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

[lilypadrees]

TOm, none of us hate the Mormon church. If we did, we wouldn’t bother telling you and your fellow Mormons the truth about your church’s founder (Joseph Smith), the BOM and the erroneous things you all believe.

We correct you in love not hate.

I feel sorry for the OP because he isn’t adequately equipped to defend his faith. He even admitted he isn’t able to answer the questions asked of him.

Is he a convert still wet behind the ears, as the saying goes? Or was he raised in the Mormon faith? I’m guessing he’s a brand new convert since one raised in it would have been better prepared. Even a convert in it for a number of years is better equipped to respond to questions. (Mine were the same ones I ask every Mormon.)

I do not feel sorry for him because he’s a Mormon. I do pray though that he will one day come to the same correct understanding of the Bible as Christianity. Whether he chooses Christianity over Mormonism after that is between himself and the one true God.

 

[hope]

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.

This is not what she acknowledged.

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.
.

She said it was used in different ways NOT that is shifted meaning over time. The important point is that the way Nicaea used it is still the way we use it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s Tom”s great pastime…misrepresenting what Catholics write.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Maybe you didn’t hear me when I said, what you call change doesn’t bother me. I see continuity in faith, from Adam and Eve to Jesus to Nicaea to now. Continuity does not mean I see perfection. I’m not Mormon, and therefore hold no belief that male humans are gods.

Mormonism has no continuity to anything. The Book of Mormon, least of all. It doesn’t even exist in reality but only in a mythological place of mythological people.

Our God is great and merciful. He has been working in history, and has brought us our Salvation. What a glorious climax to the human story!

Mormonism inserts the Pacman dying music to say wait, the climax in the human story isn’t Jesus it’s Joseph Smith. (Bummer for all the faithful through literal, millennia. They were living a lie.)

 

[lilypadrees]

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?

I read the article and see no errors in it. Where and what are these “errors,” TOm?

What should you feel about me because I don’t see any errors in the article? You don’t have to “feel” anything about me. Just realize and accept that I have a different view of your church and religion than you do.

I don’t know what “challenges” you’re referring to. I don’t see any challenges. Or maybe what you consider a “challenge” isn’t viewed as a challenge to me.

As for reasonable questions, I’m always happy to answer those. But if it’s a question I’ve already answered or have answered many times already, I usually choose not to answer it again especially if my response is further up in the thread.

The only one who claims that I have hatred for your church is you, TOm. I don’t hate your church or anyone else’s.

I realize you make the claim because my telling you the truth about your church, its founder, Joseph Smith, and its teachings unsettles you to no end. So you go into defensive mode and then boast about knowing the BOM and the Bible better than anyone here. (If you knew them as well as you claim, you wouldn’t need to boast. Boasting is a sign of insecurity and is a mechanism used to make the boaster feel better.)

Catholic Answers hasn’t “attacked” your faith (faith means having complete trust in someone or something). Catholic Answers has spoken/written the truth about the church and religion you choose to belong to. The NIHIL OBSTAT is a declaration that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error.

Perhaps it like everything in your mind means, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not true?

I don’t need a Nihil Obstat to tell me that your chosen church and religion aren’t true. All I have to do is read the BOM to see the plagiarism of the Bible and other works and listen to Mormons speak of their beliefs. Not just ex-Mormons, TOm. Mormons who are still members and plan on remaining in the Mormon church.

 

[hope]

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?

I don’t think anyone here has expressed the idea that the LDS is hated. As to errors in the article, it has not been demonstrated to be inaccurate however, it has been demonstrated that there is a difference of interpretation. Each point in the article can be explained away by supporters of the book but the points made are legitimate criticisms. The answers provided by the LDS is unconvincing. The poor lad who came probably didn’t know that he would be challenged and that he wouldn’t be able to address those challenges. One of the largest is that there is not evidence of the people in the BOM are anything but fictional. As stated in the article

The awkward part for the Mormon church is the total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon . For example, after the cataclysmic last battle fought between the Nephites and Lamanites, hundreds of thousands of men and beasts had allegedly perished, and the ground would have been strewn with weapons and armor. It should be easy to locate and retrieve copious evidence of such a battle. After all, the Bible tells of similar battles that took place long before A.D. 41 but that have been documented by archaeology. .

 

[hope]

post:418:

I don’t think anyone here has expressed the idea that the LDS is hated.

This thread is what I was referring to. Can you provide a quote from this thread that anyone hates LDS?

Said Catholic does not respond to what I said, but begins attacking me in inappropriate ways

She did respond to what you said. There were no attacks on you. The subject is the article and how it is false which I have not seen any evidence that it represents the LDS falsely.

 

[hope]

The subject is the article and how it is false which I have not seen any evidence that it represents the LDS falsely.

It seems we always drift from the subject. I will no longer reply to off topic post accept to say they are off topic

 

[hope]

Off topic

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

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

What should I feel about you who claims the article has no errors, is challenged

I read the article and see no errors in it. Where and what are these “errors,” TOm?

From the Catholic Answers document:

Another problem: Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon , in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C.

The problem was that Joseph Smith wasn’t a naturalist; he didn’t know anything about bees and where and when they might be found. He saw bees in America and threw them in the Book of Mormon as a little local color. He didn’t realize he’d get stung by them.

Problem is the BOM does not claim that “they {honey bees} were introduced around 2000 B.C.” to the New World. This is sloppy anti-Mormonism.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

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.

Well, in the interest of transparency, I want to update the above. I think we have already sung the hymn I referenced this year AND today the speaker spent 3-5 minutes talking about Heavenly Mother. This would be a time I have heard Heavenly Mother discussed in church in addition to the hymn.

As I said before, I think there is truth to the idea of Heavenly Mother. I just know that we do not pray to her, we do not worship her, and she is not part of the Trinity. I spoke with our former Bishop about something else and brought this up too. He agreed that there is reality behind Heavenly Mother, but that there is very little known and lots of theological loose ends.
I think it possible some ambitious and faithful LDS may someday try to integrate the theology of Heavenly Mother with other aspects of LDS thought (again not CORE doctrines, but integrate). I believe this can be done in ways that do not advocate prayer or worship (well, perhaps hyper-dulia).
On a different note, someone suggested they could find a 1000 Mormons in their neighborhood who believed Heavenly Father sinned. I asked our former Bishop if he believed this. He answered “No!” without hesitation. I asked if he had EVER heard a general authority say this. Again no. I do not know what neighborhoods are like in Utah. Here, I think it unlikely I would find above 10% who believed this and would not be surprised if it was 0 - 2%. I doubt Utah is on the opposite side of this spectrum (or even radically different). The idea that God the Father sinned comes across as “sounding brass or a clanging cymbal” to faithful LDS ears. And this is one reason why I do not believe that God the Father has a Heavenly Father. The former bishop was quite emphatic that he doesn’t know and doesn’t care about this question.
Charity, TOm

 

[lilypadrees]

TOm, I’ve noticed that you tend to play the victim with your “You hate my church” comments when others don’t share your view of your church and religious beliefs. You seem to view the comments of non-Mormons as personal attacks and have gotten hot under the collar many times in Mormon-themed threads.

I could play the victim every time opposing views are expressed about the Catholic Church I love so much. But I don’t see the views of others as personal attacks. I see them as opinions only. I live in an area where Protestants outnumber Catholics. I’ve learned to separate criticisms of my Church and her teachingsfrom criticisms of me personally. You need to learn that too in regards to your own church. You’ll be so much happier once you’ve done that.

I choose to pray rather than argue. To discuss rather than argue. To let the Holy Spirit guide me in all things.

When I hate something, I have no problem saying so. I am very blunt. I don’t mince words. I’m the same offline as I am online. I have stated that I don’t hate your church. And I don’t. You can either believe me or not. My views about your church and its teachings aren’t dependent on what you think of me.

You’re going to quibble because I liked a post?!!? Really, TOm? Which part of the post prompted my “like”? You will probably claim the part where the poster used the term “Mormon cult.” But no, I “liked” the post because the poster expressed his views so clearly. There was no anger, no resentment. The poster was very matter-of-fact in stating his views. I was very proud of him. I showed it by giving his post a “like.”

I don’t know what “ousia” is, TOm. I don’t read scholars. They bore me. I speak plain English not scholarly English. If you want me to respond to various comments, you’re going to have to lower yourself to using plain English instead of claiming you’re better than anyone else here. You aren’t except in your own mind.

 

[gazelam]

Regarding the topic of Heavenly Mother, the late Latter-day Saint scholar Truman Madsen interviewed David Noel Freedman (which can be found on this DVD).

Freedman is one of the world’s foremost Bible scholars and a renowned Hebrew scholar. He was editor of the Anchor Bible Series.

Beginning at 17:45 in the interview a discussion starts regarding a divine female being.

Madsen: An even more touchy question has to do with is there a match or is there an archetypal figure along side of the Diety who can be called female?

Freedman: For me that’s no longer, not really a question anymore because we not only have substantial evidence from the Bible, but also from archeological research and it is ultimately resolved in the figure of Lady Wisdom.

Madsen: “Chochmah” in Hebrew…

Freedman: “Chochmah” in Hebrew who is described in considerable detail in the book of Proverbs, especially chapter 8, but not only there, elsewhere, indicating that she is the one who accompanies the Deity and is the instrument, the one who actually carries out the successive acts of creation.

Madsen: She’s a person.

Freedman: Oh yeah, very much so. And she’s more or less orthodox…

Madsen: Meaning that…

Freedman: The Bible supports this…

Freedman then for a couple of minutes discusses three instances of idolatrous female worship in ancient Israel.

Jumping to minute 24:28….

Madsen: So to sum up, though there are these three Canaanite deities, all women, you’re saying that’s idolatry, but the fact that it was part of the culture may reflect that Chochmah which is genuinely part of the Torah, Chochmah Wisdom, does get us into understanding that there can be even in the legitimate reading of Israelite religion a faith that includes both a male God and a female.

Freedman: Yes. And the way you define it, in other words, orthodox religion, even Biblical religion would not say she’s a goddess, but rather she’s a female figure associated very closely with a deity, with God, and in a way that’s closer, more intimate than angels. She’s not an angel.

 

[hope]

Problem is the BOM does not claim that “they {honey bees} were introduced around 2000 B.C.” to the New World. This is sloppy anti-Mormonism.

The article is referencing this

“they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee,”

The LDS position is that it does not say he carried them to the New World. I don’t think it is unreasonable to infer that he did.

 

[Apache75]

Well here in Utah alot Mormons are very 2 faced and are quick to judge others not of the same religion. They also think their s&#t don’t stink. And if your god was once a flesh & bone man then he had original sin. And please show me one man (other than Jesus) that has not sinned. Sin is okay. Its how we better ourselves. And please quit with how we hate your church and playing the victim. It gets old.

 

[TOmNossor]

…your “You hate my church” comments …

I call it like I see it.
I am in good company. The Venerable Fulton Sheen saw the hatred of Catholicism. Do you REALLY think what he saw and called “hate” is radically different than what I see?

You are the one who said that no one hates the Mormon Church. It was 3 months ago you read and liked a post that said precisely that. What you said was false and you should have known.

You’re going to quibble because I liked a post?!!? Really, TOm? Which part of the post prompted my “like”? You will probably claim the part where the poster used the term “Mormon cult.” But no, I “liked” the post because the poster expressed his views so clearly.

I pointed out that a post you liked disproved your statement. A post built on hate.

I think you should re-examine your reasons for liking posts. Many express views clearly, but you like the views from your team. That is why I thought you prolly liked that hate-filled post.

I don’t know what “ousia” is, TOm. I don’t read scholars. They bore me. I speak plain English not scholarly English. If you want me to respond to various comments, you’re going to have to lower yourself to using plain English instead of claiming you’re better than anyone else here. You aren’t except in your own mind.

It is my position that if you cannot bother to educate yourself about the word -ousia, you should spend more time with that and less time attacking a faith you also don’t understand well. It is not about being better or worse. It is about being informed.

You could start with why the Creed you say every Sunday changed in 2011. If you spend 30min on it you will see homoOUSIAn.

Part of all this is that “one in being with” and even substance were unable to communicate in English sufficiently. I am not using -ousia to confuse you, but because it is an integral part of the faith you practice.

I choose to pray rather than argue. To discuss rather than argue. To let the Holy Spirit guide me in all things.

I think praying is wonderful. Briefly mentioning the document from the OP, I think praying to know if the BOM is from God is Biblical. All that being said, I see a lot of needless shots at my faith from you. Not arguments because they have no substance; instead they are non-thinking expressions of derision

TOmNossor:

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?

&

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.)

&

God the Father and His Son, Jesus are NOT the reason for anything regarding your church.

Give me reasoned discussion with words like -ousia or faith filled prayers not done to be seen of men any day over the above.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Regarding the topic of Heavenly Mother, the late Latter-day Saint scholar Truman Madsen interviewed David Noel Freedman (which can be found on this DVD).

Freedman is one of the world’s foremost Bible scholars and a renowned Hebrew scholar. He was editor of the Anchor Bible Series.

…

Madsen: So to sum up, though there are these three Canaanite deities, all women, you’re saying that’s idolatry, but the fact that it was part of the culture may reflect that Chochmah which is genuinely part of the Torah, Chochmah Wisdom, does get us into understanding that there can be even in the legitimate reading of Israelite religion a faith that includes both a male God and a female.

Freedman: Yes. And the way you define it, in other words, orthodox religion, even Biblical religion would not say she’s a goddess, but rather she’s a female figure associated very closely with a deity, with God, and in a way that’s closer, more intimate than angels. She’s not an angel.

This is exactly the way I see Heavenly Mother in LDS thought. Not an angel, not to receive divine worship, not to be prayed to, not part of the Trinity; but important. This is also consistent with the heartfelt comments in my sacrament meeting today. I think it possible there will be more Heavenly Mother not less and I am beginning to believe there are faithful ways to connect the loose ends.

Margaret Barker (another non-LDS scholar) argues that “The Lady of the Temple” was driven out of ancient Jewish worship during the Josaih reform.

There is more, but I think I am going to let my thoughts percolate for between a week and a decade or two.

Thank you VERY MUCH for sharing this from Madsen and Freedman.

Charity, TOm

 

[DanielJT]

Hello TOm,

I am trying to catch up on this thread because it struck me as very interesting, but it has been a lot. Please forgive me if I bring up something already (fully) addressed.

What has particularly struck me is the LDS understanding of the Trinity and how you understand the Catholic conception of Trinity. You spoke earlier about a problem you perceived with the old translation of homoousia around the the Council of Nicea (?) and what you considered to be the MODERN interpretation of Catholics now. Can you explain this a little more for me?

Also, I saw a post that seemed to explain the LDS understanding of Trinity as being that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate persons but because they saw with the same divine eye of perfection (?) that they would act in the same way if they were put into any particular situation. But I was unclear if you agreed with and fully adopted this view as your own as a way to explain the Trinity. And if so, is there any particular nuance you would add to it that would help me to better understand?

Thank you,
Daniel

 

[gazelam]

…the climax in the human story isn’t Jesus it’s Joseph Smith.

This statement is patently false

 

[TOmNossor]

Welcome DanielJT,

Big questions.

Here Elder Talmage says what you reference. LDS view Elder Talmage in the same way we view St. John. If we are going to compare teachings on homoousian from the Catholic Tradition to LDS teachings, it’s appropriate to use scholars like David Paulsen.

In Paulsen’s list, #1 and #2 are how I see the Trinity and the monotheism of God.

• This is Social Trinitarian language. “God is love.” There is a mutually indwelling (perichoresis / circumincession) love that exists between three eternal persons. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct divine persons and one Godhead in virtue of oneness of indwelling unity of presence, glory, and oneness of mind purpose, power and intent. Three wills exist, but the Son and the Holy Ghost freely, perfectly, and always choose to submit their will to the Father’s (the Son and Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father, but they are fully divine). b. The Father is the fount of divinity. The Son and the Holy Ghost are united to the Father. There are aspects (such as love) that emerge through the union of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and aspects that are shared because the Father is the fount of divinity. The unity of the divine persons falls short of identity, but is much more intimate than merely belonging to the same class. There are distinct divine persons, but could not be separated or independent divine persons.
• Monarchical monotheism of the Father. When the Bible or St. Irenaeus or many of the ECF speak of One God, they often speak of the Father (and never call the Son “the One God.” This is because God the Father is the “fons divinitatis” or fount of divinity. Catholics can and must acknowledge that there is ONLY One who is non-begotten and non-proceeding. As a LDS (in concert with many Easter Orthodox theologians and the Greek Father’s, I say that the oneness of God is associated with the Father.

It is my position that God’s love can only exist with a beloved. Thus, the love of God is an emergent aspect of Social Trinity. God’s power originates with the Father (is perfectly and completely shared by the Son and Holy Spirit), this is an aspect of the monarchy of the Father.

Homoousian. The charge was made that Catholicism is true because of the consistent monotheism that exists through the Bible and the Catholic Church and that LDS were not monotheists. It’s true that some Biblical authors were quite polytheistic, Jews shortly after Christ embraced a different view of monotheism than Christians, and other monotheistic inconsistency. But, I suggested that monotheism in Catholic Tradition hasn’t been consistent. Most of the Fathers at Nicea embraced the homoousian of Father and Son as a “generic” oneness, like Eusebius of Caesarea. Today the homoousian for the divine persons is in the “numeric” sense. All LDS believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousian in the generic (mistakenly said numeric) so if that was monotheism, we would be monotheist and the argument from “consistent” monotheism excluding LDS would be proven false.