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

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

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.


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.



(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.)


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”. :joy:

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.



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 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

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

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


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).

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.

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

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.


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.


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


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.)


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.

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.


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. .


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.

1 Like

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

Off topic

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

From the Catholic Answers document:

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

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

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit