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

[Crocus]

the document has a NIHIL OBSTAT?

I think that the nihil obstat means that a bishop of the Church affirms there is nothing in the document “objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds.”

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

the document has a NIHIL OBSTAT?

I think that the nihil obstat means that a bishop of the Church affirms there is nothing in the document “objectionable on doctrinal or moral grounds.”

Bearing false witness is not “objectionable on moral grounds?”
If you attack another faith perhaps you should make sure you do not say things that are untrue it is already questionable if the attack nature of these documents does not constitute “proselytizing,” but to attack with falsehoods is “objectionable on moral grounds.”
Is there any “supernatural protection” associated with granting a nihil obstat?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

I think Ostler’s experience teaching this at BYU has emboldened him, but I still doubt he would say this is “defining belief.” As I pointed to earlier in the thread:

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

Instead, Ostler’s work (not the Element article, but the Exploring Mormon Thought series is a systematic theology. Like things from Aquinas or more recent non-Catholic ones like Geisler or Grudem.

Ostler suggests that during the kenotic emptying the Father underwent the stars were held in place by the Son and Holy Spirit just as occurred during the kenotic emptying of the Son.

Yes, the missionaries we interacted with back then, really believed … although they were completely sincere, they nevertheless were in serious doctrinal error.

That would not quite be what I am saying. I am saying that LDS “theology” over the last 190 years looks a lot like the first 190 years after Christ’s death.

Furthermore, LDS theology does not have the emphasis that exists in Catholic and Protestant circles today and I think it likely never will.

While there are Thomists and basically every Catholic Priest knows if he is a Thomist and what Orthdox beliefs are; there are really not Ostlerists and few LDS, members, local leaders, or general authorities have studied systematic theology at all.

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.

I very much disagree that there is a constancy that you are claiming. Catholic scholar John Henry Newman ceased to be an Anglican precisely because the constancy was ABSENT and instead embraced the AUTHORITY that DEVELOPED the modern Christian faith.

I have no idea why you reject the authority that made all the CHANGES (development if you like) all the while defining/developing the authority changes from groups of presbyters to monoepiscaple bishops to metropolitans to patriarchs to the Papacy. Why do you believe they were perfect in one and totally wrong in the other? I at least believe they were mostly good men who were mostly trying to follow God, but in the absence of public revelation erred in both areas of their efforts (oh and LDS see the Bible as inspired, but do not believe it is ABSOLUTELY inerrant nor complete, just sufficient).
Charity, TOm

 

[Crocus]

I don’t see you or your faith being attacked. Your post and character count lead the pack by far. False witness is a high charge.

 

[TOmNossor]

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

I think Karl Keating told me I was long winded. He was/is right. I get it, no worries.

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

The majority of the Fathers at Nicea believed and certified when they agreed to the creedal definition that, “God the Father and God the Son were homoousian/consubstantial JUST LIKE a human father and a human son were homoousian/consubstantial.”

Those who believe TODAY that Christ is “co-equal” to God the Father, and believe that the “one-substance-ness” that is a reality is a product of this “generic homoousian” are considered polytheists today by MODERN Catholics.

As you mentioned (I hope to get to in your EDITED post tonight) all LDS believe that God the Father and God the Son are homoousian in the generic sense. Educated LDS further assert with Plantinga (a Protestant scholar) that the unity of God is a product of the Social Trinity. And there is another component to the oneness of God also present in LDS thought but absent in MODERN Catholic thought.

So, if the majority of the Father’s at Nicea were not polytheists because they embraced the generic homoousian of God the Father and God the Son, then neither am I and neither are ANY LDS.

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.

I agree that SOME of the problems can be ameliorated by an appeal to the “difficulties with language.” Both before Nicea, between Nicea and Constantinople and following Constantinople. And truth be told with the regular expressions of modalism from Catholics here and elsewhere, PARTIALLY because of the English creedal statement that was only edited out a handful of years ago, such problems continue today.

I am not sure what you mean by LDS being “suspicious about grace being absent.” I think LDS find no compelling reason to embrace the DEVELOPED theology Catholics embrace, but I think the percentage of very bad men openly rejecting God involved in Catholic leadership is very small (anciently and today).

Charity, TOm

 

[gazelam]

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?”

What necessitates the change is learning a better way to communicate the message he was given as he learned “line upon line, precept upon precept”. That’s what prophets do. Why did Jeremiah change scripture in Jeremiah 32:32? Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to his scribe, Baruch, son of Neriah, who wrote on it at Jeremiah’s dictation all the words contained in the scroll which Jehoiakim, king of Judah, had burned in the fire, adding many words like them.

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.

Modalism is the belief that God appears as only one of the three divine persons at a time. There is no modalism per se solely in the symbolic equating of two divine beings. Christ is referred to as a “Father” here, because He is the Father of the salvation of the righteous. Mosiah 15:12 says those redeemed from transgression are Christ’s “seed”.

Elsewhere the Book of Mormon speaks of Christ ministering to the people at which time they are filled with the Holy Ghost while Jesus was in their presence, i.e., no modalism. (See 3 Nephi 20.)

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.

“Everlasting Father” and “Eternal Father” are used interchangeably in English translations of Isaiah 9:6, including the “Good News Translation” which is a USCCB approved translation.

 

[gazelam]

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?

Did you have to bring up the “abscession incident”? I had to look it up… again, because I forgot what I learned last time!! I do share quotes that I do understand of Justin and others.

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.

IMHO, the real issue here is that you are uncomfortable with highly regarded Catholic sources like Cardinal John Henry Newman and New Advent which acknowledge an unorthodox belief from Justin. Regarding Justin’s belief about Jesus, New Advent specifically states “His [Christ’s] Divinity, however, seems subordinate, as does the worship which is rendered to Him”.

 

[TOmNossor]

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

I do not think I have misunderstood this (Catholic belief), maybe ever, but certainly not here at Catholic Answers. I have seen Catholics misunderstand it, even asking, “we then are consubstantial with the Father and Spirit as well?” A VERY reasonable question, but alas the answer is no.

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 CoJCoLDS does in fact believe that God the Father and God the Son and all of mankind are of the same substance. It is not the ουσία / substance that distinguishes between the divine and the non-divine for the LDS. The Bible NEVER uses ουσία / substance in the way it was used at Nicea and thus it is not Biblical to distinguish the divine from the non-divine using ουσία.

The CoJCoLDS teaches that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were/are divine and that we are to become divine. Our mortal experience is necessary for us to become like them, but their mortal experience is NOT NECESSARY for them to be divine. Ostler has reflected extensively on this and produced a cogent theology. LDS who place emphasis upon theology (a small percentage) respect and more often then not agree with Ostler.

What the ECF and the Bible taught concerning God’s nature is that it was different than human nature. God is unchanging and humans are always changing, being the most important and consistent distinction from the Old Testament to the New Testament. But, it is not accurate to say that ousia = nature in the Bible. LDS also believe that we are to partake of the divine nature through union with God, the atonement of Christ, and the witness of the Holy Spirit. For LDS like Jews and Christians in the Bible there is no -ousia based divinity and thus partaking of the divine nature has nothing to do with substance. The Bible though written in Greek has no hint of this Greek philosophic formula.

In Mormonism everyone is of the same nature.

This is not an uncommon statement, but I think it FAR more accurate to say that in the CoJCoLDS everyone has the same -ousia.

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.

Jesus is the mediator between sinful, separated mankind and sinless, divinely communed God. He is the only one who could reconcile us to the Father AND communion with the Father / communion within the Social Trinity are integrally linked to “divinity as such” in LDS thought.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

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?

It means the article is consistent with Catholic moral teaching and the Catholic faith.

The articles conclusion is rational.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Wow.
Been gone a couple of days and the post continues. It seems like we’re still going in circles.

 

[TOmNossor]

Wow.
Been gone a couple of days and the post continues. It seems like we’re still going in circles.

Actually, Rebecca arrived and immediately acknowledge that the word Homoousian does in fact have meanings that have shifted over time. That was something that you and Hope refused to do.

But, till then, I was just answering posts from NostalgicBaptist waiting for you to answer my 2nd question so I could ask my 3rd, you could answer it and THEN we could decide if we would continue with more questions or not. I have answered your 3 questions already.

Anyway, I am glad you are fine, welcome back.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think, you can’t break the habit of prooftexting.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Suspicious meaning, you accept a book as scripture without a sideways glance but that idea God works with what he’s got, us, is not possible. God can work through fallible, humans, us, is suspect. You have to believe the Protestant tale, that Christ left His Church, and we now must figure out where he went to. Mormonism is no different in Protestants in this regard, claiming Jesus is “over here”. One has to wonder when he will leave next and where then will he go?

Or in other, other words, Mormons have a house built on sand, and are perpetually looking through the wrong end of the telescope while building endless conspiracy theories based on a warped view.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I agree with history, which Mormons do not. You pick and choose. As an example, the Real Presence. Mormons ignore entirely, but will spend endless hours prooftexting Catholic history while ignoring the evidence that proves the Mormon religion is a late-comer invention. I imagine it takes a toll on one’s faculties.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Tom,

(So, if the majority of the Father’s at Nicea were not polytheists because they embraced the generic homoousian of God the Father and God the Son, then neither am I and neither are ANY LDS.)

(Tom where did the ECF teach about Heavenly Mother? Where did they teach, specifically, about a multitude of gods and the potential for creators above God the Father?)

This is I believe where the misunderstandings are occurring. God the Father is consubstantial with Jesus. Not because he and heavenly mother gave birth to a spirit child, like a human mother and father do with their child, but because he is one with god (no not modalisticly) That is the only way he could be (according to ECF, scripture and historical teaching) How are we consubstantial with each other and How is god consubstantial with Jesus? These are the questions. Because it is in completely different ways. Could the Nicene Creed creators have found a better term, possibly, but I don’t think the meaning has shifted, it has simply had to be further defined as heresy persisted.
The alternative to this, is creating theology to support ( which the Mormons have had to do to support Jesus and ang god being the same type of relationship as a father and son.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

You’re killing me. Mormons have one kind of Being, and that is human whose nature progresses to its fullest potential. The old tried and true analogy is, like a boy growing into a man, a man grows into a god. There’s no “ousia”.

The Mormon Father is not sinless by nature, he is a man, who at one time sinned and learned over who knows how many eons to not sin.

For Christians, Jesus in his divinity is sinless by nature, because he is God. For Mormons Jesus is mediator because of obedience, not because of His divine nature. The Mormon divine nature is a reward for forsaking sin, not an attribute of the divine. So you’re using divine to mean something human, then trying to claim that Mormon divine and human are different. It is the same nature, one having a refined quality. Like gold or silver that is refined into a higher quality, yet it is still, gold or silver. There is no distinction that would require the word “ousia “ to be employed, unless you’re just trying to make this new religion of yours make sense. Which it doesn’t.

 

[TOmNossor]

Suspicious meaning, you accept a book as scripture without a sideways glance but that idea God works with what he’s got, us, is not possible. God can work through fallible, humans, us, is suspect. You have to believe the Protestant tale, that Christ left His Church, and we now must figure out where he went to. Mormonism is no different in Protestants in this regard, claiming Jesus is “over here”. One has to wonder when he will leave next and where then will he go?

Or in other, other words, Mormons have a house built on sand, and are perpetually looking through the wrong end of the telescope while building endless conspiracy theories based on a warped view.

Rebecca,

I am surprised you have not seen me clearly state that while I can point to volumes of problems with Catholic truth claims, these problems are not the reason I am not a Catholic.

It was a conviction that there was something divine present in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that I could not explain without acknowledging that God was involved.

I find problems with Catholic truth claims, but it is the inability to explain the Book of Mormon or the Restoration intellectually from a Catholic perspective that leaves me a LDS.

I am convinced I am following God, but I see no reason that I cannot tell Catholics how incredibly wonderful I consider the Catholic Church to be. I am not trying to deceive you, I really feel this way, I just feel I must walk towards the light I think shines brighter.

You are looking at the WRONG end of the telescope. If it was obvious that God inspired the CHANGES throughout the history of Catholicism, you wouldn’t need to make faliscious anti-Mormon arguments. Catholic Answers would not publish flawed anti-Mormon tracts. A faith that claimed to be a restoration in 1830 is on far more solid ground as it looks to the problems of historic Christianity. Revelation didn’t explain what was restorated or what was wrong with the Catholic Church. So we study, theorize and learn. The Catholic Church COULD just defend the fort, but the fort is full enough of holes that they say, “The Book of Mormon has bees in it, don’t pray about the Book of Mormon.”

I COULD believe that God worked through the MESS that is Catholic history, just as I believe that God worked through the MESS that is LDS history; but I could not explain the Book of Mormon from any Catholic perspective offered here. There is too much there for it to be some 19th century human production.

Oh and I don’t know what sort of sideways glances you have in mind, but I doubt you have studied the Book of Mormon from scholarly sources more than I have. I glace sideways and forward and back.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I agree with history, which Mormons do not. You pick and choose. As an example, the Real Presence. Mormons ignore entirely, but will spend endless hours prooftexting Catholic history while ignoring the evidence that proves the Mormon religion is a late-comer invention. I imagine it takes a toll on one’s faculties.

I have also acknowledged that the Real Presence is a beautiful doctrine that is well supported by John 6.
I of course know it is not universally accepted by the ECF and I am happy to not embrace the term “transubstantiation.”
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

You’re being illogical. CAF isn’t God.

 

[TOmNossor]

The Mormon Father is not sinless by nature, he is a man, who at one time sinned and learned over who knows how many eons to not sin.

I have yet to see a LDS General Authority claim that Heavenly Father ever sinned. If you can fine ONE, that would be more than I know at the moment.

It is one of the reasons that I reject how you (and many LDS) see this question.

Also, Heavenly Father is a moral agent who has NEVER sinned and this is praiseworthy and something to embrace with faith, in a way that the inability to sin as taught by Catholic theologians is not (and though you sometimes obscure this with your “different Jesus” or in this case different Father talk, one concept is more wrong than the other concept).

For Mormons Jesus is mediator because of obedience, not because of His divine nature.

You are mistaken. Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament prior to his earthly ministry. He was choosen in the beginning. As I said in my post, LDS must acknowledge that the Son was divine before incarnation and Holy Spirit is divine without incarnation but for future human divinity an incarnation is required. You are not properly representing the faith you reject.

The Mormon divine nature is a reward for forsaking sin, not an attribute of the divine. So you’re using divine to mean something human, then trying to claim that Mormon divine and human are different. It is the same nature, one having a refined quality.

It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AND the Bible that never suggests -ousia has ANYTHING to do with divinity.

It is the communion with God the Father and with the Social Trinity, the unchanging faithfulness, and … that is the divine nature. It is the sinful disconnected selfishness, the covenant breaking faithlessness, and … that is the human nature.

The Bible NEVER suggests that nature = -ousia, this is a philosophical addition to God’s truth accepted wrongly by the Catholic Church.

Charity, TOm