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

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

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) …

I find this statement very strange indeed.

Around 1969, … I went through the LDS missionary lessons…

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

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Basically every LDS who attends church spends more than 1 hour per week in the scriptures. Often many more hours.

There is nothing in the scriptures that points to a Father above God the Father.

Folks taught 50 years ago as you reference in SOME cases still believe this.

Some minority of folks who were not well versed in LDS teaching 30 (my guess) or 50 (from you) dig deeply into historical documents. Among this minority of folks there are some like me who think it unlikely that God the Father had a Father. There are some who think it likely.
Folks who read every piece of anti-Mormon material available to them also come across this and form an opinion.

Now for the “Snow Couplet:”
I expect if you asked LDS who attend church what the Snow Couplet is, a significant percentage could tell you. But, within that percent there would be a much smaller group that would connect it to a Father above God the Father and some like me would reject that as something that was once regularly taught, today is almost not mentioned, and that they personally do not believe.

The last time I can remember someone trying to expound upon the second half of the couplet, “As man is now, God once was,” was about 10 years ago in a small class of about 10. They said that whatever else this might mean, we can know that God the Son was once as we are now and that we are to become what God the Son is.

I am not sure why your experience from 50 years ago would cause you to find my statement strange because I suggested by 30 years ago the idea was in recession. This trend from 50 and 30 and 10 years ago has continued. The reason for this is IMO is that there is a conscious decision to not teach about it by those who believe it because we do not know much about it and those who consider it true (unlike critics) don’t find it central to the gospel. And those like myself who do not consider it true, on rare occasions speak against it.

Blake Ostler in Exploring Mormon Thought explained that he considered it untrue and while he believes Brigham Young and a number of leaders after BY taught it, he doesn’t believe Joseph Smith taught it. Here is an excellent essay where Blake touches upon this:
http://www.smpt.org/docs/ostler_element1-1.html
I think this essay in part or completely was first published in the late 1990’s on the LDS-Phil discussion list. It has in my opinion CHANGED the environment into which it was delivered with significant numbers of folks (especially younger folks less invested in teachings they never heard) adopting many or all of its conclusions. It was a then Catholic friend of mine who first pointed me to the essay, BTW.

Charity, TOm

 

[NostalgicBaptist]

I find this statement very strange indeed.

Around 1969, … I went through the LDS missionary lessons…

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

Yes, that is what I am saying.

And yet the young missionary ladies included “The Law of Eternal Progression” in their authorized (?) presentation, clearly intending for us to have the understanding that we came away with. Did they not teach prospective converts only what the LDS Church wanted them to? I have to believe that they did.

Basically every LDS who attends church spends more than 1 hour per week in the scriptures. Often many more hours.

There is nothing in the scriptures that points to a Father above God the Father.

Although the “King Follett Discourse” is not considered authoritative now although several important LDS leaders ran with it for many years.

Folks taught 50 years ago as you reference in SOME cases still believe this.

Whether or not they believed it seems to me beside the point. Did they feel that they had an authoritative source that taught this concept?

Some minority of folks who were not well versed in LDS teaching 30 (my guess) or 50 (from you) dig deeply into historical documents. Among this minority of folks there are some like me who think it unlikely that God the Father had a Father. There are some who think it likely.

If I understand correctly, one reason temple marriage is so important is so that men who attain first-level in the Celestial Kingdom become gods and are allowed to procreate spirit children (with their goddess wives) for eternity and give these children physical bodies to populate new earths, from which the mortal probationary cycle can start anew. If this is so, how can it reasonably be denied that such was the case with HF?

Blake Ostler in Exploring Mormon Thought explained that he considered it untrue and while he believes Brigham Young and a number of leaders after BY taught it, he doesn’t believe Joseph Smith taught it.

I thought Brigham Young and his successors were also considered “prophets, seers and revelators” as well.

 

[Stephen168]

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

Yes and I have to agree with RebeccaJ who told me that Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is a Prophet and the Book of Mormon is true; after that it seems to be very flexible.

And as a Mormon scholar said, A Mormon’s testimony is their objective proof that the Book of Mormon is true; they just believe even though there is no scientific evidence.

And to your point it seems that what it means for the Book of Mormon to be “true” is changing; like jelly to a wall.

 

[OKComputer]

And it keeps sliding down the wall and falling into pieces, because there is no such thing as Mormon theology. It’s a garbled mess, and it will fall apart under the slightest pressure. Like nailing Jello to a wall.

 

[TOmNossor]

Although the “King Follett Discourse” is not considered authoritative now although several important LDS leaders ran with it for many years.

The KFD as Joseph Smith delivered it builds from John 5:19, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever He [the Father] doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” We know this because Joseph quoted it and moved from there to the teaching that God the Father was once incarnate. LDS Christians, like all Christians believe that Christ was divine before the incarnation. Joseph Smith also attributed to God the Father mortal actions only Christ (and the Father) could do.

The KFD is a large part of the reason I reject the idea that God the Father had a Heavenly Father.

TOmNossor:

Folks taught 50 years ago as you reference in SOME cases still believe this.

Whether or not they believed it seems to me beside the point. Did they feel that they had an authoritative source that taught this concept?

No doubt they thought it sourced from authority, but not from infallible authority, irreformable authority, innerant material, …

Did you read the Element article from my link? What did you think?

Charity, TOm

 

[lilypadrees]

Basically every LDS who attends church spends more than 1 hour per week in the scriptures. Often many more hours.

Then why do you and your fellow Mormons continue to misinterpret them?

There is nothing in the scriptures that points to a Father above God the Father.

That’s right, there isn’t. And yet, your church continues to teach that God the Father had a physical body like Jesus, a father and a mother and that He only became a god after the gods before Him voted Him into the godhood. Later on, they would all vote Jesus into the same godhood.

These are in your church’s teachings. Yet you deny they’re there. Do you or do you not believe the Mormon church’s teachings?

 

[gazelam]

And yet, your church continues to teach that God the Father had a physical body like Jesus,

A quick trip around the New Testament shows conclusively that God the Father has a physical body like that of Jesus.

We’ll start with the classic John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

God the Father here is described as “spirit”.

To put things in proper context we go to 1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Jesus is also described as “spirit” and He has a [glorious] body. (See Philippians 3:21)

And now we turn to John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Disciples of Christ who are born of the spirit (or in other words “born again”) are “spirit”, and they too have physical bodies.

Nowhere does the Bible state that God the Father is bodiless.

 

[NostalgicBaptist]

The KFD as Joseph Smith delivered it builds from John 5:19, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever He [the Father] doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” We know this because Joseph quoted it and moved from there to the teaching that God the Father was once incarnate. LDS Christians, like all Christians believe that Christ was divine before the incarnation. Joseph Smith also attributed to God the Father mortal actions only Christ (and the Father) could do.

The KFD is a large part of the reason I reject the idea that God the Father had a Heavenly Father.

Mr. Ostler near the end of his article allows for the possibility of HF having experienced a mortal existence prior to regaining divinity, although it remains an “option of belief” rather than a “defining belief” for Latter-Day Saints. If HF went through an identical experience as the Son, the question naturally arises, who did HF answer to? That is, if HF experienced mortality. But then, one is left wondering.

No doubt they thought it sourced from authority, but not from infallible authority, irreformable authority, innerant material, …

Yes, the missionaries we interacted with back then, really believed that they were telling us correct and pure teachings from their church. So, in instructing us about the “Law of Eternal Progression”, I gather from your statements, that although they were completely sincere, they nevertheless were in serious doctrinal error. But they didn’t come up with this material themselves. It was given to them to share with prospective converts, so the fault ultimately lies with authorities higher up.

One impression that the CoJCoLDS leaves one with is that since 1830, in less than two hundred years, the LDS doctrine of God underwent rapid, contradictory transformations from forms of monotheism, binitarianism, polytheism and now back to something almost, but not quite similar to, (and in reality, totally unlike) historically orthodox beliefs about the nature of God.

Joseph Smith's Changing Doctrine of Deity | Institute for Religious Research

But to me, an evangelical Protestant, and my Roman Catholic friends here, our concept of God has stayed the same for nearly two millennia. I think that I’ll stay with that.

 

[Totustuus1213]

Here is a question: Why did my mormon bff of a decade leave a book of mormon in my closet just before unexpectedly ditching me on the eve of my birthday? I have since heard that mormons have a cultural practice called “date ‘em and dump’ em” which focusses on converting someone through a relationship with them and then ditching them once they have joined the church. I think my experience validates this rumor. Also, another mormon friend actually did this to one of her boy friends. I don’t think God asks people to use trickery to lead them to the truth. The amount of dishonesty I have seen from the mormons I knew is astonishing and I think it gives insight into the heart of the LDS Church. There is also a whole laundry list of things I take issue with, but I don’t feel like getting into a debate.

 

[gazelam]

One impression that the CoJCoLDS leaves one with is that since 1830, in less than two hundred years, the LDS doctrine of God underwent rapid, contradictory transformations from forms of monotheism, bitrinitarianism, polytheism and now back to something almost, but not quite similar to, (and in reality, totally unlike) historically orthodox beliefs about the nature of God.

http://mit.irr.org/joseph-smiths-changing-doctrine-of-deity#_irr_end_ref10

But to me, an evangelical Protestant, and my Roman Catholic friends here, our concept of God has stayed the same for nearly two millennia. I think that I’ll stay with that.

Have you actually read the material in the link you shared? Here are a couple of the many flaws:

1. That there somehow is a doctrinal difference between the phrases “Mother of God” and “Mother of the Son of God”. The Catholic Church uses both today. Are you saying that when the RCC uses the one phrase and then the other that it’s changing doctrine?
2. In the section “Is Jesus the Father?” It states “Similarly, Mosiah 16:15 declares that Jesus is the Father: “Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father.” A modal view of Father and Son is also evident in…”

Did the author conveniently forget about Isaiah 9;6. or does the author also believe that the Bible teaches modalism?

Isaiah 9:6 (KJV) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

While it would be expected in a process referred to as a restoration for some doctrine to unfold over time, the author here is clearly missing the mark.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Hello everyone, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and I was just a little confused on the article on why the Book of Mormon is wrong. If any of you have any questions about my church please ask. I was hoping for a good conversation about that article so that I can better understand ya’ll of other faiths. No angry messages please.

I’ve only just come to this thread but had to giggle to myself for reading your post to the tune of the opening number of The Book of Mormon. I saw it a few days ago and the number is stuck in my head.

 

[Pattylt]

He was scared off when he was unable to answer several questions. He must have assumed that CAF was clueless about the LDS. Boy, was he wrong.

 

[lilypadrees]

He claims he was confused as to why the article about the Book Of Mormon was wrong. It seems to me, he shouldn’t have offered to answer our questions about his church but to state which parts of the article he was confused about and ask about those instead.

The OP obviously isn’t as grounded in his Mormon faith as he thought he was since he wasn’t able to answer our questions.

I actually feel sorry for the kid.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mother of God and Mother of the Son of God are used interchangeably by Catholics. There is no need to fix one by replacing it with the other. Therefore the question can he asked, in a Mormon context, what necessitates changing one to the other?”

The use of the adjective very, in the phrase “the very Eternal Father” indicates that the Son is exactly the same as the Father, which is modalism. It is indicating something literal, not symbolic.

The phrase, “the everlasting Father” is a Hebraism. Throughout the OT a person is called the father of something, which term means they are the owner of that something. Lest the promised child, who is called child and son, not be recognized as greater than both child and son, he is given the name Father of Eternity. Indicating he owns eternity, as he himself, is eternal.

 

[RebeccaJ]

In another discussion regarding the one nature of God I quoted Justin Martyr to you, in context. As you recall Justin Martyr continues on where he compares Jesus to a flame that is from another flame, the distinction in personhood (numeric count of persons) not by abscession (one being). I recall your response was, you didn’t understand what Justin Martyr was saying. So now you quote Justin Martyr, using the same teaching of his that you said you didn’t understand, while pretending to know what he is teaching?

One would think that by now (after years misquoting Catholics) you would have figured out that Justin Martyr was martyred for his Catholic faith, not for being an early promoter of Joseph Smith’s heresies.

At any rate, as Stephen has pointed out, precise language is necessary for a rational discussion. “Being” and “person” are two terms, that again, after so many years, one would think you should be able to demonstrate at least a passing familiarity.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I believe I was the one who pointed out to you that the usage of the word homoussian was used anciently in different ways. Greek academics used it in one way, Nicaea used it in another. For the life of me I don’t know why you think this indicates the Catholics at Nicaea were promoting polytheism.

You keep missing the point that there are two natures in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Mormonism teaches one nature. Jesus in Mormonism is a son of an exalted human, but nonetheless a human. You can’t reconcile this with any ECF without claiming they are referencing a human nature that has progressed to a different nature and this is not what Mormonism teaches. Let alone the problem you never address, of no Catholic teaching anywhere at any time that the Father has a human nature.

The nature of Jesus Christ is where people stray into heresy. The councils you cite are emphatic in declaring that the Person of Jesus Christ exists in two natures, at once. Your syncretic Catholic-Mormon ideas have led you to modalism, where Jesus is at one time human and at another time divine. Your claim being that somehow makes us consubstantial with the Father?

In Mormonism everyone is of the same nature. The Father, man, you, me, Jesus. For Mormons, human nature is by nature, divine. Jesus in Mormonism, only mediates authority, like a prophet, though with greater authority than a prophet.

For Catholics, Jesus is mediator in His Person, being fully human and fully divine, he is the only one who could reconcile us to the Father.

 

[TOmNossor]

He claims he was confused as to why the article about the Book Of Mormon was wrong. It seems to me, he shouldn’t have offered to answer our questions about his church but to state which parts of the article he was confused about and ask about those instead.

The OP obviously isn’t as grounded in his Mormon faith as he thought he was since he wasn’t able to answer our questions.

I actually feel sorry for the kid.

I do not feel sorry for him.

He is quite young, seems to have parents and a young men’s leader who care about him and his spiritual development. This puts him ahead of 95%+ Catholics. As I told a former LDS here who lamented the absence of such things in the Catholic Church, “go make it happen in your parish.” Or just keep posting about how Mormonism is wrong that might make you feel better?

As I said earlier in this post, the Catholic Answers document is demonstrably inaccurate (this was explained by a Catholic and then another Catholic claimed that the importance in his mind was the macro message not the micro message which I thought was silly and demonstratably untrue). I understand you feel sorry for this LDS fellow who didn’t expect to get what he got from a large group of adults who hate his church. What should I feel about you who claims the article has no errors, is challenged, and then moves on to express her hatred of my church while ignoring reasonable questions and challenges to what she says?

What does it mean that Catholic Answers, the largest English speaking apologetic apostolate in the world, attacks my faith with mistakes (some more obvious than others). And that some Catholic Bishop certified such mistakes with a NIHIL OBSTAT?

Perhaps it like everything in your mind means, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not true?” But I do not know how it means this.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I believe I was the one who pointed out to you that the usage of the word homoussian was used anciently in different ways. Greek academics used it in one way, Nicaea used it in another. For the life of me I don’t know why you think this indicates the Catholics at Nicaea were promoting polytheism.

No, you are remembering incorrectly. I made a claim about the word “hypostasis.” I can show you were I first learned about this “problem” if you like.

You correctly explained that the word “hypostasis” was meant one way at Nicea and that its meaning changed FOREVER it seems later.

The word homoousian (or homoousius, or in Latin consubstatial) is a different word that I am sure MANY Catholics, and I think you but I could wrong, have claimed has only one meaning. I have consistently claimed it has more than one.

I do not remember the precise context of my discussion of “hypostasis.” That being said, I do recall feeling well responded to by you. The use I made of “hypostasis” in this thread acknowledges your response.

I am quite sure the word homoousian is NOT the word you are thinking about.

I am not sure where you think I have claimed that the changing definition of homoousian means that Catholics at Nicea are polytheists. I believe that holding the view of the MAJORITY of bishops who signed the creed at Nicea would be considered polytheism today by MODERN Catholics (though I would not consider them polytheists only MORE polytheistic than educated LDS).

This started because the word “homoousian” and its meaning changes indicate that what was claimed by @ConcernedConvert that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is false because of the CONSISTENCY of Catholic teachings, is inaccurate.
Furthermore the concept of monotheism has not been consistent from the fourth century to today. Homoousian are one example of this inconsistency. Another is my quote from Metropolitan Zizoulas.

Charity, TOm

P.S. I hope to get to your edited additions later.

 

[Crocus]

I personally try to stay out of micro explanations about why the Book of Mormon is fiction. The view I’ve always held is a macro view from my childhood. Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was a story of all the American Indians and how they arrived from the middle east. That is not true, therefore the Book of Mormon is fiction.

This makes sense after all.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sorry to edit so much. I think of more stuff and CAF has a 3 post in a row limitation. So I edit.

Still no reason to believe using a word differently means Nicaea was aiming to retain a measure of polytheism as orthodoxy.

I’m sure your aware that at the Rome the difficulties with language brought about the following council at Constantinople.

To Catholics, a nut was cracked, so to speak, in how the Holy Faith could be expressed using metaphysics. We see God’s grace.

Mormons are always incredibly suspicious about grace being absent. I find that to be sad.