The Nature of God in Mormonism.

[J_C]

Hi JC,

Click here to see a debate between a Mormon and a Catholic ex-Mormon about whether there was an apostasy, etc. They cover all this ground in considerable depth, and its nice to see arguments from both sides.

thank you BDawg. I don’t have time just now to study this debate, but I have already scanned across it, and will study it carefully over the next few days, as I will be on the road the next two weeks.

In the past I have already been acquainted with many of these arguments you make about a great apostasy, and I of course am not impressed with them. They seem to be about varying interpretations, both of scripture and of history. They also depend upon the believability of American people who claim to have been visited by “heavenly messengers” and ordained by them round about 1830. They don’t seem believable to me, for a variety of reasons.

As for debates, the problem for me is that a debate is primarily a type of wrestling match. the decision is usually interpretive, just like the variations of scripture interpretations between mormons and catholics. my religious belief doesn’t depend on a debater’s skills, and I doubt yours does either. I go with what is most likely. Is it most likely that Jesus failed, that all his trainees failed, and that Jesus broke his promise to be with us until the very end? Is it most likley that an American sect born in the midst of general religious fever, claiming heavenly visitations, propagating certain morally and socially repugnant behaviors, establishing a theocracy within the context of a secular nation, is the True Church? I seriously doubt it.

To me the most likely is that the Catholic Church is exaxctly what it claims to be. This is so obvious to me, that I don’t see how anyone else could come to any other conclusion. It seems to me that many of those who do come to any other conclusions, whether in favor of mormon or some other separated sect, are having to work hard to find interpretations, definitions, and even debates in order to stay that course.

by the by, do you know the identity of the learned Catholic man who was referred to in the introduction to the debate? I looked for it but couldn’t find his name. Just curious who that was.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I doubt the name can be found. It is an anecdotal story, the sort that is common in Mormonism. Urban legends, or what can be called “faith promoting rumors”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, where is this verse in Maccabees again?

whoops, missed posting the chapter:

2 Maccabees 7:28

 

[J_C]

I doubt the name can be found. It is an anecdotal story, the sort that is common in Mormonism. Urban legends, or what can be called “faith promoting rumors”.

thanks rebecca, that is my thinking, too. It seems apocryphal otherwise the person would be named outright. or else if this is a factual story then most likely the “learned catholic man” isn’t learned enough to attribute. I especially find the quote in which he supposedly calls the mormons “ignoramouses” suspicious. This just doesn’t ring true to me.

As well the assertion that the argument of validity boils down to that between mormons and cathoilics. I cant’ imagine a reasonable catholic making this argument.

 

[reff]

I think this is a critical issue to discuss because, from what I understand, Mormons hold a radically different understanding of God than Catholics do.

The topic of this thread is pretty broad, I think it should be narrowed down, and I think as this thread goes on a few key issues will arise.

To get this started:
One of the most critical issues is the notion of creation and how God creates, especially when it comes to creating humans.
The biggest difference I can see between Catholic concept of creation “ex nihilo” (from nothing) in contrast to the Mormon concept of creation “ex materia” (from pre-existing material/matter).

For Catholics the concept of something, anything, existing before God created it is heresy. Because God is Almighty He cannot, by definition, have something existing along side Himself which He did not create and maintain in existence.
I’m not sure how Mormons answer this, but I will leave it up to them to continue from here.

(The topic of the Nature of God is broad and open to other issues besides creation and Almighty, however I don’t want this turning into a flame thread, hit and run, cheap shots, etc. In other words terms like “magic plates,” “Smith is a conman,” “14 year old girl,” etc, etc should NOT appear in this thread. If you have something “bold” to say, try to make sure you have an LDS source to quote.)

As a former Mormon preparing to start his RCIA, I can tell you that I personally was lead to believe that God or Elohim was a man like us lived on another planet, than he become worthy to be Exhaulted to Godhood by his God (A very predominate teaching in the LDS faith that if we live a worthy life, we too can become Gods, but that’s a whole other discussion in and of itself.) The thing about the LDS religion is that its so broad, you hear one teaching from one instructor, and a completely different view from another instructor. But it is taught in the Mormon Church that God was once a man like us, and through his faithful life he was Exhaulted and become God of our planet.

Thanks be to God that I am free from these heresies, and that the Holy Spirit lead me home to Mother Church.

 

[BDawg]

thanks rebecca, that is my thinking, too. It seems apocryphal otherwise the person would be named outright. or else if this is a factual story then most likely the “learned catholic man” isn’t learned enough to attribute. I especially find the quote in which he supposedly calls the mormons “ignoramouses” suspicious. This just doesn’t ring true to me.

As well the assertion that the argument of validity boils down to that between mormons and cathoilics. I cant’ imagine a reasonable catholic making this argument.

The reference for the story was given on the web page. It was a first-hand account, even if the name of the Catholic was not given.

Looking at it from this Catholic’s point of view, it seems to me that he was saying this:

1. Christ gave the keys specifically to Peter–a single person.
2. So it only makes sense that the keys of authority would continue to lead Christ’s Church whenever it is present.
3. Protestants can’t point to any Peter-like figure in their many organizations.
4. Mormons and Catholics can.
5. Since arguments about the meaning of scriptures, etc., really boil down to arguments about who has the authority to interpret them, the Protestants are really out of the running.

Whether you agree with the point, or not, it is still a reasonable one.

 

[BDawg]

No, I don’t think you “missed it”. The poster seems to post as if were already a proven fact (and accepted by all) that Catholicism is wrong, wrong, wrong. I think the attitude is what was being referred to.

And I also think that Rebbeca is right when she refers to “cherry picking” quotes from different scholars. What scholars think is just opinion, IMO. There was an apostasy from the only Christian Church in town or there wasn’t (not an apostasy of Christians). We conform our opinions to Jesus’ authority–not the other way around. It’s about the passing of Jesus’ authority down. It’s not about anyone’s personal opinion. So IMO in order for you all to claim that there was an apostasy of Christians (on the nature of God or whatever) you first have to prove that there was a total apostasy of the Church and it can’t be by reasonable doubt or even a preponderence of evidence.

Hi A,

On another recent thread, weren’t some of you (notably Rebecca) complaining about Mormons who, instead of answering the question that was asked, try to move the discussion to the question THEY want to answer? I think she called it something like “Mormon Tactic #464.” Now you are doing the same thing.

Whether or not there was an apostasy is an important topic. Maybe we can discuss it sometime. This thread, on the other hand, is about the Nature of God. Can you stick to the topic?

And in any case, how can we approach the topic of the apostasy without looking at whether Catholicism changed a bunch of the original doctrines? We’re supposed to prove there was an apostasy before we talk about what was changed? How about talking about what was changed as evidence for an apostasy?

 

[J_C]

The reference for the story was given on the web page. It was a first-hand account, even if the name of the Catholic was not given.

goodevening BDawg. I feel the omission of the identify of the “learned Catholic” is significant. The person was identified as a great scholar, master of several languages. Anyone of this stature would surely have been identified. i feel that this story is not actually of historical fact, especially since this Catholic supposedly calls the mormons, to their faces, ignoramuses, which just doesn’t seem likely to me. not a big deal. it is an apocryphal story, and makes its point whether it ishistorically true or not.

Looking at it from this Catholic’s point of view, it seems to me that he was saying this:

1. Christ gave the keys specifically to Peter–a single person.
2. So it only makes sense that the keys of authority would continue to lead Christ’s Church whenever it is present.
3. Protestants can’t point to any Peter-like figure in their many organizations.
4. Mormons and Catholics can.
5. Since arguments about the meaning of scriptures, etc., really boil down to arguments about who has the authority to interpret them, the Protestants are really out of the running.

Whether you agree with the point, or not, it is still a reasonable one.

Protestants are not “out of the running” for a variety of solid doctrinal reasons that separate them from mormon religion, but not from Catholic. The issues of authority are important, but it appears to me that the mormons have no superior claim to it than protestants do.

any true Catholic would know that there is no comparison between a 19th centruy sect claiming a great apostasy/restoration, and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which never stopped running from day one, not for a moment.

God bless, BDawg, I will read the debate while I am on the road next two weeks. Thank you for the information.

 

[AMDGtoo]

,

Whether or not there was an apostasy is an important topic. Maybe we can discuss it sometime. This thread, on the other hand, is about the Nature of God. Can you stick to the topic?

Actually I felt that it was germane since if a Total Apostasy didn’t occur, there would be no reason to even discuss the fact that the Catholic Church changed original concepts or what the LDS think was the “Christian” nature of God in the first place!

And in any case, how can we approach the topic of the apostasy without looking at whether Catholicism changed a bunch of the original doctrines?

I’m glad you asked (though as you pointed out, this really isn’t the thread to discuss it). We are dealing with probably less than 100 years from the Crucifixion and the Total Apostasy is not that the Catholic Church changing anything) but is about whether the Church failed to pass on Jesus’ authority. You must know that are historical records–not just from the communities themselves, but from the enemies of the Church as well.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The reference for the story was given on the web page. It was a first-hand account, even if the name of the Catholic was not given.

I’m sorry but it reads just like the “how can you blah blah blah to realize the blah blah blah. Meet Hans a struggling young man who lived in Germany, he worked hard but something was missing…” kind of stuff the JW’s drop off at my door regularly. What my former neighbors teen age daughter used to call “stupid religious soap opera”.

All I get from it is that the phrase “a learned man” is yesterday’s equivalent of today’s “scholar(s)” just a way of saying this (un-named so non-verifiable) smart guy said this affirming thing.

Just as there is no corroboration on the “Mick Jagger” conversation there is nothing here to back up the assertion not even a reference to an actual person unlike the Mick story.

 

[BDawg]

I’m sorry but it reads just like the “how can you blah blah blah to realize the blah blah blah. Meet Hans a struggling young man who lived in Germany, he worked hard but something was missing…” kind of stuff the JW’s drop off at my door regularly. What my former neighbors teen age daughter used to call “stupid religious soap opera”.

All I get from it is that the phrase “a learned man” is yesterday’s equivalent of today’s “scholar(s)” just a way of saying this (un-named so non-verifiable) smart guy said this affirming thing.

Just as there is no corroboration on the “Mick Jagger” conversation there is nothing here to back up the assertion not even a reference to an actual person unlike the Mick story.

Ok…

I get that some of you don’t think that quote on the front page of the debate is particularly convincing of anything. Neither do I.

But…

consider that it is quoted on the front page of the debate. That is, it’s not part of the debate, but rather it’s used as part of an introductory advertisement.

So…

instead of moaning about some quotation that nobody used as evidence for anything, why not actually respond to something that was part of the debate?

 

[RebeccaJ]

The reference for the story was given on the web page. It was a first-hand account, even if the name of the Catholic was not given.

Looking at it from this Catholic’s point of view, it seems to me that he was saying this:

1. Christ gave the keys specifically to Peter–a single person.
2. So it only makes sense that the keys of authority would continue to lead Christ’s Church whenever it is present.
3. Protestants can’t point to any Peter-like figure in their many organizations.
4. Mormons and Catholics can.
5. Since arguments about the meaning of scriptures, etc., really boil down to arguments about who has the authority to interpret them, the Protestants are really out of the running.

Whether you agree with the point, or not, it is still a reasonable one.

Hello BDawg, I checked the reference. It sites “A Marvelous Work and Wonder”, by LeGrand Richards. I checked the book and Richards sites the pamphlet, “The Strength of the Mormon Position”, by Orson F. Whitney. I checked the pamphlet, Whitney is providing a personal anecdote and never names the the “learned man” of the Roman Catholic faith. I’m sorry, but where your church leaders have been caught red handed making stuff up, ala Paul H Dunn, I find it hard to believe without being able to verify who Whitney is talking about.

That being said, I can go with Whitney was bringing up his own opinions and assigning them to an fictional, learned, Roman Catholic.

The idea that a Roman Catholic would give an ounce to the credibility of the Mormon claim to apostolic succession is not within the realm of reality. It is more like a Mormon fantasy. So no, it is not reasonable. Neither is the Mormon claim that you have the authority to interpret scripture. You don’t.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Bdawg, I have read the things in that debate several times. Nothing new, and nothing that strikes me as anything I haven’t discussed before. So, if there is anything you want to discuss, you should bring it up, and possibly in a new thread if it is of another topic.

 

[BDawg]

Bdawg, I have read the things in that debate several times. Nothing new, and nothing that strikes me as anything I haven’t discussed before. So, if there is anything you want to discuss, you should bring it up, and possibly in a new thread if it is of another topic.

Hi Rebecca,

I brought it up because someone was complaining about how they don’t understand how Mormons can believe in an apostasy, etc. That debate is a good place to point people who don’t understand that. So I agree–it’s nothing new. That’s exactly WHY I would point someone to a previous discussion of these issues. And you aren’t the only poster here, so I don’t understand why you would object to me posting the link in response to SOMEONE ELSE’s comments.

 

[majick275]

i would think whether or not there was a complete global apostasy the most important topic in any discussion of mormonism

 

[BDawg]

i would think whether or not there was a complete global apostasy the most important topic in any discussion of mormonism

So… are you guys saying that you are tired of discussing the Nature of God, and you would rather discuss the Apostasy?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,

I brought it up because someone was complaining about how they don’t understand how Mormons can believe in an apostasy, etc. That debate is a good place to point people who don’t understand that. So I agree–it’s nothing new. That’s exactly WHY I would point someone to a previous discussion of these issues. And you aren’t the only poster here, so I don’t understand why you would object to me posting the link in response to SOMEONE ELSE’s comments.

Yay, all the Mormons are making rules today. I still say I get to make some.

First one is, stop proselyting. Oh wait. That is already a rule.

 

[majick275]

So… are you guys saying that you are tired of discussing the Nature of God, and you would rather discuss the Apostasy?

no. i was trying to agree with your response in post 202

 

[BDawg]

Yay, all the Mormons are making rules today. I still say I get to make some.

First one is, stop proselyting. Oh wait. That is already a rule.

Hi Beccs,

What have I done here that constitutes “proselyting”? I never invited anyone to be baptized a Mormon. I thought I was just trying to help people understand what Mormons believe and why we believe it. Is that against the rules here?

Or, are you just saying that you wish I would go away because I don’t let you get away with saying anything you want about the Mormons without challenge? Well, I love you, too.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Beccs,

What have I done here that constitutes “proselyting”? I never invited anyone to be baptized a Mormon. I thought I was just trying to help people understand what Mormons believe and why we believe it. Is that against the rules here?

Or, are you just saying that you wish I would go away because I don’t let you get away with saying anything you want about the Mormons without challenge? Well, I love you, too.

You give yourself too much credit.

I know Mormons, and the methods you use for proselytizing. You know, and I know, that it involves more than getting a commitment for baptism at week #2.

Stop pretending that you aren’t.

And yes, “proselyting”, perhaps you should look it up.