General Conference talk on the understanding of the Godhead

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

---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 if I were 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.

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.

  

Edited May 21 by 3DOP

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't know any Christians who reject a personal God. 

Would be helpful to know what then Elder Oaks meant by “a personal God”.  I am assuming he means a God who is a person, meaning some sort of individual that interacts with humanity and other aspects of the universe.

But apparently he is right according to Google (not familiar enough with enough faiths to not depend on “search”).

Supposedly those who see God as more guiding principle, force or energy or something that does not intervene/interact with humanity include Christian Scientists, Christian Deists, some more liberal Quakers***; supposedly Process theologists do, though I want to check that as just because God changes as he interacts with the universe doesn’t need to require he be non-personal, just a redefinition of what personal has traditionally meant….seems like Google is confusing a rejection of some of the traditional beliefs about God with a rejection of all of them. (Yep, googled erred there, I am so shocked!!!…not)

***since Quakers have no creed, there is likely a huge variety of beliefs beyond the fundamental core beliefs held by various Quakers.  From actual Quakers:

Quote

George Lakey: I believe that there is a spirit that delights to do no evil. (laughs) A spirit that yearns for me to be happy and to be able to connect on deep levels with other people. A spirit that wants me to search and to find, and to act. A spirit that wants me to be responsible and at the same time to be bold and take risks.

What Do Quakers Believe?

Max Carter: Quakers describe themselves as a non-credal religious body. We don’t have our beliefs set out in formulaic expressions, like the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene creed. The experience of Friends is that religion and spirituality ought to be a direct, immediate experience of one’s own encounter with God.

Patricia McBee: George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, one of the earliest Friends, said that “You can say that Christ sayest this and the scriptures sayest that, but what canst thou say?” What do you know from your own experience?

“That of God in Everyone”

Jane Fernandes: Quakers see that of God in every person. I think that’s fundamental, and when you see that of God in everyone—that’s everyone—that changes everything.

Valerie Brown: The christ consciousness—the belief that each person has within them an energy that is unalterable of goodness—that is available to every single person, no matter your circumstance, no matter what you have done or not done or said or did or had or didn’t have. You don’t have to dress fancy on Sunday; you don’t have to speak a certain way; you don’t have to study a certain kind of text. Who a person is, by their very nature, we have that availability of God.

Mark Judkins Helpsmeet: So I would put that right at the core: this universal experience. And, that we’re usually distracted from that experience by something that grabs our attention, and our world is set up to distract us. So I think that at the center of Quaker belief, if you will, is this common-held knowledge, is that the way that you get to what’s real is that you clear off the distractions.

https://quakerspeak.com/video/what-do-quakers-believe/

Quote

Trying to recognise ‘That of God in everyone’ is an important part of Quakerism. But what do we mean when we talk about acknowledging, ‘that of God in everyone’ and how are we meant to respond to it? As with many aspects of Quakerism, we are not told what to believe but instead make sense of our own experiences.

The origin of the phrase comes from a letter from George Fox, which he sent in 1656 when he was in prison in Launceston in Cornwall. It was written down for him by Ann Downer, who had walked from London to help him. Fox writes:

“Be patterns, be examples in all countries, places, islands, nations, wherever you come, that your carriage and life may preach among all sorts of people, and to them; then you will come to walk cheerfully over the world, answering that of God in every one.”

Quaker Faith and Practice, Chapter 19, 19.32.

In this article three Quakers share what 'that of God' means to them.

Cathy Eglington shares her thoughts on the challenges of loving that of God in everyone:

“I think it’s important when you’re looking for that of God in someone to look for the good, and to remember to look for the good in yourself, for that of God in yourself, as well as in others.

When you’re recognising that of God in someone, you have to respond to it. I can remember going to a workshop where we discussed the good in bad people, and how you have to ignore the bad. It’s easy to get on with people you love, but people you don’t like—it’s much harder. You have to look past the things that annoy you and respond to the good things. It’s about giving the time and space for people to express their feelings.”

Ruth Tod opens up about her understanding of that of God in everyone, and questions how to respond to the anger and fear of others:

“I see God as life, force, spirit, power, and presence. It's an energy which we can connect to in others and in ourselves. So it's beyond good and bad. For me the core of this energy and presence, is love and wisdom, which hopefully leads to good actions, certainly good intentions.

When we reach out to that of God in somebody, that involves listening to them and understanding them, and acknowledging them in their whole self and me in my whole self. So if people say to me, "Where can we find that of God in somebody who we have issues with?', I say it's about the potential in them, the potential for love and wisdom. When people are angry and do dreadful things out of anger and fear, to just say, "well, it's bad," is to deny their experience. Why are they like that? How can we change that relationship? How can we connect to them?”

Keith Braithwaite’s response touches on how we can attempt to understand that of God within us and the duty we hold to share that good with others who need it:

Play

00:00

04:59

Mute

Settings

Enter fullscreen

00:00

Photo by Tabitha Turner.

“There's this idea that it is the divine aspect in others that pulls the love from us, pulls the good intentions from us. Friends will even talk sometimes about it being the justification for our testimony of peace, that we're against capital punishment, because that means extinguishing an aspect of the divine and the person who's being executed. We're against war, because when one soldier shoots another, they're harming the aspect of the divine in the other and I think that doesn't work for me. I think that paints us into corners that are very difficult to escape from. In my experience, and I think this is more aligned with what Fox was talking about, is that there is that of God within me. There is my desire to connect with the divine. There is my capacity to respond to it, and that pushes the love from me out to others or it should. I'm as imperfect at doing that as anyone else, at least as imperfect as anyone else, but it's a push from within me. It's not this other thing that's pulling the good intentions from me. It's that of God. It's the capacity to respond to the Divine, the desire to connect to the Divine within me, that pushes the good, builds up the good within me, and pushes it out into the world, if I pay attention to it, and that works much better for me. That doesn't seem to suddenly tie us in knots, trying to understand what's going on in other people, it's what's going on in me. I might be in with a chance of understanding that I'm not in with a chance of understanding what the Divine is doing in somebody else.

https://www.discoveringquakers.org.uk/blog/exploring-quaker-experiences-that-of-god-in-everyone

Edited May 21 by Calm

[Navidad]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would be helpful to know what then Elder Oaks meant by “a personal God”.  I am assuming he means a God who is a person, meaning some sort of individual that interacts with humanity and other aspects of the universe.

But apparently he is right according to Google (not familiar enough with enough faiths to not depend on “search”).

Supposedly those who see God as more guiding principle, force or energy or something that does not intervene/interact with humanity include Christian Scientists, Christian Deists, some more liberal Quakers; supposedly Process theologists do, though I want to check that as just because God changes as he interacts with the universe doesn’t need to require he be non-personal, just a redefinition of what personal means….seems like Google is confusing a rejection of some of the traditional beliefs about God with a rejection of all of them).

You are right. I didn't think of a personal God in the way you describe. I understand much better now. I don't think of some of the groups that you mentioned as Christians in the traditional sense. That doesn't mean I think they will not see eternal life in the eternities. That is up to Christ, not me! Very interesting. Thanks. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

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.

Perhaps Longview is thinking of the “one being” part of “one being, three persons”.  That seems to be what most LDS in my experience focus on.

[longview]

15 hours ago, 3DOP said:

With all due respect it seems like a dogma that is going to divide without providing any practical benefit whatsoever.

Not sure why you would call it dogma. There is no need to be divisive. I consider Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse on the nature of God to be inspirational. Here is a couple of segments:

Quote

The Character of God

In the first place, I wish to go back to the beginning—to the morn of creation. There is the starting point for us to look to, in order to understand and be fully acquainted with the mind, purposes and decrees of the Great Elohim, who sits in yonder heavens as he did at the creation of this world. It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it be a hard matter to get right.

There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as it respects their relationship to God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that relationship; and consequently they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep. This is all man knows about God or his existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the Almighty.

If a man learns nothing more than to eat, drink and sleep, and does not comprehend any of the designs of God, the beast comprehends the same things. It eats, drinks, sleeps, and knows nothing more about God; yet it knows as much as we, unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God. If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves. I want to go back to the beginning, and so lift your minds into a more lofty sphere and a more exalted understanding than what the human mind generally aspires to.

What Kind of Being Is God?

I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in their own heart, what kind of a being God is? Ask yourselves; turn your thought into your hearts, and say if any of you have seen, heard, or communed with him. This is a question that may occupy your attention for a long time. I again repeat the question—What kind of a being is God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen him, heard him, or communed with him? Here is the question that will, peradventure, from this time henceforth occupy your attention. The Scriptures inform us that "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being he is,—if he will search diligently his own heart—if the declaration of Jesus and the apostles be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.

My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being he is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands or voices, or say anything against the man of God or the servants of God again. But if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations, or to be a prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world—a false teacher, be hailed as a friend, and no man would seek my life. But if all religious teachers were honest enough to renounce their pretensions to godliness when their ignorance of the knowledge of God is made manifest, they will all be as badly off as I am, at any rate; and you might as well take the lives of other false teachers as that of mine, if I am false. If any man is authorized to take away my life because he thinks and says I am a false teacher, then, upon the same principle, we should be justified in taking away the life of every false teacher, and where would be the end of blood? And who would not be the sufferer?

God an Exalted Man

I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

 

[3DOP]

17 hours ago, longview said:

Not sure why you would call it dogma. There is no need to be divisive. I consider Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse on the nature of God to be inspirational. Here is a couple of segments:

 

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          

Edited May 22 by 3DOP

[Calm]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

s Joseph's discourse part of the LDS canon of Scripture?

The King Follett Discourse is not canon.  It was not created by Joseph, but by piecing together 4? different sets of notes that don’t agree on every point and somethings only one set of notes mention so there’s no way to really confirm it.  Joseph never got a chance to review it to be sure it was remembered or interpreted accurately or to correct a misstatement.  

There are aspects that are part of doctrine now, but as a whole you shouldn’t assume this is even LDS belief.  For example, one set of notes states Joseph said those who die as children stay children forever in eternity, which makes no sense given what other teachings are…my guess is it was misunderstanding Joseph when he was teaching parents would be raising their children who had died…raising them to adulthood and the full blessings of exaltation.  Since exaltation includes eternal marriage, it seems unlikely that they would remain as children…unless physical form doesn’t matter that much to spiritual creation. ***

Quote

The final King Follett teaching to be accounted for is the eighth, that concerning the resurrection of children. As noted, from early on there was controversy about whether Joseph Smith said everything that he is reported to have said in the way reported. In particular, there were doubts about Woodruff ’s report that Smith said, “Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of Children reigning on thrones of glory not one cubit added to their stature.”52 That claim is from only Woodruff ’s transcription. It is not backed up by the notes of the others who reported the conference.

https://website-files-bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/articles/article_pdfs/The_King_Follett_Discourse.pdf

***I wonder if in a vision of the life to come Joseph saw such children…but if so, maybe he wasn’t told but just assumed they had that form because they had died at that age and never changed (it’s a reasonable assumption) and it was actually because as resurrected beings we have full control over our physical form and can be whatever age we desire.  Maybe we get to be children again with a child’s delight in the world when the urge hits us.  I think that would be wonderful. 

Edited May 22 by Calm

[3DOP]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

The King Follett Discourse is not canon.  It was not created by Joseph, but by piecing together 4? different sets of notes that don’t agree on every point and somethings only one set of notes mention so there’s no way to really confirm it.  Joseph never got a chance to review it to be sure it was remembered or interpreted accurately.  

There are aspects that are part of doctrine now, but as a whole you shouldn’t assume this is even LDS belief.  For example, one set of notes states Joseph said those who die as children stay children forever in eternity, which makes no sense given how other teachings…my guess is it was misunderstanding Joseph when he was teaching parents would be raising their children who had died…raising them to adulthood and the full blessings of exaltation.  Since exaltation includes eternal marriage, it seems unlikely that they would remain as children…unless physical form doesn’t matter that much to spiritual creation. ***

https://website-files-bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/articles/article_pdfs/The_King_Follett_Discourse.pdf

***I wonder if in a vision of the life to come Joseph saw such children…but if so, maybe he wasn’t told but just assumed they had that form because they had died at that age and never changed (it’s a reasonable assumption) and it was actually because as resurrected beings we have full control over our physical form and can be whatever age we desire.  Maybe we get to be children again with a child’s delight in the world when the urge hits us.  I think that would be wonderful. 

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

[longview]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Your friend in Jesus Incarnate,

I submitted a lengthy response but it "disappeared". Don't know if board mods put the kibosh on it (Nemesis?). So I am not inclined to recreate it. Sorry.

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, longview said:

I submitted a lengthy response but it "disappeared". Don't know if board mods put the kibosh on it (Nemesis?). So I am not inclined to recreate it. Sorry.

Probably not if it never got posted at all or appeared to be stalled in saving mode.  And definitely not if you had to verify you are human in some fashion shortly afterwards (though this doesn’t always happen to me after a post disappears without even buffering, but mostly does).  There is a glitch probably from the verification bot.

Unless your posts need to be approved before they get posted for some reason.

See bot rot thread in Social.

Edited May 22 by Calm

[3DOP]

41 minutes ago, longview said:

I submitted a lengthy response but it "disappeared". Don't know if board mods put the kibosh on it (Nemesis?). So I am not inclined to recreate it. Sorry.

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

[InCognitus]

On 5/13/2026 at 8:16 PM, 3DOP said:

Hey again everybody...a question.

Just so I understand, the LDS at this conference are quoted as saying that "many Christians", besides teaching that God must be intangible, also reject "a personal God"? And this is evidence  of the LDS view of a Great Apostasy?

If there are or were many Christians, as is claimed, who hold to these concepts, are there perhaps some who don't and didn't? Who counts among this many? What if there were many other Christians, if even only a minority in ancient times, who always believed in a personal God who lived in the flesh, and now numbers more than a billion baptized? If that were the case, could that count as evidence AGAINST the LDS view of a Great Apostasy as is said to be put forth at this conference?

I mean at least as far as intangibility and personhood are concerned. Would not such a case, if it could be found, undermine the argument put forth at this conference as evidence for the LDS view of a "Great Apostasy"? That is not to say that it would disprove a Great Apostasy. But it seems like it should disqualify the "evidence" put forth at the conference in question.

3DOP 

Rory, good question.  On the rejection of "a personal God", Elder Oaks used it in the context of "a tangible, personal God", and I think he intended those two things to be coupled together.  

And above you say there are many Christians "who always believed in a personal God who lived in the flesh", referring to the incarnation of Christ, but from a Latter-day Saint perspective I'm certain that Elder Oaks was referring to beliefs about God the Father, not his Son, Jesus Christ. 

My guess is that Elder Oaks was thinking of some of the descriptions about God included in documents like the Westminster Confession of Faith, a "God without body, parts, or passions", where God is understood to be a pure, unchangeable spirit who is not composed of physical parts and does not experience fluctuating human emotions and is incomprehensible.  And there is the Creator vs. creature distinction, which Latter-day Saints also accept but not in the same way that modern Christians view that distinction since the development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo, which makes that distinction include an impassable ontological gap between God and man (and some describe God as "wholly other"). 

Does that help?

[InCognitus]

On 5/14/2026 at 7:48 AM, GoCeltics said:

What of biblical verses which speak of only God one?

Do you think the early Christians were ignorant of those verses?  They were not ignorant of them at all, but they understood them in their original context and in relation to other Bible verses that teach that God is the God over other gods.  They viewed the "only one God" as the most high God, the one who is above all others, and they understood that Jesus and his Father are "one" with each other in a way that invites others to participate in the glory of God together with them.

Origen (circa AD 185-254) wrote in his apologetic response to the accusations of Celsus (an anti-Christian) something about how the Father and the Son are "one", and describes them to be one in unity and NOT one in being:

"In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible against us.  'If,' says he, 'these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others.  But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant.'  To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying, 'I and My Father are one,' [John 10:30] and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, 'As Thou and I are one,' [John 17:22] he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God.  'For,' says He, 'My Father is in Me, and I in Him.' [John 14:11 and John 17:21]   And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, 'And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,' [Acts 4:32] that he may understand the meaning of the saying, 'I and My Father are one.'  We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid.  And we do not 'reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,' as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, 'Before Abraham was, I am.' [John 8:58]  Again He says, 'I am the truth;' [John 14:6] and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared.  We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will.  So entirely they are one, that he who has seen the Son, 'who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person,' has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself".  (Origen Against Celsus, Book VIII, Chap. XII).

[InCognitus]

On 5/14/2026 at 1:57 PM, 3DOP said:

Hi theplains.

I would find it helpful for an elaboration of how these two statements illustrate agreement or disagreement with any of the propositions made by the conference speaker or of those who have participated in this discussion.

I can be wonderfully dense. I regularly fail to understand a joke. But I don't perceive that this is a joke at all. I fear I should understand something that should be obvious to me. Perhaps I am exposing my common stupidity. But I must admit that I cannot see your point. My apologies...

3DOP 

I'm waiting patiently for his response to your post.

[theplains]

On 5/14/2026 at 3:57 PM, 3DOP said:

Hi theplains.

I would find it helpful for an elaboration of how these two statements illustrate agreement or disagreement with any of the propositions made by the conference speaker or of those who have participated in this discussion.

I can be wonderfully dense. I regularly fail to understand a joke. But I don't perceive that this is a joke at all. I fear I should understand something that should be obvious to me. Perhaps I am exposing my common stupidity. But I must admit that I cannot see your point. My apologies...

3DOP 

 

Joseph Smith did not understand how God could be God in 3 persons so he made that reference to
him being viewed as "he would be a giant or a monster". I don't think he meant it as a joke.

[3DOP]

54 minutes ago, theplains said:

Joseph Smith did not understand how God could be God in 3 persons so he made that reference to
him being viewed as "he would be a giant or a monster". I don't think he meant it as a joke.

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.

Edited May 25 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

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.

 

Edited May 25 by 3DOP

[GoCeltics]

On 5/23/2026 at 6:41 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you think the early Christians were ignorant of those verses?  They were not ignorant of them at all, but they understood them in their original context and in relation to other Bible verses that teach that God is the God over other gods.

Which gods?

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Joseph Smith did not understand how God could be God in 3 persons so he made that reference to
him being viewed as "he would be a giant or a monster". I don't think he meant it as a joke.

But you already know that what you said above is a false statement because you've been corrected on it multiple times previously.  Joseph Smith knew how the Christians of his day viewed the three persons of the Trinity as one being (as they do today).  Previously you copied and pasted an edited quote of this statement from your website that omits the portion of Joseph Smith's remarks that explains where he is weighing the modern views about how God is one in being with scripture, where Jesus prays for his disciples to be "one" with him and his Father in the exact same way Jesus is one with his Father.  I responded to that in my post on October 24, 2024 with the following:

Joseph Smith was taking the Bible for what it says in John 17:20-23 in connection with how Trinitarians define the oneness of God in the Trinity.  He reasoned, if, as Jesus prayed (in John 17:20-23) for those disciples whom the Father has given him are to be “one as we are”, then they [the disciples given to Jesus] would all be crammed into one God (using a Trinitarian definition of how they are “one”).  He is not saying that the three persons of the Trinity would be crammed into one God as your edited quote implies.

Note the portion of his statement in red, below:

“Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.”

And now you misrepresent him again by claiming that Joseph Smith viewed "God in 3 persons" as "a giant or a monster".  Anyone can see that's not what Joseph Smith is referring to in the quote above.

You haven't shown any authority to judge us other than your opinion, and when you do judge us it is by misrepresenting and twisting the truth instead of directly engaging in it.  So why should we listen to you?  Give us a good reason.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Which gods?

Obviously those who become gods (as the early Christians taught) and the gods who are with God in the heavenly council that he rules over, as scripture says.

"Let the heavens [שמים; šāmaîm] praise your wonders, O Lord, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones [קהל קדשים; qĕhal qĕdôshîm]. For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings [אלים בני; bĕnê ’ēlîm] is like the Lord, a God feared in the council of the holy ones [סוד-קדשים; sôd qĕdôshîm], great and awesome above all that are around him?" (Psalm 89:5–7)

"Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?" (Exodus 15:11)

"Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works." (Psalm 86:8)

"For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods." (Psalm 135:5)

"For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods." (Psalm 97:9).

"Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them." (Exodus 18:11)

"For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" (Deuteronomy 10:17)

[manol]

On 5/20/2026 at 12:27 PM, longview said:

[quoting from Revelation Chapter 3, Verse 21]  To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Notice that he (or she) who overcomes sits with Christ in his throne, just as Christ sits with his Father in his throne.  Not separate, nor in a separate throne.

My point being, this scripture indicates that union (or perhaps re-union) rather than separation is what we are progressing towards.   It doesn't say those who overcome get their own throne; rather, it says they sit with Christ, as Christ sits with the Father, in their throne. 

Maybe I misunderstood, but the paradigm I was presented with in the LDS Church seemed to be a paradigm of ever-increasing separation:  First the premortal division; then the three postmortal kingdoms; then the top kingdom being further subdivided into three degrees; and perhaps this pattern is continued, with those who progress faster increasingly leaving the others behind.

I'm no longer convinced that progression happens in the direction of ever-increasing separation; I think it more likely that progression happens in the direction of ever-increasing union (or re-union), in plurality rather than in sameness. 

From the 88th Section of the D&C, verses 12, 13, and 44:

"Which light [the Light of Christ] proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space — The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things... He [God] comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things..."

Imo there is a perspective from which, right here and right now, we may perceive Christ in everyone, and likewise we may perceive God in everything.  Imo this is not about our fundamental reality being separation (despite the preponderance of telestial evidence supporting a paradigm of separation); rather, imo it is about our fundamental reality being union with God in/with/through Christ. 

Of course, I could be wrong.

Edited May 25 by manol

[manol]

Arrrgh meant to "edit" and instead "quote".  Again.  I have a long ways to go!!

Edited May 25 by manol

[longview]

1 hour ago, manol said:

On 5/20/2026 at 11:27 AM, longview said:

[quoting from Revelation Chapter 3, Verse 21]  To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Notice that he (or she) who overcomes sits with Christ in his throne, just as Christ sits with his Father in his throne.  Not separate, nor in a separate throne.

I don't think I ever hinted at separation of any kind in the Celestial Kingdom. On the other hand, there is greater and greater separation as you go down to Terrestrial, Telestial, and outer darkness.

[manol]

49 minutes ago, longview said:

I don't think I ever hinted at separation of any kind in the Celestial Kingdom.

Agreed.   Wish I was allowed to "like" your posts.

49 minutes ago, longview said:

On the other hand, there is greater and greater separation as you go down to Terrestrial, Telestial, and outer darkness.

Agreed - good point! 

Edited May 25 by manol

[MiserereNobis]

On 5/25/2026 at 8:00 AM, 3DOP said:

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.

I’ve always loved this phrase of yours. The Trinity may be wrong, but it’s not stupid. The brightest minds in Western civilization have believed it and argued for it.