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

[gazelam]

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.

Au contraire, mon frere,
It will well accepted by Catholic scholars that the doctrine of the Trinity was not solidified until the fourth Century AD. Several ECFs in the earliest centuries considered faithful & devout did not write of God in the Trinitarian terms that were settled on later.

Soon to be canonized Cardinal John Henry Newman wrote,

If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered as a Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes. and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian … Tertullian is heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord’s divinity … Origen is. at the very least, suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian. (Newman, Essay, 43)

Naturally if someone anonymously on this forum suggests Ignatius and Justin Martyr are Trinitarians and that conflicts with something written by a highly regarded Catholic scholar, it merits further scrutiny.

I hope this helps…

 

[Horton]

Tom - It is becoming obvious you are getting frustrated with the inability to convince Catholics that your interpretation of our Catholic faith and teaching is incorrect. Shouting words and making up labels such as "MODERN " Catholics and teachings. There is no such label within the Catholic Church.

Anytime I highlight and search the terms and paragraphs you and Gazelam use in these threads, it always comes back to an LDS source. I find it difficult to give claims credibility when they come directly from the LDS.

Both of you very rarely speak to the truth of the LDS faith, your interest is more in attempting to prove the Catholic Church wrong. Why not defend your own faith? Why not answer questions about LDS beliefs? Is it too difficult to defend?

Quite honestly you will never convince anyone here that your claims of “issues” and “problems” with the Catholic Church are correct.

 

[Horton]

If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state , St. Ignatius may be considered as a Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes. and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian … Tertullian is heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord’s divinity … Origen is. at the very least, suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian. (Newman, Essay, 43)

Could you please provide a link with the entire context of this paragraph?

 

[gazelam]

gazelam:

If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state , St. Ignatius may be considered as a Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes. and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian … Tertullian is heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord’s divinity … Origen is. at the very least, suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian. (Newman, Essay, 43)

Could you please provide a link with the entire context of this paragraph?

Sure. http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html

The quote is in section 11 in the 4th and 5th paragraphs. I hope this helps…

 

[gazelam]

@TOmNossor
CCC 475 Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ’s human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Gazelam,
Here are the Facts.

1. We know there were Trinitarian Beliefs in the earliest of the ECF and in scripture.
2. We know there were heresies that existed, were called as such and were squashed by the Early Councils multiple times regarding the trinity.
3. We know that these non-Trinitarian heresies continued to be fought and squashed by the church throughout several hundred years of church history.

Now. Here’s the problem that I have already brought up. (Authority)
As Catholics we look at the ECF and scripture through the authoritative lens of the church, the church that’s existed, affirmed correct teachings of Christianity, and survived centuries of attack by other faith groups and nations.

Your contesting that by skipping this history, going outside of this authority and interpreting things on your own(as in your church) you can come to the (correct) interpretation and how the faith really should be, or that feels the best for you personally. This isn’t so, as we can tell from the many collapses and creations of Protestant groups since the reformation.

God gave us a church and his promise to protect his church. Which is what he has done with the Catholic Church Since the beginning. It has weeded out heretical beliefs, affirmed correct teachings and maintained the faith for 2000 years.

Your position I understand very well as it really is no different than many Protestant positions nor is it really any different than the Arian Heresy. The paragraph you shared by Newman is a great example of this. If we were to look to scripture or to some of the writings of the early church fathers without the authoritative lens Of the Catholic Church, we could create a multitude of different beliefs that simply lead people away from God. Which is why as Catholics we don’t, and we keep our faith in the promise of god to protect his church.
We can go round and round about the ECF all day long.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom - It is becoming obvious you are getting frustrated with the inability to convince Catholics that your interpretation of our Catholic faith and teaching is incorrect. Shouting words and making up labels such as "MODERN " Catholics and teachings. …

Anytime I highlight and search the terms and paragraphs you and Gazelam use in these threads, it always comes back to an LDS source. I find it difficult to give claims credibility when they come directly from the LDS.

Both of you very rarely speak to the truth of the LDS faith, your interest is more in attempting to prove the Catholic Church wrong. Why not defend your own faith? Why not answer questions about LDS beliefs? Is it too difficult to defend?

Quite honestly you will never convince anyone here that your claims of “issues” and “problems” with the Catholic Church are correct.

I don’t know? Not sure I am any more or less frustrated. I wish people would answer questions. They could learn something.

I have pleaded with Catholic here to listen and only disagree if they have some good reason to object to what is being taught (like knowledge/evidence). This will be a further pleading post.

You “find it difficult to give claims credibility when they come directly from LDS.”

It was just a year ago that you SHOULD have been cured of this.

I am not sure what LDS sites you are referring too. The quote of Keating happens to be on a LDS site, but I read the book. @Gazelem just taught me something from his reading of a Catholic apologetic book and I am pretty sure that is not on any LDS site.

He is in the process of teaching you something new too it would seem. It would seem to me that on a thread where the “consistency” of Catholicism was raised as a reason to reject the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no Catholic should feel comfortable posting until after reading Newman’s essay on development (which I obliquely referenced earlier and Gazelam has pointed to quite clearly).

Also, I know of no Catholic response to the criticism I offered concerning:

1. Different meanings of homoousian evidencing lack of consistency.
2. Different meanings of partake/participate terms evidencing lack of consistency.
3. Different degrees of becoming where there is NO indication such is intended.

This makes my comments very different than yours. The criticisms foisted upon the CoJCoLDS here have been answered on sites like www.fairmormon.org and others.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

“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.

I have been meaning to respond briefly here.
I agree that for the Catholic monotheism is more central than for the LDS this is clear in Aquinas where after he explains he is defining “Sacred Doctrine” in question #1, he dives into “Treatise on The One God.” (question 2-26).
Blake Ostler deals with this in his first book (and references Aquinas regularly). Instead of starting with God’s oneness/power (Aquinas 3,4,7,8,9,11,25), Ostler starts with God’s love (Aquinas includes this in #20, after IMPASSIBILITY BTW). He regularly references the writings of early LDS leaders to partially justify this. But, when it comes to a compromise between LOVE and POWER, Ostler sides with Love. God is LOVE.
So, I would suggest based on the Summa that you are correct, but I disagree that such is admirable. LDS are monotheists, but not to safe guard God’s power and explain why it cannot be frustrated.
And though I understand the Catholic response, and I suspect folks don’t like it when I mention it. Aquinas met God. He lived for months and communicated with many folks after this. But, he claimed all he wrote was STRAW. He refused to explain why, and never wrote anymore on God. I believe (with no more OR LESS warrant than Thomists have) that Aquinas knew God was not as he logically laid out in the Summa. He was not impassible, but lovingly passible. He was not Simple but radically connected and affected. This is what Aquinas knew after “gazing into heaven for five minutes.” And the great doctor could not untangle 12 centuries of Dogma from what he learned, thus he called it straw and stopped writing.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Gazelam,

Here are the Facts.

1. We know there were Trinitarian Beliefs in the earliest of the ECF and in scripture.
2. We know there were heresies that existed, were called as such and were squashed by the Early Councils multiple times regarding the trinity.
3. We know that these non-Trinitarian heresies continued to be fought and squashed by the church throughout several hundred years of church history.

The flaw with the above is that LDS hold “Trinitarian Beliefs.” They say there is One God. So do LDS. 3 Nephi 11:27, “The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one, and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.”

They say Christ is divine. So do LDS.

What the ORTHODOX ECF do not say until Nicea is that the divinity of Christ and the ONENESS of God is a product of their being consubstantial / homoousian (I must include “orthodox” in the description of ECF because there is a SINGLE group of ECF who did declare that God the Father and God the Son were consubstantial in the 3rd century. They were condemned as modalists heretics. This was one of the reasons it was difficult to get the word “homoousian” accepted at Nicea, but without it the Arians could not be excluded from Christianity).

LDS like ALL the pre-Nicene ECF embrace the oneness of God and the divinity of Christ. LDS like all the ORTHODOX ECF don’t use the term homoousian to describe HOW God is one and Christ is divine. Though LDS like the MAJORITY of ECF at Nicea would be comfortable saying that God the Father and God the Son are homoousian in the “generic” sense.

The Bible is also clear that God is one and God the Son is not the same person as God the Father. LDS embrace this too.

Again, for your “consistency” argument to be valid, the ECF from their initial inheritance from the Apostles would need to teach some Trinity that distinguishes what Catholics DEVELOPED and what LDS believe. They did not.

The paragraph you shared by Newman is a great example of this. If we were to look to scripture or to some of the writings of the early church fathers without the authoritative lens Of the Catholic Church, we could create a multitude of different beliefs that simply lead people away from God. Which is why as Catholics we don’t, and we keep our faith in the promise of god to protect his church.

We can go round and round about the ECF all day long.

I agree that the Bible and the ECF WITHOUT the authority of the Catholic Church do not create a homoousian based solution to the one God and divine Christ conundrum.

The above is why if somehow God told me that the CoJCoLDS was not His Church, I would be at an FSSP (there is no SSPX Church near me) confession and mass about 20 miles from here within the day so I could pick up Catholic problems.

Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
I am truly confused by your claim that Mormons are monotheists. Even according to your churches website this is disproven. Father is a god, son is also a god and the Holy Spirit is also a god. 3 separate gods… Add to that that we will all become Gods, and… not monotheist. You can claim that you are all day long, but that is not the case according to your churches website.

 

[TOmNossor]

I am truly confused by your claim that Mormons are monotheists. Even according to your churches website this is disproven.

Here’s an interview by a scholarly journal Modern Reformation of a LDS professor at BYU named David Paulsen.
ModernReformation:

MR: Christian theologians from all the major traditions (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) are united in their belief in monotheism (only one God in this and any other universe, existing beyond time and space). Is LDS theology monotheistic or is it polytheistic? DP: As indicated above, Latter-day Saints, like other Christians and New Testament writers, affirm that there is a plurality of divine persons. Yet, at the same time, we witness (as our scriptures repeatedly declare) that “the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God.” (4) Given the plurality of divine persons, how can there be but one God? In at least at least three ways: (1) there is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community “God” and there is only one such. (2) There is only one God the Father or fount of divinity. (5) (3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity. (6) In his explanation of the unity of God, LDS Apostle James Talmage, wrote:
James Talmage:

“This unity is a type of completeness; the mind of any one member of the Trinity is the mind of the others; seeing as each of them does with the eye of perfection, they see and understand alike. Under any given conditions each would act in the same way, guided by the same principles of unerring justice and equity. The one-ness of the Godhead, to which the scriptures so abundantly testify, implies no mystical union of substance, nor any unnatural and therefore impossible blending of personality. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in their persons and individualities as are any three personages in mortality. Yet their unity of purpose and operation is such as to make their edicts one, and their will the will of God.” (7)

My views are very similar to David Paulsen.

A Hoped Logically Consistent View of Deification Non-Catholic Religions

I wrote much of the below and then didn’t get around to posting it. In response to real life, I developed a desire to start a thread titled, “Why Deification” or “Why not Deification,” but realizing the below was not done I thought I would do it. “A Hoped Logically Consistent View of Deification” This will be my attempt to offer what I believe about LDS deification thought and its consistency. I will attempt to respond to charges of illogic by explaining how they fail (assuming I do not think …

Here is a thread where my view is derided as, “rather orthodox Christian.” and “standard traditional Trinitarian belief.” This was done for three reasons and one is very important to our current discussion:

1. The Catholic Posters here are not well enough versed in Trinitarian thought to see the differences and similarities between what I offered and what Catholicism has defined in her councils. I even provided hints, but …
2. The Catholic Posters were more committed to deriding my faith than in understanding my faith and what I had said. They could not evaluate it without attacking my faith. This IMO contributes to much miscommunication here and between LDS Christians and others.
3. It is quite MONOTHIESTIC and thus it answers your question, "how can I claim LDS are monotheistic?

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You can claim that you are all day long, but that is not the case according to your churches website.

And the Catholic website (CCC) says that “men will become gods.”
Heck it says “men will become God,” not even LDS say that.
You expect me to acknowledge that the Catholic view is better understood by Catholic apologist Mark Shea or as I claim is FAR superior Catholic scholar Daniel Keating? You have two choices, “ask me to charitably allow Catholic scholars to explain what the Catholic website means,” or “doggedly refuse to let me and LDS scholars tell you what LDS theology is and is not.”
Either we both are polytheists, or neither of us are. Live by the website die by the website.
Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

I wish people would answer questions.

Ditto! Let’s see how this works.

Q - Regarding the concept of sealing for “time & eternity”, I propose the following scenario. A man & woman marry and start a family, they have 3 sons and 3 daughters, all sealed together for time & eternity. The sons & daughters reach adulthood and marry, being sealed for time & eternity to their spouses. The six original children all have children of their own who grow up and repeat the actions of their parents in marrying and sealing.

The original sons reach the state of exaltation, qualifying for their own “kingdom” (or whatever that state is called in LDS theology). The husbands of the original daughters also reach this same state. In addition the descendants also reach the same state.

The question is who are these people sealed to?

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I wish people would answer questions.

Ditto! Let’s see how this works.

Q - Regarding the concept of sealing for “time & eternity”, I propose the following scenario. A man & woman marry and start a family, they have 3 sons and 3 daughters, all sealed together for time & eternity. The sons & daughters reach adulthood and marry, being sealed for time & eternity to their spouses. The six original children all have children of their own who grow up and repeat the actions of their parents in marrying and sealing.

The original sons reach the state of exaltation, qualifying for their own “kingdom” (or whatever that state is called in LDS theology). The husbands of the original daughters also reach this same state. In addition the descendants also reach the same state.

The question is who are these people sealed to?

Let me offer some caveats before I answer:

1. I do not think “qualify” is the BEST term to describe those who receive the gift of exaltation.
2. I am not sure how much baggage you believe comes with the term “kingdom.”
3. And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made it clear that it is not some males only or females only proposition. Exaltation is both an individual and a family proposition. In the event a husband rejects his gifts from God and a wife fully accepts it, LDS are confident that there is nothing absent from the gifts bestowed from God on the wife. The same goes for the wife who rejects and the husband who accepts. Whatever “eternal increase” is, and that is no where authoritatively defined, it is ULTIMATELY not contingent upon others relationship with God. I even doubt the term “sorrow” will apply to the feelings of those who see their loved ones doggedly refuse to embrace God’s gifts. The joy of relation for the exalted will be present even when the beloved (spouse/child) rejects the fullness of God’s gifts. The sorrow that we feel on earth when our children go astray will be erased (or at least radically assuaged by an eternal perfect knowledge of God’s plans and our beloveds freewill and happiness in their choices).

Now, your scenario makes no hint that some of these God-loving children of God reject God’s gifts. As such the answer is an unreserved, "they will all be sealed together and exist in perfect communion with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

I will await your further thoughts.

Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

• I do not think “qualify” is the BEST term to describe those who receive the gift of exaltation.
• I am not sure how much baggage you believe comes with the term “kingdom.”

Once again you cannot answer a difficult question without nitpicking irrelevant words.

1. Substitute the word qualify with the word earn.
2. Substitute the word kingdom with the word planet.

Now may I have a answer to the question? Who are these folks sealed to? Their parents? Their spouses? Their children? Mormon theology teaches a man may become a god over his own planet with plural wives in his kingdom. (I realize this is very simplified statement but I’m sure you understand my meaning. To quibble over the words used just makes you seem petty and unwilling to actually answer the question) If that is true, then your statement:

"they will all be sealed together and exist in perfect communion with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

doesn’t make sense. Why do the work to earn the highest level of heaven and your own planet only to be there with everyone else? It seems as though you are stating sealing doesn’t matter but yet we know it’s significance to the LDS community. Do LDS men become gods of their own planet/world/kingdom/community/or whatever the LDS term is, once they become exalted?

 

[hope]

Finally, the Catholic Answers document says “There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathers’ writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead.”
Finally, the Catholic Answers document says “There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathers’ writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead This is not accurate. At the Council of Corinth in the 5th century they condemned giving baptism to the bodies of the dead. It is VERY unlikely they are reaching back to something St. Paul about approvingly 3-4 centuries earlier.
.”

Concerned convert accurately pointed out that there is no evidence in the bible or Church Father’s being practiced by the living in PLACE of the dead. What you produced is a practice of baptizing dead bodies. There is a difference but what I really am having problems with is I cannot find a Council of Corinth. I have checked several sources but perhaps you can provide one? the same with your Claim on St Francis and Council of Nicea. Can’t find what you claim? I also would dispute your opinion that Paul spoke approvingly of it.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

• I do not think “qualify” is the BEST term to describe those who receive the gift of exaltation.
• I am not sure how much baggage you believe comes with the term “kingdom.”

Once again you cannot answer a difficult question without nitpicking irrelevant words.

1. Substitute the word qualify with the word earn.
2. Substitute the word kingdom with the word planet.

If you consider it irrelevant and nitpicking then why do you care? If I considered it irrelevant, I wouldn’t have made the point I did.

I REJECT your substitutions. They are not valid IMO.

“Qualifty” with “choose to receive as a GIFT from God” is fine. Elder Maxwell’s last book makes this clear enough.

“Kingdom” can be “reward” or even some presently not scripturally defined concept of “eternal increase.”

The answer as I ALREADY said is they are ALL sealed together. The distinctions you make are the problem and that is why I rejected the term "kingdom” as defined Catholic kings and queens throughout history.

Furthermore, because we are called to “inherent all things” Rev 21:7, God desires us to possess divine omnipresence just as He does. The idea that whatever “kingdom” is precludes the sealing of families is simplistic at best. Can you not see how you are placing human restrictions and concepts on divine promises?

To suggest I am being “petty” witnesses that you are not interested in learning about what educated LDS believe, but instead asking questions to attack. That is fine, but the insults are not necessary.

Charity, TOm

P.S. Your criticism requires that Catholic communion is incoherent. Can you see why?

 

[TOmNossor]

Finally, the Catholic Answers document says “There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathers’ writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead.”
Finally, the Catholic Answers document says “There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathers’ writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead This is not accurate. At the Council of Corinth in the 5th century they condemned giving baptism to the bodies of the dead. It is VERY unlikely they are reaching back to something St. Paul about approvingly 3-4 centuries earlier.
.”

I was wrong. I am sorry. The council is the Council of Carthage.
Canon 18 says:
And that neither the Eucharist nor Baptism should be given to the bodies of the dead.

I can look further into the idea that “baptism of dead bodies” is different than proxy baptism, but it seems to me that the Eucharist would NEVER be given to dead bodies for many reasons so this indicates to me the PROXY Baptism is a good possibility.

St. Chrysostom in the 4th or 5th century describes a heretical group that practiced a proxy baptism.

Anyway, I am sorry. I was wrong. It was the Council of Carthage, not Corinth.
Charity, TOm

 

[hope]

No problem. It was frustrating not to find what you were referring to. Could you also give me a reference on

It is St. Francis De Salas that you are arguing against here not me. I merely said there are a lot of POSSIBLE explanations offered for this passage and one is:

I would also like a reference to these statements as well

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).

 

[hope]

I can look further into the idea that “baptism of dead bodies” is different than proxy baptism, but it seems to me that the Eucharist would NEVER be given to dead bodies for many reasons so this indicates to me the PROXY Baptism is a good possibility.

Thank you for the link which contained this

It also seemed good that the Eucharist should not be given to the bodies of the dead. For it is written: Take, Eat, but the bodies of the dead can neither take nor eat. Nor let the ignorance of the presbyters baptize those who are dead.