Views on Mormonism?

[ParkerD]

[BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:3-9[/BIBLEDRB]

Miriam and Telstar,

Here is the King James translation of 2 Peter 1:3-9. I am so very grateful for the work of William Tyndale and the inspiration that attended him in his translating.

2 Peter 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

 

[Miriam1947]

Miriam and Telstar,

Here is the King James translation of 2 Peter 1:3-9. I am so very grateful for the work of William Tyndale and the inspiration that attended him in his translating.

2 Peter 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

I quote from the DR because I trust that translation more than the KJV. Unless you are using the NKJV. I think that one may be more reliable.

 

[kevin1313]

Dear LDS brothers and sisters:

The God of Catholicism is a pure spirit, uncreated and perfect.

The “God-the father” of Mormonism is material, created, and imperfect (since he constantly increases in virtue, knowledge, etc.).

My question is this: Is there any allowance in the LDS religion for the worship of an uncreated, perfect, spirit-only God who is the first cause of all creation?

 

[ParkerD]

Dear LDS brothers and sisters:

The God of Catholicism is a pure spirit, uncreated and perfect.

The “God-the father” of Mormonism is material, created, and imperfect (since he constantly increases in virtue, knowledge, etc.).

My question is this: Is there any allowance in the LDS religion for the worship of an uncreated, perfect, spirit-only God who is the first cause of all creation?

Kevin,

You have the Latter-day Saint understanding wrong in all three words you used, and in the parenthetical statement.

How about you study up on those, so that you get your premise correct about Latter-day Saint beliefs, and then ask a pertinent question having gotten a correct understanding about those beliefs?

As far as “first cause of all creation”, that belief originated if I have understood correctly from Aquinas who studied the writings of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle–so you may backtrack to Aristotle and you will have found the origin of the belief in “first cause of all creation.”

 

[SteveVH]

Miriam and Telstar,

Here is the King James translation of 2 Peter 1:3-9. I am so very grateful for the work of William Tyndale and the inspiration that attended him in his translating.

2 Peter 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

Parker, the verses above state that we will be “partakers of the divine nature” which is completley in line with “theosis” rather than “exaltation”. The difference being that we do not possess divine nature in and of ourselves but rather “partake” in the divinity of the the only One who possesses it by nature, the one, true God. Peter is saying that by living a virtuous life we might be “partakers of the divine nature”, not that we already possess a divine nature. Divine nature is acquired by a gift of God, it is not possessed naturally.

That is the difference between theosis and exaltation and it is a big difference with entirely different implications for our lives here on earth and our eternal destiny with God.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, the verses above state that we will be “partakers of the divine nature” which is completely in line with “theosis” rather than “exaltation”… Divine nature is acquired by a gift of God, it is not possessed naturally…

SteveVH,

I don’t know the beliefs about theosis, but the beliefs about exaltation are that it is divine nature that is “acquired by a gift of God, it is not possessed naturally”, to use the words you used above.

I should also add that that “gift of God” comes after effort on our part–it is not a product of no effort or no faith or no righteousness or no seeking to change through following the Good Shepherd, He who guides His followers toward making changes in their lives through His atoning grace and through their personal repentance.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

to use the words you used above…

… in a deliberately disingenuous way that robs them of their meaning. As usual.

 

[TexanKnight]

Kevin,

You have the Latter-day Saint understanding wrong in all three words you used, and in the parenthetical statement.

How about you study up on those, so that you get your premise correct about Latter-day Saint beliefs, and then ask a pertinent question having gotten a correct understanding about those beliefs?

As far as “first cause of all creation”, that belief originated if I have understood correctly from Aquinas who studied the writings of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle–so you may backtrack to Aristotle and you will have found the origin of the belief in “first cause of all creation.”

Actually, Kevin had it right.

If you truly believe he had something incorrect, please let us know the part you felt was in error.

In His Grip

 

[ParkerD]

… in a deliberately disingenuous way that robs them of their meaning. As usual.

No, I meant that I agreed with those words, but needed to add some clarification lest they be quoted on a stand-alone basis.

Sentences have a context that usually needs to be understood if one is going to take the sentence and make it into the “be-all” for a subject.

 

[manualman]

SteveVH;8555255:

…
I took a bowl.
I added to it 2 eggs (lightly beaten)
THEN I added 2 cups (a bit more) of buttermilk.
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 tablespoons of melted butter.
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 cups of flour
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 teaspoons of baking powder
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 4 tablespoons of sugar
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added a bit of salt
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?

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. .

Thanks for so completely illustrating the fact that you don’t understand how catholicism explains itself. This helps us respond and correct your misunderstanding.

General revelation was entirely given to the Church in the apostolic period. That’s dogma. No new general revelation is ever going to come again. What you pretend are NEW ingredients are not. They are simply clarifications and resolved questions about what is contained in the revelation we’ve received. For example, Jesus talked lots about Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but it was not at all immediately clear to believers what that meant. It took quite a bit of time before people comphrended that though there IS only one God, he is three persons.

Rather than your image of a bowl with new ingredients tossed in as the centuries pass, revelation was given in its entirety, but not comprehended initially in its entirety. The correct analogy is that of an old fashioned projector slide. When the projector is first turned on, the image is often badly out of focus. As the focus knob is turned, it is the SAME image being projected, but it can be perceived in much greater fullness than before it was focused.

This is how catholic teaching is. The word Trinity doesn’t appear in the bible, but it didn’t take long to focus the image enough to define Trinity to encompass all the tings Jesus said about Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The same goes, really, for all other catholic doctrine and dogma. It’s ALL there from the beginning, but took a long time to bring it into focus. But the original image (revelation) has never changed.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

I don’t know the beliefs about theosis, but the beliefs about exaltation are that it is divine nature that is “acquired by a gift of God, it is not possessed naturally”, to use the words you used above.

I should also add that that “gift of God” comes after effort on our part–it is not a product of no effort or no faith or no righteousness or no seeking to change through following the Good Shepherd, He who guides His followers toward making changes in their lives through His atoning grace and through their personal repentance.

First of all, thanks for respopnding. Is it not true that you believe that we naturally possess the same nature as God; that you do not distinguish between the nature of God (divine) and the nature of man (human)? If that is true then it cannot at the same time be true that divinity is something acquired from without. One need not acquire something that he already possesses. In theosis our very nature changes. Our human nature is lifted up and transformed, but it is a partaking in God’s divine nature, not our own. If I understand “exaltation” we already possess a divine nature, just like like God and this nature progresses to a point that we become, not just “like God”, but we become God in every way, even to the point that we will rule over our own worlds and will have our own children who in turn will worship us. Please correct me if I have mis-stated anything.

I have no problem in agreeing that we will not be partakers in the divine nature without effort on our part, but that effort consists in our acceptance of God’s gift and through a complete submission of our will to God’s will, either in this life or in a state of purification prior to entering heaven. That is how we become “like God”. We must respond to God’s grace, but it is grace and not our own effort that makes us partakers in God’s divinity which we do not naturally possess.

 

[ParkerD]

Actually, Kevin had it right.

If you truly believe he had something incorrect, please let us know the part you felt was in error.

TexanKnight,

Here’s what I’ll do, though I had preferred to allow Kevin to do some personal research.

I’ll restate his premise using real Latter-day Saint beliefs.

In Latter-day Saint beliefs, God the Father, the Supreme Ruler of the universe, has a glorified body as tangible as man’s and as tangible as the body of the resurrected, glorified Son of God, Jesus Christ.

He is uncreated, and Endless and Eternal are His name.

He is perfect, and has been perfect through all eternity. There is no need for Him to “increase in virtue, knowledge, etc.” because He holds those qualities in their complete fullness.

He desires our progress, but that will be through effort on our part. It will be through a “mighty change” and through continuous growing, changing, following His Beloved Son who is also perfect, and is “Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ParkerD,

Do us all a favor and hold down the dismissive remarks. There really is no reason for that kind of response in a forum such as this.

As far as I can tell a legitimate statement was made along with a legitimate question.

If you disagree with the statement - fine. Now provide the LDS approved site reference so we all can actually see what the actual teaching is about God the Father increasing in anything.

You will note, Catholic doctrine is right out there… and no ‘bait and switch’ as was previously discussed (former LDS folks providing references that contradict current LDS member’s statements - this is at least confusing for the rest of us.)

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Kevin,

You have the Latter-day Saint understanding wrong in all three words you used, and in the parenthetical statement.

How about you study up on those, so that you get your premise correct about Latter-day Saint beliefs, and then ask a pertinent question having gotten a correct understanding about those beliefs?

As far as “first cause of all creation”, that belief originated if I have understood correctly from Aquinas who studied the writings of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle–so you may backtrack to Aristotle and you will have found the origin of the belief in “first cause of all creation.”

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks for so completely illustrating the fact that you don’t understand how catholicism explains itself. This helps us respond and correct your misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by CalChristian;8555366
…
I took a bowl.
I added to it 2 eggs (lightly beaten)
THEN I added 2 cups (a bit more) of buttermilk.
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 tablespoons of melted butter.
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 cups of flour
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 teaspoons of baking powder
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 4 tablespoons of sugar
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added a bit of salt
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?

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. .

General revelation was entirely given to the Church in the apostolic period. That’s dogma. No new general revelation is ever going to come again. What you pretend are NEW ingredients are not. They are simply clarifications and resolved questions about what is contained in the revelation we’ve received. For example, Jesus talked lots about Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but it was not at all immediately clear to believers what that meant. It took quite a bit of time before people comphrended that though there IS only one God, he is three persons.

Rather than your image of a bowl with new ingredients tossed in as the centuries pass, revelation was given in its entirety, but not comprehended initially in its entirety. The correct analogy is that of an old fashioned projector slide. When the projector is first turned on, the image is often badly out of focus. As the focus knob is turned, it is the SAME image being projected, but it can be perceived in much greater fullness than before it was focused.

This is how catholic teaching is. The word Trinity doesn’t appear in the bible, but it didn’t take long to focus the image enough to define Trinity to encompass all the tings Jesus said about Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The same goes, really, for all other catholic doctrine and dogma. It’s ALL there from the beginning, but took a long time to bring it into focus. But the original image (revelation) has never changed.

Once again, different poster. I was not the one who made the post to which you are responding. Please be careful as I don’t wish to be associated with those comments or logic. The post was made by CalChristian;8555366

 

[manualman]

Once again, different poster. I was not the one who made the post to which you are responding. Please be careful as I don’t wish to be associated with those comments or logic. The post was made by CalChristian;8555366

Mea Culpa. Careless partial quote deletion by me. Too late to edit.

 

[SteveVH]

Mea Culpa. Careless partial quote deletion by me. Too late to edit.

No problem. Just wanted to clear the record. Thanks.

 

[Tony888]

My issue is Baptism for the Dead. We have one Mormon convert in the family.

Most of the rest of our family is Catholic, especially his father’s side. (I’m a stepmother.) One side of my own family is Jewish.

We’ve kept in regular communication with our Mormon family within our family, but try not to discuss (or argue) religion. Over the years since the conversion, father and son seem to communicate better.

…

So, the difference in practices tears me up right now, because I feel like our family is being held hostage for personal information that we are unwilling to give. That’s my problem. I know the Mormons say, well, we’re free to accept or reject the Mormon baptism “beyond the grave”. I pray about this.

I certainly hope your intuition is wrong as it sounds tragically commical, as presented.

I see one course of action

• discuss the white elephant in the room
• tell her you know about the LDS focus on geneology and baptism for the dead
• tell her you don’t want that ceremony, if that’s how you feel

Having a real discussion can build a bridge vs. tearing down trust, which I think you currently feel

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight,

Here’s what I’ll do, though I had preferred to allow Kevin to do some personal research.

I’ll restate his premise using real Latter-day Saint beliefs.

In Latter-day Saint beliefs, God the Father, the Supreme Ruler of the universe, has a glorified body as tangible as man’s and as tangible as the body of the resurrected, glorified Son of God, Jesus Christ.

He is uncreated, and Endless and Eternal are His name.

He is perfect, and has been perfect through all eternity. There is no need for Him to “increase in virtue, knowledge, etc.” because He holds those qualities in their complete fullness.

He desires our progress, but that will be through effort on our part. It will be through a “mighty change” and through continuous growing, changing, following His Beloved Son who is also perfect, and is “Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.”

Ok…then THIS part confuses me. Frankly, this doctrine was the lynch pin in me leaving the LDS Church in 1989. If God was once as we are now, then He could not have been perfect. And if he became God, then that infers change. And if change occurred, then God was not perfect because, if perfect, there would be no need to change.

Did that make sense?

 

[SteveVH]

I certainly hope your intuition is wrong as it sounds tragically commical, as presented.

I see one course of action

• discuss the white elephant in the room
• tell her you know about the LDS focus on geneology and baptism for the dead
• tell her you don’t want that ceremony, if that’s how you feel

Having a real discussion can build a bridge vs. tearing down trust, which I think you currently feel

Great response, Tony. Get it out and get it over with.

 

[truthsave]

It is interesting. It needs not many pages of discussion to realize the concept but it matures little by little. LDS or I guess mormon **in generals they believe their doctrine but some how they have to change it inside themselves to accept it. **
They feel it is not good, the doctrine, but they feel their way of living is good and they cannot separate these two things. So, what I have realized is they adjust the doctrine to his own acceptation.

Once I asked a LDS bishop to pray with me and instead of saying our Celestial Father as they most of the time start a prayer, to start with our father that lives in Kolob.
He refused.

I insisted sayind that **it shouldn’t be a problem for him since it was clearly stated by Joseph Smith **their prophet and there was in their church also a himn singing eternal is our space where is clearly sung this.
And even though it is doctrine or not every LDS know about it and they sing the himn
he shoudn’t had any problem in trusting JS.

He refused. He said was not necessary to say it.

But I insisted even though it was not necessary since Joseph Smith said it and he choose to follow JS so what was the problem?
He kept on refusing to pray like that.
I didn’t understand
Did he believed in his doctrine or not?

I believe he believe much more in the consequence it had in his life belonging to LDS then to LDS doctrine.

If you LDS believe in JS just try to pray like I had suggested to this LDS bishop.

You don’t have nothing to loose. Just try it.

But If you find some resistence in you rejoy about it since it means there is still something inside you that cannot accept spiritual misleading but you are just there for something and if you are corageus enough will discover the reason.