3DOP

Hi InCognitus, I have only one qualm with your interpretation. If I were LDS, I would find your biblical argument satisfactorily plausible. But being familiar with other interpretations that are also satisfactorily plausible, according to other Christian traditions, I could not accept that the Scriptures "clearly teach" your interpretation on its own. The clincher would not be Scripture. The clincher would be LDS tradition. Believing that the LDS have the one true church, I would trust in a plausible Scriptural interpretation, WITH LDS Tradition. Even if I became LDS, I could never think that the Scriptures are ever so clear as to resolve doctrinal controversy. One of the reasons I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church is that she denies that the Scriptures are perspicuous, or clear. No sola scriptura. We love the Scriptures as a support to our beliefs, not as clear teaching as though everybody who reads the Bible should always believe what the Catholic Church teaches apart from Tradition. What do you think? Is my idea about Scripture compatible with LDS Tradition/Teaching? Thanks InCognitus. Rory

A fair question. I doubt it could have been of much influence. There might be a loose parallel between being "busted down on Bourbon Street", and "busted" for driving a car with a fake license advertising a Bible translation? I am sorry to say that I can understand how you thought I was talking about myself. I was not speaking in the third person. No worries. I see now how it reads that way. Happily, I have never been in jail. I worked with a guy for one day. He was complaining about his wife. She was a "goodie two shoes", and he found it irritating I guess. To prove his point to me he exclaimed, "She hasn't even been in the back of a police car!" Keep on Truckin', Miserere! 3

It was an environment of ultra-repressed physical safeguards against young people of the opposite sex being allowed to express their affection for another through physical contact. I know this was not prevalent, but it made a few young men, at least publicly, resort to another material object to "touch" the other affectionate party. I thought the symptom of some to satisfy their natural desires to hold hands or some other sign resulted from what I now consider an excessive policy. We were allowed to stare into eyes. Listen, cal, this is still embarrassing, I shouldn't have brought it up to respond to Navi's joke above about dancing. I saw the practice of using an ink pen, instead of one's hand to affectionately and tenderly stroke the cheek of the beloved. I disapprove of most public displays of affection among the unmarried. Of course, married people like me think it is disgraceful, undignified, and disgusting. I would rather see the use of a pen though, than the pawing I have seen at family gatherings as well as any public place. I would not say that about holding hands. "The pen" was cultural in a particular time and place that I observed with disapproval in that I could see it and, it seemed stupid and unsatisfactory. I am sure, that as with pawing, "the pen" fell into public disuse after marriage. Maybe some of you assume that they were using the pens to actually draw their love on each other? No. They used paint and brush for that. Just kidding. All this is something I RARELY think about. It is just opinion. Anyone who wants to try "the pen"? Fine. I will never argue against it if confonted. I have retained my virginity as regards that action, and cannot speak from experience. All in all, it doesn’t seem harmful enough to need to take a position about it as I have. To be honest, I probably should not have raised the question. Maybe I need to say again that it was not a prevalent practice. I was just trying to explain the reaction of a few to a repressive approach to pre-marital relationships that did not tolerate hand holding by engaged couples. I think it demonstrates something that strikes me, and me alone, as somewhat weird and disordered. But I don’t consider it worth further analysis! Cal, I wish you all could see me. I am laughing about making such a long post about something so unwarranted. I am okay with you asking about it. But, I have problems with avoiding giving full expression to my opinions on other trivial matters too. Cal, you are a great internet sister, but this time through my fault, you have brought out the stupid in me. Rory

I always had a soft spot and still do, for Br. Falwell. I think I was disappointed when he took Baptist off the name of the school. But by '89 I took Baptist off my church. All I knew previous to that was that Larkin and the dispensationalists knew the Scriptures and interpreted them in a consistent, coherent way. Then I discovered there were other ways that were also consistent. That was a crisis. At the end it came down to LDS or Catholic for me. I left the Protestant scene not because they all sounded bad. No! They all sounded good, from Lutheran to the Reformed. I even looked into Anglicanism. I never really knew much about Pentecostalism. I am sure they aren't stupid though. You and I disagree on a visible church and priesthood and that stuff. Ecclesiology. My wife's parents went to a good Baptist Church in Tennessee. Good man, with a good school too, was pastor. A mature Bob Jones guy my own father's age. Bob Jones guy. He let me preach there once when I was visiting. Next thing I hear the church was split. Do you remember a mid-trib rapture movement? This brother caught up with that and that is how serious people were about little distinctions. A good loving man with a strong ministry in the town. He shouldn't have even told anybody. How often do you need to preach on that. I don't know if you know, but by the late 70's Hyles NEVER spoke about eschatology. The college? I took a class Daniel and Revelation. The whole semester was moral stories from the first chapters of Daniel and the seven churches in Revelation. It was good but not what one expected. Same thing with Ezekiel. I have never known why they had that strategy. Maybe they had differing opinions on the staff? I think you shouldn't make the end time prophecy a deal killer. I never think about this stuff. It was so long ago...But you know Navidad. A few years ago you made a remark about how I had tended towards the far fundie side of things and implied I had done that as a Catholic. I had never thought about my journey that way before. There were other things but that observation made me look at myself. Anyway, I am getting less "out there". The Freemasons aren't in charge of the Church, but the Lord is. It belongs to Him. I even believe we went to the moon now! That stuff goes together. Anyway, I've never told you, but I appreciate you for that remark you made. I have pondered it many times.

Oh for the record I think everyone here has been respectful. I don't think the conference speakers were ridiculing like that quote in that history. I understand how the Trinity appears to outsiders. Nobody is obliged to understand everything about what they don't believe, an exception would be if you were conference speaker making an argument that an apparent absurdity is evidence of apostasy.

That is good one about pre marital sex leads to dancing. And yeah we perceived Falwell as less fundamental. Shoot...the day I arrived at our no dancing college, I was warned very nicely by a gal later that day, that I shouldn't have shaken her hand when we met. Dancing? Unless somebody of the opposite sex fell down or was having trouble on ice, no touching! I got engaged at that place and I obeyed. I also refused the holding an ink pen to my future wife's cheek as a form of intimacy. You'd see that now and again. My wife never gave the least indication that she would have liked that!

One can be confidently opposed to truth that has been misunderstood, and caricatured as something ridiculous. I have done that too in my life. I am as guilty as whoever wrote those irreverent words. It can be maddening to be on the receiving end. The practice is never going away because many people derive their confidence in what they believe from being convinced that what they disbelieve is absurd. There was a time when I used a derogatory expression, "baby sprinklers", while I was in complete ignorance of the theological and biblical support for the legitimacy of infant baptism. I don't hold that those arguments are conclusive alone, but they are far from deserving ridicule. Successful error has this in common with truth. It is never ridiculous, merely misunderstood by outsiders who want it to be not merely wrong, but stupid on top of that.

Navidad. This thread is bringing up old and rarely recalled memories. That first church I went to? It was nearest my house. I had picked up a friend from the other side of town one Sunday morning to go to a church. Everytime we spotted one, I would lost my nerve. After going all the back towards where I lived...I knew there weren't any more places to go. The preacher had a Scofield and was studying the book of Revelation. I was interested in that through Hal Lindsay. Within a year I was with a bunch of young kids mainly from the South and Midwest who had grown up in that environment...Hyles-Anderson. I had not been in any states except on the West Coast. I came in January. This was in the Chicagoland area, after the blizzard that probably...the memories...late leaving Portland...finding a bus...and the roads...getting in around midnight...sleeping on the floor for a week...I stayed. I am glad. It was a part of my continuing journey in and out of fringe Christianity. The pastor of that church was what is now called a Sovereign Citizen. While I was at college he got locked up for for rolling around town with a license plate that said 1611 AV. For the rest of you, 1611 is the year of the translation of the Authorized Version, or King James Bible. He preached on the evils of insurance while I was away. Good night (that is a Hyles expression that I have retained.) There were people buying property up in the hills and building makeshift homes without permits, trying to make livings without Social Security cards but happy that they have a refuge when Antichrist takes over. He lived with his family in a school bus for a few years. Up in the hills. I don't have regrets. Everything in my life has informed who I am now. I made my choices and many weren't what I would advise. Anyway, maybe this sheds light on my first reaction to Orthodox Christian. Prophesy isn’t always connected with lunacy. I need to remember that. Again OC, I hope we don't run you off because of experiences. Keep your social. Get building permits, etc. I use a bank now. I don't use cash very often. So far, so 👍. Everybody I knew including the pastor eventually became more normal in less than ten years. But that last book of the New Testament? I will say this. It is easy to misunderstand. If it makes you crazy 🤪, you have misunderstood something.

Yes calm. A lot of the sky is falling. My first interest in religion came in my early twenties. I was watching the show that came on after the Tonight Show with Carson. Late Night Show??? The name escapes me. Hal Lindsey wrote the Late Great Planet Earth and was plugging this book with host Tom Snyder. Lindsey was trying to demonstrate why Bible prophecy about the end was upon us. In effect, crying wolf. That was mid 70's. Snyder was kind of mocking Lindsey. "You mean we are all just going to fly off into space," asking about the Rapture. Tom thought it was amusing. It scared me. I went and got this book, and then I started reading this old Bible that was given to my Dad years before. Nobody missed it. I was also listening to Christian radio on the sly. A couple of years later, I went to a church for the first time. That was hard. I was scared. Heh. I forget that I got snagged through that stuff. Thank God for Hal Lindsey!

Going back to Navidad's good father who preached that it was the end time through the 50's and 70's, I am remembering 88 reasons the rapture is happening in 1988. I was a premillenial Baptist preacher myself at that time who, whether it was silly or not, paid some attention to that. Four years later I was amillenial. Seven years later, I was Catholic. I haven't really made much effort at end times prophecy now for over thirty years. Covid felt like the world was ending. It wasn't about Daniel or Revelation. It was just life in this world then. It felt oppressive. But that wasn't the end either. I am just explaining why I am skeptical now. Maybe I am falsely conditioned to ignore signs of the times?

OC. I am the first of several who pooh poohed your idea. I was thinking strongly your way as recently as Covid. We still are interested in your own thoughts. Just because others have been wrong about it many times doesn't mean that Christians can always dismiss the antichrist in their own times. I am leaning towards dismissal these days. But I keep somewhat away from the news. So I would like to hear what concerns you. It is likely something of which I have not heard.

Of course I am interested in my own time. But this reckless spirit abroad, in which I also believe, has been doing this in everyone's time. I tend to think that the moderators are only trying to keep the crazy Republican and Democrat Americans from boring fights we can watch on what...some cable channel? I can't remember. Anyway, I think they might permit your political concerns that overlap into religion. Or your religious concerns that overlap into politics. Keep tiptoeing as you can...but try to inexplicitly say what you are getting at. Is there some new thing of which I have not heard? Being naturally a newshound, I don't always succeed, but I try to be ignorant. What is the newest Leviathan info?

Ohhhh. I commiserate. I sometimes give up when I lose a post that way. I am inept on a computer keyboard and moreso my phone. It is too easy to press the wrong button. I lost a longer post in this thread when my wife called today! I hung up like usual on the phone but lost the post. You lose your heart to try to recreate the whole thing. In this case today, I am satisfied that it was best to simply thank calm for her contribution without the elaboration I originally intended. I think my biggest problem is focus. As I write, new things pop into my mind that I want to express too, that seem brilliant at the moment. In retrospect, I am often glad to be less verbose. Anyway longview, no problem. I respect you no less. Accept my sympathy. Maybe we all place more value on our words than we should. I should be the first to plead guilty when I feel like dying after my "wise" words are lost forever. Still, I know how you might feel. Take care, Rory

Great calm. What you describe explains how the fragments I read felt.

Hey The Nehor. I agree that we have to admit that our view of reality is mostly shrouded. All of reality is beyond our complete comprehension. I think I always sensed as much. But I learned some lessons about how I need to express myself from mfbukowski. You too and a few others. I would understand the quote from D&C to not be saying that we know everything about anything. Rather that we can know little parts of some things. Those things that are knowable are the most important. Animal knowledge will always be mostly partial with the rest mysterious. People animals are made with the strongest innate desire for knowledge of all reality. Discovery of any small part of reality can be delightful or a warning or practical. Our cats seem to experience knowledge when they sniff a gin and tonic. They have gained through their sense of smell, a real knowledge that they don't want to drink that liquid. I cannot know why. I don't know what their smell smells like. It is almost a complete mystery to me. But I have real practical knowledge that I can leave alcoholic drinks unattended, and the cats will leave it alone. Who would challenge my claim to this knowledge about our cats? mfbukowski would frustrate me when I would talk about a nature, whether, it be plant, animal, mineral, or God. He was more right than he was wrong when he said that we don't know any nature. I need not have been frustrated. I think he was thinking glimpses, distortions, and nothings as to the future. St. Paul said of faith knowledge that is far far from complete and perfect. But does that mean we are skeptics about knowing anything? We can only scratch the surface of created reality by using our senses. Faith knowledge is even less comprehensive without or usual way of learning, through the senses, which I admit can always be deceiving. But we can learn that a mirage in the hot desert sun is not indicating that something is wrong with the distant highway, but heat waves. So yeah, we have to be on guard against our sometimes faulty instruments. But that doesn't mean we have to be total skeptics about having limited knowledge of things that are outside of us. Can we know anything about some things? I am almost a skeptic. Almost all reality is hidden from us. But I am on the side that says that we can know few things about some things. This agrees with D&C, as well as older way of putting it. Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. How rare and precious are the truths that our feeble senses can tell us about created reality. God is even more hidden than creation. Just as sense knowledge is rare, so is the knowledge we gain from God through His Word. More than precious, it is invaluable. How much we ought to treasure it, and every little thing that God has made us to know, when almost everything is hidden. If we cannot learn it, it is non-essential. Most reality is not necessary for us to know. We need to be discerning in what we try to discover. Ethics are important in our knowledge. We can learn real truths that can be harmful to ourselves and others. Of course, we learn from our first parents the dangers of learning about some things, prohibited knowledge.

Hi longview. You say there is no need to be divisive. I totally agree. In the immediately preceding paragraph to the sentence that you quoted above. I explained why this doctrine you have introduced about which I am personally ambivalent, seemed dogmatic. The following is the preceding paragraph that I wrote, bolded where I explain why it appears to be dogma: Am I in current disobedience to both Plato and the Catholic Church if I accept LDS as a permissible rather than binding dogma on the point we were discussing? I think I have that much liberty. Is it good enough to say that non-LDS and/or "hellenistic fantasizers" agree that the LDS teaching is not a problem for us. I fear that is as far as we could go. You stated of the non-LDS view "Thus we MUST resist..." This sounds like a dogmatic necessity. Still, I would be personally happy to be as dogmatic as LDS as you represent it for the sake of unity, if I could do so without alienating the Plato/Aristotle crowd (Nicene Creed kids) and other non-LDS. That entire paragraph was in response to what you had previously written, highlighted in the blue in my quote. For sake of context I'll quote a longer section of the part which caused me to refer to this "teaching"? Apparently you are uncomfortable with the word dogma. I am dogmatic about Catholic dogmas that I judge cannot honestly be bent too. My concern was that you seem to be imposing a dogma that you think comes from "hellenistic fantasy". Here is the uncut sentence to which I was responding: "Thus we MUST resist the temptation of hellenistic fantasy of conflating the personhood of Jesus/Jehovah with the personhood of God the Father/Elohim. From that sentence I gathered that you believed that it was only by hellenistic fantasy that anyone would conflate the personhood of Jesus/Jehovah with the personhood of God the Father/Elohim. It is a common charge by Latter-day Saints against the early Church that because they were supposedly attached to the teachings from Greek philosophy, that they bent the interpretation of Scripture to match the teachings of Greek philosophy. I fear that this would be evidence of Apostasy according to the speakers at the conference referenced in the opening post of this thread. They don't even know what the early Church taught, and I am sorry that it seems like you don't either. They claimed that the early church denied a personal God, and that the early church denied the possibility of God being tangible. I addressed that error on the first page. I was trying to address your error, in my quote from above. I am not aware of any early Church Father, any regional or ecumenical Council, any pope, or any other authority in the Apostate Church ever teaching anything about the identity of Elohim or Jehovah. I don't want to alienate you longview, truly I don't. I have seen other posts of yours that I have liked and I feel like if we could talk in person you would see in my face a genuine countenance that wants to advance unity with you. I don't want to appear dense, but I can not understand that there is anything from the Apostates that MUST be resisted, unless they are not allowed to not want to take a position on Jehovah/Elohim. I would ask at this time to to be supplied with references for when the Apostate Church, because of Hellenistic influences, made definite mistakes as to the identities of Jehovah or Elohim. Your quote from Joseph Smith's discourse said nothing about the identity of Elohim or Jehovah. Even if it did, how would it argue for an apostasy in the early church, when in early LDS history it was absent as well? Whatever the King Follett discourse teaches, like the early LDS, so it was likewise unrevealed to the early church that I have been satisfied to call apostate for sake of argument. For the record, I am not arguing that there cannot be other reasons or evidence for apostasy. I wouldn't expect anyone to lose their faith in the need for Restoration if this one theory proves to be untenable. There are plenty of other arguments. Also for the record, in the unlikely event, I would be truly sad to have argued anything that would make a Latter-day Saint, if they lost faith in the Great Apostasy, to also lose their faith in a good and loving and personal Saviour and Redeemer, made in the exact image of His Father. If I ever sensed that would be the end result, I promise I would prefer that any of you believe that the Catholic Church is Apostate instead. Joseph said that hardly any being on earth knew this truth he was teaching, which seemed to me to go back to the idea of the corporal nature of God the Father. What about the incorporeal nature of God the Son before he entered the Virgin's womb? If Jesus was Elohim or Jehovah in the Old Testament it was certainly before Jesus took a body. The Son is God with or without a body. Is Joseph's discourse part of the LDS canon of Scripture? I can see how Latter-day Saints, possibly under the influence of this discourse by a greatly admired founder of the Restoration, might overemphasize its authority. If I was LDS, I would hope it is non-canonical. The way I read it Joseph seemed to have come to a belief that it was integral to God's nature that He must have a body. Not so, Joseph seems to be forgetting about the Son. Because Jesus was God without a body we can say that the body is superfluous to the nature of God. I think that is the main objection from my point of view to the insistence on the Father's corporeality. To my knowledge, it has never been necessary for my tradition to definitively state that the Father must be bodiless. It would be much less objectionable if you would admit, as it seems you must, in the case of the Son, that the nature of the Father as God would be in no way diminished if there was a time now or ever when as God, He is found lacking a body. Anyway, I have made a longer post than I wanted. Please forgive me if you are thinking I am a rambling nincompoop. You could be right. I am getting old and I can't remember things like I used to when I was younger. Maybe I should know something that I don't. I won't feel bad if you find this reply to be not worth a response on your part. I would feel bad if I made you think I do not wish you all the best in this world and the next one longview. I appreciate your zealous faith. May we meet one day at the feet of Elohim and Jehovah and get this thing straightened out between us! God love you and God bless you. Your friend in Jesus Incarnate, Rory McKenzie

Hey Navidad. I still believe the scholastic idea that "truth is the conformity of the mind to reality". The difficulty is that this seemingly simple definition is found objectional by many who do not believe in "objective truth". Reality cannot be discovered if all knowledge is subjective. If all knowledge is interior we cannot have accurate knowledge of exterior objects. There are strong arguments for this that I have heard here that have not pushed me off my position, but I think I have begun to understand the rationale for it. It is not absurd or ludicrous to me. I have certainly begun to accept the importance of interior experience in all of our lives. I am rooted because of my belief that the heavens declare God's glory. One Church Father, I think it was St. Hilary remarked that all of creation is declarative. In light of this belief, it is God who gave us our senses to observe God's creation, which is certainly exterior to us. For what purpose would God place rational creatures where there is a declarative creation, when we do not have the ability to accurately (if not comprehensively) discern objects outside of us? We can know enough about Creation to bring praise to the Creator. That does not mean we must have the same knowledge as the Creator. Creation, like the Creator is more shrouded and hidden in mystery than can be truthfully known by us through our limited sensory perception. Truths of faith are those which could never be known by the exercise of the mind on exterior objects. We only know these because God has revealed them through His word. They are therefore subjective. Faith is a gift to us, and I would be tempted to say that it is something we must own and guard. I would agree that truths of faith are not objects that we own. In some sense though, I would suggest that truths of faith, subjective to us, should be owned as a gift from God. I hope that is compatible with your ideas on all truth not belonging to us, except with faith as a gift of truth that can be retained or forefeited. Maybe we could say that we are the owners of this kind of truth (faith), while knowing that we are in no way anything but are blind beggars who should only be grateful for what we have received without lording it over those who haven't...yet. The scholastic idea could be amended in our era to say that "Truth is the conformity of the mind to objective reality." I do not say that we can own an object that is outside of ourselves. All truth is God's truth and all creation is God's declaration of His glory. I can own nothing objective. But Shoot. I don't even own myself! Paul says somewhere, "You are not your own."

Hi again longview. After some consideration, I think it would be best not to try to answer all of your misgivings with non-LDS teachings in one series of comments. I remember I already have claimed an importance to the finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple. If it seems like it could be fruitful in the future I might try to develop that thought later. In the meantime, I want to give you and others who might like to comment on what I have written in the last two posts to have an opportunity to zero in on any misunderstanding I have of the LDS dogma. I reiterate my ignorance of the LDS position and perhaps need further explanation before I could be persuaded to be dogmatic about any of the ways that it could be looked at. Am I in current disobedience to both Plato and the Catholic Church if I accept LDS as a permissible rather than binding dogma on the point we were discussing? I think I have that much liberty. Is it good enough to say that non-LDS and/or "hellenistic fantasizers" agree that the LDS teaching is not a problem for us. I fear that is as far as we could go. You stated of the non-LDS view "Thus we MUST resist..." This sounds like a dogmatic necessity. Still, I would be personally happy to be as dogmatic as LDS as you represent it for the sake of unity, if I could do so without alienating the Plato/Aristotle crowd (Nicene Creed kids) and other non-LDS. With all due respect it seems like a dogma that is going to divide without providing any practical benefit whatsoever.

---continued from above longview, you wrote about what you allege to be the theological problems of at least some non-LDS Christians. Forgive me if I wrongly assume that Catholics would be included. Here is what you wrote: "Thus we MUST resist the temptation of hellenistic fantasy of conflating the personhood of Jesus/Jehovah with the personhood of God the Father/Elohim. The Nicean Council and early "fathers" were in a tizzy over trying to define the single ONE God by using various non-biblical terminologies such as consubstantiation and whatever impenetrable "mysteries". We simply can take at face value the many descriptions of the members of the Godhead, all having important distinct personable roles." (blue lettering is mine) 1) Hellenistic fantasy I have never heard of a discussion among Catholic thinkers who while under any hellenistic influence conflate the personhood of Jesus/Jehovah with the person of God the Father/Elohim". Perhaps MisereNobis or tonyuk could comment on whether they have heard of any fellow Catholics dogmatically teaching different personal identities between Elohim and Jehovah. I am not aware of ANY dogmatic position on this question. I have been vaguely aware that LDS find this important for a reason that did not seem to concern me, and I have never addressed it until now, when it seems like the Catholic Church is accused of being on the wrong side. For my part, I can never even remember Who you say is Who, and I certainly don't have any understanding of any significant importance. I suppose this question has arisen because of the great light that has been shed on the Old Testament since Jesus revealed to us the New Testament. Do you think that for 1500 years God's covenant people of Israel had this understanding? I would be personally hesitant to be dogmatic about this kind of speculation which for well over a millenium was understood differently without any apparent disharmony with God. How are Catholics apparently guilty of corrupting either Testament with their alleged Greek influences if I am correct that we are not so dogmatic as LDS about different identities. I would be grateful if you could show me where you get the idea that the Catholic Church takes a position on this. I am willing to believe what you say about Elohim and Jehovah if you can show me either from Catholic magisterial sources or our shared Scriptures, where this is revealed and why it is important. As a Catholic, I don't think I could be disciplined if I voiced such a position. Further, at this time, I don't know why "hellenistic fantasy" would affect my lack of concern. Do you think that Plato or Aristotle or any other Greek philosophers said things that would imply that as one who embraces "hellenistic fantasy", I need to take up a dogmatic position on this question? Next I will try to address your concerns about extra-biblical terminology, tizzie, and your apparent belief that the Council of NIcea makes Catholics reject "the many descriptions of the members of the Godhead, all having important distinct personable roles." ---to be continued

Hi again longview. There is another level of subordinationism found in God's Son that seems important in regard to our discussion. We spoke about God the Father obeying God the Son. I think we agree that this implies that if the Son who Is God obeys the Father, we are not even God, should more certainly obey Him Who Jesus taught us is Our Father. A second layer to Christ's obedience is found in the subordination of the Child Jesus to His human parents. Jesus was "going about His Father's business (King James Version), when His sorrowing parents found Him in the Temple, having learned discussions with the scribes and teachers of the Law. Jesus' mother explained to Him that she and his stepfather Joseph, had been seeking Him for three days with great anxiety. His reply seems almost like a rebuke: "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" They did not understand. Nevertheless, He followed them back home to Nazareth and as St. Luke puts it He "was subject to them." I hope to show how this relates to your misgivings and concerns about hellenism, consubstantiality, and the Council of Nicea in a following post. ---to be continued

Hey longview. Yes! Fully subordinate. Christ said that His "meat was to do the Will of Him [The Father] who sent Him". It was nourishing in some analagous way to nourishment of the body, to the Soul of the Second Person(age) of the Godhead to obey His Father! This was "meat" that Jesus' disciples had not yet come to know of. Thanks for that good reminder of Him (Jesus) who was God, and obeyed. How much more should we who are not God, recall that we also need to "eat the meat" of obedience to Him Who is God, else our own souls will be suffering from malnutrition. Regards, Rory

Navidad. Hi. I enjoyed hearing about your son's baptism. The reason is that Catholics sometimes get a bit of grief from some Protestant sections for our practice of different modes of baptism. We acknowledge that immersion in water is the most symbolically rich of the ways that are valid according to the Church. "Buried in baptism" being part of that. But I don't understand how people who desire baptism on their death beds should be deprived because of their physical condition. It is easy for modern Protestants to be dogmatic about how everybody needs to be dunked in a heated baptismal pool. What about people in wintry climates in the past where all the standing water has turned to ice? Must they wait until summer to be baptized? There are many other cases I can think of like that of your son, where I believe that God in His mercy, would be pleased that His children for whom the symbolically rich mode, might be challenging, are permitted to receive baptism in a way that would be less of a hardship for them. I rejoice to believe in the validity of your son's baptism. Please know that I am not going to try to persuade you of other Catholic teachings regarding Sacramental Theology. In a sense, I am "trying to make points with you". But it is only as I merely want to emphasize areas where we happen to be in agreement as a way to do my part to take little steps toward achieving Christian love and unity. I loved that your bishop departed from the ordinary norms of Mennonites because of your son's fear of water. Maybe his Mom had trouble washing his hair when he was a baby! We had a boy like that who grew out of it, but it was kind of tricky at first to figure out a way to let Mom get his head wet. Rory

It seems like every theory has been tried. I think the best LDS theory is called the Social Trinity. Somebody else could probably explain it better than I. But the reason I prefer it is because it is closest to that Nicene Creed. So I am biased. I think we all agree that we need Oneness as well as Threeness though. If one wants rigorous exclusive monotheism, you can find it. But most Christians think Jesus is God and also the Holy Spirit for most of us. Judaism and Islam can claim to be stricter monotheists than almost all Christian communities. I think we should readily admit that, while affirming a real sense of true oneness.

I am glad to see Daniel C. as keynote. He should be well equipped for the chosen topic. I miss him here. Ah for the good 'ol days.