormon bull-oney.”

Charity, TOm

 

[catholic-rcia]

**This is from another posting called: JW to Catholic Conversion: A fallen away Catholic Comes Home. I thought I would place a sample of it here. As you can see these things are not new. This has been going on for two thousand years. I am Catholic because I see clearly this Battle. I see a Church that has been able to sustain the Truth and keep it avalable for all. A Tribute not to man, but to the Holy Spirit. It is a Miracle. **

**…None of None of them believed in everything Jehovah’s Witnesses believe today. Just to call them
Jehovah’s Witnesses doesn’t make them so. And were they alive today, would they agree that
they were Jehovah’s Witnesses?

More problematic was the fact that Jesus came and established his church (Matt. 16:18),
promising that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Also, in Matt. 28:18-20 Jesus
promised to be with the Church always. And yet we were asked to believe that the church,
which began apostatizing after the death of the apostles, had fully done so by the time of
Constantine in the fourth century and that we must wait until Charles Taze Russell came along
in 1879 to restore it. It just didn’t make sense to me. I could see people falling away from the
Church, but not the whole Church falling away from Christ. After all, didn’t Jesus promise to
send the Holy Spirit to guide it? (See John 14:25 and John 16:13)

The Watchtower was asking me to believe that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit had failed in
their mission and yet a man, Russell, did not. And I was also supposed to believe that God
gave mankind the Bible, yet from the fourth century until Russell, no one could understand it
properly. Such a huge gap! Why, therefore, did God not wait until the latter 1800s to give us
the Church and the Bible? Wouldn’t that be a more logical thing for him to have done? No,
there was no gap. Ephesians 3:21 proves that the Church did not apostatize, did not pass
away.

The final straw for me came in 1966. I had entered Bethel (the world headquarters of
Jehovah’s Witnesses) in Brooklyn, New York in 1965. I wasn’t there very long, only about six
months all total. And everything seemed to happen… **

 

[TOmNossor]

I have a great deal of respect for the JWs. I spent a few months recently learning about their religion. I think we could all learn from the commitment they have to do God’s work (as they see it). The biggest problem for them and anyone but the Catholic Church is authority. Did Christ leave his church with a priesthood authority? This is how my friend quotes (and I have quoted Newman):

“…This one thing is at least certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this…To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant…”

The JW visitors did not have a particularly powerful response to the question of authority (and I suspect this is an area in which they do not spend too much time).

That being said, I think the following common criticism are almost entirely polemic and do not contribute to a greater understanding of these issues.

1. Jesus Christ lied or Jesus Christ failed.

The above statement used against my church on this thread and against the JW church on the thread you copied from shines very little light upon our subject. It builds upon your personal interpretation of the words of the Bible and the witness of the early church. Surely many Jews also said that the Christian Christ failed because he was killed. The problem with this is that the Christian Christ (like His Church) rose again. To prevail is not to win every battle, but to conquer in the end. This is what happened at the Restoration. (as is often the case, I can back up the above concept associated with “prevail” from a Catholic scholars assessment of Matthew 16:18. The text does not demand no apostasy).

As God communicated to the Paster of Hermas in the 1st or 2nd century the church built upon Christ was soon to be complete. A lesser organization would emerge and those who did not align with Christ’s original church could be part of this lesser organization if they did not repent speedily enough to be part of Christ’s original church. According to God’s communication this end was immediately at hand. While not canonized, this work was, “a work which had great authority in ancient times and was ranked with Holy Scripture.” – Catholic Encyclopedia.

Christ did not fail. The early Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church (lesser organization), and the Restoration Church did not fail. Each had/has its place, but the fullness is today contained in the CoJCoLDS. This is attested to by a proper understanding of God’s words in Matthew, to Hermas, and to Joseph Smith.

To suggest the CoJCoLDS is not God’s Church is to suggest that Christ failed or lied. You just don’t understand scripture. (the difference between this bold assertion and that of those on this thread is that I have provided a little bit more background information, but I still state such things as if they are the only logical conclusion and they are not. Not your conclusion nor my conclusion are the only logical conclusions).

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

1. Nobody understood scripture until … (Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, or Charles Russell). While there are clearly some new inventions during the reformation, Sole Fide and Priesthood of all Believers (as constituted by Protestants), the witness of history is that the Catholic Church has morphed in its reading of scripture. On this very thread you suggested that you could defend the Trinity sola scriptura. The Council of Nicea specifically rejected the idea that a creed sola scriptura was sufficient, because it would not sufficiently exclude Arius’ ideas from orthodoxy. Matthew 16:18 has taken on more and more meaning within the Catholic Church over the years.
   And for one who does not accept the authority of the Catholic Church in choosing scripture, I find an even bigger problem with your statement. When scripture is understood in the context of the Early Church it is very much in alignment with LDS thought. I reject the concept that we may ignore writings that were not canonized. This is true for two reasons, first I reject the authority that canonized scripture. And second in alignment with most Biblical scholars I believe the Bible must be interpreted not in the light of emerged orthodoxy, but in the light of its original understanding and culture. Here are the words of two Protestant scholars.

Mosser and Owen, Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect – Losing the Battle and not Knowing It:

Logically then, what must be established in Mormon-evangelical dialogues is the historical-cultural context in which the biblical texts were written. This is exactly what the Mormons are doing in their studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the pseudepigrapha and Christian origins. They are building the contextual superstructure necessary for a proper interpretation of the Bible, particularly the New Testament. They are arranging the evidence in a manner that will, if flaws are not demonstrated, warrant an interpretation of the New Testament that is both historically-culturally based and at odds with evangelical theology.

The flaws of finding Creation ex Nihilo in the Bible are fairly well established and are increasingly accepted by scholars. LDS are continuing to demonstrate other areas in which orthodoxy ruled over traditional understanding. Catholics are less active in this than Evangelicals. It is my assessment that only one who chooses to ignore the evidence could not realize that Evangelicals are loosing this battle. Catholics on the other hand may choose to belly up to a different table and fair better. If you instead walk with Evangelicals and try to defend from the Bible alone, I think you again could be in better shape than Evangelicals, but still not as strong as you might like.
Charity, TOm

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

God did not require Satan to choose one way or another, but every (name removed by moderator)ut Satan had when he choose to rebel against God came from God. Satan’s nature was from God and nothing else. Satan’s thought processes stemmed from God and nothing else. Satan’s forming experiences came from God and nothing else. Satan’s hopes and desires came from God and nothing else.

Incorrect …and on many levels. Satan, also known as Lucifer, was the “light-bearer” for God and was created for that purpose - to promote light, not darkness. In rebelling against God, he rebelled against and perverted the very purpose for which God created him. As for “(name removed by moderator)ut,” it was clearly not the will of God that evil should enter the world. Satan/Lucifer has become the spiritual power that promotes evil - evil being an absence of good (just as darkness is an absence of light), and so not something proper to God’s creation. Ergo, Satan’s rebellion is not a matter of God’s “(name removed by moderator)ut.”

Satan’s ORIGINAL nature was from God, and so something sinless and perfect …just as human nature was also sinless and perfect before the fall of Adam and Eve. Our present human nature is not as God created it or intended it to be, but is distorted and perverted by the sin of Adam - i.e., the curse of a knowledge of evil, which Adam and Eve did not originally possess, but which became part of their nature, and the nature of all of their offspring, after their rebellion and fall. It is no different for Satan, whose nature was perverted and distorted by his free choice to rebel against God. Ergo, Satan today is not the same natural being that God created him to be.

As an angel, Satan possessed free will, just as human beings do. When Eve chose to eat of the Tree, she knew that this was not the will of God, but did it anyway. The same goes for her husband. Therefore, the choice to sin does not “stem” from God at all, but directly contradicts His grace.

At the point of his fall, Satan’s hopes and desires came from his own pride. The same was true of Adam and Eve.

TOM:

And more than this, traditional understanding of omniscience demands that God knew Satan’s choice from the second God breathed life into Satan. God could see how all the (name removed by moderator)uts that came solely from God would lead to but one outcome, Satan’s rebellion, condemnation, and a similar fate for untold other angels and men.

So what? That doesn’t mean that God made the choice for him. You are confusing omniscience with manipulation of will. They are not the same thing. For example, I think we can all agree that, per the First Epistle of John, the nature of God is Love. This being the case, God can do nothing but love His creations, since to do otherwise would contradict His Divine nature. Okay. Now let’s plug this into a human analogy. Let’s say that you are the most loving father in the world. And, as a loving father, you sired a baby son; and, on the occasion of this child’s birth, you were told by some time-traveler, and so knew with 100% certainty, that this son will one day betray you and destroy everything you worked for all your life - everything you hold dear. So, what do you do? Do you kill the baby? Do you treat him any differently than you otherwise would? Well, not if you are an all-loving Father like God is. Rather, you would continue to love your child just as you ordinarily would; and you would do this DESPITE the fact that you know he will eventually oppose your will and betray you. Knowledge of future sin does not equal endorsement of sin when it comes to God and His Divine context, which is Love. So, I strongly suggest that you re-evaluate your concept of the Almighty, because it is sorely lacking.

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

LDS theology does not suffer from the above problem. Satan is responsible for Satan’s choices. Misery while foreknown by an omniscient God is the only way to turn non-creato-ex-Nihilo beings into all that God wishes us to be. Our pain is but for a small instant, but it is a product of our choice and who we are not solely God’s doing

.

No, that is wrong. You are overlooking context here. While misery in this life may assist in making men into what God wishes us to be, this is only because of the choice of Adam and the curse of original sin. This was not God’s original intention. Likewise, angels do not require “misery” to be what God wishes them to be, nor can fallen angels be redeemed by “misery,” since their choice was made eternally at the time of Satan’s rebellion.

TOM:

I see some beauty in the way you formulate Creation ex Nihilo. I readily admit that LDS almost never mention Jesus Christ and Satan are brothers and I think it is a pity that our critics do so frequently. You would almost never have such a chill go down your spine if you did not seek such statements most likely from websites that preserve them to use them against the CoJCoLDS.

Question for you: Is God the Father eternal? Scripture (that is, real Scripture) says that He is. And, if He is a Father from all eternity, then it follows that He must have been a Father to SOMEONE from all eternity. We Catholics, and all orthodox Christians, says that He was Father to Himself - the eternal Father eternally begetting an eternal Son within His own Divine nature, and the Holy Spirit being the eternal bond of Love between them. Your LDS theology, on the other hand, contradicts this Scriptural principal and presents us with a form of neo-Arianism, whereby God exists prior to being a Father, and that His Fatherhood is not of Himself (per the Trinity), but of other, lesser beings --i.e., Satan and your version of “Jesus.” So, if you are going to take this position, you need to admit that God is either not eternal (which contradicts Scripture) or that He should not be called “Heavenly Father” (as you call Him) as an intrinsic name …since He was not always a father as a matter of His nature in your belief system. So, which is it to be?

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

Since LDS like Catholics have concepts such as “invisible church” and “baptism of desire,”

We don’t have a concept of an “invisible church.” Rather, we acknowledge that the Catholic Church (which is a very visible and incarnational thing) mysteriously extends beyond its institutional limits via solidarity of the faithful. Yet, without the Catholic Church as a focal point, no one belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ. Likewise, “Baptism by desire” is intrinsically connected to this dynamic.

. . .and since God has chosen not to reveal to me that everyone who does not become a LDS in this life is headed for less than God desires for them; I choose to recognize the possibility that some are served optimally by a set of truths that is less complete (than the incomplete set that I embrace)

.

So, you admit that your belief is "incomplete”?

If you choose to reject concepts such as the “invisible church” and “baptism of desire,” there is an organization that might suit you well. The Society of Saint Pius X is my favorite, but there are also some sedavacantist groups who I think are even farther astray from the body of the Catholic Church.

Catholicism condemns the Feenyites and all those who say membership in the *institutional Catholic Church is absolutely necessary for salvation. Yet, at the same time, we also maintain that it is impossible to be saved by a false, made-up “Jesus.” Only the real Jesus can save you, and He is not the 19th Century pseudo-Arian “character” invented by the Mormonism.

Concerning the Trinity:
Perhaps it would be best that you allow me to define what I mean. I explained my concept of the Trinity earlier in this thread. It was no more polytheistic than your concept of the Trinity.

We beg to differ.

I have linked to Blake Ostler’s essay on this, it is no more polytheistic than the ideas held by the majority of non-modalist Christians.

Simple Question: Is Jesus Christ One in Being with God the Father, or a “divine being” who is distinct from God the Father? If Jesus is Divine, but is not One in Being with the Father, then you have embraced polytheism. Ignore it all you like, but that is the objective reality.

that the CoJCoLDS has quite a strong foundation (especially as it relates to deification),

I thought you said you yourselves don’t understand it.

but I think you will instead quote from past LDS leaders and other non-canonized and/or non-current things. This is quite similar to what Protestants do to you. And I think the reason is the same in their case too.

I’m all for addressing what you Mormons actually believe. The problem is that you don’t admit what you really believe to outsiders; and when what you really believe is exposed, you try to rationalize it away rather than defend it.

             cont'd

.

 

[FCEGM]

continuing. . .

Catholic scholar Giovanni Papini quotes and comments on the writings of the early Christian Lactantius:
“Before creating the world, God produced a spirit like Himself, replete with the virtues of the Father. Later he made another, in whom the mark of divine origin was erased, because this one was besmirched by the poison of jealousy and turned therefore from good to evil… He was jealous of his older Brother who, remaining united with his Father, insured his affection unto himself. This being who from god became bad is called Devil by the Greeks.”

Your first mistake here is that you call Lactantius a “Catholic.” He was not. Rather, like most members of the court of Constantine the Great (Lactantius being the lay tutor of Constantine’s eldest son Crispus), he was an Arian, or, at the very best, a semi-Arian (like Eusebius of Caesarea). He also most certainly died before the Council of Nicaea in 325, which condemned Arianism. Crispus himself died in 326. What’s more, Lactantius was merely a layman and possessed no teaching authority in the Church. Therefore, his Arian musings above come from himself and from ideas which were popular at the time at Constantine’s semi-Arian court. So, it is not a Church father or Catholic authority who you are citing here.

Furthermore, while Lactantius’ Arian ideas come close to the fantasy story of Joseph Smith, you will note that, once read in full, there are several major contradictions with Smith’s assertions. For example, Lactantius is VERY clear in saying that Christ was created BEFORE Satan. He writes:

“Since God was possessed of the greatest foresight for planning, and of the greatest skill for carrying out in action, before He commenced this business of the world – inasmuch as there was in Him, and always is, the fountain of full and most complete goodness – in order that goodness might spring as a stream from Him, and might flow forth afar, He produced a Spirit like to Himself, who might be endowed with the perfections of God the Father (i.e., Christ). But how He willed that, I will endeavour to show in the fourth book. Then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain (i.e., Satan). …This being, who from good became evil by his own act, is called by the Greeks diabolus: we call him accuser, because he reports to God the faults to which he himself entices us.” (Divine Institutions, Book II, Chap 9).

This statement directly contradicts LDS doctrine, which maintains that Satan was God the Father’s FIRST son. Likewise, Lactantius contradicts Mormonism, for he says …

“God, therefore, when He began the fabric of the world, set over the whole work that first and greatest Son, and used Him at the same time as a counselor and artificer, in planning, arranging, and accomplishing, since He is complete both in knowledge, and judgment, and power; concerning whom I now speak more sparingly, because in another place both His excellence, and His name, and His nature must be related by us.” (Ibid)

Mormonism, on the other hand, says that Satan was first to be given dominion over the world, but messed things up, and so Christ (the second Son) had to be sent to set things right. What’s more, in the very next sentence, Lactantius writes:

“Let no one inquire of what materials God made these works so great and wonderful: for He made all things out of nothing.” (Ibid)

That is, ex nihilo - the very thing which you Mormons deny. So, so much for Lactantius being an ancient Mormon. The only thing he held in common with you was your Arian tendencies

Papini comments:] According to Lactantius, Lucifer would have been nothing less than the brother of the Logos… The elder spirit, filled with every divine virtue and beloved by God above all other spirits, can easily be recognized as Word, that think that the other Spirit, also endowed with every grace, was the second son of the Father: the future Satan would be, no less, the younger brother of the future Christ. (The Devil [NY:E.P. Dutton & Co., 1954], 81-82; original Lactantius, Divine Institutes II, 9)

And this too is all fine and well, but Lactantius himself never says that Satan is Christ’s literal “brother.” Rather, Lactantius depicts both Christ and Satan as creations of the Father (an Arian mode of thought). But, what Lactantius does not say is that God the Father “sired” or “begot” these two ‘lesser spirits,’ nor does he ever call Satan anything like God’s son. Ergo, no Mormonism.

 

[FCEGM]

TOM:

Father Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6
Quote:
The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter.

What Jaki is talking about here does not promote *ex materia * in the sense of Mormon doctrine. What Jaki is referring to is the Semitic principal of creation being drawn out of the principal of “watery chaos,” per Genesis 1:1-2. Here, the Scripture reads:

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void, and darkness covered the abyss, while the Spirit of God moved over the waters.”

Here, the principal creation of the earth (from an *ex nihilo * point of view) is manifested in the form of chaos (aka, the formless void / the abyss / the Semitic-Babylonian waters of chaos); and all of ordered creation is drawn out of this “formless” state. So, *ex nihilo * is at work here insofar that God made something out of nothing - the first principal of chaos; and out of this chaos (“materia”), God establishes order, which the rest of Genesis 1 describes. He does not do it by having relations with some “Divine wife,” however, nor does He literally sire any sons in a sexual or biological fashion.