246 replies to this topic

[stemelbow]

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 09:52 AM, said:

stem,

You wrote:



Okay, that's what I thought. Thanks for your patience in grinding through the issue. I don't think you can escape the fact that the logic of your position entails that God is obligated to give everyone an opportunity for mercy. You might find that assumption more to your liking, and I understand that, but truth is not found by searching our feelings for what we find palatable. If God reveals to us that he chooses to show mercy to some but not others (Romans 9:15-18), it won't do us any good to say we don't like that idea. We are in no position to answer back to God (Romans 9:19-20).

Indeed you are right in that truth is not found in what we find palatable.  In this case, it just so happens that which feels better, when contemplating the two beliefs, is also that which is true.  For instance, Romans simply doesn't reveal the reasons, at least not explicitly, why some receive mercy and others do not.  It simply does not tell us that the chance of mercy is not made available to all at some point.  

Thanks for your comments.

love,
stem

[Hick Preacher]

mfbukowski, on 29 December 2010 - 01:06 AM, said:

And this is relevant because....?

Meaning is made by the context in which words are used.  In an LDS context, those words have a different meaning than they do in an EV or Catholic context.   So what?  Do you want to argue about what a "Bishop" is?  What is the point of arguing about words?

If you see meanings of words in terms in this manner, why then did you say above:


mfbukowski, on 27 December 2010 - 06:15 PM, said:

Quote

Whatever that is supposed to mean. Call it substance or being it is all just jibberish.

...

.

[TAO]

jmordecai, on 28 December 2010 - 11:55 PM, said:

I regard the books of the Old and New Testaments as scripture.

Ok, then plese respond to that John verse I gave you.  It clearly showed separate souls could be one.

Quote

The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number as it comes forth.
President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Vol. 8

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.
President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 13:95

Ok.

Quote

sme yvral yhwh alhynw yhwh axd

I called for Proof your interpretation.  I have a different interpretation of the verses.  You need to prove your interpretation is correct.

[mfbukowski]

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 07:59 AM, said:

mfbukowski,

We all have a choice to give into our fallen sinful disposition or not to do so. Sin is a choice; the fact that we are predisposed because of the corruption of the Fall to make the wrong choice does not negate the fact that it is a choice. God did not make people sinners; that was something that resulted from the first human beings' choice.

This is a contradiction.  If we are predisposed, we have our choices compromised.

And if my choices are limited by someone else's sin- how can it be said that I have a choice to avoid the consequences?

Suppose I am paralyzed by a drunken driver.  I no longer have the ability to choose to walk- so how can it be said that I have a choice to do so?  I don't.

His sin has taken away my choice in regard to walking.  Period.  

You cannot have original sin without compromising agency.  It is a contradiction.  It may be that someone else has taken away my choice, but that choice is a real loss nonetheless!

Quote

Sin is not "our nature" in the same way as eating meat is in a tiger's nature, because sin is a spiritual/moral disorder.

So man does not have a sinful "nature"?  I am surprised you would say that.  Yet you say it is a predisposition- how can that be if it is not part of our "nature"?  And how can it be a "disorder" if we have a natural tendency to do it?  We are all born "sick"?  That kind of logic really strains the definition of "sick" don't you think?   If we are all born with a "disorder" what does the word even mean?  If everyone is born with the same "disorder", how can it be called a "disorder"?

There is no sense to it.

Quote

To be mentally incompetent is a justifiable excuse for bad bahavior, but being sinful by disposition is not an excuse. For example, most men are predisposed to seek adulterous relationships with women other than their wives, but that isn't a legitimate excuse for doing so.

Precisely.  That is why adultery is NOT a capital crime. Except for perhaps only a very few places in the world, it is not even a crime of any kind.  In other parts of the world, if one does NOT have a mistress, it is considered almost abnormal.  The world recognizes this predisposition and consequently judges this offense as not at all serious, precisely because most men have such a predisposition.   We who have taken on more rigorous standards would disagree with the world's standard, but nevertheless the reason the world sees it this way is because the predisposition is so strong.

Quote

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to respond to all of the interesting and important issues here.

I don't doubt it.  Still however you have time to respond to all the usual arguments with all your usual arguments.   Since that is the case, I must conclude that you are avoiding the "important" issues I have raised with you.   You may have no time, but I don't doubt for one minute that you also have no answers.

Edited by mfbukowski, 29 December 2010 - 04:29 PM.

[mfbukowski]

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 09:52 AM, said:

stem,

You wrote:



Okay, that's what I thought. Thanks for your patience in grinding through the issue. I don't think you can escape the fact that the logic of your position entails that God is obligated to give everyone an opportunity for mercy. You might find that assumption more to your liking, and I understand that, but truth is not found by searching our feelings for what we find palatable. If God reveals to us that he chooses to show mercy to some but not others (Romans 9:15-18), it won't do us any good to say we don't like that idea. We are in no position to answer back to God (Romans 9:19-20).

So we cannot trust our feelings for what is right or wrong?  If we cannot trust our feelings, how then can we even know that God exists, much less that the Bible is correct and should be trusted?   And if we don't know that, why should we trust your interpretation of that scripture?   How can we know you are right?

How can the beauty and order of nature testify to us of his existence if we cannot trust our own feelings?   And yet if we have not heard of Christ, isn't that supposedly how we will be judged?

Rob, with all due respect, I could never be an Evangelical, simply because there are so many issues here which make absolutely no sense to me.   As a minister of the gospel I would argue that you need to deal with these contradictions if you are to have any credibility whatsoever.

Again and again, we go over the same questions and you give us no answers.   Perhaps it is time to reconsider your position.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

If I say I don't have time to discuss everything on this forum, such as whatever it was you say you had posted about social Trinitarianism (I didn't even see it), you say:

mfbukowski, on 29 December 2010 - 03:56 PM, said:

I don't doubt it.  Still however you have time to respond to all the usual arguments with all your usual arguments.   Since that is the case, I must conclude that you are avoiding the "important" issues I have raised with you.   You may have no time, but I don't doubt for one minute that you also have no answers.

However, when I do respond to your arguments, you say:

Quote

Again and again, we go over the same questions and you give us no answers. Perhaps it is time to reconsider your position.

In short, if I don't answer, you conclude I am avoiding the issue because I have no answers; but when I do answer, you claim I have given you no answers. In other words, it doesn't matter whether I answer you or not, you claim I don't answer you. Furthermore, you claim I am avoiding answering you despite the dozens of times I have responded to you personally (never mind all the other Mormons to whom I have responded over and over).


How rude, and how silly.

[mfbukowski]

Hick Preacher, on 29 December 2010 - 11:02 AM, said:

If you see meanings of words in terms in this manner, why then did you say above:


mfbukowski, on 27 December 2010 - 06:15 PM, said:

.

You missed the point- the meanings of words are found in the context of their usage.  The word "Bishop" has a very different meaning to a Catholic and to a Mormon.  And every little Evangelical sect would have their own context of usage for that term as well.  I have seen local Evangelical pastors calling themselves "Bishops" though they have one single congregation- which is a usage similar to the Mormon usage.

But my contention is that "essence" and "substance" and "being" are SO dependent on their context - their definitions- that they have virtually no meaning whatsoever and are often used as placeholders for no meaning at all.

Please define the difference between "essence" and "substance" and contrast it with "nature" (as in the "nature of the Trinity") for me since you think these terms actually mean something.  And throw in "being" while you are at it.

How does one differentiate between what is "substance" and "essence"?  

I would love to see a sentence using all these terms and contrasting their meanings so that I can actually understand them.

[mfbukowski]

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 04:20 PM, said:

mfbukowski,

If I say I don't have time to discuss everything on this forum, such as whatever it was you say you had posted about social Trinitarianism (I didn't even see it), you say:


However, when I do respond to your arguments, you say:




In short, if I don't answer, you conclude I am avoiding the issue because I have no answers; but when I do answer, you claim I have given you no answers. In other words, it doesn't matter whether I answer you or not, you claim I don't answer you. Furthermore, you claim I am avoiding answering you despite the dozens of times I have responded to you personally (never mind all the other Mormons to whom I have responded over and over).


How rude, and how silly.

That's very cute and evasive, but no, in fact you have never answered my arguments.   You usually end up with something cute and evasive as you just have.

And as you point out

Quote

I have responded to you personally (never mind all the other Mormons to whom I have responded over and over).

One wonders why you are here at all if that is your attitude.  You could have posted the same thing to anyone, yet you chose me.   I wonder why you are evading answering my questions.   The social trinity issues go to the heart of it, since there are other Evangelicals who now hold views similar to ours on this, and you know that very well, yet you choose to ignore that fact.

With you it always comes down to personal issues, not theological ones, with cutsie personal comments like "how sad" or "how rude"

I call that evasive

Edited by mfbukowski, 29 December 2010 - 04:47 PM.

[Hick Preacher]

mfbukowski, on 29 December 2010 - 04:25 PM, said:

You missed the point- the meanings of words are found in the context of their usage.  The word "Bishop" has a very different meaning to a Catholic and to a Mormon.  And every little Evangelical sect would have their own context of usage for that term as well.  I have seen local Evangelical pastors calling themselves "Bishops" though they have one single congregation- which is a usage similar to the Mormon usage.

But my contention is that "essence" and "substance" and "being" are SO dependent on their context - their definitions- that they have virtually no meaning whatsoever and are often used as placeholders for no meaning at all.

Please define the difference between "essence" and "substance" and contrast it with "nature" (as in the "nature of the Trinity") for me since you think these terms actually mean something.  And throw in "being" while you are at it.

How does one differentiate between what is "substance" and "essence"?  

I would love to see a sentence using all these terms and contrasting their meanings so that I can actually understand them.

Expositions on the topics are easily accessible online. For example-

Quote

In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an object or substancewhat it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses itsidentity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence

Substance and Trinity

http://cip.cornell.e...ent-type=pdf_1#

[mfbukowski]

Hick Preacher, on 29 December 2010 - 04:48 PM, said:

Expositions on the topics are easily accessible online. For example-



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence

Substance and Trinity

http://cip.cornell.e...ent-type=pdf_1#

Yes I know.  Those are the classic explanations, with which I differ. Those are all based on neoplatonic and scholastic philosophy which have little importance in today's world with anyone who has any background in contemporary philosophy.

I was hoping you had your own understanding of it, having, I presume, "been trained in the ministry".

Edit:  From your wiki reference:

Quote

Existentialism
Main article: Meaning (existential)

Existentialism was coined by Jean-Paul Sartre's statement that for human beings "existence precedes essence." In as much as "essence" is a cornerstone of all metaphysical philosophy and the grounding of Rationalism, Sartre's statement was a refutation of the philosophical system that had come before him (and, in particular, that of Husserl, Hegel, and Heidegger). Instead of "is-ness" generating "actuality," he argued that existence and actuality come first, and the essence is derived afterward. For Kierkegaard, it is the individual person who is the supreme moral entity, and the personal, subjective aspects of human life that are the most important; also, for Kierkegaard all of this had religious implications.[3]

In metaphysics

"Essence," in metaphysics, is often synonymous with the soul, and some existentialists argue that individuals gain their souls and spirits after they exist, that they develop their souls and spirits during their lifetimes. For Kierkegaard, however, the emphasis was upon essence as "nature." For him, there is no such thing as "human nature" that determines how a human will behave or what a human will be. First, he or she exists, and then comes attribute. Jean-Paul Sartre's more materialist and skeptical existentialism furthered this existentialist tenet by flatly refuting any metaphysical essence, any soul, and arguing instead that there is merely existence, with attributes as essence.

The position I am taking is more along these lines, so I was hoping I could discuss it with you, but all you have done is repeat the problem I am showing you.

And philosophy has made a few advances since Duns Scotus!

Edited by mfbukowski, 29 December 2010 - 05:15 PM.

[Vance]

mfbukowski, on 29 December 2010 - 04:43 PM, said:

That's very cute and evasive, but no, in fact you have never answered my arguments.   You usually end up with something cute and evasive as you just have.

And as you point out

One wonders why you are here at all if that is your attitude.  You could have posted the same thing to anyone, yet you chose me.   I wonder why you are evading answering my questions.   The social trinity issues go to the heart of it, since there are other Evangelicals who now hold views similar to ours on this, and you know that very well, yet you choose to ignore that fact.

With you it always comes down to personal issues, not theological ones, with cutsie personal comments like "how sad" or "how rude"

I call that evasive

It is getting more and more obvious when Bowman doesn't have a real answer. It seems that he is among those that are deluded by his vapid and vacuous responses that he calls "answers".

[jmordecai]

Quote

Nah, it doesn't really violate the Shema. It only violates your MIS-interpretation of the Shema.

Why, exactly, can't Three separate and distinct divine beings/entities make up one God (or Godhead)?

Why, exactly, can't Eight conjoined and identical orangutans/chimpanzees make up one God (or Godhead)?

Anyone can make up any definition they want to redefine what One God means to cater to whatever whims suit them.

The Lectures on Faith define the Godhead as two personages.

GA's have asserted there is a Heavenly Mother with all the attributes of Deity.

Brigham Young taught that Adam is God.

Lorenzo Snow said God was once mortal man.

Again, I don't have to prove a negative. You have the burden to prove your redefinition correct.

There in only one God:

Then he said, "Tomorrow." So he said, "May it be according to your word, that you may know that there is no one like the LORD our God.
—Exodus 8:10

To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.
—Deuteronomy 4:35

Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.
—Dueteronomy 4:39

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!
—Deuteronomy 6:4, cf. Mark 12:29

See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me ...
—Deuteronomy 32:39

There is no one holy like the LORD, indeed, there is no one besides You, nor is there any rock like our God.
—1 Samuel 2:2

... O Lord GOD; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You ...
—2 Samuel 7:22

O LORD, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You...
—1 Chronicles 17:20

You alone are the LORD, You have made the heavens, the heaven of heavens with all their host...
—Nehemiah 9:6

... So that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He, before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me.
—Isaiah 43:10

Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.'
—Isaiah 44:6

... Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.
—Isaiah 44:8

I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God ...
—Isaiah 45:5

For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else."
—Isaiah 45:18

... And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other.
—Isaiah 45:21-22

Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me.
—Isaiah 46:9

There is none like You, O LORD; You are great, and great is Your name in might.
—Jeremiah 10:6

And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he.
—Mark 12:32 KJV

Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
—Romans 3:30 KJV

Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
—I Corinthians 8:4

Now a mediator is not for one party only;
whereas God is only one.
—Galatians 3:20

You believe that God is one
You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
—James 2:19

And Zeezrom said unto him:
Thou sayest there is a true and living God?
And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
And he answered, No.
—Alma 11:26-29

...See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God...
—Alma 11:35

And the people ... also testified that there was but one God ...
—Alma 14:5

And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
—Testimony of Three Witnesses

... And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
—2 Nephi 31:21

... unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.
—Mormon 7:7

... Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God ...
—Alma 11:44

For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fullness of his own time.
—2 Nephi 11:7

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.
—1 John 5:7 JST

The Father being a personage of spirit... The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man... is called the Son because of the flesh... possessing the same mind with the Father; which Mind is the Holy Spirit... and these three are one... and these three constitute the Godhead and are one: the Father and the Son possessing the same mind... the Spirit of the Father.
—Doctrine & Covenants: Lectures on Faith, V (removed 1921)

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
—Isaiah 9:6, cf. The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 19:6

Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him:
Yea, he is the very Eternal Father
—The Book of Mormon, Alma 11:38-39

And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
—The Book of Mormon, Mosiah 15:4

...Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son...
—The Book of Mormon, Ether 3:15

... no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it ...
—Luke 10:23 JST, cf. Luke 10:22

None of these verses state that God or "the Godhead" is comprised of "Three Gods". In fact, no verses in the Bible (or Book of Mormon, or JST) support your definition.

Quote

And when everyone says that the earth is flat, then what?

When the minority is right, they win over the majority because they have facts behind them.

Quote

Ok, so now your God has multiple personality issues. I get it.

You obviously have no coherent response to this point.

Quote

So then you CAN'T claim that we are wrong, then can you.

I don't need to know the DNA of an apple to recognize that an orange is not an apple.

[jmordecai]

mfbukowski, on 29 December 2010 - 12:41 AM, said:

Well if you can't understand it, it is no wonder you cannot come up with a logical argument in its favor.  So then it is hard for us to understand your point.

Mystical understanding is great- but it makes it a little hard to discuss on a forum like this, which is evident from your attempt.

I understand what the Bible teaches. I don't fully comprehend the magnitude and complexities of God.

Are you saying you do?

[jmordecai]

TAO, on 29 December 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:

Ok, then plese respond to that John verse I gave you.  It clearly showed separate souls could be one.

I already answered that. Believers are united by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

That believers can become "one", yet retain individual souls, doesn't automatically translate that God is comprised of three gods.

Quote

I called for Proof your interpretation.  I have a different interpretation of the verses.  You need to prove your interpretation is correct.

Again, my interpretation is the default interpretation. Thus you bear the burden to prove that God is comprised of three gods.

I will state that your church teaches that Heavenly Father's name is Elohim:

http://lds.org/ensig...s-flee?lang=eng

http://lds.org/gener...-jesus?lang=eng

http://lds.org/gener...-light?lang=eng

http://lds.org/gener...sthood?lang=eng

http://lds.org/ensig...eation?lang=eng

http://lds.org/ensig...deemer?lang=eng

http://lds.org/liaho...eation?lang=eng


And that Jesus Christ "was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New".

http://lds.org/study...christ?lang=eng


With that, the Shema is:

sme   yvral  yhwh   alhynw   yhwh  axd
hear Israel Jehovah Elohim Jehovah one

In the Hebrew here, LORD is YHWY. "Jehovah" (JHVH / YHWY) is an English pronunciation, and according to the links above, refers to Jesus Christ.

In the Hebrew here, God is Elohim. Accordingly above, is the name of Heavenly Father.

With that, the Shema equates Christ as the Heavenly Father, according to the links above.

One Jehovah is God.

The only definition given by the biblical scriptures pertaining to God is that he is One.
http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208958261

[Nathair]

jmordecai, on 30 December 2010 - 02:13 AM, said:

I already answered that. Believers are united by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

That believers can become "one", yet retain individual souls, doesn't automatically translate that God is comprised of three gods.



Again, my interpretation is the default interpretation. Thus you bear the burden to prove that God is comprised of three gods.

I will state that your church teaches that Heavenly Father's name is Elohim:

http://lds.org/ensig...s-flee?lang=eng

http://lds.org/gener...-jesus?lang=eng

http://lds.org/gener...-light?lang=eng

http://lds.org/gener...sthood?lang=eng

http://lds.org/ensig...eation?lang=eng

http://lds.org/ensig...deemer?lang=eng

http://lds.org/liaho...eation?lang=eng


And that Jesus Christ "was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New".

http://lds.org/study...christ?lang=eng


With that, the Shema is:

sme   yvral  yhwh   alhynw   yhwh  axd
hear Israel Jehovah Elohim Jehovah one

In the Hebrew here, LORD is YHWY. "Jehovah" (JHVH / YHWY) is an English pronunciation, and according to the links above, refers to Jesus Christ.

In the Hebrew here, God is Elohim. Accordingly above, is the name of Heavenly Father.

With that, the Shema equates Christ as the Heavenly Father, according to the links above.

One Jehovah is God.

The only definition given by the biblical scriptures pertaining to God is that he is One.
http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208958261

How do you reconcile that with the fact that Joseph saw two personages.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

Let's see who is being evasive. Please provide a link to the post where you ask questions about the social Trinity (which, as I already told you, I didn't even see). I will respond to it. I will then expect you to acknowledge that I did respond to you and did not evade or ignore what you said (regardless of whether you think my answer is correct).

mfbukowski, on 29 December 2010 - 04:43 PM, said:

That's very cute and evasive, but no, in fact you have never answered my arguments.   You usually end up with something cute and evasive as you just have.

And as you point out

One wonders why you are here at all if that is your attitude.  You could have posted the same thing to anyone, yet you chose me.   I wonder why you are evading answering my questions.   The social trinity issues go to the heart of it, since there are other Evangelicals who now hold views similar to ours on this, and you know that very well, yet you choose to ignore that fact.

With you it always comes down to personal issues, not theological ones, with cutsie personal comments like "how sad" or "how rude"

I call that evasive

Edited by Rob Bowman, 30 December 2010 - 07:09 AM.

[mfbukowski]

jmordecai, on 30 December 2010 - 01:44 AM, said:

I understand what the Bible teaches. I don't fully comprehend the magnitude and complexities of God.

Are you saying you do?

I believe in a God who is smart enough to teach us about him in ways we can understand, tailored for our puny understanding, just as we would teach children.

You think he can't do that?  Why not?

[Hick Preacher]

mfbukowski, on 29 December 2010 - 05:08 PM, said:

Yes I know.  Those are the classic explanations, with which I differ. Those are all based on neoplatonic and scholastic philosophy which have little importance in today's world with anyone who has any background in contemporary philosophy.

I was hoping you had your own understanding of it, having, I presume, "been trained in the ministry".

Edit:  From your wiki reference:



The position I am taking is more along these lines, so I was hoping I could discuss it with you, but all you have done is repeat the problem I am showing you.

And philosophy has made a few advances since Duns Scotus!

Wow you took a sharp right turn off the freeway on this comment on the meaning of 'substance' and 'essence' related to the word 'being'.  I only wanted to relate to the fact that God is described as ' the only being who should be worshiped' in D&C 20. If substance and essence has no real meaning for us today, the one wonders what that term 'being' means in D&C 20.

The only training I had in the ministry was as a Mormon.

If neoplatonic thinking is wrongful, then what about Canaanite thinking of a Divine Council?

[mfbukowski]

Rob Bowman, on 30 December 2010 - 07:08 AM, said:

mfbukowski,

Let's see who is being evasive. Please provide a link to the post where you ask questions about the social Trinity (which, as I already told you, I didn't even see). I will respond to it. I will then expect you to acknowledge that I did respond to you and did not evade or ignore what you said (regardless of whether you think my answer is correct).

Posts 164, 165, and 167.  Post 167 links to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and summarizes the views of Stephen Davis.

I will acknowledge right now that you are not being evasive if you actually simply answer these posts, and you can answer them as you wish, even if I am not satisfied (as is highly likely) with your answers.  But please do the best you can- I am looking for solid counter-arguments to these views which I hope are the best you can give.

I appreciate you taking your time to do so, because I know you have spent some effort in an attempt to refute these views- I honestly am interested in your views of what is wrong with Social Trinitarianism, and I also pledge to make a serious attempt at dialogue without snarkiness, (Though, since I am a fallen man, I have a "predisposition" to snarkiness)

It is my opinion that none of the classic views of what makes the three persons of the Trinity one- ie: substance, being, or essence, make any sense, and that to make a long story very short, the only thing that DOES make sense is that the three are one in purpose and love, which, not surprisingly, is the LDS view.

So essentially, I am looking for your best theological arguments against this view as opposed to the usual forum potshots.   If you like you can refer me to other sources where I can find these arguments already made- I have no problem with that.

[Hick Preacher]

It is often asked if the Trinity was once part of Joseph Smith's Preparatory Gospel doctrine,

Quote

How do you reconcile that with the fact that Joseph saw two personages.

The first vision of Joseph Smith (1838 version) actually does not contradict the doctrine of the Trinity.  Mainly due to the fact that YHWH in orthodoxy by nature is a transcendent pluralistic being.

Second, the first vision can be understood as a theophany to harmonize it with the Trinity.


This transcendent nature seems to have its roots into the Old Testament accounts related to 'The Angel of YHWH'.  Even the tiers of gods in the Canaanite pantheon as it related to proto-Israel has critical elements of description that leans toward this idea of the transcendence of those beings who resided on the higher tiers.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 30 December 2010 - 09:48 AM.