The Many Gods of Mormonism

[TOmNossor]

Karl Keating:

TOm seems to be writing about a religion much different from the Mormonism I am familiar with. I don’t think he’s trying to dissemble, so that suggests that either he doesn’t agree with some basic Mormon teaching or that he just doesn’t know what the Mormon church really holds.

I recommend Isaiah Bennett’s books on Mormonism: “When Mormons Call” and “Inside Mormonism,” both published by Catholic Answers.

My fondest hope is that you will retract this statement.

I will not harp on this any further if you do not respond here. I have read much by you and today I found in your words what I knew existed. If I am out of line for taking another swing at the king, you may delete this second swing and I will not cry foul and I will still have respect for much of what you say.

Anyway, here is the quote from Catholics and Fundementalism by Karl Keating pg. 33
Catholics and Fundementalism:

Now it may well be that a man leaving one religion for another can write fairly, without bitterness, about the one he left behind. But it stands to reason that most people who suddenly think they have an urge to write about their change of beliefs just want to vent their frustrations or justify their actions. Their books should be read and used with discretion, and they should not be used at all as explanations of the beliefs of their old religion if the books betray the least hint of rancor.

Again, my fondest hope is that you will retract your statement from this thread. The books you recommend cannot form a foundation for the understanding of the CoJCoLDS. I acknowledge that my my understanding of the CoJCoLDS is at least as far removed from the average LDS as is your understanding of Catholicism from the little old Italian lady who attends mass 3x per week. But that does not mean that I do not have a solid read on what LDS may believe and what our standard works suggest to me we should believe. AND it is no excuss to recommend the books you did IMO.

Charity, TOm

 

[AmandaPS]

TOm,

I truely hope I do not appear hostile towards you or your faith by asking the questions that I do. It’s also my hope that you recognize my attempts at understanding LDS teachings by going to the source of those teachings as well.

On men becoming gods, the Doctrine and Covenants says that men can be exaltated and become gods “from everlasting to everlasting,” and “have all pwer, and the angels are subject to them.”

*D&C 132:19-20 (15—20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man amarry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and beverlasting covenant, and it is csealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of dpromise•, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ekeys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit fthrones•, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s gBook of Life, that he shall commit no hmurder whereby to shed innocent iblood•, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the kseeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting• to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be bgods•, because they have call• power, and the angels are subject unto them.*

This seems to be very different than simply being united with our Father in heaven. It seems from the verses that man can be co-equal to God.

 

[TOmNossor]

AmandaPS,

You cannot go wrong quoting from the LDS 4 standard works.

I do not think the D&C says anything about being co-equal with God. It just says that men may become gods. Not creatures men would be tempted to worship. Not angles who sing all day. But gods.

LDS generally believe that Jesus Christ is subordinate to God the Father. And LDS do not believe we are deified of our own merit, but rather through Christ. So I would suggest that we have no room to feel we are co-equal with God the Father or Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith in some non-canonical teachings suggested that God would always be above us regardless of the degree of our eternal progression/increase.

Also, LDS must include in their understanding of D&C 132 the words of the Old Testament. There is no God before or beside the one God. (I have never seen a LDS apologist try to say that this passage was some mistake in the Bible, and I would never do such a thing).

So, I understand LDS deification as requiring a unification with God. I understand the oneness and threeness teachings within the 4 standard works of being best read as a Social Trinity. In this light, deification in my mind makes best sense as a uniting with God. It is a partaking of the divinity of which the Father is the Fount.

ECF pointed to Biblical passages that they suggested taught men may become gods. This Biblical passages like D&C 132 do not include the unification with God that it seems Old and New Testament passages require. I would say that much understanding has come through Christian mystics that does not integrate all the truths of the Bible. Theologians then integrate these ideas into coherent understandings. This is what I believe LDS scholars have done.

Charity, TOm

 

[petra]

Tom, here are some interesting quotes of Joseph Smith:
“In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through–Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, its sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.” . . . “Many men say there is one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyonw – three in one, and one in three! . . . All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God – he would be a giant or a monster.”
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372

It seems that D&C 20:17 does not apply to Elohim, but rather to a greater God that appointed Elohim to us. But the more plausible explanation is the Mormon scriptures are the words of man, not of God. They teach a false gospel. Please do not say that these words of Joseph Smith are not binding LDS doctrine. Either he was a prophet or he was a false prophet.

 

[AmandaPS]

TOm,

Please explain D&C 132-20, where it says that the angels will be subjects to these gods. The angels worship God alone. Why would they be subjects of exhaulted men?

peace,
Amanda

 

[Calvin]

If I were investigating Christianity and started to read the Bible and, during my investigation, I found out that there were no such people as the Israelites and that there was no evidence that the empires of Egypt, Rome and Babylon ever existed; how credible should I find Christian doctrine?

The Mormon religion tells the story of two great civilizations in America and the appearance of Christ to those people. There is no evidence that the iron-age Lamanites or Nephites ever existed. How credible, then, should I find Mormon doctrine?

There may be small problems in Christian/Jewish history/archeology (When was the Exodus? Who was king Belshazzar? etc.) but they are insignificant compared the the problems in Mormon archeology. Also, for every small problem we Christians have, there are hundreds of details that can be independently confirmed (Pilate was governor of Judea, the Romans destroyed the temple in AD 70, there was an Israelite kingdom in Palestine, etc.) in secular history or archeology. The problems with Mormon history/archeology, on the other hand, would be like reading the Gospels and then finding out that there was no Roman Empire…

Don’ t take my word for it here is Michael Coe, expert on Mesoamerican anthropology, Professor of Anthropology and Curator of the Peabody Museum at Yale University:

“. . . as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing [that Hebrew immigrants build a civilization in ancient America as described in the Book of Mormon] to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group.”

Michael Coe, ‘‘Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View,’’ in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol 8, No. 2 (Summer 1973), p. 42

If you can’t get your historical facts straight, why should I trust your metaphysical speculation?

-C

 

[TOmNossor]

petra:

Tom, here are some interesting quotes of Joseph Smith: “In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through–Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, its sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.” . . . “Many men say there is one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyonw – three in one, and one in three! . . . All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God – he would be a giant or a monster.”

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372

It seems that D&C 20:17 does not apply to Elohim, but rather to a greater God that appointed Elohim to us. But the more plausible explanation is the Mormon scriptures are the words of man, not of God. They teach a false gospel. Please do not say that these words of Joseph Smith are not binding LDS doctrine. Either he was a prophet or he was a false prophet.

Petra,

I am sorry, but the first thing I will say is that this is not binding LDS doctrine. Here is a quote from President Harold B. Lee-

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

Now concerning what was said. Here is an ECF who said something remarkably similar.

Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 3.6.1 “God stood in the in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.” He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. (ANF 1.419).

Now I recognize St. Irenaeus’ words are not binding doctrine for Catholics, but of course this man learned Christianity from St. Polycarp and was a Christian in the early 2nd Century. Catholics are very clear that all the words of those who have been declared Saints are not doctrinal. From the days when Joseph Smith was the prophet the CoJCoLDS has acknowledged that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

AmandaPS:

TOm,

Please explain D&C 132-20, where it says that the angels will be subjects to these gods. The angels worship God alone. Why would they be subjects of exhaulted men?

peace,
Amanda

Because the exhaltled men are gods in that they are united with God. Those who are angles are still separated from God.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:

If I were investigating Christianity and started to read the Bible and, during my investigation, I found out that there were no such people as the Israelites and that there was no evidence that the empires of Egypt, Rome and Babylon ever existed; how credible should I find Christian doctrine?

The Mormon religion tells the story of two great civilizations in America and the appearance of Christ to those people. There is no evidence that the iron-age Lamanites or Nephites ever existed. How credible, then, should I find Mormon doctrine?

There may be small problems in Christian/Jewish history/archeology (When was the Exodus? Who was king Belshazzar? etc.) but they are insignificant compared the the problems in Mormon archeology. Also, for every small problem we Christians have, there are hundreds of details that can be independently confirmed (Pilate was governor of Judea, the Romans destroyed the temple in AD 70, there was an Israelite kingdom in Palestine, etc.) in secular history or archeology. The problems with Mormon history/archeology, on the other hand, would be like reading the Gospels and then finding out that there was no Roman Empire…

Don’ t take my word for it here is Michael Coe, expert on Mesoamerican anthropology, Professor of Anthropology and Curator of the Peabody Museum at Yale University:

“. . . as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing [that Hebrew immigrants build a civilization in ancient America as described in the Book of Mormon] to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group.”

Michael Coe, ‘‘Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View,’’ in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol 8, No. 2 (Summer 1973), p. 42

If you can’t get your historical facts straight, why should I trust your metaphysical speculation?

-C

If one makes their religious decisions based on secular archeological evidence, I acknowledge that the new world evidence for the BOM is unconvincing. However, it would be extraordinary if there were uncontrovertable evidence for the BOM. The BOM is very different than the Bible. It burst upon the scene in 1830 claiming to be an ancient text. It also claims that Jesus Christ appeared in the New World. If the BOM is an ancient book, Joseph Smith is a prophet. If the BOM is an ancient book, Jesus is the Christ. There would be few atheists in this world because the evidences would be uncontrovertable.

I have asked this question and not received an answer. It is a hypothetical. If an old Mesoamerican document was translated containing a list of sons that translated clearly into: Ammon, Aaron, Omner, and Himni (perhaps their fathers name Mosiah is also included), would you believe that the BOM was another testament of Jesus Christ?

The Bible is an ancient book that did not burst upon the scene in modern times. Instead it is an ancient book from ancient times. Archeological evidence for the Bible provides a radically different message than would archeological evidence for the BOM.

Now, the Old World geography of the BOM has some amazing evidences. 81 evidence have been collected that point to the journey of Lehi in the old world. There is plenty of room to doubt, but it should cause one to pause.

There are also a few reasons (read excuses if you must) I could provide that explain why we cannot expect to find as much archeological evidence in the New World as has been found in the old world.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

The BOM is very different than the Bible. It burst upon the scene in 1830 claiming to be an ancient text. It also claims that Jesus Christ appeared in the New World. If the BOM is an ancient book, Joseph Smith is a prophet.

You yourself have said it. (Mk. 15:2)

TOmNossor:

I have asked this question and not received an answer. It is a hypothetical. If an old Mesoamerican document was translated containing a list of sons that translated clearly into: Ammon, Aaron, Omner, and Himni (perhaps their fathers name Mosiah is also included), would you believe that the BOM was another testament of Jesus Christ?

I am investigating Catholocism because I think the historical claims of the Catholic Church might be true. If Her historical claims are true, perhaps, I can trust Her doctrinal claims.

If I thought the ancient history as recorded in the BOM was true, I would, likewise, investigate the claims of the prophet who recorded that history. It would, however, take more than one document for me to change my opinion of the ancient history of Mormonism. The BOM tells of two iron age civilizations in America. There is simply no evidence that Native Americans ever reached that level of development. One document with some names on it would do little to prove the existance of those two vast Hebrew empires in America. There is also the problem of DNA. This will only surprise Mormons but recent DNA studies show that Native Americans are not in any way related to Jews! The BOM says that the Native Americans are descended from Jews surely, then, we should expect to find some bit of evidence in biology for that.

TOmNossor:

The Bible is an ancient book that did not burst upon the scene in modern times. Instead it is an ancient book from ancient times. Archeological evidence for the Bible provides a radically different message than would archeological evidence for the BOM.

Yes there is a difference. Archeology backs up the vast majority of events recorded in the Bible and Church histories. Of course, archeology does not help us evaluate Christian doctrine, but it shows that Judeo-Christian history is, basically, correct. Because the history is basically correct, I feel more confident trusting Christian doctrine.

On the other hand, archeology does not back up the claims of the BOM. The BOM claims to be written by a prophet. If the “prophet” was wrong about the ancient history he recorded, why should I assume he is correct in his doctrine?

TOmNossor:

Now, the Old World geography of the BOM has some amazing evidences. 81 evidence have been collected that point to the journey of Lehi in the old world. There is plenty of room to doubt, but it should cause one to pause.

There are also a few reasons (read excuses if you must) I could provide that explain why we cannot expect to find as much archeological evidence in the New World as has been found in the old world.

I refer you to the quote of the Yale Mesoamerican anthropologist I posted earlier. Is this evidence that non-Mormon scholars accept as valid or is it only Mormons who can read these tea-leaves?

Also there is no reason why we should find *less *evidence in the New World than in the Old. The New World civilizations are closer to ours in time. The events in the BOM are, at most, 1,500 years old. If there is evidence for ancient Egypt, Greece, Babylon, China, etc., that go as far back as 3,000 years, why should there be less evidence for two civilizations that only go back 1,500 years? Just last week a great university was uncovered in Alexandria. Where are the great Lamanite cities?

Peace,
-C

 

[apdias21]

Hi, Tomossor, how long take us to become gods? Is Mormon already a God? Why moroni is still an angel placed at the peak of the Mormon Temples?
Thanks,
Antonio

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin,

I was trying to show that if the BOM is verified by evidences that Jesus is the Christ. There really can be no question. This is the way in which the BOM is different that the Bible. If the Bible is verified by evidences it stands next to the stories of the Trojan War. The Bible and The Odyssey are ancient document written by ancient people that have verifiable places, but also speaks of God/gods.

I have read of two archeologist or anthropologist (husband and wife) who joined the church fully aware of the evidences that exist and do not. I also know an archeologist who recently joined the church.

Your Yale archeologist spoke specifically about the New World. I have seldom if ever seen anyone engage LDS Old World evidences.

Now the reason that one would expect to have more information about the Old World BOM than the New World BOM is that we have a point of origin from which to start looking and much more archeology has been done in the Old World. Also, some names of places have been consistently applied and documented in the Old World.

All of the above being said, I do not suggest that archeology is a strong point for the BOM.

And I will suggest that the Catholic Church is a solid and internally consistent read on history and the Bible. I a non-Catholic believe that pure logic and reason is enough to decide upon the Catholic Church over Eastern Orthodox or any Protestant group.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

apdias21:

Hi, Tomossor, how long take us to become gods? Is Mormon already a God? Why moroni is still an angel placed at the peak of the Mormon Temples?
Thanks,
Antonio

The statue of Moroni is an angel because the angel Moroni was who appeared to Joseph Smith.

We do not know how “long” it takes to become a god.

Abraham seems to have become a god, but I am not sure we have reason to suspect that any other men are so perfectly united with God the Father “now.”

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

And I will suggest that the Catholic Church is a solid and internally consistent read on history and the Bible.

So why are you Mormon?

Mormon doctrine teaches that outside of the LDS Church traditions are wrong, doctrine is hopelessly corrupt and the Scriptures have not been transmitted properly. If you think the Catholic Church has a “solid” and “consistent” read on history and the Bible, aren’t you disputing the teachings of your own church? The Mormon Church teaches that the true gospel was lost until 1830, how “consistent” can the Catholic Church’s teachings on the Bible be if the Mormon doctrine is true? The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize your baptism! If you really think they are “solid,” why don’t you get re-baptized? Also this “solid” and “consistent” group teaches that the Church of Jesus Christ fully subsists in the Catholic Church and no other body. If you really think they are “solid,” why not convert?

As I read your posts I keep asking myself “why should I bother to convert to Mormonism?” You seem so keen on showing how Mormonism is the same as Christianity. Well if it is all the same, why should I switch? I’ll just say as I am!

TOmNossor:

I was trying to show that if the BOM is verified by evidences that Jesus is the Christ. There really can be no question. This is the way in which the BOM is different that the Bible. If the Bible is verified by evidences it stands next to the stories of the Trojan War. The Bible and The Odyssey are ancient document written by ancient people that have verifiable places, but also speaks of God/gods.

The fact that Jesus is the Christ has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. People have worshiped Jesus as Christ for almost 2,000 years before the BOM was written and they will worship Him as Christ after the BOM has been swept into the dust-bin of history.

The BOM may teach that Jesus is Christ. Fine. St. James points out that even demons confess that (and shudder). There is no way that “evidences that Jesus is Christ” verify the BOM. The Mormon Church teaches more than Jesus is Christ (if it even truly teaches that). I’m not concerned about your teachings that Jesus is the Christ, it is your other teachings that are problematic.

And back to history. Let me spell it out for you: the BOM claims to have been written by a prophet. The “prophet” was wrong about the facts of Mesoamerican history. Therefore he was a false prophet. Jeremiah 14: “Then the Lord said unto me, if the prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them…”

TOmNossor:

I have read of two archeologist or anthropologist (husband and wife) who joined the church fully aware of the evidences that exist and do not. I also know an archeologist who recently joined the church.

Blind faith is an amazing thing. Unfortunately it is often misplaced.

TOmNossor:

Your Yale archeologist spoke specifically about the New World. I have seldom if ever seen anyone engage LDS Old World evidences.

You win the prize. I am, indeed, writing about New World evidences because there are none. In fact there is evidence directly contrary to the BOM. Explain to me why I should trust your prophet if he was wrong about simple facts of history.

-C

 

[Katholikos]

TOm wrote:

ECF pointed to Biblical passages that they suggested taught men may become gods.​

TOm, understanding is not about words. It’s about meaning.

And no ECF or any other Catholic has construed these biblical references to mean that men would become gods at some future point in time – or at any time. The meaning is related to 2 Peter 1:4 (RSV), “His divine power has granted to you all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion and become PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE” (emphasis mine).

"We are no longer limited to acknowledging the transcendence and omnipotence of God, but we may also accept the salvation which he grants us and assimilate the divine grace which he gives us. This is what the Fathers meant by ‘deification’; God became man that we might become God (St. Athanasius, The Incarnation of the Word). This deification is realized when we become members of the Body of Christ, but also and especially by the unction of the Spirit when the latter teaches each one of us: the “economy of the Holy Spirit means precisely this, that we are able to enjoy communion with the one and truly deified humanity of Jesus Christ from the time of the Ascension to the final Paraousia” The Orthodox Church, John Meyendorff.

This is the meaning of the Sacraments. Through them, we “partake of the Divine Nature.” Jesus feeds our souls with Sanctifying Grace, the very Divine Life of God, in Holy Communion, Confession, Anointing of the Sick, etc. Thus we are
“deified” – becoming more like Jesus Christ – who feeds us his own Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. We are what we eat. We are not gods, and will not be gods, but we are becoming more Christ-like as His Body and Blood are assimilated into our body and blood, transforming us, nourishing our souls.

During the Holy Mass, the priest prays: May we come to share in your divinity, as you humbled yourself to share in our humanity.

Peace to you and to all who post at Catholic Answers,

Jay

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:

So why are you Mormon?

Mormon doctrine teaches that outside of the LDS Church traditions are wrong, doctrine is hopelessly corrupt If you really think they are “solid,” why not convert?

To me the absence of authority in Protestant churches is a fatal flaw. The Bible points to authority. The ECF who still had the words of the Apostles “ringing in their ears” speak of authority. The Catholic and LDS Churches believe in a priesthood of all believers, but this stands beside the ordained priesthood.

To me the abandoning of Catholic authority at the 4th council (creedal Protestants and other Protestants to a lesser extent) and 7th council (Eastern Orthodox) is without explanation and is a fatal flaw. Catholics never abandon the authority of the councils and LDS never define our beliefs from the councils.

To me the Bible does not teach sola scriptura. In fact it teaches that we need to have someone teach us truth. The above authority discussions also point to a beyond sola scriptura understanding. This is a third fatal flaw for Protestants.

To me there are a number of Catholic and LDS problems. These problems create a landscape that must be navigated to be a Catholic or a LDS Christian. There are a number of Catholic and LDS strengths. These strengths create logical pillars upon which one can build a foundation. Neither the pillars nor the problems are unconquerable.

And BTW, the Apostasy is not an absence of truth when this term is used by the CoJCoLDS. It is a total absence of authority. So you are incorrect when you say that the CoJCoLDS “doctrine is hopelessly corrupt.” The truth is LDS believe that Authority is hopelessly absent.

Calvin:
As I read your posts I keep asking myself “why should I bother to convert to Mormonism?” You seem so keen on showing how Mormonism is the same as Christianity. Well if it is all the same, why should I switch? I’ll just say as I am!

First, if you feel compelled to really investigate the CoJCoLDS I would be happy to illuminate some of the pillars and problems as I see them. I have not been impressed that you are actually investigating with the intention of knowing if the CoJCoLDS is for you. If my impression is correct, I say, “Become a Catholic.” If my impression is incorrect, I would be happy to help explain the landscape as I see it.

Second, there are clearly differences between LDS and non-LDS Christianity. It is my contention that these differences do not rise to the level of warranting the denial of the term “Christian” to LDS. It is also my contention that Christians who are threatened by the CoJCoLDS highlight these differences in inaccurate, damning ways. It is also my contention that since the Bible contains approximately 50% of the doctrinal elucidation for the CoJCoLDS we are necessarily closer than our critics (and some LDS) might think.

Lastly, there is no reason to believe the Bible is the word of God without the Holy Spirit. There is in my opinion no way to make a sure Christian choice between the CoJCoLDS and the Catholic Church without the Holy Spirit. So while I hope I have demonstrated that I do not walk by blind faith, it is a leap of faith that crosses whatever chasm is left after all the logic and thinking have been done.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:
The fact that Jesus is the Christ has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. People have worshiped Jesus as Christ for almost 2,000 years before the BOM was written and they will worship Him as Christ after the BOM has been swept into the dust-bin of history.

The BOM may teach that Jesus is Christ. Fine. St. James points out that even demons confess that (and shudder). There is no way that “evidences that Jesus is Christ” verify the BOM. The Mormon Church teaches more than Jesus is Christ (if it even truly teaches that). I’m not concerned about your teachings that Jesus is the Christ, it is your other teachings that are problematic.

And back to history. Let me spell it out for you: the BOM claims to have been written by a prophet. The “prophet” was wrong about the facts of Mesoamerican history. Therefore he was a false prophet. Jeremiah 14: “Then the Lord said unto me, if the prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them…”

Blind faith is an amazing thing. Unfortunately it is often misplaced.

You win the prize. I am, indeed, writing about New World evidences because there are none. In fact there is evidence directly contrary to the BOM. Explain to me why I should trust your prophet if he was wrong about simple facts of history.

You actually still are missing my point. Hundreds of thousands of atheist find no compelling evidence for the Bible or Jesus Christ. The types of critical thinking that atheist rely on to deny theism is more than capable of crushing Catholicism, Protestantism, and Mormonism. This would not longer be true if there was credible evidence that the BOM was an ancient book written thousands of miles from Jerusalem, speaking of the same Jesus Christ of Jerusalem. No longer would there be room for critical thinkers to deny the spirit and walk by the light of their intellect. All who thought about it would recognize that this character was Jesus the Christ. No man could be in two places at once and witness to these folks in such a short period of time. Only God could do this.

The Bible is easy for Atheist to explain. It is an ancient book written by ancient folks in ancient cities. The BOM is easy for Atheist to explain (generally) it is a fraud. Irrefutable evidence for the ancient origins of the BOM would mean that cold hard logic lead nowhere but to Christ.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Katholikos:

TOm wrote:

ECF pointed to Biblical passages that they suggested taught men may become gods.​

TOm, understanding is not about words. It’s about meaning.

And no ECF or any other Catholic has construed these biblical references to mean that men would become gods at some future point in time – or at any time. The meaning is related to 2 Peter 1:4 (RSV), “His divine power has granted to you all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion and become PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE” (emphasis mine).

"We are no longer limited to acknowledging the transcendence and omnipotence of God, but we may also accept the salvation which he grants us and assimilate the divine grace which he gives us. This is what the Fathers meant by ‘deification’; God became man that we might become God (St. Athanasius, The Incarnation of the Word). This deification is realized when we become members of the Body of Christ, but also and especially by the unction of the Spirit when the latter teaches each one of us: the “economy of the Holy Spirit means precisely this, that we are able to enjoy communion with the one and truly deified humanity of Jesus Christ from the time of the Ascension to the final Paraousia” The Orthodox Church, John Meyendorff.

This is the meaning of the Sacraments. Through them, we “partake of the Divine Nature.” Jesus feeds our souls with Sanctifying Grace, the very Divine Life of God, in Holy Communion, Confession, Anointing of the Sick, etc. Thus we are
“deified” – becoming more like Jesus Christ – who feeds us his own Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. We are what we eat. We are not gods, and will not be gods, but we are becoming more Christ-like as His Body and Blood are assimilated into our body and blood, transforming us, nourishing our souls.

During the Holy Mass, the priest prays: May we come to share in your divinity, as you humbled yourself to share in our humanity.

Peace to you and to all who post at Catholic Answers,

Jay

Jay,

I am not sure exactly how to respond to your post. On the one had you say that Athanasius’ words, “we might become God” means that “we become members of the Body of Christ.” Then you say that, “we are not gods, and will not become gods.”

Method One:

I believe that LDS deification is becoming members of the Body of Christ. It is uniting with God. “We might become God,” in that He reaches down and takes us up to him. We become gods through our uniting with him. In this method I am saying that LDS deification as I understand it is very similar to what you put forth in the first part of your post. I can highlight a few differences if it important to you, but they are not near as large as I once thought.

Method Two:

If Catholics do not believe that men may become gods, what does the consistent witness of the ECF mean? What does CCC460 mean? What does the words of Pope John Paul II and other modern Catholics mean? Here is a link to a fairly neglected thread to find some of these words.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1624

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

And BTW, the Apostasy is not an absence of truth when this term is used by the CoJCoLDS. It is a total absence of authority. So you are incorrect when you say that the CoJCoLDS “doctrine is hopelessly corrupt.”

“My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of the sects was right that I might know which to join… I was answered that I must join none of them for they were all wrong and the Personage who addressed me said that all** their creeds were an abomination** in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt…”

(scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/19#19)

When I wrote “hopelessly corrupt” I had this passage from *your *scriptures in mind. I did not write that LDS doctrine itself was hopelessly corrupt, I only noted that LDS thinks non-LDS doctrine is hopelessly corrupt.

You say it is just a question of authority. Smith seems to be saying it is a question of truth too. What else does “all wrong” “abomination” and “corrupt” refer to if not doctrine?

TOmNossor:

To me the abandoning of Catholic authority… is without explanation and is a fatal flaw.

So why do you abandon Catholic authority today and remain in a Church whose baptism Rome does not recognize?

TOmNossor:

First, if you feel compelled to really investigate the CoJCoLDS I would be happy to illuminate some of the pillars and problems as I see them. I have not been impressed that you are actually investigating with the intention of knowing if the CoJCoLDS is for you.

Don’t let my agressive stance put you off – I’m a teddy bear on the inside. I just think like a lawyer!

I am investigating Catholocism because I think Catholic history of the early Church is more accurate than the Protestant history of the early Church. Because Her history is more accurate I think “well maybe Her doctrine is more accurate as well.”

When I look at Mormon history, however, I get the opposite feeling. Mormon history is bogus so I feel in no way compelled to seriously consider Mormon doctrine. I wonder how someone like yourself can trust the Mormon Church when its history is so hopelessly wrong. If I told you I was a Martian and came to Earth with a message from God and you did a little research and found out I was born in California would you say “he’s a liar” or would you say “well maybe his message is true anyway”?

HISTORY MATTERS!

TOmNossor:

Hundreds of thousands of atheist find no compelling evidence for the Bible or Jesus Christ. The types of critical thinking that atheist rely on to deny theism is more than capable of crushing Catholicism, Protestantism, and Mormonism. This would not longer be true if there was credible evidence that the BOM was an ancient book written thousands of miles from Jerusalem, speaking of the same Jesus Christ of Jerusalem. No longer would there be room for critical thinkers to deny the spirit and walk by the light of their intellect… Irrefutable evidence for the ancient origins of the BOM would mean that cold hard logic lead nowhere but to Christ.

This is such a cop-out…

WHY ARE YOU ON AN APOLOGETICS WEBSITE?!

The whole point of apologetics is to rationally explain faith to skeptics in a compelling manner! Look at the Five Ways – rational arguments for people who don’t believe in God. Look at Justin Martyr (who you like to quote) – he tried to explain Christianity to non-believing Jews and Romans using rational evidence they would accept. Christian apologetics is all about giving people compelling evidence to believe in Christ.

And, for the record, I happen to think, through the grace of God, that cold hard logic does lead nowhere but to Christ. There is no form of critical thinking – properly applied – that can crush the truth of Catholic doctrine.

In an act of faith, I confess Jesus as the Christ but that faith is actually based on compelling evidence: history shows that there was a man named Jesus who died around AD 33. He was a wandering rabbi who claimed to be the messiah. History also shows that an early group formed around him and claimed he rose from the dead and worked miracles. So I think to myself, “maybe this early group knows something I don’t” and I read their writings. Those writings make sense to me and, through faith, I too, now claim Jesus as the Christ. History tells me to trust the early Church.

The BOM, on the other hand, claims that this same Jesus appeared to two civilizations in the Americas. History shows that no such civilizations existed. Why, then, should I trust Mormon doctrine? History tells me not to trust the Mormon church.

-C

 

[TOmNossor]

"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of the sects was right that I might know which to join… I was answered that I must join none of them

for they were all wrong and the Personage who addressed me said that all** their creeds were an abomination** in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt…"

(http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/19#19)

When I wrote “hopelessly corrupt” I had this passage from *your *scriptures in mind. I did not write that LDS doctrine itself was hopelessly corrupt, I only noted that LDS thinks non-LDS doctrine is hopelessly corrupt.

As I have pointed out both on the internet and to LDS with whom I interact, I reject your interpretation.

I ask what of “their creeds were an abomination” (note the noun/verb plurality disagreement) and what is it that there professors say (or perhaps do) that warrants the label corrupt?

Is it the creedal statement that state that Jesus is divine that is an abomination? Is it the creedal statements that state the Jesus died for our sins an abomination? Is it the creedal statements that state we much believe on his name that are an abomination?

This could not be.

Instead, I suggest that it is the usage of creeds that is an abomination. Christianity has separated, declared folks heretics, and rejected groups of believers based on uninspired professor (ie intellectual) developed creeds. After Arius spoke for the first time at the council of Nicea it was obvious that his position would be rejected. Athanasius and his followers spent much time defining a creedal confession that could forever close the door on Arius. Eusebius proposed some ideas including a purely scripture based declaration, but these were rejected when it was determined that they left room for full-Arianism. Creeds have been written as non-scripture for the purpose of rejecting the heretic and better defining the orthodoxy. This is not the way of the CoJCoLDS (generally we have on a few occasions sunk to this practice). The CoJCoLDS has 13 articles of faith that are effectively a creed, but we believe they are God-breathed and are not the professions of the intellectuals.

To me the above is the best way to interpret those scriptures. My interpretation is not LDS doctrine. To my knowledge there is no modern statements nor binding doctrinal statements that preclude what I have inferred. This means that I am free to believe this. I am also passionate enough about this that I share it with LDS who have no interest in the finer points of anti-Mormonism. I now share it with you.

Charity, TOm