David Waltz

Confessions of a Former Freemason Officer, Converted to Catholicism

Hi Calm, In my March 11, 2019 post, “God, LDS Metaphysics, and the Development of Doctrine - Blake Ostler: ‘all things indwell in God and God indwells all things'" (LINK), I provide selections from Ostler's Exploring Mormon Thought - The Attributes of God, that address your questions. I also provide some of my own thoughts to supplement Ostler's cogent reflections. Towards the end of the post I wrote: >>The descriptions of God in the above passages strongly suggest to me that those attributes which make God 'eternal', 'everlasting', 'infinite', 'one God', 'fill heaven and earth', 'fill the immensity of space', 'in all things', 'Spirit', etc., are descriptions of God's divine nature; a divine nature that sure seems to be identifying a "class or kind of being" who has a spiritual, infinite essence, rather than a corporeal, finite one. I can now delineate why I believe that the phrase "totally incorporeal" lacks a certain degree of clarity when describing the person and or persons termed "God". Though God's divine nature is essentially "Spirit", this does not preclude Him from taking on corporeal form. With that said, I cannot help but maintain a correct reading of Scripture demands that we acknowledge God has in fact done so.>> Grace and peace, David

All humans are homoousios with each other. The Symbol/Definition of Chalcedon (451) stated the Jesus Christ's human nature was homoousios with humanity/mankind. Grace and peace, David

In the 4th century presbyters were under the authority of the bishop of the the diocese they were in. Arius was one of the many presbyters under the the authority of Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria. I am pretty sure 4th century presbyters had no more authority in their day than the presbyters/priests of today. (Hope Catholics that may read this assessment will correct me if I am wrong.) Elders/presbyters began to be termed priests (Latin: sacerdotes) in the 3rd century. Ordinarily speaking, elders/presbyters/sacerdotes were and are the pastors of local churches. To my knowledge, priests are not termed presbyters in any "official" sense within the RCC. (Once again, hope Catholics that may read this assessment will correct me if I am wrong.) Grace and peace, David

Last week, I received the book, How and What You Worship - Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph Smith, which contains the papers delivered at the 49th Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, and published in 2020 by the BYU Religious Studies Center (full book and PDFs available online HERE; videos of the presentations HERE.) Two of the papers in particular stood out to me: Frederick’s, “Incarnation, Exaltation, and Christological Tension in Doctrine and Covenants 93:1–20”, and Lane's, “Choosing Divinity, Choosing Christ.” Both of these papers contain a misrepresentation of those Christian folk of the fourth century who utilized the Greek term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) to describe the relationship between God the Father and His Only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Frederick's wrote: Debates such as these over the relationship between the Father and Son have deep roots, dating back to the fourth century CE. A similar controversy, which became quite heated and for a time divided the Roman Empire, centered around the question of whether Jesus Christ was homoousia (of the same substance) or simply homoiousia (of a similar substance) with the Father. The latter position was termed Arianism after one of its most prominent proponents, a fourth-century bishop named Arius. (Page 15 - link to paper HERE) And from Lane we read: Much of this view of Christ and human beings as agents that choose is different than the Christology of historical Christianity. To connect it with traditional christological and soteriological discussion, one could say that, like the Arians, members of the Church of Jesus Christ see the unity of God the Father and the Son as coming from the perfection of Christ’s will rather than from divine essence or substance. While we would use the Arian term homoiousios, being like God rather than being “of one substance with the Father” (homoousios), for us this does not result in Christ being a creature (that is, not divine) because we do not believe in an ontologically distinct divine substance or essence. (Pages 58, 59 - link to paper HERE) The first misrepresentation I would like to address is that Arius was not, " a fourth-century bishop.” Arius was never a bishop, he was a presbyter under the episcopate of Alexander of Alexandria. Moving on, neither of the two above authors seem to be aware that the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) was not an “Arian term”. In fact, the folk of the fourth century who held beliefs that emulated those of Arius (i.e. Homoians and Anhomians), repudiated the term. Perhaps even more importantly, two of the most prominent defenders of the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. in the fourth century—Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers—embraced those Christians who preferred the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) over ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) as brothers in Christ, and as fellow defenders against Arianism. Note the following: Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks ; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential [ὁμοούσιον], must not be treated as enemies ; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers [ἀδελφοὶ πρὸς ἀδελφοὺς], who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence [ὑποστάσεως], and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential [ὁμοούσιου].' Now such is Basil, who wrote from Ancyra concerning the faith. For only to say 'like according to essence,' is very far from signifying 'of the essence,' by which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father is signified. Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, and gilt brass to the true metal ; but tin is not from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog'. But since they say that He is 'of the essence' and 'Like-in-essence [ὁμοιοούσιον],' what do they signify by these but 'Coessential [ὁμοούσιον]?' (Athanasius, De Synodis 41 – NPNF-2, 4.472 - bold emphasis mine) And: Holy brethren, I understand by ὁμοούσιον God of God, not of an essence that is unlike, not divided but born, and that the Son has a birth which is unique, of the substance of the unborn God, that He is begotten yet co-eternal and wholly like the Father. I believed this before I knew the word ὁμοούσιον, but it greatly helped my belief. Why do you condemn my faith when I express it by ὁμοούσιον while you cannot disapprove it when expressed by ὁμοιούσιον ? For you condemn my faith, or rather your own, when you condemn its verbal equivalent. Do others misunderstand it? Let us join in condemning the misunderstanding, but not deprive our faith of its security. Do you think we must subscribe to the Samosatene Council to prevent any one from using ὁμοούσιον in the sense of Paul of Samosata? Then let us also subscribe to the Council of Nicaea, so that the Arians may not impugn the word. Have we to fear that ὁμοιούσιον does not imply the same belief as ὁμοούσιον ? Let us decree that there is no difference between being of one or of a similar substance. The word ὁμοούσιον can be understood in a wrong sense. Let us prove that it can be understood in a very good sense. We hold one and the same sacred truth. I beseech you that we should agree that this truth, which is one and the same, should be regarded as sacred. Forgive me, brethren, as I have so often asked you to do. You are not Arians: why should you be thought to be Arians by denying the ὁμοούσιον ? (Hilary pf Poitiers, De Synodis – On the Councils, 88 – NPNF-2, 9.28 - bold emphasis mine) Grace and peace, David

Paul !!! Wow, what a pleasant surprise, so good to hear from you. I am well, how are you doing? Are you still a missionary? Have you been able to check out my blog yet? God bless, David

I started the thread, and the last post I have on my hard-drive was 03-13-2006. Thanks much for your efforts; I figured it was a long-shot...

I have an old thread on my hard-drive that I am unable to locate here at MDDB, or on the internet as a whole. The thread was first published on the old FAIR MB (1st post 03-06-2006), then it was transferred to the MADB MB. The following are the original links: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=13798 http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=13798 The title of the thread was: THE LDS QUAD METAPHYSICS AND THE EARLY CREEDS Hoping that someone with better internet skills than I have can find/recover the thread. Grace and peace, David

I noticed this thread on 06-05-23 during some internet browsing whilst watching the French Open. The next day, I ordered Ancient Christians, and received the book Friday evening. Sunday afternoon, I finished reading the tome, and began reflecting on whether or not I should commit some of my time to share a few thoughts on it. I was leaning towards not doing so, but a subsequent meeting with two LDS missionaries new to my area has prompted me to take up my ‘pen’, and this primarily due to one of the topics they brought up—the “Great Apostasy”. The missionaries were quite passionate in their summary for the need for a Restoration due to the infiltration of false teachings, the changing of divinely appointed ordinances, the loss of 'plain and precious truths', and most importantly, the loss of the Priesthood. With many of the assessments presented in Ancient Christians fresh on my mind during our discussion, I could not help but think that their message would have been significantly altered if they had embraced those assessments. I suspect if the contributors of Ancient Christians were present during our meeting, they would have steered the discussion towards the need to: "meet, empathize with, and understand better our ancient Christian sisters and brothers, to feel their love for one another and for Jesus Christ" (p. VIII); and that those same, "ancient Christians have expansive , even redemptive, vantage points to offer us" (ibid. - bold emphasis mine). More later, the Lord willing... Grace and peace, David

But the DtrH theory (with competing theories within the general theory) itself contains "theoretical propositions"...

What is "the journal" you have in mind?

Nathan Steinmeyer of the Biblical Archaeology Society weighs in - LINK.

A peer reviewed academic paper published on May 12, 2023 reveals that a lead tablet discovered at Mt. Ebal contains a proto-Hebrew script dated to the 13th century (B.C.). [Link to paper] The inscription contains a curse that invokes the God yhw—a shortened form of the Tetragrammaton-YHWH. The following is a translation of the “Inner B" inscription: >>You are cursed by the god yhw, cursed. You will die, cursed—cursed, you will surely die. Cursed you are by yhw—cursed.>> Concerning their palaeographic analysis of the tablet, the authors of the paper wrote: >>The palaeographic analysis suggests that the inscription belongs to the earliest possible stratum at the site, that of Late Bronze Age II. This would mean that the lead strip pertains to the more primitive (round) altar rather than to the larger later structure with the ramp that dates to early Iron Age I. It is possible that the tablet was purposely left at the site, and if so, this would certainly be significant. It may have originally been utilized near the altar during a curse ceremony (cf. Deut 27 and Josh 8 and later deposited on the altar by priests.>> I suspect that this extraordinary paper will cause grave concerns for those Bible skeptics who have embraced the so-called Deuteronomistic History theory. Grace and peace, David