When Did the "Mormon Jesus" Become Divine?

[majick275]

Katzpur:

I’m not sure why you don’t believe I addressed the issue. It appears to have changed on me mid-stream. The title of this thread is, “When did the Mormon Jesus become divine?” I answered that question. If you want to discuss our beliefs about Elohim, perhaps you should start a thread on the subject.

Maybe (as a courtesy) you could read what we have already posted so that we could have informed discourse. This is a tacky evasion on your part. LDS doctrine is explicit that Jesus (Jehovah) is the LITERAL son of Elohim, thus the nature of Elohim establishes the nature of Jesus.

That’s a pretty creative interpretation of LDS doctrine. Why don’t you begin by stating your sources, which should, of course, be from the Standard Works. (I’m assuming you are willing to allow us the privilege of defining our own docrine.)

First, read the posts. we already posted them. Your LDS prophets have already defined the doctrine of the LDS church. If you are saying that you don’t believe in the LDS doctrine then yes you are welcome to define your personal beliefs. To state that LDS doctrine is “sola scriptura” is naive at best. It has never been so. (once again read the posts)

It obviously makes no sense to you, but it does to me. As a matter of fact, I would venture a guess that it makes more sense to me than the doctrine of the Trinity makes to you.

Okay.

That’s entirely possible. There are numerous instances in the Bible where the words “everlasting” and “forever” are used to describe things we all know will not last forever. Yes, “in the beginning” must mean something different to us than it means to you. To us it means something along the lines of “when the clock started ticking.” If God existed prior to “the beginning,” what do you believe He was doing?

That’s just it…we believe in the eternal God…he had no beginning.

Kathryn

Answer me these simple questions Kathryn,

Does your Heavenly Father have a father? if so is he a God?

How many wives does your Heavenly Father have? and are they Goddesses?

How many brothers and sisters does your heavenly Father have and are any of them Gods?

 

[majick275]

amgid:

And I can’t believe how you try to wriggle out of a difficult situation with this kind of silly talk.

Scripture is silly talk?

That is how you try get round your own problem. But that is not how I read those scriptures. All I see as I compare these scriptures is that there appears to be a contradiction. In fact there are many passages in the Bible which on the surface would appear to be contradictory. The apparent contradictions that one notices in Modern LDS scripture are no greater than what one finds in the Bible.

So you do see the appearance of contradiction but that’s okay because the “most perfect book”, with the “fullness of the Gospel” has no more errors than the Bible. (which you believe has ma ny errors)?

No I don’t! Being “the Father of all things” is not the same as being “God the Father”. The “Father of all things” means the creator of all things. Jesus created all thing under the direction of the Father, for “without him was not anything made that was made.” But He remains subservient to, and under the direction of the Father.

Yeah but define “all things”. Is this kind of like “everlasting to everlasting”? Obviously he didn’t create the Father, nor the world upon which the Father worked out his salvation in “fear and trembling”.

The first Presidency of the Church at one time put out a statement in response to that question, entitled “The Father And The Son: A Doctrinal Exposition”. It should answer your question. You will find the full text of it here:

schoolofabraham.com/fatherandson.htm

The first part of it is an introductory note by the editor. You can ignore that if you like. The main text of the statement starts at the heading.

But you told us that nothing outside of the “standard works” was doctrinally binding.

amgid

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Thanks to the LDS members who have posted their responses. It’s interesting. Some of you deny the concept of “eternal progression” in your response while others seem to simultaneously hold to the belief while still acknowledging Christ’s “eternal” divinity. These two concepts seem to be mutually exclusive. Either Christ is God and always was, or He became God (or a god) over time, in which case there must be a beginning to Jesus divinity, even if it is “at the beginning” - whatever that means.

Is there some doctrinal statement or writing that can harmonize these two apparently opposed LDS doctrines? Because the following statement makes no sense: Jesus is the eternal God and the firstborn spirit child of the Heavenly Father (an exalted man who progressed to divinity). If this is not correct, how am I misstating LDS doctrine?

 

[Katzpur]

Majick,

Do you always make it a practice to quote the person you are talking to as having said what you said? You need to learn how to break up your quotes accurately. When you can do that, I will respond to your questions.

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

majick275:

Answer me these simple questions Kathryn,

Does your Heavenly Father have a father?

I don’t know.

If so is he a God?

I don’t know.

How many wives does your Heavenly Father have? and are they Goddesses?

I don’t know.

How many brothers and sisters does your heavenly Father have and are any of them Gods?

I don’t know.

But believe me, if I did, I’d be happy to share the information with you.

 

[majick275]

Well your church teaches (and has for years)

that Heavenly Father had a father and that he is a God.

that he has more than one wife (true, the exact number and their status is not defined)

I wonder if you also will attempt to deny the LDS teachings on eternal progression.

as a Catholic I see this as serious blasphemy and evolving from Satan in the garden tempting Eve that she could be as the Gods.

 

[Katzpur]

Robert in SD:

Thanks to the LDS members who have posted their responses. It’s interesting. Some of you deny the concept of “eternal progression” in your response while others seem to simultaneously hold to the belief while still acknowledging Christ’s “eternal” divinity. These two concepts seem to be mutually exclusive. Either Christ is God and always was, or He became God (or a god) over time, in which case there must be a beginning to Jesus divinity, even if it is “at the beginning” - whatever that means.

Is there some doctrinal statement or writing that can harmonize these two apparently opposed LDS doctrines? Because the following statement makes no sense: Jesus is the eternal God and the firstborn spirit child of the Heavenly Father (an exalted man who progressed to divinity). If this is not correct, how am I misstating LDS doctrine?

Robert,

Thank you, first of all, for the respectful way in which you posed your questions. I realize I haven’t been around for long, but I’ve got to say that your post is the first response I’ve seen addressed to me that hasn’t been sarcastic and/or belittling. My past experience in discussing religious beliefs with Catholics has always been so positive, that I’m really kind of taken back by what I’m seeing here.

Without having read all of the responses, I’ve got to admit that I’m a little bit confused by your statement that some of us deny the concept of eternal progression. It’s hard for me to imagine any practicing Latter-day Saint doing this. I’d say that it is more likely that you have misunderstood something about this doctrine.

I think that the problem may lie in the way we interpret the phrase with which the Bible begins: “In the beginning.” We believe (as I suspect you do) the Bible to be a record of God’s dealings with our universe and His creations which exist as part of that universe. We believe (whereas you probably don’t) that references to God always being God are to be understood within the context of this record. In other words, at some point prior to when “the clock started ticking,” so to speak, God became God. By the time the events described in the Bible began to unfold, He was God, and there will never be a time when He will no longer be God. The Bible, of course, is silent about the period of time before “the beginning.” We believe something about what God may have been during this time, whereas you don’t. And granted, it is not stated in the Bible.

Now, the prior paragraph pertains to God the Father. With regards to Jesus Christ: We believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn of all God’s spirit children. He was also unique among these children because, unlike the rest of us, He was perfect like His Father. At the time the biblical account begins, He was already “God.” He didn’t have a body, but He didn’t need one in order to be “God.” Under His Father’s direction, He created our universe and, we believe, worlds without number, so He was obviously capable of doing something no other spirit son or daughter was capable of doing. You have actually stated our belief quite accurately (in your final sentence).

I hope this explanation has helped you understand how we do not see these two doctrines as contradictory. I do have a little story, a sort of an analogy, which might clarify this further if you are still confused. I’ll wait to hear from you before posting it. Also, the book How Wide the Divide? may be of interest to you. It’s a dialogue between an LDS scholar and a non-LDS scholar on four major topics, one of them being “God & Deification.”

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

majick275:

Well your church teaches (and has for years)

that Heavenly Father had a father and that he is a God.

that he has more than one wife (true, the exact number and their status is not defined)

I wonder if you also will attempt to deny the LDS teachings on eternal progression.

as a Catholic I see this as serious blasphemy and evolving from Satan in the garden tempting Eve that she could be as the Gods.

Majick,

Since you obviously are convinced that you know what my Church teaches, there is little point in my making any kind of a statement on the subject. I don’t know how many LDS worship services you have attended in your lifetime, but I have been a practicing member of the Church for 56 years. You are confusing “doctrine” with “opinion.” That’s your prerogative. But I don’t like being called a liar.

I believe that our conversation is finished. I am more than willing to respectfully discuss differences in doctrine. Unfortunately, respectful dialogue takes two. You obviously are either unable or unwilling to be civil in your responses to me. I have better things to do with my time than to sit here and listen to you insult me. Perhaps another Latter-day Saint will respond to your continued attacks. I’m just not interested any more.

Kathryn

 

[majick275]

Kathryn,
To discuss diferences in doctrine requires that we be honest about what that doctrine is. Your comments on opinion vs. doctrine have been refuted by facts. Your claims to “sola sciptura” can not be true.

Let me try a basic example: word of wisdom. Standard works does not make this a commandment, does not prohibit coffe or tea, does not prohibit alcoholic beverages (strong drink would have been considered the higher alcohol distilled beverages) specifically nor does it prohibit marijauna usage. I think that you would agree with me that LDS doctrine specifically prohibits the consumption of ALL alcoholic beverages as well as coffee and tea. LDS doctrine considers “smoking pot” to be a serious sin. These are not defined within the standard works. your “prophets” and “apostles” have instructed the members on these items. The instructions of the church leadership are most definitely considered to be “binding” doctrine.

The fact that you have been an active member for so many years does not negate the facts that have been presented here. Many of us here have been LDS missionaries, Gospel doctrine teachers, seminary teachers, priesthood leaders, temple workers, etc. I have tried to support my claims with LDS sources most of which are taken from current lesson manuals, LDS official website and other similar teachings by LDS leaders that the average Mormon would consider an appropriate source of valid LDS teaching. Your own scriptures clearly point out the doctrine that your prophets are speaking for the Lord when they address the church.When I challenge what they are saying in these cases I don’t accept that then it’s just that guys opinion.

I find that when LDS people deny what their church teaches in order to make it easier to obtain converts that they are being dishonest. I am NOT confused about what constitutes opinion versus doctrine in the LDS church. Respectful dialog requires acceptance of facts. I am not here to “bash” with LDS and am confused as to why you are here. This is a CATHOLIC ANSWERS forum. This is not an LDS apologetics site, an LDS missionary site nor is it an “ANTI- LDS” attack site. If I have misrepresented LDS docrtrine then please show me where (with supporting facts for your position) and will respectfully retract any errors.

I couldn’t help but notice that you took time to mock the formatting of my posts before “signing off” without refuting any of my factually supported claims. Would you like to point out my spelling and grammar errros as well? they are numerous. You see I don’t type very well because of the lingering effects of a severe injury to my hand that I sustained in the first Gulf War. I was hoping that my sloppy typing could be overlooked in favor of discussing the issues.

I think we started out on the wrong foot when I saw your first post as casually dismissing all previous posts as unworthy of consideration when you said that you hadn’t read them and just didn’t have time to do so. My initial thought was then you don’t have time to post. I am also wondering why you felt the need to come here. We have had alot of “missionaries” here lately trying to call us to repentance and I don’t see this as the right place for that. I don’t go to LDS forums and impose my thoughts on them. If Mormons are interested in Catholocism then perhaps they will come here where I am. Why can’t the LDS missionaries stay where people are seeking to be evagelized by them?

 

[amgid]

Robert in SD:

Thanks to the LDS members who have posted their responses. It’s interesting. Some of you deny the concept of “eternal progression” in your response while others seem to simultaneously hold to the belief while still acknowledging Christ’s “eternal” divinity. These two concepts seem to be mutually exclusive.

And thank you also for your genuine interest.

Either Christ is God and always was, or He became God (or a god) over time, in which case there must be a beginning to Jesus divinity, even if it is “at the beginning” - whatever that means.

The Book of Mormon says that “…there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself” (Alma 40:3). The Bible also confirms this: “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever…” (Deuteronomy 29:29). The Book of Mormon further adds:

And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart, only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 12:9-11.)
You are trying to delve into mysteries about which God has chosen to remain silent. That is not a wise thing to do. If you can show me how to resolve (satisfactorily) similar contradictions found in the Bible, I will also show you how to resolve the same contradictions found in modern LDS scripture. The following scriptures suggest that Jesus was divine, and hence by definition an eternal being:

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

John 1:1: “In the beginning … the Word … was God {i.e. eternal}”.
John 8:58: “…before Abraham was I am {i.e. Jehovah}”.
The same thing is also taught in modern LDS scripture, even more emphatically than in the Bible. The following scriptures, however, seem to suggest that Jesus was created and had a beginning. According to these scriptures He was:

Colossians 1:15: “…the firstborn of every creature”.
Revelation 3:14: “…the beginning of the creation of God”.
And the same thing is also taught in modern LDS scripture. So, how do you resolve the differences? How do you reconcile the two? We can’t have two different standards, one for the Bible and one for the Book of Mormon. They are both the word of God, and therefore the same criteria apply to them both. You resolve (satisfactorily) the contradictions in the Bible, and will resolve for you the contradictions in the Book of Mormon. The answer is that these relate to “mysteries” which God has not yet chosen to reveal. Speculating about mysteries is not such a good idea. It never leads to the truth, and often leads to error. If God wanted us to know the mystery, He would have revealed it to us. The fact that He hasn’t, suggests that He doesn’t want us to know; and if He doesn’t want us to know, we aren’t going to get anywhere by speculating about it. I should have though that was obvious.

Is there some doctrinal statement or writing that can harmonize these two apparently opposed LDS doctrines?

Not any that I know of. You can always “speculate”. That is easy to do. Some people are very fond of doing that. Most of the so called “commentaries” and theological pontificating by renowned theologians have been nothing more than pure speculation. Well, of you are satisfied with that, as lots of people are, then you are welcome to it. I would rather be patient and wait until the Lord sees fit to reveal the truth to me, rather than speculate my way into confusion and error.

Because the following statement makes no sense: Jesus is the eternal God and the firstborn spirit child of the Heavenly Father (an exalted man who progressed to divinity). If this is not correct, how am I misstating LDS doctrine?

I agree that it doesn’t make a lot of sense. You resolve my contradictions out of the Bible (satisfactorily), and I will resolve you contradictions out of the Book of Mormon. See above.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Yet we do not view theologians or even doctors of the church the same way that the LDS view prophets and Apostles.

LDS prophets and Apostles HAVE spoken on these subjects and certainly did not appear to be speculating. Every Sunday LDS churches are teaching their members from the writings of these Prophets and Apostles so that they CAN in fact “know” these things.

This seems to be one of the sources of confusion here. If you are saying that any and all talks by your general authorities to the church as a whole that go beyond what is in the “standard works” is NOT doctrine but merely a “theologians” opinion (for sake of dicussion can we classify LDS GA’s as theologians?), then wouldn’t that make what is taught in LDS churches literally “the philosophies of Men mingled with scripture”?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Dear amgid;

You quoted the following from Scriptures as posing a contradiction between Jesus eternal divinity and the possibility of Jesus as a created being.

John 1:1: “In the beginning … the Word … was God {i.e. eternal}”.
John 8:58: “…before Abraham was I am {i.e. Jehovah}”.

and

Colossians 1:15: “…the firstborn of every creature”.
Revelation 3:14: “…the beginning of the creation of God”.

The latter quotes have never - to my knowledge - been understood to imply that Jesus was less than fully God and fully human. I think your confusion comes from a lack of understanding the hypostatic union of the God-man Jesus as both fully divine and fully human as a result of his incarnation. Also, I think that at best the quotes from Colossians and Revelation only establish Jesus standing above all of creation, not that He was a part of that creation.

In context, Colosians seems to fully disclose the divine and eternal nature of the God made flesh - Jesus:

[15] He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;
[16] for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.
[17] He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
[18] He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.
[19] For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell,
[20] and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Col. 1:15-20.

And in Rev 3:14 the phrase referring to Christ as the “beginning of creation” does not necessarily imply that Jesus was the first created thing, but that Jesus was the Word that God used for creation - as in John 1. So, I don’t see any inconsistency in the NT regarding Jesus’ eternal divinity.

Where I do see inconsistency is in the LDS church’s simultaneous belief in Jesus as both an eternal divine being and a created being who - at a certain undefined time - later acheived divinity after his heavenly father. You seem to be suggesting that this simultaneous dual belief is something like the mystery of the trinity that must be held by LDS members on faith. But the trinity does not present simultaneously mutually exclusive realities like the eternal progression versus eternally divine conundrum.

Can you please tell me if I’m not clearly seeing this conundrum, or is there a way past it?

 

[amgid]

Robert in SD:

The latter quotes have never - to my knowledge - been understood to imply that Jesus was less than fully God and fully human.

Understood by whom? Who are you talking about? I trust my own intelligence to be able to understand the plain meaning of the scriptural text without having to rely on other people to tell me what I should believe it means. I trust that you would do the same. That is how I read and understand those scriptural passages, when I make up my own mind about them rather than letting somebody else make up my mind for me.

I think your confusion comes from a lack of understanding the hypostatic union of the God-man Jesus as both fully divine and fully human as a result of his incarnation.

All of this “hypostatic union” stuff is unscriptural nonsense. I don’t see that in those scriptural passages. That is not how I understand those scriptures when I read them. There is nothing in the scriptures bout “hypostatic union”. That is the kind of thing I meant when I talked about “speculating” on doctrine. It is the pure speculation of theologians. You are allowing somebody else to make up your mind for you rather than allowing yourself to come to an independent conclusion of your own. I don’t subscribe to that. I prefer to think for yourself rather than let somebody else do the thinking for me.

Also, I think that at best the quotes from Colossians and Revelation only establish Jesus standing above all of creation, not that He was a part of that creation.

Again, that is not how I understand the plain meaning of the texst.

And in Rev 3:14 the phrase referring to Christ as the “beginning of creation” does not necessarily imply that Jesus was the first created thing, but that Jesus was the Word that God used for creation - as in John 1. So, I don’t see any inconsistency in the NT regarding Jesus’ eternal divinity.

“Necessarly”? You mean you are not sure? Well you might! Because that is not the meaning that I get when I read the text.

Where I do see inconsistency is in the LDS church’s simultaneous belief in Jesus as both an eternal divine being and a created being who - at a certain undefined time - later acheived divinity after his heavenly father. You seem to be suggesting that this simultaneous dual belief is something like the mystery of the trinity that must be held by LDS members on faith.

That is more or less correct!

But the trinity does not present simultaneously mutually exclusive realities …

You are kidding me! Go and read the Athanasian Creed. I have never read anything so contradictory in my life!

…like the eternal progression versus eternally divine conundrum.

The expression “eternal progression” is alien to LDS scripture, and I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. I do not recognize it as a genuine part of LDS theology.

Can you please tell me if I’m not clearly seeing this conundrum, or is there a way past it?

Yes, you are clearly seeing the conundrum! The way past is that the doctrine has not yet been fully revealed. There are “many mysteries that are kept”; just as there are many “conundrums” in the Bible, but you still accept it as the word of God. I have my own ideas of how to resolve it, but I would rather not give it because that would only confuse you. What makes you so sure that your understanding of infinity and eternity are the same as God’s? I accept the Book of Mormon as a revelation from God because that is the overall impression I get from reading the whole book in the light of the Spirit. The “conundrums” just become an interesting diversion once you come to the realization that it is true.

amgid

 

[majick275]

So what we are left with is the same basic premise that seems to accompany most LDS “doctrinal” discussions.

If you believe that the LDS is the “true” church (and all that goes with that statement) then your paradigm is, necessarily, that all of its teachings, doctrines, prophets, etc. are true and those that don’t appear to make sense are either because the individual doesn’t have sufficient understanding OR there are still essential pieces yet to be revealed. This allows the individual to “ignore” any “distractions” and just practice what the current leaders instruct them to, secure in the faith that God is in his heaven and all is right with the world. (so to speak) This obviously requires both great patience AND great faith. (neither of which is a bad thing)

This makes theological debate somewhat difficult because it renders “seeming” facts, logic, analysis, etc. irrelevant (the wisdom of men) and doctrine “flexible”.

I believe that in and of itself actually appeals to many Mormons yet would seem incomprehensible to your average Catholic.

Would you agree?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello Amgid;

Regarding Colossians and Revelation, I searched my books from the Early Church Fathers, and some other Bible commentaries including “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott, and could not find any discussion of those particular sections as supporting the argument that the Son of God was anything other than eternally divine in His substance - consubstantial with the Father. If you argue these passages - ripped out of context - support the conclusion that the Son of God is not an eternal being then it is your burden to explain why no one up to now has seen these passages in the light that you now see them.

You wrote:

I trust my own intelligence to be able to understand the plain meaning of the scriptural text without having to rely on other people to tell me what I should believe it means. I trust that you would do the same … rather than letting somebody else make up my mind for me.

Unless you are a scholar who is learned in greek, hebrew, and aramaic, with a Ph.D. in biblical culture and biblical history, you are not going to have the ability to fully understand all of Scripture without turning to some other sources for help. That is a far cry from “letting somebody else make up your mind for you.” It is using the mental abilities God gave us. I do not accept what someone tells me Scripture means. I study the word, I look to various treatises and compare religious doctrines, I look to Catholic Church documents and the Early Church Fathers’ writings. This does not make me a blind follower of someone else.

To put it another way: If I were to lock myself into a room with only the Scriptures, I’m sure I could understand about 80% of what they teach. But I would be at a loss to understand the remaining 20% without assistance. The question about the nature of God is part of that 20%.

You wrote:

All of this “hypostatic union” stuff is unscriptural nonsense … I don’t subscribe to that. I prefer to think for yourself rather than let somebody else do the thinking for me.

The doctrine of the hypostatic union of Christ is fully supported by Scripture even if the word “hypostatic” does not appear in the text. (The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible either, but the LDS church still refers to the concept of the Trinity in its doctrine.) And again, I am not allowing someone else to make up my mind for me, even if I am coming to the same conclusion as many other followers of Christ when considering the arguments (including yours) regarding the nature and divinity of the Son of God. My understanding of Scripture is not LESS valid because it concurs with the conclusions of Catholic historical theologians, just as your relatively novel interpretation is not MORE valid because it is removed from the body of christian teaching that precedes the founding of your church.
You wrote:

Yes, you are clearly seeing the conundrum! The way past is that the doctrine has not yet been fully revealed… I accept the Book of Mormon as a revelation from God because that is the overall impression I get from reading the whole book in the light of the Spirit.

What you are telling me is that you believe what you believe because that’s the “impression” you get when you read scripture in the “light of the Spirit.” But I get an entirely different understanding when I read scripture in presumably the same light. This proves nothing. So, what you’re really telling me is that there is no answer to the conundrum in LDS theology which sumultaneously refers to Jesus Christ as an eternal God and a created being who progressed to divinity because (1) it is a myster to be accepted on faith; or (2) the answer hasn’t been fully revealed.

I respectfully have to concede that Majick275 is correct in his assessment… Majick wrote

If you believe that the LDS is the “true” church (and all that goes with that statement) then your paradigm is, necessarily, that all of its teachings, doctrines, prophets, etc. are true and those that don’t appear to make sense are either because the individual doesn’t have sufficient understanding OR there are still essential pieces yet to be revealed. This allows the individual to “ignore” any “distractions” and just practice what the current leaders instruct them to, secure in the faith that God is in his heaven and all is right with the world. (so to speak) This obviously requires both great patience AND great faith. (neither of which is a bad thing)

This makes theological debate somewhat difficult because it renders “seeming” facts, logic, analysis, etc. irrelevant (the wisdom of men) and doctrine “flexible”.

If you come across any LDS revelations that attempt to harmonize the two teachings, I would enjoy reading them.

Peace

 

[majick275]

on the one hand :

amgid:

I don’t know what “eternal progression” is. It is not a concept that is contained in LDS scripture, and I don’t know what it means. You are making a lot of assumptions about LDS doctrine which are not true.

and

amgid:

The expression “eternal progression” is alien to LDS scripture, and I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. I do not recognize it as a genuine part of LDS theology.

Yet on the other we have :

katzpur:

Without having read all of the responses, I’ve got to admit that I’m a little bit confused by your statement that some of us deny the concept of eternal progression. It’s hard for me to imagine any practicing Latter-day Saint doing this. I’d say that it is more likely that you have misunderstood something about this doctrine.

Please explain to me how both of these can be correct?

 

[amgid]

Robert in SD:

Regarding Colossians and Revelation, I searched my books from the Early Church Fathers, and some other Bible commentaries including “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott, … and could not find any discussion of those particular sections as supporting the argument that the Son of God was anything other than eternally divine in His substance - consubstantial with the Father.

If you are going to rely on those books to do your thinking for you, then I can’t debate with you. I can’t debate with a book! Suppose I disagreed with the conclusions of those books, where am I going to find the authors of those books to argue it out with them? I can’t argue it out with you be cause you obviously don’t have a personal opinion on the subject. You rely on them to do your thinking for you. That brings us to a dead end.

If you argue these passages - ripped out of context - support the conclusion that the Son of God is not an eternal being then it is your burden to explain why no one up to now has seen these passages in the light that you now see them.

How do you know they haven’t? I am one that does! Or perhaps my opinion doesn’t count because I am not a Catholic theologian with a PhD in Greek and Hebrew! If you must have a PhD to be able to express an authoritative opinion on these things, how do you explain the sharp disagreements between Catholic and Protestant theologians over the centuries on many important theological issues? They had PhDs (or whatever)! The truth is that those learned scholars have a vested interest to support the particular brand of theology that they adhere to, and “truth” kind of tends to get left behind in those cases.

Unless you are a scholar who is learned in greek, hebrew, and aramaic, with a Ph.D. in biblical culture and biblical history, you are not going to have the ability to fully understand all of Scripture without turning to some other sources for help.

Yea, I have heard of that before! Peter and John and the disciples of Jesus were uneducated fishermen. They didn’t have any PhDs! The gospel was addressed to them. If they could understand it without a PhD in Classics, so can I (and you)!

If you come across any LDS revelations that attempt to harmonize the two teachings, I would enjoy reading them.

There isn’t any that will be of any benefit to you. The answer is the one given by Alma in the Book of Mormon, which I had quoted earlier:

And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart, only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 12:9-11.)

amgid

 

[amgid]

majick275:

on the one hand :

Snip/…

and

Snip/…

Yet on the other we have :

Snip/…

Please explain to me how both of these can be correct?

I am not debating here with Kathryn, I am debating with you. If you have a question for Kathryn, you should address it directly to her. If you have a question for me, you should address it to me. I can’t answer for her, and she can’t answer for me.

As for myself, I assure you that I don’t know what “eternal progression” is. I know what LDS doctrine is. I have a pretty good idea what LDS doctrine is. But I don’t know what “eternal progression” is. But since you seem to know so much about it, you give me an accurate, clear, comprehensive definition of it for me, and then I will tell you whether it is LDS doctrine or not.

Is that a good deal?

amgid

 

[majick275]

Did you go and look at the LDS website that you recomended to see what they said about eternal progression?

Please take a look and then tell me if they are wrong.(in your opinion)