Answering questions concerning LDS beliefs
With respect as a Catholic I don’t know any LDS beliefs, so I can’t answer them.
Perhaps you might elaborate a little?
So Ive been discussing with an LDS member on who God is and more specifically with aspects to the trinity. He showed me a video where it talked about how there is other gods that exist but they all answer to God or YHWH. Talked about something called the divine council which is basically all of the “other gods” including our God. I know that scripture is very clear in Isaiah 43-44 there is only ONE GOD. To me the gods referred to in the bible are probably demons.
The LDS position is a logical contradiction, it is literally impossible. They believe that there has been an infinite succession of “gods.” The problem with this is that, if there had been an infinite number of gods prior to our god, then we could never reach a point where our god was the “active” god. If you keep going back infinitely, no matter how many steps “forward” you take you could never get anywhere, because there are still infinite iterations prior to the position you’re trying to reach (the present). Incidentally, this is also how we know that the universe hasn’t existed forever, nor is it part of an infinite succession of universes.
They also ignore the necessary qualities of God as determined by the philosophers, such as His omnipotence. If there are multiple, equal gods, none of them can contain the fullness of power, since there is another god whom holds equal power to them. This means that they cannot be “God” as classically defined in philosophy.
When you point out this logical contradiction, they generally either ignore it, or try to sidestep it. Their faith isn’t rational.
From a purely logical and argumentative point, he’s not wrong nor is he being unfair. I don’t see why you needed to report it.
God does not live on a star or planet called Kolob. Done.
Their book of Abraham is false teaching and is not even Christianity.
It’s a strict matter of fact. He was arrested multiple times for conning people. At least it’s not as bad as what the founder of Scientology was arrested for…
As for the rational portion of the comment… I meant… it’s not. I demonstrated that already. Being nice does not mean withholding the truth.
Yes… we do… He was a murderer, and he readily admits it in his epistles. The difference is, he repented and became a saint. The glory of his story is the wondrous result of his repentance and conversion.
The head of the LDS never repented, and continued to mislead people until his death.
I never said they were. I said the beliefs of their religion are irrational, which they are, as I already demonstrated…
Answering Mormon objections? Objections to what?
Mormons and Catholics simply have different theologies, different beliefs about God.
Are you a convert from Mormonism?
Yeah, i’ll need a citation on this.
Joseph Smith was criminally accused of fraud (I think only once and before the writing of the Book of Mormon). He was likely never convicted.
I, however, worship a fellow who was accused of “claiming to be God.” He was convicted and killed.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not worship Joseph Smith. I do think he was involved in money digging and that Joseph believed he possessed God-given abilities before he encountered Moroni. That being said, he also claimed to leave behind such things. And I do not believe the Book of Mormon comes from God because I consider Joseph Smith infallible. My intellectual belief in the BOM comes from years of studying pro and con evidence and finding the BOM to be most-likely from supernatural origins and radically unlikely to have come from Joseph Smith. It does not come from an assessment of Joseph Smith’s character or a belief that he simply could not tell a lie.
That being said, I do not consider Joseph Smith to be a man of low character, but my intellectual belief in the CoJCoLDS has little to do with his character.
I am a former Catholic and I know that it is not a Catholic position that the Papacy may and was held validly by men of very low character. So, I usually just suggest that evaluating Joseph Smith, who has had very little unbiased words said about him, is fraught with difficulties.
Here is from the CCC 460 with the references included (bolding mine):
Most folks here at Catholic Answers (including the apologists) neglect to share how powerful the Catholic belief can (and should IMO) be concerning this.
I recommend this book by Catholic scholar Daniel Keating:
i have a list of many “deification quotes” from the ECF, but Keating is a good start.
What that means is that we partake in the divine nature through grace, in heaven, not that we actually become gods.
Well, clearly it does mean that we become partake of the divine nature (because it says that), but it also means we become gods. How could it mean anything different when it says that Christ became man to “make men gods.” That you have been taught that it cannot mean what it says, is a product of the development of Catholic thought away from both the Bible and the thought of the ECFs.
Again, Catholics here and even paid apologist fail to recognize what is entailed in the teaching of the ECF. The best Catholic treatment I have seen is Keating’s book and I recommend it. As a LDS, I reject SOME of what Keating says, but IMO Catholics should embrace his thesis. I have NEVER seen a serious and critical treatment of Keating by a Catholic, only words that indicate they have not engaged him and/or the evidence he provides (or they are very positive and not critical towards him).
I do not believe that men become the Father of Jesus Christ. There are many things about becoming gods that I do not believe in fact.
I also find it certain that the “’God’ as classically defined in philosophy” does not align with numerous individual Biblical and ECF passages which speak of “God” and “gods.” Whatever the Biblical authors and ECF meant, they did not have the “’God’ as classically defined in philosophy” in mind (at least most of the time they did not).
It is also remarkable that the theology brought to us through the purported revelations of a young farm boy absolutely contains logical contradictions if one is want to apply the “’God’ as classically defined in philosophy,” BUT the young farm boy (or the source of the purported revelations) also rejected the “’God’ as classically defined in philosophy” in ways that make coherence possible. Some extraordinary intelligence was involved in this!
Let me offer two challenging statements.
#1 LDS thought as defined in the 3 (soon to be 4 volume) Ostlers, Exploring Mormon Thought does not contain the logical contradictions @ProdgiArchitect is concerned about.
#2 “’God’ as classically defined in philosophy” does contain logical contradictions that are not solved in the existing literature.
It’s really a mis-translation of that which Athanasius says, which is that we might become deified. Catholic Answers actually wrote something on this subject: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/are-we-gods
Again, it’s about being unified with God’s will in heaven, after death. That’s what it means by “make men gods.”
Can you point to where exactly the bible supports
polytheism, the very theological concept that the first commandment bans?
Regardless of the character of Joseph Smith, the fact still remains that the Mormon position of an infinite regression of “gods” is irrational.
Incidentally, Christ wasn’t convicted. It would have ultimately been up to Pilate to convict him, as the presiding authority figure, and he said he found no fault in Christ. He was still put to death though.
I’d also really love to hear what convinced you that the BOM is the more correct book, considering that they make scientific claims which are imminently refutable (such as the origin of the Native Americans).
I’m guessing they abandoned that belief when it was shown to be utterly irrational? Sort of like how they abandon other “dogmas” when they’re disproven, or like their various dooms-day predictions… It must be nice being able to just jettison beliefs like that when they start causing you problems.
And, he died as a result of shoot out, not martyrdom…
Wait, seriously? The founder of Mormonism died in a shoot out. I didn’t know that.