Views on Mormonism?

[soren1]

Jesus was a God when He assisted His (our) Father in the creation. It is clear in the Genesis account “let us make man in our image, after our likeness” that more than one being was involved: God the Father, and Jesus Christ.

“Us” indicates that more than one person is involved, not more than one being. The plurality of persons indicated in that text is and has always been a classic text used to show that the Trinity is revealed implicitly in the Old Testament. It argues for, not against, the Trinity. If Trinitarianism were a modalist doctrine, that is, if it denied a real distinction anmong the three persons, then this would be a serious problem. However, since that it not what the Trinity is, this argument, makes no impact.

The only way you can makes a case here, would be to suppose philosophically that a plurality of persons necessarily requires a plurality of beings. Yet since that is an assumption that Trinitarianism specifically denies, such an argument would be circular.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes…back to making man in God’s image…the plurality…it implies even more, after more reflection the personage of God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as it is Catholic teaching that the Father created the universe through Jesus Christ, Incarnate Word…

(On the side here…God wills creation through ‘Yes’…Eve was permitted to eat of the Tree of Life but chose to be as god and surely die.

It is Mary’s ‘Yes’, that the beginning of true restoration comes about…the fruit of her womb, Jesus Christ, the firstborn of all fruits.

Subsequently, the Catholic view of the priesthood, serving the altar, the priest is not becoming god.

Instead the priest of the line of Melchizedek, is nurturing us in the perpetual sacrifice, --prophesized by Melchizedek, – with the fruit of the Tree of Life through the gifts of bread and wine at the offertory at Mass, this event happening at the altar of God with Christ in heaven.

So this union with Christ in the Mass is uniting us to God in heaven, this is our work of righteousness, and our restoration from sin to grace to be united with the Lord.

 

[ParkerD]

…

To be a priest, the priest had to prove his genealogy from his mother and father, and other relatives coming from the Levites. After the Babylonian Exile, those Levite priests who returned but could not prove their genealogy, could not serve as priestss.

This is what confuses me about the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood. Could one of our LDS posters explain to me how the Aaronic priesthood as practiced by the LDS church today is related to the original Levitical priesthood that Aaron belonged to? First, today’s teen boys are very likely not related to Aaron. That alone makes it seem impossible to have a restoration. Second, what function do they perform that is related? It seems to me a priest’s duties have always been related to sacrifice. That would include Catholic priests and the sacrifice of the mass. Thanks!

bz5,

I suppose I can try and give you a simple explanation about the Aaronic Priesthood.

As you would be aware, the Levitical priesthood was established as the authority to complete the ordinances associated with the law of sacrifice and with the tabernacle and its ordinances, which later became associated with Solomon’s temple and its ordinances. All those ordinances, including baptism as performed by John the Baptist, were what could be described as “outward ordinances” which were symbolic of either the coming sacrifice of Jesus Christ, or of the house of Israel making covenants with God to prepare them to receive higher ordinances when they were ready as a people to make and keep covenants associated with higher ordinances. (As Soren1 noted, the people rejected being a “kingdom of priests” and were afraid when Moses said they could come with him into the presence of God if they prepared themselves for that.)

The similarities between the Levitical priesthood and the “Aaronic priesthood” are (1) in the fact that it is a “preparatory priesthood” for the young men or for adult men for preparing themselves to make and keep the covenants associated with higher ordinances that require holding the Melchizedek priesthood, and (2) in the fact that it is the officiating priesthood for the “outward ordinances” of communion and baptism, both of which are symbolic of making and keeping covenants with God and with the Savior, Jesus Christ, God the Son, in preparing oneself and keeping the relationship with God in a two-way relationship that enables making and keeping the covenants associated with higher ordinances.

Covenants are promises to God that bind a person to Him and to the Savior, whereby the person is strengthened in their resolve to keep their promises, and God promises blessings to the person through their having made those promises. A covenant is thus a two-way promise that brings blessings to the person who makes a covenant promise, through their being faithful to the covenant they have made.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m a guy. In fact, I am the same Soren you will find on this webpage.

Thanks, Soren. That is certainly what I had thought all along, and its great to see a face now to put with the name–plus thanks again for the sensitivity on the topic that came up.

 

[Chipper]

Many LDS members do interpret it to mean that one day we may have spirit children of our own and will have the opportunity to do as God has done for us; create worlds and bodies for them to experience just as we have…

Creating worlds, creating bodies having spirit children of your own, makes one a god - yes???

Following are extracts from your Book of Abraham.
Chapter 4.
1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.
5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night.
27 So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image,

How is it ya’ll don’t see a contradiction with all these references to “gods”, “organizing” and the Old Testament book of Exodus.
Exodus 20:3
" You shall have no other gods before Me.

 

[TexanKnight]

Oh, I am not defending Parker on the whole LDS theoology of the priesthood! By no menas! I was responding only to your one post where, unless I misunderstood, you were denying the historical distinction of two orders of priesthood. If that is what you meant, you are wrong. If you meant something else, then my post missed the point.

I actually think the account I gave of the two priesthoods, of the Levites and of the firstborn, poses far more problems for Mormonism when deeply understood than support for it, although I chose not to get into my reasons for thinking so. Yet on the more elemental question of whether there are two distinct orders of priest, one higher and one lower, then I have no quarrel with the Mormons on that single point.

So I take it you can not show what I asked?

 

[soren1]

So I take it you can not show what I asked?

No I cannot, because there is indeed no evidence for it. Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, and Jeremiah did not hold any Melchizedek Priesthood, nor is priesthood a requisite condition for being a prophet. The only Old Testament persons who are priests in the manner of Melchizedek are firstborn sons prior to the Golden Calf and Solomon.

 

[TexanKnight]

No I cannot, because there is indeed no evidence for it. Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, and Jeremiah did not hold any Melchizedek Priesthood, nor is priesthood a requisite condition for being a prophet. The only Old Testament persons who are priests in the manner of Melchizedek are firstborn sons prior to the Golden Calf and Solomon.

And that was my point. Thank you

 

[Stephen168]

That has been my understand:

No I cannot, because there is indeed no evidence for it. Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, and Jeremiah did not hold any Melchizedek Priesthood, nor is priesthood a requisite condition for being a prophet. The only Old Testament persons who are priests in the manner of Melchizedek are firstborn sons prior to the Golden Calf and Solomon.

Priesthood “in the manner of Melchizedek” is biblical.

Paul explains that the Savior held the Melchizedek priesthood, as did Melchizedek, as did Abraham.

. A “Melchizedek Priesthood” is not biblical.

 

[SteveVH]

To clarify, I FIRMLY believe in the Apostolic Succession of the Catholic Church. I just prefer to practice a different form of apologetics than you do in regards to Mormons and not tell them where they’ve gone astray. A pointless exchange in regards to who is a Christian and who isn’t because of a difference in understanding the nature of God. They humanize God where we do not. I prefer the Catholic version in not defending that we can some day be a god. This is obviously a different interpretation of what scripture means by “we are created in the ‘image of God.’”

I do prefer defending the 2000 years of Catholic history. than the 180+ years of LDS history. I’ve determined the more I study Catholic or LDS history, the more I embrace my Catholic faith.

Well, I will agree with you that it is probably a pointless exchange regarding who is Christian and who is not. Not because the argument cannot be made, but because it will never change one’s opinion. Nevertheless, if we accept anyone’s definition then words become meaningless. The term “Christian” should mean something. Does it matter whether or not we are polytheistic or monotheistic? Does it matter whether or not we believe that Christ is the second person of the Trinity or a separate god in his own right? How is a non-Christian to know what a “Christian” believes? That is really where I am coming from. Can I, as a Latin rite Catholic, call myself Greek Orthodox? I can, but it does not make me one. I hope you see my point. This does not just apply to Mormons, but their use of the word borders on deception. Have you ever seen a commercial for the LDS church? They usually offer a free Bible. Why do they not offer a Book of Mormon or Doctrines and Covenants? We both know the answer.

 

[Naf623]

So your official answer is LDS will never become gods that will populate other planets with their epouses.

My ‘official’ answer is that we do not teach anything more than that we will live forever still as the family units we are a part of in this life. Further official doctrine has not been provided: some members interpret it as you have, others do not.
However, I do not understand why this matters?
Does the destination change how you would behave on a bus/plane/train? Your and our doctrines of what has been, or what is to come are of little importance, because all we can do at the present time is to live our lives according to Gods laws, assured that He has everything else in hand and planned for our good.

You know what is LDS explication for Genesis 6:2 ?

The divine beings saw how beautiful these human women were, so they married the ones they chose.

Who are the divine beings? Since their being is clearly differentiated from human women.

Actually you have taken a completely incorrect interpretation of the scripture to begin with. It actually states that sons of God marry daughters of men. Sons of God being righteous people (see Luke 3:38 - Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.); while daughters of men refer to those who no longer followed The words of God. It basically refers to the same situation as warned against in Deuteronomy 7:3-4 - Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods.

In the story of Genesis…another context can be taken as well…After God has created most of the world, He sees that it is good, and says to them, engaging in them in praise of His creation…‘Let us make man…’

Says to what? The cows? Sheep? Fowls of the air? Fish? Trees?
God said let us; definiteviley stating that more than one being was involved in the creation.

I am sort of taking by surprise here. Why did you answer me and not the many others that asked this question?

I’ve only just joined the thread. I did start reading, but when I realised its so many pages long, I gave up and skipped to the last pages and what is still current. You were the last person who asked (and the only one I’ve seen)

“Us” indicates that more than one person is involved, not more than one being.

So God was just talking to Himself?
I suppose eternities of being alone does that to you…
Nonsense.
The fact He said anything at all (other than anything He may have said relevant to His work of creation) shows there was definitely someone else with Him. What you are saying is that two elements of the same being still have some need (even when there were none of us there who needed an example set for) to discuss, despite already being of the same mind. And this is my problem with the idea of the Trinity: that on regular occasions it has been clearly documented that Jesus Christ and God the Father are separate and distinct, and communicate with each other even when there should be no need were they One God as you claim.

Creating worlds, creating bodies having spirit children of your own, makes one a god - yes???

Following are extracts from your Book of Abraham.
Chapter 4.
1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.
5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night.
27 So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image,

How is it ya’ll don’t see a contradiction with all these references to “gods”, “organizing” and the Old Testament book of Exodus.
Exodus 20:3
" You shall have no other gods before Me.

you have emboldened most of the important part of that scripture, let me help you:
“You shall have no other gods before Me”
Far from eliminating the existence of any other divine beings, this scripture states that Elohim is the only one whom we ought to worship; and upholds the idea that other gods/Gods exist.
The ‘before’ holds a twofold meaning; that we should not worship any other being in the presence of God (He being omnipresent, that would be always); and also that none of them should be held in higher regard than He is.

 

[Naf623]

you ever seen a commercial for the LDS church? They usually offer a free Bible. Why do they not offer a Book of Mormon or Doctrines and Covenants? We both know the answer.

To be honest, I cannot say I have ever seen one of these adverts, but I find it odd that we offer a bible. Our Missionaries across the world carry only their own copy of the bible, and hand out copies of the Book of Mormon to anyone who would like it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ads run for both free BoMs and free Mormon versions of the KJV.

When my parents were on their Mormon mission, they received the contact info of people who had responded to these ads. They would then deliver the Bible or BoM, which is the purpose of the ads…to put Mormon missionaries in contact with people. A lot of the times people wouldn’t answer their doors. My parents were delivering free Bibles and BoMs in a 250 mile radius. They’d drive for hours, only to have the person not answer the door. They did call first of course.

It was a concern to me because my dad would fall asleep at the wheel! They were in their 70’s at the time, and I worried about them driving all over the place and knocking on people’s doors. They were in a very remote and rural area, people isolated, and a lot of crime. I was glad when they were finished with that craziness.

 

[SteveVH]

So God was just talking to Himself?
I suppose eternities of being alone does that to you…
Nonsense.
The fact He said anything at all (other than anything He may have said relevant to His work of creation) shows there was definitely someone else with Him. What you are saying is that two elements of the same being still have some need (even when there were none of us there who needed an example set for) to discuss, despite already being of the same mind. And this is my problem with the idea of the Trinity: that on regular occasions it has been clearly documented that Jesus Christ and God the Father are separate and distinct, and communicate with each other even when there should be no need were they One God as you claim.

Soren1 is immensley more capable of answering this than am I, however I must make a comment here. I will assume that you are just ignorant of the doctrine concerning the Trinity. It very clearly states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons who have a relationship, as “Father”, “Son” and “Holy Spirit” indicate. Their “oneness” is in the substance of their being, which is “divine”, as oppossed to human or angelic or animal or vegetable or mineral, which are all created with distinct natures. They uniquely possess this divine substance; creatures do not. I think what is at the heart of the issue is the difference between “theosis” (receiving divine nature from without, constituting a change in our nature) and “exaltion” (possessing divine nature from the outset).

So the use of the word “us” in the creation account very much supports the Trinitarian position. The Father can speak to the Son and the Holy Spirit as distinct Persons. As I said before, it is evident that the terms “Father”, “Son” and “Holy Spirit” are terms of familial relationship. One cannot have a relationship solitarily. Genesis uses the term God and then speaks of God as “us”. It does not say that we are created in the image of the “Gods”, but that we are created in the image of “God” (singular). To interpret this in any other way requires a polytheistic belief.

 

[SteveVH]

Ads run for both free BoMs and free Mormon versions of the KJV.

I’ve never seen a BoM offered, but I’ll take your word for it.

When my parents were on their Mormon mission, they received the contact info of people who had responded to these ads. They would then deliver the Bible or BoM, which is the purpose of the ads…to put Mormon missionaries in contact with people. A lot of the times people wouldn’t answer their doors. My parents were delivering free Bibles and BoMs in a 250 mile radius. They’d drive for hours, only to have the person not answer the door. They did call first of course.

It was a concern to me because my dad would fall asleep at the wheel! They were in their 70’s at the time, and I worried about them driving all over the place and knocking on people’s doors. They were in a very remote and rural area, people isolated, and a lot of crime. I was glad when they were finished with that craziness.

You have to admire their zeal!

 

[SteveVH]

To be honest, I cannot say I have ever seen one of these adverts, but I find it odd that we offer a bible. Our Missionaries across the world carry only their own copy of the bible, and hand out copies of the Book of Mormon to anyone who would like it.

 

[Telstar]

My ‘official’ answer is that we do not teach anything more than that we will live forever still as the family units we are a part of in this life. Further **official doctrine **has not been provided: some members interpret it as you have, others do not.
However, I do not understand why this matters?
Does the destination change how you would behave on a bus/plane/train? Your and our doctrines of what has been, or what is to come are of little importance, because all we can do at the present time is to live our lives according to Gods laws, assured that He has everything else in hand and planned for our good.

If you don’t know for sure what those laws really are, how can you know for sure that you’re following them correctly? Without having any “official doctrine” that comes directly from God, you can never be sure what you’re supposed to do. That’s the problem with the ‘revolving door’ of Mormon ‘doctrine’. It changes with the whims of any man that claims to have had a new ‘revelation’. Today it’s ‘doctrine’, tomorrow it’s just some guy’s personal opinion that we don’t need to pay any attention to, if we don’t ‘feel like it’. That’s never been God’s way of doing things. God’s Laws are etched in stone, not written in the sand.

Actually you have taken a completely incorrect interpretation of the scripture to begin with. It actually states that sons of God marry daughters of men. Sons of God being righteous people (see Luke 3:38 - Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.); while daughters of men refer to those who no longer followed The words of God. It basically refers to the same situation as warned against in Deuteronomy 7:3-4 - Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods.

OK, that’s 2 things we agree on, at least if you’re really being honest, and not just saying what he wants to hear, just because you’re on this Catholic forum. Actually, he never gave you any indication of what he thought it meant, he was just asking your opinion of what it meant, so you can’t accuse him of being ‘wrong’ on that account.

Says to what? The cows? Sheep? Fowls of the air? Fish? Trees?
God said let us; definiteviley stating that more than one being was involved in the creation.

Hmmm… was that a Freudian slip? http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/twisted.gif

So God was just talking to Himself?
I suppose eternities of being alone does that to you…
Nonsense.
The fact He said anything at all (other than anything He may have said relevant to His work of creation) shows there was definitely someone else with Him. What you are saying is that two elements of the same being still have some need (even when there were none of us there who needed an example set for) to discuss, despite already being of the same mind. And this is my problem with the idea of the Trinity: that on regular occasions it has been clearly documented that Jesus Christ and God the Father are separate and distinct, and communicate with each other even when there should be no need were they One God as you claim.

Just because Joseph Smith couldn’t wrap his brain around the fact that God is 3 separate Persons in One Divine Being, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. There is a Trinity, but only one God. The sooner you accept that fact, the sooner you’ll be able to realize the truth.

you have emboldened most of the important part of that scripture, let me help you:
“You shall have no other gods before Me”
Far from eliminating the existence of any other divine beings, this scripture states that Elohim is the only one whom we ought to worship; and upholds the idea that other gods/Gods exist.
The ‘before’ holds a twofold meaning; that we should not worship any other being in the presence of God (He being omnipresent, that would be always); and also that none of them should be held in higher regard than He is.

God was referring to the false ‘gods’ that men tend to make up because they don’t recognize Him as the one and only God, like when Joseph Smith decided there had to be more than one. His version of ‘eternal father’, that he told his followers to ‘worship’, is just one of those many false ‘gods’ that he claimed made up the whole ‘council of gods’ in his ‘creation theory’.

 

[Chipper]

you have emboldened most of the important part of that scripture, let me help you:
“You shall have no other gods before Me”
Far from eliminating the existence of any other divine beings, this scripture states that Elohim is the only one whom we ought to worship; and upholds the idea that other gods/Gods exist.
The ‘before’ holds a twofold meaning; that we should not worship any other being in the presence of God (He being omnipresent, that would be always); and also that none of them should be held in higher regard than He is.

I am of the mind that there are no GODS, other than what we ourselves create or imagine. There is only One God.
[1 Chronicles 16:26](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Chronicles+16:26&version=NASB)
For all the gods of the peoples are idols, But the LORD made the heavens
Jeremiah 16:20
Can man make gods for himself? Yet they are not gods!
[2 Kings 19:18](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=2 Kings+19:18&version=NASB)
and have cast their gods into the fire, for they were not gods but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone. So they have destroyed them.
[2 Kings 17:29](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=2 Kings+17:29&version=NASB)
But every nation still made gods of its own and put them in the houses of the high places which the people of Samaria had made, every nation in their cities in which they lived.
Deuteronomy 4:28
There you will serve gods, the work of man’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell.

 

[Chipper]

; and upholds the idea that other gods/Gods exist.

Oh by the way! Don’t these two contradict each other.
Book of Abraham.
Chapter 4.
1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

Versus

[1 Chronicles 16:26](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Chronicles+16:26&version=NASB)
For all the gods of the peoples are idols, **But the LORD made the heavens
**

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Naf623,

Like you I joined this thread late … … read a number of posts and then went forward.

I have seen those ads which do offer a Bible (and not a Book of Mormon) on TV. While I was not able to find this exactly, I did come across an advertisement which offers some information on Mormonism: youtube.com/watch?v=3dNYpXZIN_c&feature=relmfu

First of all, let me say there is nothing shoddy or second rate about the ads I have seen from the LDS organization.

Secondly, I have always been impressed with the missionaries that dress up neatly and go from door to door spreading what they consider to be the truth. Would that there was more of this missionary spirit evident in the Catholic Church.

Thirdly, I personally appreciate that position taken by the LDS organization concerning the sacredness of life and the principle that marriage is between one man and one woman. These basic Christian beliefs have been under enormous attack from those who would destroy them. The Mormons have, to the best of my knowledge, stood quite firm on these matters and supported others in this effort.

Now, having said all that, from my personal study of various religions, the LDS organization is probably the one with the most human traditions of any Protestant splinter group I have seen. Basic origins of Joseph Smith’s LDS seem to be from the Second Great Awakening and then we have the dramatic change with the Book of Mormon. And, “…the rest is history…”.

What I personally find distressing is that if Mormons agree that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Who died for our sins, and has given us the way to Salvation - then, as I see it, He has given us everything we need. The (missing) Golden Tablets add nothing to the salvation message delivered by Christ - and of necessity, establishing a second book establishes conflict and tension with the First Book - The Bible.

Like the OP, I can’t get my mind around the expressed beliefs of the Mormons, either.

God bless

To be honest, I cannot say I have ever seen one of these adverts, but I find it odd that we offer a bible. Our Missionaries across the world carry only their own copy of the bible, and hand out copies of the Book of Mormon to anyone who would like it.