Why Mormons Build Temples

[LDSGuy]

It is crucial to understanding the catholic (universal) doctrine of theosis. Mormons often compare the two. There are similarities, but crucial differences. Those differences begin in understanding, correctly, the Fall.

I agree. We sometimes quote the same ECFs and scriptures, but we mean different things ultimately.

I think that the Catholic understanding of the Fall, as shown in the catechism excerpts you quoted, show that LDS exaltation is not equivalent to the events in the Garden started by Satan, as Melanie was trying to posit.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I agree. We sometimes quote the same ECFs and scriptures, but we mean different things ultimately.

Quoting of ECF by LDS is usually completely out of context. So far removed from what the ECF taught and believe to be causing our ECFs to bare false witness on your behalf. It is a nasty practice.

I think that the Catholic understanding of the Fall, as shown in the catechism excerpts you quoted, show that LDS exaltation is not equivalent to the events in the Garden started by Satan, as Melanie was trying to posit.

The correct understanding of the Fall makes it pretty clear thta LDS exaltation is equivalent to Satan’s lie. Especially when you take into account the entire teachings of your prophets and apostles, and not just what you hope non-mormons will stay focused on.

 

[LDSGuy]

Quoting of ECF by LDS is usually completely out of context. So far removed from what the ECF taught and believe to be causing our ECFs to bare false witness on your behalf. It is a nasty practice.

The correct understanding of the Fall makes it pretty clear thta LDS exaltation is equivalent to Satan’s lie. Especially when you take into account the entire teachings of your prophets and apostles, and not just what you hope non-mormons will stay focused on.

From what I’m getting from the Catechism, from what you quoted:

“Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of”-exaltation does not reject trust in God.

“In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him.”-exaltation does not mean we prefer ourselves over God.

“He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good.”-again, we don’t choose ourselves over and against God. We believe that God made exaltation possible and we become co-heirs with Jesus Christ.

“Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God””-yes, we can become like God, however it is not without God. It is through God that this is possible, through Jesus. In the celestial kingdom we believe we will be eternally in the presence of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

 

[MelanieAnne]

This really didn’t answer my question. I’m wondering how the belief in exaltation is equivalent to Satan’s lie. I’m not concerned with God the Father being a man, getting planets, whether LDS belief is from Satan, whether I don’t want to see or not, etc. I’m wondering how, from a theological perspective, you see that exaltation, the belief that because of Christ’s death and resurrection we are able to become gods, joint-heirs in Christ, is equivalent to Satan wanting to not just become like God, but to be God. To not share in God’s glory, but to have all glory to himself.

The Mormon misunderstanding of many things within the above paragraph is contributing to your confusion. Unless and until you have a proper understanding of the words and terms you are using, it’s not really possible to have productive dialog about the concepts. I have explained this to you, repeatedly. The problem you are having is not a lack of explanation. It’s as if I’m trying to speak to you in another language. This is one problem, actually, with Mormonism and it is an intellectually dishonest one created by Mormonism. By co-opting the words and terms of Christianity, it appears as if Mormons and Christians are speaking the same language, but they’re not.

And you are sidestepping the point which unfortunately is all-too-typical of most of your faith. You say that you don’t care about God the Father being a man, getting planets, etc. You left it out, but I am guessing that you don’t care about being a God yourself, at least not in the sense of being God of your own planet. But at least at one time Mormons taught exactly that, and that God was once a man, and now He is exalted, and you can become a God yourself, you can progress to the same sort of exaltation.

But now it appears that Mormons have changed exaltation into something else ~ you’re saying that “exaltation” consists of becoming heirs in Christ, resurrection, etc. You’re redefining exaltation, basically going back to your Protestant roots, or at least adopting the lingo to make it appear so. Is this giant change in doctrine a sign of Mormon ecumenism? Or is it an attempt to deceive the uninformed that Mormons are “mainstream”?

 

[RebeccaJ]

From what I’m getting from the Catechism, from what you quoted:

“Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of”-exaltation does not reject trust in God.

“In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him.”-exaltation does not mean we prefer ourselves over God.

I know that is what you believe. And you can even explain it in a way that says you aren’t prefering yourself. The reality is:

• JS taught that your god was once a man
• Now you believe this god has created you
• You will have your own creations that call you god

There is One God, not one for you and one for something somewhere else in the universe, or solar system, or even some other universe if that is your belief. One God.

This god that you worship, prefers himself over the god he worshiped. If he did not you would worship that god. He wouldn’t tell you, as you believe, that there are other gods and you are to prefer this god alone. Further, when you are a god, and have creations, you believe those creations should prefer you over your god.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, there is One God, while simultaneous believing that you will be a god, just like your god, and that your god has a god just like himself.

If there is more than one god, including yourself, then you are not recognizing God as the One, Mighty, All Powerful, Creator of all there is. You belive there are multiple gods, who all have this power, just, this one god that you worship, has said you worship him alone. This god is prefering himself over other gods. I think it is not implausible to believe these other gods prefer themselves over the other gods as well, including your god.

Last thing. You put your self at the same level of your god, in how you believe creation came to existence. You tell people all the time, that you, god, everything, all formed out of the same thing that previously existed. This puts you as the same thing as your Creator. Which is, the lie that Satan told.

“He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good.”-again, we don’t choose ourselves over and against God. We believe that God made exaltation possible and we become co-heirs with Jesus Christ.

JS taught quite beyond this. I was taught quite beyond this.

“Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God””-yes, we can become like God, however it is not without God. It is through God that this is possible, through Jesus. In the celestial kingdom we believe we will be eternally in the presence of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Yes, I understand. This is what you tell non-mormons. Potential converts. It is not what your church has taught, which teachings, have never been denied. Only broad statements of what doctrine might or might not be, but never denounced fully.

I understand completely though, not wanting to believe the things that your church teaches, or has taught.

 

[RebeccaJ]

But now it appears that Mormons have changed exaltation into something else ~ you’re saying that “exaltation” consists of becoming heirs in Christ, resurrection, etc. You’re redefining exaltation, basically going back to your Protestant roots, or at least adopting the lingo to make it appear so. Is this giant change in doctrine a sign of Mormon ecumenism? Or is it an attempt to deceive the uninformed that Mormons are “mainstream”?

Sometimes I think it is an indication of mysterious the ways of God are…bringing Mormonism closer and closer to truth with every teaching they drop by the way as “opinion”. Give them a couple more hundred years and they’ll be Catholic.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Sometimes I think it is an indication of mysterious the ways of God are…bringing Mormonism closer and closer to truth with every teaching they drop by the way as “opinion”. Give them a couple more hundred years and they’ll be Catholic.

That would be a good thing.

Unfortunately, I submit that the current effect is that people hear Mormons talking and, based on the words and terms they use, think that they’re mainstream Christians. When the true meaning of their words is understood, it is all too obvious that they are not. Mormon conversions are built on, among other things, the deceit built into the variant definitions they have for various words and terms, variances that they not only do not explain to potential converts but also variances that many may not even understand themselves.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That would be a good thing.

Unfortunately, I submit that the current effect is that people hear Mormons talking and, based on the words and terms they use, think that they’re mainstream Christians. When the true meaning of their words is understood, it is all too obvious that they are not. Mormon conversions are built on, among other things, the deceit built into the variant definitions they have for various words and terms, variances that they not only do not explain to potential converts but also variances that many may not even understand themselves.

True as well.

 

[LDSGuy]

The Mormon misunderstanding of many things within the above paragraph is contributing to your confusion. Unless and until you have a proper understanding of the words and terms you are using, it’s not really possible to have productive dialog about the concepts. I have explained this to you, repeatedly. The problem you are having is not a lack of explanation. It’s as if I’m trying to speak to you in another language. This is one problem, actually, with Mormonism and it is an intellectually dishonest one created by Mormonism. By co-opting the words and terms of Christianity, it appears as if Mormons and Christians are speaking the same language, but they’re not.

And you are sidestepping the point which unfortunately is all-too-typical of most of your faith. You say that you don’t care about God the Father being a man, getting planets, etc. You left it out, but I am guessing that you don’t care about being a God yourself, at least not in the sense of being God of your own planet. But at least at one time Mormons taught exactly that, and that God was once a man, and now He is exalted, and you can become a God yourself, you can progress to the same sort of exaltation.

But now it appears that Mormons have changed exaltation into something else ~ you’re saying that “exaltation” consists of becoming heirs in Christ, resurrection, etc. You’re redefining exaltation, basically going back to your Protestant roots, or at least adopting the lingo to make it appear so. Is this giant change in doctrine a sign of Mormon ecumenism? Or is it an attempt to deceive the uninformed that Mormons are “mainstream”?

I’ve definitely heard this argument of Mormons using the same words as traditional Christians, but they mean different things. That really should not play any role in having a theological discussion, especially when it’s not like if we had the “true” meaning of those similar words. I personally don’t. I assume by “proper” understanding of the words, you mean a Catholic understanding. This really isn’t logical. And right on the LDS website we see the belief that all other churches are wrong, and do not have the full gospel. We have no desire to be similar to Protestantism.

What is this “giant change in doctrine”? Exaltation has always meant that we can become gods. It is how we become gods that is related to being “joint-heirs in Christ”, and also why I see no relationship between the events in the Garden and LDS exaltation theology.

Did traditional Christianity co-opt the word “Easter”?

 

[LDSGuy]

That would be a good thing.

Unfortunately, I submit that the current effect is that people hear Mormons talking and, based on the words and terms they use, think that they’re mainstream Christians. When the true meaning of their words is understood, it is all too obvious that they are not. Mormon conversions are built on, among other things, the deceit built into the variant definitions they have for various words and terms, variances that they not only do not explain to potential converts but also variances that many may not even understand themselves.

If a Hindu starts having a conversation with someone, saying they believe in one God, that that God incarnated on earth and will come again, does that mean they are presenting themselves as traditional Christian?

What variances are not explained to converts? Also, which words are the ones that we use that mean different things, and by extension, are not explained when they are used?

 

[LDSGuy]

Yes, I understand. This is what you tell non-mormons. Potential converts. It is not what your church has taught, which teachings, have never been denied. Only broad statements of what doctrine might or might not be, but never denounced fully.

I understand completely though, not wanting to believe the things that your church teaches, or has taught.

So the Church has taught that we can become gods without God? Or is it about what I said about the celestial kingdom? I’m trying to understand what from I said (that you quoted with your above response) that was not previously taught by the LDS Church?

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’ve definitely heard this argument of Mormons using the same words as traditional Christians, but they mean different things. That really should not play any role in having a theological discussion, especially when it’s not like if we had the “true” meaning of those similar words. I personally don’t. I assume by “proper” understanding of the words, you mean a Catholic understanding. This really isn’t logical. And right on the LDS website we see the belief that all other churches are wrong, and do not have the full gospel. We have no desire to be similar to Protestantism.

What is this “giant change in doctrine”? Exaltation has always meant that we can become gods. It is how we become gods that is related to being “joint-heirs in Christ”, and also why I see no relationship between the events in the Garden and LDS exaltation theology.

Did traditional Christianity co-opt the word “Easter”?

If two people are attempting to have a discussion about any subject and each one does not know the meaning of the words the other person is using, there can be no understanding. Unless and until a common understanding of those words is achieved, it is useless to have a discussion on anything, not just theology.

In the case of a discussion of Christianity, the Catholic understanding of something is pertinent because the Church was founded by Jesus, and continues to be guided by His Holy Spirit. I submit the reason that you do not find this “logical” is because you actually do not understand true Christianity, and have little or no knowledge of Christian History.

The LDS religion flowed out of Protestantism, and created an entirely new, some would say non-Christian, religion. It seems logical that a new religion would come up with new words and terms, but that’s not what the Mormons did. Instead, they co-opted the words and terms of Protestant Christianity, along with the Protestant Bible, and just changed the meanings of the words to suit their new paradigm. This was a deceit, one that the LDS sect still trades on.

The lie that you can become a God, told by Satan in the Garden, is the same lie that you can become a God told by any of the so-called “prophets” of Mormonism. No matter how you slice & dice it, it is still the same lie. Changing the old definition of the process doesn’t change the fact that the idea that you, a person, can become a god is still a lie. It’s a lie every time it is told, and it comes from that “same old serpent”. If you cannot grasp the comparison, I submit that it is because you do not actually understand Genesis.

 

[MelanieAnne]

If a Hindu starts having a conversation with someone, saying they believe in one God, that that God incarnated on earth and will come again, does that mean they are presenting themselves as traditional Christian?

What variances are not explained to converts? Also, which words are the ones that we use that mean different things, and by extension, are not explained when they are used?

My experience with the vast majority of Mormons is that they don’t even know the vast gulf of difference between themselves and mainstream Christianity. Virtually every major concept of Christianity, starting with the nature of God, is different in Mormonism. This is the reason why so many Christians do not count Mormons as Christian.

To list all the differences, and define them, would be an exhaustive task, well beyond the scope of this thread, for one thing, and well beyond the limits on my time to devote to this task, for another. I don’t have to do your homework for you. There are resources available to you, use them if you’re interested.

My statement still stands. LDS trade on misunderstanding. It’s a deceit. Potential converts are misled, believing that what they already know and understand is the same as what an LDS missionary is telling them.

 

[LDSGuy]

If two people are attempting to have a discussion about any subject and each one does not know the meaning of the words the other person is using, there can be no understanding. Unless and until a common understanding of those words is achieved, it is useless to have a discussion on anything, not just theology.

In the case of a discussion of Christianity, the Catholic understanding of something is pertinent because the Church was founded by Jesus, and continues to be guided by His Holy Spirit. I submit the reason that you do not find this “logical” is because you actually do not understand true Christianity, and have little or no knowledge of Christian History.

The LDS religion flowed out of Protestantism, and created an entirely new, some would say non-Christian, religion. It seems logical that a new religion would come up with new words and terms, but that’s not what the Mormons did. Instead, they co-opted the words and terms of Protestant Christianity, along with the Protestant Bible, and just changed the meanings of the words to suit their new paradigm. This was a deceit, one that the LDS sect still trades on.

The lie that you can become a God, told by Satan in the Garden, is the same lie that you can become a God told by any of the so-called “prophets” of Mormonism. No matter how you slice & dice it, it is still the same lie. Changing the old definition of the process doesn’t change the fact that the idea that you, a person, can become a god is still a lie. It’s a lie every time it is told, and it comes from that “same old serpent”. If you cannot grasp the comparison, I submit that it is because you do not actually understand Genesis.

Ok I see what you are saying, but from an objective perspective, it doesn’t seem to matter. You believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, continuing the original Christian beliefs and apostolic succession. I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restoration of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, continuing the original Christian beliefs, and is the sole holder of the keys of priesthood authority. We can still have a discussion even though we disagree on which Church is the true Church.

Ok, so it’s deceitful for the LDS Church to use words found from traditional Christianity but to ascribe new meaning to them, but it is not deceitful for traditional Christianity to use words and traditions from older religions and give them new meaning? The word “easter” being one example. Others include Christmas (and various customs associated), holy sites, etc.

You still have not explained theological how the two concepts of exaltation and Satan becoming God are the same “lie”. Christians believe in Paradise, calling it Heaven. Various pagan religions have believed in a Paradise. Does that make them the same?

 

[LDSGuy]

My experience with the vast majority of Mormons is that they don’t even know the vast gulf of difference between themselves and mainstream Christianity. Virtually every major concept of Christianity, starting with the nature of God, is different in Mormonism. This is the reason why so many Christians do not count Mormons as Christian.

To list all the differences, and define them, would be an exhaustive task, well beyond the scope of this thread, for one thing, and well beyond the limits on my time to devote to this task, for another. I don’t have to do your homework for you. There are resources available to you, use them if you’re interested.

My statement still stands. LDS trade on misunderstanding. It’s a deceit. Potential converts are misled, believing that what they already know and understand is the same as what an LDS missionary is telling them.

Alright, I agree that we have many differences, and various traditional Christians do not consider us Christian. That’s fine. I’m wondering what are the words we have co-opted in a deceitful manner. It seems that you implied that I was using such words, so I’m wondering which words in this thread were deceitful, used by me.

I was a convert. I was not misled. Converts are taught about the Book of Mormon, the Restoration, Prophets, the pre-existence, the spirit world, degrees of glory, exaltation, the Word of Wisdom, tithing, the priesthood, temples and ordinances, personal revelation, etc. No conversion process can go into the minute details of theology or practice, including in Catholicism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So the Church has taught that we can become gods without God? Or is it about what I said about the celestial kingdom? I’m trying to understand what from I said (that you quoted with your above response) that was not previously taught by the LDS Church?

I already explained.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Alright, I agree that we have many differences, and various traditional Christians do not consider us Christian. That’s fine. I’m wondering what are the words we have co-opted in a deceitful manner. It seems that you implied that I was using such words, so I’m wondering which words in this thread were deceitful, used by me.

I was a convert. I was not misled. Converts are taught about the Book of Mormon, the Restoration, Prophets, the pre-existence, the spirit world, degrees of glory, exaltation, the Word of Wisdom, tithing, the priesthood, temples and ordinances, personal revelation, etc. No conversion process can go into the minute details of theology or practice, including in Catholicism.

The deceit is on the part of Mormonism itself. As I said before, it is likely that many, if not most, Mormons even know about the alternate meanings of the words co-opted by their faith. I’m not accusing you personally of intentional deceit, as I cannot know that sort of thing, that’s a matter of your personal conscience. But in general, it is a deceit on the part of Mormonism to use words where the listener understands one thing and the speaker means something else.

If you were a convert from the Catholic faith, it was the Catholic faith that you did not understand.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Alright, I agree that we have many differences, and various traditional Christians do not consider us Christian. That’s fine. I’m wondering what are the words we have co-opted in a deceitful manner.

Trinity

 

[LDSGuy]

Trinity

where does this occur in LDS teaching that is deceitful?

 

[LDSGuy]

The deceit is on the part of Mormonism itself. As I said before, it is likely that many, if not most, Mormons even know about the alternate meanings of the words co-opted by their faith. I’m not accusing you personally of intentional deceit, as I cannot know that sort of thing, that’s a matter of your personal conscience. But in general, it is a deceit on the part of Mormonism to use words where the listener understands one thing and the speaker means something else.

If you were a convert from the Catholic faith, it was the Catholic faith that you did not understand.

So when traditional Christianity co-opted various things from paganism, was this deceitful?

I understand that from your position I didn’t understand Catholicism if I left it, in the same way that I think that ex-LDS did not understand it either.