Trinity and Mormon godhead

  • Thread starter Thread starter nebula
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Ashley,

It is interesting that you really do think that we will forget the difference between good and evil. Compare your viewpoint with that of St. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200 A.D):

“O mystic wonder! The Lord was laid low, and man rose up; and he that fell from Paradise receives as the reward of obedience something greater [than Paradise]–namely, heaven itself.” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen 11.)

He apparently thought that our heavenly reward will be greater than what was originally given.
That's right.. HEAVEN is greater than the garden of eden. WE will still be restored as we were originally intended to be. Except the bonus, is that we get to live as restored creations in HEAVEN with the father:)
 
God planned for us to do evil?
So, are you saying you believe Adam and Eve caught God by surprise?

If God didn’t plan for this contingency, why did St. John call Jesus “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8)?
 
Thank you for the amazing compliment!

It was addressed by our mormon friends, although they have blatently said they “don’t much care for us” so I’m sure they don’t appreciate us calling them “friend…”

God bless you:)
Not at all
I was Catholic, most of my family is Catholic, and probably 40% of my ward, because we are in a Hispanic area, are ex-Catholics too.

Catholics make great Mormons. 😉
 
So, are you saying you believe Adam and Eve caught God by surprise?

If God didn’t plan for this contingency, why did St. John call Jesus “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8)?
Code:
God KNEW from the foundation of the world that we would sin. That's because God exists outside of time:)
However, to say that God “planned” for us to sin, is delving into the realm of “do we really have free will?”

God knew and existed from the beginning of time through all time, he does not exist by our constraints. He did not WANT us to sin, but He still created us KNOWING we would sin, and KNOWING He would have to suffer and die… Because he Loves us THAT much! He loved us enough to create us, even though He knew the price.
 
That’s right… HEAVEN is greater than the garden of eden. WE will still be restored as we were originally intended to be. Except the bonus, is that we get to live as restored creations in HEAVEN with the father:)
I see. Now then, if the Catechism is right that we will be “gods,” does that mean Adam and Eve were “gods” in the beginning? Or does simply living in heaven make you a “god”?
 
God KNEW from the foundation of the world that we would sin. That’s because God exists outside of time:)
However, to say that God “planned” for us to sin, is delving into the realm of “do we really have free will?”

God knew and existed from the beginning of time through all time, he does not exist by our constraints. He did not WANT us to sin, but He still created us KNOWING we would sin, and KNOWING He would have to suffer and die… Because he Loves us THAT much! He loved us enough to create us, even though He knew the price.
I think this is very close to the truth, but you are missing one point and that is that we would not have had free will if there had been no sin. It was that sin that in a sense GAVE us free will.

The fact that God knew what would happen does not mean that he MADE it happen. That is one of the great fallacies of predestination.

There is a difference between knowing something and causing it. They have nothing to do with eachother.
 
I see. Now then, if the Catechism is right that we will be “gods,” does that mean Adam and Eve were “gods” in the beginning? Or does simply living in heaven make you a “god”?
Code:
You can't take the Catholic idea, read the words of the Catholic idea, and yet not accept the Catholic understanding of it.
That would be like a Pagan picking up a Bible, seeing the word “God” and assuming we meant Zeus.
Nothing I say is going to illustrate to you how we believe God created us before the fall, until you understand the difference between mormon deificiation and the Catholic understanding of theosis.
 
I think this is very close to the truth, but you are missing one point and that is that we would not have had free will if there had been no sin. It was that sin that in a sense GAVE us free will.

The fact that God knew what would happen does not mean that he MADE it happen. That is one of the great fallacies of predestination.

There is a difference between knowing something and causing it. They have nothing to do with eachother.
You’re right… there is a difference. God created us knowing we would do it, didn’t want us to do it, but made plans to HELP US get THROUGH it in the end.

You want to claim that, because God knew we would sin, He created us “less than perfect” or “less than deities” so that then later after Jesus came, He could make us “fully deities.”
The whole concept is convoluted and full of confusion.

God’s creation was PERFECT from the beginning. We had free will from the beginning.

SIN entered the world, and we CHOSE that sin which offered us the chance to be “like gods.” Our own gods, not “like gods” in the sense that we SHARE in God’s divinity, but that we become our OWN deity. That was the sin which brought DEATH into the world, and that was the sin which Christ paid the price for on the cross.

So, now you want me to follow your theology, and choose precisely what adam and eve chose? Mormonism is attempting to take exactly what the devil tempted the very first humans with… rewording it, making it sound “theologically sound” and twisted, and essentially RE-TEMPTING the body of Christ with the same idea.

What difference would it have made if He knew we were going to sin? Other than to GIVE us some motive TO sin? Are you saying sinning is the will of God?
 
I think this is very close to the truth, but you are missing one point and that is that we would not have had free will if there had been no sin. It was that sin that in a sense GAVE us free will.

The fact that God knew what would happen does not mean that he MADE it happen. That is one of the great fallacies of predestination.

There is a difference between knowing something and causing it. They have nothing to do with eachother.
This is not the understanding of the Church regarding free will. God created us with free will…sin did not cause or was not the reason God gave us with free will. It is part of human nature from the beginning of our creation.
 
And I read the catholic author you quoted, and unless I stretch my brain to skew my thinking the way you seem to want me to, I see in no way how it implies Adam and Eve were NOT perfect and as God intended them to be before the fall…
We will be RESTORED to HIS PURPOSE… the purpose he had for us from the beginning, before we CHOSE to turn away from it. If Adam and eve had been “gods” from the start, Satan couldn’t have tempted them with the idea of “being like god.”

You can analyze that all you want, but God does not create imperfect beings. He did not make us one way and later decide He should have “done it better” to begin with. He made us as He wanted us, and we chose it wasn’t good enough for us. We chose to be slaves to sin.

So He came down, humbled himself in the form of a man, and sacrificed himself to FREE us from that slavery, so we could be restored to Him. The way he FIRST created us to BE.
What Keating directly refutes is the idea that the devil was purely lying when he said that we were to become like God. This is very clear in what I quoted from him. You said:
40.png
AshleyBelle:
So…if they were already as God intended them… why would satan tempt them to become gods? Wouldn’t they have already BEEN gods?
Keating said that Satan’s temptation was to walk via disobedience the path God desired them to walk via obedience.

Now, it seems that some Eastern Orthodox BOLDLY claim that our future deification is beyond the state of Adam and Eve pre-fall. There seems to be some Catholic thinkers that embrace your view. I will look more, but for the time being, it seems that some Catholic thinkers (though Keating is not really one) agree with you. This surprises me based on the question I asked you that you did not answer.

Again, you seem to have skipped a question I asked you. Adam choose to rebel against God. Can Saints in heaven choose to rebel against God. Is there sin in heaven? This IMO is a strong reason to reject the idea that Adam pre-fall is the same as the Saint in Heaven.

Charity, TOm
 
The difference between good and evil won’t matter in the afterlife… We will no longer desire anything BUT good. We will no longer desire anything of our own that is outside the Father’s will, because we will be perfectly united to Him in love.

Evil will no longer exist:)
If there is no desire for evil in the afterlife does this not involve a change from the condition of Adam and Eve?
Charity, TOm
 
What Keating directly refutes is the idea that the devil was purely lying when he said that we were to become like God. This is very clear in what I quoted from him. You said:

Keating said that Satan’s temptation was to walk via disobedience the path God desired them to walk via obedience.

Now, it seems that some Eastern Orthodox BOLDLY claim that our future deification is beyond the state of Adam and Eve pre-fall. There seems to be some Catholic thinkers that embrace your view. I will look more, but for the time being, it seems that some Catholic thinkers (though Keating is not really one) agree with you. This surprises me based on the question I asked you that you did not answer.

Again, you seem to have skipped a question I asked you. Adam choose to rebel against God. Can Saints in heaven choose to rebel against God. Is there sin in heaven? This IMO is a strong reason to reject the idea that Adam pre-fall is the same as the Saint in Heaven.

Charity, TOm
There is no sin in heaven... Because they are now perfect, and their FREE WILL is now conformed perfectly in union with God's will.
 
That’s right… HEAVEN is greater than the garden of eden. WE will still be restored as we were originally intended to be. Except the bonus, is that we get to live as restored creations in HEAVEN with the father:)
How does this align with your view that Saints in heaven are the same as Adam and Eve pre-fall?
Charity, TOm
 
After the fall, a “process of trying and failing and exercising faith” was necesary. Because we FAILED. Before the fall…none of this was needed because we were in perfect communion with God, as He intended us to be. Why would we NEED to be 'another way" than perfectly created?
There was no “we.” There was Adam and there was Eve. “We” weren’t involved.

Whether or not we NEED to be another way isn’t the issue. God created us as He did knowing full well that we would be a different way.
God’s design was for LIFE. Satan’s design and our choice, was death.
Maybe. God created man and created satan and created all that is knowing full well exactly what would ensue. You can say that he didn’t intend it to ensue but since he knew it would regardless, eh, it’s hard to say it wasn’t according to plan. After all, He could have done it another way.
I can scroll back and read, but it was in this thread… .I’ll try to go back and copy/paste. Basically they are implying that CATHOLICS teach the SAME idea as mormons, because of our belief that we share in Christ’s divinity. It was never intended to fit the mormon definition of deification.
I’ve been Mormon all my life. I’ve never heard any other Mormons say that Catholics teach the SAME as Mormons.

I posted some points about Patristic theosis and LDS exaltation, that according to a then Catholic monk, were similar, but that does not mean that the whole concepts are the same.
The trinity was officially declared by the councils…it was held as tradition, because it is implied throughout scripture. Christ Himself commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He said that He and the Father are ONE. Scripture teaches the concept of trinity throughout, and it has always been the teaching of the Church that God is three persons in one. I will choose to follow the understanding of the Holy Catholic Church, ESPECIALLY in concepts that are mysteries or unable to be grasped by human understanding.
Can you demonstrate which specific scriptures, and how, imply consubstantiality?

When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element in the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, Islam, and rational Theism are Unitarian. On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word “Trinity”, but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine… [Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.]
So then, the leader of the mormon church should be the pope?
I don’t understand. The pope is nothing more that the head of the RCC. The President/prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ is not Roman Catholic.
 
If there is no desire for evil in the afterlife does this not involve a change from the condition of Adam and Eve?
Charity, TOm
No…

You’re basically asking, that if we’re going to be made the same as Adam and Eve, how do we know we aren’t going to fail and sin again?
Code:
I guess the only answer to that question is faith.
No one knows exactly what will happen after we die, we can only theorize and wonder. We do know from Sacred Scripture and Tradition, that in heaven, sin and death will be completely overcome. So I have faith, that we will be restored to our original status, and in the promise of God that sin will be defeated.
 
BDawg: It’s people who don’t actually read many books about early Christian doctrinal history. Like you. Let me point out another aspect of your ignorance that you have just displayed…

**RA: **So tragic…And you have no idea. The blindness is unrelenting. You are not even functioning in the realm of reality, my friend. You’re creating worlds, and arguments, and sub-pseudo-realties that have no substance. practicing for godhood? Tragic. Utterly tragic.

I read plenty of early Christian doctrinal history. Oh, wait, yeah, I’ve been published with regard to that. And you, my friend, can read early Christian doctrinal history all you want, but that doesn’t mean you understand it or accurately relate it to others. Indeed, you haven’t the foggiest idea of what you’re talking about. :hypno:

Every word is filtered through the lens of you needing to prove that 1820 Vision – whichever version you might subscribe to. Too bad the days of peep stones are over - you could just use that to see the words of the early church fathers appearing – maybe in Reformed Egyptian. Perhaps you can borrow the one in the LDS vault in SLC. 👍

Anyway, clearly, you and I have NOTHING to say to each other. I wish you well. And I pray you find truth one day like many others who have left the LDS Church. Truly, I do wish you all the best. Just to show you no hard feelings, I’ll do a little dance for you :extrahappy: trying to keep it light, since there’s no reason at this point to be serious.:juggle:

peace-out,

RA
 
Thank you for the amazing compliment!

It was addressed by our mormon friends, although they have blatently said they “don’t much care for us” so I’m sure they don’t appreciate us calling them “friend…”

God bless you:)
Ashley,
I would be interested in who you think claimed to not like Catholics very much (too). I am a former Catholic. If I ever become convinced that I should not be a LDS, I will be a Catholic immediately AND I will be at reconciliation in <24 hours.
I am a huge fan of Catholicism. I am not a Catholic because I think the CoJCoLDS is more likely God’s church based on non-spirit-derived evidence AND I think the CoJCoLDS is more likely God’s church based on spiritual evidence.
Either God guided the DEVELOPMENT of theology and Catholicism is His church and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ OR God RESTORED His church and the President of the CoJCoLDS is His Prophet. I really think the other options are radically less likely.
Charity, TOm
 
BDawg: It’s people who don’t actually read many books about early Christian doctrinal history. Like you. Let me point out another aspect of your ignorance that you have just displayed…

**RA: **So tragic…And you have no idea. The blindness is unrelenting. You are not even functioning in the realm of reality, my friend. You’re creating worlds, and arguments, and sub-pseudo-realties that have no substance. practicing for godhood? Tragic. Utterly tragic.

I read plenty of early Christian doctrinal history. Oh, wait, yeah, I’ve been published with regard to that. And you, my friend, can read early Christian doctrinal history all you want, but that doesn’t mean you understand it or accurately relate it to others. Indeed, you haven’t the foggiest idea of what you’re talking about. :hypno:

Every word is filtered through the lens of you needing to prove that 1820 Vision – whichever version you might subscribe to. Too bad the days of peep stones are over - you could just use that to see the words of the early church fathers appearing – maybe in Reformed Egyptian. Perhaps you can borrow the one in the LDS vault in SLC. 👍

Anyway, clearly, you and I have NOTHING to say to each other. I wish you well. And I pray you find truth one day like many others who have left the LDS Church. Truly, I do wish you all the best. Just to show you no hard feelings, I’ll do a little dance for you :extrahappy: trying to keep it light, since there’s no reason at this point to be serious.:juggle:
Richard,
This is yet another post without substance. You have said nothing relative to the discussion going on.
What of your favorite Catholic, David Waltz. What is his motivation for seeing within the ECF much of the same things B-Dawg does? Is his “Every word … filtered through the lens of [him] needing to prove that 1820 Vision?”
Also, you claim to have read, studied, and written on the ECF. Will you comment on why the following statement is true OR demonstrate that it is false:

No ECF before Nicea when talking about human deification (human theosis / “men becoming gods”) placed any limits on the FINAL state of deified man. Instead, they along with modern LDS boldly stated that through the grace of Christ we would become gods. They did not say “but only in the communicable attributes.” After Nicea it became increasingly popular to state that there were limits upon what it meant for humans to become gods.

Charity, TOm
 
Ashley,
I would be interested in who you think claimed to not like Catholics very much (too). I am a former Catholic. If I ever become convinced that I should not be a LDS, I will be a Catholic immediately AND I will be at reconciliation in <24 hours.
I am a huge fan of Catholicism. I am not a Catholic because I think the CoJCoLDS is more likely God’s church based on non-spirit-derived evidence AND I think the CoJCoLDS is more likely God’s church based on spiritual evidence.
Either God guided the DEVELOPMENT of theology and Catholicism is His church and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ OR God RESTORED His church and the President of the CoJCoLDS is His Prophet. I really think the other options are radically less likely.
Charity, TOm
I would agree with that last statement:) Either the church was preserved, or the church was restored!

But, how do you view the words of Christ Himself? The promise that even the gates of hell would never prevail against the church?

The only logical conclusion I can fathom you coming to, is that you apply the same logic you’re using for creation. Your belief that God planned for us to sin, so that He could re-create us as deities…applied to the church. He founded the church, planned for it to become “apostate” so that ultimately he could “restore” it the way it as meant to be.

Unfortunately, both trains of thought seem to nullify the love of God, and turn His beloved children into some sort of great experiment.
 
I would agree with that last statement Either the church was preserved, or the church was restored!
My statement is a little more bold than this. I claim that the Reformation in its RADICAL reliance upon developed Catholic doctrine introduces such a disconnect that it is significantly flawed in ways that I just cannot make sense of. That being said, I am happy that we have some agreement here.
But, how do you view the words of Christ Himself? The promise that even the gates of hell would never prevail against the church?
I once thought that Matthew 16:18 was a powerful Catholic passage in its second half. I still think Catholicism has a good read of this passage, but no longer do I think it is as convincing as I once did.
First, I generally quote a Catholic scholar introduced to me by a fine LDS fellow here is a more full context of this LDS fellow’s point:
The statement seemingly most harmful to the LDS case is Matthew 16:18. “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” To interpret this passage we must first define terms.
First, what is “the Church” (Greek ekklesia = “assembly”) that Jesus spoke of? Steve’s interpretation suggests it was “the Church” in its manifestation as an earthly organization. However, in a broader sense, “the Church” is much more inclusive. Two of the earliest post-New Testament Christian writings, The Pastor of Hermas and 2 Clement (both early second century) claimed that God created the Church even before he created the world. "She was created first of all… and for her sake was the world made."1 "Moreover, the books and the apostles declare that the Church belongs not to the present, but existed from the beginning."2 Paul wrote, “He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.” (Ephesians 1:3) The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews went on: “But we are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and in an innumerable company of angels. To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.” (Hebrews 12:22-23) The message here is clear. “The Church” is not just an earthly organization - it existed before the foundation of the world, and it exists with the saints of all ages, both those who are on the earth and those who have passed on. Therefore, even if the Church as an earthly organization disappears and reappears periodically, the Church will always survive!
But is there any reason to believe Jesus was speaking primarily of the earthly Church? On the contrary, the text says that “the gates of hell {Greek hades = “the world of the dead”} shall not prevail against it.” What are “the gates of hades”? Hades is not hell - it is the underworld, and in early Christian and Jewish thought it was believed to be a place of waiting where the spirits of the dead, both the just and unjust, remained until the resurrection. (If Jesus had been speaking in Roman Catholic terms he might have said, “the gates of Purgatory shall not prevail against it.”) Thus Tertullian (ca. 200 AD): "All souls, therefore; are shut up within Hades: do you admit this? (It is true, whether) you say yes or no…"3 The “gates of hades”, then, represent the “powers of death”, as Steve’s quotation of the verse from the RSV indicates, and “the sting of death is sin”. (1 Corinthians 15:56) Thus the text seems to be a promise of protection from the powers of death and sin for Christ’s assembly (ekklesia) of believers. For this reason Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic), in his excellent scholarly defense of the papacy, admits that "although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil."4
Furthermore, there are numerous allusions in the early Christian literature to Christ, when he died and went to hades, breaking down the gates of Hades and leading out the faithful to glorious resurrection. For instance, Athanasius related the following tradition: "He burst open the gates of brass, He broke through the bolts of iron, and He took the souls which were in Amente {the Coptic equivalent of Hades} and carried them to His Father… Now the souls He brought out of Amente, but the bodies He raised up on the earth…"5 Therefore it is clear what Jesus was talking about when he said “the gates of hades” would not prevail against the Church, and to apply this statement to the perpetuation of the earthly Church would make no sense.
In more simple circumstances I usually speak of the restoration as “prevailing” or “ultimate triumph.” Nobody would say that the man Jesus Christ did not prevail over death, but we all know that He did die. The restoration is the prevailing of Christ’s church.
cont …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top