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

  • Thread starter Thread starter I8jacob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s nothing personal against Tom. I feel tremendous pity for Mormons. It is earth shattering to realize that all your life, you’ve been lied to by your church, parents, friends, etc. I firmly believe that the leaders of the the Mormon church will be held to accountable before God one day.

It’s interesting to me that Mormonism has never had a Cardinal Newman. No one looks into the objective evidence and says “This is the true church. I’m going to join.” People in the church say “I looked at the evidence, this is a train wreck. I’ve got to go.”
 
Last edited:
I believe the BOM is a document that records actual historical events. If we could travel in time we could see Lehi leaving Jerusalem in 600BC. We could see him walking in the general path of the Frankincense trail. We could see his band bury Ishmael in the Nahom tribal area and the band’s general direction of travel here turn. We could see them arrive a Bountiful and be surprised to find such a green and lush place after traveling in the dessert environment for so long. We could see them put together a boat to travel and we could see them leave Bountiful.
There is no evidence of this happening outside of LDS fictional writings.
And because Horton likes this so much, if we could travel in time and observe everything St. Peter did, we would NEVER see him select Clement of Rome to be his successor as described in the Clementine Homilies. For folks who think Joseph claiming to not know there are walls around Jerusalem, is evidence he is a conman; what should I think of the Church at Rome creating a document in the 3rd or 4th century that claims to be written by Clement of Rome means for the primacy of Rome claims?
There is sufficient proof of the primacy of Peter as Pope and his successor.
 
It’s nothing personal against Tom. I feel tremendous pity for Mormons. It is earth shattering to realize that all your life, you’ve been lied to by your church, parents, friends, etc. I firmly believe that the leaders of the the Mormon church will be held to accountable before God one day.

It’s interesting to me that Mormonism has never had a Cardinal Newman. No one looks into the objective evidence and says “This is the true church. I’m going to join.” People in the church say “I looked at the evidence, this is a train wreck. I’ve got to go.”
I have read extensively from Cardinal Newman. As an Anglican religious and then a Catholic religious he had an advantage that converts to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lack. He to my knowledge only mentions the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and he speaks positively of how being subject to ridicule like LDS would make us have profound common ground with the Early Church. He suggests that to be Catholic is the same thing and this is a mark of truth. I of course have only read his more famous books and most of two volumes of his letters, so perhaps he has more to say elsewhere.

Father Jordan Vajda grew up Catholic. He attended seminary and became a Catholic priest. He wrote an essay, “Partakers of the Divine Nature”: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization

He continued as a Catholic Priests for a number of years, but eventually he became a LDS, claiming:

“Why am I doing what I am doing? To put it most simply: I have found a fuller truth and goodness and beauty in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After years of study and reflection, I have come to believe that the LDS Church is the only true and living Church of Jesus Christ, guided and led by living apostles and prophets.”

Now, unlike Cardinal Newman, Father Vajda had to give up his “occupation.” He went back to school and works in the medical field. He doesn’t continue to produce letters and sermons and books. But, “after years of study and reflection” he found “fuller truth” in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I know a wonderful lady who participated for years in pro and anti discussion of the CoJCoLDS who became a member.
A pair of Mesoamerican archeologists became members (not due to PROOF the BOM is true, but with a recognition that it was not disproven).

I am not in this list. I explored anti-Mormon argument briefly, but it was then and is now obvious to me that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could not come from Joseph Smith. I became a member. I spent volumes of time reading anti-Mormon arguments and have never waivered from the clear conclusion that Joseph Smith could not have done this. Eventually, I got what LDS call a testimony, but mine came long after I considered the intellectaul case for the CoJCoLDS to be much stronger than the case against it.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Horton:
There is no evidence of this happening outside of LDS fictional writings.

TOmNossor:
One wonders how Nephi and his family, along with all the animals, could survive such a trek.
What are you referencing here?
 
One wonders how Nephi and his family, along with all the animals, could survive such a trek.
Have you ever seriously considered how the Jaredites crossed the ocean in 8 football shaped barges with all their animals and provisions? It makes the story of Noah’s ark seem like a weekend with the Boy Scouts. It makes Moses parting the Red Sea look like a David Copperfield trick. Anyone who could believe that story would believe anything.
 
I deleted my other post because it wasn’t coming out the way I wanted it to.

I agree totally Lemuel. Nephi going from the middle east to America couldn’t happen, and it didn’t happen. DNA proves it too. In fact, DNA is yet more evidence that the Book of Mormon is a fraud.
 
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.
This is arianism. United in purpose (mind purpose, power, intent) and presence does not make them one God. It makes them three distinct gods with access to each other’s thoughts and two of them submitting to the third. What you call a “Godhead” is the three distinct persons working together.

Also, you start with “God is Love” and claim the Father as the “fount of divinity.” This would mean that the Father’s presence is love and what He does is love. But then you make love into a secondary aspect resulting from the three -
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.
Do you believe that Christ is eternally begotten? Or was Christ created?
I am saying that Catholics, especially in dialogue with LDS, claim that God is one because God is homoousian in the numeric sense. God is one being. This can be called a mystery beyond human understanding or it can be dissected until it violates the law on non-contradiction making it simply illogical.
So. how can God, the fount and source, BE love when love is only a secondary aspect emerging from God’s relation to the other persons?
 
I was afraid the TOm was on the verge of crossing the line. I would have liked to seen his evidence that he said he had. Yes I know. I don’t believe we would have seen any evidence since I believe none exist. I don’t think that any evidence was presented that the article misrepresented the faith of the LDS.
The statement that was made is that the OP who left long ago stated he was confused as to why the BOM was wrong. I think this thread has covered some of why and is probably done.
 
This is arianism.
Arianism includes the belief that Jesus was created out of nothing. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus always existed. (And that all of us have always existed.)
United in purpose (mind purpose, power, intent) and presence does not make them one God. It makes them three distinct gods with access to each other’s thoughts and two of them submitting to the third. What you call a “Godhead” is the three distinct persons working together.
John 17:22 clearly defines the oneness of the Father and the Son.

And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,

The oneness of the Father and Son is the same as the oneness that Jesus desires for his disciples. Being one in unity and purpose is the only unity that the disciples can achieve with each other.

I hope this helps…
 
John Chapter 4

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
 
In the spirit of the OP I have made a decision to do something I haven’t done in 5 1/2 years. I’m going to read the Book of Mormon again. I’ve read it cover to cover at least 30 times but who knows what enlightenment I might get from reading it once more. I just have one serious question. If I sip on a cold beer while I’m reading Mormon scripture, does it still count?
 
If you are denying the inconsistent use of the word homoousian at Chalcedon you do not accept MODERN Catholic teachings.
The word ‘gay’ has changed a few times in my life time, but it doesn’t mean we have changed how we ‘deck the hall’ for Christmas or what the Flintstones did for fun. It makes no sense that a word meaning one thing in the 3rd century and something else in the 4th century would suggest that the Catholic Church has changed their beliefs. The meaning was changed to match consistent Catholic beliefs. Your generic/numeric dance seems like sophistry to me.
 
Arianism includes the belief that Jesus was created out of nothing. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus always existed. (And that all of us have always existed.)
This has been my understanding of Mormon teaching; there is no real difference between man and God; man is God in embryo.

Tom tried to tell us that the God of Mormonism and Christ were unique.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top