SteveVH

That Asherah was removed from the Bible is nothing but supposition. The Jews who believed in the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob were absolutely opposed to any worship of this mythical goddess. Here's a little info about Asherah: Asherah, or Ashtoreth, was the name of the chief female deity worshiped in ancient Syria, Phoenicia, and Canaan. The Phoenicians called her Astarte, the Assyrians worshiped her as Ishtar, and the Philistines had a temple of Asherah (1 Samuel 31:10). Because of Israel’s incomplete conquest of the land of Canaan, Asherah-worship survived and plagued Israel, starting as soon as Joshua was dead (Judges 2:13). Asherah was represented by a limbless tree trunk planted in the ground. The trunk was usually carved into a symbolic representation of the goddess. Because of the association with carved trees, the places of Asherah worship were commonly called “groves,” and the Hebrew word “asherah” (plural, “asherim”) could refer either to the goddess or to a grove of trees. One of King Manasseh’s evil deeds was that he “took the carved Asherah pole he had made and put it in the temple” (2 Kings 21:7). Another translation of “carved Asherah pole” is “graven image of the grove” (KJV). Considered the moon-goddess, Asherah was often presented as a consort of Baal, the sun-god (Judges 3:7, 6:28, 10:6; 1 Samuel 7:4, 12:10). Asherah was also worshiped as the goddess of love and war and was sometimes linked with Anath, another Canaanite goddess. Worship of Asherah was noted for its sensuality and involved ritual prostitution. The priests and priestesses of Asherah also practiced divination and fortune-telling. The Lord God, through Moses, forbade the worship of Asherah. The Law specified that a grove of trees was not to be near the altar of Jehovah (Deuteronomy 16:21). Despite God’s clear instructions, Asherah-worship was a perennial problem in Israel. As Solomon slipped into idolatry, one of the pagan deities he brought into the kingdom was Asherah, called “the goddess of the Sidonians” (1 Kings 11:5, 33). Later, Jezebel made Asherah-worship even more prevalent, with 400 prophets of Asherah on the royal payroll (1 Kings 18:19). At times, Israel experienced revival, and notable crusades against Asherah-worship were led by Gideon (Judges 6:25-30), King Asa (1 Kings 15:13), and King Josiah (2 Kings 23:1-7). Maybe in the pagan archeological record but nowhere else. Certainly not in post polytheistic Judaism or Christianity. God is a Creator, not a procreator. He does not require a "wife" in order to create. No, another way to read this would be to take into account the particular Hebrew styles of writing and word usage so that one might arrive at true interpretation of the meaning of these words. This does not translate across the board into modern language, in this time and culture. We are all subject to using human language to describe a divine being. When this is done in an ancient culture, in an ancient time, in an ancient language, many things must be taken into consideration. But it cannot be read in a linear fashion as we would a modern newspaper or book. By the way, you still have not answered my question on what you think of Collossians 1:15 which speaks of the invisible God.

Christianity in Latin and South America has been through a lot of upheaval. Many Catholic Priests and nuns have been killed or imprisoned. In short, they are probaly not too happy to have anyone try to undo what they have done. That's my only guess on why your friends would not have received a warmer welcome.

Asherah was a mythical goddess that was never included in the sacred writings of the Jews. There is no mention of this goddess in Sacred Scripture. In fact, Sacred Scripture never mentions God as having a wife. I guess I have missed this. Can you please point me to the Biblical passage that says that Moses saw God's arms and legs, etc. To see the "face of God" is metaphorical language meaning to know God. Why does everyone here ignore the passage that states that " He is the image of the invisible God" (Collosian 1:15)? On the contrary, I think we do God a disservice when we try to make him in the image of man. He is eternally above man in every way.

I agree. There are a variety of reasons that people leave one faith for another. My wife and I were discussing this just this morning. Isn't it kind of strange that people with pretty much the same intelligence can arrive at completley different conclusions when it comes to religion. This shows that we truly are free beings, but remains a mystery to me anyway. I can't understand why you don't see my point and you don't understand why I can't see yours. By the way, thanks for putting up with me thus far. Hmmm. The only separation I feel we have is in doctrine. I think we agree on nearly every social issue and that together we can be a great force for good in the world. I truly love Mormon people and feel no separation at all other than in specific doctrine. What is your source for this information? As it should have. No one should be persecuted for their beliefs expecially in this country. There is no doubt that Mormons suffered unjustly throughout most of their history. Catholics did not fair well in this country for a long time either so I think there is probably a lot of empathy there. But, like Christ said, "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also". My hope is that we will stand together against the persecution that is being thrust upon us by the current administration. If we loose the freedom to practice our beliefs; to act in accord with our conscience, then we are really in trouble.

I read your prior post and think, over all, that you did a good job in presenting the Catholic view, though there are some fine points that would be worth discussing between Catholics. My purpose here is not to proselytize. I have a very personal reason for wanting to understand Mormon doctrine. Someone for which I cared very much left the Catholic Church for the LDS Church. It was at that time that I decided to learn about the Mormon faith. I wanted to know what attracted her. I guess I needed to understand that what she was doing made some sense. She was a student of mine when I was the Youth Minister for our Church and I had never experienced this in 15 years of teaching. When I spoke with her she could not tell me why and seemed to have a very shallow understanding of Mormon doctrine. That puzzled me all the more. I then had a discussion with her Mormon bishop. She was supposed to attend the meeting but they didn't allow her to come. We discussed the "Great Apostasy". When I asked him to provide any historical evidence in support of the "Great Apostasy" his answer was that he didn't have to provide any historic evidence, nor did he even need to study history, he had the word of Joseph Smith. I almost fell out of my chair and the two missionaries who accompanied him just stared at the table. I had not ever heard such a lame response, especially coming from a "bishop". Believing that there had to be more than this I became very interested in how a group of people could arrive at the theological conclusions that make up Mormon doctrine. The only way I know to truly understand is to ask questions and compare them to my beliefs. I cannot do that if I do not state my beliefs. I have no illusions of converting anyone to Catholicism nor is that my purpose in being here. By the way, it turned out that she had fallen in love with a Mormon boy (which she had not admitted to me) and this was the only way they could stay together. While that mystery was finally solved, my curiosity has not waned.

You ask some very good questions. As a Catholic, of course, we would differ in that we do not believe in eternal procreation. We do believe that we do not loose our identity when we reach heaven, but what our glorified bodies will be like we don't know for certain. We do know that they are spiritual bodies. They will be supernatural (above nature) so they will not function as a "natural" body was designed. Christ said we will be "like the angels" who were not created male and female. That does not mean we will be angels, they are an entirely different species of life. We believe that being make in the image and likeness of God does not mean that God is in the image and likeness of man. We are like him in that we are free beings. We are like him in our ability to love. One of the greatest ways in which we reflect God is the family; the two become one, so literally that nine months later we have to give it a name. We believe this is the nature and essence of God; a complete self-giving of the Father to the Son and from the Son to the Father and the resulting love is the Holy Spirit. They can be no more seperated than an infant's identity can be seperated between the father and the mother. In essence, the nature of God is a family; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Scripture tells us that God is invisible. Jesus became incarnate (he was not always), but the Father did not. Indeed, concerning Jesus, we are told that he is the " the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), which means that the Father has no body parts, but is pure Spirit. Christ, as well, at the time of creation did not possess a physical, human body, but rather was pure spirit. So, while the human form may in some way reflect God, it does not mean that God looks like us in a physical way. Anyway, that would be the Catholic perspective.

That's not fair. If I have said something untrue then please inform me so that I don't do it again. I don't wish to make things up in order to form a credible argument. That would kind of defeat the purpose, would it not? The question had to do with the assertion that we have common beliefs concerning "Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost", our concept of "heaven", the "Atonement", "Revelation", "Authority" and "Baptism". I have demonstrated that we do not. Please tell me where I am wrong. Sorry, but this has nothing to do with me "preferring to focus on the differences", rather it had to do with the fact that responding to your comments neccesitates either agreeing with your position or pointing out the differences. That was the nature of the subject, was it not?

Please demonstrate a theological doctrine that we have in common? Well, that is certainly a matter of opinion. The Catholic faith cannot act as a springboard to Mormonism if one truly understands the Catholic faith. This is not like the differences between a Methodist and a Presbyterian, or a Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. It is more like the difference between Christianity and Hinduism. Our Church no longer even recognizes Mormon baptism as valid because of the differences in undertanding between the Holy Trinity and the Mormon Godhead. That's how far apart we are. Where we do have something in common is in our value of the family, acts of charity and respect for the inherent dignity of each person. I am getting ready to vote for a Mormon president and I have no qualms whatsoever about doing that. I would rather my kids hang out with Mormon kids rather than just about anyone other than Catholic kids. In short, there is much that I admire. But we cannot ignore our religious differences and pretend that we all believe the same thing. Nevertheless, we can walk side by side and accomplish good in this world together.

Tell you what, Loudmouth, why don't you let me tell you what I believe instead of you telling me what I believe. Abraham Lincoln once asked "If you call a dog's tale a leg, how many legs does a dog have? It still has only four." Just because we use the same words does not mean that we have the same beliefs. Trinity vs. Godhead You are implying that since Mormons profess to believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit then we have that in common. We believe in three divine persons united in one divine being, the Holy Trinity. You believe in three seperate and distinct beings united only in purpose and authority. The fact that you believe they are three distinct and separate beings means we are talking about three gods who happen to agree with each other. That is miles away and in complete contradiction to the Catholic understanding and belief. Heaven The Mormon idea of heaven is drastically different then the Catholic idea. The Catholic idea of heaven is sharing in the life of the Holy Trinity as adopted (not literal) son's and daughters of God. Our purpose is not to procreate for eternity and create our own little worlds in which to rule over, but to live in the presence of God in intimacy with him. Marriage is not a requirement in order to receive the highest glory in heaven. We could then discuss the differences between the theory of "exaltation" vs. "theosis" if we wanted get into further differences. The point is, again, we are miles apart. The atonement of Christ Even something as simple as the "Atonement" is different for a Mormon than it is for a Catholic. The reason for this is the differences in our understanding of why we need a Savior in the first place. The Catholic view is that man fell from grace with God, by his own choice. This placed man outside of the family of God. Christ, through his suffering and death on the cross, redeemed us and made salvation from our sins possible in order to restore our relationship and bring us back into the family of God. The Mormon view as I understand it (and I am open for correction here) is that Adam and Eve were walking around in the Garden in a state of ignorant bliss. Sin was a necessary part of God's original plan so that we may know good from evil and thereby progress to godhood. These are completely contradictory ideas. Revelation We believe that Christ is God's only Word and He has no other. We believe that he is the fullness of God's revelation of himself to man; "When you have seen me, you have seen the Father". Because God has been fully revealed in the person Christ, we await no further public revelation. This does not mean that God no longer communicates with his Church. Indeed, we were promised by Christ himself that we would not be left orphans, that he would remain with his Church until the end of time and the He has sent his Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. We even believe in private revelation (which no one is required to believe) but it cannot efffect doctrine which is based upon what Christ revealed to the Apostles. Mormon's believe that modern revelation is necessary; that Christ was not the fullness of God's revelation of himself to mankind. Again, we do not believe the same thing. Authority We believe that God founded his Church upon the rock of Peter and gave his Church the keyes to the kingdom of heaven; the power to bind and loose and the power to forgive sins. In other words, the One who had authority gave His authority to the Church. It is Christ's Church ("Upon this rock I will build my Church) not man's Church. That is why it could never fail and is not dependent upon man's strength in order to succeed and flourish. The Mormon belief is that Christ's Church failed and therefore needed to be restored. Completley different beliefs concerning authority. Baptism We believe in a baptism that sanctifies us and removes all sin, and infuses supernatural life within us. We believe it is a sacrament; a gift from God and a unilateral action on behalf of God. It is much more than a public statement of belief. It actually has an effect on our souls. You tell me if that is the Mormon understanding. If it is not, then we disagree once more. So please show me again what we have in common theologically? I would venture very little, if anything at all. From the Catholic view, one leaving the Catholic faith (assuming one understands the Catholic faith and is not "Catholic" in name only) is leaving the truth for a lie, so this is a profound decision the OP is making and it should not be made lightly. The Mormon view may be the same in this regard and we might, after all, have that in common, just at different ends of the spectrum.

I think you had better study a little Christian history.

The words of scripture convey a truth. Sometimes this truth is given from a different perspective and written for a different audience, therefore some things are stressed when writing to a Jewish audience as opposed to a gentile audience. We can either trust that the scriptures are the word of God or not. If they are the word of God then they all convey truth.

I would say that the missionary program in the LDS church is to be highly praised. My experience has been that the young men are certainly sincere and always pleasant and as well mannered as it gets. I actually enjoy being visited by Mormon missionaries. Don't worry, I'm not too hard on them. They always remind me of my kids.

And who organized God? So what you are saying is that, other than our mortal bodies, God really has little to do with our existence. We exist of our own power (eternal) and when we die we will continue to progress with or without God. Do I understand you correctly?

Yes, and is this not exactly the task of the Church? "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." (Mat 28:19) The world was to know God and relate to God through his Church.

Take your time. This is an important decision either way you go. I have no idea of the catechetical opportunites available to you in your particular parish, but there are numerous resources out there for anyone who truly want to understand their faith. There is an unfortunate tendency among many Catholics to show up on Sunday and forget about it for the rest of the week. Learn your faith. Read the Catechism along with scripture. Talk to your priest. Sign up for the bible studies and other cataechetical opportunities. Sit in on the RCIA sessions. But don't make this decision lightly. This is not like choosing whether or not to be Orthodox or Catholic. Mormon and Catholic theology could not be farther apart. We share many other things in common; the importance of family, fidelity, and basically living a good life. But our differences in belief are stark. We have very little, if anything in common theologically. And since you are deciding which religion to choose, theology is all important. Good luck on your journey. You will be in my prayers tonight. Steve

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue. I think it would be best if we did this on the new thread created by Changed on the LDS Gospel Discussion - LDS Social Network Forum. That way others can participate if they choose. It seems like the last time this happened I was instructed to go to another site altogether. Guess I wasn't paying attention. Steve

Thank you, Changed. I'll check it out.

My apologies. Can you please tell me when you informed me of this? Somehow I missed this or just didn't remember. In any case, thanks for pointing me to the correct forum.

I couldn't agree more. The sexual act between married couples is a sacrament of sorts, a holy union. In order to have a holy union, however, the spuoses are required to engage in an act of complete, mutual sef-giving. To use another, even your husband or wife, only as an object of pleasure is not a holy union. It seems to me more than appropriate to pray that you enter into this act with God's will in mind.

Thank you. It seems that I am not allowed to question these beliefs (using another set of beliefs as the basis for those questions), so I guess we'll just have to call it good. Thanks for giving me your understanding of the LDS position. That is pretty much what I've heard. God bless.

The "natural man" refers to man without the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. The reason we do not "naturaly" have the Spirit with us is that we lost it after the fall. Christ became human and gave incredible dignity to the "humanity" because of that act. When we have the Spirit dwelling in us we are truly human; back to the way we were created to be in the beginning. It is not our humanity we are to throw off and the scritpure doesn't say that. It is our old ways, our old self; the one without the Spirit of God dwelling in it. Jesus will have a human body for eternity, just as we will. There is nothing wrong with our humanity. It was created by God and he saw it and said "It is very good". Just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I will assume my words in prevous posts have not conveyed the meaning which they were intended to convey. So let me be very clear. Jesus is 100% human. Being human does not require one to sin. That is a choice each human makes. Jesus chose not to sin. That does no make him any less human than us. However, lest we forget, Jesus is also 100% divine. That is about as far as I think I can go without expressing parts of my faith that seem to be upsetting some folks. Actually, it pretty much bring this converstation to an end. Well, I've explained my position more than a few times now. If there is any question of what I believe please see above. I would be interested in your assessment of the nature of Jesus. What do Mormons believe Jesus was? All human? All divine? A little of both? Do you even believe that there is a difference between human and divine nature? Is Jesus any different than you or me? Has he just progressed further than us or is he altogether different than us (especially in his divinity)? Thanks.

Please forgive me.

I think I remember you. Sorry you got banned. I hope you don't think I am proselytizing. That is not my intention whatsoever. I'm just not sure how to discuss theology without bringing my beliefs into the picture. Anyway, God bless you.

I'll tell you what. Why don't you answer the questions you asked me? I have to agree that the discussion has come to center more on my faith than on yours. Why don't you give me the LDS perspective? Again, I would have to bring my beliefs into the picture in order to answer this adequately. And the LDS view of this situation is...? And the LDS view of this situation is...? Thanks for being so respectful. Agreed. Great question. What is the LDS answer? Either that or he would go to any length to save us. So what's your answer? So do I. Thanks for the info.

People are asking me to justify my comments. The only way I know to do that is to tell them what I believe. I don't believe there is one post of mine that is not tied to LDS theology. Personally I love to be challenged on my beliefs. I'm sorry you don't.