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

  • Thread starter Thread starter I8jacob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“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.”

Tom:
Your word “important” here is what has led to much of our discussions. Monotheism is not “important” to Christian, Jewish or Muslim Views. It is “CENTRAL” Mormons cannot claim it is central to their views, because it is not.
One of the posts where i shared some articles on this subject was i believe back at Post 153. I have spent a lot of time in my own research into the subjects of the ECF and can confidently say that they did indeed support the Trinitarian views of Monotheism which the catholic church continues to support today. I only linked a couple of articles. However, there are a plethura of articles, both Protestant and Catholic, that you or anyone else can find with a 32 second google search.
For one to understand the theological discussion we are having, one must understand the church history, the Arian Heresy and how that developed throughout the early centuries of the church, and how the church ended up affirming Trinitarian Monotheistic beliefs over Arian Beliefs. I assume that you understand this history and much of the history of the Early Church Fathers and the Early Councils that solidified the faith we continue with today (as in catholics).
As i have already pointed out. Heresy has always existed within the christian church. How are we to know what is accurate if Heresy is not addressed? This is what the early councils did. They addressed and corrected Heresy to preserve the true orthodox teachings of the faith (The Catholic Trinity.)
I have read and understood your arguments as well as the evidence that you have provided. However, myself and the Catholic Church firmly disagree with your arguments as the Early Church Fathers Disagreed with Arius during the Early Councils. Catholics support these teachings with their own evidence which you tend to (Personally Disagree with or find unsatisfying, and your church disagrees with and finds unsatisfying.)
Ultimately we are called to follow Christ through his church(the catholic church) regardless of some of our personal disagreements or things we find unsatisfying. These behaviors are what Separates Catholics and protestants today. Submission to the body and blood of our lord, and submission to the authority that Christ left his church. As i have mentioned, this is now about Authority and how our personal submission to authority drives our faith in the one true god.
 
RebeccaJ said:
No ECF ever strayed from THERE IS ONE GOD. No ECF ever claimed that God being ONE is not a numeric expression.
Click to expand...
Justin Martyr quote:

[T]here is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is called an Angel…. I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things – numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56[ANF 1:223])

Justin Martyr quote:

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. ( First Apology 13 [ANF 1:166-67])

Eusebius of Caesarea wrote:

In these words [Deuteronomy 32:8] surely he names first the Most High God, the Supreme God of the Universe, and then as Lord His Word, Whom we call Lord in the second degree after the God of the Universe.” (Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel 4.7, trans. W. J. Ferrar (New York: Macmillan, 1920), 1:176.)

Origen said…

There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in the prophecy, “Thank ye the God of gods,” and “The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.” . Now God, according to the Gospel, “is not the God of the dead but of the living,” Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: “As there are gods many and lords many,” and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing. Now there are, besides the gods of whom God is god, certain others. (Origen, “Commentary on John, 1:34” in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, cds., The Ante·Nicene Fathers (1886- 1890: reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1978-1981), 10:315.
 
Consubstantial is an English word.

Hugh Nibley was known to invent references or the references didn’t prove what he claimed or find a unique translation which he would claim proved something, but the common translation didn’t prove what he claimed.

There was a time when Mormons would come to this forum and quote the ECF as proof of something. We could then check the quote and find out that it never proved what they claimed.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm
Click to expand...
How serious is a site supposed to be that gives a date of Ignatius of Antioch as 250AD?
ConcernedConvert said:
ECF did indeed teach trinity. Here are some more quotes Gazelam.
Click to expand...
Here is a lovely example of subordinationism from this site:

235 AD Novatian “[W]ho does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, ‘Let us make man in our image and our likeness’ [Gen. 1:26] . . . Or when he reads (as having been said) to Christ: ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten you. Ask of me, and I will give you the heathens for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession?’ [Ps. 2:7-8]. Or when also that beloved writer says: ‘The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I shall make your enemies the stool of your feet?’ [Ps. 110:1]. Or when, unfolding the prophecies of Isaiah, he finds it written thus: ‘Thus says the Lord to Christ my Lord?’ Or when he reads: ‘I came not down from heaven to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me?’ [John 6:28]. Or when he finds it written: ‘Because He who sent me is greater than I?’ [cf. John 14:24, 28]. . . . Or when he finds it placed side by side with others: ‘Moreover, in your law it is written that the witness of two is true. I bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me?’ [cf. John 8:14-18]” … "And I should have enough to do were I to endeavor to gather together all the passages [of the kind in the previous quotation] . . . since the divine Scripture, not so much of the Old as also of the New Testament, everywhere shows Him to be born of the Father, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, who always has obeyed and obeys the Father; that He always has power over all things, but as delivered, as granted, as by the Father Himself permitted to Him. And what can be so evident proof that this is not the Father, but the Son; as that He is set forth as being obedient to God the Father, unless, if He be believed to be the Father, Christ may be said to be subjected to another God the Father?" (Treatise on the Trinity 26).

“Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.” (R. P. C. Hansen)
 
Gazelam…
Couldn’t possibly look past the incorrect date to the content? Let’s just ignore the Plethora of excerpts from that site because they got the date wrong…

As I mentioned to Tom above. There are multiple sites with articles containing similar information from Catholics and Protestants alike that support this position
if the incorrect date on this one threw you off that much.
Most christian churches don’t dispute these claims and provide their support for them through the teachings of the ECF.
 
The Christian understanding of the nature of God is consistent with the Bible and the Early Church. The Mormon understanding of the nature of God is not consistent with the Bible and the Early Church.

The Early Church is the Christian Church from the time of Christ through the first seven Ecumenical Councils.

Joseph Smith and the early Mormon Church claimed the Great Apostasy happened in 570AD. This would mean they should agree with the teachings of the first five councils. When Joseph Smith founded his church they might have, but he had “revelations” that changed Mormon teaching on the nature of God.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
Gazelam…
Couldn’t possibly look past the incorrect date to the content? Let’s just ignore the Plethora of excerpts from that site because they got the date wrong…
Click to expand...
Am I supposed to look past the non-Trinitarian quote I showed you also? That site seems IMHO as just a slapdash collection of sayings without real thought. There are probably better sites that thoughtfully defend the doctrine of the Trinity.

Anyway, let’s level set how the Trinity is defined. And if you see something I missed, please let me know.
  1. There is one God
  2. The Father is God.
  3. The Son is God.
  4. The Holy Spirit is God.
  5. The three Divine Persons have existed co-eternally and co-equally.
  6. The Father is not the Son.
  7. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
  8. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
  9. The Son is fully human and fully divine (hypostatic union)
  10. Both natures of the Son have a will.
  11. The wills of the Son’s human nature and the Son’s divine nature are identical.
  12. The Father and the Holy Spirit are composed solely of an immaterial essence referred to as “spirit” (per John 4:24)
 
Last edited:
40.png
Answering Mormon Objections Non-Catholic Religions
Mormon Math: 1830-1260=570
Click to expand...
I’ve posted them a few times
 
Joseph Smith claimed to receive revelations from God then proceeded to join a secret society that promises its members enlightenment. Pretty sure God’s prophets don’t need to join frat clubs for enlightenment.
 
SeraficLeo said:
Joseph Smith claimed to receive revelations from God then proceeded to join a secret society that promises its members enlightenment. Pretty sure God’s prophets don’t need to join frat clubs for enlightenment.
Click to expand...
What secret society are you referring to?
 
Gazelam.
Again you see what you want to see in these writings regardless of massive amounts of evidence to the contrary of your beliefs as well as the decisions of the ECF and the councils. You can accept your own authority if you like and truly think you know better than the ECF that met and made these decisions.
 
ConcernedConvert,

I am confused by your last response.

Gazelam says:
gazelam said:
40.png
ConcernedConvert:
Gazelam…

Couldn’t possibly look past the incorrect date to the content? Let’s just ignore the Plethora of excerpts from that site because they got the date wrong…
Click to expand...
Am I supposed to look past the non-Trinitarian quote I showed you also? That site seems IMHO as just a slapdash collection of sayings without real thought. There are probably better sites that thoughtfully defend the doctrine of the Trinity.

Anyway, let’s level set how the Trinity is defined. And if you see something I missed, please let me know.
  1. There is one God
  2. The Father is God.
  3. The Son is God.
  4. The Holy Spirit is God.
  5. The three Divine Persons have existed co-eternally and co-equally.
  6. The Father is not the Son.
  7. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
  8. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
  9. The Son is fully human and fully divine (hypostatic union)
  10. Both natures of the Son have a will.
  11. The wills of the Son’s human nature and the Son’s divine nature are identical.
  12. The Father and the Holy Spirit are composed solely of an immaterial essence referred to as “spirit” (per John 4:24)
Click to expand...
And you respond …
ConcernedConvert said:
Gazelam.

Again you see what you want to see in these writings regardless of massive amounts of evidence to the contrary of your beliefs as well as the decisions of the ECF and the councils. You can accept your own authority if you like and truly think you know better than the ECF that met and made these decisions.
Click to expand...
He is trying to GROUND this discussion with WHAT the Trinity is (there being supposedly non-Trinitarian statements at your link and I PRESUME many statements that a LDS would be happy to embrace as TRUTH). You claimed he only sees what he wants to see? Are you implying there are ERRORS in what he thinks the Catholic Trinity is? Or ERRORS in his list of 12 things?

Many of 1-12 in his list were decided by conflicts that were settled by councils. The only one I would need to research is #11. I think there is nothing written about #11 in the first 4-5 centuries where I have read extensively.

Can you clarify what Gazelam is seeing that you consider to NOT be there?

Charity, TOm
 
Last edited:
TOmNossor said:
Many of 1-12 in his list were decided by conflicts that were settled by councils. The only one I would need to research is #11. I think there is nothing written about #11 in the first 4-5 centuries where I have read extensively.
Click to expand...
#11 (The divine and human wills of Christ are identical) I recently read in Jimmy Akins’ book “Teaching with Authority”. I don’t have time at this moment to look it up and determine if and how this belief traces back to an authoritative Catholic source.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top