Literal Son Of God

[followerofemmanuel]

Because of a link posted in another thread about Shawn Mc (something or another) another video popped up in the related catagory. The video was from a former Bishop Earl Erskine who mentioned and cited where by the orginal translation of the BOM differ from a more revised version. He sites a number of versus that he states have been changed from the original version, where "son of God" is added to references of God. One in particular sited from 1830 First Edition: 1Nephi 11:21 "And the Angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"

Is there a site that is pro-LDS that might talk about the changes etc. I think it is important because it talks about the nature of God. I am really not wanting to open up any cans of worms but I am curious and would like to do some further reading on this matter. I want to get the official LDS perscpective as well. Perhaps this mans understanding is wrong?. Maybe he was in error? If his points were accurate, were they changed because of new revelation or something? There were more things he mentioned in the video on line but perhaps there is someone who has a response to his claims. Thanks. You can email me anything I should read if that would be more appropriate, thanks.

P.S- I tried to see if there was existing threads on this and did not come across...but maybe I am wrong. If another thread on this exists already please let me know so that I do not waste anyones time.

Edited June 4, 2012 by followerofemmanuel

[David T]

Is there a site that is pro-LDS that might talk about the changes etc.

http://www.lds.org/e...-book-of-mormon

In a few places, however, Joseph Smith did intentionally add to the text to clarify a point. An illustration of this is the added words the son of in 1 Nephi 11:21, 32 [1 Ne. 11:21, 32], and 13:40 [1 Ne. 13:40]. The text would be correct with or without the additional words, but the addition helps the reader avoid misunderstanding.

Edited June 4, 2012 by David T

[followerofemmanuel]

http://www.lds.org/e...-book-of-mormon

Thanks! I'll check it out.

[David Waltz]

Hi Log,

Earlier today I received a call from my good friend Rory (3DOP), and he mentioned this thread. The issue of what substance/consubstantial/nature/being/et al. actually means in the official creeds of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches was discussed at length little over 6 years ago on the old FAIR mb. In a couple of related threads, I provided, "the common elements that exist between teachings of the Godhead as found in the LDS Quad and the early Christian creeds." I will shortly post some of the original comments that I made, but for now, would like to address the following that you posted:

.>>I believe 3DOP may not have an altogether orthodox view of consubstantiality - a feature he may share with David Waltz - if he believes it means merely "made out of the same stuff."

"Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance...">>

First, the parital quote you provided is not from an official creed, but rather, it is from the so-called Athanasian creed.

Second, the offical Definition/creed promulgated at the 4th Ecumencial Council (451) defines with great clarity how one is to understand the Greek term homoousiov:

"We, then following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead (theotēti) and also perfect in manhood (anthrōpotēti); truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial (homoousiov) with the Father according to the Godhead (theotēta), and consubstantial (homoousiov) with us according to the Manhood (anthrōpotēta)..." ( Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, p. 62.)

Jesus Christ shares in the same manhood (anthrōpotēti) that all humans share; but, and this importantly, he also shares in the same Godhead (theotēti) and all 3 member of the Godhead share—in other words, both and manhood (anthrōpotēta) and Godhead (theotēta) must be understood with reference to being "made out of the same stuff".

Grace and peace,

David

[3DOP]

I wish I did have access to the Greek text, but I'm not sure it matters - the Athanasian creed lays the plummet to the line, so to speak, on the issue.

Hi again Log.

I have to make two observations.

First:

Against the common LDS misgivings expressed about the concepts used in creedal formulations of the Blessed Trinity I proposed that understood as the early church did in the 4th Century, Latter-day Saints believe in consubstantiality. Now that we have seen that the same Greek word, Homoousion was used both for affirming the fulness of Christ's divine nature to the Father, and His human nature to us, we have to reevaluate what the word implies if it were to be spoken of about the grains of sand on the beach, the dandelions I want to get out of my yard, or a mother hen and her chicks. If we wish to understand the usage of the early church we cannot deny that the dandelions are consubstantial (as the early church used the word, especially at Chalcedon). They all have the same whatness.

That is the sense in which LDS who would wish to make progress in dialogue with Catholics will need to recognize. I suppose it is not official dogma, but I have heard many LDS affirm that we are the same "species" as God the Father. They are probably referring to the Father's humanity. But that is exactly why all humans are said to be consubstantial with the Son in Chalcedon. You agree with Chalcedon regarding the Son being consubstantial with us as regards humanity, right? You wouldn't side with those who deny the fulness of Christ's humanity? That is why I say that you believe in our consubstantiality with the human nature of God. All Mormons would believe in it with regards to the Son, and many or most with regards to the Father.

Second: The Athanasian Creed must be reconciled with Chalcedon if we will correctly understand the mind of the 4th and 5th Century Church. But if one trumps the other, the Creed of Athanasius is of far less authority than the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.

3DOP

[Log]

Hi David,

I remember that discussion, wherein you and I interacted about this - and it was, indeed, what I was referring to.

I guess I learn something new every day - until now, I thought the Athanasian creed was official.

You can see why I would think that: http://www.beginning...sian-creed.html, https://en.wikipedia...thanasian_Creed

However, another issue arises still - does the Catholic Church hold that God the Father is, in fact, substantial (ie, consisting of stuff), or is this rather a kind of platonic ideal thing?

But if one trumps the other, the Creed of Athanasius is of far less authority than the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.

Is it possible to divide the (divine) substance, and be an orthodox Catholic?

Edited June 4, 2012 by Log

[3DOP]

OK- well I like that, bottom line.

Sounds a bit like the old sensus fidelium creeping in but we all have that phenomenon. As the old guard dies off and kids educated to believe differently become the old men, beliefs are bound to change in all churches. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

On the other hand, I think we are ahead of the curve on this argument since we believe in ongoing revelation, and it is my belief that we are on a collision course with what everyone will believe in about a hundred years anyway, at least those few left who have any religious inclinations whatsoever.

As a philosophical follower of William James et al, and Wittgenstein, as the world turns more in the direction they foresaw, I think it is pretty inevitable that we believers will all end up in the same place anyway.

Only time will tell!

But good post- thanks- I hadn't looked at it that way, that modern Catholics do not understand things as Aquinas did, and that time marches on. Of course we don't see things quite like Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff either. (But we have doctrine to cover it- perhaps this idea of sensus fidelium covers you as well)

Hi Bukowski...I appreciate the expression of appreciation for my post. My vanity knows no bounds when it comes to enjoying a word of praise like that, especially from one with whom I have been making an argument. Unfortunately, you want to make this out to be some kind of departure from Catholic Tradition. I must remind you that all of the data I have taken comes from the 4th and 5th Centuries. Aquinas accepted the Council of Chalcedon too.

In the sense that I am using it, in application to LDS beliefs, it is impossible that St. Thomas Aquinas could have denied that like us, LDS believe in consubstantiality with regards to the Son and mankind, and unlike us many LDS extend that consubstantiality to the Father and mankind.

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

I go and do my visit teaching and during our visit we talk about the debates that take place on this board. I visit those that are sick and lonely; I recommend they check out this board!

Holy cow! So you want them to totally lose their testimonies?? You mean there are chapel Mormons on the internet?? Impossible!

[mfbukowski]

As you pointed out - that would be boring. If I make enough money, though, to pay for the hosting and software, I'll start one just to see what happens. Thanks for the input on the board's proposed rules!

I would post there! But don't let that stop you!

[mfbukowski]

Because of a link posted in another thread about Shawn Mc (something or another) another video popped up in the related catagory. The video was from a former Bishop Earl Erskine who mentioned and cited where by the orginal translation of the BOM differ from a more revised version. He sites a number of versus that he states have been changed from the original version, where "son of God" is added to references of God. One in particular sited from 1830 First Edition: 1Nephi 11:21 "And the Angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"

Is there a site that is pro-LDS that might talk about the changes etc. I think it is important because it talks about the nature of God. I am really not wanting to open up any cans of worms but I am curious and would like to do some further reading on this matter. I want to get the official LDS perscpective as well. Perhaps this mans understanding is wrong?. Maybe he was in error? If his points were accurate, were they changed because of new revelation or something? There were more things he mentioned in the video on line but perhaps there is someone who has a response to his claims. Thanks. You can email me anything I should read if that would be more appropriate, thanks.

P.S- I tried to see if there was existing threads on this and did not come across...but maybe I am wrong. If another thread on this exists already please let me know so that I do not waste anyones time.

Look up "Divine Investiture of Authority" and "savior father of our salvation" on lds.org.

I am sure there will be plenty there.

Edit: Oh, ok, I did it for you after all. I am getting soft hearted in my old age.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/10/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&query=divine+investiture

Edited June 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Nominee]

Holy cow! So you want them to totally lose their testimonies?? You mean there are chapel Mormons on the internet?? Impossible!

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger!

[mfbukowski]

Hi again Log.

I have to make two observations.

First:

Against the common LDS misgivings expressed about the concepts used in creedal formulations of the Blessed Trinity I proposed that understood as the early church did in the 4th Century, Latter-day Saints believe in consubstantiality. Now that we have seen that the same Greek word, Homoousion was used both for affirming the fulness of Christ's divine nature to the Father, and His human nature to us, we have to reevaluate what the word implies if it were to be spoken of about the grains of sand on the beach, the dandelions I want to get out of my yard, or a mother hen and her chicks. If we wish to understand the usage of the early church we cannot deny that the dandelions are consubstantial (as the early church used the word, especially at Chalcedon). They all have the same whatness.

That is the sense in which LDS who would wish to make progress in dialogue with Catholics will need to recognize. I suppose it is not official dogma, but I have heard many LDS affirm that we are the same "species" as God the Father. They are probably referring to the Father's humanity. But that is exactly why all humans are said to be consubstantial with the Son in Chalcedon. You agree with Chalcedon regarding the Son being consubstantial with us as regards humanity, right? You wouldn't side with those who deny the fulness of Christ's humanity? That is why I say that you believe in our consubstantiality with the human nature of God. All Mormons would believe in it with regards to the Son, and many or most with regards to the Father.

Second: The Athanasian Creed must be reconciled with Chalcedon if we will correctly understand the mind of the 4th and 5th Century Church. But if one trumps the other, the Creed of Athanasius is of far less authority than the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.

3DOP

Please clearly define "whatness".

Do you know what a virtus dormitiva is?

http://interiordialogue.eu/2010/02/10/virtus-dormitiva/

[mfbukowski]

I must remind you that all of the data I have taken comes from the 4th and 5th Centuries.

Dude I love you but I beg to differ with you. Modern Wittgensteinian philosophy, which I thought you were sort of appealing to, is quite incompatible with "whatness" having any meaning whatsoever. That is strictly Scholastic medieval stuff left over from alchemy and related "sciences", or on the philosophy side, Platonic Universals which virtually no one takes seriously any more.

That of course does not mean that you are wrong- just that your interpretation of the universe is not exactly "modern"

Edited June 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Jesus Christ shares in the same manhood (anthrōpotēti) that all humans share; but, and this importantly, he also shares in the same Godhead (theotēti) and all 3 member of the Godhead share—in other words, both and manhood (anthrōpotēta) and Godhead (theotēta) must be understood with reference to being "made out of the same stuff".

But that is quite different from Aquinas understanding of "substance" as being something independent of "appearances" so that one could be of the same "substance" and yet look totally like something else.

Again, like 3DOP's idea of "whatness" it defines something as an independent "Property" existing independently in the world.

Of course this is the central idea indispensible for of "Trans-substan-tiation" which is Aquinas' argument for how bread can become flesh. While it's appearance stays the same, its "whatness" or "substance" is changed or transformed into the flesh of Christ.

Most philosophers at least since Ryle would view this as a "category mistake" http://en.wikipedia....ategory_mistake

Similar words like "essence" and "being" and "nature" all have the same problem.

I don't think a reasonable case can be made for unifying Catholic theology and Mormon theology if you are going to base it on Mormons agreeing with Aquinas on "substance" or "being" or any other reified universal. We are definitely more in the camp of William James and his successors, arguably, guys like Wittgenstein and Ryle and that Pragmatists. There is plenty of evidence for that.

I would love it if that was possible, but the traditions are just so different, those traditions and theologies are not going away.

Again, that does not make the idea wrong, just hardly compatible with modern thought on the matter.

I of course agree with you that God and man are "made of the same stuff" but that is a far cry from Aquinas' view of "Substance".

Edit: sorry I got distracted with real life while posting and didn't finish a sentence- fixed it now.

Edited June 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Here is an article on reification of universals which might help someone somewhere. Who knows. I think this is the fallacy of seeing "substance" as real and not a linguistic convention. When the Catholics say that transubstantiation is "symbolic" we will be on similar pages, but not before- and this tells you why.

http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Logic_F08/Readings/Quine_LRU.pdf

[mfbukowski]

This one is shorter and perhaps easier to understand. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/

Nominalism in Metaphysics

First published Mon Feb 11, 2008; substantive revision Wed Jul 20, 2011

Nominalism comes in at least two varieties. In one of them it is the rejection of abstract objects; in the other it is the rejection of universals. Philosophers have often found it necessary to postulate either abstract objects or universals. And so Nominalism in one form or another has played a significant role in the metaphysical debate since at least the Middle Ages, when versions of the second variety of Nominalism were introduced. The two varieties of Nominalism are independent from each other and either can be consistently held without the other. However both varieties share some common motivations and arguments. This entry surveys nominalistic theories of both varieties.....

3. Arguments against abstract objects and universals

Are there general arguments against abstract objects? There are some, although it must be said that some of the most famous deniers of abstract objects have not always based their rejection on arguments. This is the case, for instance, of Goodman and Quine who, in their Steps toward a Constructive Nominalism, base their rejection of mathematical abstract objects on a basic intuition (1947, 105).

One argument against postulating abstract objects is based on Ockham's razor. According to this principle one should not multiply entities or kinds of entities unnecessarily. Thus if one can show that certain concrete objects can perform the theoretical roles usually associated with abstract objects, one should refrain from postulating abstract objects. The effectiveness of this kind of appeal to Ockham's razor is, of course, conditional upon our having been shown that concrete objects can play the theoretical roles associated with abstract objects. But if every theoretical role played by abstracta can be played by concreta and vice versa, then one needs a further reason why one should postulate concreta only rather than abstracta only. Sometimes the only evidence for the existence of the abstracta in question is that they perform the theoretical role in question. In that case one can use the principle that one should not postulate ad hoc entities or kinds of entities unnecessarily (Rodriguez-Pereyra 2002, 210–16). That is, one should not postulate, if possible, entities for which there is no independent evidence, i.e. entities for the existence of which the only evidence available is that they satisfactorily perform a certain theoretical role.

Another common and widely discussed argument against abstract objects is an epistemological argument. The argument is grounded in the thought that given that abstract objects are causally inert, it is difficult to understand how we can have knowledge or reliable belief about them. Sometimes a similar argument is advanced according to which the problem with Platonism is that, given the causal inertness of abstract objects, it cannot explain how linguistic or mental reference to abstract objects is possible (see Benacerraf 1973 and Field 1989, 25–7). Admittedly these arguments do not conclusively establish Nominalism but, if they work, they show an explanatory lacuna in Platonism. The challenge for the Platonist is to explain how knowledge of and reference to abstract objects is possible. Most of the debate with respect to this argument has concentrated on the particular application of the argument to the case of mathematical objects (for more on this debate see the entry on Platonism in metaphysics and Burgess and Rosen 1997, pp. 35–60)

Another, now less common, argument against Platonism, is that its ontology is unintelligible. Sometimes the unintelligibility of abstract objects is linked to their lack of clear and intelligible conditions of identity. But it is not the abstractness of abstract objects what makes them lack clear identity conditions, since some abstract objects, like sets, have clear and intelligible conditions of identity. But the identity conditions for sets are intelligible only if the notion of a set is intelligible. Some, like Goodman, are apparently unable to understand how different entities can be composed out of the same ultimate constituents. But, again, it is not in virtue of being abstract, i.e. non-spatiotemporal and causally inert, that sets violate Goodman's principle on composition. For there could be simple abstract objects.

Many of these arguments and motivations for the rejection of abstract objects are also arguments and motivations for rejecting non-spatiotemporal ante rem universals. But Ockham's razor can also be used against universals conceived of as spatiotemporal entities, provided it can be shown that particulars can play the theoretical roles normally assigned to in re universals. For even if they are spatiotemporal, universals are nevertheless a distinctive kind of entity.

[followerofemmanuel]

Look up "Divine Investiture of Authority" and "savior father of our salvation" on lds.org.

I am sure there will be plenty there.

Edit: Oh, ok, I did it for you after all. I am getting soft hearted in my old age.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/10/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&query=divine+investiture

Very kind thanks! As always, I will read. I've got a lot to study these days!

[3DOP]

Please clearly define "whatness".

Do you know what a virtus dormitiva is?

http://interiordialo...rtus-dormitiva/

Hi again buk...

As I used it, two things of the same nature have the same whatness. I used the expression for the purpose of emphasizing that we are asking about WHAT things are. It seems difficult in dialoguing with Mormons to use words, like nature, being, essence, or substance. I was reaching for another expression that might accomodate both sides. But you have found out me out, I am continuing to insist that if Mormons want to understand what consubstantiality means, they cannot refuse to apply 4th and 5th Century definitions. It cannot be helped. An idea exists. That idea is consubstantiality, and it continues to inform theology in the 21st Century. If your philosophy cannot account for a way to have intercourse with those discussing consubstantiality other than to say it isn't real, I don't know what I can say to you.

In the meantime, common sense recognizes that if Mormons and Catholics want to insist that Jesus is human as we are, or if Mormons want to believe that the Father is human as we are...there has to exist some quality...some minimum necessities that defines what it means to be human. Those necessities would be the whatness. It would answer the question, "What is it?". Is Christ fully human or not? There were those who doubted this doctrine and wished to water down Christ's humanity making Him into some hybrid. Homoousion/Consubstantiality is a word coined primarily to disallow any watering down of meaning by those who who would say Jesus is God and/or Jesus is Man. It isn't anything sinister, even if it isn't terribly modern. And even though it is not modern, if I were Mormon, I would admit that I am happy to be in agreement with it.

I am not familiar with modern philosophy and I freely admit that I understand very little of what you say. Even if the ideas of the past are no longer in vogue, don't we still have to attempt to understand them in the light of the way of thought that precipitates the idea? If Wittgenstein has proven that the ideas of the 4th Century were primitive, if you will condemn consubstantiality, we get nowhere by overlaying the primitive idea with advanced thinking. The question for those who want to understand ancient Christianity is not what consubstantiality means to a Wittgensteinian! If we will discern the intent of the creeds and councils, whether we are Catholics and Aristotelians, or Mormons and modern philosophers, we have to accept words the way the authors used them. IF I were anti-Catholic and anti-Aristotle, I would still be chained to the data as used by the early church, even if I thought it painfully primitive. If the idea of consubstantiation were taken into a 21st Century context where Mormons believe that the Father and humans are the same species, that according to that sense, it would be more accurate to say that all Mormons believe that they are consubstantial with the Father and Son as human, than to separate you from us for no better reason than that you don't like ancient expressions.

dormitiva might refer to sleep, as in dormitory, dormant?

virtus might be something like strength or power or ability?

Edited June 5, 2012 by 3DOP

[Ron Beron]

My feelings are that Jesus is the Son of God in the same way we all are - his unique monogenes status coming from his mission as supreme pattern/exemplar, not of anything uniquely physical or metaphysical. IE, I don't feel Jesus needs to be a demigod. He was fully human, with his exemplary and essential divine nature being expressly clear - and in control- as seen in his actions and persona.

The scriptures sans the LDS texts would see to indicate such. I doubt if any early apostle of Jesus felt he was literally God or even a semi-god. Messiah, maybe, but God no.

[mfbukowski]

Hi again buk...

As I used it, two things of the same nature have the same whatness.

Well you are indeed a great guy there is no question, and fortunately for you, you are not hampered by an obsessive need to get the the bottom of the meanings of language and all these questions, perhaps silly, that philosophers raise.

Some of us on the other hand can think of little else, and I am certainly not about to put down anyone who uses healthy common sense to get through their lives untroubled by these arguments that really have very little practical importance to most people.

So I do think you have made a good point that substance, to you, means the "same stuff" and if that works for you that is great. Also your above definition is fine if it works for you.

Unfortunately it doesn't work for me because I don't know what "nature" means either. Certainly I know how the term is used, and used theologically as in Christ having two natures etc, but unfortunately I think that term has about as much intelligibility as "whatness"- I have no idea how to analyze either concept, the words are so vague.

The idea of a "virtus dormitiva", is that it is used in a old French play where a doctor is questioned about why it is that the sleep potion he has prescribed works. His answer is that it works "by virtue of its sleep-inducing properties" which of course does NOT explain how it works at all- and is just a circular definition.

I kind of see "substance" as a word that cannot be defined except by other words that have no meaning and do not really explain anything.

For example, what is "human nature"? The quality of being human. You have not said anything about what that is. Of course you can list what it means (to you) to be human, but that is all it is- a list of qualities that does not really explain much at all. The problem is that you are turning a list of qualities into a "thing" that is not real.

Because we can ask the question "What color is virtue?" that does not mean that virtue has a color at all.

The term "category-mistake" was introduced by Gilbert Ryle in his book The Concept of Mind (1949) to remove what he argued to be a confusion over the nature of mind born from Cartesian metaphysics. Ryle alleged that it was a mistake to treat the mind as an object made of an immaterial substance because predications of substance are not meaningful for a collection of dispositions and capacities.

The phrase is introduced in the first chapter.^[3] The first example is of a visitor to Oxford. The visitor, upon viewing the colleges and library, reportedly inquired “But where is the University?"^[4] The visitor's mistake is presuming that a University is part of the category "units of physical infrastructure" or some such thing, rather than the category "institutions", say, which are far more abstract and complex conglomerations of buildings, people, procedures, and so on.

Ryle's second example is of a child witnessing the march-past of a division of soldiers. After having had battalions, batteries, squadrons, etc. pointed out, the child asks when is the division going to appear. 'The march-past was not a parade of battalions, batteries, squadrons and a division; it was a parade of the battalions, batteries and squadrons of a division.' (Ryle's italics)

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

Much of my post was really for David who I think is more familiar with this stuff anyway!

Edited June 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[ChristKnight]

Hi Log,

Earlier today I received a call from my good friend Rory (3DOP), and he mentioned this thread. The issue of what substance/consubstantial/nature/being/et al. actually means in the official creeds of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches was discussed at length little over 6 years ago on the old FAIR mb. In a couple of related threads, I provided, "the common elements that exist between teachings of the Godhead as found in the LDS Quad and the early Christian creeds." I will shortly post some of the original comments that I made, but for now, would like to address the following that you posted:

.>>I believe 3DOP may not have an altogether orthodox view of consubstantiality - a feature he may share with David Waltz - if he believes it means merely "made out of the same stuff."

"Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance...">>

First, the parital quote you provided is not from an official creed, but rather, it is from the so-called Athanasian creed.

Second, the offical Definition/creed promulgated at the 4th Ecumencial Council (451) defines with great clarity how one is to understand the Greek term homoousiov:

"We, then following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead (theotēti) and also perfect in manhood (anthrōpotēti); truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial (homoousiov) with the Father according to the Godhead (theotēta), and consubstantial (homoousiov) with us according to the Manhood (anthrōpotēta)..." ( Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, p. 62.)

Jesus Christ shares in the same manhood (anthrōpotēti) that all humans share; but, and this importantly, he also shares in the same Godhead (theotēti) and all 3 member of the Godhead share—in other words, both and manhood (anthrōpotēta) and Godhead (theotēta) must be understood with reference to being "made out of the same stuff".

Grace and peace,

David

Right, this is my understanding of the traditional Trinity doctrine as well. However, what I have never understood is, if this is the definition of "being"/"essence"/"nature", i.e. "whatness" (according to 3DOP), then how is the Trinity monotheistic using this definition? If Christ is consubstantial with us since He is fully human, which is analogous to Christ being consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Ghost, what makes three distinct divine Persons (who are not each other), who are of the same "stuff" (or of the same divine nature), monotheistic? To me, the Trinity does not seem any more monotheistic than the LDS Godhead doctrine, when we understand what those words are referring to in the traditional understanding.

[Storm Rider]

Hi again buk...

As I used it, two things of the same nature have the same whatness. I used the expression for the purpose of emphasizing that we are asking about WHAT things are. It seems difficult in dialoguing with Mormons to use words, like nature, being, essence, or substance. I was reaching for another expression that might accommodate both sides. But you have found out me out, I am continuing to insist that if Mormons want to understand what consubstantiality means, they cannot refuse to apply 4th and 5th Century definitions. It cannot be helped. An idea exists. That idea is consubstantiality, and it continues to inform theology in the 21st Century. If your philosophy cannot account for a way to have intercourse with those discussing consubstantiality other than to say it isn't real, I don't know what I can say to you.

In the meantime, common sense recognizes that if Mormons and Catholics want to insist that Jesus is human as we are, or if Mormons want to believe that the Father is human as we are...there has to exist some quality...some minimum necessities that defines what it means to be human. Those necessities would be the whatness. It would answer the question, "What is it?". Is Christ fully human or not? There were those who doubted this doctrine and wished to water down Christ's humanity making Him into some hybrid. Homoousion/Consubstantiality is a word coined primarily to disallow any watering down of meaning by those who who would say Jesus is God and/or Jesus is Man. It isn't anything sinister, even if it isn't terribly modern. And even though it is not modern, if I were Mormon, I would admit that I am happy to be in agreement with it.

I am not familiar with modern philosophy and I freely admit that I understand very little of what you say. Even if the ideas of the past are no longer in vogue, don't we still have to attempt to understand them in the light of the way of thought that precipitates the idea? If Wittgenstein has proven that the ideas of the 4th Century were primitive, if you will condemn consubstantiality, we get nowhere by overlaying the primitive idea with advanced thinking. The question for those who want to understand ancient Christianity is not what consubstantiality means to a Wittgensteinian! If we will discern the intent of the creeds and councils, whether we are Catholics and Aristotelians, or Mormons and modern philosophers, we have to accept words the way the authors used them. IF I were anti-Catholic and anti-Aristotle, I would still be chained to the data as used by the early church, even if I thought it painfully primitive. If the idea of consubstantiation were taken into a 21st Century context where Mormons believe that the Father and humans are the same species, that according to that sense, it would be more accurate to say that all Mormons believe that they are consubstantial with the Father and Son as human, than to separate you from us for no better reason than that you don't like ancient expressions.

dormitiva might refer to sleep, as in dormitory, dormant?

virtus might be something like strength or power or ability?

I do strive to understand our Catholic brothers and sisters and I am sensitive to the accusation that LDS use the same terminology, but apply different definitions. That last bit chaffs a bit because I have always felt the words and definitions I use come from the Bible.

In truth I often try to stay away from using philosophic words to describe Deity. Consubstantial, essence, substance, et. al. only have purpose when there is a conflict between believing in the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of monotheism. This conflict was the cause and major motivation for the clarifications that began at Nicea in 325. For LDS it is easier to believe in one God the Father; there is no God before him and no God after him.

There have been leaders who have postulated that the Father was once human as we are; it has be used so often it may be doctrine, but it is not found in scriptures. I think that one of the reasons for the development of this concept is Jesus' own words that he will do nothing except that which he has seen the Father do. How can Jesus follow in the steps of the Father unless the Father did what the Son was doing and will do? This is a problematic verse for the vast majority of Christian churches; it has no place to fit in their theology. Do I believe that the Father was once human as Jesus was/is human? Yes, I guess I do, but it is not a core belief of mine i.e. it serves no purpose in my salvation. Does it matter if one believes it or not? Not one whit. If the Father dwelt on an earth before he did it as Jesus did it and it does not mean that he was not God. It is a mystery to me as much as it is to anyone else.

Can I be a monotheist and believe that the Father had a divine Son on earth; a Son that was always a member of the Godhead; that was with the Father from the very beginning and was always the Son; that the Son is God, but does not replace the Father and is not the Father? Yes, I think in context I can be. Am I an henotheist? Well, if believing in a Godhead of three Gods: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a henotheist, then I guess it is a proper label for me. Were the original Apostles henotheists? If I am then they must have been for the Bible testifies of these three separate entities. It never once attempts to address essence, substance, consubstantial, or anything similar. It is plain and simple; the Father's son was Jesus. Jesus sent the Second Comforter. I don't get bothered by this desire to answer a strict monotheistic approach to theology once I learn that the Father would have a Son and his name would be Emmanuel.

The error of the Creeds and their development is that they did not appeal to divine guidance or direction. It became the councils of men with a desire to understand God and clarify that understanding. The product of the Councils was the philosophies of men. These philosophies then became what was needed/demanded of believers. It was no longer a need to pray and gain a witness like Peter did. It was believe this and you are a member of the One, Holy Apostolic Church of Christ; you are saved.

We LDS are a simple lot and we do not have a place of understanding for essence or substance. These are foreign concepts to us. We love God, we love his Son, and we strive for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our daily lives. I think you do too.

[Nominee]

We love God, we love his Son, and we strive for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our daily lives. I think you do too.

Hello, Storm Rider.

VERY well said. I'm out of points for the day but I owe you one for the entire post above.

Thank you for sharing.

~ Naomi

[mfbukowski]

I can understand that God is a man who is so far above us that we cannot conceive of all he can know, his abilities and powers and knowledge etc and that Jesus is his son, and that he, for us, came here to live as we do, although I cannot fully conceive of all that he gave up to do that, and how great a gift that was for us. I can conceive that the Father and the Son are perfectly unified in mind and communication, and in purpose, and in love, much as any human, yet perfected, Father and Son would be, and that we get faint glimmers of what that kind of unity might be like in family relationships, working together in love, to achieve common ends.

But if you say to me that we have the same "whatness", I have no clue what you are talking about.

I thought maybe I did when when I was Catholic, in High School with the good Augustinian fathers, that maybe I got it. I could say all the right words and recite the formulas. I believed that the appearance of the Eucharist remained while it took on the "whatness" of the Lord's flesh, and then I really started thinking about that one.

I thought about how something could be one thing and look smell taste and feel exactly like something else, how its "whatness" could change but its appearances remain the same.

The more I thought about it the less sense it made to me. I realized I had no idea what it was that made three persons one, other than perhaps in love or purpose, as perhaps we humans are "one" in some cause or effort. But then that old problem of the Eucharist would surface again, and I couldn't figure out what it meant to have its "substance" or "whatness" change while it still looked like bread. What did that have to do with making three persons one? They were supposedly unified by whatness, but I could not see or measure whatness or even conceive of what it might be.

Jesus had two whatnesses but the Father had only one. Of course there were different terms used to make it seem that there was a difference between "being" and "substance" and "nature" but I could tell that they were really all just the same as "whatness". They were all non-explanations, explained by the idea that we could not understand such "mysteries".

OK I thought. It's a mystery. They don't understand it either.

So I decided to go into philosophy, but that just made the problem worse. I read my Aquinas, took courses in it all, studied my Plato and I almost had it licked. I almost believed I could make it work when I studied Plato. But unfortunately I learned that Plato was not the end of philosophy.

The I learned I was not alone, and it seemed to me that no one else really understood it either, nor could they answer my questions. And the philosophers I studied not only did not understand it either, but proved it (to my way of thinking) to be wrong.

Then I got into a philosophical school called linguistic analysis or ordinary language analysis and that was it. Poof- all those "whatnesses" just turned into smoke and mirrors and that is what they stayed. You cannot experience "being" nor "substance" nor "nature". You cannot define these terms without using them or their brethren in the definition itself. The definitions are always circular, always "virtus dormitivas" as Nietzsche would use the term. You cannot weigh or observe or experience any of these alleged "things"

You can have faith in them, at least some people can. More power to them. I am not one of them.

[mfbukowski]

I will say one more thing and then promise to disappear for a day or two, since real life is rearing its ugly head.

I also love my Catholic brothers and sisters (well if I am being literal that would be cousins) and I think that under it all, what we believe is pretty much the same, and that it is the vocabulary that gets in the way.

So I am of two minds on this, (perhaps I am consubstantial with myself !). On one hand, I want to sing Kumbaya together and forget the differences, just sit around the campfire and be together. On the other hand, vocabularies and the way we talk and think about things are very very important. In a very real way, it is all we have.