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

[TOmNossor]

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.

From Chalcedon:
“consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity”

The word homoousian/consubstantial means “numerical one substance” when referring to Christ and the Father AND “generically one substance” when referring to Christ and mankind as this is understood today. But the Fathers at Chalcedon gave no indication that they meant the words in different senses across that quick PARALLEL construction.

That is what I am saying.
Charity, TOm

 

[hope]

I am not sure I understand. homoousian/cibnsubstantial means of one one substance. The Council of Nicea had to be very precise. Arius claimed that Jesus was created by God and subordinate to the Father. The Nicaea Creed was developed so that it was clear and that the heretics of the time could not give ascent to a doctrine with a different meaning than intended. This was affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon affirmed Nicea. I guess what you need to explain is your use of numerical and generically.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
I believe, if I am interpreting your question correctly, the answer to your question here is yes. God is consubstantial with Jesus and Jesus is consubstantial with us. Jesus is Fully divine and fully human. We share the human substance ( as described/defined in Chalcedon) with Jesus while Jesus shares the divine substance (also described or defined in Chalcedon) with the father.

This article explains it pretty well.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur332.htm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Your claim that they changed the definition of consubstantial is not what occurred from the research I have done.

What occurred, from what I understand, is that they simply further defined the substances that were consubstantial in the council of Chalcedon.

 

[TOmNossor]

I am not sure I understand. homoousian/cibnsubstantial means of one one substance. The Council of Nicea had to be very precise. Arius claimed that Jesus was created by God and subordinate to the Father. The Nicaea Creed was developed so that it was clear and that the heretics of the time could not give ascent to a doctrine with a different meaning than intended. This was affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon affirmed Nicea. I guess what you need to explain is your use of numerical and generically.

Arius did claim that Christ was “created ex nihilo” and his position was (at least in this respect) rejected from the moment he said this very early in the council.
But let me stick to Chalcedon.
Today Catholic say, “I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, … consubstantial with the Father” (this is the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, but it uses the numeric sense).
They mean that God the Father and God the Son are numerically of on substance. This oneness of substance is not something that exists between a human father and a human son.

At the Council of Chalcedon, the Fathers said that Father and Son (in His divinity) were consubstantial AND Son (in His humanity) and mankind were consubstantial.

The text at Chalcedon is:
Lord Jesus Christ: … consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity;

What the Fathers at Chalcedon were saying was “the Lord Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father as regards His divinity, and the same (Christ) [is] consubstantial with us as regards His humanity.”

I am saying the modern understanding of this is, “the Lord Jesus Christ is consubstantial [in the numeric sense] with the Father as regards His divinity, and the same (Christ) [is] consubstantial [in the generic sense] with us as regards His humanity.”

Further, I am saying that the Fathers at Chalcedon gave no indication that they meant to be using the word consubstantial (really homoousian) in two way across that bit of parallel creedal statement. Thus, the modern way of understanding has was not what the Fathers were thinking about at Chalcedon.

Do you agree that the word consubstantial/homoousian in the Chalcedon creedal statement MUST have two meanings (1. Numeric sense, 2. Generic sense) TODAY? Do you agree that the Fathers as Chalcedon were not trying to communicate two different senses?

That is my position.

I might add that it is very human to understand that a Father and Son are consubstantial in the generic sense. It is my position that how two divine persons are consubstantial in the numeric sense, but not the MODALIST sense is most charitably described as a mystery.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Your claim that they changed the definition of consubstantial is not what occurred from the research I have done.

What occurred, from what I understand, is that they simply further defined the substances that were consubstantial in the council of Chalcedon.

I claim there are two definitions and that today if a Catholic were to recite the creedal statement from Chalcedon they would need to use the word “consubstantial” in two ways.

BTW, I still hope to say a lot more in response to your post that I briefly responded too here:

Questions about "the book of mormon is wrong" article from this website Non-Catholic Religions

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 …

I was hoping you would answer my question because I wish to mirror your answer when I respond more fully.

Charity, TOm

 

[hope]

Do you agree that the word consubstantial/homoousian in the Chalcedon creedal statement MUST have two meanings (1. Numeric sense, 2. Generic sense) TODAY? Do you agree that the Fathers as Chalcedon were not trying to communicate two different senses?

I hate to say this but I still am not sure I understand what you are saying. You use two terms Numeric which I think you mean numbers and gerneric meaning a class of people. If this is what you meant than no I don’t agree that it was two different senses. Jesus is the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the same substance as all humans as Father said to say otherwise is to deny the incarnation.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
According to the definitions of consubstantiality or homoousian, they are not using them in two ways. As I stated prior they are defining in the council of Chalcedon what is consubstantial, or I guess who is consubstantial with what. Jesus is one with the father and one with us. Fully divine and fully human.
The Nicene Creed demonstrates that god the father and son are (one). Chalcedon again demonstrates that god the father and son are (one) in their divinity and then specifies that Jesus and us are (one) in our humanity.
Regarding this statement of yours:
“They mean that God the Father and God the Son are numerically of on substance. This oneness of substance is not something that exists between a human father and a human son.”

Consubstantiality Does exist between a human father and son. At least all of the definitions I can find conclude that consubstantiality exists in humanity. We are of the same substance.
The history that Hope brings up regarding the Arian Heresy is crucial in understanding this. Arius asserted that Jesus was created by god, lesser than god or subordinate to god, challenging and lessening his divinity. The council at Nicaea stated, that Jesus is one with God, or the same in substance , as god, not lesser nor subordinate.
Chalcedon does not change this but adds that he is also the same as us in substance. Fully god, fully human. Same as god in substance and same as human in substance. Hopefully my personal substituted terms don’t muddy things up too much.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I will try to respond to this one tomorrow.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

Do you agree that the word consubstantial/homoousian in the Chalcedon creedal statement MUST have two meanings (1. Numeric sense, 2. Generic sense) TODAY? Do you agree that the Fathers as Chalcedon were not trying to communicate two different senses?

I hate to say this but I still am not sure I understand what you are saying. You use two terms Numeric which I think you mean numbers and gerneric meaning a class of people. If this is what you meant than no I don’t agree that it was two different senses. Jesus is the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the same substance as all humans as Father said to say otherwise is to deny the incarnation.

Doesn’t saying it means the SAME thing mean that it is appropriate to say that God the Father and God the Son are homoousian/consubstantial exactly as a human father and a human son are homoousian/consubstantial?
Isn’t it clear from your understanding of what you mean when you recite the Nicene-Constantinople Creed that this is not what you mean?
Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

From the first council of Constantinople in 381.
(What we have undergone — persecutions, afflictions, imperial threats, cruelty from officials, and whatever other trial at the hands of heretics — we have put up with for the sake of the gospel faith established by the 318 fathers at Nicaea in Bithynia. You, we and all who are not bent on subverting the word of the true faith should give this creed our approval. It is the most ancient and is consistent with our baptism. It tells us how to believe in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit: believing also, of course, that the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit have a single Godhead and power and substance, a dignity deserving the same honour and a co-eternal sovereignty, in three most perfect hypostases, or three perfect persons. So there is no place for Sabellius’s diseased theory in which the hypostases are confused and thus their proper characteristics destroyed. Nor may the blasphemy of Eunomians and Arians and Pneumatomachi prevail, with its division of substance or of nature or of Godhead, and its introduction of some nature which was produced subsequently, or was created, or was of a different substance, into the uncreated and consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity. And we preserve undistorted the accounts of the Lord’s taking of humanity, accepting as we do that the economy of his flesh was not soulless nor mindless nor imperfect. To sum up, we know that he was before the ages fully God the Word, and that in the last days he became fully man for the sake of our salvation.)

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom,
According to the definitions of consubstantiality or homoousian, they are not using them in two ways. As I stated prior they are defining in the council of Chalcedon what is consubstantial, or I guess who is consubstantial with what. Jesus is one with the father and one with us. Fully divine and fully human.
The Nicene Creed demonstrates that god the father and son are (one). Chalcedon again demonstrates that god the father and son are (one) in their divinity and then specifies that Jesus and us are (one) in our humanity.
Regarding this statement of yours:
“They mean that God the Father and God the Son are numerically of on substance. This oneness of substance is not something that exists between a human father and a human son.”

Consubstantiality Does exist between a human father and son. At least all of the definitions I can find conclude that consubstantiality exists in humanity. We are of the same substance.
The history that Hope brings up regarding the Arian Heresy is crucial in understanding this. Arius asserted that Jesus was created by god, lesser than god or subordinate to god, challenging and lessening his divinity. The council at Nicaea stated, that Jesus is one with God, or the same in substance , as god, not lesser nor subordinate.
Chalcedon does not change this but adds that he is also the same as us in substance. Fully god, fully human. Same as god in substance and same as human in substance. Hopefully my personal substituted terms don’t muddy things up too much.

I offer you the same that I said to @hope.
Further, if being consubstantial in the generic sense is what you mean when you claim the the Father and the Son are consubstantial, then LDS are monotheists as we believe that God the Father and God the Son are consubstantial in the generic sense.
Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
We claim the trinity is consubstantial as in three persons, one God. This is what we believe, you do not have to accept it.

Mormons believe three Gods, actually more, a “community of gods in unity of purpose and operation.” -according to you.

Again you left out the context regarding the Arian Heresy conveniently which plays massively into this. According again to your website. Elohim created Jesus. He is the oldest of the spirit children of Elohim as they claim. He is made not begotten, and is of a different substance. This is what the Council of Nicaea condemned as heresy as this is whatArius Preached. And probably why you continue to skim over these connections.

Now, you can claim that this is in no way different than a mother/father child connection like I pointed out, but that would require and imply that Jesus had a… (Heavenly mother)…

 

[TOmNossor]

We claim the trinity is consubstantial as in three persons, one God. This is what we believe, you do not have to accept it.

I agree you claim this. I agree I do not have to accept it. I merely state that in the above sentence the word “consubstantial” could have two meanings. If you mean it as it is used when the Father’s at Chalcedon said, “God the Son and mankind are consubstantial” (which I have been calling the GENERIC sense), then I believe you are speaking God’s truth. This is the sense in which a man and his son are consubstantial, the sense in which you and I are consubstantial. Also, if this “consubstantial in the generic sense” is sufficient to make one a monotheist, I am a monotheist.
The other meaning it could have is “consubstantial in the NUMERIC sense.” This amount of ONE-SUBSTANCE-NESS is not something possessed by a human father and his son or by twins or …. This understanding is the reason that the post Vatican II Creed was translated into English as, “one in being.” “Being” is a well understood English word and “one in being” could not capture what the Catholic Church means when it says the Son is “consubstantial” with the Father, so the translation was corrected. The definition for “consubstantial in the numeric sense” is “one in being” (not really because that was poor wording). The definition as I understand it is, “one substance, one being, the same being, a singular being, but not in a way that precludes the tri-personal nature of God.” Again, this definition is CHARITABLY called “a mystery.” I as a LDS reject this understanding of the oneness of God.
So, do you mean “consubstantial” in the generic sense? Or do you mean “consubstantial” in the numeric sense?

Mormons believe three Gods, actually more, a “community of gods in unity of purpose and operation.”-according to you.

That is ONE aspect of the ONENESS of God in my view. As we dive deeper there are other truths about the social union that are not PRESENTLY possible for three people on earth one of which is “indwelling unity” or “perichoresis” from John 14:10-11. I also prefer Protestant Plantinga’s “Social Trinity” to “community of gods.” Plantinga would say his Trinitarian model is the model of the Cappadocian Fathers and aligns well with much of EO thoughts on the Trinity (I would need to do more research before I could embrace or reject this).

According again to your website. Elohim created Jesus. He is the oldest of the spirit children of Elohim as they claim. He is made not begotten, and is of a different substance.

I find it extraordinarily unlikely that there is a faithful LDS website that says “he is made not begotten, and is of a different substance.”
I find it unlikely that there is a faithful LDS website that says, “Elohim created Jesus,” but if there is I disagree with it.
Please point me to these quotes.
I believe all LDS would say that “God the Father and God the Son are generically consubstantial" if defined.
Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
These are from your churches website. They define god and define the heavenly mother which shows that Jesus is an offspring of the two of them. (Made)- (condemned in the Council of Nicaea and throughout church history)
This would be how humans are consubstantial with each other. We cannot (be) without both a father and mother. , we are the same as our parents, but we do not exist without both of them.
Jesus existed both fully in humanity and fully in divinity. Without being created.

So the only way the consubstantiality argument your using works for you is to affirm a couple of things:

1. God the father, and the heavenly mother (created) God the son. He was born to them.
2. God the Father and the heavenly mother have at one point been created themselves.
3. There was a time… when God the father did not exist.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/god

https://www.lds.org/topics/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng

What the Catholic Church has affirmed has always been consistent. The councils corrected heresies to prevent these very problems your church teaches.
One of your initial claims was that the LDS position was more “rational”. In order to believe and affirm what your church teaches, one must add to the Bible, add to the early church fathers, and forget about consistent church teaching all while going through very fatiguing and extraneous mental gymnastics.

You are trying and failing to rationalize what should be simple (Faith). Amen(believe)

 

[TOmNossor]

These are from your churches website. They define god and define the heavenly mother which shows that Jesus is an offspring of the two of them. (Made)- (condemned in the Council of Nicaea and throughout church history)
This would be how humans are consubstantial with each other. We cannot (be) without both a father and mother. , we are the same as our parents, but we do not exist without both of them.
Jesus existed both fully in humanity and fully in divinity. Without being created.

So the only way the consubstantiality argument your using works for you is to affirm a couple of things:

1. God the father, and the heavenly mother (created) God the son. He was born to them.
2. God the Father and the heavenly mother have at one point been created themselves.
3. There was a time… when God the father did not exist.

God

Mother in Heaven

You are trying and failing to rationalize what should be simple (Faith). Amen(believe)

1. I scarcely understand this post, but will offer some quick bullet points.
2. I reject every point on your list #1, #2, and #3 as representing what I believe or what educated LDS believe.
3. You SEEM to imply that you are provided DIRECT quotes from LDS.ORG, but you do not use “” marks and I cannot find the quotes you offer. You have ignored when I said this in my last response.
4. You have some made/begotten confusion that I don’t understand.
5. You claim if I accept your numbers 1-3 that the argument I am making about consubstantial would be valid. I have no idea what you mean by this, but I reject 1-3 anyway. Still I think you meant something different.
6. LDS.org (which I do not think you are QUOTING FROM ANYWAY) is in no way similar to the Catachism of the Catholic Chruch. If you would like theological precise understanding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you will need to engage with philosophers and theologians. LDS leaders speak like Peter, James, and John not like Thomas Aquinas. I have studied LDS and Catholic theology and philosophy. There are unsettled questions within Catholicism, but LDS theology is much more like the 200AD Church (very much that is not defined) than like the Catholic Church in 2000AD. This is largely as it should be if we are as we claim to be.

It is my hope you will address why I claim there is inconsistency in Catholic DEVELOPMENT by answering my questions (CONSUBSTANTION is part). I of course can respond to questions about what I believe. I can follow up on quotes from LDS.org. But, I claim the CoJCoLDS is true because of authority not consistency even in LDS-centric understanding, but certainly not consistency with DEVELOPED Catholic understanding.
Charity, TOm

 

[lilypadrees]

I reject every point on your list #1, #2, and #3 as representing what I believe or what educated LDS believe.

You can reject and deny @ConcernedConvert’s points all you want. There is plenty of documentation proving that your church believes them. They are on various Mormon church approved websites inc LDS.org.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I reject every point on your list #1, #2, and #3 as representing what I believe or what educated LDS believe.

You can reject and deny @ConcernedConvert’s points all you want. There is plenty of documentation proving that your church believes them. They are on various Mormon church approved websites inc LDS.org.

Show me a direct quote from LDS.ORG and I will address that quote.
That being said, LDS.ORG is not an attempt to interact with theology and philosophy just as what St. Peter said was seldom an attempt to interact with Greek theology and philosophy. I have recommended to folks here the MUCH celebrated book series Exploring Mormon Thought by Blake Ostler. I agree with Ostler in almost every point and he and I are both committed LDS who have read Thomas Aquinas and thought deeply about where LDS thought fits into Christianity. LDS.ORG does not use theologically precise terms in most instances.
I could certainly point you to words of Pope Francis (who seems to not use theologically precise language much of the time) and declare that these are Catholic doctrine. They would require much explanation and qualification.

That being said, I am responding to ConcernConvert’s claim that there is a consistency in Catholic teachings and thus they are true and LDS should not depart from them. It is my position that Joseph Smith sowed the seeds and philosophers/theologians like Blake Ostler have demonstrated that the areas where Joseph Smith departed from “orthodox” Christianity, are frequently the weak places where the Early Church evidences inconsistency.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

What the Catholic Church has affirmed has always been consistent.

The councils make it clear that consistency was a LONG time coming.
Do you claim that the Council of Chalcedon used the term homoousian/consubstantial in the SAME way and that my numeric sense/generic sense is in my imagination?
Most of your posts suggest this.

The councils corrected heresies to prevent these very problems your church teaches.

I do not see PROBLEMS. I see my church as doing a better job than most other churches, Catholics included, at producing what impartial observers would call moral and faithful people.
If by problems you mean inconsistency, then the CoJCoLDS in 2012 had more problems than the Catholic Church did. As one who weighs and measures these issues, consistency is of value to me, but I would not trade it for the success the CoJCoLDS has nor is it a substitute for TRUTH.

One of your initial claims was that the LDS position was more “rational”.

I claimed and claim that in conjunction with Ostler I have laid out a consistent view of monotheism, the Trinity, and deification here:

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 …

I claim that Keating’s view of these is a consistent view, but the way he puts multiple meanings of words (used in the same sentence in a parallel construction) into the mouths of the ECF evidences that they did not believe as Keating claims modern Catholics should believe thus “lack of consistency.”
It is my position that DEVELOPMENT was radical and not guided infallibly by God. This results in theological Irish pennants all over the place waiting to be pulled by folks who do not accept the Catholic authority. Keating is RARE in that he boldly points to some of these. Others refuse to acknowledge (for example) that Consubstantial has two meanings at Chalcedon.

I guess I do not see this as just us disagreeing. I keep saying that I do not believe much of what you claim is “Mormon” belief. I have been asking for direct quotes because I think I would nitpick most direct quotes and reject only a small number, but you are giving me YOUR summary which I find wholly inconsistent with what I believe and often expressed in words LDS today would NEVER use.

Concerning our most recent discussion on Consubstantial, I keep saying that THIS or THAT is the consequences of what you are saying. You do not explain why I am wrong, but just say something else that I do not think addresses the issue. This makes it clear there is something problematic with the way Chalcedon used “consubstantial” and the way MODERN Catholics understand the term.

I still hope you respond here. It will be easier for me to understand what you think “monotheism” is after you answer. I understand TIME CONSTRAINTS, but perhaps you might answer my question before you again tell me what “Mormons” believe.
Charity, TOm

 

[hope]

Let me make some general statements.
The Council of Nicea dealt with who Jesus is.
He is God
Was not created
Is equal to the Father and Holy Spirit.
The council addressed the relationship in the Trinity. What it didn’t address was Jesus’ relationship to us…
Jesus is fully human Scripture tells us this.
I am surprised that you are arguing the point.
As to your question, it seems circular to me.

Tom this is really off topic and I shall not contribute to it. The thread is about an article on the Book of Mormon. I jumped in because you made statement that seemed off and they were. I have learned much and for that thank you. Now back to the topic.