Trinity and Mormon godhead

[Snow]

Didn’t mean that at all – you just sound familiar. Maybe it was in the preexistence… Welcome again.

I post at LDS.net and Hannity.com under the same nom de plume.

One of my Catholic friends at Hannity mentioned this site and as I have a great love and appreciation for many things Catholic, I came to check it out.

This is my first time here. Thanks

 

[RebeccaJ]

I, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ, am completely Christian. You not liking it is irrelevant. You claiming that Christian terminology is different that LDS terminology is likewise irrelevant. You don’t get to decide you follows Christ and who Christ recognizes. You merely have an opinion.

I never said Mormons didn’t follow Christ. I said you believe in a false god.

Frankly, anyone who feels the need to marginalize another’s Christianity has issues with themselves that ought be examined before fretting about others. My faith does not require me to denigrate your commitment to Christ or his acceptance of you if order for me to flourish. I leave that kind of judgement to God - as He is the only one of us, you and I, who has an opinion that counts.

You marginalize yourselves, in everything you say about Christianity. Your opening post being a good example.

I quoted Athanasius and Pelikan - who I assume is likely Catholic. Where’s the spin exactly?

Out of context, with your mormon corruption placed over the top=spin.

Don’t just assert it - demonstrate that I did what you claim - if you can.

Demonstrate what, that the Church Fathers weren’t Mormon? Why would I waste my time?

I certainly do not believe that I, even if I was ever exalted, would ever be “the Creator” as you assert. Nor do I suppose that I would ever be separate and independent of God. Rather I believe that any divinization would unify me (those who have a fullness of salvation with God who is The Creator… as Christ prays in John 17 that will impart to us the same glory that God the Father gave Him, we will be one, and perfected into one, with God as Christ is one with God.

Ah, another mormon who has morphed beliefs. Which brings us back to the King Follet sermon…you think you prophet was just making stuff up?

Then what you “meant to say” was misleading them. You know full well that he was a Dominican Monk at the time and didn’t leave the faith until much later. Why the deliberate misdirection?

Because you’re getting on my nerves. yet another mormon who comes here to tell us how Mormon Christianity really is.

BTW, what’s up with the name-calling?

Call it as I see it.

You know perfectly well that no one asserted he was speaking on Catholic doctrine. Read the post. He was speaking of Patristic teachings.

The Church Fathers were Catholic. So if you assert anything about them, you are asserting it about us.

 

[mfbukowski]

No, but they are not a reward. Have you ever wondered why children who die before the age of accountability automatically inherit the Celestial Kingdom without any effort on their part at all.

What are they then? Let me hear your theory before I respond

 

[Snow]

This is where you will find Catholic doctrine, the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**1023 **Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face.

We believe to see God face to face that God must give us the grace to be like Him. I have no problem calling this deification, in the understanding that we are a creature, created by God, who gives us grace to be in communion with Him. We have a foretaste of this in our Sacrament of Marriage, in our communion with each other by virtue of our baptism and most of all in the Eucharist.

It is NOT the Mormon belief, as Mormons take partaking of the divine essence to being exalted. And have other doctrines associated to this belief that are entirely outside of Christianity.

I appreciate your explaining YOUR beliefs but you don’t get to decide what Christianity is. You merely have an opinion - and apparently a need to label as unChristian things you don’t like.

You can harp all you want, you can insult me again, but I’d bet you can’t demonstrate that God agrees with you - God’s opinion being important, your’s… not so much, not matter how many times you say it.

Because, if you understood it you wouldn’t be a mormon!

Pithy quip. Big deal.

How about the entirety of the catholic churches, east and west, who have nothing of this belief of mormonism.

There you go again. How about demonstrating it instead of just saying it?

Your beliefs are not Christian.

There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home… You keep saying it as if it means something. - shrug -

I defend my faith, if you don’t like it, don’t make the claims you do.

Huh? If I don’t like it, I shouldn’t explain Patristic teachings. I don’t think that makes sense.

You implied that we should believe they should be Gods.

Are you referring to Catholic Saints? Those that have been beatified / canonized? Personally I don’t think they should or shouldn’t. I really have no idea if they are to become gods. Maybe you mean something else but I don’t know what.

Are you referring to any “saint” - the followers of Christ who are saved or receive a fullness of salvation? If so, the Christian Church of the early centuries certainly believed that they would become gods. For example: " From the beginning we are first made men and then gods." Iraneus

 

[Snow]

I never said Mormons didn’t follow Christ. I said you believe in a false god.

The God of the Old Testament and New. You believe in another I guess???

You marginalize yourselves, in everything you say about Christianity.

More insults. It is working do you think?

Your opening post being a good example.

Can you find anything incorrect about what I posted? I doubt it.

Out of context, with your mormon corruption placed over the top=spin.

Another bald assertion. Can you demonstrate it?

Specifically HOW is it out of context and exactly WHAT was the corruption?

Demonstrate what, that the Church Fathers weren’t Mormon?

Read the post. It wasn’t about Church Fathers being Mormon. You claimed I put a Mormon spin on it. I betcha you cannot demonstrate that I put any spin on it. Go back to the post where I said. Demonstrate I did what you claim I did if you can.

Why would I waste my time?

Because actually supporting your assertions with fact or reason is more effective that name-calling and denigration me… I kinda thought that was an obvious one.

Ah, another mormon who has morphed beliefs. Which brings us back to the King Follet sermon…you think you prophet was just making stuff up?

Nope but you you have a point to make - if you think you can show that what I post is contradiction to LDS doctrine - go ahead.

BTW… I know you can’t show that already so I’m just fun’n ya.

Because you’re getting on my nerves. yet another mormon who comes here to tell us how Mormon Christianity really is.

How Mormon Christianity really is? What does that mean?

I curious why something is getting on your nerves. I’ve not denigrated your faith. I’ve not claimed you worship a false God. I’ve not called you names so said your weren’t Christian. You haven’t been able to demonstrate that anything I’ve said is untrue.

What’s so unnerving?

The Church Fathers were Catholic. So if you assert anything about them, you are asserting it about us.

Prior to Nicea, what latter became Trinitarian doctrine was NOT the widespread proto-orthodox view. Do you think that I am asserting that YOU are not Trinitarian?

Tertullian, a Church Father became a Montanist. Do you think I am asserting that Catholics are Montanists?

 

[ronald_g_w]

You are confusing the gift that God gave mary, however…

She did nothing to merit God’s grace, but He chose to SAVE her from the stain of original sin from the moment of her conception. He did not “make her” any different from the rest of us…He blessed her with His grace so that she could be a pure vessel for Christ, and a perfect model for us of obedience to His will.

When catholics say we share in the divinity of Christ through the eucharist, it is because of HIM, not ourselves. It is because he lowered Himself for us, so that we could partake and share in His nature… All believers share in the body, blood, and divinity of Christ in the mass.

We don’t become “gods” or “goddesses.” We don’t partake of our lord to elevate ourselves. We dont’ believe divinity MAKES US divine…but we believe it UNITES us to the body of Christ.

If we have any divinity, it’s because God is sharing it with us, not because of what we have become.

!"

If Jesus did not come to make us gods what does this then imply ?

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

• Catechism of the Catholic Church

If you are invited to dinner in the home of a wealthy friend with an amazing house, you go to share dinner with him in his house. You don’t go there, step inside, and say "Wow, now I HAVE an amazing house!

If you are invited to dinner in the home of a wealthy friend with an amazing house, you go to share dinner with him in his house, and he says this is my inheritance what is mine is yours this is our inheritance as this is the will of Him from who we inherited this from.You then may step inside, and say "Wow, now I HAVE an amazing house.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

SNOW: That’s demonstrably untrue. There is a good deal of commonality.

RA: Friend, in all seriousness, you claiming that RCs and EOs peeps believe as you believe when they say they do not doesn’t help your case. Now you’re telling them what they believe and saying they are wrong.

They know what they believe, and they know what you believe – and it ain’t the same thing.

Please do not try to suggest to any of us that commonality of phraseology/terms means commonality of belief. You, of all people should know that, given how the LDS Church uses the same terms as evangelicals and yet means very different things by those terms.

It’s the BYU FARMS people and FAIR people that have been putting this *theosis *spin on things in recent years in order to make the whole godhood thing more palatable to non-Mormon observers. And THAT is the truth.

There may indeed be some kind of grassroots level apologetic attempts at actually changing the historical/traditional LDS view of godhood (which is NOT theosis), but the last I checked BYU Professors, FAIR members, and lay apologists on message boards were not General Authorities of your church.

So, no. theosis, as found in the RCC and the EOC is NOT the same thing at all as exaltation.

SNOW: And that’s not me saying so - that Fr. Jordan Vajda, OP saying so.

RA: Fr. Jordan Vajda = STOP IT. He is not Fr. Jordan Vajda anymore. He is Apostate Jordan Vajda who abandoned the RCC in favor of Mormonism, which teaches a different Jesus, a different God, a different gospel, a different spirit (God #3 in our universe), and apparently a different view of the church he left (i.e., it’s the church of the devil where Satan sits on the throne). Vajda became enamored, it seems, with the idea of being a true “God” by nature. *Theosis *wasn’t good enough for him – so he apostatized and went over to the LDS Church. Stop wheeling him out for display like a prize.

SNOW: Great - some people I never met in the 19th century - on both sides of the ledger - used fiery rhetoric. And that is relative to this discussion… how?
**
RA: **Ohhhh, let me explain.

It’s not just people of the 19th century. That;s how it’s relative to this discussion. Thank you for asking. LDS leaders, since your church’s inception, have merciless attacked Christendom.

Even more recent LDS leaders, if you look hard enough through all the PR, have said that we, in Christendom, don’t have the correct concept of God at all! We allegedly:

1. believe in a false god we worship “in vain,”
2. follow “precepts of men” and
3. are disconnected from the “real God.”
   (documentation, see Inside Today’s Mormonism, p. 255).

With regard to our RC friends here on this board that you’ve joined, here’s what LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, said in Mormon Doctrine, p. 129, 1958 edition, under the heading “CHURCH OF THE DEVIL”):

“It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization”

Here’s my favorite quote about not only RCs, but Portestants as well. It’s from 1984:

"Of historical and theological significance is the fact that in Paul’s prophecy [2 Thess. 2:1–12] the church structure survives. But God is not at its head, making that church—following the appearance in it of Satan—no longer the church of God. . . . To say that Satan sits in the place of God in Christianity after the time of the Apostles is not to say that all that is in it is satanic. . . . Still, “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16) is absent from all but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the Lord himself has proclaimed to be “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30). (Kent P. Jackson, “Early Signs of the Apostasy,” Ensign, December 1984, pp. 8-9).

So, Snow, my friend, please, save the “Oh, you’re attacking my church” line, which I find not only offensive, but terribly hypocritical when it comes from Mormons.

The truth is that RC AND Protestants – since 1830 and the founding of your church – have been in a defense mode against relentless attacks by Mormons. I just want to keep things straight here. That’s all.

Oh, and the 19th century quotes (which I won’t produce, although there are some real good zingers there) connect a direct, consistent line of attack back to 1830. That’s how those would relevant to the discussion.

R.A.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Tsuzuki: It’s certainly possible to have a traditional Christian understanding of the doctrine of deification while believing in the Restoration through Joseph Smith.

RA: Yes, but they’d be a rogue Mormon in that area of belief and NOT inline with the General Authorities or the history of the LDS Church.

If one wants to adopt a more RC or EO view of *theosis *and substitute that as the official/traditional view of exaltation – that is a different story.

And perhaps some are doing that in the closet, so to speak. But that sort of breaks down the whole authority of the LDS Church – which presents another serious problem for the faithful Mormon.

RA

 

[RebeccaJ]

The God of the Old Testament and New. You believe in another I guess???

Again, you use the same terms, but have redefined the terms.

More insults. It is working do you think?

I state facts, that you see them as insults?

Can you find anything incorrect about what I posted? I doubt it.

Can I find anything correct about what you posted would be a better, short question with a nice short answer. No.

Another bald assertion. Can you demonstrate it?

Again? Perhaps you think you are the only Mormon to come sauntering around a non-Mormon community, telling us how our doctrines our false and our belief in God is based on philosophy?

Use the search function.

Specifically HOW is it out of context and exactly WHAT was the corruption?

Context=the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Churches. Corruption=Mormonism?

Read the post. It wasn’t about Church Fathers being Mormon. You claimed I put a Mormon spin on it. I betcha you cannot demonstrate that I put any spin on it. Go back to the post where I said. Demonstrate I did what you claim I did if you can.

Please. Your entire POV is Mormon, are you saying that it is not?

You think I am insulting you personally? Not my intent. Truth is truth, and you seek to destroy it with false assertions and made up religion. It’s a denigration of all of Christianity.

Nope but you you have a point to make - if you think you can show that what I post is contradiction to LDS doctrine - go ahead.

BTW… I know you can’t show that already so I’m just fun’n ya.

I guess we’d have to define LSD doctrine first, which, is an impossibility. You can believe whatever you like as long as you speak nicely of your prophet.

How Mormon Christianity really is? What does that mean?

Mormons like yourself seek to prove that Christianity is Mormon. You used to just state, “great apostasy”, and point at our Credo and priests and tell us how corrupt they are. Now, you are trying to change our history. To Mormonize it.

I curious why something is getting on your nerves. I’ve not denigrated your faith. I’ve not claimed you worship a false God. I’ve not called you names so said your weren’t Christian. You haven’t been able to demonstrate that anything I’ve said is untrue.

What’s so unnerving?

I never said you were unnerving. I said, you get on my nerves. Why?

• You seek to redefine truth to a falsehood
• You seek to replace truth with a falsehood
• You seek to replace absolute truth with relativism

And you go about it like it is benign and Godly endeavor when it is anything but. You attack all of Christianity, with your false gods and your twisted faith and expect that all should stand by and let you have free reign while you destroy people’s souls and God’s truth.

Prior to Nicea, what latter became Trinitarian doctrine was NOT the widespread proto-orthodox view.

This is yet another Mormon spin.

Do you think that I am asserting that YOU are not Trinitarian?

I think that you are asserting that Catholicism is based on false doctrine, and you try to hack away at the roots of that doctrine. Demonstrating the destructive nature of Mormonism.

Tertullian, a Church Father became a Montanist. Do you think I am asserting that Catholics are Montanists?

You are asserting that Tertullian is a Mormon.

 

[AshleyBelle]

If Jesus did not come to make us gods what does this then imply ?.

You want to quote the Catholic Catechism, and then try to tell Catholics what it REALLY means?
I’m pretty sure the catechism means what we intended it to mean, and was written from a Catholic understanding.
Quoting the Catechism of the Catholic church only works if you understand what it is saying. The same is true of the Bible as well… But we have plenty of Christians who like to tell us what IT is “really” saying too.

I don’t discredit your argument. The Catechism and the Bible really could be interpretted to imply that we become Gods. But the fact remains, your interpretation holds no weight against the way Catholics have always understood it for 2000 years. You can’t use a current document to prove a point that we didn’t write it to mean. If you want a definition of putting words into someone’s mouth, there it is.

Why did Paul warn us, to only accept a gospel if we knew it came from the apostes? If a teaching cannot be traced to the apostles, we are warned that it is a FALSE GOSPEL.

If you are invited to dinner in the home of a wealthy friend with an amazing house, you go to share dinner with him in his house, and he says this is my inheritance what is mine is yours this is our inheritance as this is the will of Him from who we inherited this from.You then may step inside, and say "Wow, now I HAVE an amazing house.

No… you’d say "wow, my friend was very generous to give me His house! But it’s still something that is not mine…
Later my friend could say “I gave you this house, and you did not treat it properly…you are not worthy of this house” And he could take it away. I have no claim on something that was not mine to begin with.

 

[PaulDupre]

I don’t know what on earth you are referring to. I did not assert that Fr. Vajda declared Catholic doctrine and I have no idea why you claim that I did. Vajda thesis was a comparative analysis of Patristc and Mormon doctrines of divination. No one claimed that RCC doctrine was the same as Patristic doctrine.

Okay then, Some priest asserting something in a master’s thesis does not make it Patristic doctrine. I’m surprised you would think it does. Why do you think it significant that this master’s candidate was a priest? Does that make his scholarship any better than a layman? If the bishop of your ward stated in his master’s thesis that heavenly mother used to live on Mars, would that make it Mormon doctrine?

 

[Richard_Abanes]

SNOW, for your consideration and the consideration of other readers:

“God is a perfected, saved soul enjoying eternal life [exaltation].”
(Marion G. Romney, LDS Apostle, First Presidency, “How Men are Saved,” Ensign, Nov. 1974, p. 38).

I am sorry. This is NOT the RC God. This is NOT the Protestant God. This is the God of Joseph Smith and Mormonism.

R.A.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Paul: Okay then, Some priest asserting something in a master’s thesis does not make it Patristic doctrine. I’m surprised you would think it does.

RA: Don’t forget it was a priest who apostatized and left the RCC for Mormonism.

RA

 

[Snow]

SNOW: That’s demonstrably untrue. There is a good deal of commonality.

RA: Friend, in all seriousness, you claiming that RCs and EOs peeps believe as you believe when they say they do not doesn’t help your case. Now you’re telling them what they believe and saying they are wrong.

They know what they believe, and they know what you believe – and it ain’t the same thing.

Please do not try to suggest to any of us that commonality of phraseology/terms means commonality of belief. You, of all people should know that, given how the LDS Church uses the same terms as evangelicals and yet means very different things by those terms.

It’s the BYU FARMS people and FAIR people that have been putting this *theosis *spin on things in recent years in order to make the whole godhood thing more palatable to non-Mormon observers. And THAT is the truth.

There may indeed be some kind of grassroots level apologetic attempts at actually changing the historical/traditional LDS view of godhood (which is NOT theosis), but the last I checked BYU Professors, FAIR members, and lay apologists on message boards were not General Authorities of your church.

So, no. theosis, as found in the RCC and the EOC is NOT the same thing at all as exaltation.

I note that you are claiming that I assert something and then set about refuting it. The problems is, as I am sure you are aware, You are making stuff up about what I said and so are simply putting on a show for the kiddies.

You know perfectly well that I did not say that that the Catholics and Orthodox believe as I believe and you know too that I did not say that exaltation in The Church of Jesus Christ and theosis in the early Church are the same thing.

You don’t need to make stuff up in order to post a rebuttal. Just go ahead and address what I said. It’s ever so much more honest that way.

SNOW: And that’s not me saying so - that Fr. Jordan Vajda, OP saying so.

RA: Fr. Jordan Vajda = STOP IT. He is not Fr. Jordan Vajda anymore. He is Apostate Jordan Vajda who abandoned the RCC in favor of Mormonism,

You would score more brownie points if you were more straightforward. As I am sure you are aware, He was Fr. Jordan Vajda, OP at the time he wrote the study ans was for years afterward.

…which teaches a different Jesus, a different God, a different gospel, a different spirit (God #3 in our universe), and apparently a different view of the church he left (i.e., it’s the church of the devil where Satan sits on the throne). Vajda became enamored, it seems, with the idea of being a true “God” by nature. *Theosis *wasn’t good enough for him – so he apostatized and went over to the LDS Church. Stop wheeling him out for display like a prize.

How pedestrian; “a different Jesus…”

You get this stuff out of some boundry maintenance anti-Mormon how-to manual 101? You sound desperate. What the problem? Seriously. I don’t need to denigrate you or your beliefs in order to make myself feel good.

SNOW: Great - some people I never met in the 19th century - on both sides of the ledger - used fiery rhetoric. And that is relative to this discussion… how?
**
RA: **Ohhhh, let me explain.

It’s not just people of the 19th century. That;s how it’s relative to this discussion. Thank you for asking. LDS leaders, since your church’s inception, have merciless attacked Christendom.

… (edited out for length)

With regard to our RC friends here on this board that you’ve joined, here’s what LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, said in Mormon Doctrine, p. 129, 1958 edition, under the heading “CHURCH OF THE DEVIL”):

“It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization”

Gee, golly. It’s me, Snow you are talking to, here and now. You somehow think that you are talking to Bruce McConkie in 1958.

Try to focus friend. Focus.

So, Snow, my friend, please, save the “Oh, you’re attacking my church” line, which I find not only offensive, but terribly hypocritical when it comes from Mormons.

You have just accused me, I think, of being a hypocrite… because of something Kent Jackson or someone said.

Focus now. Come on.

The truth is that RC AND Protestants – since 1830 and the founding of your church – have been in a defense mode against relentless attacks by Mormons. I just want to keep things straight here. That’s all.

Oh, and the 19th century quotes (which I won’t produce, although there are some real good zingers there) connect a direct, consistent line of attack back to 1830. That’s how those would relevant to the discussion.

R.A.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Let’s be clear and let’s be honest. I’ve said not a word about the validity of your faith. I’ve said not one things about your commitment to God of His acceptance of you; while YOU have done so to me… and yet you claim that or imply that YOU are the victim and simply on the defensive.

Oh the irony.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

SNOW, for your consideration and the consideration of other readers:

*"[T]he ultimate desire of a loving Supreme Being is to help his children enjoy all that he enjoys. For Latter-day Saints, the term “godhood” denotes the attainment of such a state—one of having all divine attributes and doing as God does and being as God is. . . . [A]ll resurrected and perfected mortals become gods" *(Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, p. 553).

I am sorry. This is NOT *theosis *per the RCC. This is NOT *theosis *per the EO. This is the Mormon concept of deification that you and others are trying to spin as theosis.

RA

 

[Snow]

Okay then, Some priest asserting something in a master’s thesis does not make it Patristic doctrine. I’m surprised you would think it does. Why do you think it significant that this master’s candidate was a priest? Does that make his scholarship any better than a layman? If the bishop of your ward stated in his master’s thesis that heavenly mother used to live on Mars, would that make it Mormon doctrine?

Feel free to refute anything he said in his thesis…it’s available online. I guess we’ll then find out if his scholarship was up to snuff.

 

[Snow]

SNOW, for your consideration and the consideration of other readers:

*"[T]he ultimate desire of a loving Supreme Being is to help his children enjoy all that he enjoys. For Latter-day Saints, the term “godhood” denotes the attainment of such a state—one of having all divine attributes and doing as God does and being as God is. . . . [A]ll resurrected and perfected mortals become gods" *(Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, p. 553).

I am sorry. This is NOT *theosis *per the RCC. This is NOT *theosis *per the EO. This is the Mormon concept of deification that you and others are trying to spin as theosis.

RA

Honestly RA, honesty. It’s a wonderful thing.

You know full well that I did not claim that (what you posted above) was Orthodox theosis.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Snow: I note that you are claiming that I assert something and then set about refuting it.

RA: Oh really, then please do correct me, kind sir.

**Snow: **You are making stuff up about what I said and so are simply putting on a show for the kiddies.

RA: Feel free to state again for my slow mind exactly what you’re saying then.

Snow: You know perfectly well that I did not say that that the Catholics and Orthodox believe as I believe and you know too that I did not say that exaltation in The Church of Jesus Christ and theosis in the early Church are the same thing.

RA: Well, you fooled me very well by your words which seemed to say quite the opposite.

You stated: “Theosis is the deification of man and that is exactly what the LDS Church believe in.” This is the same kind of word games Mormons often play.

You use the word “theosis” – a word characteristically used by RCC and EO – and then you say that’s EXACTLY what you believe, which implies that the LDS concept is essentially the same as the RCC and EO. And that usually works on people who don’t bother to say “Wait a minute…”

But then, when someone does stop, and say, “Hold it, let’s clarify our terms here.” Suddenly, its, “Oh, well we believe in theosis, but yeah, okay, maybe it’s not necessarily the same theosis of the RCC and EO.”

And you wonder why people don’t trust Mormons? Hmmm.

You (like so many LDS with whom I’ve interacted) play all these word games depending on who you’re talking to. Hinckley was a master at it.

At least Mormons of the 19th Century said what they believed and damn the rest of the world, the Government, and Christendom – they didn’t care. I respect that far more than what the PR Era has done to the LDS Church. Go Brigham!!!

Snow: It’s ever so much more honest that way.

**RA: **LoL. That’s a good one. I like you, Snow.

Snow: You would score more brownie points if you were more straightforward. As I am sure you are aware, He was Fr. Jordan Vajda, OP at the time he wrote the study and was for years afterward.

RA: Didn’t I say that? I said, “He is not Fr. Jordan Vajda anymore.” And I said he converted: “Vajda became enamored, it seems, with the idea of being a true “God” by nature. Theosis wasn’t good enough for him – so he apostatized and went over to the LDS Church. Stop wheeling him out for display like a prize.” I never said he was a Mormon when he wrote that piece.

Snow: How pedestrian…

RA: LoL… Sorry, I’ll use the term from your own KJV: “*ANOTHER *JESUS.” Better?

*“For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Corinthians 11:4). *

But I like that God-in-embryo air of superiority in your voice: “pedestrian.” Good word.

Snow: You get this stuff out of some boundry maintenance anti-Mormon how-to manual 101?

RA: LoL again. :clapping: You’re killing me. Yeah, that’s it. You really need to do some research, bro, before you say such things. It’s just kind of silly-sounding.

Snow: Focus now. Come on.

RA: ROFL. Oh, no, stop …LoL… please …ahha ahh…no, no… snow…

RA

 

[Stephen168]

Feel free to refute anything he said in his thesis…it’s available online. I guess we’ll then find out if his scholarship was up to snuff.

online? where?

 

[Richard_Abanes]

TOM: it appears to me that you have mentioned Vajda’s conversion to the CoJCoLDS in a way that obscures the fact that he was a Catholic priest for about 5 years after he wrote his master’s thesis.

**RA: **That was NOT my intention at all. I mean, really, how many details do you want? As I phrased it, I felt I had indicated that he was a priest, who wrote his article, but he is no longer a pries now because at some point he apostatized and converted to Mormonism.

Stephen: online? where?

**RA: **Jordan Vajda: LDS Theosis Poster Boy – Everything You’ve Always Wanted to Know About Theosis But Were Afraid to Ask, but Now Here’s the Truth So You, Too, Can Become a Mormon.

RA