Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

218 Excellent


About TOmNossor

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

1,720 profile views
  1. Hello! I am aware that Catholics do not believe all saints (or even all Doctors of the Church) always spoke/wrote with perfect orthodoxy. This thread was started discussing deification. When I was a Catholic, I never heard words like St. Justin or St. Irenaeus concerning deification. When I began sharing their words, they were so foreign to Catholic ears they were declared heretical. When I read CCC460 to a LDS friend in my Catholic mother’s (Catholic High School and Catholic College) house, my mother exclaimed that we do not believe that. In very rarified scholarly circles before the mid-20th century you could find deification speak (Aquinas is quoted in CCC460), but it was largely absent from the Catholic consciousness. What I claim is that St. Justin and St. Irenaeus attempted to understand the teaching of the early church. Their understanding concerning deification was not something that existed within the Christianity of Joseph Smith’s day. It was something restored. I am familiar with the Baltimore Catechism and CCC460 would be declared heretical by anyone well versed in the Baltimore Catechism. I am less familiar with the Catechism of the Council of Trent (I think that is what it is called), but I think CCC460 would be declared heretical by anyone well versed in it. I claim that LDS scholars write about LDS revelation and embrace the inspiration of LDS leaders as they attempt to come to grips with what is viewed as inspired and what they understand about the world based on all their learnings. This is what St. Justin and St. Irenaeus did. The term “heterodoxy” is not a particularly important classification within the CoJCoLDS, but folks who write like St. Justin today would not be called Catholic Saints. Folks who write like Blake Ostler and Sterling McMurrin are not labeled “orthodox” or “heterodox” when they agree and disagree, but they stand in the tradition of the apostles. There are two possible reasons that LDS can find so much of our thought in the ECFs. Perhaps as Bickmore suggests, the thought is there because it was part of the deposit of faith and Christianity developed away from the truth. To support his conclusion, he suggests that earlier writings conform more to LDS thought than later writings. Alternatively, perhaps orthodoxy was so poorly defined in the early church that there is a little bit of everything and ALL of it was embraced by faithful Christians (until they were declared heretical and excluded from communion). Neither of these views aligns well with what Catholics taught concerning Tradition before Newman’s essay and neither of these views are particularly supportive of the idea that the Early Church was/is in communion (using the idea that orthodoxy is the sign of communion) with the modern Catholic Church. Thus, I suggested that the statement you made concerning the Catholicity of the ECF should by challenged. Charity, TOm
  2. If by this statement you mean that when LDS quote Daniel Keating, Deification and Grace and probably even Thomas Aquinas, it is best to acknowledge that the author being quoted embraces / embraced a view different than the LDS view, I think that is fine. Keating is clear that the final state of deified man is LIMITED by his created (ex nihilo) nature. If by this statement you mean that St. Justin Martyr and even St. Irenaeus were Catholics, then I believe you have gone too far. St. Justin (early 2nd century) surely believed in deification, but he did not believe that man was created ex nihilo. Nowhere does he evidence that the final state of deified man was limited to less than Christ's state. St. Irenaeus for all intents and purposes (IMO) did believe in creation ex nihilo (Gerard May, Creatio ex Nihilo, does not think Irenaeus' view was fully fleshed out), but he did not limit the final state of deified man because of it. Today Catholicism believes many things that St. Irenaeus and St. Justin would be shocked by. Catholicism even believes things St. Augustine would be shocked by. LDS cannot and should not maintain that there is textual evidence for all "unique" LDS beliefs. This doesn't even align with what Joseph Smith taught as the "restoration" anyway. LDS can make scholarly arguments that MANY "unique" LDS beliefs are restorations of original Christianity that modern Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, and even EO) developed AWAY from. I got the following from a friend (I think). Either the Catholic Church was guarded by God as it DEVELOPED truth from the ECF, through 21 Ecumenical Councils (and many non-ECs), or the CoJCoLDS is a divine restoration. The volumes of Catholics trying to assert that the texts left by the ECF align well (very well, almost perfectly) with modern Catholic teaching are one of the many reasons that I agree with Bickmore: https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bickmore-doctrinal-trends-in-early-christianity.pdf "Whatever one may think about the various explanations Catholics and Protestants have given for the fact of doctrinal development -- and I certainly haven't given them a full treatment here -- I think it has to be admitted that they were formulated after the fact. That is, Catholic over the centuries loudly proclaimed that they were teaching exactly what the Apostles explicitly taught, or at lease only what could be deduced from it, until a resurgence in historical investigation brought about massive evidence to the contrary." I reject the idea that it is fair to say that St. Justin was a Catholic or St. Ireneaus was a Catholic. I think they stood in the tradition of the Apostles who received divine revelation and wrote divine scripture. I think they are analogous to many LDS today who stand in the tradition of the Apostles (ie those in communion with Russel M. Nelson, both alive and dead). I do not claim inspiration when I try to describe what I believe concerning deification, I merely claim to be aligned with ancient and modern Prophets and Apostles. Charity, TOm
  3. TOmNossor

    Refusing To Do The 10-Day Social Media Fast

    I think everyone is free to make a choice. I also think it likely that 6 months from now at some peculiar meeting where men are typically present, President Nelson will ask the males to fast from social media. I hope that if this happens all the hurt feelings will be instantly healed, but somehow I do not think feelings work that way. Charity, TOm
  4. TOmNossor

    Nature of the Original Language of the Bk of Mormon

    I was going to as Robert F. Smith for information on the evaluation of the BOM as EModE by non-LDS academics. I tend to agree that there are two possibilities. 1. The BOM is clearly EModE. An explanation for this is therefore warranted. 2. The tools used to assess the BOM as EModE are not universally accepted in the linguistic community so the BOM may be EModE and the likelihood of this is somewhat or quite a bit or ... BUT the academic community is unlikely to weigh in on this ESPECIALLY because it is an issue charged with great conflict (note: BYU seems to discourage academic papers demonstrating the likelihood of LDS religious claims being TRUE, in our increasingly politically correct world I suspect that making assertions like this would be problematic. This means that a non-LDS linguist could say "using these methods the BOM is clearly EModE and Dr. Carmack's work is solid" or "using these methods the BOM is possibly or unlikely or ... EModE). Anyway, I do not quite agree with you that there is no reason why an academic would not weigh in upon this work because it does nothing to prove or disprove the BOM, but I think it is more likely to receive a reading than the work of Sorenson. Charity, TOm
  5. TOmNossor

    Sam Young is Excommunicated

    Gray, I do not agree with your take on Sam Young. I do not believe it is impossible that you believe Sam Young is the fellow you claim him to be (and he claims to be). It seems to me that Sam Young is quite willing to burn down the church to get his way. That his way is no partial way as the church already moved his direction. That his cause was once 6th on his list of reasons to proclaim his opposition, but is now all he talks about. And much more. Concerning what you claim the link I offered said: The title of the link is literally, “Invitation to Vote Opposed – Together.” While one of his invitations is as you quote, another is, “Add your name to the Common Consent Register – A Record of those who Disapprove. Click here for the link.” Then he spends many pages documenting why he does not sustain the church leaders. His prose is in support of his title and his invitation to sign his Disapprove petition. Again, his heart could be pure, I have no ability to see it. But I can gauge the cumulative impact of his words and actions. I think if he found out that person x (any person in the whole world) would agree with him and sign his petition and oppose the CoJCoLDS if he offered argument y he would offer argument y (I would like to believe that he would offer argument y ONLY if he believed it to be true, and I do believe this, but he would offer argument y because he is interested in everyone voting disapprove he can get to vote disapprove, IMO). Charity, TOm
  6. TOmNossor

    Sam Young is Excommunicated

    Duplicate post....
  7. TOmNossor

    Sam Young is Excommunicated

    Gray, Here is where Sam Young lists his 11 reasons in 2016 for not sustaining the leadership if the CoJCoLDS & indiscriminately encourages others to also not sustain. https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/invitation-to-vote-opposed-together/ His vote is specifically, opposed to the statement, “Do you sustain … as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.” Not only did he vote opposed for 11 reasons (#6 being his current reason for being famous), and he encouraged others to also reject the statement. I can see how such a vote might not be apostasy from the concept/truth that “Jesus Christ died for my sins,” but it sure seems to be apostasy from the concept/truth that “Pres. Monson (or Pres. Nelson) is a prophet of God.” Do you disagree with this? Here is the link. I got nothing more for you CFR so hopefully you will be fully satisfied. Charity, TOm
  8. TOmNossor

    Sam Young is Excommunicated

    I think most of these changes happened perhaps partially because of Sam Young, but Sam judged them be not enough change. This is another reason, I think Sam is consciously or unconsciously caught up in his movement. I wonder if he is rejoicing because of all those who have left the church in large part because of him? I wonder if he will claim he is rejoicing or claim it is unfortunate. I do not know the heart of the man, only the public spectacle. Charity, TOm
  9. TOmNossor

    Sam Young is Excommunicated

    I believe it was the right decision to excommunicate Sam Young, but I will not rejoice. He has been in open rebellion against the church for over a year. Long ago he encouraged all members to refuse to sustain LDS leaders at general conference for about 9 reasons. Many were associated with his view of homosexual marriage and his opposition to the church. #6 on his list was Bishop interviews. It seems to me that he found his views on Bishop interviews to be more capable of propelling him to relavance and now this is all we hear about. This suggests to me that he was opposed to the church years ago because he does not believe that leaders are inspired enough that their positions on moral issues should be capable of changing our personal positions on moral issues. This is not IMO what believing in a prophet of God is. I previously was uncomfortable with the church's position on some of the gay marriage issues. I was honest with some around me about how complex I thought the issue was, but i claimed i would defer to the church ultimately. This is not what Sam Young does. I do hold moral and Christian truths that have never been in conflict with the leadership of the CoJCoLDS, but if they ever were would result in much prayer and fasting and .... Blind sheep-is us not a LDS value. Elder Oaks once disagreed with the Prophet. He wrote a legal argument before or after the Prophet defined his position. Legally Elder Oaks still considers his arguement valid, but as I understand 20 years removed he thinks the Prophets position was right and the legal argument was unnecessary at best and harmful at worst. (I hope if anyone is interested someone else can elaborate on this; this is just my best recollection). I hope something returns Sam Young to the Church. I would guess such will not happen soon while the attention and fame and ... burn bright. I am thankful most days that I have never had the chance to be GREAT like Sam Young. I am not at all convinced I would choose God over my greatness. My opinion of Sam is a product of my observation of this issue and I know I cannot judge his heart. I also know I could be much worse if in the same situation. Of course I fully expect to never be a Bishop for many reasons, one being that the love and respect a sober fellow such as me feels for my Bishops would probably be corruptible to my soul. I wish Sam the best. Charity, TOm
  10. Hello, As one who has no more exposure to this issue than the documents in question and some of the post on this thread, put me down as undecided. I do have faith that President Nelson is God’s prophet on earth, but that does not mean I find it impossible that he or someone who is a leader in God’s church made mistakes and perhaps horrible mistakes concerning these things. Likewise, I have faith that many of those who celebrate unrighteously IMO every misstep made by the church are willing to make mountains out of molehills and sometimes lie or grossly misrepresent the truth. But that does not mean that every accusation is false and every problem unearthed should be squashed. I have thought a great deal about Sam Young and I do not believe it best that youth discussion of sexual mores ENDS. Sam Young is no hero IMO largely because his quest today was 6th on his list of reasons to not sustain church leaders just a year ago and I believe it is merely the cause that propelled him to fame not the beginning or end of his disagreement with the church he once embraced. That being said, I am happy that some actions have been taken by the church concerning bishop interviews and I think it possible others will happen as we continue to discover the challenges of the world in the Church. Concerning sexual sin in general, especially sexual sin involving folks over 18 and folks under 18, my non-inspired view is … Repentance is possible, but should be separate and not related to earthly consequences. Ecclesiastical discernment is possible, but should be associated with continued membership NOT continued responsibility for children and NOT for avoidance of civil investigation. Guidelines should exist that are always followed unless a lawyer (non-inspired) and a leader (hopefully inspired) agree that a certain case is EXTRAORDINARY and some different outcome should be pursued (these instances should be rare or non-existent depending upon the guidelines that are created). I believe this is the LAST dispensation ONLY because Sam Young and other folks (more noble folks in some cases as I question Sam Young’s motivation as I mentioned above), do not believe that church leaders, even those who receive revelation from God are different type of men than we all are. Previous dispensations could not continue not because the pool of men who could lead righteously was far more shallow than it is in the last dispensation. Instead the whole of humanity (the branches) support God’s leaders and the root neither overcomes the branches nor do the branches whither completely. This is a balance that comes with the God guided belief in the equality of mankind which acts to check even inspired leaders. Most of this comes from my reading of Val Larsen’s A Mormon Theodicy: Jacob and the Problem of Evil. Anyway, I will wait to see where the chips fall. I have faith that any evil uncovered will not be faith destroying, but it IMO is too early to suggest there will be little or no evil uncovered. Charity, TOm
  11. I have thought about how to protect youth a bit. For about $1000 per bishop’s office and about $200k of development, I think a few changes could make a big difference. Bishops will be behind their desks, youth will close the door and sit in a chair across from the desk. If both are not seated in 15sec, the door will open AND a somewhat obnoxious beep will sound until it is ignored for 45sec leading to a very obnoxious beep or the door is closed for another 15sec attempt. If both are seated after 15sec, when the youth later stand up he/she will have 15sec to open the door of said somewhat obnoxious beep will sound and door will pop open (the Bishop will not get up). The conversation will be recorded, but upon leaving the youth will choose to delete the conversation or send it to the stake president, themselves, and maybe someone else (parent or police), indicating that the conversation was inappropriate somehow. I do not know if it is COMMON for a LDS bishop to give a “father’s blessing” to youth. I was never a LDS youth. The above would frustrate this, but I am not sure if it happens. If I was made the head of the CoJCoLDS tomorrow and continued to have the degree of inspiration I currently have (God help us), this is what I would do to protect youth, Bishops, and the church. I have not seen solid evidence that the Bishop interview process results in substantial risk to youth AND I believe that there are considerations of which I am not aware. So, if nothing happens, I think that is fine. If things get much worse (or are shown to be much worse) and there are significant and clear abuses, I think something will then need to be done. I hope that is not too much “ark steadying.” I have thought what I would do if I knew Mr. Young. If I knew him to care deeply about the church AND to not be involved and/or sympathetic with many criticisms of the church, I would counsel him to pursue his agenda differently, but I would respect his concerns and see them as a viable opinion. If he had encouraged every criticism of the church from Delhin to Kelly to … I could still consider him flawed human worthy of my love, but I would not believe his criticism was founded in profound concern. Charity, TOm
  12. I would like to say that I thought of posting that I am uncomfortable with the idea that the Catholic Church is false because she has such problems. I hope my friend who posted about Schadenfreude also did so without reading. Fortunately, I read your post first and I do not think you did this! Thank you for that! I just finished being frustrated (after refraining from commenting for 4 days) by something extraordinary coming from an anti-Mormon Catholic who I believe is profoundly myopic (and/or blinded by his hate for Mormonsim). Charity, TOm
  13. I found this while searching for something unrelated to this conversation. Here is how the Catholic Church deals with folks who teach heretical things. http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2012/11/08/was-theologian-hans-kung-ever-excommunicated/ This document details two individuals who both taught things not in alignment with Catholic truth claims. While the document does not say it, it is clear to me that if they rejected Catholic dogma they were excommunicated "latae sententiae." Hans Kung expressed a willingness to align his teaching with Catholic truth claims. He exchanged many letters with the Vatican. He may have never repented, and he was declared unable to teach Catholic theology, but he was never told he was excommunicated (he also didn't share the letters publicly and try to embarrass the Catholic Church). In contrast, Father Tissa Balasuriya didn't express willingness to align his teachings. He refused to sign a profession of faith. He sued the Bishops in his area for impacting his book sales. Ultimately he was formally told that he had excommunicated himself. Bill Reel seems much more similar to Father Tissa than to Father Kung. Charity, TOm
  14. I forget the exact requirements for a CFR. I will give you all I got. I should first state that I WISH I knew as much about Mormonism as Dr. Peterson. I would be happy to carry his books for him so that I could listen to his presentations and …. I hope that I didn’t come across differently. I KNOW it was a message board post, not a podcast. I know it was before podcasts were a thing. I think it was on ZLMB (but it could have been on the old FAIR Board). I miss ZLMB! I ONLY remember it because it struck me. I doubt I responded as I would have been too timid perhaps today but certainly then. Maybe I largely imagined it, but in this case my point is the same. I was trying to express to Sunstoned how from as early as I can remember I have rolled with the punches concerning things I believed about Mormonism. I don’t think people should believe that early LDS Polygamy was a bad thing such that God had nothing to do with it, but Todd Compton’s book in the LDS book store (pre-Deseret in Albuquerque, NM) just seemed like a viable position to me when I read it. I was a little surprised that he could/would say the things he said (otherwise I would have no memory of this event), but it was just part of the tapestry of Mormonism. The same was true of the seer stone. I do not remember EVER believing that Joseph translated in a more conventional manner with plates and spectacles. My only memory was to see someone who I knew knew way more about this than I did questioning the stone in the hat. I am pretty sure it was Dr. Petersen, but even that could be wrong. At some point in time I came to grips with the idea that a miraculous book produced with a stone in a hat is still a miracle just like a miraculous book produced with direct access to angel delivered plates in a language nobody understood was/would be a miracle. I find it extraordinarily unlikely that I know EVERY problem and every CORRECT response to problems within Mormonism. I fully expect to have slightly different views on this or that issue 10 years from now. I might say that I hope I have different views on the origins of the BOA 10 years from now because my current views are not strong enough to stand by themselves without being linked to the Book of Mormon and the Witnesses and …. But, I do not anticipate any punches that come my way in the next 10 years will do serious damage to the conclusion I have held for almost 2 decades now. Anyway, that is the best I have. Maybe my memory is flawed, but I find it unlikely I could find anything to substantiate my memory. Charity, TOm
  15. I don’t know as much about various Protestant churches as I think I do about Catholicism. Catholicism is very much about “right belief.” Every Catholic who does not believe the Eucharist is Transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ OR that the Pope is not infallible under certain conditions is excommunicated. If Bill Reel was Catholic and did not believe that the Pope possessed the Chrism of Infallibility, he would be excommunicated per Canon Law. If Bill Reel was a priest (especially a priest with a congregation, Parish Priest), he MIGHT receive a formal excommunication. But if he was only a lay person, he would have “excommunicated himself” (and ONLY his FAITH is important, he doesn’t have to post his rejection of Catholic dogma on the Internet or invite others to reject Catholic Dogma to be “latae sententiae excommunication” (a sentence already passed, not requiring a formal declaration). If he was a she and had an abortion, the excommunication would just be. The CoJCoLDS is far more orthopraxic, about right practice. There is no such thing as “latae sententiae excommunication.” Charity, TOm