Ex-Mo's: Ever explore different options?

[_madeleine]

My point is, the teachings associated to the list you have there are understood by Mormons FAR FAR differently than Catholics, east or west.

by the way, there isn't anything on that list that I, as a RC in a Catholic context, disagree with. Mormons extract them from their context into something else. The only difference you have on that list between east and west is the Filioque, which from a person with a Mormon/atheist background, it is slight when you compare Mormonism to Catholicism (east or west).

RC has a tradition of explaining the mysteries, using tools such as philosophy and theology. The East is much more inclined to accept the mysteries of God without an attempt, generally, to explain them. I like both approaches. Sometimes Roman Catholics over explain things, sometimes the Orthodox are too mysterious (personal taste here). Mormons over explain things to the 100th degree when compared to RC, so I've never understood the beef LDS have with using philosophy as a tool for explaining the mysteries of God.

Hmmmmm...I don't think so. Other than (7) they differ from you in all regards. They are aware of the differences more than you are. You don't call your churches temples and have a secluded area only Catholics can enter.

Hi. No, you won't hear a Catholic say, "I'm going to the temple." But Catholics understand "temple" in several ways, one of which is in fact the church building, as every Catholic church (east and west) houses the tabernacle that holds the Presence of God.

You have deification but don't emphasize it the way they do.

They don't emphasize it, or believe in it, the way LDS do.

The east and west both believe that the Eucharist is God, body, soul and divinity, and we take God's divinity into ourselves. We both believe this has a supernatural effect of divination. Though not how Mormons would view it as "exaltation". I once heard a Roman Catholic employ, "We are what we eat"! It is what we both, east and west, believe. The west calls theosis the beatific vision, but both believe the same things about our communion with God, through Jesus Christ, and that our intimate oneness with God in heaven is prefigured in the Eucharist.

Catholics baptize by full immersion? Huh? Aquinas said 1:26-27 means moral and rational image only.

We do, we just don't require it. Immersion is a valid form of baptism.

They don't use philosophy because you're going off into areas no one can really know anything about. Their theology is completely based on the Bible and patristics and other official church writings, and hence don't move off of into unknown data points.

Mormons have a beef with philosophy overturning the Bible (creation ex nihilo, divine unembodiment). Strip Christianity of Plato and you get Mormonism.

Strip Mormonism of Plato, and you've lost your preexisting matter.

But seriously, philosophy has not overturned the Bible. That is your belief, but it is not reality.

Yes, both east and west base their theology on the Bible, patristics and the communion of the Bishops and faithful through the ages. The Filioque can be shown to support both east and west. Myself, I view it as an unimportant distinction. The Spirit proceeds from the union of the Father and the Son. I've never heard otherwise from east or west. I view that particular disagreement as one of ego, coming from both sides.

[_nc47]

I'm not saying we're more like they are than you're like they are. Fundamentally, we don't believe God is "wholly other" (ahem...Plato...again). Just saying that given Mormonism and Eastern Orthodoxy share no genetic relationship, the long list of convergent points is remarkable. The former priest (and ex-Mormon) attributed this to Joseph Smith's ability to read the Bible free of pre-conceived theological suppositions that beset the West.

East believes everything after Nicaea and Chalcedon is just political wrangling and Greek philosophizing. We just go one step further and say that it all started before Nicaea. The Visigoths subordinated your bishops to their feudal system when they sacked Rome.

The east and west both believe that the Eucharist is God, body, soul and divinity, and we take God's divinity into ourselves. We both believe this has a supernatural effect of divination. Though not how Mormons would view it as "exaltation". I once heard a Roman Catholic employ, "We are what we eat"! It is what we both, east and west, believe. The west calls theosis the beatific vision, but both believe the same things about our communion with God, through Jesus Christ, and that our intimate oneness with God in heaven is prefigured in the Eucharist.

That's not what the told me. When I asked him whether Catholics and Protestants believed the same, he said:

No. This is the whole Palamite controversy. That's when our realism about the existence of the Remnant Church among us was refuted in the West by scholastic categories that claimed that grace is created, illumination is created, the light of Transfiguration is created. A complete violation of Old Testament theology in other words.

We do, we just don't require it. Immersion is a valid form of baptism.

Fair enough, what about being created in God's image?

Mormons have a beef with philosophy overturning the Bible (creation ex nihilo, divine unembodiment). Strip Christianity of Plato and you get Mormonism.

Strip Mormonism of Plato, and you've lost your preexisting matter.

But seriously, philosophy has not overturned the Bible. That is your belief, but it is not reality.

When you have a 1:1 correspondence between Plato's Timaeus and God, that's a problem.

Matter is eternal in the Ancient Near Eastern worldview, including the Bible (even though it is to the Greeks too). God created from chaos; such is the consensus among Bible scholars. Creation ex nihilo was cooked up in the 2nd century to beat the Gnostics. It didn't even enter Judaism until the medieval period.

And Origen chucked the embodied God to gain Platonic respectability, as you can tell from reading his letter to Celsus.

Yes, both east and west base their theology on the Bible, patristics and the communion of the Bishops and faithful through the ages. The Filioque can be shown to support both east and west. Myself, I view it as an unimportant distinction. The Spirit proceeds from the union of the Father and the Son. I've never heard otherwise from east or west. I view that particular disagreement as one of ego, coming from both sides.

Well they say it violates the monarchy of the Father, but I agree that it's a rather unimportant distinction. The Trinity is so damn confusing most Christians can't even explain it correctly.

[_aussieguy55]

So you believe God was once a man. How far along do you go? Father, Grandfather? There is never an eternal God. Are the Uncle Gods out there creating new planets? far more unbelievable than the Trinity.

[_madeleine]

I'm not saying we're more like they are than you're like they are. Fundamentally, we don't believe God is "wholly other" (ahem...Plato...again). Just saying that given Mormonism and Eastern Orthodoxy share no genetic relationship, the long list of convergent points is remarkable. The former priest (and ex-Mormon) attributed this to Joseph Smith's ability to read the Bible free of pre-conceived theological suppositions that beset the West.

East believes everything after Nicaea and Chalcedon is just political wrangling and Greek philosophizing. We just go one step further and say that it all started before Nicaea. The Visigoths subordinated your bishops to their feudal system when they sacked Rome.

The east and west both believe that the Eucharist is God, body, soul and divinity, and we take God's divinity into ourselves. We both believe this has a supernatural effect of divination. Though not how Mormons would view it as "exaltation". I once heard a Roman Catholic employ, "We are what we eat"! It is what we both, east and west, believe. The west calls theosis the beatific vision, but both believe the same things about our communion with God, through Jesus Christ, and that our intimate oneness with God in heaven is prefigured in the Eucharist.

That's not what the told me. When I asked him whether Catholics and Protestants believed the same, he said:

No. This is the whole Palamite controversy. That's when our realism about the existence of the Remnant Church among us was refuted in the West by scholastic categories that claimed that grace is created, illumination is created, the light of Transfiguration is created. A complete violation of Old Testament theology in other words.

You said this person was Orthodox, not Protestant.

At any rate, you seem to have found a person with syncretic Christian/Mormon beliefs.

Neither Roman Catholics or Orthodox have a sense of Christian primitivism. That is wholly the realm of Protestantism, its offshoots and its ultimate end, Restorationists.

Fair enough, what about being created in God's image?

I don't know of any Catholic, east or west who would say being created in the image of God means we are created in the image of Jesus. Again, seems Mormon influenced.

That view requires a disordered understanding of the Incarnation, which the Orthodox do not have.

Jesus is God who became Man. No mainstream Christian understands this to mean we all are gods who became men, ie, incarnated. That is as far as I know, a unique idea of Joseph Smith, not even held among other Restorationists.

[_nc47]

]

That's not what the told me. When I asked him whether Catholics and Protestants believed the same, he said:
"No. This is the whole Palamite controversy. That's when our realism about the existence of the Remnant Church among us was refuted in the West by scholastic categories that claimed that grace is created, illumination is created, the light of Transfiguration is created. A complete violation of Old Testament theology in other words."

You said this person was Orthodox, not Protestant.

What I meant was that I asked him if Catholics/Protestants believed the same as the Orthodox, and he said no. Catholics/Protestants believe grace and the Light of Transfiguration are created, Orthodox don't.

At any rate, you seem to have found a person with syncretic Christian/Mormon beliefs.

Neither Roman Catholics or Orthodox have a sense of Christian primitivism. That is wholly the realm of Protestantism, its offshoots and its ultimate end, Restorationists.

Fair enough, what about being created in God's image?

I don't know of any Catholic, east or west who would say being created in the image of God means we are created in the image of Jesus. Again, seems Mormon influenced.

That view requires a disordered understanding of the Incarnation, which the Orthodox do not have.

You're speaking modalism.

[_Mary]

Yes, I've explored different options, and I guess Universalism would be the closest, or secular humanism. As much as I respect the heritage of Catholicism and executive order, I can't agree with the doctrines, same with Mormonism. What to do a?

[_nc47]

Yes, I've explored different options, and I guess Universalism would be the closest, or secular humanism. As much as I respect the heritage of Catholicism and executive order, I can't agree with the doctrines, same with Mormonism. What to do a?

Universalism is growing fast right now, it's perfect if you don't want any rules.

You don't have to believe LDS doctrines wholesale if you don't want, since the LDS Church isn't bound by a creed. You can believe God is a panda and still hold a temple recommend.

Although your names says you should be Catholic.

[_madeleine]

What I meant was that I asked him if Catholics/Protestants believed the same as the Orthodox, and he said no. Catholics/Protestants believe grace and the Light of Transfiguration are created, Orthodox don't.

Well maybe you should ask a Catholic or Protestant what they believe, as I know that this is not what Catholics believe.



I don't know your point, other than perhaps you are showing the tendency of Mormons towards literalism, and the tendency to overlay LDS belief over Christian art. Which is not a good stance to take with Orthodox iconography.

That view requires a disordered understanding of the Incarnation, which the Orthodox do not have.

You're speaking modalism.

Nah, I'm speaking of looking through the wrong end of the telescope, as LDS do .

[_madeleine]

Yes, I've explored different options, and I guess Universalism would be the closest, or secular humanism. As much as I respect the heritage of Catholicism and executive order, I can't agree with the doctrines, same with Mormonism. What to do a?

Hi Mary, I was UU for about 2 years. I enjoyed it quite a bit, and my daughter was involved with the youth. I was also a very strong leaning humanist, in my nihilistic form of atheism!

It all fell apart for me, similar to how Mormonism falls apart. Started the night the UU pagans held a fairy blessing for us. I was all for the pagan acceptance of the UU, but that was way over the top for me. The second point was when I chaperoned a group of UU youth to a regional conference in Denver. It had been taken over by the LGBT community and they were teaching the kids some weird and unnecessary ideas. The third point was 9-11. I was in D.C. on that day, and I lost my faith in the human species then, and it has never returned. I could no longer be a humanist.

I remained a right and proper nihilist for long afterwards, but even that fell apart.

[_nc47]

What I meant was that I asked him if Catholics/Protestants believed the same as the Orthodox, and he said no. Catholics/Protestants believe grace and the Light of Transfiguration are created, Orthodox don't.

Well maybe you should ask a Catholic or Protestant what they believe, as I know that this is not what Catholics believe.

That's not correct.
http://www.orthodoxcanada.org/qa_archiv ... tion5.html

I don't know your point, other than perhaps you are showing the tendency of Mormons towards literalism, and the tendency to overlay LDS belief over Christian art. Which is not a good stance to take with Orthodox iconography.

I'm not a literalist. I don't think you know Orthodox iconoography very well. This is hardly a literalness issue. All their icons are regulated by dogma.

This is what he said:

A Catholic will not be convinced by theology derived from iconography. The texts interpret it standardly, post-Nicea, that the "Image" is that of the Holy Trinity, in which "Image" Christ is later formed, so which comes first, the chicken or the age. Christ is the Image of the Holy Trinity. We were created in the Image of the Holy Trinity. The icons show the Old Testament "Image of the Holy Trinity" in the form of the Incarnate Christ. I don't know what she wants.

My point is this: Orthodox Christianity is the best-preserved Christianity from its original form. Mormonism is the restorationist tradition that got the most right. That is why we both believe the 2nd article of faith, both have "temple" written on our worship houses, both interpret Gen. 1:26-27 as physical image, laladalada.

In any case, God bless you, I'm glad you found a faith.