The Nature of God in Mormonism.

[BDawg]

By the way, my Catholic friends, Nan’s antics have brought one of my pet peeves to mind.

A couple days ago, I corrected a couple Mormons who posted comments in this forum, in which they were implying that Catholics believe in Modalism. This is a common misconception, and in fact a lot of lay Catholics are modalists, because they don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Why did I correct them? Because they were making flawed arguments, and even when bad arguments have true conclusions, they bring discredit to the truth. I don’t want someone to be convinced that the Mormons are right because of some hoky argument that someone else could come along and destroy. I want people to be convinced about Mormon claims for good reasons. Furthermore, it’s an issue of basic fairness and honesty. If I know that Catholicism does not teach Modalism, but stand idly by while my fellow Mormons accuse you of that, I would be dishonest.

So where are the honest Catholics, here? Anyone with high-school level reading skills should be able to tell that Nan’s reading of Z’s hypothetical is flatly wrong. Z was speaking in plain English, after all. Isn’t anyone going to step up to the plate and say, “Hey, Nan, I think you are misreading Z’s comment, although Mormons do believe that God the Father has a Father”?

 

[ibkc]

So where are the honest Catholics, here? Anyone with high-school level reading skills should be able to tell that Nan’s reading of Z’s hypothetical is flatly wrong. Z was speaking in plain English, after all. Isn’t anyone going to step up to the plate and say, “Hey, Nan, I think you are misreading Z’s comment, although Mormons do believe that God the Father has a Father”?

Speaking as an “honest Catholic”, I found z’s comment as confusing as Nan did, and it’s possible that others did, too. That is perhaps due to a) the convoluted and contradictory nature of some Mormon doctrines and b) z’s long and tumultuous history on this board. I think it’s highly uncharitable of you to assume that people aren’t speaking up for any other reason than they’re hesitant to disagree with another Catholic.

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

Speaking as an “honest Catholic”, I found z’s comment as confusing as Nan did, and it’s possible that others did, too. That is perhaps due to a) the convoluted and contradictory nature of some Mormon doctrines and b) z’s long and tumultuous history on this board. I think it’s highly uncharitable of you to assume that people aren’t speaking up for any other reason than they’re hesitant to disagree with another Catholic.

Another Catholic ( offering their 2 cents )

Completly Agree

God bless,
Carl

 

[BDawg]

Speaking as an “honest Catholic”, I found z’s comment as confusing as Nan did, and it’s possible that others did, too. That is perhaps due to a) the convoluted and contradictory nature of some Mormon doctrines and b) z’s long and tumultuous history on this board. I think it’s highly uncharitable of you to assume that people aren’t speaking up for any other reason than they’re hesitant to disagree with another Catholic.

Hi ib,

Nan claimed that Z had said there was a being greater than God. Z said that he had not said that–he was only using a hypothetical. Now, read the quotation below, and tell me who was right. Was Z claiming that there is a being greater than God, or not? I’m not asking you to moan about how confusing Mormon doctrine is. Rather, I’m asking you to READ WHAT Z SAID, and tell me whether HE was saying what Nan claimed.

IF we said that there is being greater than God who created something out of nothing, and God took that and made the rest, then you would be right. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE SAYING. What we are saying is that there are some things that are inherently impossible, that nobody and nothing can do, not just that God can’t do.

 

[ibkc]

BDawg, I was looking at Nan’s response in the larger context of the discussion, where z.'s argument is contradictory, rather than piece-by-piece. But yes - her response could have been worded so as not to appear to misrepresent what z. actually said in that particular paragraph. There are enough communication and understanding problems as it is.

 

[BDawg]

BDawg, I was looking at Nan’s response in the larger context of the discussion, where z.'s argument is contradictory, rather than piece-by-piece. But yes - her response could have been worded so as not to appear to misrepresent what z. actually said in that particular paragraph. There are enough communication and understanding problems as it is.

Thanks, ib,

I’m sorry I got so worked up about it.

 

[ibkc]

Thanks, ib,

I’m sorry I got so worked up about it.

Oh, no worries. Lots of us get worked up over this stuff - me included.

 

[Nan_S]

Hi ib,

Nan claimed that Z had said there was a being greater than God. Z said that he had not said that–he was only using a hypothetical. Now, read the quotation below, and tell me who was right. Was Z claiming that there is a being greater than God, or not? I’m not asking you to moan about how confusing Mormon doctrine is. Rather, I’m asking you to READ WHAT Z SAID, and tell me whether HE was saying what Nan claimed.

Your argument almost works, except for the qualifier Z put on his statement …then you would be right.

We were discussing omnipotence. Z introduced a hypothetical statement. He hypothesized that we might have been discussing Eternal Progression rather than Omniscence. IF we said that there is being greater than God who created something out of nothing, and God took that and made the rest…
**
He then declared that Eternal Progression is correct. … then you would be right.

Next, he moved the discussion back to omnipotence. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE SAYING.

When I asked him a legitimate follow-up question he not only refused to clarify his remarks, he started hurling insults. You are also guilty of hurling insults. (Anyone with high-school level reading skills…) Insults do nothing to enhance communication. Hurling insults is a tactic used most often by children who have run out of logical arguments. An adult who uses such tactics brings shame down upon himself.

However, your later comments were interesting. Let’s see if I have them straight:

1. God the Father was not the ultimate origin of all things. God the Father had a father, and a grandfather, and a great-grandfather, and so on… Jesus is the next in line in this progression.
2. God the Father used the materials (unformed matter) and the rules of physics pre-established before him to form the universe as we know it
3. Somewhere along this backwards line there might have been a great-great-great-great-grandfather God who was the ultimate source of the unformed matter and rules of physics.
4. God the Father inherited “all power… in heaven and in earth” and when he did so he was effectively merged into one god-being with his father-gods before him. Jesus did also.

Therefore, it appears you are saying that God is God only by right of inheritance from his predecessors. Your God is a limited God indeed.

We Catholics believe that Jesus was always God, and that He had no need to inherit His god-head. Jesus set aside the fullness of His power temporarily, to walk with us on earth as a man in every sense of the word. When he rose from the dead he once again received the fullness of His divine power: “all power… in heaven and in earth has been given to me.” Our God is the uncaused cause.

 

[RebeccaJ]

BDawgy your defense for z might work if he actually believed what you are saying. Many previous posts show that he does not. He has his own religion. For example, he has clearly stated before that he does not believe God has a father.

So, I would read his if, would, statement as, this is what a Mormon would believe, if they believed it. Which, there are a lot of Mormons these days who don’t.

 

[Benadam]

Hope I’m not intruding. This question has been left unanswered by many knowledgeable Mormons I’ve discussed it with.

As I understand it Mormon theology hasn’t resolved God as having always been, and creator of all that ever was and all that is and all that ever will be. The God that can claim to have never changed. Same yesterday, today and forever. Always was, is and always will be.

I know that the being Mormon’s refer to as our ‘Father in Heaven’ isn’t that but is if the existence of other universes is accepted and in reference to ‘this universe’ the concepts attached to ‘always existed’ and everything that exists’ still apply.

That’s confusing still because by accepting the existence of other universes then the God of this universe loses the ability to claim to be creator of all that ever was, is, and ever will be.

 

[zerinus]

ThereforeYour God is a limited God indeed.

Your God is the impossible God of Greek philosophy, not the God of the Bible. He only exists in the imaginations of philosophers, and has no existence in the world of reality.

We Catholics believe that Jesus was always God . . .

LDS doctrine teaches that Jesus is eternally God:

Book of Mormon, Title Page:

. . . And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations . . .

2 Nephi 26:

12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God

Mosiah 3:

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

D&C 39:

1 Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I AM, even Jesus Christ

zerinus

 

[AMDGtoo]

Your God is the impossible God of Greek philosophy, not the God of the Bible. He only exists in the imaginations of philosophers, and has no existence in the world of reality.

Really? Since you made the accusation, I must assume that you can back it up with solid facts, history–especially of Jewish beliefs, and actual quotes from the Bible.

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi ib,

Nan claimed that Z had said there was a being greater than God. Z said that he had not said that–he was only using a hypothetical. Now, read the quotation below, and tell me who was right. Was Z claiming that there is a being greater than God, or not? I’m not asking you to moan about how confusing Mormon doctrine is. Rather, I’m asking you to READ WHAT Z SAID, and tell me whether HE was saying what Nan claimed.

You’re right, Nan was clearly mistaken. On the other hand, Zerinus can defend himself just fine. There was no need for anyone to step in and defend him. I have corrected Catholics about Mormon beliefs before, but in this case it did not seem warranted. Z was holding his own and it was pretty much a sidebar conversation between the two of them.

 

[PaulDupre]

It is amazing to me that the LDS Church, with its “living prophets” who talk to Jesus face-to-face in the temple and are visited by angels still cannot tell us definitively if God has always been God and if he created everything that exists or if God is a created being who became just another god by obedience to yet another higher-up god. We hear from Mormons who have “testimonies” of both scenarios.

They also cannot tell us when human life begins.

It is a good thing, though, that the LDS prophets can tell us how many earrings we are allowed to wear. That’s what really matters after all.

 

[BDawg]

Hope I’m not intruding. This question has been left unanswered by many knowledgeable Mormons I’ve discussed it with.

As I understand it Mormon theology hasn’t resolved God as having always been, and creator of all that ever was and all that is and all that ever will be. The God that can claim to have never changed. Same yesterday, today and forever. Always was, is and always will be.

I know that the being Mormon’s refer to as our ‘Father in Heaven’ isn’t that but is if the existence of other universes is accepted and in reference to ‘this universe’ the concepts attached to ‘always existed’ and everything that exists’ still apply.

That’s confusing still because by accepting the existence of other universes then the God of this universe loses the ability to claim to be creator of all that ever was, is, and ever will be.

Hi Ben

It is confusing. Joseph Smith said God had a Father, and most Mormons believe that if there ever was a beginning to the process of eternal lives, we don’t know anything about it. Futhermore, modern physics tells us that time and space are things that can be bent or compressed or dialated. We have no idea how God experiences time and space. How can we possibly know what it’s like to live in the eternal worlds? Would we experience all time–past, present, and future–as one eternal NOW? If that were the case, what would it mean to say that one God came before another? Are there multiple universes, so that we only experience our Father as God? I don’t know…

And the New Testament is clear that the Father created the cosmos *through *Jesus. Does that mean the Father isn’t the Creator? No, for us that just means that God is ONE, so that what one does, the others do, as well. So GOD is the Creator of all, no matter which particular Being did the legwork.

So even though I admit that it’s confusing, I don’t think it’s because our doctrine is contradictory, or anything. It’s just that we’re at the limits, talking about things that are totally beyond human experience. Similarly, Catholics talk about what a great mystery it is that the Trinity is three Persons in one Being. People like me, who don’t believe in that, can complain about how it makes no sense to us, but you just shrug and say that’s because we have limited, human perspectives.

No matter whose theology we’re talking about, I think you always hit this kind of limit, somewhere. But in our case, a lot of the confusion disappears if you can get your head around the fact that we believe that GOD IS ONE. We emphasize the separateness of the Persons way more than you do, however, and that often leads to misunderstanding, because you think of our gods as a bunch of squabbling Viking gods in Valhalla. Even many Mormons don’t understand how deep the ONEness goes, just like many Catholics are modalists, because they don’t understand the separateness of the Persons of the Trinity.

GOD created all that ever was. The specific Persons that did any particular act of creation are not that important to us.

Does that help?

 

[BDawg]

It is amazing to me that the LDS Church, with its “living prophets” who talk to Jesus face-to-face in the temple and are visited by angels still cannot tell us definitively if God has always been God and if he created everything that exists or if God is a created being who became just another god by obedience to yet another higher-up god. We hear from Mormons who have “testimonies” of both scenarios.

They also cannot tell us when human life begins.

It is a good thing, though, that the LDS prophets can tell us how many earrings we are allowed to wear. That’s what really matters after all.

Hmmm. Well the Catholic prophets–you know, the guys who wrote the Bible–didn’t say anything specific about when human life begins, or how the Trinity is one, etc. On the other hand, Paul did tell women not to cut their hair.

It wasn’t till after all the Catholic prophets were gone that we got a bunch of theologizing about stuff like you mentioned.

It makes me think that maybe prophets are usually more interested in getting people to repent and live decent lives than in finding out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hmmm. Well the Catholic prophets–you know, the guys who wrote the Bible–didn’t say anything specific about when human life begins, or how the Trinity is one, etc. On the other hand, Paul did tell women not to cut their hair.

It wasn’t till after all the Catholic prophets were gone that we got a bunch of theologizing about stuff like you mentioned.

It makes me think that maybe prophets are usually more interested in getting people to repent and live decent lives than in finding out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I would think that thoughtful reflection on all aspects of human life would be fundamental to living a decent life. Is when a person becomes a person really the equivalent of “angels dancing on the head of a pin” according LDS understanding?

 

[BDawg]

Originally Posted by zerinus

Hi A,

I’ll take a quick crack at it.

Catholic Answers published a tract called “God Has No Body,” that argues against the Mormon belief that God has a body in human form. Here’s the URL:

catholic.com/library/God_Has_No_Body.asp

FAIR (an LDS apologetics organization) published a tract called “Does God Have a Body in Human Form?” that is a direct response to the Catholic Answers tract. Here’s the URL.

fairlds.org/pubs/GodHaveBody.pdf

I’ll try to get around to mentioning some of this (and other) material more specifically, here, but I think anyone who reads these two short tracts can quickly get an idea of what kinds of evidence (including quotations for the Bible, early Church Fathers, recognized scholars, etc.) each side can bring to bear.

Personally, I think the Mormons win, but maybe I’m biased.

 

[Nan_S]

No matter whose theology we’re talking about, I think you always hit this kind of limit, somewhere. But in our case, a lot of the confusion disappears if you can get your head around the fact that we believe that GOD IS ONE. We emphasize the separateness of the Persons way more than you do, however, and that often leads to misunderstanding, because you think of our gods as a bunch of squabbling Viking gods in Valhalla. Even many Mormons don’t understand how deep the ONEness goes, just like many Catholics are modalists, because they don’t understand the separateness of the Persons of the Trinity.

GOD created all that ever was. The specific Persons that did any particular act of creation are not that important to us.

In my experience as a Catholic, trinity is a concept that even we struggle with. We comprehend easily the part about three persons each unique and individual, and we comprehend the part about one God. Those are taught to us from the time we are preschoolers. But how the three persons are one being is something that I can only explain by analogies which fall short, such as the egg (yolk, white, shell), the shamrock, or the triangle.

What we believe in is one trinitarian God who is Lord of creation. Everything else and everyone else are the created things and children of God. God is, and always has been, whole, complete, and steadfastly unchanging in His nature.

God existed when time did not exist. God exists outside of time, yet having created time God is able to enter time and walk the road alongside His creation. God does not grow over time by absorbing elements of His creation into Himself. We are, and always will be, the created creatures of God. We can share heaven, but we are not God and never will be.

We believe that nothing is greater than God, and furthermore nothing is even equal to God. Everything, every physical thing, every law of physics, came from God. God existed when the raw materials of the universe did not exist. God existed when time did not exist. God’s existence and power are neither dependent upon nor limited by anything in the universe, except by that which God himself chooses as limits.

God wanted to share His love so He created a universe which would be the home for creatures with Free Will. However, in order for creatures who have Free Will to exercise that will, God also had to create a place and a mode of existence where both change and choice were possible. Therefore, God created time and put it into motion, so that man would have the ability to learn the meaning of Free Will and to exercise it.

It wasn’t till after all the Catholic prophets were gone that we got a bunch of theologizing about stuff like you mentioned.

In that you are incorrect. See this link: catholic.com/library/Creation_Out_of_Nothing.asp

The Early Church Fathers, beginning with those writing within the lifetimes of the apostles and the lifetimes of those personally taught by the apostles (the first and second centuries), spoke quite plainly about God bringing existence out of nonexistence. To do this, God first called into being the very material which was used to create everything.

This was never questioned, not even from the earliest days of the church. This was not a hellenization imposed by fourth and fifth century philosophers. This was clearly taught and accepted from the beginning.

 

[BDawg]

The Early Church Fathers, beginning with those writing within the lifetimes of the apostles and the lifetimes of those personally taught by the apostles (the first and second centuries), spoke quite plainly about God bringing existence out of nonexistence. To do this, God first called into being the very material which was used to create everything.

This was never questioned, not even from the earliest days of the church. This was not a hellenization imposed by fourth and fifth century philosophers. This was clearly taught and accepted from the beginning.

Hi Nan,

Nothing explicit was said about creating the material God used to create everything until the late second century, just like I said.

And how can you say this was “never questioned,” when I already quoted Origen and Tertullian saying it was questioned? (Not to mention, the quotes from Justin and Clement saying God created from pre-existing material.)