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

[TOmNossor]

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?

I hope to get to this later!
Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
I want to start by addressing this point in your response:

(But, if the TEST for monotheism is can the monotheistic conception be “known to define a single person?” then only the modalists are monotheists.)

This is where I continue to fall back to the words Faith and Believe. We are talking about a form of belief. When one looks at the definition the of Monotheism, it does not indicate a knowledge, but a belief.

From my perspective, The question should not be “known to define a single person”, but “(believed to define a single person)”.
Catholics and most Protestants, truly (believe that the trinity is ONE GOD). This is where we differ from the Mormon view.

From the way I see it, if Mormons truly wanted to be monotheistic, they would need to claim a (belief) in only one God, not a (community of god(s) with unity of purpose and operation. Which would disrupt several of their other beliefs.

I will look at your next question and try to answer it soon.

 

[Crocus]

I appreciate your willingness to engage wherever you do on the spectrum of LDS beliefs, it does however present difficulties for all parties, in determining what the issues are, from post to post. Can be confusing. That was my wonderment about your rejection of the three statements.

perhaps you can explain to me how that “makes the consubstantiality argument I {TOm} am using work.” I still do not get it.

I don’t think your two (numeric & generic) definitions for consubstantiality work at all, nor do I intend to make a defense for your definition(s).

consubstantial | Etymology of consubstantial by etymonline

The one definition is sufficient to explain the Catholic understanding of the substance relationship between God the Father and Jesus, and the substance relationship between Jesus and humanity.

If 1, 2, 3 (as deduced from lds.org) do not represent correctly, then is it even possible to obtain a better affirmation, considering that

There is no such thing as “official Mormon beliefs.”

Confusing.

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

I do not believe that a Father above God the Father is a fairly commonly accepted belief by many LDS. I believe among folks who have been members for a long time (I used 30 years in my post) and have been paying attention, more than 50% embrace some concept of a Father above God the Father. This has not been discussed in our church services for years. My son who returned from his mission a little under 2 years ago estimated that 4% of folks believed this (that is what he said, I would estimate higher, but probably less than 10%).

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

Unlike a Father above God the Father, the concept of a Heavenly Mother is commonly believed, though still very seldom discussed. For many years every week we studied from LDS scriptures for 1 hour on Sunday (now we do this every other week). Heavenly Mother has no scriptural basis so there is no discussion about this. The “Heavenly Mother” link you offered earlier is probably the best thing I could point you to.

LDS do not worship “Heavenly Mother,” do not pray to “Heavenly Mother,” and do not believe that “Heavenly Mother” is somehow part of the Trinity.

Beyond this, LDS leaders are clear we do not know more. I think that is about all the consensus views that are prevalent within the CoJCoLDS.

Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
Thanks for the response on this as well. This to me, is where the Mormon church starts losing credibility, due to the lack of support for Heavenly Mother based on Catholic Scripture and the teachings of the ECF. (Not supposed to be a snide or rude comment just pointing out where my “problems” with LDS beliefs stem for the most part)
This is a core belief, central to Mormon Theology and yet, completely opposed by catholic and Protestant theology, which bases its opposition on biblical and historical evidence.

My next question I will list below:

What do mormons believe, as in official teaching or belief, (not your opinion or personal beliefs) about Jesus being the offspring of Heavenly Mother and God the Father?

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

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.

I was not trying to offend you.

I also didn’t make any comments about your “education,” “rationality,” or “intelligence.” It was and remains my belief that you previously thought there was hopeless contradictions in the way LDS speak of eternal families. I used the very Catholic concept of world-wide spiritual communion to demonstrate that there was no such conflicts. You are incorrect if you think I suggested there was some equivalence between the two beyond the concept of “spiritual connection not frustrated by time and space.” Again, if there is SOMETHING more substantive you can offer that explains why you feel my answer is something you “did not care for,” I would be happy to consider that and modify or clarify my response. I don’t demand you disprove anything. It merely seemed to me that you had a thought that there was no solution to multi-family eternal families AND problems with those who reject God’s offer hampering the promises made to those who accept God’s offer. I think “spiritual connection not frustrated by time and space” solves all that (and it is necessary to believe what Catholics already believe). If there is a better explanation for your “dislike” of my answer, but no further challenge of my answer, I don’t see it, but you can share it with me if you like.

I would like for you to correct your misquote of me above. I didn’t say, “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 said that.

I also recognize that just because I say something doesn’t require everyone to believe it. That being said, I truly believe you would be inclined to deny anything (even somewhat obscure Catholic dogma), because I said something was true.

Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I am still working on responding to this question, but I do not have enough context from his book or his position yet to make a decision. I will try to pick through some of his stuff and let you know.

 

[TOmNossor]

I appreciate your willingness to engage wherever you do on the spectrum of LDS beliefs, it does however present difficulties for all parties, in determining what the issues are, from post to post. Can be confusing. That was my wonderment about your rejection of the three statements.

TOmNossor:

perhaps you can explain to me how that “makes the consubstantiality argument I {TOm} am using work.” I still do not get it.

My point was that you claimed that the topic thoroughly defined by 1,2, & 3 which included the explaination that these couple (meaning 1,2, &3) “makes the consubstantiatly argument you {TOm} are using work.”

I am guessing that you do not have any place for the explanation and perhaps it is just as confusing for you as it is for me. Instead, you find 1,2, &3 to be particularly problematic for LDS truth claims.

I don’t think your two (numeric & generic) definitions for consubstantiality work at all, nor do I intend to make a defense for your definition(s).

consubstantial | Origin and meaning of consubstantial by Online Etymology Dictionary

The one definition is sufficient to explain the Catholic understanding of the substance relationship between God the Father and Jesus, and the substance relationship between Jesus and humanity.

The link you have specifically points to this as “a term within the theology of the Trinity.” This is INCOMPLETE! You do recognize that you and Christ are consubstantial too (which as to do with “the theology of Christology” not the Trinity)? So not only does the definition claim it doesn’t say anything about this Catholic truth, it is inadequate because of this Catholic truth.

If you wish to comment on the fact that you are consubstantial with Christ that is fine, but when this thread winds down a little, I intend to post in the Apologetic forum to see if I can receive better answers to my concerns than I have in my own understanding. The last time I did this, I came to believe there was a way to understand Pope Francis that I hadn’t recognized. The brilliant young lady who elucidated this concept ultimately rejected it and is no longer Catholic, but I still think her answer removes the potential “fatal flaw.” I don’t actually think the two meanings of Constantinope is a “fatal flaw” (flaws if true a faith cannot be true as presently understood), just a problem that nobody has helped me with yet (granted I don’t typically expect help from folks who are criticing my faith my purpose for pointing to problems here is different, BUT I am now interested enough that I hope to post for different reasons in the apologetic forum). And, the “fatal flaw” became a problem because of an explanation, if this problem becomes not a problem, the anti-Mormons here will not hear about it AS A PROBLEM anymore (which I suspect will be a good thing from their perspective).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I want to start by addressing this point in your response:

(But, if the TEST for monotheism is can the monotheistic conception be “known to define a single person?” then only the modalists are monotheists.)

This is where I continue to fall back to the words Faith and Believe. We are talking about a form of belief. When one looks at the definition the of Monotheism, it does not indicate a knowledge, but a belief.

You are welcome BELIEVE you are a monotheist and I am not a monotheist, but your belief is pure subjectivity. The reason we use theological language and philosophically precise terms is so we can communicate. I cannot see/feel/test your belief.

From my perspective, The question should not be “known to define a single person”, but “(believed to define a single person)”.

Catholics and most Protestants, truly (believe that the trinity is ONE GOD). This is where we differ from the Mormon view.

I know I am only a LDS and such accepting ANYTHING I say is forboden, but you embrace the HERESY of MODALISM. You should become a Oneness Pentacostal because your words describe modalism, not Trinitarianism. You are a monotheist, more monotheistic than any Catholic scholar, but you are not a Trinitarian.

If your view of the oneness of God in your mind is “believed to define a single person,” you are a modalist. The Trinity doctrine (which I can criticize as incoherent and I think you have fallen into a coherent construction that is heresy) is that God is THREE PERSONS. I agree with where you are coming from that there is no good way to say that God is “one God in three persons,” but to say that my view is a problem because it cannot be said to incompass the “truth” that God is one person is not a criticism from a Catholic.

From the way I see it, if Mormons truly wanted to be monotheistic, they would need to claim a (belief) in only one God, not a (community of god(s) with unity of purpose and operation. Which would disrupt several of their other beliefs.

I do believe in only ONE GOD. The question is how do I do so. I unlike you believe in one God in a way that cannot be classified as believing in one person. The Oneness Pentacostals beat the crap out of Trinitarians for asserting that God is three persons, but you are not a Catholic Trinitarian in your theology.

If I knew I was discussion the Trinity with a Oneness Pentacostal (they claim to NOT be Trinitarians), I would have offered different criticisms. You cannot believe what you believe and be called a Trinitarian.

Charity, TOm

P.S. I will await your response to my question before I ask you another question I desire for you to answer. You do not need to comment on this, and I think a significant percentage of Catholic posters can see your error here so perhaps they will offer brotherly correction in ways that a LDS cannot. I have an answer in mind for your 3rd question and I suppose giving it will only mean you have asked 3 and I 2 which is fine.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,

Whoa slow down… I was simply using the word you used in your statement as wordplay to make more of an emphasis on the difference between Known and Believed.

I figured based on the several hundred posts in this thread that my positions on the trinity were clear so I could use such wordplay… and obviously was mistaken.

I will specify my position very clearly for you below just in case:

I am CATHOLIC and believe the churches teachings on the Trinity and the Oneness of God.

Now, if possible, could you reply again to my post, without deflecting your response to Modalism.

 

[Stephen168]

While 1 and 2 are true and you are mistaken when you claim consistency, it is clear to many (including non-LDS) that Joseph Smith could not have done all the things we have objective evidence he did. The best explanation for this objective evidence is that God was involved in the origins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This means without 1 or 2 being true, I would be a LDS because of #3.

I noticed, like in the past, you have avoided talking point 3.

I point this out because talking points 1 & 2 don’t really matter to Tom, except that is all he wants to talk about. The REASON he claims to be Mormon is talking point #3.

Concerning #3:

Here is about 1/3 of what I call the Gardner list:

Basically claiming the Book of Mormon supports #3.

Except the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, so the objective evidence, so far would not support Tom being a Mormon.

 

[Stephen168]

It seems like Tom claims that Mormons are monotheists because Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Tom, me, Tom’s Father, all of humanity are consubstantial, which is not what Christians have ever believed.

 

[OKComputer]

Someone once said that pinning down Mormon :: ahem :: “theology” is like trying to nail Jello to a wall.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom,

Whoa slow down… I was simply using the word you used in your statement as wordplay to make more of an emphasis on the difference between Known and Believed.

This is not accurate at all. You said the problem with the Social model was that it could not be said to “define a single person.”
This is where YOU introduced this MODALISTIC idea. I have ONLY quoted you.
You can own this and backtrack, but the above is not true.

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

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.

You have accused me of something I am 99.9% is pure fantasy. Please correct this because it is inaccurate and important to me that you do so.
Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
This is what you said in which I was using wordplay to respond to I had not realized that you were quoting my prior post.

(But, if the TEST for monotheism is can the monotheistic conception be “known to define a single person?” then only the modalists are monotheists.)

With that said regarding this post:

(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.)

I am not introducing Modalistic Theology here. I specify 3 Persons in 1 God at the beginning of the post and again thought my Trinitarian position was clear to you after several hundred posts.
Then when I use the term person at the end I am discussing it in relation to sports teams, councils and political parties.

I thought everybody knew what I was saying, including yourself as no mention of Modalism was addressed to me at that time.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom,

This is what you said in which I was using wordplay to respond to I had not realized that you were quoting my prior post.

(But, if the TEST for monotheism is can the monotheistic conception be “known to define a single person?” then only the modalists are monotheists.)

With that said regarding this post:

(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.)

I am not introducing Modalistic Theology here. I specify 3 Persons in 1 God at the beginning of the post and again thought my Trinitarian position was clear to you after several hundred posts.

Then when I use the term person at the end I am discussing it in relation to sports teams, councils and political parties.

I thought everybody knew what I was saying, including yourself as no mention of Modalism was addressed to me at that time.

I thank you for acknowledging that you are the one who introduced the concept of a test associated with “known to define a single person?” You then judge the theological structure I offered you as failing this modalist monotheistic test.

I can acknowledge that earlier in the post you offered the Trinitarian formula of “three persons in (ONE) God.”

I do not believe you pronounced valid judgment upon the Social Trinity (which is a structure embraced by Protestant and Catholic theologians BTW) because you critized it for not being modalist. Further, after I pointed to your “modalist test,” AND TOLD YOU THAT “YOU WILL {SHOULD} CLAIM TO HAVE MISSPOKEN” you still didn’t see the modalism in your criticism and instead introduced some subjective “believe” to pass a monotheistic modalist test verses “known” to pass a monotheistic modalist test.

I am glad you used Trinitarian language before your initial “one person” test, and I expect you will be more careful about modalistic language in the future, but I still believe you condemned my discussion with a modalist test (not once but twice) because there is a GREAT deal of modalism rapped up in many people’s, yourself included, concepts of the Trinity.

Anyway, the Social Trinity is three whos who are one what. Three personages who are one God. You are not correct to criticize with “unity of purpose and operation” as if that is all that is present in educated Social Trinity constructions.

I am excited about my NEXT question for you, but I will wait until you answer my last question in case there is something more important in there.

I completed my answer to your 3rd question before our modalist kerfuffle. I am absolutely sincere in suggesting the now declared ugly and rejected by most non-theologians (and it would seem many theologians too) teaching from historic Catholicism is FAR MORE CENTRAL to Catholicism than is Heavenly Mother to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CoJCoLDS) based on ink spilled, explanations offered, theologians discussing, and many other metrics.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Heavenly Mother… is a core belief, central to Mormon Theology

This is not a correct expression of LDS beliefs.
LDS regularly quote Joseph Smith:

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
Joseph Smith

There are dozens if not hundreds of doctrines that are far more important than the not well understood concept of a Heavenly Mother. These dozens to hundreds of doctrines are discussed multiple times a year in every ward around the world and Heavenly Mother appears probably one time per year in a HYMN and not anywhere else in my recent memory.

I submit it is integral to YOUR conception of my faith that Heavenly Mother “is a core belief, central to Mormon Theology,” but it is not true. Heavenly Mother is an idea that feels good to many LDS, but is so disconnected from our core teachings that there are holes all around it we cannot plug.

To say Heavenly Mother is a core believe is analogous to saying that, “unbaptized Babies will be in hell was a core belief of Catholicism.” There has been more than 100x the ink spilled from Catholic scholars trying to integrate the certainty expressed at the Council of Carthage (local, but against the ONLY person who ever suggested before the 20th century that unbaptized infants who die can go to heaven, Pelagious), Council of Florence (EC), Council of Lyons II (EC) with some sense of morality; than has come from all LDS (even counting those excommicated for their efforts) concerning Heavenly Mother. This doctrine that Catholics run from today is far more central to Catholcism than is Heavenly Mother to the CoJCoLDS.

No, Heavenly Mother, is theological speculation(like Limbo) embraced by LDS, but not regularly taught, not integrated into our theology, not a core belief.

What do mormons believe, as in official teaching or belief, (not your opinion or personal beliefs) about Jesus being the offspring of Heavenly Mother and God the Father?

I could be wrong, but I have NEVER seen any LDS call Jesus Christ the offspring of Heavenly Mother. This is another theological loose end.

LDS claim that Jesus Christ is the “only begotten” son of God the Father. Sometimes we say Jesus Christ is the “only begotten son of God in the flesh.”

We also believe that Jesus Christ is eternal though I have never seen a LDS claim “eternally begotten” as Catholics do (which is a difficult construction to say the least).

We claim the pre-incarnate Christ acted throughout the Old Testament.

But, I do not think we have ever claimed that Christ was the offspring (or begotten) of Heavenly Mother.

This is another theological loose end that supports my contention that while there is something true in the concept of a Heavenly Mother, LDS cannot pin it down or integrate it into our CORE doctines (or the doctrines already integrated into our core doctrines either).
Charity, TOm

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,
You will have to give me some time to respond to all of your posts I am already falling behind.

A few points first:

1. I didn’t create a test. I compared your use of the term (community) in describing (one) God to worldly alternatives of (community), pointing out that your definition didn’t fit.
2. My test as your calling it would not be a Modalistic Test, but a monotheistic Test. Here is a basic definition of Monotheism from google:
   ( the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.)
3. I added Believe and faith into the discussion for a purpose. A. Refer to the definition of Monotheism. B. Catholics genuinely believe in One God. One in three persons. All (literally)one god. I can understand how people don’t understand or accept that which is fine it is belief.
   C. Based on the evidence I sent from your churches website, and other evidence anybody can google, the Mormon church claims a belief in One God: but believes in (literally) multiple gods. Which isn’t consistent with the definition. Which I feel is why they have to try to change the definition of either monotheism or god.
4. I actually don’t know a ton on the social trinity and will research more and maybe add more to this later. In a way it sounds like it reduces the reality and nature of God to a concept, not a literal being I guess. I will have to check it out.
   Now I will try to respond to your next post within a couple of hours fingers crossed.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

In regards to Heavenly Mother. I understand that Mormons do not claim it is a fundamental piece or belief of their faith, which is odd.
From the research I have done, again mostly from the LDS website, but some others as well. Heavenly mother is absolutely crucial to the plan of salvation and the afterlife, yet no one talks about her. Maybe Mormons do not claim that she is, but she is a piece of your theology that is irreplaceable.

The LDS website identifies this very plainly:
(We are born of heavenly parents). It also identifies that (Jesus is the oldest of Gods children, so our brother) and that we can (become just as god is) in the afterlife.

With all of this in mind, it would appear that Heavenly Mother is part of the foundation of Mormon Theology regarding creation, salvation and the afterlife in my perspective.

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/2016/06/what-do-we-know-about-life-after-death?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/god-the-father?lang=eng

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

 

[NostalgicBaptist]

I do not believe that a Father above God the Father is a fairly commonly accepted belief by many LDS. I believe among folks who have been members for a long time (I used 30 years in my post) and have been paying attention, more than 50% embrace some concept of a Father above God the Father. This has not been discussed in our church services for years. My son who returned from his mission a little under 2 years ago estimated that 4% of folks believed this (that is what he said, I would estimate higher, but probably less than 10%).

Now I find this statement very strange indeed.

Around 1969, my older sister, her then husband and I went through the LDS missionary lessons. Back then, they used flannel graph presentations, so you know that was a long time ago. One that stuck in my mind was the discussion about “The Law of Eternal Progression.” The Lorenzo Snow couplet, “As God was once, man is now. As God now is, man may become” was most definitely emphasized in those days. We were clearly taught that HF (Heavenly Father in LDS terminology) had to go through the process like everyone has to, of eternal formless intelligence, to spirit child of his heavenly father and mother god and goddess, and then through a period of mortal probation on a physical earth to become the God of this world. So did his father god, and his grandfather god, stretching back into infinity. This was widely accepted among Mormons then as established doctrine.

And now, you’re saying that it’s not considered by most LDS as an immutable “Law”?