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

[RebeccaJ]

You’re just making assertions, and feeling proud about yourself. You’ll have to do better than that.

You’ll have to engage someone else, or step through whatever logic you think you’ve got going. But I don’t have the energy for debating one assertion that has been replaced with five and then five replaced by 25, exponentially, in a giant ante-theology spaghetti bowl.

 

[TOmNossor]

You’re just making assertions, and feeling proud about yourself. You’ll have to do better than that.

You’ll have to engage someone else, or step through whatever logic you think you’ve got going. But I don’t have the energy for debating one assertion that has been replaced with five and then five replaced by 25, exponentially, in a giant ante-theology spaghetti bowl.

All LDS believe that God the Father and God the Son are consubstantial (of one substance) just like a human father and son. So we are monotheists.
That was actually where I started.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

No ECF ever taught or believed that God the Father has a human nature.

You and your father are not one being. You are two beings. You and your father are not a mono-human, a single being. You are two and two is not mono.

You confuse human nature with the divine nature, as though they are the same thing. Which no ECF ever taught or believed. That is a Mormon thing so yes, you have once again overlaid Mormon belief and called it Catholic.

Certainly the two councils at Nicaea and Constantinople were not defining monotheism as meaning human nature and the divine nature as the same thing. There would be no reason, whatsoever, to profess that Jesus is fully divine and fully human, if there were no difference between the divine nature and human nature.

ETA when we say we are consubstantial with Jesus we are saying our human nature is the same as Jesus’ human nature. One of the qualities of human nature, is that we are not one being.

Monotheism means one God. One of the qualities of the divine nature, is that there is one being. Period. Humans are not by nature, one being. God by nature is one being. God has revealed that he is one and God has revealed that He is three.

The Arian heresy is similar to Mormonism, in that, the divine nature of Jesus is denied. The divine nature is as God has revealed, one being. Not two or three or 10 or a million. One God. Jesus is consubstantial with the divine nature of the Father. The divine nature is one being. Jesus is consubstantial with the human nature of man. Human nature is many beings.

Jesus is fully human and fully divine. One nature is not the same as the other.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom in response to your post here which i believe sums up the questions you have asked prior.

1. The definitions of the faith at Nicaea and Constantinople affirmed the teachings of the trinity which we have already discussed. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one God in Substance. 3 Person’s one god. This is what was taught by the ECF.
2. Christ fully participates in our nature so that we can fully participate in his nature. Sinless, everlasting life of love and worship to our god in heaven.
3. The son became fully man so that we may fully share in life everlasting, sinless worship of our god in heaven. This is how i understand the word “gods” is meant in that passage through my research.

Now… Unless i am mistaken, you are going to pull quotes of ECF and use your definitions and those of your position (LDS Church) to try to prove the catholic position “unreasonable”. To which i could reply to you and provide either those same quotes with my own definitions and those of my position (Catholic Church) or other quotes from the early church fathers and their definitive positions as defined in the councils to prove you and your position incorrect.
We have hit a part in our discussion that Catholics run into frequently with protestants and Mormoms on not only these subjects but on many subjects of the faith, the eucharist, baptism, confession, you name it. Ultimately for one to look directly back to the ECF, ignoring the historical teachings of the Catholic Church, and personally make a decision on what they meant in their writings, one must skip nearly 2000 years of the faith and (come up with their own interpretations and ideas on what the ECF meant, or what the bible means or what should and should not be affirmed as “True” for the Christian faith.
This is where, as i mentioned above, i have settled on the authority of the catholic church and the promise of god that he will protect his church. Singular church through the holy spirit (wisdom). There is a lot of “reason” involved in faith. However, if it were reason alone it would not be called faith.

 

[TOmNossor]

You and your father are not one being. You are two beings. You and your father are not a mono-human, a single being. You are two and two is not mono.

The Catholic Creed in English until it was changed a handful of years ago said that God the Father and God the Son were “one in being.” It was changed to the Latin word, “Consubstantial.”

My father and I are consubstantial with Jesus Christ. This we have already established.

Do you really not understand this?

You confuse human nature with the divine nature, as though they are the same thing. Which no ECF ever taught or believed. That is a Mormon thing so yes, you have once again overlaid Mormon belief and called it Catholic.

No I do not confuse that at all.

I am using the word “consubstantial.”

The ECF NEVER said that God the Father and God the Son were “one being” because that is an English word. They said that God the Father and God the Son were “consubstantial.” They also said that God the Son and mankind are “consubstantial.”

I have tried to tell you that TODAY these words mean DIFFERENT things. The word “consubstantial” when describing the relationship between God the Father and God the Son in MODERN Catholic understanding DOES NOT MEAN the same thing as the word “consubstantial” when describing the relationship between God the Son and mankind.

To be Catholic is to believe that when the Father’s at Chalcedon said, that Jesus Christ was consubstantial with the Father in His divinity and consubstantial with mankind in His humanity is to believe that the Fathers were using two different meanings of the same word in a single sentence.

This is evidence of schizophrenic ECF or CHANGE in teaching. It is CHANGE. The consistence is absent. And it is a mess. This is a huge negative for the idea that the Early Church consistently taught one truth that is embraced by modern Catholics.

Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom according to your churches website you indeed do not affirm that God and Jesus are one substance but are two seperate gods. This is pulled straight from the LDS Bible Dictionary on the website:

God​

The supreme Governor of the universe and the Father of mankind. We learn from the revelations that have been given that there are three separate persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. From latter-day revelation we learn that the Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone and that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit without flesh and bone (D&C 130:22–23).

When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All mankind are His children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as Lord (in small capitals), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God. Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with Him. All mankind are His brethren and sisters, He being the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim. Many of the things that the scripture says were done by God were actually done by the Lord(Jesus). Thus the scripture says that “God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), but we know that it was actually the Lord (Jesus) who was the creator (John 1:3, 10), or as Paul said, God created all things by Christ Jesus (Eph. 3:9). The Holy Ghost is also a God and is variously called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit, the Spirit of God, etc.

Although God created all things and is the ruler of the universe, being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent (through His Spirit), mankind has a special relationship to Him that differentiates man from all other created things: man is literally God’s offspring, made in His image, whereas all other things are but the work of His hands (Acts 17:28–29).

The God of the scriptures is a holy being. Man is commanded to be holy because God is holy (Lev. 11:44–45; 19:2). God can be known only by revelation. He must be revealed or remain forever unknown ([Mosiah 4:9]

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom in response to your post here which i believe sums up the questions you have asked prior.
…
2. Christ fully participates in our nature so that we can fully participate in his nature. Sinless, everlasting life of love and worship to our god in heaven.
…
Now… Unless i am mistaken, you are going to pull quotes of ECF and use your definitions and those of your position (LDS Church) to try to prove the catholic position “unreasonable”.

Your answer to #2 is the LOGICAL / RATIONAL understanding of #2, but it is not the MODERN Catholic understanding.
The MODERN Catholic understanding is that Christ fully participates/partakes of our nature, but we partially/derivatively participate/partake of His nature.

Your answer is the LOGICAL / RATIONAL answer. It makes the ECF seem like reasonable folks trying to communicate truth. But it is not MODERN CATHOLIC theology.

The reason is that there is CHANGE in the understanding of these ideas. It is NOT acceptable to say that Christ partially partook of our nature and NOT acceptable to say that we fully partook of His nature. The ECF made no such distinction, but the modern Catholic does. CHANGE.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom in response to your post here which i believe sums up the questions you have asked prior.

…

1. Christ fully participates in our nature so that we can fully participate in his nature. Sinless, everlasting life of love and worship to our god in heaven.

…

Now… Unless i am mistaken, you are going to pull quotes of ECF and use your definitions and those of your position (LDS Church) to try to prove the catholic position “unreasonable”.

Here is where Keating explains your mistake and offers the ILLOGICAL thought that the Father’s meant two different things on each side of the exchange formula.
Daniel Keating:

It is noteworthy that both parts of the “formula of exchange”—the Son became like us, so that we might become like the Son—are expressed in the New Testament in terms of participation. In Hebrews 2:14 the Incarnation itself is depicted in the language of participation: “Since therefore, the children share ( koinōnein ) in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook ( metechein ) of the same [nature].” Here we have an example of the first sense of participation, namely, sharing in a common nature. In order to redeem us and “to bring many sons to glory” (Heb 2:10), the Son of God came to share fully in our nature, that is, he became a human being. But the goal of the Son sharing in our nature is also stated in participationist language. We are told in 2 Peter 1:4 that God’s divine power at work in us is brought to completion by our becoming “partakers ( koinōnoi ) of the divine nature.” Here we have in bold and demonstrative language the promise that the Father has sent the Son to deliver us from sin and to cause us to become sharers in the divine nature itself. But in 2 Peter 1:4 we have an example of the second sense of participation, the unequal and derivative sharing by the creature in the infinite Creator. In this case, we as partakers never become, strictly speaking, what we partake of. We partake of the divine life, but do not become God by nature. And so we can rephrase the formula of exchange (“the Son of God became the Son of Man, so that the sons of men might become sons of God”) in terms of the two senses of participation found respectively in Hebrews 2 and 2 Peter 1. The Son of God partook of our nature and became fully what we are (human beings), so that we might partake of the divine nature and become by grace and participation what he is by nature. To put this in the creedal terminology of the Council of Chalcedon (a.d. 451): The eternal Word of God, consubstantial with the Father, became fully a human being, consubstantial with us in our nature, so that we might become partakers of his divinity. But we never become consubstantial (one in being) with the Father as he is; rather, we are inserted by grace into the divine communion of Persons. This is what it means to become “gods by grace.” (p. 101)

Should ANY LDS believe that the Father’s who wrote this intended the word “participate” and “partake” to have two different meanings? No. But that is the modern Catholic view.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

The English translation being used at Mass was bad so it was fixed. Everyone knows this. It is not and never has been the only English translation. If it were, there would be no one to say it was a bad translation.

Consubstantial means the same nature. It doesn’t mean that the divine nature is the same as human nature.

The divine nature is one being, as proclaimed in scripture (Christian scripture not Mormon scripture). God has revealed himself as one and God has revealed himself as three.

The Mormon heresy is similar to the Arian heresy, in that the divinity of Jesus is denied. Jesus for Mormons is not God from all ages, and neither is the Mormon idea of God the Father for that matter.

Both Mormonism and Arianism seek to retain pagan attributes of God. Multiple gods of a human or human like nature. Jesus lowered to a demi-God. It takes a large measure of creativity to twist Nicaea into a Mormon construct. A for effort. But F overall.

 

[gazelam]

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.

A non-Latter-day Saint scholar stated…

The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?..Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state .” (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, p. 328, italics added)

 

[TOmNossor]

The English translation being used at Mass was bad so it was fixed. Everyone knows this. It is not and never has been the only English translation. If it were, there would be no one to say it was a bad translation.

The English translation was bad and it was changed. That being said, there is NO GOOD English translation that is why the Latin “consubstantial” was put into the English creed. And as I have shown, the DEVELOPMENT of this doctrine results in there being no good Latin translation. When the MODERN Catholic says that God the Father and God the Son are “consubstantial” they mean in the “numeric” sense. When the MODERN Catholic says that God the Son and mankind are “consubstantial” they mean in the “generic” sense.
What this means is that when the Father’s wrote their creedal statement at Chalcedon, they used the Greek word “homoousian” (Latin is “consubstantial”) in a single sentence with two different meanings according to MODERN Catholics. The truth is that this betrays the view of CONSISTENT theology. There was change. Change before and change after Chalcedon. The Father’s did not chose to speak in an intentionally deceptive way. They were now creating bumper stickers like “No Jesus, No peace; Know Jesus, Know Peace.” They were making serious creedal statements, but they felt compelled to use this word in a way that MODERN Catholic demand involves two very different meanings. This is evidence of CHANGE.

Consubstantial means the same nature. It doesn’t mean that the divine nature is the same as human nature.

Agreed. “Consubstantial” is a Latin word used for a Greek work “homoousian” that LDS are happy to be without. It does not create monotheism by its mere existence in LDS thought. I may get to a summary later in this thread.

But the convoluted HISTORY of this word demonstrated CHANGE (or that the ECF were more interested in bumper sticker words than theology - which is false).

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

When I say consubstantial, I mean they are the same substance. That substance is God. No ECF ever strayed from THERE IS ONE GOD. No ECF ever claimed that God being ONE is not a numeric expression.

When I say nature, it is a synonym for substance. Nicaea absolutely addressed the heresy that Jesus is, or was at some point, of a different nature than the Father. Mormons hang onto this heresy, in a modified form, but nonetheless, it is the same heresy.

What is the definition of the Gates of Hell again?

You’re just making excuses for rejecting and not worshipping the one true God. Maybe that works fine for you, in this moment. There may come a time where you will be on your knees, asking God to forgive you. And He will. We know by the Cross that you are forgiven already. But you must freely choose Him, our God.

This convoluted explanation, second guessing Councils of the Church, proclaiming that only you, yourself, really understands them is folly. You certainly can rationalize, but this does not mean your excuses are rational.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
Again I will reiterate where we are in the discussion. You do not accept our beliefs and ideas based on your personal opinion and that of your church. We accept them based on the beliefs of our church and it’s authority.
As Rebecca stated, this is not a new conflict as the Arian Heresy was similar in many ways. The Heresy which was addressed by the bishops and councils and corrected by the ECF.
I believe you think that by trying to prove our view of the trinity as a non rational thought, it will change our minds or improve our view of your beliefs. This isn’t going to happen. As I stated above. We have hit a point in theology discussions that truly relies on (Faith). Both your own faith in that the LDS teachings are correct, and ours in that the catholic teachings are correct and that Christ will fulfill his promise to protect the church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Agreed, all discussions with Mormons reach the point, where belief in a Church that cannot fail, or one that does.

Mormons believe God protects their Church from failing. I find it beyond sad, that they are blinded to accepting that God has already done this, and they must first believe that God didn’t love us enough to provide for us. This tells us who the God that Mormons worship, is. A trickster god, at best.

 

[TOmNossor]

You said it was a consistent belief. I refuting that.
I claim there is evidence of CHANGE all over the place thus your position is wrong.
The fact that CHANGE is everywhere is a PROBLEM for Catholic truth claims.
You said there was a consistent monotheism that LDS rejected and this radical departure from the CONSISTENCY was evidence against my church. Only the evidence shows there was no consistency. Can you acknowledge this?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

If you are denying the inconsistent use of the word homoousian at Chalcedon you do not accept MODERN Catholic teachings.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

There are three related but distinct things that I am citing to prove that the argument that Catholic thought on monotheism and deification is consistent should be rejected by all who study the ECFs.

1. The word homoousian (Greek) / consubstantial (Latin). This word was the designator of orthodoxy at Nicea. It ensured monotheism because it was “one substance” and it ensured the divinity of Christ because He was the same substance as the Father (-ousia / substance based “divinity as such.”). Eusebius of Caesarea wrote to his church that we (the 318) declared that God the Father and God the Son were homoousian just like a human father and a human son are homoousian. A decade or two later almost ALL BISHOPS were semi-Arian. Today consubstantial in the “generic” sense is not what is meant by consubstantial when MODERN Catholics speak of Trinity. Today the “numeric” sense is demanded. More than a century after Nicea this “generic” vs. “numeric” sense was still an issue. Chalcedon declared that Christ was consubstantial with Father in His divinity and consubstantial with us in his humanity. MODERN Catholics understand this to mean the “numeric” sense in the first half of the sentence and the “generic” sense in the second. I submit that the Father’s at Chalcedon were not trying to define truth in the way that MODERN Catholics believe truth is else they would have not done some verbal jujitsu and used the same word with different meanings.
2. The exchange formula expressed as, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become gods” Before the 4thcentury there is no hint that the FINAL state of this human becoming is any less than man made divine. The Son is made FULLY human. The MODERN Catholic Church demands that while this is a FULL transformation, the human becoming gods is partial. This means those who bold taught this either believed it differently than MODERN Catholics or didn’t care if they were misunderstood.
3. The exchange formula expressed as, “The Son of God participated/partook of our nature so that we might participate/partake of His nature.” Keating’s words: Here we have an example of the first sense of participation, namely, sharing in a common nature. … to share fully in our nature, … the goal of the Son sharing in our nature is also stated in participationist language. … “partakers ( koinōnoi ) of the divine nature.” …But in 2 Peter 1:4 we have an example of the second sense of participation, the unequal and derivative sharing by the creature in the infinite Creator. Again we have the exchange expressed with the same words to be taken in different senses. But, there is no pre-fourth century evidence AND Keating makes clear what a MODERN Catholic must believe.

These three things demonstrate CHANGE. They are a product of –ousia based divinity and ALL the problems born of that “infallible” definition. If you read the ECF and the councils with an OPENNESS to the idea that they made mistakes, this is clear. One of the early slips was “creation ex nihilo.” It poisoned Nicea and the above.
Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Just like you say you can find evidence to prove change in this teaching on monotheism, I can and have provided evidence that shows you that it has been consistent. Whether you believe that evidence to be correct is your choice.
Hence again the fall back to authority.

 

[TOmNossor]

Just like you say you can find evidence to prove change in this teaching on monotheism, I can and have provided evidence that shows you that it has been consistent. Whether you believe that evidence to be correct is your choice.
Hence again the fall back to authority.

Evidence of consistency concerning monotheism?

There is evidence and TRUTH that monotheism is important to the Ancient Christian, Catholic Christian, LDS Christian, Jews (for the most part), and others (like Muslims). If this consistent importance is consistency, I will concede that.

I do not think there is evidence for CONSISTENCY in HOW monotheism is true within the context of Catholic views on the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Deification. I do not think you have shown it (which post would you say you gave evidence of consistency – I thought you asserted it, but not sure about evidence)?

Evidence of CHANGE! I think I have shown that in a VERY small subset of “orthodox” ECF, councils, and modern Catholics. We have not even gotten (and I do not wish to) into polytheistic or henotheistic ancient Jews or the modalist heresy in its 3rd Century manifestation or its modern manifestation.

I do not think you have been a part of criticizing my faith here in the past, but it may or may not surprise you that I have studied AUTHORITY a great deal. I even have three books I recommend to all LDS friends and to Catholics who have some interest in the strength of LDS truth claims. Those books are From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of Episcopacy in the Early Church by Father Francis Sullivan (Father Sullivan has been and is a well respect Catholic scholar, but I understand he has sided with some of the modernist views as of recent. He wrote this before that and was quite Catholic when I contacted him), The Rise of the Papacy by Catholic scholar Robert Eno, and Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity by LDS scholar Hugh Nibley. These books deal with the SAME data, but come to different conclusions. Father Sullivan is quite clear that his conclusion is that the episcopacy developed guided by God (Father Sullivan recommended Eno’s book to me which is more pure history rather than dialogue with the broader theological community like Sullivan). Nibley is also quite clear. Apostles and Bishops (I might say local ordained leaders along the lines of LDS Bishops rather than monoepiscopal bishops) existed side by side in the Early Church with DIFFERENT responsibilities AND the Bishop or Rome existed side by side with the Bishops of many places with no different responsibilities.

I however can and have granted that Father Sullivan’s views are pro-Catholic and a rational read of the evidence.

Charity, TOm

P.S. I see you edited out “and have provided” while I was responding. I guess we somewhat agree on this then .

 

[lilypadrees]

What is this thing you have with “MODERN Catholic teachings”? Our CATHOLIC beliefs are Biblical. We believe, preach and teach Christ. Mormons believe, preach and teach a different Christ.