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

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
This post is quite simple. You might reject them as beliefs that you do not adhere to, but that would make you (not a Mormon.) or not a Mormon who fully believes in the churches teachings.

1. Your church claims men are gods (or will become gods). We are all spirit offspring of God the Father and heavenly mother, with Jesus being the first. (I have provided clear evidence of this.)
2. If Jesus is consubstantial, with the father, under the Mormon understanding (in the same way that a human father and son are consubstantial) it is because he is also created, born or made by god the father and the heavenly mother. (Which the Catholic Church and Christians do not affirm.)
3. If Jesus is made, born or created by god the father and the heavenly mother and truly consubstantial (of one substance)with the father, Then the father was also once man (spirit offspring)who was created by heavenly parents of his own. (Not the God who has always existed).

The alternative is what Catholics believe which has been believed and affirmed throughout history and summed up nicely in the Nicene Creed and is True Faith.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I am sorry to have added to the hijacking of this thread… I will try to get back in topic.

 

[lilypadrees]

Joseph Smith lied, TOm. You and your fellow Mormons fell and continue to fall for his lies hook, line and stinker. (And I do mean stinker.)

 

[TOmNossor]

I am sorry to have added to the hijacking of this thread… I will try to get back in topic.

Does this mean you recognize that you shouldn’t have claimed that there was some ASSERTED consistency in Catholic monotheistic views?
Or does it mean you refuse to answer the many questions I have asked, but still maintain there must be some answer that somehow supports a consistancy narrative?
Your claims in my opinion are flawed. Joseph Smith specifically “restored” numerous truths that were supported by research years after his death when the writings of the ECF were made available broadly, translated, and studied. This is evidence for the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.
The “foundational slips” that we can see as views absent from more ancient writings are INTRODUCED into Christianity create the wild problems addressed during numerous early councils (local and ecumminical). And SOMEHOW these spots are where LDS differ from non-LDS Christianity.
You multiple times said you would answer my questions. Am I to believe you couldn’t find the time and now think it best to not derail the thread further?
I am frustrated and I think I have answered ALL of your questions.
Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
I have tried to answer your questions, I have provided documentation and definitions from your churches website, I have provided historical and modern Mormon views as well as catholic views, I have provided biblical support for the Catholic Churches position and have engaged with you regarding everything as best as I can in a fluid conversation with multiple players. I continue to bring this back to Faith and submission to authority.

What I am saying and have said throughout this thread is that the claims you make, and the evidence you use to support them, are not convincing. I have looked at the evidence I have researched the ECF, I have studied the history and contexts of the times, I have dug into the Bible. Everything that I find has pointed to the Catholic Church. I have supported these findings as have multiple other posters with evidence that you refuse to believe, which that is your prerogative.
I have provided you with many of the core problems I find with your church and your claims to be monotheistic and you have have not addressed them in a way that makes any sense to me. Which is fine. I have also added that it doesn’t seem to me that your personal views on these matters match that even of your churches views.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom,
I have tried to answer your questions, I have provided documentation and definitions from your churches website, I have provided historical and modern Mormon views as well as catholic views, I have provided biblical support for the Catholic Churches position and have engaged with you regarding everything as best as I can in a fluid conversation with multiple players. I continue to bring this back to Faith and submission to authority.

What I am saying and have said throughout this thread is that the claims you make, and the evidence you use to support them, are not convincing. I have looked at the evidence I have researched the ECF, I have studied the history and contexts of the times, I have dug into the Bible. Everything that I find has pointed to the Catholic Church. I have supported these findings as have multiple other posters with evidence that you refuse to believe, which that is your prerogative.
I have provided you with many of the core problems I find with your church and your claims to be monotheistic and you have have not addressed them in a way that makes any sense to me. Which is fine. I have also added that it doesn’t seem to me that your personal views on these matters match that even of your churches views.

There are at least 5 questions I have asked about Catholicism and your beliefs that you have not answered.
Do you need me to list them?
I think there are not any great pro-Catholic answers for these questions, but there are 5 questions you have not answered.
Would you answer them if I listed them?

I would even quid pro quo with you. Ask me 3 questions and I ask you 3 questions.
It will be an hour or two before I can do this.
Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

Tom, The questions have been answered many times over. You don’t like the answers, or feel the answers are insufficient. That is completely your problem. I did not care for the response from you regarding the questions I asked you. But I realize I will not get a better answer from you so I let it be.

You are really close to crossing a line here and it is only because of the character of the posters who participate on these threads that you are not being flagged.

Everything that I find has pointed to the Catholic Church. I have supported these findings as have multiple other posters with evidence that you refuse to believe, which that is your prerogative.
I have provided you with many of the core problems I find with your church and your claims to be monotheistic and you have have not addressed them in a way that makes any sense to me. Which is fine. I have also added that it doesn’t seem to me that your personal views on these matters match that even of your churches views.

ConcernedConvert has responded to your claims sufficiently and as he has said, you choose to not believe it.

So how about we get back on topic in discussing the BoM, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

 

[Crocus]

So how about we get back on topic in discussing the BoM, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

The thread might go on, though the original poster left 12 days ago. Personally I have never before seen the topic more thoroughly defined than 1, 2, 3:

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.

Then the final shocker:

• I scarcely understand this post, but will offer some quick bullet points.
• I reject every point on your list #1, #2, and #3 as representing what I believe or what educated LDS believe.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
How about this…
give me one question at a time, unless it is a two part question of course. It’s difficult to keep up with multiple questions and other (name removed by moderator)ut when it arises.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom,
How about this…
give me one question at a time, unless it is a two part question of course. It’s difficult to keep up with multiple questions and other (name removed by moderator)ut when it arises.

My current thought is that I will put together a post for the Apologetics forum concerning the multiple meanings of “Consubstantail.” I hope this is not objectionable to you. Perhaps in some later exchange of questions you and I will come back to this.
I have much I want to respond to in this post, but I really wanted to get your answer to the bolded question first.

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.

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 …?

So that is my first one question.
Also, please ask me a question and I will answer it as best I can.
I should also mention that if time allows, I may carry on other conversations with other folks in this thread, but I will make answering your question a priority and I hope you can do the same.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I bolded a few portions of your post.

Tom, The questions have been answered many times over. You don’t like the answers, or feel the answers are insufficient. That is completely your problem. I did not care for the response from you regarding the questions I asked you. But I realize I will not get a better answer from you so I let it be.

You are really close to crossing a line here and it is only because of the character of the posters who participate on these threads that you are not being flagged.

ConcernedConvert:

Everything that I find has pointed to the Catholic Church. I have supported these findings as have multiple other posters with evidence that you refuse to believe, which that is your prerogative.
I have provided you with many of the core problems I find with your church and your claims to be monotheistic and you have have not addressed them in a way that makes any sense to me. Which is fine. I have also added that it doesn’t seem to me that your personal views on these matters match that even of your churches views.

ConcernedConvert has responded to your claims sufficiently and as he has said, you choose to not believe it.

So how about we get back on topic in discussing the BoM, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

I would suggest that you do not like my response because it is reasonable, the parallel to Catholic world-wide spiritual communion is apropos, and it removes your “gotcha.” If you have other factual problems with it, I would like to hear them (if you are suddenly unwilling to post off topic, please send me a PM).

I think I am guilty of being off topic, but since it was more than 100 posts ago that the Book of Mormon was addressed, I am in at least a large company. What do you think my offenses are or is it merely being off topic?

The last person to mention the Book of Mormon (the topic) in this thread was me greater than 100 posts ago, but no response.
Before that my memory is that we reached a remarkable agreement (because such is very rare) concerning the Book of Mormon. I claimed a poster, who seems to me to consider himself somewhat of an expert on Mormonism, was wrong in his assertions about bees in the Americas. His assertions came from uncritically repeating what the Catholic Answers document in question claimed. He responded by repeating his assertions. Then a former LDS explained that this Catholic and the Catholic Answers document were WRONG as I said. To which the expert claimed he likes to stick with the macro reasons as he attacks my faith rather than the micro reasons (presumably like bees).
Since this thread is about or WAS about (was started about) that document, perhaps you would consider this on topic. We now have some agreement that that document has at least one error in it. But, that document has an official “NIHIL OBSTAT” and an “IMPRIMATUR.” So, what significance if any is there to a document with errors attacking my church here at Catholics Answers that have been certified with these two certifications?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The thread might go on, though the original poster left 12 days ago. Personally I have never before seen the topic more thoroughly defined than 1, 2, 3:

ConcernedConvert:

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.

Then the final shocker:

• I scarcely understand this post, but will offer some quick bullet points.
• I reject every point on your list #1, #2, and #3 as representing what I believe or what educated LDS believe.

Hello Crocus,

I really do not know how points 1-3 relate to the consubstantiality argument. Since you have “never before seen the topic more thoroughly defined than 1, 2, 3” perhaps you can explain to me how that “makes the consubstantiality argument I {TOm} am using work.” I still do not get it.

And I would suggest your shock that I reject all three points is a product of you not engaging LDS who integrate more than just the most salacious anti-Mormon argument into our thoughts on what we believe.

I think the word “created” in the first two and that there was at time that God did not exist are not found in LDS dialogue especially since I have been a member (about 20 years, though I am not familiar with either of those constructions before) and do not represent what MOST LDS think well at all. In addition to this they are at odds with uniquely LDS scriptures anyway.

Furthermore, I like MANY educated and thoughtful LDS find that the ideas expressed by Blake Ostler (in his much celebrated book series that grew out of courses he taught at BYU, Exploring Mormon Thought) to be align best with Joseph Smith’s teaching and the LDS scriptural canon. I generally reject the idea that God the Father ever had a Father. This granted is a minority view, but I cannot remember if I have gotten so much as an eyebrow raise from it as I have shared it with faithful LDS.

Ultimately, I see no reason to put down a celebrated scholarly theology that I embrace as a LDS because critics of my faith do not find my beliefs to be sufficiently “Mormon.” I assure you there are few folks in the Catholic pew who would not claim different answers to dozens of queries Thomas Aquinas offers in the Summa. Much of this would be denying dogma in addition to diversity of belief. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints like the Christian Church when it was less than 200 years old there is great diversity of belief and very little dogma to constrain/inform us.

Anyway, I really would like you to explain to me how 1,2, and 3 “makes the consubstantiality argument I {TOm} am using work.”

Charity, TOm

 

[lilypadrees]

The article written about the Mormon church has no errors in it. The Mormon church, on the other hand, is riddled with errors.

 

[TOmNossor]

The article written about the Mormon church has no errors in it. The Mormon church, on the other hand, is riddled with errors.

Why do you think it has no errors? Because a Catholic Bishop certified that, “the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.”
Or do you think you know something about the Book of Mormon that I do not?
Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
I would grant that from the perspectives of most Jews, and even more Muslims most likely, Christianity is not Monotheistic. I know there is some teachings in Judaism that conclude it is not fully monotheistic or polytheistic, but somewhere in between. I would doubt many know of this or ascribe to this however. I could be wrong about the Jews however.

My question in return to you is this:

Is God the father, according to official Mormon beliefs and teachings (not your opinion or personal beliefs) created or has he always been?

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I will work to address this with you in our discourse as well Tom.

 

[TOmNossor]

Is God the father, according to official Mormon beliefs and teachings (not your opinion or personal beliefs) created or has he always been?

Thank you for your answer.

There is no such thing as “official Mormon beliefs.” It just does not exist (again more like Christianity in 200AD then Catholic Christianity in 2000AD). I will nonetheless try to answer what you are asking.

I know of no LDS leader in the past and doubt seriously there has been any LDS leader in the last 20 years that has claimed that God the Father was “created.”

That being said, most LDS who have been members for greater than 30 years likely believe that God the Father had a Father who had a Father who …. Some believe that there is a “Head God” somewhere back in the chain and some embrace what has been called an “eternal regress of Gods.” This belief as understood by this group of folks also entails that God the Father became God as He worked out His salvation aligning His life with the truths taught by the God above Him. This must be aligned with D&C 20:17 which says, “By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;” AND with Abr 3:19 “And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.” AND with all the Biblical scriptures for that matter. I believe Eugene England or Sterling McMurrin attempted a synthesis of these ideas, but I cannot remember which or how.

I suppose I should close here as you said you do not want to know what I believe.

I will try to put together a response to your response and hopefully find another question in there.

Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
Thanks for the info. That seams to be what I keep running into: no “official belief or teaching in statement” but a fairly commonly accepted belief by many Mormons.

My next question is as follows:

What do mormons believe, as in official teaching or belief, (not your opinion or personal beliefs) about the existence and need for Heavenly mother?

 

[TOmNossor]

ConcernedConvert,

My question is in the bold below. The rest is context which you are welcome to address or not.

Tom what you shared in this post does not demonstrate a monotheistic religion.

Thank you for your response related to this. I wish to mirror this by saying that to the extent there is such a thing as a continuum of monotheism (and I think it best to acknowledge there is) the view embraced by Catholics today is more monotheistic than the view embraced by myself and most LDS (when we focus on the SOCIAL model). Here is how I define this spectrum (sometimes I include absolute monotheist like Muslims and absolute polytheists like Pagans):

A Hoped Logically Consistent View of Deification Non-Catholic Religions

Here is something I wrote many years ago: Modalist:This is the Sabellian heresy. It maintains that God is one, but we experience him as 3 different modes. In human experience we see evidence of a God the Father, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit. This is just a representation of the one true God. An analogy could even be: Bush is the President, Bush is a Texan, Bush is an exerciser, Bush is one. Sometimes mentioned and generally true is the fact that a fourth nature exists for God that is his rea…

Today in addition to a strong social model of the Trinity (which is Eastern), I also embrace components of the Monarch of God the Father (also very Eastern). Which I mentioned previously in this thread. This is from a VERY well respected Eastern Orthodox scholar:

Among the Greek Fathers the unity of God, the one God, and the ontological “principal” or “cause” of the being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God but in the hypostasis, that is, the person of the Father. The one God is not the one substance but the Father, who is the “cause” both of the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit. (Pages 40, 41)

John Zizioulas (Being As Communion, Pages 40,41)

Do you believe Bishop (Metropolitan) Zirioulas expresses sufficient monotheistic and Trinitarian concepts to be called your brother in Christ?

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.

Yes, you are correct that a Social group of people (team, council, political parties) not to mention a Social Trinity, is “not known to define a single person.” But, if the TEST for monotheism is can the monotheistic conception be “known to define a single person?” then only the modalists are monotheists.

I suspect you will claim to have misspoken here. And I will reply that you communicated your true conceptions of the Trinity and your true problems with a Social model. In your mind “one being” is in fact “a single person.” In this you are not alone, but you have not embraced the mystery of the Trinity. Instead you have IMO given accidental witness to the incoherence of the Trinity. When poked upon with great rigor the investigation either stops or gets to the point were 1=3, OR “God” does not mean the same thing when one says “God is one” and when one says “The Father is God, and Jesus Christ is God” OR ala Bill Clinton, “it depends upon what ‘is’ means”).

Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

I did not care for the response from you regarding the questions I asked you. But I realize I will not get a better answer from you so I let it be.

I would suggest that you do not like my response because it is reasonable, the parallel to Catholic world-wide spiritual communion is apropos, and it removes your “gotcha.”

How offensive! I completely disagree with your assertions regarding the concept of eternal marriage & family as defined by the LDS. I completely disagree with your attempt to associate that concept with the Eucharist. It is a concept made up in your own mind. And now that you made the assertion, you demand I disprove it.

Tom, you must realize that just because you say something, doesn’t make that statement true. You claim there is a connection and I reject your claim. You now want to assert that my rejection of your claim must mean that I am too uneducated, too unreasonable, too stupid to “get” it.