Views on Mormonism?

[ParkerD]

Paul’s reference is the reason that the Catholic Church doesn’t Baptize any potential convert until they are taught the most important doctrines that must at least be somewhat understood, and fully believed by all Catholics. They’re taught about things like Baptism, the Mass, the Creed, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, the other Sacraments, as well as giving them at least some understanding of what the Communion of Saints means to a Catholic, along with many other things. They are all taught to them through weekly discussions over an extended period of time (usually from September to the Easter Vigil in RCIA).

The Church doesn’t withhold any critical beliefs from those studying the Faith, because it doesn’t want to mislead anyone into joining before they’re ready to fully accept those most important doctrines. If they can’t fully accept and believe them, then they’re not ready to be Baptized as Catholics. It’s always left up to the individual with no pressure for them to hurry. Sometimes, even though they might still be unsure about some things, they may decide to ‘take the plunge’ based on their determination that they really want to be Catholic. But, if they still have serious questions or doubts, they can just continue to study as long as it takes for them to be able to make a full commitment to the Church. Even if it takes another year, that’s not a problem.

When Paul was writing to the Corinthians, he was once again (as usual) admonishing them that they were still looking at the teachings of Jesus from a very ‘carnal’ (earthly) viewpoint. They were looking at it all, and living, in the ways of this physical world. You have to remember that they were mostly pagans, that had to shed their old misunderstandings about who God really is, and that took a lot more time to accomplish. Their understanding of spiritual things was severely lacking. They were still unable to fully grasp the true spiritual meaning of all that he, and others, had been teaching them. As a result, he had to teach them much more slowly (milk before meat) because they were still not capable of accepting the deeper, more spiritual side, of all those things. They were still trying to apply the ‘things of the spirit’ to this physical world, and that never works well.

Joseph Smith’s understanding of spiritual things was very much like the Corinthians, because he couldn’t grasp the difference between the physical and spiritual worlds, either. It’s very obvious in all of his writings, as well as what I see in the doctrines of the LDS. He tried to find a practical, earthly explanation for all kinds of things that have nothing to do with our physical existence on this earth. His definition of God is the first and biggest clue that he had little to no understanding of the spiritual realms, whatsoever. That’s the biggest difference between LDS and most of Christianity, especially the Catholic Church. Our Faith is built primarily on the spirituality of Jesus Christ and His teachings, while Mormonism is based more on the practical ‘realities’ of living according to the workings of this physical world. Joseph Smith tried to understand everything that’s supposed to be strictly spiritual, with his perception of the way things work in this world. So, he created his own version of how he thought God works and what Jesus came to accomplish, but he totally missed the mark by a long-shot.

BTW, thanks for making my previous point for me.

Telstar,

You missed my point, evidently, which was that there was a change from what PaulDupre brought forward in his post, which he probably forgot had been changed in the new manual.

My other point was that Paul wrote to the Corinthians that the milk of the gospel was what they needed, because they were approaching the study of the gospel from a “carnal mind” point of view.

As far as what I read from the Catholics who seem to post on threads about the Latter-day Saint beliefs, it is always that point of view (Paul called it “carnal” or also “the wisdom of men”) that I see expressed (i.e. logic and do not rely on the Spirit even for confirmation of true doctrine), so that would mean there will never be an understanding about what the Savior meant in His intercessory prayer about becoming one with Them, because that was on a spiritual level and not on a “carnal understanding” level.

 

[CalChristian]

Hi, CalChristian,

I hope the pancakes turned out to your liking…

As I see it you probably had better results with the actual pancakes then you did with the analogy you attempted… let me explain …

Here is what was tuaght in 33AD and is taught to this day.

Christ founded His Chruch on Peter and gave him full authority with the Keys (Matt 16:18) and Peter’s current Successor is Benedict XVI. Christ also promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church - and that would be the Catholic Churhc - so that no doctrinal error would ever be taught (John 14 - 16).

John 6 - Christ taught that we must eat His Flesh if we are to have life in us - Catholics believe this today and every celebration of the Eucharist is a focus on this Sacrament of Christ being physically present on the altar. That was taught in 33AD and continues to be taught to this day.

John 20:21 - Christ delegated the Power to men to forgive sin - a Power up to that time totally reserved to God. This is the Sacrement that was established after Christ’s Resurrection and is still in effect today. Sinners go to the Priest for God’s Grace of forgiveness.

Matthew 28:16-20 - Christ commanded that we go out and preach the Good News and baptize all nations in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the Sacrament of Baptism and this is done for every Catholic from 33AD to today.

To continue on with your pancake analogy … after your pancakes were made,
Did you put the pancakes on a plate?
Did the pancakes CHANGE?
Did you put butter on the pancakes?
Did the pancakes CHANGE?
Did you put syrup on the pancakes?
Did the pancakes CHANGE?
Did you have coffee with your pancake breakfast?
Did the pancakes CHANGE?

Maybe if you viewd the cooked pancakes as the fullness of divine revelation,it may make it easier to understand that there has been no change in Catholic teaching.

God bless

I think you have two options:

1. Everything taught in the 800 pages of my Catechism, all 2,865 points of it, were taught as is in 33 AD (in which case, the burden of proof is to document such)

Or…

1. Things have been added. In which case, the corpus of teachings has changed.

Which is it?

.

 

[Chipper]

No. The difference is between “theosis” (the Catholic view) and “exaltation” (the Mormon view). In the Catholic view, we become “partakers” in God’s divinity. He raises us up from our human nature to share in his divine nature. The Mormon position is that we possess our divine nature in and of ourselves. They make no distinction between the nature of God (divine) and the nature of man (human). The Mormon position is that we are not created by God, rather we are co-eternal with him and consist of the same nature; God is simply an exalted human being and we will become just like him through progression. As Catholics, our partaking in God’s divinity means that we will become one with him and share in the life of the Trinity as his adopted sons and daughters, not that we will become God independently of him, with our own universe to rule over, complete with our own spirit children who will take on human form and worship us. Remember, when they say they believe in one God, that is only relative to this universe. They believe in other gods who rule over their own universes as well. So to answer your question, we are not even close in our understanding of “becoming like God”.

Well actually yes!!! Both churches made the statement that we can become gods…

The difference is in theology - yes?

Frankly, I think you did provide a most excellent answer.

But, and a big but here. I did a search on the CCC for the word theosis, and I get nothing.

So if a Mormon came knocking on my door with a catechsim in hand, and he showed me this CCC paragraph, alongside his “Doctrine and Covenants” I would have been floored - to say the least.

Where does this theosis vs exaltation come from?

 

[Stephen168]

Which is it?

One

 

[KathleenGee]

Chipper,

CCC460 is becoming compromised by Mormons who discovered it or were told about it by former Catholics.

What they don’t do is study the teachings prior to CCC460 that reveal the truth about Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and that we then through Him, become partakers of Divine Grace, we in essence live in His grace. But we do not become gods.

Look at all the CCC’s leading up to 460, of which the Mormons ignore.

Furthermore, the footnotes to CCC460 refer to St. Ireneaus who fought heresy, including polytheism and upheld the Eucharist and the Divinity of Christ; the other is a reference to St. Thomas Aquinas’ treatise on the Eucharist.

CCC460 was the only teaching that our instructor under the bishop had us clarify…he told us to take out our pens and write next to it…we do not become gods, we partake in Divine Grace.

Look to the prior teachings to understand the correct context.

Another sleight of hand…that took the forbidden fruit.

 

[SteveVH]

And, just to give credit where credit is due, when I referenced Soren1’s comments on theosis I had fogotten that you are the one that started the “Theosis vs. Exaltation” thread and just wanted to say that your comments there were extremely informative as well.

 

[SteveVH]

Well actually yes!!! Both churches made the statement that we can become gods…

The difference is in theology - yes?

Frankly, I think you did provide a most excellent answer.

But, and a big but here. I did a search on the CCC for the word theosis, and I get nothing.

So if a Mormon came knocking on my door with a catechsim in hand, and he showed me this CCC paragraph, alongside his “Doctrine and Covenants” I would have been floored - to say the least.

Where does this theosis vs exaltation come from?

I’m not sure if the word “theosis” is in the Catechism or not, but neither is the word “Trinity” in the Bible. Theosis is a theological explanation of what happens to us when we realize the beatific vision. We become like God. Regardless of whether or not the word is there, the theological explanation of what it means to a Catholic to “become God” is certainly there and it is very important that it be explained when discussing this subject with a Mormon.

The real problem I see is that the entire basis of their belief system begins with a false premise in which all other Mormon doctrines have their origin, that being that we are beings that co-existed with God from eternity. They have no understanding of the difference between a divine being (God) and a human being (man) as far as the substance of our nature. This is very important to understand when having conversations with them because they approach everything else from this preconceived notion, from original sin, to salvation to our final destiny.

 

[MaryElizabeth22]

I have wonderful memories, but the belief system was a house of cards. Once you realize the error of their foundational doctrines, the cards collapse and quickly.

It’s devastating and take time to heal.

It always goes back to their foundational doctrines

Hi Marie5890,

Could you please tell us what the foundational doctrines were that you found to be in error? I know about the idea that you can become a god/goddess when you die, but I was hoping you would share with us the others? Thank you.

 

[tqualey]

Actually, CalChristian, I have far more than the two false choice presented in your post. I am curious why you bothered to copy my response with references - and then simply ignore them.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church scborromeo.org/ccc.htm spends time explaining the Creed, the Sacraments, our life in Christ, etc. You may be interested in looking at this.

On that First Pentecost Sunday, the Holy Spirit brought many Gifts to the Catholic Church, but two items were delivered: the Bible and the CCC! The Nicene Creed was completd in 381AD and this is a listing of what we believe. We did not have a completed canon of sacred scripture until around 400AD. Based on your approach, my guess is that these would be rejected because everything was not in completed form by 33AD.

There was only one heresy recorded in scripture - the Judiazers. But, over time numerous heresies developed and the Catholic Church rose to clearly establish orthodoxy from heterodoxy.

I would suggest you look at the sections with references you apparently ignored in the rush to offer my your false choices. These truths were taught from 33AD to today. Can your group make any claim even remotely similar to this?

Christianity developed first from Sacred Tradition and from Scripture. This took time - you may want to compare a time line of other religions and their doctrines and see how this works for you.

God bless

I think you have two options:

1. Everything taught in the 800 pages of my Catechism, all 2,865 points of it, were taught as is in 33 AD (in which case, the burden of proof is to document such)

Or…

1. Things have been added. In which case, the corpus of teachings has changed.

Which is it?

.

 

[Chipper]

I’m not sure if the word “theosis” is in the Catechism or not, but neither is the word “Trinity” in the Bible. Theosis is a theological explanation of what happens to us when we realize the beatific vision. We become like God. Regardless of whether or not the word is there, the theological explanation of what it means to a Catholic to “become God” is certainly there and it is very important that it be explained when discussing this subject with a Mormon.

.

Your original explanation to me was sufficient for me.

I am more amazed that this word “Theosis” just sort of pops up out of thin air, unless one is being educated on a higher level, versus then what is basically available in the CCC. I would really like to see more of this in the CCC.

The real problem I see is that the entire basis of their belief system begins with a false premise in which all other Mormon doctrines have their origin, that being that we are beings that co-existed with God from eternity. They have no understanding of the difference between a divine being (God) and a human being (man) as far as the substance of our nature. This is very important to understand when having conversations with them because they approach everything else from this preconceived notion, from original sin, to salvation to our final destiny.

Perhaps if the CCC, back in those days, had “Theosis” in it, Joseph might have come across it, and then changed his mind about his Hat Tricks - eh?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, KathleenGee,

Great post!

I was unaware of this, "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80

Here is the actual reference given in 460: St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.

God bless

Chipper,

CCC460 is becoming compromised by Mormons who discovered it or were told about it by former Catholics.

What they don’t do is study the teachings prior to CCC460 that reveal the truth about Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and that we then through Him, become partakers of Divine Grace, we in essence live in His grace. But we do not become gods.

Look at all the CCC’s leading up to 460, of which the Mormons ignore.

Furthermore, the footnotes to CCC460 refer to St. Ireneaus who fought heresy, including polytheism and upheld the Eucharist and the Divinity of Christ; the other is a reference to St. Thomas Aquinas’ treatise on the Eucharist.

CCC460 was the only teaching that our instructor under the bishop had us clarify…he told us to take out our pens and write next to it…we do not become gods, we partake in Divine Grace.

Look to the prior teachings to understand the correct context.

Another sleight of hand…that took the forbidden fruit.

 

[bz5]

SteveVH;8555255:

QUE
To agrue, as my Catholic teachers did, that Catholic teachings have never changed, it is necessary to show that my 800 page Catechism existed in the same form in 31 AD. This, however, is not the case. It MAY be that nothing taught in 31 AD is taught differently today (a point I won’t argue since there’s no way to know what was taught in 31 AD), but to admit, “We’ve ADDED much” is an admission that what is taught has been changed. IMO, to argue otherwise is simply not honest (and Protestants pick up on it immediately).

.

Read the Didache and the early fathers! The early church is truly not a vague, dark blot. We can know what they were teaching and preaching by reading the volumes of early fathers. (Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett is a readable place to start.)
When I got married, the priest told us the most important thing in our marriage would be to be able to forgive. That and the other advice we received sounded nice at the time,and we kept it in mind, but after 20 years of marriage, our lived understanding of those same truths has deepened. We could explain them more fully and wisely, give examples. I think the longer catechism is similar. What about Catholic teaching do you think has been “added” that is truly different? Belief in the trinity, the Holy Eucharist, the 7 sacraments? Again, read the early fathers, and you might also look at the beliefs and practices of other churches that broke away far earlier than the 1500s.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

You missed my point, evidently, which was that there was a change from what PaulDupre brought forward in his post, which he probably forgot had been changed in the new manual.

My other point was that Paul wrote to the Corinthians that the milk of the gospel was what they needed, because they were approaching the study of the gospel from a “carnal mind” point of view.

As far as what I read from the Catholics who seem to post on threads about the Latter-day Saint beliefs, it is always that point of view (Paul called it “carnal” or also “the wisdom of men”) that I see expressed (i.e. logic and do not rely on the Spirit even for confirmation of true doctrine), so that would mean there will never be an understanding about what the Savior meant in His intercessory prayer about becoming one with Them, because that was on a spiritual level and not on a “carnal understanding” level.

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. He has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).
   1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).
2. They will become gods.
   2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).
3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.
   3. They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.
4. They will receive a fulness of joy.
   4. They will receive a fulness of joy.
5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have–all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).
   **5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).

• Gospel Principles, chapter 47. ** (emphasis mine)

As far as I can tell the only real difference is in the ambiguous language that was changed in point #3, that seems to say the same thing, just not as explicitly stated. Since the major point of contention has been with LDS denial of point #2, I really don’t see that difference being germane to this particular conversation. That was a nice attempt at diversion, as usual, though.

As far as your inference that LDS are more spiritually minded than Catholics who you think are more ‘carnal minded’, due to your worldly view of what truly constitutes ‘spirituality’, I find extremely ironic. I’d be more inclined to say it was laughable if it wasn’t so sad. If anyone is obsessed with the ‘wisdom of men’ it’s LDS, who seem to think their knowledge of the ways of the world, their success in business and politics, and their worldly ‘education’ will all make them more powerful when they become gods. LDS beliefs are totally centered on what is required for them to do and ‘accomplish’ in this world, that they assume will continue according to the same types of principles in the spiritual realm. On the other hand, Catholics are willing to admit that we don’t always fully understand the many mysterious and spiritual ways of God, so we humbly rely on what the Church teaches us, since She’s been doing it so well for the past 2000 years.

The entire LDS premise, a la JS, that all spirits have to be made up of some kind of physical ‘matter’, which therefore must be subject to the same physical laws as this world, is a major stumbling block to LDS ever understanding the real difference between the two very different principles. Add to that your belief that your ‘eternal father’ was just another human being, that apparently doesn’t have any real power of his own to create anything from ‘nothing’. He just seems to gather together already existing matter to somehow ‘transform’ it into something else. That’s pretty far from being anything like the real God that created everything that has ever existed, including all other forms of spirit and matter, out of a totally empty void of nothingness. But, it’s your choice to believe in other alien ‘gods’ instead of the real God, if that’s what you really want for yourself. No one can promise that you’ll ever actually get what you’re hoping for, but it’s always nice to dream.

 

[Telstar]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[SteveVH]

CalChristian;8555366:

Read the Didache and the early fathers! The early church is truly not a vague, dark blot. We can know what they were teaching and preaching by reading the volumes of early fathers. (Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett is a readable place to start.)
When I got married, the priest told us the most important thing in our marriage would be to be able to forgive. That and the other advice we received sounded nice at the time,and we kept it in mind, but after 20 years of marriage, our lived understanding of those same truths has deepened. We could explain them more fully and wisely, give examples. I think the longer catechism is similar. What about Catholic teaching do you think has been “added” that is truly different? Belief in the trinity, the Holy Eucharist, the 7 sacraments? Again, read the early fathers, and you might also look at the beliefs and practices of other churches that broke away far earlier than the 1500s.

Just for the record, the quote to which you are responding:

Originally Posted by SteveVH

QUE
To agrue, as my Catholic teachers did, that Catholic teachings have never changed, it is necessary to show that my 800 page Catechism existed in the same form in 31 AD. This, however, is not the case. It MAY be that nothing taught in 31 AD is taught differently today (a point I won’t argue since there’s no way to know what was taught in 31 AD), but to admit, “We’ve ADDED much” is an admission that what is taught has been changed. IMO, to argue otherwise is simply not honest (and Protestants pick up on it immediately).

was not from me. I know it happens now and then but please be careful when posting that the quote actually states the person responsible for it.

Thanks.

 

[ParkerD]

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. He has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).
   1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).
2. They will become gods.
   2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).
3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.
   3. They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.
4. They will receive a fulness of joy.
   4. They will receive a fulness of joy.
5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have–all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).
   **5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).

• Gospel Principles, chapter 47. ** (emphasis mine)

As far as I can tell the only real difference is in the ambiguous language that was changed in point #3, that seems to say the same thing, just not as explicitly stated. Since the major point of contention has been with LDS denial of point #2, I really don’t see that difference being germane to this particular conversation. That was a nice attempt at diversion, as usual, though.

As far as your inference that LDS are more spiritually minded than Catholics who you think are more ‘carnal minded’, due to your worldly view of what truly constitutes ‘spirituality’, I find extremely ironic. I’d be more inclined to say it was laughable if it wasn’t so sad. If anyone is obsessed with the ‘wisdom of men’ it’s LDS, who seem to think their knowledge of the ways of the world, their success in business and politics, and their worldly ‘education’ will all make them more powerful when they become gods. LDS beliefs are totally centered on what is required for them to do and ‘accomplish’ in this world, that they assume will continue according to the same types of principles in the spiritual realm. On the other hand, Catholics are willing to admit that we don’t always fully understand the many mysterious and spiritual ways of God, so we humbly rely on what the Church teaches us, since She’s been doing it so well for the past 2000 years.

The entire LDS premise, a la JS, that all spirits have to be made up of some kind of physical ‘matter’, which therefore must be subject to the same physical laws as this world, is a major stumbling block to LDS ever understanding the real difference between the two very different principles. Add to that your belief that your ‘eternal father’ was just another human being, that apparently doesn’t have any real power of his own to create anything from ‘nothing’. He just seems to gather together already existing matter to somehow ‘transform’ it into something else. That’s pretty far from being anything like the real God that created everything that has ever existed, including all other forms of spirit and matter, out of a totally empty void of nothingness. But, it’s your choice to believe in other alien ‘gods’ instead of the real God, if that’s what you really want for yourself. No one can promise that you’ll ever actually get what you’re hoping for, but it’s always nice to dream.

Telstar,

I think you have raised issues that will need more time than I have at this moment to address, so this is just a note to let you know I will respond later tonight.

I’m glad you were able to notice the change you pointed out in item 3, which I think is not “ambiguous” but is a substantive change that bears on the subject you folks seem to want to discuss.

 

[LayingHands]

Me neither. I mean I watched a video that was supposed to show “what they believed” until some people said some of it was not true, some they didn’t believe anymore, and some they believed, but it was misrepresented. But it’s a little strange how I see a lot of Catholics said “Mormons are not Christians!” and then they whine and complain when Protestants say that about them. I’m Catholic but hey, who am I to judge?

That’s just my two cents. :twocents:

God bless :byzsoc:

David

We are ALL sons and daughters of GOD. GOD sits in the heart of every living entity. This is what you would call the atom sized spirit soul which he gave to us to animate the matter of the living entities bodies, and includes all life to atoms…did you ever ask or wonder why GOD knows everything you think, say, desire, and will for? There is a 5,000 year old scripture, whereby, GOD did give instruction and has relayed who we all are, how we are to live, why he created us, all in all…for he is the Cause of all Causes…my spirit soul is the same as yours and anyone else’s, from any religion…isn’t it high time we all worship ONLY GOD and no one else. How can anyone who lives this way, go wrong?

 

[tqualey]

You guys are a hard act to follow!

God bless

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/CrazyData.gif

 

[tqualey]

Hi Bz5,

Excellent post!

God bless

CalChristian;8555366:

Read the Didache and the early fathers! The early church is truly not a vague, dark blot. We can know what they were teaching and preaching by reading the volumes of early fathers. (Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett is a readable place to start.)
When I got married, the priest told us the most important thing in our marriage would be to be able to forgive. That and the other advice we received sounded nice at the time,and we kept it in mind, but after 20 years of marriage, our lived understanding of those same truths has deepened. We could explain them more fully and wisely, give examples. I think the longer catechism is similar. What about Catholic teaching do you think has been “added” that is truly different? Belief in the trinity, the Holy Eucharist, the 7 sacraments? Again, read the early fathers, and you might also look at the beliefs and practices of other churches that broke away far earlier than the 1500s.

 

[ParkerD]

3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.
3. They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.

…
As far as I can tell the only real difference is in the ambiguous language that was changed in point #3, that seems to say the same thing, just not as explicitly stated. Since the major point of contention has been with LDS denial of point #2, I really don’t see that difference being germane to this particular conversation. That was a nice attempt at diversion, as usual, though.
​

Telstar,

“Denial of point #2” is not something I did. I have answered that kind of question so many times that it got old to hash it over again using the misunderstood word “gods”–but everything I wrote in response pointed straight to that, hoping that readers would actually identify from the scriptures I cited, that this was being taught by the Savior, by John, and by Paul–but of course that hope was a far-fetched hope.

Nor was I attempting to divert the topic of conversation, but rather to amplify the conversation into the areas that, if ignored, mean there will be no real communication going on because one person is thinking in an entirely different frame of reference than the other person.

As far as your inference that LDS are more spiritually minded than Catholics who you think are more ‘carnal minded’, due to your worldly view of what truly constitutes ‘spirituality’, I find extremely ironic. I’d be more inclined to say it was laughable if it wasn’t so sad.

I meant it, and I agree that it is sad. I really enjoyed it when JAVL participated in conversations when “listening to the Spirit” came up in the conversation, because he understood what was being talked about, and also understood the concept of charity, and didn’t keep trying to use reason and “carnal wisdom” to try and change minds.

Paul was teaching the concept in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that spiritual discernment is required to understand spiritual truths, and he taught that same concept in 1 Corinthians 3:2.

I wasn’t talking about the generality of “spiritually minded”–I was talking about the particular topic of becoming like Christ, and spiritually discerning what that means and what Christ meant when He prayed that His followers, through His atoning grace, would be able to be “one with Him and with His Father.” It is the deepest of spiritual topics, yet it is being discussed as though it can be clearly understood by the “carnal mind”–and it can’t and it won’t.

If anyone is obsessed with the ‘wisdom of men’ it’s LDS, who seem to think their knowledge of the ways of the world, their success in business and politics, and their worldly ‘education’ will all make them more powerful when they become gods.

So let’s see–you seem to not like the idea of people becoming educated?

As far as “powerful when they become gods”–that comment shows the complete lack of understanding just as would be expected in line with what Paul wrote. The “power of godliness” comes through faith, through charity (learning to love like Christ loves), through having hope in Christ, through learning to follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost without fail, through having love and gratitude in one’s heart all the time, and through understanding that free will choice is absolutely a governing principle in the universe, and thus any religious approach that decreases free will choice is not part of “godliness”.

LDS beliefs are totally centered on what is required for them to do and ‘accomplish’ in this world, that they assume will continue according to the same types of principles in the spiritual realm.

That would be because of the teachings of the Savior and of Paul and of Peter, plus the continued teachings of modern-day prophets who teach the same principles–that “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only.”

The entire LDS premise, a la JS, that all spirits have to be made up of some kind of physical ‘matter’, which therefore must be subject to the same physical laws as this world, is a major stumbling block to LDS ever understanding the real difference between the two very different principles.

“Matter” and energy are interchangeable in the laws of physics. This, however, is once again an area since it is talking about a “spiritual” component of understanding a religious topic, that may not be well explained enough to be understood without the Holy Ghost bearing witness since that is one of the functions of the Holy Ghost.​