Questions about "the book of mormon is wrong" article from this website

[Stephen168]

Three things all of which are true that you don’t recognize, but if ANY of them are true Catholicism is not.

1. There is little “consistent teaching of the faith” for 1900 years that LDS don’t embrace. The modern Catholic Church has CHANGED doctrines radically. If you like I can go over doctrines changed by the men in charge of Catholicism and restored by God through Joseph Smith.
2. Joseph Smith and the early Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints restored many ancient Christian teachings CHANGED over the years. The interlocking sophistication of these restorations is objective evidence of the truth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
3. While 1 and 2 are true and you are mistaken when you claim consistency, it is clear to many (including non-LDS) that Joseph Smith could not have done all the things we have objective evidence he did. The best explanation for this objective evidence is that God was involved in the origins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This means without 1 or 2 being true, I would be a LDS because of #3.

Now, I can demonstrate 1, 2, and/or 3. I will endeavor to do so, if someone is interested enough to engage respectfully. This will mean reading, responding, and likely defining what you believe clearly (I will do the same). I don’t need you to cease to believe false things so you or other posters can say I am wrong and I will not view that as interest in the objective evidence.

As it has been discussed in CAF before:

Catholic change bad (proof of the Great Apostasy)

Mormon change good (continuing revelation good)

This basically removes talking points one and two from any rational proof by Mormons.

Talking point three is the reason Mormons are Mormon; they believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. The objective evidence that he was not a prophet far out weighs the total lack of objective evidence that he was.

“Mormons are in the anomalous position of saying that a spiritual testimony, not empirical proof, undergirds their faith,…”- Richard Lyman Bushman, Mormon Scholar.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom, you say that there is little consistent teaching that the Mormon church Doesn’t embrace. However the entire foundation of the Mormon church Is completely inconsistent with Christians and Jews from the past four thousand years. If the foundation of your faith is that far off base from Christianity, how can anything else be considered consistent or legitimate?
(The LDS Church does not believe in monotheistic Christianity.) These are foundational teachings that go all the way back to the beginning in the Old Testament.
God is forever consistent in his word in both the Old Testament and the New Testament and leaves no room for polytheism. These are historical facts, Traditional Facts and biblical facts that have always been consistent.

To the extent the Old Testament Jews, New Testament Christian, and Modern Catholics are ALL (and consistently) Monotheistic, LDS are MONOTHEIST. I would suggest that your mischaracterization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as polytheistic evidences either a misunderstanding on what the God’s Church teaches OR a large misperception as to what monotheism has been during Biblical and latter history.
“LDS are monotheists who reject the ousia based monotheism. Consequentially, LDS have available to them a consistent theology of monotheism, Tri-unity, and deification.” This TRUTH is one of the things I specifically think demonstrated both #1 and #2 in my list.
Modern Catholic monotheism (after Augustine) is a convoluted mess built by supposedly infallible councils into an illogical position that can only be rationally embraced for what is not, “via negativa.”

Are you aware that Catholic believe that in addition to God the Father and Jesus Christ being “consubstantial,” Catholics also believe that you and Jesus Christ are “consubstantial?” This is the “touchstone” of monotheism from Nicea.

Are you aware that at the Council of Nicea, the Father’s declared the idea that God the Father and God the Son were two persons (Greek-hypostatis) anathema and today Catholics believe that God the Father and God the Son are in fact two persons (Greek-hypostatis).

Between Nicea and the sixth century, there were radical developments in the IDEAS and words. The result is something that Catholics call a mystery but is illogical.
Because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejects “-ousia” based monotheism, we are free to recognize the incomprehensible nature of God but are not bound to illogical formulations.
Charity, TOm

 

[lilypadrees]

God’s Church is NOT the church you belong to, TOm. The church you belong to is Joseph Smith’s.

And you’re polytheists not monotheists.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Three things all of which are true that you don’t recognize, but if ANY of them are true Catholicism is not.

1. There is little “consistent teaching of the faith” for 1900 years that LDS don’t embrace. The modern Catholic Church has CHANGED doctrines radically. If you like I can go over doctrines changed by the men in charge of Catholicism and restored by God through Joseph Smith.
2. Joseph Smith and the early Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints restored many ancient Christian teachings CHANGED over the years. The interlocking sophistication of these restorations is objective evidence of the truth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
3. While 1 and 2 are true and you are mistaken when you claim consistency, it is clear to many (including non-LDS) that Joseph Smith could not have done all the things we have objective evidence he did. The best explanation for this objective evidence is that God was involved in the origins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This means without 1 or 2 being true, I would be a LDS because of #3.

Now, I can demonstrate 1, 2, and/or 3. I will endeavor to do so, if someone is interested enough to engage respectfully. This will mean reading, responding, and likely defining what you believe clearly (I will do the same). I don’t need you to cease to believe false things so you or other posters can say I am wrong and I will not view that as interest in the objective evidence.

As it has been discussed in CAF before:

Catholic change bad (proof of the Great Apostasy)

Mormon change good (continuing revelation good)

Stephen,
This is very simple. Catholics teach that they have ALL truth and infallibly develop/define it. Even the acceptance of the idea of DEVELOPMENT was a huge problem when a former Protestant became a Catholic and argued that it was the ONLY way to explain Catholicism. That being said there are CHANGES that cannot be called developments by any outside observer. Showing that the Catholic Church CHANGES shows that Catholicism is not what it claims to be.
LDS teach that we have continuing revelation. LDS teach that we are not infallible. CHANGE for the CoJCoLDS does not violate what we claim to be.
Over Easter a large number of Catholic clergy and scholars claimed that the recent CHANGES in Catholic teaching were a departure from Catholic truth claims. It is clear that LDS scholars and leaders do not always agree with the CHANGES that happen, but the argument is not that LDS leaders are incapable of changing the CoJCoLDS. This is the argument made by these folks.
So:
“Catholic change bad.” (proof Catholicism is not what it claims to be).
LDS “change good.” (continuing revelation is how God has led His people during the Old Testament, during the New Testament, and during the Restoration Testament).
There is no inconsistency if you think about it for a few seconds.
Charity, TOm

 

[Apache75]

So the wedding in Canna was not His wedding? I know for sure Mormons thought this was true. (from their own mouths). Also Jesus said there was no marriage in Heaven. But yet your church says the opposite. Was Jesus incorrect in His teaching?

 

[Apache75]

Well shed some light on this then. Smith said he has done more for the church than Jesus or the apostles have ever done. So he puts himself above Jesus then? And quit taking a sentence out of a whole paragraph to try and prove your point.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom what do you believe men will become when they die? What are your beliefs about the trinity. And who created God? All of these questions lead to polytheistic views from your church whether they claim them or not.

I have already provided evidence from your website that demonstrates that your beliefs in one god are not true. You guys can claim to be monotheistic all day long, but this is a false claim that can be easily found on your website and in a vast amount of Mormon literature. Again, an example all by itself is your belief that the trinity is in fact three separate Gods (polytheism).

When you bring up the council of Nicaea, you try to make it seem as though the bishops declared something That had never existed. This is not true the teachings on the Trinity had existed prior to that and we’re held by The majority of the bishops that met at the Council of Nicaea who then “affirmed” those teachings as the official position to prevent conflict and heresy in the future. These positions were then re-affirmed again in the council of Constantinople in 381 AD following the death of Augustine. The job of the councils was never to create new teachings for believers, but to sort out heresies and affirm the correct teachings for future generations. These beliefs were consistently taught prior to and after this.

All of this information you can find on your own on the Internet or through historical literature and church teachings. You cannot say that for the Mormon church. Those Mormon “consistent “teachings go back to Joseph Smith. It seems that you have excepted the authority of Joseph Smith and yourself over the consistent authority of the Catholic Church, the promise of Christ and the Traditions that have been maintained for 2000 years.

 

[TOmNossor]

ConcernedConvert,
You have already told me you do not care to actually learn about my Church. I fear you do not care to learn about the more difficult aspects of your Church. I will entertain your questions, but you are not responding in ANY way to what I have said to you or what I have asked you directly. Ignoring (not interacting) with my responses and offering other issues to go through would be fine if I had unlimited time AND/OR you had not already declared you were not interested in learning about my Church. Please engage my previous post substantively, then this one.

Tom what do you believe men will become when they die?

I believe as did the ECF that it is appropriate to say that men may become gods. I believe as does Cardinal Schonborn who wrote CCC460 that it is appropriate to say that men may become gods.

I further believe that the MODERN Catholic Church unlike the earliest of ECF, St. Justin and St. Irenaeus for example, places limitations on what humans become when they become gods.

There is no simplistic monotheism that has been the CONSISTENT view of Jews and Christians, and it seems to me that you do not hold a view of monotheism that will allow just modern Catholics to be monotheist before we even get into ancient Jews, pre-Nicene Christians, many others.

What are your beliefs about the trinity.

I am mostly a Social Trinitarian. This term was made popular by Protestant scholar Cornelius Plantinga. LDS scholar David Paulsen has written extensively on this. There is a single social union of indwelling divine persons. I also have some monarchical monotheistic leanings. Even within this Social Model, God the Father is prime and the Son and Holy Spirit are UNITED with Him. There is a little from Ostler concerning this monarchical monotheism.

And who created God?

God the Father is uncreated. God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are uncreated. The body of Jesus Christ (and of God the Father) was created in time, but God the Father and God the Son were eternally divine before their incarnation.

If you are interested we can dig MUCH deeper into this.

I have already provided evidence from your website that demonstrates that your beliefs in one god are not true. You guys can claim to be monotheistic all day long, but this is a false claim that can be easily found on your website and in a vast amount of Mormon literature. Again, an example all by itself is your belief that the trinity is in fact three separate Gods (polytheism).

Jesus is “another God and Lord subject to the maker of all things” and in the “second place” – St. Justin.

Jesus is the “second God” (“deuteros theos”) – Origin.

These are from ECF. Were they monotheists?

I already told you that a Catholic must believe that Jesus Christ and you are consubstantial. Eusebius of Caesarea believed that this consubstantial was all that was necessary to be monotheists. Was he a polytheist? Athanasius didn’t think so.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

When you bring up the council of Nicaea, you try to make it seem as though the bishops declared something That had never existed. This is not true the teachings on the Trinity had existed prior to that and we’re held by The majority of the bishops that met at the Council of Nicaea who then “affirmed” those teachings as the official position to prevent conflict and heresy in the future. These positions were then re-affirmed again in the council of Constantinople in 381 AD following the death of Augustine. The job of the councils was never to create new teachings for believers, but to sort out heresies and affirm the correct teachings for future generations. These beliefs were consistently taught prior to and after this.

The self-conception of those at Nicea was not to create NEW beliefs. What they did however was take a spectrum of beliefs that existed before Nicea and declare that ONLY those who embrace this subset of beliefs are part of the Church. The key word they introduced was chosen after scripture only creeds were proposed and the Arian faction indicated they would embrace these. That was unacceptable.

The MAJORITY of those who embraced the Nicene Creed do not believe what Athanasius, Augustine, and modern Catholics believe today.

And for years after Nicea the majority of Bishops were Arian (well it is called semi-Arian to distinguish it from the view of Arius) in their theology. This IS BECAUSE Nicea CHANGED what was believed before and it to decades to purge the inappropriate part of the spectrum of beliefs from Christianity.

All of this information you can find on your own on the Internet or through historical literature and church teachings. You cannot say that for the Mormon church. Those Mormon “consistent “teachings go back to Joseph Smith. It seems that you have excepted the authority of Joseph Smith and yourself over the consistent authority of the Catholic Church, the promise of Christ and the Traditions that have been maintained for 2000 years.

There are many excellent resources on the Internet devoted to LDS grappling with both sides of these issue. I am sure some anti-Catholic Protestant has said, almost what you just did about your blind faith that the Catholic Church presents a full history and that it confirms there has been no CHANGE only DEVELOPMENT. What scholarly LDS books have you read to try to understand how you have been duped by anti-Mormonism?

The Internet is not a substitute for research when it comes to some of the important points I am making above. I can point to Internet sources for what I am sharing if you think it is worthwhile, but very little of the Internet is devoted to exploring both sides of an issue. The bulk of the Internet is cheerleading for one’s preconceived notions.

Charity, TOm

 

[lilypadrees]

BINGO!!!

You nailed it!!!

 

[Horton]

I believe as did the ECF that it is appropriate to say that men may become gods. I believe as does Cardinal Schonborn who wrote CCC460 that it is appropriate to say that men may become gods.

What about CCC 460?

The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature” “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God .” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods .”

This is what I shared with Gazelam regarding CCC460. It explains what CCC460 really means.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,

Fear not, I am digging into the difficult aspects of your church as I continue with my discourse with you and other posters. However, I have to say that the more I dig, the more I solidify my faith in the one true church, the Catholic Church. I have responded to you as regularly as possible addressing the big issues that we originally started this discussion on which are still not settled in my opinion and am trying to keep up and respond with your other points. You continue to pull “pieces” of scripture or “parts” of ECF teachings and try to pass those as proof that the bible and the early church fathers supported things that they simply did not support. As I asserted earlier in our discourse, were there individuals who may have supported these things in Error, absolutely. Heresy has always existed, it existed even while Christ walked the earth and continues to exist. Again that is why the councils have met throughout history to affirm what one must believe to be catholic and to accurately follow Christ.

I have not offered up (new issues) in my posts. I continue to offer up the same issues as you continue to fail to provide evidence that the catholic position is wrong and the Mormon position is correct.

In responding to your beliefs:

The ECF (did not) say that men may become Gods in the sense that you and fellow Mormons take it. In the same way CCC460 (Does not) mean what you claim it to mean which has already been pointed out to you and proven through other biblical and historical context, whether you choose to believe it or not. So when you claim “I believe as did the ECF regarding ……” You are simply presenting falsehoods. (These were not what the early church fathers believed) and you are lying to yourself and anyone else you present your faith to by claiming that they did believe these things. You might believe them, but you cannot claim that the ECF did as well.

Again you claim that you believe consistently with the ECF regarding limiting what humans become, and that the Catholic Church has changed this in Modern Times. This is not true. The ECF and the modern catholic church are consistent in this subject whether you believe it or not. Attached is a great article detailing this.

The Mormon Doctrine of Becoming Gods: What about the Early Church Fathers? | Institute for Religious Research

And then you claim that there is no such thing as simplistic Monotheism. Again, not true. You can complicate it as much as you want with terminology. But at the end of the day, Mormons believe in Multiple Individual Gods in Essence and in Substance. Jews do not and have not, and Catholics/Most protestants Do not and have not.

I will respond further to your other points in this post particularly when I get home and have time.

What part of your earlier post would you like me to respond to? If I have left things out or responses out to your questions I will try to respond to them as I can this evening.

 

[Stephen168]

This is very simple. Catholics teach that they have ALL truth and infallibly develop/define it.

A rational person uses one standard to find the truth. Mormons on CAF use two standards, which is irrational.

I noticed, like in the past, you have avoided talking point 3.

 

[Apache75]

If they didn’t believe in other gods why would they have a song that was being sung during a G.C saying " Joseph Smith was in heaven mingling with other gods"? Sounds strange to me. Im pretty sure their church would only allow music that reflects their teachings and not anything that would say otherwise.

 

[TOmNossor]

This is what I shared with Gazelam regarding CCC460. It explains what CCC460 really means.

Hello Horton,

First, I didn’t drag anything out as proof that Catholic believe the truth like LDS do. Catholics are WRONG in their understanding of deification unless you consider St. Justin and St. Irenaeus Catholics, they evidence no errors in what deified mankind will be.

I claimed that ConcernedConvert’s problem with the term gods and its monotheistic bonafides is misplaced.

I have REGULARLY condemned the Catholic Answers document you reference it does not do justice to the witness of the ECF. I have regularly recommended Catholic scholar Daniel Keatings book Deification and Grace. In it you will find no condemnation of Cardinal Schonborn or the English translation of the CCC (approved by the USCCB and possessing an English Imprumatur). You will find no: they didn’t really mean “gods.” You will not find a specious argument about how the Latin is official and the problem is a Greek word written by Athanasius which lead to the Latin… This is all distraction (at least a distraction from the arguments I have been making and perhaps more than this). I could tell you that you would find LDS theology (especially since I don’t think any anti-Mormon here has read it), but you won’t because Keating employs what I consider to be a remarkable and unwarrented bit of argumentation that makes the Early Church Father’s look schizophrenic (if he is correct). But such is the ONLY RECOURSE for the Catholic scholar.

Your flawed article hints at what scholars call the exchange formula. Christ participates/partakes of our nature so that we might participate/partake of His nature. My question to you is does Christ FULLY participate/partake of our nature and thus we FULLY participate/partake if His nature? Or is this some partial partaking by Christ and us. Or something else?

@Stephen168 @ConcernedConvert are encouraged to answer too.

Please answer. Think, research, … just answer.

Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

Christ participates/partakes of our nature so that we might participate/partake of His nature. My question to you is does Christ FULLY participate/partake of our nature and thus we FULLY participate/partake if His nature? Or is this some partial partaking by Christ and us. Or something else?

Now we are getting somewhere. You believe CCC460 is absolute truth as it is written, no room for any other interpretation. If that is true, then the rest of the book must also hold truths. So you are now claiming the Catechism of the Catholic Church is correct? That the Catholic Church has truth?

 

[RebeccaJ]

We are consubstantial with Jesus’ human nature. Jesus is consubstantial with the divine nature of God. This is one reason why we call Jesus our intermediary with the Father, as we are not consubstantial with the divine nature of the Holy Trinity.

We share in the divine nature, in and through our intermediary, Jesus Christ. He joins us to Himself and through Him we participate in the life of the Holy Trinity.

I don’t know why this Catholic belief is endlessly debated, misunderstood and falsely represented by Mormons. It’s as though there is a great need by Mormons here, to prove they are punky little gods in the making. Stop and think how incredibly naive and wrong that notion is. Who do you think you are, the proud usurpers of the divine? “I am a God!” Get over yourselves. And yes it certainly is polytheism to believe that every “worthy” Mormon male is a God. It’s the very definition of polytheism.

And then there is the Mormon goddess, called Heavenly Mother. Belief in this goddess alone, without all the other self promoting deification,makes Mormonism polytheistic. Why Mormons constantly and continually ignore their own doctrine is beyond me.

 

[Horton]

First, I didn’t drag anything out as proof that Catholic believe the truth like LDS do. Catholics are WRONG in their understanding of deification unless you consider St. Justin and St. Irenaeus Catholics, they evidence no errors in what deified mankind will be.

I feel you do not understand what deification really is. Your claim that one paragraph tells you, Gazelam, and the rest of the world that men will become gods does not hold water.

 

[gazelam]

Also Jesus said there was no marriage in Heaven.

Not so. Jesus said there would be no new marriages in the resurrection.

 

[Stephen168]

Now we are getting somewhere. You believe CCC460 is absolute truth as it is written, no room for any other interpretation. If that is true, then the rest of the book must also hold truths. So you are now claiming the Catechism of the Catholic Church is correct? That the Catholic Church has truth?

Mormons also celebrate Easter on the date chosen by the Council of Nicaea, but reject the other teachings of the Council.

Many people have come home to the Catholic Church because they knew they were being irrational not too. You can’t accept the teachings of the Church only when it feels right.