Nature of God and man


Connie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Shelly,

That's a nice try at history, but it isn't quite as cut and dried as you make it. Several early Church leaders actually quoted Greek philosophers in trying to convert Gentiles to Christianity. This, however, went exactly opposite the teachings of Christ and his apostles.

That today many Catholics and Protestants believe that the councils were directed by the Holy Spirit into defining doctrines, is not as cut and dried, either. Constantine, who convened the Nicaea Council, was not a Christian, not baptized, etc. until near his death He made the final decision as to which form God would take at Nicaea. He was, btw, very Hellenistic in his beliefs. It became not so much as to what the council decided by the Spirit, but rather which bishops Constantine chose to back. History shows that even after this council, the form of God was not totally decided. For almost another century, Arianism almost overcame Athanasian belief in a Trinity.

Second, the gifts of the Spirit were essentially rejected by the proto-orthodox Church around the same time frame. They struggled to keep extraneous Christian writings from becoming accepted and canonized by the various sects. So, they made their own list of approved Bible writings and stated nothing else could be added; that revelation was finished. The Shepherd of Hermas is an example of an early revelatory book that was rejected by St Jerome in forming his Bible, because the Shepherd was not one of the apostles. Still, many early Christians embraced the teachings therein. So, with a rejection of continuing revelation, we cannot say that the convened councils could bring about new doctrine/dogma regarding things such as the form of God, how Christ could be both Spirit and resurrected flesh (duality), and even the Infallibility of the Pope (which does not have any Biblical evidence whatsoever for it).

So, here we have St Jerome and others claiming that only apostolic (original 12) statements have any spiritual authority. Otherwise, one must rely on the Bible alone for authority. This has been recently re-enforced by the current Pope, who has approved abandoning the concept of Limbo, because there is no Biblical evidence for it. IOW, the Catholic Church is now trying to figure out again whether little babies without baptism will be saved or burn in hell (St Augustine said they would). This was decided in a council, yet is now overturned due to the reality that it does not carry the ancient apostolic authority, nor any new revelation.

So, when we really get into the history, it is not as neat and tidy as one would hope for.

And this is one reason why I strongly believe in the need for modern prophets and apostles, who can receive new revelation regarding key issues, such as whether Athanasius or Arius were right, or whether both were wrong; or what will happen to little children who die without baptism.

Constantine was on the side of Arius. He was baptized on his death bed by an Arian Bishop, who he had relied on throughout his life for council. So if the council had gone the way of Constantine, Arianism would have prevailed. It didn't, all the Bishops present (about 300) were in agreement on the nature of Jesus Christ, but 5, one of whom was Arius.

The council was then comprised of Eastern Bishops, with a legate representing the congregation of the Western Bishops. The West having already rejected Arius and his heresies long before the council was held. Arius had been excommunicated by his Bishop in the west, and so had taken his teachings east.

It should be noted that excommunication in the Catholic Church is rare.

As for metaphysics, it isn't used to create doctrine, it is used to describe it. God created us with the ability to reason. Faith and reason are not in opposition, both being gifts that God has given us. The Holy Spirit guides and protects Christ's Church, and has done so since Jesus established it.

St. Jerome didn't decide the canon of the Bible, it had been decided before his time. He translated the canon into Latin. The canon itself wasn't completely set until the council of Trent. In response to the Protestants who were removing books from the OT, the council declared that books could not be removed or added to the canon as it had existed at that point for about a 1000 years, unchanged.

As for where which books are in the Bible, or not. The Catholic Bible consists of the OT as it was used at the time of Christ, in Jerusalem, which was the Greek Septuagint. The NT came into being over time, the writings known as the four Gospels and the letters of St Paul, the Johannine corpus and the letters of St. peter. These had been copied and shared among the churches. These, along with Sacred Tradition, is what comprise the faith handed on. Hebrews and James were the most controversial, some churches not using them.

In some of the Eastern churches you will find a different canon, such as the Coptics, who have included books that the western churches and most of the eastern churches do not.

This doesn't cause concern, as the Apostolic faith is what is important to all Catholics, east and west. Sacred scripture and sacred tradition are the two ways in which the Gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed. Our scripture, being a part of sacred tradition.

Non-canonical writings are valued, and used, as well as patristics writings, because they contain and convey sacred tradition, but they are not considered scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My understanding of history is that Constantine began Athanasian, but was swayed after the Nicaea Council to Arianism. That said, there were many areas of the Christian Church which were not represented. Arianism, as I mentioned, grew stronger even after the Council. That said, Mormons are not Arians, but would be likened to Origenism, which Eusebius of Caesarea ascribed to (and was exiled after the council for supporting).

BTW, here's a very good article I think that would benefit many of us in considering the early Christian Church. It is from a Protestant pastor, who is using Irenaeus' history to explain things such as the Creation and Fall. Note, Irenaeus' teachings are very Mormon-ish in these concepts. Irenaeus learned under Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, so his views are very close to the original apostles.

She notes that many of his teachings ended up in the Nicene Creed, of which I agree. Why? Because Mormons can agree with most of the Nicene Creed, and with a little adaptation (such as a social unity) we can accept pretty much all of it.

The Restoration of All Things: Preaching Irenaeus of Lyons

"Because human beings exist as creatures created, we exist as children, Irenaeus argued, which explains why the first humans were so easily deceived. The image of God was their destiny more than their starting point. Irenaeus taught that God provided his word and spirit as tutors toward this destiny, along with angels too. But if you're depending on angels to teach you well, what happens when one of your teachers envies the lofty heights for which you're destined and decides to sabotage the lesson? Irenaeus said you get a snake in the garden—an angel gone bad who deceived Adam and Eve and sidetracked their development."

Edited by rameumptom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, the patristics were Catholic, most certainly weren't Mormon, which didn't exist until 200 years ago.

There is a risk of sophistry when pulling out what you want to believe, disregarding the teachings as a whole. Dishonest looking to the people and traditions to whom the writings testify about and to.

If Mormonism were a true religion, it should be able to stand on its own claims, and not need to build itself by ripping Catholic sources into pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, the patristics were Catholic, most certainly weren't Mormon, which didn't exist until 200 years ago.

There is a risk of sophistry when pulling out what you want to believe, disregarding the teachings as a whole. Dishonest looking to the people and traditions to whom the writings testify about and to.

If Mormonism were a true religion, it should be able to stand on its own claims, and not need to build itself by ripping Catholic sources into pieces.

Actually, Catholicism and Mormonism has a unique relationship in that Mormonism doesn't stand unless Apostolic Authority is corrupted.

Rame's historical account vis-a-vis yours and Shelly's accounts of the origins of the doctrine of the nature of God are completely valid in determining the validity of the doctrine of the Godhead versus the Trinity.

Mormonism does not stand on tradition. It stands on a restoration by direct revelation from Jesus Christ Himself. The restored doctrine of the Godhead is a VISUAL account. Joseph Smith SAW God the Father and the Son. Whereas the doctrine of the Trinity is a concensus. Big difference. So that, the authority (or lack thereof) of the Councils become very very important as well as the presence of a similitude to a Godhead doctrine in the early church from Christ's mortal ministry to impress that the Mormon doctrine is truly a restoration and not a "new doctrine that only existed as of 200 years ago".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Catholicism and Mormonism has a unique relationship in that Mormonism doesn't stand unless Apostolic Authority is corrupted.

Rame's historical account vis-a-vis yours and Shelly's accounts of the origins of the doctrine of the nature of God are completely valid in determining the validity of the doctrine of the Godhead versus the Trinity.

Mormonism does not stand on tradition. It stands on a restoration by direct revelation from Jesus Christ Himself. The restored doctrine of the Godhead is a VISUAL account. Joseph Smith SAW God the Father and the Son. Whereas the doctrine of the Trinity is a concensus. Big difference. So that, the authority (or lack thereof) of the Councils become very very important as well as the presence of a similitude to a Godhead doctrine in the early church from Christ's mortal ministry to impress that the Mormon doctrine is truly a restoration and not a "new doctrine that only existed as of 200 years ago".

Thinking on the Mormon perspective as presented on this forum, and with all respect, there seems to be a lot of make believe going on in order to prop up faith. Ignoring the witness of 2000 years of the faithful is pretty astounding, to take that further and claim those faithful were really aspiring Mormons is just plain make believe.

Silliness, really. Which might be interesting to poke at, but can't be taken seriously. I think I've done enough poking, don't want to waste my time or that of people here.

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, the patristics were Catholic, most certainly weren't Mormon, which didn't exist until 200 years ago.

There is a risk of sophistry when pulling out what you want to believe, disregarding the teachings as a whole. Dishonest looking to the people and traditions to whom the writings testify about and to.

If Mormonism were a true religion, it should be able to stand on its own claims, and not need to build itself by ripping Catholic sources into pieces.

Madeleine, this is a non-sequitur. It only follows if we all agree that Irenaeus and others are "Catholic sources", which many Christians do not agree with, including Mormons. I can show historically that Roman bishops were not considered THE Pope for centuries later. There were many groups, such as the Montanists, who rejected papal authority, believing the authority lay with the convention of bishops, or with the bishop in Constantinople or Jerusalem, etc. In fact, this led to the Great Schism. So, while you are welcome to make a claim that the early Christian Fathers were Catholic/patristic Fathers, I should be welcome to challenge that concept. This is, after all, a discussion forum.

The Early Christian Fathers attempted to understand the Bible and Christ from the teachings in their day. That Irenaeus described the Garden and Fall differently than many traditional Christians today is the point I wished to get at. He saw man as having a divine potential in his future, not as being divine when created. I am not saying he saw everything perfectly with Mormonism, as I know he does not. I am just showing that many early Fathers saw things differently than traditional Christianity does today.

The LDS Church is a restorationist Church. Therefore we believe that many ancient beliefs that have been lost are restored in the last days. That I can show evidence from ancient Jews and Christians that agree with some LDS restored concepts suggests that these concepts may indeed have been lost and restored. What it definitely shows is that traditional Christianity does not follow many of the concepts accepted by the early Church Fathers, etc.

I'm not out to rip the Catholic Church into pieces. I believe it to be a great Christian church. I'm just showing that each of our religions is different from the early Church, and yet also have similarities with the ancient Church. I do not expect the LDS Church to perfectly reflect the Church in Jesus' day, especially when we believe in continuing revelation. However, I also want to note that the Catholic and other traditional Christian churches don't follow several early beliefs, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking on the Mormon perspective as presented on this forum, and with all respect, there seems to be a lot of make believe going on in order to prop up faith. Ignoring the witness of 2000 years of the faithful is pretty astounding, to take that further and claim those faithful were really aspiring Mormons is just plain make believe.

Silliness, really. Which might be interesting to poke at, but can't be taken seriously. I think I've done enough poking, don't want to waste my time or that of people here.

Peace.

Don't back out yet! The discussion is getting really interesting. I'd like to know what you see as make believe. I used to be Catholic, so I usually can understand where Catholics are coming from, but the "make believe" claim here is not something I get...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking on the Mormon perspective as presented on this forum, and with all respect, there seems to be a lot of make believe going on in order to prop up faith. Ignoring the witness of 2000 years of the faithful is pretty astounding, to take that further and claim those faithful were really aspiring Mormons is just plain make believe.

Silliness, really. Which might be interesting to poke at, but can't be taken seriously. I think I've done enough poking, don't want to waste my time or that of people here.

Peace.

Ouch. You hurt me. I guess that means you win? You say "with all respect" and then call it "silliness". I don't know how to read that, except maybe as hypocritical hogwash?

It isn't silliness. As noted, I am simply showing that your belief is not as monolithic as you claim. Nor is everything from the past definably Catholic, simply because your church is the oldest. Christ condemned the Jews for moving away from their true temple worship and faith. He brought a restoration of ancient things in his days, even though the Jews around him could make claim that their system had been in place since the Tabernacle of Moses. They were, after all, children of Abraham!

That I am showing evidence of ancient things that do agree with Mormonism and not with Catholicism is not calling Catholicism out. It is stating that Catholicism is not the ancient Christian church is may claim to be, but is just a very old Christian church. The Early Church Fathers are NOT Catholic Fathers. Otherwise, you would have to accept the writings of Origen, rather than St Augustine and St Jerome, who thought Origen was a heretic. Funny, he was not considered a heretic in his own day, only centuries later!

And that is the point I'm driving at. If you are going to exclusively make claims of ownership, then you must own ALL of it! Otherwise, you must change the claim to say that you use some of it, but not all. LDS do not follow all that the ECF wrote, either. But we do not make the faith claim that the original church continued since the days of Christ. Instead, we claim to be restorationist. Joseph Smith had ancient things revealed to him, as well as new things for a new world. By quoting some ECF and other ancient documents, we can see that Joseph Smith DID restore some ancient things that traditional Christianity has not believed in millennia.

That does not make traditional Christianity bad. Instead, it means they did the best they could without continuing revelation. Sadly, some things were lost along the way, or replaced by other teachings and beliefs. I mentioned Limbo before, which was recently rejected by the current Pope, even though the concept has been Catholic dogma for centuries. The history of Limbo Infantium is found here at the official Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Limbo

In the Council of Carthage (418), St Augustine convinced the council to reject Pelagianism, or a Limbo for infants. He believed and successfully taught as Catholic dogma for centuries that infants would go to hell. It wasn't until St Anselm (1100) came along that the dogma of Limbo was put in place. And it remained for 900 years, until the current Pope agreed that there is no doctrinal evidence for Limbo Infantium.

That said, does this make the Catholic Church wrong, bad, or immoral? No. It means there is a serious issue concerning infant salvation that the Church has struggled with for a very long time. The LDS Church has had to struggle with certain issues, as well.

The only difference is that we may receive current revelation to answer such an issue and become new doctrine/scripture for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned Limbo before, which was recently rejected by the current Pope, even though the concept has been Catholic dogma for centuries.

I agree with all you wrote Rame except for this one. Limbus infatium was never dogma just like Heavenly Mother is not LDS dogma but merely an assertion. It's an attempt to provide an explanation to harmonize the requirement of baptism to purge original sin with God's infinite mercy. This is probably not the best juxtaposition because I can't think of anything that would change the Heavenly Mother assertion - but, let's just say Pres Monson declares there's no Heavenly Mother, it wouldn't be a change in dogma. Make sense?

Also a thing to note, limbus patrum is considered doctrinal - this is the limbo state where all righteous souls before the coming of Christ sat awaiting Christ's ascension to heaven. This also harmonizes the baptismal requirement by Christian (synonymous to Catholic in the Catholic church) authority since Catholics believe that Christian authority started with Christ's mortal ministry. Before Pope John Paul II (or maybe even earlier), limbus infatium and limbus patrum became inseparable in teaching because they just refer to it as limbo without distinction. The recent papal statement clarifies the distinction out of that mix.

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Early Christian Fathers attempted to understand the Bible and Christ from the teachings in their day. That Irenaeus described the Garden and Fall differently than many traditional Christians today is the point I wished to get at. He saw man as having a divine potential in his future, not as being divine when created. I am not saying he saw everything perfectly with Mormonism, as I know he does not. I am just showing that many early Fathers saw things differently than traditional Christianity does today.

I'm jumping in here, and admit to not having read every single comment, but this paragraph struck out at me.

I have never been taught, either in the SBC or the RCC, that man is divine when created. The whole point of many of the Sacraments is to share in God's divinity- not that we have any of our own. We have "divine potential" in the fact that we can become members of the Body of Christ; we are not created that way- we must enter into His Body through Baptism into His Church.

To me, it is more in line with Mormonism to say that Man is created divinely- since Man and God are of the same substance. Yes, I know Man must progress into godhood-- but it is a more similar idea that God and Man have the same substance, so Man *can* become god at all. In traditional Christianity, Man is *adopted* into Christ's Body through Baptism-- Man and God are of different substances, and only God's is divine.

So to me, Ireneaus would be spot on with traditional Christianity to say that Man has "divine potential".... if that was the context of the discussion.

If it wasn't...sorry! And feel free to ignore me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking on the Mormon perspective as presented on this forum, and with all respect, there seems to be a lot of make believe going on in order to prop up faith. Ignoring the witness of 2000 years of the faithful is pretty astounding, to take that further and claim those faithful were really aspiring Mormons is just plain make believe.

This of course is just silliness. We don't claim that the ECFs were really aspiring Mormons. What we do claim is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of the ancient Church established by Christ, and that certain beliefs have been restored. Therefore, if we find parallels or direct hits to many of our unique beliefs in the writings of the ECFs (especially the ante-Nicene Fathers), then we find support that these beliefs didn't just appear in the 1800s out of the imagination of Joseph Smith and/or his associates.

Also, I have noticed a lot of "make believe" going in among a number of Catholics on Catholic Answers Forum as far as Christian history goes (I always am amused when I see the "the Catholic Church was the only Church in existence for 1500 years!!!" refrain over there), in order to prop up faith. The fact is that Judeo-Christian history is not as black and white as many Catholic apologists would have us believe, and I always value the input of Eastern Orthodox apologists, who cut through some of the "make believe" and give their view of Christian history.

Silliness, really. Which might be interesting to poke at, but can't be taken seriously. I think I've done enough poking, don't want to waste my time or that of people here.

Peace.

I notice that you have not directly answered rameumptom's statements. Oh well. Do you post on CAF or MDD? Your posting style reminds me of someone that posts on those forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shelly, I could never ignore you and your great comments.

I think my thought, as one reads more of Irenaeus, is his belief that one can actually become wholly divine, even as God is. This is different than what many Christians believe today. They believe one can become "divine" in a lesser sense than being as God is, because man is of other substance than God.

As St Augustine noted, "God became man, so man may become god." This goes beyond the concept of traditional Christianity of a divine being, such as an angel or glorified being that is similar, but not God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"God became man so that man might become a god." (cf. St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione or On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B; also Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 460)

Here are some links that discuss it from a variety of views:

Musings on Theosis or Divinization -- "God became man so that man might become a god"

Athanasius' Doctrine of Divinization

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 3 PARAGRAPH 1

“Is Man to Become God?” [st. Athanasius]

Irenaeus stating the same thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madeleine, this is a non-sequitur. It only follows if we all agree that Irenaeus and others are "Catholic sources", which many Christians do not agree with, including Mormons. I can show historically that Roman bishops were not considered THE Pope for centuries later. There were many groups, such as the Montanists, who rejected papal authority, believing the authority lay with the convention of bishops, or with the bishop in Constantinople or Jerusalem, etc. In fact, this led to the Great Schism. So, while you are welcome to make a claim that the early Christian Fathers were Catholic/patristic Fathers, I should be welcome to challenge that concept. This is, after all, a discussion forum.

The Early Christian Fathers attempted to understand the Bible and Christ from the teachings in their day. That Irenaeus described the Garden and Fall differently than many traditional Christians today is the point I wished to get at. He saw man as having a divine potential in his future, not as being divine when created. I am not saying he saw everything perfectly with Mormonism, as I know he does not. I am just showing that many early Fathers saw things differently than traditional Christianity does today.

The LDS Church is a restorationist Church. Therefore we believe that many ancient beliefs that have been lost are restored in the last days. That I can show evidence from ancient Jews and Christians that agree with some LDS restored concepts suggests that these concepts may indeed have been lost and restored. What it definitely shows is that traditional Christianity does not follow many of the concepts accepted by the early Church Fathers, etc.

I'm not out to rip the Catholic Church into pieces. I believe it to be a great Christian church. I'm just showing that each of our religions is different from the early Church, and yet also have similarities with the ancient Church. I do not expect the LDS Church to perfectly reflect the Church in Jesus' day, especially when we believe in continuing revelation. However, I also want to note that the Catholic and other traditional Christian churches don't follow several early beliefs, either.

*shrug* all things that are known and taught to any Catholic that has spent even a small amount of time studying their faith.

Mormons come from a Protestant tradition and make Protestant arguments, which are not new, have been addressesed, and at the root, deny the ability of Jesus Christ to keep His own Church in tact.

It isn't a Carholic view. We believe Jesus Christ has never orphaned what is His.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch. You hurt me. I guess that means you win? You say "with all respect" and then call it "silliness". I don't know how to read that, except maybe as hypocritical hogwash?

It isn't silliness. As noted, I am simply showing that your belief is not as monolithic as you claim. Nor is everything from the past definably Catholic, simply because your church is the oldest. Christ condemned the Jews for moving away from their true temple worship and faith. He brought a restoration of ancient things in his days, even though the Jews around him could make claim that their system had been in place since the Tabernacle of Moses. They were, after all, children of Abraham!

That I am showing evidence of ancient things that do agree with Mormonism and not with Catholicism is not calling Catholicism out. It is stating that Catholicism is not the ancient Christian church is may claim to be, but is just a very old Christian church. The Early Church Fathers are NOT Catholic Fathers. Otherwise, you would have to accept the writings of Origen, rather than St Augustine and St Jerome, who thought Origen was a heretic. Funny, he was not considered a heretic in his own day, only centuries later!

And that is the point I'm driving at. If you are going to exclusively make claims of ownership, then you must own ALL of it! Otherwise, you must change the claim to say that you use some of it, but not all. LDS do not follow all that the ECF wrote, either. But we do not make the faith claim that the original church continued since the days of Christ. Instead, we claim to be restorationist. Joseph Smith had ancient things revealed to him, as well as new things for a new world. By quoting some ECF and other ancient documents, we can see that Joseph Smith DID restore some ancient things that traditional Christianity has not believed in millennia.

That does not make traditional Christianity bad. Instead, it means they did the best they could without continuing revelation. Sadly, some things were lost along the way, or replaced by other teachings and beliefs. I mentioned Limbo before, which was recently rejected by the current Pope, even though the concept has been Catholic dogma for centuries. The history of Limbo Infantium is found here at the official Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Limbo

In the Council of Carthage (418), St Augustine convinced the council to reject Pelagianism, or a Limbo for infants. He believed and successfully taught as Catholic dogma for centuries that infants would go to hell. It wasn't until St Anselm (1100) came along that the dogma of Limbo was put in place. And it remained for 900 years, until the current Pope agreed that there is no doctrinal evidence for Limbo Infantium.

That said, does this make the Catholic Church wrong, bad, or immoral? No. It means there is a serious issue concerning infant salvation that the Church has struggled with for a very long time. The LDS Church has had to struggle with certain issues, as well.

The only difference is that we may receive current revelation to answer such an issue and become new doctrine/scripture for us.

I respect the inherent dignity given to you by God, that gifts us with the desire to seek Him, and the gift to do so in freedom. This doesn't mean that I can't judge something as having an irrational foundation, which is what I mean by "silly".

Limbo is a subject that is thought about, theologically speaking, and has had different conclusions. Jesus teaching baptism is required, yet, Apostolic teaching that the saving grace of Jesus can extend to the non-believer. So it isnt a struggle, it is a subject that has no further Revelation. Theology is the practice of faith seeking understanding of what has been Revealed by God. Specific to a Christian, Revealed by the Word of God, Jesus Christ.

Contrary to the media coverage of the Vatican statement, the teaching of limbo has not changed. It remains, that Jesus taught baptism is required, and within the doctrinal teachings of the graces received in baptism, it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to withhold baptism from an infant, not any more than it would to withhold food or clothing. Baptism being a joyous occassion, that is celebrated. The beginning of a child's initiation into the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God.

What the Vatican clarifies is that it has always been Church teaching that the saving grace of Jesus Christ is the source, the very hope, of salvation for ALL, and so the hope for salvation of infants who have died without baptism, is the same hope we all have. This hope not being of the type that is wishing for something to happen that may or may not happen, it is a sure hope, Hope having a name, Jesus Christ.

At the same time Catholics are very careful about sins against the Holy Spirit. One being, the belief and associated actions that are based on thinking one can do whatever they like, and then just seek forgiveness. This is the sin of presumption. The other is, thinking that ones's sins are so terrible, that they can never be forgiven. This sin denies Jesus Christ. This is not to say, an infant need worry about actual sin, but that the Church has a responsibility to lead people to Christ. That is the reason for her existence, and is her sole mission, as commissioned by Jesus Christ.

Edited by madeleine1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't back out yet! The discussion is getting really interesting. I'd like to know what you see as make believe. I used to be Catholic, so I usually can understand where Catholics are coming from, but the "make believe" claim here is not something I get...

I'm not backing out, I just don't find that these kind of discussions go anywhere. Mormonism has a foundation that our creeds are an abomination and those who profess them are corrupt. (That would be me.)An unfounded myth of a "great apostasy", which all bleeds through in everything Mormons say. Such a belief must deny a lot of facts, faith and the working of Holy Spirit in the Church that Jesus established. Which all looks to me as only possible by pretending people, events, places, experiences, didn't and don't exist. Taken even deeper into make believe when you consider that all the witnesses of faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ need to be turned into a Mormon faith in order to be made valid.

Edited by madeleine1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shelly, I could never ignore you and your great comments.

I think my thought, as one reads more of Irenaeus, is his belief that one can actually become wholly divine, even as God is. This is different than what many Christians believe today. They believe one can become "divine" in a lesser sense than being as God is, because man is of other substance than God.

As St Augustine noted, "God became man, so man may become god." This goes beyond the concept of traditional Christianity of a divine being, such as an angel or glorified being that is similar, but not God.

St. Augustine was speaking of the Catholic faith, that is centered and sourced in the Eucharist. The Body, Blood and Divinity of Jesus Christ received into ourselves. St. Augustine also clearly rooted in the understanding that the creature does not become the Creator, but becomes by grace what he is not by nature. The sacramental graces imparting sanctifying graces, the first is baptism, where through Jesus Christ we are born in water and spirit as children of God, no longer creatures, but children of the light. We do not become the Light itself.

Th sacraments prefigure the life to come, just as the sacrificial lamb prefigures the Lamb of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not backing out, I just don't find that these kind of discussions go anywhere. Mormonism has a foundation that our creeds are an abomination and those who profess them are corrupt. (That would be me.)An unfounded myth of a "great apostasy", which all bleeds through in everything Mormons say. Such a belief must deny a lot of facts, faith and the working of Holy Spirit in the Church that Jesus established. Which all looks to me as only possible by pretending people, events, places, experiences, didn't and don't exist. Taken even deeper into make believe when you consider that all the witnesses of faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ need to be turned into a Mormon faith in order to be made valid.

Ah, I get you now. Your opinion is based on several misconceptions. I'm okay with that. I can't expect you to understand where Mormons are coming from since I'm under the impression that you didn't "study" the Mormon faith. And that's just fine.

If you don't mind, I'll break some misconceptions you have just so we can have a better dialogue.

1.) The "Great Apostasy" (myth or otherwise) does not imply that there is NO TRUTH in the Catholic Church or any other church for that matter. Neither does it imply that the Holy Spirit ceased to testify to Catholics or any other church the truth of Jesus Christ.

If the LDS prophet proclaims, Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer and only through Him do we find salvation, it is true. If the Catholic pope proclaims, Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer and only through Him do we find salvation, it doesn't make it false.

It is so important that we all recognize and acknowledge this fact that Joseph Smith felt impressed to make this one of the LDS Articles of Faith:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

and

"We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

Note, that "anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy" is not exclusive to the LDS faith. They are found everywhere - Catholic Church as well. We acknowledge it and give credence to it and to make sure everyone understands it, it is in the Articles of Faith - a brief summary of who we are.

2.) The "Great Apostasy" does not imply that Christ's Church and Christ's Plan for our Salvation got put asunder or "orphaned". Man does not have the power to do that. Catholics believe that the Church is an earthly organization that started in Christ's mortal ministry. We don't subscribe to that belief. We believe that the Church is an eternal organization with the Priesthood transcending the mortal experience. The Church was established when the Plan of Salvation was enacted with Christ elected as our Savior and Adam elected to be the first man to gain mortality. Adam, then, was the first prophet of the first gospel dispensation on earth. Noah re-established the Church on earth after the great flood, Jacob established the 12 Tribes of the Church on earth, Moses brought the Church out of Egypt and prophets after him established the Church in Israel, and so on and so forth until Jesus Christ came to re-establish the Church on earth and fulfill the Atonement, left the Church in the hands of Peter and re-established the Church on earth in the hands of Joseph Smith. The entire time, the Church continues to live, if not on earth, then in immortal life.

Therefore, just because Priesthood Authority was absent from mortal hands in the Great Apostasy (and all the broken mortal lines before that) doesn't mean that the Church is destroyed. The Church remains in the hands of Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter, etc., all of whom continue to minister to the Church beyond mortality. This dogma is present in the Atonement - the Church that is the Body of Christ is neither destroyed by death nor sin. He lives.

But, as a Catholic, I don't expect you to accept that the Great Apostasy is true. And that's just fine. But, when discussing differences between Mormon and Catholic doctrine, it is better not to throw dialogue-stopping commentary like "it's all make-believe" or "Mormons are just another form of Protestants" because both statements are very false. You will not find me telling you that the Marian Apparitions are "make-believe" - I may not believe that they are divine but I will not tell you your faith in the Marian Apparitions are "make-believe". Likewise, when I was Catholic, I may not believe that the Father and Jesus appearing to Joseph Smith was a true account, but I will not tell LDS people who have faith in it dabbling in "make-believe" or are "silly". And, of course, there is nothing Protestant about Mormons at all. We did not list a set of complaints against the Catholic Church to protest on... In any case, these types of comments is what stops dialogue and so it goes nowhere. And I say this to both sides of the discussion - LDS people are sometimes guilty of making dialogue-stopping comments as well.

Okay, hopefully, that re-establishes open dialogue on both sides. The point of the discussion is not to "win" an argument. The point of the discussion is to understand where the other person is coming from. The rest boils down to Faith. You have Faith in the authority of the Catholic Priesthood, we have Faith in the authority of the LDS Priesthood. And on that, we can only agree to disagree. Faith is not changed by these types of discussions. Faith is only changed by the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, anatess, for cutting through some misconceptions. If we could all avoid the misconceptions to begin with, that would be even more ideal. This thread is really not about LDS beliefs. I already know what LDS believe. What I would like more on is what non-LDS believe about their creeds. Thank you, Shelly, for your great posts. It is very refreshing to read your comments on what you believe that refrain from misconceptions about what I believe. It’s been a very interesting thread to read. I appreciate all the history I’ve been learning about. Thank you, Ram, for the links (I will definitely read those) and for your great knowledge of history. I’ve enjoyed reading your comments. Thanks for your comments too, Madeline. I appreciate your knowledge of your faith. Again, as anatess said, avoiding the misconceptions will allow for better dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I get you now. Your opinion is based on several misconceptions. I'm okay with that. I can't expect you to understand where Mormons are coming from since I'm under the impression that you didn't "study" the Mormon faith. And that's just fine.

If you don't mind, I'll break some misconceptions you have just so we can have a better dialogue.

1.) The "Great Apostasy" (myth or otherwise) does not imply that there is NO TRUTH in the Catholic Church or any other church for that matter. Neither does it imply that the Holy Spirit ceased to testify to Catholics or any other church the truth of Jesus Christ.

If the LDS prophet proclaims, Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer and only through Him do we find salvation, it is true. If the Catholic pope proclaims, Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer and only through Him do we find salvation, it doesn't make it false.

It is so important that we all recognize and acknowledge this fact that Joseph Smith felt impressed to make this one of the LDS Articles of Faith:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

and

"We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

Note, that "anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy" is not exclusive to the LDS faith. They are found everywhere - Catholic Church as well. We acknowledge it and give credence to it and to make sure everyone understands it, it is in the Articles of Faith - a brief summary of who we are.

2.) The "Great Apostasy" does not imply that Christ's Church and Christ's Plan for our Salvation got put asunder or "orphaned". Man does not have the power to do that. Catholics believe that the Church is an earthly organization that started in Christ's mortal ministry. We don't subscribe to that belief. We believe that the Church is an eternal organization with the Priesthood transcending the mortal experience. The Church was established when the Plan of Salvation was enacted with Christ elected as our Savior and Adam elected to be the first man to gain mortality. Adam, then, was the first prophet of the first gospel dispensation on earth. Noah re-established the Church on earth after the great flood, Jacob established the 12 Tribes of the Church on earth, Moses brought the Church out of Egypt and prophets after him established the Church in Israel, and so on and so forth until Jesus Christ came to re-establish the Church on earth and fulfill the Atonement, left the Church in the hands of Peter and re-established the Church on earth in the hands of Joseph Smith. The entire time, the Church continues to live, if not on earth, then in immortal life.

Therefore, just because Priesthood Authority was absent from mortal hands in the Great Apostasy (and all the broken mortal lines before that) doesn't mean that the Church is destroyed. The Church remains in the hands of Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter, etc., all of whom continue to minister to the Church beyond mortality. This dogma is present in the Atonement - the Church that is the Body of Christ is neither destroyed by death nor sin. He lives.

But, as a Catholic, I don't expect you to accept that the Great Apostasy is true. And that's just fine. But, when discussing differences between Mormon and Catholic doctrine, it is better not to throw dialogue-stopping commentary like "it's all make-believe" or "Mormons are just another form of Protestants" because both statements are very false. You will not find me telling you that the Marian Apparitions are "make-believe" - I may not believe that they are divine but I will not tell you your faith in the Marian Apparitions are "make-believe". Likewise, when I was Catholic, I may not believe that the Father and Jesus appearing to Joseph Smith was a true account, but I will not tell LDS people who have faith in it dabbling in "make-believe" or are "silly". And, of course, there is nothing Protestant about Mormons at all. We did not list a set of complaints against the Catholic Church to protest on... In any case, these types of comments is what stops dialogue and so it goes nowhere. And I say this to both sides of the discussion - LDS people are sometimes guilty of making dialogue-stopping comments as well.

Okay, hopefully, that re-establishes open dialogue on both sides. The point of the discussion is not to "win" an argument. The point of the discussion is to understand where the other person is coming from. The rest boils down to Faith. You have Faith in the authority of the Catholic Priesthood, we have Faith in the authority of the LDS Priesthood. And on that, we can only agree to disagree. Faith is not changed by these types of discussions. Faith is only changed by the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for the explanation. A few points to clarify, the Church that Christ established is the Kingdom of God on earth, united by Christ to the Kingdom of God in heaven. This is the basis of the doctrine of the communion of saints. There is but one faith, one baptism, one Lord. Christ established the Kingdom of God on earth. It is here now, visible in His Church, and His Body, which are the baptized. My understanding is that Mormons are still waiting for Christ's Kingsom to be established, so in this view, the Mormon understanding of "Church" is seriously flawed. Who is the Body of Christ to a Mormon?

The idea that there was a "church" in the OT is not founded on anything scriptural. The OT prophecies of the establishment of the Kingdom of God, it never speaks of it being present to Noah, Moses or anyone else. This is because it was not yet established. It is prophesied to be established by the Messiah. So to claim it was established before the Messiah....I wouldn't even know where that idea would come from.

I have already known that Mormonism has a skewed view of the OT, and God's saving grace. God is eternal and ever present. People wander, but the clear message of the OT is God never abandons His people. Many, many times God's Mercy is revealed, His Final and Perfect Mercy revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of the prophecies and promises of the old testament. He is the New and Everlasting Covenant. I have never read any LDS material that shows even a glimmer of an understanding that the OT relates salvation history. Rather, I find only an idea that the OT relates a history of apostasy.

It is this skewed view that the idea of a great apostasy arises from. Rather than seeing God's work and glory, you see failure, expect failure. It is a skeptical way to see the world. His greatest work is made in us and through us, not around us. We are all sinners, in need of Salvation. God Saved us in our sin. The Mormon view has to deny the work of God. There is no other way to make the conclusions made by LDS without taking that stance.

This is not unique to Mormonism, it is a view of Protestants as well, just the ad hoc date given for the complete failure of Christ's Church is different.

You must understand, from a Catholic view, a claim that priesthood authority was lost is at best naive, at worse, ludicrous. There is no evidence for a claim, and mountains of evidence otherwise.

As for Mary and apparitions, this is not the first time a response to me has tried to make a comparison that cannot be made. The Marian apparitions are verified by either a large number of witnesses, such as at Fatima, or by miracles, signs that the person or persons were not making up a story, such as Our Lady Of Guadalupe and Juan Diegos's tilma. They also must be tested against the faith of the Church, at cannot be at odds with what has already been revealed by Jesus Christ. Lacking in any of these properties, an apparition is a personal revelation, and no one is bound to believe personal revelation as binding on the Church. At any rate, such apparitions are not dogmas or doctrines that must be believed. A person can be a devout Catholic, and never personally accept these apparitions. This is not the case for the Mormon teaching we are discussing. What we are discussing must be believed in order to be a Mormon. There is a lack of evidence for the claims...that is why I say, it is make believe. There is no evidence, and so appears to me to be believed for no other reason than it brings a level of personal satisfaction or happiness.

Edited by madeleine1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have much time right now... but I'll just answer this one line since it's the one that jumped out at me immediately:

You must understand, from a Catholic view, a claim that priesthood authority was lost is at best naive, at worse, ludicrous. There is no evidence for a claim, and mountains of evidence otherwise.

Read 2 Thesalonians 2 and Titus 1. It is prophesied. Whether the prophesy has occured or not is for everyone to determine. But, everyone - including Catholics - believe that an apostasy will occur before the 2nd coming of Christ. For Catholics - they believe the apostasy will happen but the priesthood authority will remain and they usually refer to Protestants when they encounter the word apostasy. For LDS - no. Apostasy means - no power. Because, you can't have a great apostasy unless priesthood power is gone. It's more ludicrous to me to believe otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some Catholics see signs of the apostasy spoken of in Thessalonians as now, given the state of a secular world that is based on relativism. However there is no description or prophesy of a total apostasy as Mormons believe.

To believe priesthood authority was lost is to believe the Apostles failed in their commission. One would have to view the Apostles and what they experienced in a strange sort of way n order to believe this. Let alone history, that shows clearly they were steadfast in following the Words of Jesus Christ, ordaining Bishops and Priests to replace themselves, as described by St. Ignatius in in 107AD.

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.

This apostolic succession was never lost, and remains in place today, every Bishop able to trace back very far the line of apostolic succession, which is sacramental, a sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. The first clergy ordained by the laying on of hands by the Apostles themselves, this being the Sacrament we call Holy Orders. They ordained successors, to this day. Apostolic succession being of major importance in the Catholic Church. The argument used against heresies that arose, such as Arianism, that there was in them no apostolic succession.

The Mormon view is this was completely loss, but given the importance it has always had, from the very beginning, and the historical evidence of Apostolic succession, a claim otherwise would require evidence.

So while you may say LDS teaching is that there is good in a lot of places, the teaching remains that none of this "good" is ecclesiastical. This is denying the role of God in His own Church, requiring a view that Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, failed in keeping His own Body alive. You may see "good" but you don't see what is more important, and that is the workings of the Holy Spirit through the ages, the continuing existence of the Catholic Church only possible by the graces given to her. Given the trials she has been through, from within and without, there isn't any other way to explain the continuity of faith, the very faithful who have given witness of the Truth of Jesus Christ. The profession of His death, resurrection and our faithful watch for His return. All,of this would not exist today, we're it not for the Holy Spirit guiding what belongs to Jesus.

Edited by madeleine1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*shrug* all things that are known and taught to any Catholic that has spent even a small amount of time studying their faith.

Mormons come from a Protestant tradition and make Protestant arguments, which are not new, have been addressesed, and at the root, deny the ability of Jesus Christ to keep His own Church in tact.

It isn't a Carholic view. We believe Jesus Christ has never orphaned what is His.

I never liked this argument. The same could be said that God couldn't keep his kids Adam and Eve from eating from a certain tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.

And we both know madeleine1 that the Bishops was not one in anything much - not even the nature of God - a basic doctrine, don't you think?

This apostolic succession was never lost, and remains in place today, every Bishop able to trace back very far the line of apostolic succession, which is sacramental, a sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. The first clergy ordained by the laying on of hands by the Apostles themselves, this being the Sacrament we call Holy Orders. They ordained successors, to this day. Apostolic succession being of major importance in the Catholic Church. The argument used against heresies that arose, such as Arianism, that there was in them no apostolic succession.

That's what Roman Catholics believe. The Eastern Orthodox churches, of course, have a different idea. And there's the Russian Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and all these other Churches that broke out from the East-West schism. They claim their own succession as well. And then we see Martin Luther's list of grievances against the Catholic Church. Curious how a church, who claims to be led by the proper Apostolic Authority can get so many things wrong. Because, no matter how you slice and dice it, Luther's claims against the Church were very much valid.

So the question is: Who got it right? Your claim of an apostolic succession is, of course, your very own point of view predicated only by your faith in your own belief system. Well, we believe none of you have the authority.

The Mormon view is this was completely loss, but given the importance it has always had, from the very beginning, and the historical evidence of Apostolic succession, a claim otherwise would require evidence.

What's your evidence? The evidence you bestow upon your Apostolic Succession is just as much dependent on Faith as the claim that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and God the Son with his very own eyes and had the power of the priesthood confirmed on his head by John the Baptist himself. You should not be a stranger to apparitions. My devout Catholic parents was in a long line of people visiting the Grotto of Lourdes and the Sanctuary of Fatima.

So while you may say LDS teaching is that there is good in a lot of places, the teaching remains that none of this "good" is ecclesiastical. This is denying the role of God in His own Church, requiring a view that Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, failed in keeping His own Body alive. You may see "good" but you don't see what is more important, and that is the workings of the Holy Spirit through the ages, the continuing existence of the Catholic Church only possible by the graces given to her.

"ecclesiastical"? Jesus Christ is not bound by your version of "ecclesiastical". Did He not create the entire earth - every little stone and every single body in this 3rd rock from the sun? It doesn't have to be found within the walls of the Catholic Church or any other church for that matter to be of Jesus Christ. There is no doubt that all the good works of Ghandi is of God - yet, he was not even Christian.

And that's the folly of the Roman Catholic Church - it was not until recently that they acknowledged that salvation is not as exclusive as the Catholic Church used to teach - when they finally embraced other churches into communion and opened theological dialogue with other Catholics and even Protestants. At least, they're finally realizing that they don't have a trademark on "that which is good and praiseworthy".

Given the trials she has been through, from within and without, there isn't any other way to explain the continuity of faith, the very faithful who have given witness of the Truth of Jesus Christ. The profession of His death, resurrection and our faithful watch for His return. All,of this would not exist today, we're it not for the Holy Spirit guiding what belongs to Jesus.

The Catholic Church is not unique in its trials. Tim Tebow is going through trials as we speak - he's a Baptist. The LDS Church's rise amidst persecution is renowned. Did you know that it was LEGAL to kill a Mormon in Missouri until 1976 due to a Mormon extermination order written into Missouri law?

And the Catholic Church is surely not unique in its witness of the Truth of Jesus Christ. Does Tim Tebow not witness to Christ every single chance he gets? Look back into my posts (if you even bother to read them) and you will see that I never denied that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Catholic Church. But are you then saying the Holy Spirit is not guiding the Church of England? Or the Lutheran Church? Or the Baptist Church? Or even the Jews and the Muslims?

But what you, even now, fail to understand from any of my posts is that - WE, the LDS, do not claim that you don't have truth. We, the LDS, claim that WE have the COMPLETE truth that has been revealed, and will continue to have the complete truth for things that are yet to be revealed.

But of course, this post is not meant to convince you. Only a sincere and diligent search for truth with a plea to the Holy Spirit can give you that. But, you should not dismiss us so callously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share