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

[TOmNossor]

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.

…

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.

You introduced the very Catholic and very flawed idea of consistency and I responded.

In post #186 you made it about monotheism. I responded:

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 God’s Church teaches OR a large misperception as to what monotheism has been during Biblical and later 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 it is not, “via negativa.”

The idea that Catholic monotheism is an incoherent mess if true seriously undermines Stephen’s “rational religion.”

The fact that Catholic monotheism is radically different than ancient or modern Jewish monotheism disproves your view of a consistent monotheism.

What I can demonstrate is that the MODERN Catholic believes things that make the Early Church Father’s sound schizophrenic. To put modern Catholic definitions in the mouths of the ECF is to make them seem like they are more interested in poetic language than a coherent definition of the faith. Only that is not true. What is true IMO is they moved from a rational monotheism, Tri-unity, and deification view similar or identical to the view I as a Latter-day Saint hold (or at least it was available to them if they were DEVELOPING with divine protection from error). They moved to a view that is irrational. Along the way they could not jettison the words and ideas that were touchstones of orthodoxy. So they held on to them and modern Catholics must deal with this or ignore it.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

It couldn’t be that you misunderstand the ECF? No, it’s the ECF and ages and ages of Catholic faith that got something going on, so irrational, as to make one flee into the arms of Joseph Smith.

“chickity-check yo self before you wreck yo self”

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

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.

No Stephen a rational person does not adjudicate the rationality of something based on the rules and claims of something else.

A rational person calls the Catholic Church false when the Catholic claims to be something she clearly is not (infallible with no change).

A rational person does not call the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints false because it does not believe it is what Catholics claim about themselves (infallible with no change) and is not that thing.

I think you are PRETENDING to not understand this for the soundbite associated with your post.

Concerning #3:

Here is about 1/3 of what I call the Gardner list:

Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon Non-Catholic Religions

We are not debating doctrine, but facts

Scarcity of New World BOM evidences that would be considered conclusive is a fact. But ultimately we are not debating this, but what is and is not of God and true. Certainly things that are proven false are not facts and are not of God. The absence of New World BOM evidences (that you accept) does not prove the BOM is false. Here are a few things from Brant Gardner’s nifty list there are some limited refutations: Geography …

While there is almost no documentary evidence nor consistent place names in Ancient America, this is not true for the Old World. The above post goes on to discuss Lehi’s journey down the Frankincense trail.

Here is a book that documents 81 points of contact with this Old World journey and the description miraculously produced in the Book of Mormon, Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History

Amazon.com

Anyway, Stephen, I suggest if you think archeology disproves the Book of Mormon you engage with folks like Brant Gardner here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/60-brant-gardner/

I hope to stick to demonstrating what I mentioned in my last post. You are welcome to ACTUALLY ANSWER QUESTIONS about your Catholic faith and history or distract.

We are here because ConcernedConvert claimed a consistency that is absent.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

This reply should be to @RebeccaJ:

Rebecca,
Your high-level summary is good MODERN Catholic teaching. I understand well enough what informed MODERN Catholics teach.

I am not sure you have avoided the PITFALLS of modern Catholicism as it relates to the teaching of the ECF on purpose or on accident, but it is those PITFALLS that I suggest demonstrate that Catholicism.

Let me ask you a question.

How did the definitions of the faith at Nicea and Constantinople demonstrate the MONOTHEISM of God while affirming the divinity of Christ?

@Stephen168 and @ConcernConvert and anyone else can answer too.

After you answer this, I will interact further with what you have said above. This is one of a few places where the DEVELOPMENT makes the ECF look schizophrenic when a modern understanding is placed over the ancient understanding.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

What I can demonstrate is that the MODERN Catholic believes things that make the Early Church Father’s sound schizophrenic. To put modern Catholic definitions in the mouths of the ECF is to make them seem like they are more interested in poetic language than a coherent definition of the faith. Only that is not true. What is true IMO is they moved from a rational monotheism, Tri-unity, and deification view similar or identical to the view I as a Latter-day Saint hold (or at least it was available to them if they were DEVELOPING with divine protection from error). They moved to a view that is irrational. Along the way they could not jettison the words and ideas that were touchstones of orthodoxy. So they held on to them and modern Catholics must deal with this or ignore it.

All,

I am going to try to focus on the above. ConcernedConvert and Rebecca have demonstrated a willingness to engage and if they do it will be easy to show the PITFALLS produced by believing the ECF say words because they mean what modern Catholics think they mean.

I contend it is clear that the DEVELOPMENT of Catholic thought resulted in ancient words being unable to express the NEW theology. But, the ECF could not deny the ancient words so the wrote and said them. MODERN Catholics now have to imply the ECF were not really trying to speak truth when they said these words and phrases.

I just asked Rebecca a question:

How did the definitions of the faith at Nicea and Constantinople demonstrate the MONOTHEISM of God while affirming the divinity of Christ?

Another germane questions is:

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 in 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.

ConcernedConvert brought up Monotheism and Deification. This is an area that when properly engaged will demonstrate serious flaws with Catholic self-perception and strength in the views embraced by LDS folks like Blake Ostler. The ECF documents evidence that they could have developed the theology guided by God to the place where LDS are today guided by God. Instead they made a handful of “foundational slips” that are evident in the record and the incoherence associated with applying modern Catholic thought to the words of the ECF.

Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom… Catholic consistency is not flawed, however you are correct in that it is very catholic. There are no other churches that can lay claim to that as no other churches were created directly from Christ and are protected by the Holy Spirit.
Also, our discussion of monotheism has always occurred. No perhaps the word hadn’t been mentioned, but our discussion regarding catholic beliefs in one god and Mormons beliefs in multiple gods has gone back quite far in this thread as we discussed the trinity and Mormon beliefs even outside of the trinity.

What beliefs are you (specifically)saying that modern Catholics have changed? Or that make the ECF look schizophrenic?

The “evidence” that has been provided by you and Gazelam so far has not indicated these things. You might claim they have based upon (your) authority and opinion and that of the (LDS) church. You have provided several of your own personal opinions and criticisms.
However they have indeed remained consistent as we have tried to demonstrate and show to you through the authority of the Catholic Church and our own evidence.
We are hitting an authority wall it appears like. I have the consistent teachings and the authority of the Catholic Church backing what we have discussed and you bring the Your personal authority and views on the matter as well as that of the LDS church.

 

[TOmNossor]

@ConcernedConvert
I have asked 2 questions. You said you would answer. You have not. Please answer. Please answer and I will show what I claim I can show.

How did the definitions of the faith at Nicea and Constantinople demonstrate the MONOTHEISM of God while affirming the divinity of Christ?

After this answer is offered, there will be some FOLLOW up before it will be clear what RebeccaJ GLOSSED over in her response.

The answer is very simple.

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 in His nature? Or is this some partial partaking by Christ and us. Or something else?

I asked this a while back. It may not even require any follow up questions depending upon how thorough the answer from Catholics is.

These two areas of inquiry will show what I claim they will show, namely:

What I can demonstrate is that the MODERN Catholic believes things that make the Early Church Father’s sound schizophrenic. To put modern Catholic definitions in the mouths of the ECF is to make them seem like they are more interested in poetic language than a coherent definition of the faith. Only that is not true. What is true IMO is they moved from a rational monotheism, Tri-unity, and deification view similar or identical to the view I as a Latter-day Saint hold (or at least it was available to them if they were DEVELOPING with divine protection from error). They moved to a view that is irrational. Along the way they could not jettison the words and ideas that were touchstones of orthodoxy. So they held on to them and modern Catholics must deal with this or ignore it.

I contend it is clear that the DEVELOPMENT of Catholic thought resulted in ancient words being unable to express the NEW theology. But, the ECF could not deny the ancient words so they wrote and said them. MODERN Catholics now have to imply the ECF were not really trying to speak truth when they said these words and phrases.

You, ConcernedConvert brought up Monotheism and Deification. This is an area that when properly engaged will demonstrate serious flaws with Catholic self-perception and strength in the views embraced by LDS folks like Blake Ostler. The ECF documents evidence that they could have developed the theology guided by God to the place where LDS are today guided by God. Instead they made a handful of “foundational slips” that are evident in the record and the incoherence associated with applying modern Catholic thought to the words of the ECF.

When we are done, we will see that either LDS are absolutely monotheists and we shouldn’t quibble about this. Or we will see that Catholic monotheism is not remotely consistent with pre-Nicene thought and certainly not consistent with first and second century Christian authors AND more certainly not consistent with modern or ancient Jews.
Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I have reviewed some of the Keatings material through some Mormon articles I found online. One thing is for certain he was clear that men are not gods in the same sense that god is.

Here is a quote from Tom Rossons review of Keitings book.
(Keating embraces a “limited deification,” insisting that human “nature” cannot become the same as God’s “nature.” While aspects of his view of deification are powerful, he is unwilling to fully embrace the second half of the great exchange: “The Son became man that we might become gods” (p. 12). Keating skillfully develops the case for deification but refuses to go to the logical conclusion, as was the case historically when developed theology replaced a biblical (and original) understanding of humankind’s final destiny.)

The early church fathers, The early councils, and consistent church teaching show us that Keitings theology is correct in identifying that human nature cannot become the same as Gods Nature. This is where the Mormon church has ran with false beliefs based on their own personal interpretations ignoring historical church teachings thinking they have the “logical” solution.

 

[TOmNossor]

I have reviewed some of the Keatings material through some Mormon articles I found online. One thing is for certain he was clear that men are not gods in the same sense that god is.

Here is a quote from Tom Rossons review of Keitings book.
(Keating embraces a “limited deification,” insisting that human “nature” cannot become the same as God’s “nature.” While aspects of his view of deification are powerful, he is unwilling to fully embrace the second half of the great exchange: “The Son became man that we might become gods” (p. 12). Keating skillfully develops the case for deification but refuses to go to the logical conclusion, as was the case historically when developed theology replaced a biblical (and original) understanding of humankind’s final destiny.)

The early church fathers, The early councils, and consistent church teaching show us that Keitings theology is correct in identifying that human nature cannot become the same as Gods Nature. This is where the Mormon church has ran with false beliefs based on their own personal interpretations ignoring historical church teachings thinking they have the “logical” solution.

Keating spends a long time on “the great exchange.”
The Son became man that we might become gods.
Please answer my previous 2 questions, but integral to the incoherence of your monotheism and deification claims (assuming you are Catholic and espouse Catholic thought) is this question.
"The Son became man that we might become gods." Did the Son partially become man that we might partially become gods? Or fully become man so we can fully become gods? Or something else?

These are easy questions. You can change your answers as we go as long as you deal with the CHANGED answer. It would be wrong to dismiss one troubling area with one answer and another troubling area with a different answer that undermines the first.
Charity, TOm

 

[gazelam]

What beliefs are you (specifically)saying that modern Catholics have changed?

I haven’t followed every last nuance of this thread and my contribution here is not specifically about deification. However, I recently read Jimmy Akin’s newest book “Teaching with Authority” (Published by Catholic Answers) and he says the following about changes in Catholic doctrine:

A word of caution

However popular it may be in some circles to say that Catholic doctrine cannot change, this doesnt seem to be the way the Magisterium articulates the continuity in its doctrine. Searches of the Vatican website (vatican.va) for such statements don’t turn up results. Instead, The Magisterium has become increasingly frank about the possibility of error in non-infallible teachings.

Because there is continuity in the principles underlying Catholic teaching, the Magisterium appears to prefer the language of development to the language of change, but it avoids making absolute statements like doctrines cant change.

In apologetic discussions, statements like doctrines can’t change, but they do develop will be unconvincing to skeptical listeners. They will rightly point out that development is a kind of change, and if they are knowledgeable, they may point to doctrines that have undergone significant change, such as slavery, usury, the salvation of non-Catholics, or limbo. Rather than be sidetracked by semantic quibbles about whether something is a change or a development, it is prudent to be frank and to neither minimize nor exaggerate the possibility of change in Church teaching. (Jimmy Akin, Teaching with Authority[Catholic Answers Press, 2018], 349, 350)

Now we return to the regularly scheduled debate…

 

[Stephen168]

The latter-day-saint movement was started by Joseph Smith who claimed to be a prophet. His revelation about the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham were false. The Book of Mormon is fiction, Joseph Smith was not a prophet.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, who is God. The Catholic Church has the Eucharist. Christ said, this is body, take it, do this in memory of me. Catholics do that daily.

 

[Horton]

Did the Son partially become man that we might partially become gods? Or fully become man so we can fully become gods? Or something else?

You have a false premise here. Catholics believe Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully divine. Your struggle seems to be the definitions of the words participate and partake. It appears this is the root of your issue. So perhaps you could explain the LDS definition of those two words or you could agree to work with the non LDS, common definitions.

You keep harping this question not being answered. The reality is it is a ridiculous question. I’ve linked an article that refutes your belief of what you think CCC460 means. Possibly one didn’t satisfy. Are We Gods? | Catholic Answers
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=505737&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

And my favorite response http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/a-question-about-a-saying-by-athanasius

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I should have clarified, dogmas. Thank you.

 

[Apache75]

So what happens after the resurrection then? Matthew 22:23-30 23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” 29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage ; they will be like the angels in heaven . So no marriage then.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Did the Son partially become man that we might partially become gods? Or fully become man so we can fully become gods? Or something else?

You have a false premise here. Catholics believe Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully divine. Your struggle seems to be the definitions of the words participate and partake. It appears this is the root of your issue. So perhaps you could explain the LDS definition of those two words or you could agree to work with the non LDS, common definitions.

You keep harping this question not being answered. The reality is it is a ridiculous question. …

Hello Horton,

I do not have a false premise and nuances in definitions are not important either. Here is why. First, you accidentally or on purpose obscured the impact of the question by editing it. Here is what I asked:

”The Son became man that we might become gods.”
Did the Son partially become man that we might partially become gods? Or fully become man so we can fully become gods? Or something else?

The section in “” is called the exchange formula. ConcernConvert shared it from Keating’s book where Keating explains that this was a huge part of how the ECF discussed deification.

There are multiple sources (and different variants), but there are two halves.

“The Son became man” that “we might become gods.” So it would seem that you have CORRECTLY stated that God the Son became FULLY man. It would seem however that you refuse to follow through and recognize that the ECF who said the first half and meant fully, gave no indication until the 4th century that the second half was some PARTIAL becoming gods.

To be a modern Catholic is to believe that the ECF who used what Keating labels (and many scholars have labeled) the “exchange formula” used the term “becoming” DIFFERENTLY in both halves of the phrase. These fellows either didn’t believe what MODERN Catholics believe or they were unconcerned with writing the truth. I do not think they were unconcerned with writing the truth. You will not find ANY ECF who qualifies the final state of deified man UNTIL the 4th century. Before this they BOLDLY declare that Christ became what we as so we could become what He is. Maybe there were crazy. What do you think? BTW, I will repeat the other questions, but they are even STRONGER in their militation against Catholic truth claims (or as we started this against the argument that there is some consistency).

Charity, TOm

P.S. I think it awesome that you are a fan of Mark Shea. He is a sharp guy, though I am not sure he would do well dialoguing with an experienced LDS. That being said, I am a HUGE fan of his ideas on the Catholic priesthood. requiring a new covenant priesthood deriving from the son of David’s Melchizedek priesthood, just as Jesus himself points out when he claims to be the Son of David and applies Psalm 110 to himself.

 

[TOmNossor]

The early church fathers, The early councils, and consistent church teaching show us that Keitings theology is correct in identifying that human nature cannot become the same as Gods Nature. This is where the Mormon church has ran with false beliefs based on their own personal interpretations ignoring historical church teachings thinking they have the “logical” solution.

It should be very clear to ALL Catholics on this thread where I am trying to get anyone to honestly go.

1. Rebecca said: “We are consubstantial with Jesus’ human nature. Jesus is consubstantial with the divine nature of God.” I asked, " How did the definitions of the faith at Nicea and Constantinople demonstrate the MONOTHEISM of God while affirming the divinity of Christ?"

With this answer and perhaps a follow up question or two it will be OBVIOUS that the ECF either do not believe what modern Catholics believe or were using words that do not communicate their beliefs for some reason.

1. 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 in His nature? Or is this some partial partaking by Christ and us. Or something else?

With this answer and maybe a follow up or maybe not, it will be OBVIOUS that the ECF either do not believe what modern Catholics believe or were using words that do not communicate their beliefs for some reason.

1. "The Son became man that we might become gods." Did the Son partially become man that we might partially become gods? Or fully become man so we can fully become gods? Or something else?

With this answer and maybe a follow up or maybe not, it will be OBVIOUS that the ECF either do not believe what modern Catholics believe or were using words that do not communicate their beliefs for some reason.

I find it unreasonable to believe the Catholic Church is the successor of the ECF who proceeded these statements and many of the ECF who made these statements. I see no way any REASONABLE person would believe the Catholic position is anything but extraordinarily weak in this area.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t know which of ECF you are invoking, or from what writings. It’s just a nebulous “they said”, and your track record of conveying the Catholic faith isn’t so great.

Why do you think Jesus being fully divine must mean you are fully divine? Obviously, you do not have a divine nature.

God became man and dwelt among us. We rise with him and in that alone, you can see we share in the resurrection. The difference is easily discerned. Jesus was able to raise Himself from death because He is God. We won’t raise ourselves, because we are not gods, and so we need Jesus to share with us His divine life. We will not and cannot raise ourselves, He will raise us. The divine is not something we are, as Jesus is human. We are created not Creators.

Sharing in Jesus divine life, we will absolutely have an attribute of a god: immortality. In that sense you could say we will be gods. It won’t be because our nature is divine, it will be because we partake of Jesus’ divine nature. Because He shares with us what is his, in this example, he shares eternal life. We are wholly, completely, dependent on God for the life to come. There is no Catholic anywhere at any time, who has said we are not. And if this were not so, we would have no need for Jesus, we would just save ourselves and raise ourselves.

Seems to me Mormons see Jesus as necessary in authority, and not in nature. Mormons don’t need God to save them or give them eternal life. A special kind of position held by a man who is no different from themselves, grants them the authority to have an eternal life. No ECF ever believed or taught such a thing.

A cat does not become a man and a man does not become a god.

I think these things are obvious.

Mormonism tries to overcome the obvious, by saying that man’s nature is a divine nature, not yet matured, or progressed. No ECF ever taught or believed such a thing. This idea has a barrel full of irrationalities. Where to begin? A created being is a Creator, eternal regression, what was the first cause? Why is the thing that is uncreated in Mormonism cosmology not called God? Why would you worship a god that is just a man? What’s the point of that? To gain favor as you would from an employer, to get promoted, and given a higher level authority? Where does the ultimately authority come from? Why can’t women get promoted to the highest authority? Is the nature of women different than that of a man? If so who or what created two differing types of the divine and why? What ECF ever taught or believes such a thing?

Etc etc. It’s a can of worms, by my reckoning.

 

[TOmNossor]

I don’t know which of ECF you are invoking, or from what writings. It’s just a nebulous “they said”, and your track record of conveying the Catholic faith isn’t so great.

Why do you think Jesus being fully divine must mean you are fully divine? Obviously, you do not have a divine nature.

Perhaps you can address what you yourself said and the question I asked you. All the other questions are products of things Catholics on this thread said too, but let’s stick with you.

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.

Your high-level summary is good MODERN Catholic teaching. I understand well what informed MODERN Catholics teach.

I am not sure you have avoided the PITFALLS of modern Catholicism as it relates to the teaching of the ECF on purpose or on accident, but it is those PITFALLS that I suggest demonstrate that Catholicism is not consistent.

Let me ask you a simple question (Catholicism 101) closely related to your comment.

How did the definitions of the faith at Nicea and Constantinople demonstrate the MONOTHEISM of God while affirming the divinity of Christ?

After you answer this, I will interact further with what you have said above. This is one of a few places where the DEVELOPMENT makes the ECF look schizophrenic when a modern understanding is placed over the ancient understanding.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Your questions make assumptions, which as far as I can tell are rooted in your interpretation of ECF writings to which you’ve never specified. If you did specify, I missed it. I am tired, and don’t have the time to wade through the thread.
How did the definitions of the faith at Nicea and Constantinople demonstrate the MONOTHEISM of God while affirming the divinity of Christ?

I don’t have time for games. Just get to the point.

ETA are you saying 325AD is modern? Lol

 

[TOmNossor]

Your questions make assumptions, which as far as I can tell are rooted in your interpretation of ECF writings to which you’ve never specified. If you did specify, I missed it. I am tired, and don’t have the time to wade through the thread.
How did the definitions of the faith at Nicea and Constantinople demonstrate the MONOTHEISM of God while affirming the divinity of Christ?

I don’t have time for games. Just get to the point.

ETA are you saying 325AD is modern? Lol

No 325 is not modern. The majority of the Fathers who agreed to the Nicene Creed in 325AD do not believe what MODERN Catholic believe.
But I can offer a good deal of what I was planning on offering:

We are consubstantial with Jesus’ human nature. Jesus is consubstantial with the divine nature of God.

Your high-level summary is good MODERN Catholic teaching. I understand well what informed MODERN Catholics teach.

How did the definitions of the faith at Nicea and Constantinople demonstrate the MONOTHEISM of God while affirming the divinity of Christ?

The answer to the above question is that Nicea declared that God the Father and God the Son are consubstantial (Latin), Homoousian (Greek).

You also said that Jesus is consubstantial with us. This was declared at Chalcedon though Catholics frequently deny it here for reasons we can get into shortly.

LDS believe that God the Father and God the Son are consubstantial just like the ECF at Chalcedon declared that Jesus Christ and mankind are consubstantial.

LDS believe about God the Father and God the Son PRECISELY what Eusebius of Caesarea believed when he agreed to the Nicene Creed. It would seem that LDS therefore meet the monotheism definition from Nicea.

Do you agree? Why or why not?

Charity, TOm