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

[Horton]

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.”

So we’ll say gift and reward.

You have answered in a very predictable way. A valid question was asked, you responded with a lot of words without actually giving a specific answer to a very specific questions. You do so by insulting me and my Church which again was 100% predictable.

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?

The idea that the whole concept of sealings is inclusive as you have claimed is a complete 180 of what your church teaches. From my reading on Fairmorman I understand that no one will be accepted into the celestial kingdom unless they are sealed to an exalted man. But your statement is “they are ALL sealed together”, which does not match what fairmorman states.

The distinctions you make are the problem and that is why I rejected the term "kingdom” as defined Catholic kings and queens throughout history.

This is a major problem for the LDS. The inability to accept true definitions of common words. You also seem to believe you are capable of reading my mind. Typical response, perceive an insult by mindreading (knowing what I meant which MUST be something different than what I wrote), then throw back an insult. Again 100% predictable.

to be con’t.

 

[Horton]

Con’t @TOmNossor

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?

I don’t believe in the sealing of families as it is not a Christian concept, especially not a Catholic one nor a biblical one. The LDS church is what places restrictions on divine promises. We Catholics are really okay with the mystery. It is actually prayed during the Mass. We understand that God is not limited to what we think he can do, we know God can make anything happen without our understanding of.

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.

Again trying to read my mind. And you are correct, insults are not necessary, however you seem to be fond of using them. Once again 100% predictable.

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

The fact that the concept of sealing people together eternally is very problematic, so much so that a search of fairmormon failed to provide an answer. The web site, rather than provide an answer, just printing quotes of others and ridicule the questions. However, none of that has anything to do with the Eucharist. Deflection attempt rejected.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom what you shared in this post does not demonstrate a monotheistic religion. It demonstrates a “community” of (Gods)who all have, “a unity of purpose and operation.” It does not anywhere specify that it is three persons in (ONE) God. A community of Gods is still multiple gods. A community of anything that shares a unity of purpose can define many things: sports teams, councils, political parties, but I’ve not known it to define a single person.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
Again you fail to pull the correct context into your quotations. The Catholic Church, and scripture condemn polytheism very clearly multiple times.

Not sure of your thoughts on this site. But it does show how Mormons are in fact polytheist in my opinion…

http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/polytheism.html

 

[TOmNossor]

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:

Here is Francis De Sales using 1 Cor 15:29 to explain that these are action done (not strictly baptisms) by the living that impact the post mortal lives of the dead.

And of this custom S. Paul speaks quite clearly in the 1st of Corinthians, chap xv., appealing to it as praiseworthy and right. What shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why then are they baptized for them? This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed. For, firstly, in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances;

(Library of St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy , p. 368).

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.

Here is a Catholic priest correcting a Catholic who misunderstood this:

Mormon baptism validity Non-Catholic Religions

No, my friend, you are in manifest error. Jesus Christ is One in Being with the Father. Us humans are NOT One in Being with the Son - that is heresy, some sort of pantheism. Please show me where the CCC says we are One in Being (consubstantial) with the Son. Yes, we are. This is basic Incarnation Theology. The Son took-on human nature–ergo, He became “of the same substance” as any other human being (while still preserving His Divine Nature in the hypostatic union). Although we do not t…

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).

This is from the Catholic Encylopedia:

Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing; or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

Had anyone paid attention to what I said, I would suggest that the MODERN Catholic understanding of councilor infallibility was not something that Athanasius and Fathers at First Constantinople (not to mention the local Council of Alexandria) were too concerned about (not that the 318 at Nicea believed different IN THIS AREA than the Fathers at Constantinople). I also find that the INTENDED truth (truth from a Catholic perspective -CP) at Nicea aligns with the truth (CP) at Constantinople, but there are other intended truths that are denied latter by parsing the LITERAL words instead of “intended truth.” I find this to be a problem.

Unlike the Council of Corinth, I don’t think I messed these up.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

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.

I really do not know what was happening with the Eucharist, but it seems remarkable to me that the Eucharist was being place in the mouth of dead bodies.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom what you shared in this post does not demonstrate a monotheistic religion. It demonstrates a “community” of (Gods)who all have, “a unity of purpose and operation.” It does not anywhere specify that it is three persons in (ONE) God. A community of Gods is still multiple gods. A community of anything that shares a unity of purpose can define many things: sports teams, councils, political parties, but I’ve not known it to define a single person.

Hello ConcernedConvert,
My response to this statement of yours IN PART will depend on how you answer this. If a Moslem or modern Jew declared that you and the Catholic Church are not really monotheists, would you grant that this is a rational position from their perspective? Or would you claim they just didn’t understand, they were being obtuse, stubborn, uncharitable, or …?
Charity, TOm

P.S. I cannot respond any more because of CA rules. I very much encourage you to do like Gazelam does and read books (like Akin’s book) and apologetic sites (like Catholic Answers) that express what actually LDS believe about our theology. You will NEVER understand if you keep turning to sites critical of the CoJCoLDS.

 

[hope]

Here is Francis De Sales using 1 Cor 15:29 to explain that these are action done (not strictly baptisms) by the living that impact the post mortal lives of the dead.

What a different interpretation! First he does not use baptism in the sense of the Sacrament. which I believe is the more common interpretation but of “pain and afflictions” The whole article is about purgatory. As you correctly state, that this was to impact the dead. A practice that is still done. To restate he does not equate the baptism that was mentioned by Paul as the baptism that Jesus commanded " go and baptize" but of praying and fasting. I still would disagree with him also that Paul was praising this practice. I can see why he would say so as he is defending purgatory but I don’t see that either in the scripture, very interesting however.

 

[hope]

Here is a Catholic priest correcting a Catholic who misunderstood this:

Yes and he clearly explains that it applies only to the human nature of Jesus.

Yes, we are.

This is basic Incarnation Theology.

The Son took-on human nature–ergo, He became “of the same substance” as any other human being (while still preserving His Divine Nature in the hypostatic union). Although we do not typically use the word “consubstantial” in describing this (reserving that word instead to describing the Son and Father as consubstantial or homoousias) the dogma of it is undeniable.

So yes, Catholic theology does indeed say that human beings and the Son are consubstantial. To say otherwise is to deny the Incarnation itself.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial with each other with regard to their Divine Nature.

The Son and men are consubstantial with regard to His (and our) human nature.

In the hypostatic union, the one Person of Christ preserves both Natures (substances, ousia).

In other words, it is not the entire Christ Who is “consubstantial with the Father” but rather the Divine Nature which is Consubstantial with the Father (caution: in so far as it is possible to say “not the entire Christ” without denying the hypostatic union—the words can easily trip us if we’re not careful).

In the hypostatic union, the two natures are united, but not combined (ie not mixed into a 3rd nature). Exactly because they are not combined, we can still make that distinction and then not say that we humans are consubstantial with the Father.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

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.

“Qualify” 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.”

So we’ll say gift and reward.

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?

The idea that the whole concept of sealings is inclusive as you have claimed is a complete 180 of what your church teaches. From my reading on Fairmorman I understand that no one will be accepted into the celestial kingdom unless they are sealed to an exalted man. But your statement is “they are ALL sealed together”, which does not match what fairmorman states.

Let me try to reset the tone of our current interaction. I am not saying that the topic of sealing is 100% “inclusive.”

Your scenario had zero evidence anyone did not receive ALL the gifts God desired to bestow upon His children.

So the initial family with 6 children would be completely sealed and connected in the divine communion.

The 6 families born of the 6 children would be completely sealed and connected in the divine communion.

Whatever the connection between the 6 families that exist would in no way hamper the connection that exists to the original family. To receive all that the Father has would be to have not only a divine connection, but a divine omnipresence.

The post mortal connection across time and space is analogous to the earthly connection Catholics believe happens when folks on opposite sides of the world partake of the Eucharist in the COMMUNION service. They are connected to one another and to God. This is one of the reasons why Catholic teaching does not include “open communion” because to partake of this connection while rejecting Catholicism is not to be in this spiritual communion at all.

So, it is my position that the post mortal sealing connection is not bound by space and time. The relations sealed are experience as promised by those who are sealed and choose to embrace the fullness of the gifts offered from God.

To anticipate a further question of yours:
Those who reject the fullness of the gifts offered from God will not EXPERIENCE these sealed connections in the same way. Their experience will be muted to the degree they require it to be muted. Those who hate their family members who embrace the fullness of God’s gifts, will not be caged into a room because they were sealed (with their consent for those who CHOOSE to be sealed or without their consent for those “born in the covenant”).

I hope that makes sense. I can see the problem you are trying to erect, but I TRULY believe it is COMPLETELY resolved with understanding that is not outside human abilities to comprehend.
Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Here is a paragraph from the council of Chalcedon that specifies consubstantiality regarding us with Christ as well as a link to the document.

(So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incac2.htm

 

[hope]

Thank you it is exactly what Father stated.

 

[hope]

Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing; or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes

I think you are viewing “He is of another hpostatsis” as equal to person. I do not see it that way because it further states “or another substance”. God being three Divine Persons is not the same as saying they are different substance. Your above quote put into context does not substantiate your claim. The intended truth has been upheld.

 

[TOmNossor]

Here is a paragraph from the council of Chalcedon that specifies consubstantiality regarding us with Christ as well as a link to the document.

(So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incac2.htm

And there is nothing in the above to indicate that the Father’s at Chalcedon intended to communicate that the word homoousian/consubstantial means “numeric one substance” when refering to Christ and the Father AND “generic one substance” when referring to Christ and mankind. Doesn’t that indicate that the MODERN understand of this is different than the ancient understanding?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing; or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes

I think you are in viewing "He is of another hpostatsis as equal to person. I do not see it that way because it explains or another substance. God being three Divine Persons is not the same as saying they are different substance. Your above quote put into context does not substantiate your claim. The intended truth has been upheld.

As I stated, my above quote demonstrates that the Fathers at Constantinople (and Alexandria) were willing to say the exact opposite of what the Fathers at Nicea said concerning hypostasis.
AND the question nobody has ever answered for me. Are Ecumenical Councils infallible in their WORDS (which would be a problem Nicea-Constantinople) or in the meaning those words are given by the Fathers who captured them (which would cause OTHER problems)?
I do not know the “Catholic Answer” to this question.
Chariyt, TOm

 

[hope]

And there is nothing in the above to indicate that the Father’s at Chalcedon intended to communicate that the word homoousian/consubstantial means “numeric one substance” when refering to Christ and the Father AND “generic one substance” when referring to Christ and mankind. Doesn’t that indicate that the MODERN understand of this is different than the ancient understanding?
Charity, TOm

No It is your misunderstanding of what was taught as my previous post states.

So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

EWTN

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

And there is nothing in the above to indicate that the Father’s at Chalcedon intended to communicate that the word homoousian/consubstantial means “numeric one substance” when refering to Christ and the Father AND “generic one substance” when referring to Christ and mankind. Doesn’t that indicate that the MODERN understand of this is different than the ancient understanding?
Charity, TOm

No It is your misunderstanding of what was taught as my previous post states.

So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

EWTN

No, I think you are misunderstanding what is believed today.
Are you saying that you believe the above means that the meaning of “Consubstantial” is the SAME in both halves of the Creedal statement at Chalcedon TODAY?
Charity, TOm

 

[hope]

I am not understanding your question? ? ?
What is believed today is the same as what was believe at both the Councils.

Therefore, whilst we also stand by

—the decisions and all the formulas relating to the creed from the sacred synod which took place formerly at Ephesus, whose leaders of most holy memory were Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria we decree that
pre-eminence belongs to the exposition of the right and spotless creed of the 318 saintly and blessed fathers who were assembled at Nicaea when Constantine of pious memory was emperor: and that

—those decrees also remain in force which were issued in Constantinople by the 150 holy fathers in order to destroy the heresies then rife and to confirm this same catholic and apostolic creed.

—The creed of the 318 fathers at Nicaea.

—And the same of the 150 saintly fathers assembled in Constantinople.

This wise and saving creed, the gift of divine grace, was sufficient for a perfect understanding and establishment of religion. For its teaching about the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit is complete, and it sets out the Lord’s becoming human to those who faithfully accept it.

But there are those who are trying to ruin the proclamation of the truth, and through their private heresies they have spawned novel formulas:

 

[TOmNossor]

I am not understanding your question? ? ?
What is believed today is the same as what was believe at both the Councils.

Hope,
I am talking about Chalcedon.

I said and you quoted:

And there is nothing in the above to indicate that the Father’s at Chalcedon intended to communicate that the word homoousian/consubstantial means “numeric one substance” when referring to Christ and the Father AND “generic one substance” when referring to Christ and mankind. Doesn’t that indicate that the MODERN understand of this is different than the ancient understanding?

After you quoted me you replied:

No It is your misunderstanding of what was taught as my previous post states.

And offered some text from Chalcedon and highlighted “the same consubstantial.”

I am saying I think it is you who misunderstand. The meaning of consubstantial is not the same in today’s Catholic Church as I outlined. I asked, "Are you saying that you believe the above means that the meaning of “Consubstantial” is the SAME in both halves of the Creedal statement at Chalcedon TODAY?

I hope that makes sense.

Charity, TOm

 

[hope]

I hope you will bear with me.
I don’t understand what you mean by both halves. No it does not make sense to me.