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

[lilypadrees]

Why do you believe we hate your church, TOm? Who told you that anyone who speaks against the Mormon church hates it?

You said, “I call it like I see it.” So do we. No one here hates your church. This hate you think we have is all in your mind.

You seem unable to separate honest views and criticisms of your chosen church and religion from views about you personally. Why is that? You are not the Mormon church, TOm. You are one member of the Mormon church.

You totally misunderstand Fulton Sheen. And yes, what he saw and called hate is totally different from what you claim to see. You see hate where there is none. To you, criticism is hate.

Again, you harp on my “liking” a post that by your own admission is 3 months old! You need to get over it. Seriously.

We’re encouraged to use the “like” button instead of taking up space telling a poster that we like their post.

Since you obviously have a problem with the person’s post, I suggest you take your issue up with him instead of complaining because I and another poster gave a post you consider “built on hate” a “like.” Instead of making assumptions, why don’t you question him instead of claiming to know his heart?

I don’t need to examine or reexamine the reason I “like” posts. I “like” them because regardless of whether or not I agree with the content, something in them stands out making them worthy of my “like.”

As for the way I spend my time, that is none of your concern. I will spend it as I see fit.

I don’t attack people’s faith, TOm. I speak against lies, deceptions and inaccuracies. In regards to your chosen church, I’ve studied it since the mid-1970s. I don’t claim to be an expert by any means. But I do know enough to converse intelligently as do my peers here.

 

[OKComputer]

Why do you believe we hate your church, TOm? Who told you that anyone who speaks against the Mormon church hates it?

That’s just how Mormons think. Any time someone says a truthful thing about Mormonism that happens to not paint the church in a positive, happy light, Mormons just assume the person hates Mormonism. It’s their way of dismissing any critique towards their church.

 

[hope]

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.

It was not changed your anti-Catholicism is showing. I would explain but 1. off topic 2. you are baiting 3. You know and are deliberately misrepresenting as you have with most of your statements against the Church.
Please stop saying charity your posts are anything but charitable.
Oh yeah this entire post as the ones following are off topic. Makes me wonder? Why you don’t stick to the subject but deflect from it?

 

[RuthAnne]

Please stop saying charity your posts are anything but charitable.

Not only that, but I have noticed that he doesn’t obey the rules of this forum:

Keep It Tidy​

Make the effort to put things in the right place, so that we can spend more time discussing and less cleaning up. So:

• Don’t start a topic in the wrong category.
• Don’t cross-post the same thing in multiple topics.
• Don’t post no-content replies.
• Don’t divert a topic by changing it midstream.
• Don’t sign your posts — every post has your profile information attached to it.

Rather than posting “+1” or “Agreed”, use the Like button. Rather than taking an existing topic in a radically different direction, use Reply as a Linked Topic.

 

[lilypadrees]

I think praying to know if the BOM is from God is Biblical.

I prayed to the Holy Spirit about it long ago. The Holy Spirit gave me a different answer than the one that made you leave the Catholic Church behind. And that answer came while I was sitting in CHURCH praying.

The answer I received is that the BOM is false, it’s NOT “another testament of Jesus Christ,” the Mormon church is NOT the church Jesus founded, the Catholic Church is and the Catholic Church is where He wants me to be. I obey God. I will not leave His Church with the Real Presence and the fullness of Truth until He does. And since we have His Promise that He will remain with us, I’m not going anywhere.

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

I’ll take the Truth of God’s Eternal Word, Jesus, every time.

And the truth is that one of us is wrong about your church’s origins and its teachings. And it’s not me.

 

[lilypadrees]

Please stop saying charity your posts are anything but charitable.

Thank you!!!

 

[OKComputer]

When I was LDS, if you had a problem with anything in the church, the only answer they have is “Pray more until you get the answer that agrees with the church.” If you have a problem with Joesph Smith marrying 14 year old girls, just pray about it. If you have a problem with the Kinderhook Plates, just pray about it. If you have a problem with the numerous archeological inconsistencies in the church, just pray about it. Eventually, I began to realize that I could only pray about these problems so much and it couldn’t make them go away.

 

[lilypadrees]

Yes, I remember a Mormon telling me a few years ago that they are taught that anyone who speaks against their church “hates” it.

The CAF article spoke the truth. Yet, Mormons deny it. They take it so personally. Why? Because they’re taught to.

 

[OKComputer]

Right! I don’t blame them, I feel sorry for them. They aren’t programmed to think about their religion, they are programmed only to obey. That doesn’t mean they aren’t intelligent (many of them are) that doesn’t mean they aren’t educated (many of them are, more so than me I barely graduated from high school) but it does mean that their church generally drills it into their head to shut up and obey.

 

[lilypadrees]

Rather than taking an existing topic in a radically different direction, use Reply as a Linked Topic.

This is something I’m not sure I know how to do. Are there instructions for this? It would make things so much easier.

 

[DanielJT]

I’m trying to understand the difference between the “general” and “numeric” sense of homoousian. The only thing I found was an article which quoted Leo D. Davis, SJ and I am paraphrasing him so assure I have a good understanding that we can agree on. He said that the “general” sense was like that of two men being the same in nature because of their humanity and the “numeric” sense was a more “concrete” sense when they are absolutely one.

Is this how you would differentiate the two senses? Is there something you might add that would help me to understand?

 

[hope]

Your statement #3 is half correct, I do know why the Creed said by Catholics was changed in 2011. However I have misrepresented NOTHING.

Despite your statement your statement does indicate that the Church changed. Why point to a change? It wasn’t a change but a correction in translation. It is more correct to say that it was a replacement of a bad translation.

I am here to help you see some of the less obvious “glass house” aspects of your criticism. To respond to arguments about consistent monotheism and such. Alas, I do not expect to be celebrated for this

You should be here a good guest which means you obey the rules. In this thread alone, you break them more than you adhere to them. Be a good guest and don’t post unless it subject related. Attacking this site for your perceived hate is one of the things you should refrain from posting. If you think the post is hateful you should flag it.

to quote Ruthann

Keep It Tidy​

Make the effort to put things in the right place, so that we can spend more time discussing and less cleaning up. So:

• Don’t start a topic in the wrong category.
• Don’t cross-post the same thing in multiple topics.
• Don’t post no-content replies.
• Don’t divert a topic by changing it midstream.
• Don’t sign your posts — every post has your profile information attached to it.

 

[TOmNossor]

I’m trying to understand the difference between the “general” and “numeric” sense of homoousian. The only thing I found was an article which quoted Leo D. Davis, SJ and I am paraphrasing him so assure I have a good understanding that we can agree on. He said that the “general” sense was like that of two men being the same in nature because of their humanity and the “numeric” sense was a more “concrete” sense when they are absolutely one.

Is this how you would differentiate the two senses? Is there something you might add that would help me to understand?

I think it might have been Father Davis who first introduced me to the concept of homoousian in the generic sense and homoousian in the numeric sense. I could see that there were two meanings long before I knew the scholarly language concerning the two meanings.

In a dialogue with Richard Abanes from long ago I used the terms “you-me-one-beingness” and “me-me-one-beingness” to highlight the difference. I can embrace Nicea as long as we use the “you-me-one-beingness” (the one Eusebius of Ceasarea embraced). Richard embraced Nicea with the “me-me-one-beingness” advocated by Athanasius then Augustine (and generally the church, both Catholic and Protestant) until the last 1-2 centuries.

The emergence of the Social Trinity (Plantinga’s construction which he claims has a lot of precident from the Eastern Fathers) is a response to the lack of LOGICAL middle ground between tri-theism and modalism. Philosophers have regularly explained how this ground is vanishingly small (and some boldly claim it does not exist real or logical way).

When I try to explain what an Augustinian Trinitarian (modern Catholic) believes from their point of view, I suggest that God is one being in three persons. God is not 3 beings which is tritheism and God is not 1 person who plays three roles which is modalism. But, how to define where oneness ends and threeness begins (the Scylla and the Charybdis) is at best a mystery and is beyond our human understanding

This is about all I can do for you.

When describing humans, it is always true that one person is one being.

Thus when trying to grapple with homoousian in the numeric sense we can say that the modalists were condemned for this view. We can say that how 3 hypostatis (persons) are homoousian is a mystery. Or we can call it illogical and search for solutions like the Social Trinity and/or The Monarchy of the Father.
I hope that helps and I APPLAUD your search to understand!

 

[Stephen168]

You could start with why the Creed you say every Sunday changed in 2011.

I didn’t change.

 

[Stephen168]

When I was LDS, if you had a problem with anything in the church, the only answer they have is “Pray more until you get the answer that agrees with the church.” If you have a problem with Joesph Smith marrying 14 year old girls, just pray about it. If you have a problem with the Kinderhook Plates, just pray about it. If you have a problem with the numerous archeological inconsistencies in the church, just pray about it.

As the Mormon scholar said, a Mormon’s testimony is their objective evidence. They believe the Book of Mormon is ‘true’ because it feels true.

 

[lilypadrees]

Correction, TOm. In my house, we use the whole word - “homoousian.” Had you done that, I would have understood what you were referring to.

 

[Stephen168]

Oh yeah this entire post as the ones following are off topic. Makes me wonder? Why you don’t stick to the subject but deflect from it?

The Book of Mormon cannot be supported by reason, so all he has is rationalizing why he left the church of his birth, the Church with the Eucharist.

 

[DanielJT]

Elder Talmage

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.

I am not sure what you mean here when you say “the same way we view St. John.” St. John the Apostle? Does this mean that Elder Talmage holds quite a bit of weight in LDS teaching? Or not so much. What he said about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit seemed to be tritheism. I know very little about LDS.

Also, when you said this -

God is not 3 beings which is tritheism and God is not 1 person who plays three roles which is modalism. But, how to define where oneness ends and threeness begins (the Scylla and the Charybdis) is at best a mystery and is beyond our human understanding

This has been my understanding of Catholic Trinitarian doctrine. You also went on to say that (paraphrasing again to check understanding, please correct any errors) God is not three persons (tritheism) and God is not one with three “masks” (modalism) but the space in-between this can get tricky to tease out. Is this your personal understanding or that of LDS?

All LDS believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousian in the numeric sense

When you said the above, were you saying LDS believe the “me-me-one-beingness” sense of Trinity? Like the modalism model, because this seems the opposite of the Elder Talmage quote.

I hope you see my misunderstanding. I am trying to understand your understanding of LDS Trinity, Catholic Trinity, and the differences or shortcomings of either (if you see any).

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

All LDS believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousian in the numeric sense

When you said the above, were you saying LDS believe the “me-me-one-beingness” sense of Trinity? Like the modalism model, because …

I am sorry. I meant “generic.”
Will fix.
SORRY!

Now fixed. Will respond more later. Sorry for confusion.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

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.

I am not sure what you mean here when you say “the same way we view St. John.” St. John the Apostle? Does this mean that Elder Talmage holds quite a bit of weight in LDS teaching? Or not so much. What he said about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit seemed to be tritheism.

My point is that LDS believe that Elder Talmage is an inspired former leader of the CoJCoLDS. That his words like the words of scripture are spoken into the community of the faithful and as such are not philosophically precise like words from St. Thomas, St. Justin or David Paulsen.

David Paulsen’s words express his beliefs in ways that the Christians at the publication Modern Reformation would understand. Earlier in this thread I was given what I consider to be POOR qualifiers associated with the text of CCC460. I suggest superior qualifiers form Dr. Daniel Keating. But, without qualifiers CCC460 says we become God (with a capital “G.” I don’t even suggest LDS believe that).

Also, when you said this -

TOmNossor:

God is not 3 beings which is tritheism and God is not 1 person who plays three roles which is modalism. But, how to define where oneness ends and threeness begins (the Scylla and the Charybdis) is at best a mystery and is beyond our human understanding

This has been my understanding of Catholic Trinitarian doctrine. You also went on to say that (paraphrasing again to check understanding, please correct any errors) God is not three persons (tritheism) and God is not one with three “masks” (modalism) but the space in-between this can get tricky to tease out. Is this your personal understanding or that of LDS?

This was intended to be my understanding of the Catholic teaching of the Trinity.

I do not believe the view I espouse as a LDS concerning the Social Trinity AND the Monarchy of God the Father result in any contradictions regardless of how hard it is poked. There are reasoned paths through which one can absolutely walk. The two criticisms that these paths result in are associated with subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father which is done, LDS reject “co-equal” language AND the Social Union being less than the undefinable numeric homoousian which I reject because it ultimately results in contradiction or retreat to mystery.

I should mention that it is a mystery to me how God knows everything instantaneously and how this aligns with whatever truth exists in the General Theory of Relativity, but I see no contradictions in believing that God can violate the natural physics. There is much that is mystery, I just find that avoiding contradictions is part of using our ability to reason that God gave us.

I have already tried to correct my mistake from the last part of your post.