Question about the Godhead

[Traveler]

Only one human, who was first God, has ever been 100% divine and 100% human and that was Jesus Christ. We believe that an all powerful God can be whatever he wishes to be. So God can become human if that is what he chooses to do. We, on the other hand, being human, cannot become God. We are created, God is not. We can share in God's divine life, but only because it is he, out of complete love for us, that lifts our nature from a natural to a supernatural state. We cannot have divine life on our own. We will not be Gods of our own universes. We can only share in the one, true God's divine life by becoming his adopted sons and daughters. There is a big difference.

Are you saying an all powerful G-d cannot have children like unto him - even though he gave all his created creatures the power to have offspring of the same kind? Are you saying that he gave his creations power that he does not have for himself? Interesting.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

It would be hard to logically deny the two are mutually exclusive if you make that statement.

I made that statement concerning Jesus Christ, not you and me. Christ is unique in possessing two natures, human and divine. Divinity, which is a different nature from humanity, transforms human nature to become like itself through the reception of the divine Word.

We seem to be speaking past each other and I think the reason for that is the difference in the Mormon idea of exaltation as oppossed to the Christian notion of theosis. Exaltation claims that man is a self-existent being, possessing the divine nature independent of it being created or otherwise caused by God, although God is needed to perfect man in the attributes proper to divinity. Theosis teaches that man is created for a supernatural end, that is, man lacks divinity by nature, so God becomes man so as to fill humanity with the divine supernature it otherwise lacks - not divine attributes, but divine nature itself. This means that the divine nature is created in man by God, who is therefore "God of gods" and yet absolutely unique as the first and uncaused God. It is this unique, uncaused God, that Jesus claimed to be.

[Vort]

I made that statement concerning Jesus Christ, not you and me. Christ is unique in possessing two natures, human and divine. Divinity, which is a different nature from humanity, transforms human nature to become like itself through the reception of the divine Word.

Interestingly, the apostle Peter disagreed with you:

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 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: 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.

The Catholic idea of seperable, unique natures is not Biblical. You are trying to apply a false paradigm over LDS doctrine. Please note the name of this forum: "LDS Gospel Discussion". It is senseless for you to come onto this forum and try to preach your own non-LDS doctrine. That is not what this forum is for.

We seem to be speaking past each other and I think the reason for that is the difference in the Mormon idea of exaltation as oppossed to the Christian notion of theosis.

Since Latter-day Saints are Christians, your distinction is meaningless, your neoPlatonic meanderings notwithstanding.

[SteveVH]

Are you saying an all powerful G-d cannot have children like unto him - even though he gave all his created creatures the power to have offspring of the same kind? Are you saying that he gave his creations power that he does not have for himself? Interesting.

The Traveler

I may be completely missing your point here. Maybe you could expalin further. What does our ability to procreate have to do with the nature of God? We are not God. God creates. We pro-create (participate in God's creation). Is it a greater thing to procreate than it is to create? I don't think so. Even the Scriptures tell us that we are sons and daughters of God by adoption. We are not literal sons and daughters of God. Why do you think Jesus is referred to as God's only Son? We are not and will never be God's children in the way that Jesus is God's Son.

[SteveVH]

Interestingly, the apostle Peter disagreed with you:

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 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: 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.

I don't disagree with anything Peter said and I don't think anything that I have said contradicts what Peter has said. Have I not said that we will be partakers of the divine nature? Have I not said that we will share in God's divine life? Just where or what have I said that would bring you to this conclusion?

The Catholic idea of seperable, unique natures is not Biblical. You are trying to apply a false paradigm over LDS doctrine. Please note the name of this forum: "LDS Gospel Discussion". It is senseless for you to come onto this forum and try to preach your own non-LDS doctrine. That is not what this forum is for.

Since Latter-day Saints are Christians, your distinction is meaningless, your neoPlatonic meanderings notwithstanding.

Maybe someone needs to inform me of just what is acceptable here. I speak with Mormons all the time on a Catholic forum and no one chides them for explaining and contrasting their beliefs with ours. If I am to only comment when I am in agreement with Mormon doctrine, it seems pretty senseless to be here. Judging from the tone of your commnets I have obviously offended you. I assure you, that was not my intention. I will, however, refrain from posting here if it is not appropriate.

I will ask if a Moderator would mind commenting. What am I allowed to ask and on what am I allowed to comment. Am I restricted from explaining my position when discussing beliefs? Please help me here. Until then I will refrain from posting. Thank you.

Edited September 12, 2011 by StephenVH

[bytebear]

Schism is a different matter from heresy. They have a valid priesthood and sacraments because they have legitimate apostolic succession. We know who laid hands upon whom.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't apostolic succession actually end, since apostles stopped being. Authority then fell to bishops, and even today the Pope is considered the Bishop of Rome, and presumably various Orthodox churches also have their own Bishops? But a bishop is not an apostle.

Now, doesn't this fit nicely with the LDS explanation of the apostasy? That if the early church was set up similarly to the current LDS Church that if central authority was lost, that the Bishops may well take the lead and become local leaders. But, this schism is far more than just a separation of church authority. it is a loss of central authority. Apostolic succession must include apostles, as the leaders of a centralized church.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Only one human, who was first God, has ever been 100% divine and 100% human and that was Jesus Christ. We believe that an all powerful God can be whatever he wishes to be. So God can become human if that is what he chooses to do. We, on the other hand, being human, cannot become God. We are created, God is not. We can share in God's divine life, but only because it is he, out of complete love for us, that lifts our nature from a natural to a supernatural state. We cannot have divine life on our own. We will not be Gods of our own universes. We can only share in the one, true God's divine life by becoming his adopted sons and daughters. There is a big difference.

Hypothetically for you, if you were to believe that we existed as spirit children before this life, would you still call us human?

You would probably answer that you don't believe that we existed as spirit children before mortal life. ... but then this kind of conversation is hard to have.

Being a God is directly tied into sharing. Sharing is part of the process of becoming like God. Read the story of the prodigal son, what part of the father's belongings did the son that stayed not have? He had all that the father had.

I don't think we can be a God by ourselves, that was Satan's idea. That is like saying I want to be an American by myself. Being a God, is not an individual thing. There is no God that exists by himself, and we don't believe that. To be a God He has to share. So, God cannot have divine life on His own either for the same reasons you are saying we can't have divine life on our own.

[SteveVH]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't apostolic succession actually end, since apostles stopped being. Authority then fell to bishops, and even today the Pope is considered the Bishop of Rome, and presumably various Orthodox churches also have their own Bishops? But a bishop is not an apostle.

Now, doesn't this fit nicely with the LDS explanation of the apostasy? That if the early church was set up similarly to the current LDS Church that if central authority was lost, that the Bishops may well take the lead and become local leaders. But, this schism is far more than just a separation of church authority. it is a loss of central authority. Apostolic succession must include apostles, as the leaders of a centralized church.

Firs of all, where does it say that Apostolic succession must include apostles as leaders of a centralized church? Biblically there is no evidence of this, in fact, it would be an impossiblity if we believe Peter.

According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:

a) Witness the resurrected Lord

b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.

These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.

Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

To gain a perspective here, lets assume for the moment that you are right; that "Apostle" was an office that had to be filled in order for priesthood authority to remain in the Church. Why then didn't they simply fill the positions as each of the Apostles died? I'm trying to imagine the Church believing what you believe and then just spacing out the appointment of new Apostles. It isn't as if they were all killed at once in some calamity. On the death of the last Apostle they all must have hit themselves in the forehead, saying "dang it, you know what, we forgot appoint other Apostles. Now what are we going to do?" Yes, it fits nicely with the LDS explanation of the Apostasy, but it seems more than a little far fetched. But that isn't the best reason I have for rejecting the entire idea of the Apostasy.

The removal of priesthood authority in the messianic age is expressly denied in scripture on the basis of divine covenant - not just God's covenant with men, but the covenant of the Father and the Son. This is a covenant between two divine parties, neither of whom can violate or alter any term of that covenant. The text that proves this is the entire argument of Jeremiah 33, which begins with a prophecy of the messiah coming, restoring the Kingdom so that the "voice of the bride and the voice of the bridegroom" (33:11) return to the land. (cf. John 3:29.) Then the messiah takes up his kingship and becomes inheritor of the Davidic covenant, which contains these terms:

"For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me." (Jer 33:17-22)

I can't imagine how much more clearly the point could be made. Here we have a text that is about the Messianic kingdom, which interprets the Messiah's rule of Israel. It verifies the continuance of the priesthood as a fulfillment of the Levitical covenant, a term of the covenant with David, and ensures both claims on the basis of the creation covenant. Three of the five covenants God makes in the Old Testament are invoked here, so that God basically invests his entire credibility as a covenant-maker on the perpetuity of the priesthood in Zion, effective upon the coming of the messiah. Moreover, there can be no contingency to the fulfillment of these promises, since they are made with Christ, who cannot violate the terms of the covenant and forfeit these promises. It would require a break in the relationship of the Father and Son - a dissolution of the godhead - to remove the priesthood from the earth.

[SteveVH]

Hypothetically for you, if you were to believe that we existed as spirit children before this life, would you still call us human?

You would probably answer that you don't believe that we existed as spirit children before mortal life. ... but then this kind of conversation is hard to have.

This is a fundamental issue which again actually comes back to the conversation regarding the nature of God. My understanding is that you believe in pre-existent "intelligences" and matter that are co-eternal with God. Please correct me if I misrepresent anything here out of my own ignorance of your faith. For something (either "intelligences or matter) to be coeternal with God necessarily means that God is not omnipotent, but rather reliant upon something else in order to accomplish his work of creation. If God "organized" creation from pre-existent matter then he is dependent upon pre-existing matter in order to create. One who is dependent upon something else cannot, by definition, be omnipotent, or all powerful. The same applies to intelligences. No, I blieve that God is all powerful, dependent upon no other thing or person, and that he created all that exists from nothing. He is not subject to the laws of nature because he is above nature (supernatural). No creation is eternal (no beginning) because something that has been created, again by definition, had a beginning. Have you ever wondered about the origin of "intelligences" or "matter". Did they just appear of their own volition, independent of any cause for their existence?

Being a God is directly tied into sharing. Sharing is part of the process of becoming like God. Read the story of the prodigal son, what part of the father's belongings did the son that stayed not have? He had all that the father had.

I don't think we can be a God by ourselves, that was Satan's idea. That is like saying I want to be an American by myself. Being a God, is not an individual thing. There is no God that exists by himself, and we don't believe that. To be a God He has to share. So, God cannot have divine life on His own either for the same reasons you are saying we can't have divine life on our own.

I don't know if you saw one of my previous posts related to John telling us that "God is love". Love cannot exist unless there is someone to love. It requires a lover and a beloved. This is my argument for the Trinity. If God is Love, as has been revealed to us, then God, by his very nature, must consist of a Lover (the Father) and a Beloved (the Son) and the love between them (the Holy Spirit). So God has existed as a Trinity of Persons from eternity. John does not say that "Gods" are love, but rather that "God" is love. He speaks of one God, not many Gods sharing something. You say that "Sharing is part of the process of becoming like God". I believe that God did not become God, but has always been God, without beginning or end. That is the difference between the Creator and the created. Whatever glory and exaltation we may receive comes first from the uncreated, eternal God. We will always be creatures, even when our bodies are glorified at the resurrection. God will always be God, the Creator, himself being uncreated, eternal, without beginning or end. We will share in God's divine life, so in that sense we will be "like" God, but we will never "be" God.

Edited September 13, 2011 by StephenVH

[Traveler]

I may be completely missing your point here. Maybe you could expalin further. What does our ability to procreate have to do with the nature of God? We are not God. God creates. We pro-create (participate in God's creation). Is it a greater thing to procreate than it is to create? I don't think so. Even the Scriptures tell us that we are sons and daughters of God by adoption. We are not literal sons and daughters of God. Why do you think Jesus is referred to as God's only Son? We are not and will never be God's children in the way that Jesus is God's Son.

This post creates more questions than it answers. But I will point out some very clear teachings in scripture.

1. man was created in like kind of G-d. Note that man is both image and likeness. Only Jesus was "begotten". Begotten is a most interesting term - it is my understanding that The Father was his actual and literal Father. I believe it is also important to note that Jesus appears to be "begotten" just as we all are. Are you implying the scriptures are in error to use the term begotten over the concept of "created"? Is the scripture misleading when it says that Jesus was begotten?

2. According to scripture and the example of Jesus. Man cannot be distinguished from G-d according to any of the physical senses.

3. Please provide a scripture that indicates that our inheritance in eternity will be different than Jesus'.

The final thought (and the most important) - you are obviously avoiding and have not addressed is the doctrine of becoming one with G-d. Since we are by creation already in the image and likeness of G-d - if we are one with G-d how are we to be distinguished as different? I thought that to Trinitarians the "oneness" of the Father and the Son are defined to be of the same essence. Therefore if we are one as they are one than by all logic possible - since Jesus is G-d and the Father is G-d then so are all that are one as they are. That which defines G-d also defines the essence of being one with G-d.

Also if G-d cannot make a g-d then that proves that G-d is not all powerful - it means that his power is finite (limited to that which is “created”) and not infinite to go beyond creation. What you need to understand is that LDS believe G-d brings us up to his “infinite” (and beyond creation) level - but what you have done is bring G-d down to our level and thinking in implying that G-d - like us - cannot do infinite things.

The Traveler

[Maureen]

...Schism is a different matter from heresy. They have a valid priesthood and sacraments because they have legitimate apostolic succession. We know who laid hands upon whom. As far as our differences in belief, taken as a whole they amount to hardly anything. This differs from Protestantism in that many Protestants reject many of the basic doctrines of the Church, most especially the sacraments, but other fundamentals as well. That is heresy (and there are many more examples). It is difficult to discuss Protestantism as the beliefs vary so widely that they really cannot be placed into one category. Mormonism has been determined to not even qualify as heresy, but is considered as an entirely different religion altogether by our Church...

Stephen, I love everything you've said regarding God, you've articulated everything perfectly. And I happen to be protestant and because you've stated everything so wonderfully, I'm not even offended by the paragraph above. Welcome to the forum!!

M.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This is a fundamental issue which again actually comes back to the conversation regarding the nature of God. My understanding is that you believe in pre-existent "intelligences" and matter that are co-eternal with God. Please correct me if I misrepresent anything here out of my own ignorance of your faith. For something (either "intelligences or matter) to be coeternal with God necessarily means that God is not omnipotent, but rather reliant upon something else in order to accomplish his work of creation. If God "organized" creation from pre-existent matter then he is dependent upon pre-existing matter in order to create. One who is dependent upon something else cannot, by definition, be omnipotent, or all powerful. The same applies to intelligences. No, I blieve that God is all powerful, dependent upon no other thing or person, and that he created all that exists from nothing. He is not subject to the laws of nature because he is above nature (supernatural). No creation is eternal (no beginning) because something that has been created, again by definition, had a beginning. Have you ever wondered about the origin of "intelligences" or "matter". Did they just appear of their own volition, independent of any cause for their existence?

I don't know if you saw one of my previous posts related to John telling us that "God is love". Love cannot exist unless there is someone to love. It requires a lover and a beloved. This is my argument for the Trinity. If God is Love, as has been revealed to us, then God, by his very nature, must consist of a Lover (the Father) and a Beloved (the Son) and the love between them (the Holy Spirit). So God has existed as a Trinity of Persons from eternity. John does not say that "Gods" are love, but rather that "God" is love. He speaks of one God, not many Gods sharing something. You say that "Sharing is part of the process of becoming like God". I believe that God did not become God, but has always been God, without beginning or end. That is the difference between the Creator and the created. Whatever glory and exaltation we may receive comes first from the uncreated, eternal God. We will always be creatures, even when our bodies are glorified at the resurrection. God will always be God, the Creator, himself being uncreated, eternal, without beginning or end. We will share in God's divine life, so in that sense we will be "like" God, but we will never "be" God.

Thanks for your response.

In the first paragraph you say that God does not require the existence of anything or anyone else to be God (paraphrasing). But in the second paragraph you say that God is love and requires someone to love to meet that requirement. Those two things seem to contradict each other.

I don't think I was saying that sharing is part of the process of becoming like God as much as I was trying to say that by definition God is sharing. Add sharing plus love and that is charity, which is the pure love of our Savior. Charity cannot exist in a vacuum. No being can be a charitable being by themselves. To have charity requires a need for charity. God cannot be charitable without having someone who needs His charity. That is the source of His glory.

I am not entirely sure of what you mean by "we will be 'like' God, but we will never 'be' God". I don't believe that I could ever replace God, so in that sense we do not believe that we could "be" God. That is not part of LDS belief, as far as I know. But, if a being becomes 100% "like" God what else would you call them but a God.

Why do you think you have a limitation to your potential? If all, one day, is shared with you from God, what part of the eternal - never a beginning, never an end, part of what He has to share with you does He not share? If He shares all with any being, then they also become without a beginning and without an end, never changing. That is included in the concept of "sharing", or do you think the eternities will not be shared?

If sharing is tied into God's glory, then why would He limit what He shares? The more He can share with beings that become like Him, the greater His glory. So, He offers to become "one" with Him, whole with him, not a part, or fraction. Your potential is whole, not a fraction.

One other difference ... We are not completely "creatures" as you put it, but see this is the part that is hard to talk about with someone who does not believe we are dual beings. My carnal body is created but my spirit is a child of God, so as a whole we are not creatures, just my body is. Putting off the carnal gets rid of the creature part. Only Jesus could do that well he was still mortal in this life the rest of us have to wait for death. The process of dying and obtaining a resurrected, perfected body takes that away as well ... but that is a different topic altogether.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[SteveVH]

This post creates more questions than it answers. But I will point out some very clear teachings in scripture.

1. man was created in like kind of G-d. Note that man is both image and likeness. Only Jesus was "begotten". Begotten is a most interesting term - it is my understanding that The Father was his actual and literal Father. I believe it is also important to note that Jesus appears to be "begotten" just as we all are. Are you implying the scriptures are in error to use the term begotten over the concept of "created"? Is the scripture misleading when it says that Jesus was begotten?

Now I'm confused. You say that "Only Jesus was begotten", and then you say that "Jesus appears to be "begotten" just as we all are". Which is it?

My answer is this. Jesus is God's only begotten Son. He is God from God, light from light, true God from true God.

Man's appearance on earth takes place in the creation account found in Genesis. Gen 1:27reads "God created man in his image: in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.".

It does not say that we were "begotten", but rather created. We, of course, "beget" our own children. God begets God; humans beget humans. As far as being created in God's image, we believe that image is the Trinity. God created us male and female for the purpose of becoming one flesh which results in life itself, so real that nine months later we have to give it a name. The family is the best example of the "divine" image.

2. According to scripture and the example of Jesus. Man cannot be distinguished from G-d according to any of the physical senses.

Really? Please show me a biblical passage that tells us that man cannot be distinguised from God?

3. Please provide a scripture that indicates that our inheritance in eternity will be different than Jesus'.

I can't because there isn't. That is the nature of a loving God. We, being his creatures, are invited to become God's adopted sons and daughters, thereby sharing in Jesus own inheritance:

"What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them? You have made them a little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor." (Psalms 8:5-6)

The final thought (and the most important) - you are obviously avoiding and have not addressed is the doctrine of becoming one with G-d.

I have written several posts on this one thread explaining exactly what I mean by becoming one with God. First, through baptism, we are brought into the family of God. Through the sacrament of the Eucharist, God, in his fullness dwells within us. We become the Body of Christ, his Church, the bride of the Lamb. How can one be more at oneness with another than by becoming part of their own body? When we reach heaven we will share in the interior life of the Trinity. That is how we become one with God.

Since we are by creation already in the image and likeness of G-d - if we are one with G-d how are we to be distinguished as different?

It depends upon your interpretation of "image and likeness". A candle could be said to be in the image and likeness of the sun. It gives warmth and light. But it could never be compared to the sun in its intensity and glory, so to speak. Humans, as opposed to animals, were created with a soul, with intellect, with free will. We were made for God and were made with the capacity to know God, to worship him and, when we reach our final destiny, to share in his divinity. But we were created, he was not. We realize divinity through his gift of eternal life which raises us above our natural state.

I thought that to Trinitarians the "oneness" of the Father and the Son are defined to be of the same essence. Therefore if we are one as they are one than by all logic possible - since Jesus is G-d and the Father is G-d then so are all that are one as they are. That which defines G-d also defines the essence of being one with G-d.

Which is why I have stated that I will never be a son of God as Jesus is the Son of God. We are not of the same "essence" but are made sons and daughters by adoption.

Also if G-d cannot make a g-d then that proves that G-d is not all powerful - it means that his power is finite (limited to that which is “created”) and not infinite to go beyond creation. What you need to understand is that LDS believe G-d brings us up to his “infinite” (and beyond creation) level - but what you have done is bring G-d down to our level and thinking in implying that G-d - like us - cannot do infinite things.

This has nothing to do with what God can or cannot do. It has to do with what he did. He created us male and female. He didn't have to. He chose to. He could have dropped each one of us on the face of the earth without parents. Instead, he made us in his image and likeness so that two, through mutual self giving, would become one flesh resulting in life. God can do anything he wishes, so the fact that he made humans, rather than gods equal in power and glory to him, was the way he chose to do things. How have I brought God down to our level by stating that he alone is the Creator of all things and that we are his creation? Is not the Creator greater than the created?

Edited September 13, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Stephen, I love everything you've said regarding God, you've articulated everything perfectly. And I happen to be protestant and because you've stated everything so wonderfully, I'm not even offended by the paragraph above. Welcome to the forum!!

M.

Well I am very happy that you were not offended and there is no reason to be. As a Catholic I believe that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth. Those Christians who are not Catholic also have truth, but are lacking in the fullness of truth to one degree or another (rejection of the sacraments, etc.) This has nothing to do with the sincerity you have in following your Lord and Savior and it certainly has nothing to do with the love God has for you and for all people. I believe I will see you in heaven one day.

God bless you and thank you for the welcome.

[JudoMinja]

As a Catholic I believe that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth. Those Christians who are not Catholic also have truth, but are lacking in the fullness of truth to one degree or another (rejection of the sacraments, etc.) This has nothing to do with the sincerity you have in following your Lord and Savior and it certainly has nothing to do with the love God has for you and for all people. I believe I will see you in heaven one day.

Stephen, I have been reading through this thread and am amazed by your explanations. You are the first Catholic I have ever met who has actually expressed Catholic beliefs in a way that makes sense to me. I don't agree with all of them, of course, but I can understand them. This statement quoted above is exactly how I feel about the LDS church. I have many times said pretty much exactly the same thing, only with "LDS" put in place of Catholic.

With your explanations, I can see now why so many people hold so strongly to the Catholic faith. Before, it just never made sense to me. Your efforts to explain your faith and beliefs sound almost exactly like my own, just from the other perspective. Reading this conversation makes me think of this statement from Elder Orson F. Witney:

"Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-aquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy.

One day he said to me: 'You Mormon's are ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they are a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago.

If we have the apostalic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need for Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.'"

Essentially, when we are considering who has the actual authority to be speaking in God's name, it is either the Catholic Church or the LDS Church. All other Christian churches broke away from the Catholic church and had no one who claimed a "restoration" of proper Priesthood authority. So, either you are right and we are wrong, or we are right and you are wrong.

It is quite interesting seeing the different explanations of the Godhead and the Trinity- how they are similar and how they differ. Having been raised in the LDS church, I believe that we can come to know the truth of all things through personal revelation from the Holy Ghost and that one should seek out such personal revelation in prayer when pondering these things. What would a Catholic be counseled to do when trying to decide which denomination speaks the truth?

[Guest mysticmorini]

I understand the "either or" theology but i don't agree with it.

[JudoMinja]

I understand the "either or" theology but i don't agree with it.

That is not to say that all truth is in one or the other, simply that the proper authority lies with one or the other. If we believe that one has to have received such authority directly from God, there are really only two possible choices- the Catholic Church if they maintained their apostolic succession and there was no apostacy, or the LDS church as the Priesthood was restored to Joseph Smith.

There are still portions of the truth found in every faith, and even in the teachings of those who hold no faith. This is because we all have within us "the Spirit of Christ" to aid us in discerning truth from falsehood, and I think we all cling unto those truths we can find. Deceptions and imperfections are also rampant, and I don't think it would be possible even within "the one true church" to find absolutely perfect and unmarred doctrine. We just don't have the capacity to understand all the things of God and will end up messing some things up.

Reading this discussion brought it to my mind because I was seeing the back and forth between the Catholic and LDS view in a way I've never seen before. I don't know very many Catholics (most Catholics I've met have been very hostile as soon as they realized I was LDS), and none of the ones I've known have been as articulate and clear about their teachings as I've seen here.

[spamlds]

We might answer this question with a question. "Who is the God of Jesus Christ?" or "Who does Jesus Christ worship?"

Jesus told his disciples:

"29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him." (John 8:29)

After his resurrection, Jesus told Mary:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)

Jesus worshipped his Heavenly Father--who is also our Heavenly Father. We worship the God of Jesus Christ. Nothing Jesus ever did was for his own glory, but he gave all glory to his Father. When he appeared to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon we read:

" 11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost."

As we read the rest of 3rd Nephi, the submission to the Son to the Father is evident. Even the glorified, perfected, resurrected Lord was still doing the will of his Father and directed glory to him. Third Nephi displays perfectly, without flaw or sectarian interpretation, the relationship between Jesus and his Father as well as our relationship to both.

We worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, however our Father in Heaven is Supreme in the Godhead and the others do his will and give glory to him.

[Soninme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephenVH

...Schism is a different matter from heresy. They have a valid priesthood and sacraments because they have legitimate apostolic succession. We know who laid hands upon whom. As far as our differences in belief, taken as a whole they amount to hardly anything. This differs from Protestantism in that many Protestants reject many of the basic doctrines of the Church, most especially the sacraments, but other fundamentals as well. That is heresy (and there are many more examples). It is difficult to discuss Protestantism as the beliefs vary so widely that they really cannot be placed into one category. Mormonism has been determined to not even qualify as heresy, but is considered as an entirely different religion altogether by our Church...

Stephen, I love everything you've said regarding God, you've articulated everything perfectly. And I happen to be protestant and because you've stated everything so wonderfully, I'm not even offended by the paragraph above. Welcome to the forum!!

M.

Maureen I was thinking the same thing

[Guest mysticmorini]

If we believe that one has to have received such authority directly from God, there are really only two possible choices- the Catholic Church if they maintained their apostolic succession and there was no apostacy, or the LDS church as the Priesthood was restored to Joseph Smith.

You, I and the Catholics believe there is a need for apostolic succession but in a way so do the Protestants. Episcopals (Episcopal meaning bishop) believe that that authority lies with the Bishop(s) so when the church of England severed its ties with the Bishop of Rome they still believed they had that authority that went all the way back to Peter. Presbyterians believe that power lies with the Presbyter (or minister of the congregation) so those who broke off according to the catholic church actually consider themselves a continuation of the original church.

[Traveler]

Which is why I have stated that I will never be a son of God as Jesus is the Son of God. We are not of the same "essence" but are made sons and daughters by adoption.

First of all - I want to thank you for coming and trying to converse with us your thinking and understanding. As an engineer and scientist I find the concepts and ideas of G-d by most religions of the world not only troublesome but entirely out of context with the universe that we find ourselves. For example it is quite interesting how we can define intelligence and then faction a G-d from our imaginings that defies both life and intelligence - yet we try to believe that G-d is both alive and intelligent.

My point here is that many claim G-d is so much more intelligent than us but then that he deliberately “made” or created us to be unable to comprehend him? Or as you would say -fully comprehend - to be honest I do not understand the difference between comprehend and fully comprehend. I have also discovered that if I understand something it becomes simple to me. Why should the understanding of G-d be different?

Then we say that G-d damns everyone to hell that does not believe in him? Then in the very next breath we say G-d is loving, kind and merciful?

Now - let us get down to the reality of scripture. Here is a new scripture for our discussion. This time we look at John chapter 8 verses 33-36. We must consider here both concerning the essence of G-d and what it means to be free as opposed to a bondsman. As be become a disciple (note that the term disciple and discipline have the same root meaning) we have power over our will. So as we become disciplined according to Jesus we are lead to two things - knowledge of truth and with knowledge, freedom. What Jesus is doing here is defining the so called essence of G-d. Creation is not a G-dly thing - Creation has nothing to do with the essence of G-d and this particular scripture proves it. Also keep in mind that G-d was G-d before creation and that G-d gained nothing of G-dliness by creation because he had and was all that defines what is G-d before creation. This is in part why I am so confused by you insisting that G-d is the creator and we are the created. Again creation is not what makes G-d, G-d - it must be something else at essence. Therefore being created has nothing to do with defining or excluding the essence of G-d or what is G-d.

But by disciplining ourselves according to the teachings and belief in Christ we come to know the truth and by the truth we become free and thus unbounded (or infinite like unto G-d). I submit to you in all honesty - and I want you to think very carefully here - as of right now G-d is the only entity that is free and not bonded or bounded. And your whole argument is that regardless we will remain forever bonded to G-d - but if therefore freedom is true and Jesus speaks in honor and can be trusted then freedom that is the essence of what is and what can be G-d and G-d has every intention that we will - with him - will in reality be free G-ds bonded to no other power but our self.

This has nothing to do with what God can or cannot do. It has to do with what he did. He created us male and female. He didn't have to. He chose to. He could have dropped each one of us on the face of the earth without parents. Instead, he made us in his image and likeness so that two, through mutual self giving, would become one flesh resulting in life. God can do anything he wishes, so the fact that he made humans, rather than gods equal in power and glory to him, was the way he chose to do things. How have I brought God down to our level by stating that he alone is the Creator of all things and that we are his creation? Is not the Creator greater than the created?

You are missing the point here - there is no difference between what G-d can do and what he does. Except that which G-d does not do is evil. This if G-d does not bring about g-ds it is because the existance of divine G-d entities is evil. If G-d does not engineer and develop other g-ds like unto himslef it can only be becuase either he cannot or he will not. And that idea that he "will not" becomes more important. The end of such fosters more distrust than if he could not. Because he is then "himself" contrary to his own will.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

Stephen, I have been reading through this thread and am amazed by your explanations. You are the first Catholic I have ever met who has actually expressed Catholic beliefs in a way that makes sense to me. I don't agree with all of them, of course, but I can understand them. This statement quoted above is exactly how I feel about the LDS church. I have many times said pretty much exactly the same thing, only with "LDS" put in place of Catholic.

With your explanations, I can see now why so many people hold so strongly to the Catholic faith. Before, it just never made sense to me. Your efforts to explain your faith and beliefs sound almost exactly like my own, just from the other perspective. Reading this conversation makes me think of this statement from Elder Orson F. Witney:

Essentially, when we are considering who has the actual authority to be speaking in God's name, it is either the Catholic Church or the LDS Church. All other Christian churches broke away from the Catholic church and had no one who claimed a "restoration" of proper Priesthood authority. So, either you are right and we are wrong, or we are right and you are wrong.

It is quite interesting seeing the different explanations of the Godhead and the Trinity- how they are similar and how they differ. Having been raised in the LDS church, I believe that we can come to know the truth of all things through personal revelation from the Holy Ghost and that one should seek out such personal revelation in prayer when pondering these things. What would a Catholic be counseled to do when trying to decide which denomination speaks the truth?

First of all, thank you for your charitable response to my comments. It is clear that I have upset some people here in explaining my perspective. As for your question as to what to do when trying to decide which denomination speaks the truth, I believe we would be counseled to first pray for guidance as we investigate the claims of the church in which we have an interest. We would not base a decision solely on interior feelings, but rather we would have the assurance that the Holy Spirit would guide us in our search for truth, using both faith and reason as our resources.

If one was investigating the Catholic Church we would advise them to begin first of all with the person of Jesus. We would study his life and then make a determination as to whether or not we believed he was who he claimed to be, the Son of the livng God. Then we would ask what did he do? Before he returned to the Father he founded a Church. Not many churches, but one Church. We then look at the authority he gave to his Church (the keyes to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose). We continue with the promises he made concerning his Church; that he would never leave us orphans but would remain with us until the end of time; and that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. Being God himself, we know that we can trust his promises. We would then establish the fact of an unbroken line of succession from the current bishops, especially the Church in Rome, back to Peter, and therefore to Christ himself. There are many resources we could use to establish that the doctrines of the Church have not changed since its inception. In other words, it didn't go off the rails at some point in time as many wish to believe.

I hope I have answered your question adequately. I think I am on the edge here and don't want to fall into the category of proselytizing. That certainly is not my intention here.

God bless you.

By the way, I would send a thank you for your post if I knew how to do that on this forum. I tried once already and failed.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Man's appearance on earth takes place in the creation account found in Genesis. Gen 1:27reads "God created man in his image: in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.".

It does not say that we were "begotten", but rather created.

He created the body. If one limits their view to this alone than it becomes a hang up to understanding our true potential. He created the body, then breathed life into it, introduced the spirit. Realize that you are mostly focusing on the temporary form of our existence which is the fallen, lower form of a corrupted body but leaving out the spirit. The body itself has limited potential, it just serves the purpose of this life, a temporary state.

[Maureen]

...By the way, I would send a thank you for your post if I knew how to do that on this forum. I tried once already and failed.

Stephen, you should be able to click the Thanks button found at the bottom of each post. Or if you find a post comical, there’s the Laugh! button.

M.

[SteveVH]

First of all - I want to thank you for coming and trying to converse with us your thinking and understanding. As an engineer and scientist I find the concepts and ideas of G-d by most religions of the world not only troublesome but entirely out of context with the universe that we find ourselves. For example it is quite interesting how we can define intelligence and then faction a G-d from our imaginings that defies both life and intelligence - yet we try to believe that G-d is both alive and intelligent.

Thank you for your welcome. My interest in the LDS Church is due to one of my previous students (I teach our faith to teenagers in my parish) converting to Mormonism several years ago. I was absolutley shocked and took it rather personally, believing that I had not catechized her properly. It turns out that she was in love with a Mormon boy, which I did not realize at the time. Anyway, I began inquiring into the Mormon faith in order to find out what had attracted her. I had a conversation with the local bishop and two missionaries that he brought with him. The meeting was suppose to be with the bishop and the teenager, but he didn't bring her along and told me that he could answer any questions I had. I asked him for some historical evidence of the "Great Apostasy". He replied that he didn't study history and didn't need to study history because he had the testimony of Joseph Smith. I about fell out of my chair and the two missionaries just stared at the table. Since then I have been on a mission to try and understand where you guys are coming from.

My point here is that many claim G-d is so much more intelligent than us but then that he deliberately “made” or created us to be unable to comprehend him? Or as you would say -fully comprehend - to be honest I do not understand the difference between comprehend and fully comprehend. I have also discovered that if I understand something it becomes simple to me. Why should the understanding of G-d be different?

In my faith tradition we would say that we were not always unable to comprehend God. All of that changed, however, when our first parents, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God and fell from grace. That event changed the world, not only humans, but all of creation. Sin and death entered the world and our intellect and will were diminished greatly. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve walked with God and lived in his presence. That was how we were created to be. I know this somewhat goes against your beliefs concerning the fall, but that is what we believe and that discussion is probably best left to a thread of its own.

[

Then we say that G-d damns everyone to hell that does not believe in him? Then in the very next breath we say G-d is loving, kind and merciful?

We believe that we **** ourselves to hell by rejecting God's loving and merciful grace. God is the last one who wants those who he suffered and died for to suffer in hell. If it bothers us, how much more does it bother God who loves all of us more than we can fathom. We basically believe that those who are in hell have chosen to be there. He does not interfere in our free will.

Now - let us get down to the reality of scripture. Here is a new scripture for our discussion. This time we look at John chapter 8 verses 33-36. We must consider here both concerning the essence of G-d and what it means to be free as opposed to a bondsman. As be become a disciple (note that the term disciple and discipline have the same root meaning) we have power over our will. So as we become disciplined according to Jesus we are lead to two things - knowledge of truth and with knowledge, freedom. What Jesus is doing here is defining the so called essence of G-d. Creation is not a G-dly thing - Creation has nothing to do with the essence of G-d and this particular scripture proves it.

The verses you have asked me to read have to do with being freed from the slavery of sin. I'm not sure how this relates to your conclusion that "Creation is not a godly thing" and "has nothing to do with the essence of G-d and this particular scripture proves it." What it tells me is that only God, specifically the Son, can free us from the slavery to sin. Would you mind explaining further? Thanks.

Also keep in mind that G-d was G-d before creation and that G-d gained nothing of G-dliness by creation because he had and was all that defines what is G-d before creation.

I couldn't agree more, but still don't see how this relates to John 8:33-36. I am in agreement with you that God does not need creation. He doesn't need us. We have nothing to offer other than that which was already given to us by him. He has always possessed all of the power and glory that he now possesses. None of creation, including us, can add to his glory. Creation shows forth God's glory but cannot add to it. Our creation is nothing but amazing love in action. He created us out of love and gave us free will so that we may choose to love him also. Love does not exist unless freely given. And you are correct that God was God before creation. One difference we may have here is that I believe that "before creation" means before anything that exists. That would include matter and pre-existing intelligences. God is truly eternal, without beginning and without end. Everything else and everyone else is a creature. You would differ, if I understand correctly, in that you believe that "intelligences" and "matter" are co-eternal with God, therefore, uncreated. But Genesis is pretty clear that God created the heavens and the earth which is Hebrew code for everything that exists.

"All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be."

(John 1:3)

This is in part why I am so confused by you insisting that G-d is the creator and we are the created. Again creation is not what makes G-d, G-d - it must be something else at essence. Therefore being created has nothing to do with defining or excluding the essence of G-d or what is G-d.

I'm having a hard time identifying what is confusing to you. Do you not believe that God is the Creator? How do you explain the first two chapters of Genesis? It very specifically says that we were created by God, as well as everything else that exists. It says nothing about pre-existing intelligences. And I'm not sure where you concluded from my remarks that creation is what makes God. No, it is God that makes creation. His creation shows forth his glory and gives us a glimpse of who God is. You can tell a lot about a painter by viewing his paintings. Creation is God's painting, in a sense. I live in southwestern Colorado and there is not a day that goes by that I don't jstand in awe of the mountains, the cloud formations, the rivers, the vegetation, the animals; this immense diversity of life. To not see intelligent design in God's creation is to be blind, in my opinion. God saw what he had made and said it was good. When he made man he said it was very good. But you are wise in making the distinction between God and his creation. God is God whether or not anything else exists. It is a gift to us, not a necessity for him.

But by disciplining ourselves according to the teachings and belief in Christ we come to know the truth and by the truth we become free and thus unbounded (or infinite like unto G-d). I submit to you in all honesty - and I want you to think very carefully here - as of right now G-d is the only entity that is free and not bonded or bounded. And your whole argument is that regardless we will remain forever bonded to G-d - but if therefore freedom is true and Jesus speaks in honor and can be trusted then freedom that is the essence of what is and what can be G-d and G-d has every intention that we will - with him - will in reality be free G-ds bonded to no other power but our self.

I'm not sure how to approach this with you. In my view, you have crossed into some very dangerous territory. To be God, but apart from God, was the lie told to Adam and Eve by the serpent. He had convinced them that God was holding out on them. If they ate of the tree they would become just like God, and God was keeping this from them. They lost trust in God and so ate. Is there a reason you would not want to spend eternity with our God? Are you sure that's a choice you want to make? You would rather be God on your own? I would ask you to really ponder that stance. I really hope that I have just completely misunderstood you.

You are missing the point here - there is no difference between what G-d can do and what he does. Except that which G-d does not do is evil. This if G-d does not bring about g-ds it is because the existance of divine G-d entities is evil. If G-d does not engineer and develop other g-ds like unto himslef it can only be becuase either he cannot or he will not. And that idea that he "will not" becomes more important. The end of such fosters more distrust than if he could not. Because he is then "himself" contrary to his own will.

Ok. You already know where I stand.

Edited September 14, 2011 by StephenVH