The Hypostatic Union

[soren]

Understand is listed in my etymological dictionary as a synonym of comprehend. Understand comes from the Old English understandan, which means to "comprehend, grasp the idea of." Ironically enough, hypostatic is a compound word in Greek (hypo-stasis) that literally means under-stand. Here's an interesting idea about the concept of "understand":

"For this concept, most I.E. languages use fig. extensions of compounds that lit. mean 'put together,' or 'separate,' or 'take, grasp.'"

If we look at "comprehend," it comes from the Latin comprehendere, which is literally "completely catch hold of." It is an Indo-European compound identified above that is exactly the same, conceptually, as understand. Etymologically they are identical. If you want to define them distinctly then you do it subjectively, and I'm afraid I cannot agree with your distinction.

Y'see, I don't agree with this distinction.

Ok. I stand corrected here. But if you don't agree with my use of the words, do you acknowledge a distinction in the concepts that I have used the words to describe?

Time out. I totally disagree. An infinite being is not precluded from limitations.

Bingo. This is the heart of the whole thing. I believe every claim you have made on this thread absolutely presupposes this assertion, on which we differ. Catholics take "infinite" as an absolute. "Infinite" means "without limit." Therefore, an infinte being is precluded from limitations, no exceptions. By asserting the contrary, you deny the existence of infinity, in some sense though probably not in all.

God, for example, cannot sin, or fail. Those are limits.

Actually, sin itself is a limitation, as is failure. The reason God is unable to sin is not because he lacks any power, but because "Gid sinning" is actually a contradiction in terms, not even a conceivable thought. That is, it is not conceivable as long as someone is thinking clearly about what "God" means. Divine omnipotence presumes the ability to do all that is logically conceivable, but does not include absurdity. For instance, God cannot create a goat that is not a goat. This is because there is no real concept that corresponds to the words "goat that is not a goat." Likewise, "an absolutely perfect sinful thing" or "a lie spoken by God" are not real concepts any more than a square circle is, though it is less obvious since the concept of God is more profound than a circle.

An individual can leave the presence of God, which means God has spatial limits.

There are other ways to understand that phrase, as I'm sure you know without my saying, so I take your point rather than go on that tangent. Spatially then, would you say "God is infinite" is a false statement? If not, what definiton of "infinite" would make the statement true?

These are scriptural facts, but I find in the above idea a heavy shellacking of Greek philosophy. This is Patristic thinking, which was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. It sounds specifically like Tertullian or Aquinas.

Why must Greek philosphy be bad? What warrants this assumption? The Greeks had true knowledge of God derived from his manifestation in nature. St. Paul teaches, in reference to all men but in a context that speaks of the Greeks specifically:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse ... (Rom 1:18-20

If the Greeks could have sufficient knowledge of God from the observation of nature to be accountable for that knowledge, should we not expect to find truth among their thoughts? After all, they "hold the truth in unrighteousness." That is, they do not possess the knowledge of the Gospel that saves them, but they do have truth. If the Greek philosophers speculated about doctrines that the Catholic Church later taught, why assume it is evidence that the Church is false? Might it not be evidence that St. Paul was right?

You are correct, and as far as I know, the only reason that leaves a bad taste in anyone's mouth is because Greek philosophy infused everyone with the idea that the spiritual is pure and the physical is inferior. We disagree entirely with that.

More accurately, it is not the spiritual that is superior to the physical, but the metaphysical that is superior, and the metaphysical includes the spiritual. What it seems to me as the point of division between Latter-day Saint and Catholic theology is that LDS thinking not only denies the superiority of the metaphysical, but simply denies its existence, placing the spiritual in the physical camp. I think all LDS theology, including LDS apologetics procedes from this core assuption at every point. The conflict is not between one God and many gods, but between metaphysics and materialism.

Then perhaps therein lies our primary division. A paper of mine will be shortly published that argues along somewhat similar lines, although I do not fully flesh out its implications. Perhaps I should get to work on another paper about that specifically.

Good. I think a great disservice is done to interfaith dialogue between Mormons and other Christians when the infinity question is ignored in favor of less fundamental issues. If your paper encourages more discussion of that particular topic, it will benefit everyone.

[David Waltz]

Good morning mak,

You asked:

>>The doctrine of the Trinity that was developed at Nicea was also a novelty. Would you mind explaining to me exactly what is meant by the term "begotten," and whence it comes?>>

Me: It means the same as its usage in the LDS Quad; the Greek term translated as â??begottenâ? in the NT and LXX is gennaō, and literally means: â??to be bornâ?. Gennaō is closely related to the term genos, which means â??offspringâ?.

And:

>> We happen to disagree with the idea that Christ shares the same substance and nature with God, meaning this idea of "begotten not made" is unnecessary as one of the reasons for the distinction is to maintain their consubstantial union.>>

Me: By we, I think you mean you. I have spoken to many Latter-day Saints who agree that the Son is of the same nature/substance as the Father. Just as your children share your same nature/substance (i.e. they are 100% human), so the Son of God shares the same nature/substance of His Father (i.e. He is 100% God).

Once again, I submit that the LDS Quad is quite clear on the matter. Jesus Christ, â??the Eternal Godâ?, the being who was â??one Godâ? with the Father, added a physical nature to His eternal divine nature in the process described in the BoM as the â??condescension of Godâ?.

Grace and peace,

David

[maklelan]

Ok. I stand corrected here. But if you don't agree with my use of the words, do you acknowledge a distinction in the concepts that I have used the words to describe?

I would say the concepts are different, but I believe they're artificial. Just because a person can create a distinction between two things does not mean that God possesses the qualities. I believe this argument is begging the question. The need to make this distinction does not exist unless the conclusion is already in place. I find this argument making its way back from the conclusion.

Bingo. This is the heart of the whole thing. I believe every claim you have made on this thread absolutely presupposes this assertion, on which we differ. Catholics take "infinite" as an absolute. "Infinite" means "without limit." Therefore, an infinte being is precluded from limitations, no exceptions. By asserting the contrary, you deny the existence of infinity, in some sense though probably not in all.

But you say that he is infinite in absolutely every capacity. WE find no reason to think that.

Actually, sin itself is a limitation, as is failure. The reason God is unable to sin is not because he lacks any power, but because "Gid sinning" is actually a contradiction in terms, not even a conceivable thought. That is, it is not conceivable as long as someone is thinking clearly about what "God" means. Divine omnipotence presumes the ability to do all that is logically conceivable, but does not include absurdity. For instance, God cannot create a goat that is not a goat. This is because there is no real concept that corresponds to the words "goat that is not a goat." Likewise, "an absolutely perfect sinful thing" or "a lie spoken by God" are not real concepts any more than a square circle is, though it is less obvious since the concept of God is more profound than a circle.

Kinda like being 100% God and 100% human. Actually, I think it's exactly like that.

There are other ways to understand that phrase, as I'm sure you know without my saying, so I take your point rather than go on that tangent. Spatially then, would you say "God is infinite" is a false statement? If not, what definiton of "infinite" would make the statement true?

I think his influence is infinite, spatially, but since I believe in a corporeal God, I believe his body is not. Thus, the scriptures may speak of people leaving his presence.

Why must Greek philosphy be bad? What warrants this assumption? The Greeks had true knowledge of God

Did they? I invite you to look up the Plotinian Trinity, because that concept of God is what started the Gnostics going, and that was the Greek philosophy most closely related the Christianity.

derived from his manifestation in nature. St. Paul teaches, in reference to all men but in a context that speaks of the Greeks specifically:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse ... (Rom 1:18-20)

He says they are aware of God, not that they understand his nature perfectly.

If the Greeks could have sufficient knowledge of God from the observation of nature to be accountable for that knowledge, should we not expect to find truth among their thoughts?

Some truth, but not esoteric constructs that speculate on his nature.

After all, they "hold the truth in unrighteousness." That is, they do not possess the knowledge of the Gospel that saves them, but they do have truth. If the Greek philosophers speculated about doctrines that the Catholic Church later taught, why assume it is evidence that the Church is false? Might it not be evidence that St. Paul was right?

The Fathers didn't think so. They taught that Plato stole ideas fro mMoses and passed them down, not that the Greeks figured anything out on their own. And, like I said before, an understand that a God exists who holds us accountable for our sins (which is what I believe Paul is talking about) is a far cry from knowing intimate details about how Christ and the Father are consubstantial.

More accurately, it is not the spiritual that is superior to the physical, but the metaphysical that is superior, and the metaphysical includes the spiritual. What it seems to me as the point of division between Latter-day Saint and Catholic theology is that LDS thinking not only denies the superiority of the metaphysical, but simply denies its existence, placing the spiritual in the physical camp. I think all LDS theology, including LDS apologetics procedes from this core assuption at every point. The conflict is not between one God and many gods, but between metaphysics and materialism.

And the only reason that irritates anyone is because Greek philosophy considers it an abomination. From Felix:

The vulgar speak of God as a person, but they are wrong. . . . The philosophers, on the other hand, hold very nearly the same opinion of God as we do. Plato's opinion especially is virtually identical to our own.

Good. I think a great disservice is done to interfaith dialogue between Mormons and other Christians when the infinity question is ignored in favor of less fundamental issues. If your paper encourages more discussion of that particular topic, it will benefit everyone.

I would like to think so. I just checked out a dozen books from the library on the early Christological controversy. I've decided to get right to work on the paper. I must say, your explanations have made it clear what the point is from which our doctrines diverge.

[maklelan]

Me: It means the same as its usage in the LDS Quad; the Greek term translated as â??begottenâ? in the NT and LXX is gennaō, and literally means: â??to be bornâ?. Gennaō is closely related to the term genos, which means â??offspringâ?.

But this means that there was a time that Christ did not exist, except in fundamental elements that independently had no identification with him, and this is explicitly condemned by Nicea.

Me: By we, I think you mean you. I have spoken to many Latter-day Saints who agree that the Son is of the same nature/substance as the Father. Just as your children share your same nature/substance (i.e. they are 100% human), so the Son of God shares the same nature/substance of His Father (i.e. He is 100% God).

This is the fallacy of equivocation. When we say the same "substance" it's not the same thing that the Nicean Creed means. The Nicean Creed is stating that they share the exact same substance. The creeds say the substance is not divided, meaning to think of it in the same way as a child shares the same substance as their father is incorrect. The analogy would be that the child is inseparably attached to the body of its father. I think you're stretching the doctrine a little too far to make it similar.

Once again, I submit that the LDS Quad is quite clear on the matter. Jesus Christ, â??the Eternal Godâ?, the being who was â??one Godâ? with the Father, added a physical nature to His eternal divine nature in the process described in the BoM as the â??condescension of Godâ?.

I'll come back to this. I gotta go to a meeting.

Ok, I'm back. My comment is fairly short. We both perceive the oneness of Christ and God in completely different ways.

[maklelan]

My research tells me that Trinitarianism is indeed derived from the neoplatonic doctrine of emanation. Long before any Christian ever used the word "homoousios," it was being used by the Gnostics to describe identity of substance between the thing generating and the thing generated. They appear to have invented the word (as it was never used before in the history of the Greek language). When Christians started using the word it was to speak of Christs union with God, and it was only by Sabellian Monarchianism. Not long after Nicea the word was condemned as a Monarchian heresy, and the term "mia hypostasis" (one hypostasis) was substituted. Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria used the term prior to Nicea, but in a way unrelated to the Nicean formula. The addition of the word to the Nicean Creed is most convincingly attributed to Constantine himself. Most of the bishops later complained about the use of the word, saying they were silent only to keep the peace. Both the Arians and the Anti-Arians spoke disapprovingly of the word, so it could have come from nowhere else but Constantine. Hermetics and neoplatonists used the word, but the manner which most closely relates to the Nicean usage is the Hermetic. Several recently discovered Egyptian texts (Hermetic) attest the word just prior to Nicea. Here is interesting usage of it in one of these texts (called Theosophia):

There was a unique Nous, more intelligent than all, incorruptible beginning,

From him the intelligent Logos, creator of the universe, eternally incorruptible,

Son, reflection of the intelligent Father, one with the Father

Distinct from the Father only by name

But one with the Father and one from one, the same disposition

Being from the glory of the Father, consubstantial (homoousios), eternally incorruptible,

With the prime holy Pneuma, beginning of life.

If that's not fascinating I don't know what is. A Gnostic text talking about emanation and using the term homoousios just like it would later be used in Nicea. In addition, Constantine has been shown to have been heavily influenced by Hermeticism. Forgive me if I feel this information closes the books on where "consubstantial" and "begotten" come from. I think it's quite clear.

I can supply a long list of sources upon request.

[e=mc2]

CKSalmon:

He [Christ] was already a God (in contradiction to the LDS Law of Eternal Progression, it seems, which requires embodiment as a necessary step along the path to Godhood).

I haven't read the entirue thread, so I don't know if anyone cauight this gaff, but you are wrong. Blake T. Ostler has shown this is simply NOT the case, otherwise the Holy Ghost would not be God yet, but in our theology He is God. A body is not necessary to become a God.

[cksalmon]

CKSalmon:

I haven't read the entirue thread, so I don't know if anyone cauight this gaff, but you are wrong. Blake T. Ostler has shown this is simply NOT the case, otherwise the Holy Ghost would not be God yet, but in our theology He is God. A body is not necessary to become a God.

I don't think one need adduce Blake Ostler (fine thinker though he is) for this insight. Obviously, the Law of Eternal Progression (LOEP) is inherently variable and not universal in its particular requirements.

LOEP does not does not necessarily entail mortal probation as a requisite step to godhood (e.g., in the case of Jesus and the Holy Spirit). What this shows is that the Law of Eternal Progression is, in fact, relative.

There are several complicating factors in play here. Did Jesus possess all the attributes of deity prior to incarnation and (especially) resurrection? Or, did he come to be fully divine only after resurrection? Historically, LDS writers have presented differing views on this issue. (And, of course, Iâ??ve read numerous conflicting beliefs about this proclaimed by faithful LDS participants here on MADB.)

What about the Holy Spirit? At one time, Smith apparently considered the Holy Spirit an impersonal mind shared by the Father and the Son (see the Lectures on Faith).

For the sake of discussion, letâ??s grant the following fairly uncontroversial (current) LDS beliefs:

(1) Jesus became fully divine without a mortal probation

(2) The Holy Spirit became fully divine without a mortal probation

Gospel Principles (GP), of course, does not present this relative aspect of progression.

Our heavenly parents provided us with a celestial home more glorious and beautiful than any place on earth. We were happy there. Yet they knew we could not progress beyond a certain point unless we left them for a time. They wanted us to develop the godlike qualities that they have. To do this, we needed to leave our celestial home to be tested and to gain experience. We needed to choose good over evil. Our spirits needed to be clothed with physical bodies.(GP, 13)

I take from this that mortality is necessary to eternal progression.

Since we could not progress further in heaven, our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present his plan for our progression (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 348, 349, 365). We learned that if we followed his plan, we would become like him. (GP, 14)

I take from this that, to become like God, one must follow Godâ??s plan for us to pass through mortality. Without this step, further progress was impossible. This understanding meshes significantly with certain statements by Brigham Young and other early LDS leaders about Elohimâ??s progress to godhood.

"He [God] is our Father--the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being. It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being." (Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, 7:333)

"The Gods who dwell in the Heaven...have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the Heavenly body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state....they were exalted also, from fallen men to Celestial Gods to inhabit their Heaven forever and ever." (Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, 23)

"You and I--what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we have, and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms! We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were stated by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: 'As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.'" (President Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Great Potential," April 1977 GC)

"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is." (Journal of Discourses, 1:123)

Still, tis no phantom that we trace

Man's ultimatum in life's race;

This royal path has long been trod

By righteous men, each now a God:

As Abra'm Isaac, Jacob, too,

First babes, then men--to gods they grew.

As man now is, our God once was;

As now God is, so man may be, --

Which doth unfold Man's destiny. . . ."

(Lorenzo Snow, â??Manâ??s Destiny,â? as quoted in Hunter, The Gospel Through The Ages, 113)

GBH on Elohimâ??s having once been a man

But what does the current LDS prophet teach on this doctrinal matter? Below are excerpts from two interviews and a Hinckley quotation from GC 1994.

Time Magazine interview

In an interview with TIME, President Hinckley seemed intent on downplaying his faith's distinctiveness. The church's message, he explained, "is a message of Christ. Our church is Christ-centered. He's our leader. He's our head. His name is the name of our church." At first, Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods, suggesting that "it's of course an ideal. It's a hope for a wishful thing," but later affirmed that "yes, of course they can." (He added that women could too, "as companions to their husbands. They can't conceive a king without a queen.") On whether the church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it...I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it." (Biema, David Van, "Kingdom Come," Time, August 4, 1997, 56)

Transcript from which the preceding was culled:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah

Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I donâ??t know that we teach it. I donâ??t know that we emphasize it. I havenâ??t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I donâ??t know. I donâ??t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I donâ??t know a lot about it and I donâ??t know that others know a lot about it.

San Francisco Chronicle interview with Don Lattin

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormon's believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn't say that. There is a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

Q: So you're saying that the church is still struggling to understand this?

A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. Knowledge, learning is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We're trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can. (Don Lattin, "Musings of the Main Mormon," San Francisco Chronicle, 13 April 1997)

President Hinckley was much less circumspect in the General Conference of October 1994:

"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62) and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!"

So, did Elohim pass through a mortal probation along the path to exaltation? The answer is unclear. Iâ??m tempted to believe in Hinckleyâ??s endorsement of the idea, given the fact that he approvingly quoted the King Follett Discourse as well as Snowâ??s famous couplet in General Conference. (Interestingly, Iâ??ve read LDS posters here who deny that Joseph Smith himself even uttered the famous â??eternal progressionâ? section of KFD.) On the other hand, the GC quotation predates both interviews excerpted above. Itâ??s possible that Hinckleyâ??s confidence in his GC 1994 statement had waned by 1997 and he felt the need to be much more circumspect in his handling of this issue.

One thing is clear: he hasnâ??t admitted a belief in Elohimâ??s past mortality to the general, non-LDS public.

Letâ??s assume, just for the sake of the present discussion, that Elohim was never a man, but instead achieved exaltation (apparently like Jesus and the Holy Spirit) without a mortal probation. Assuming this leads us to an interesting situation. Youâ??ll recall (1) and (2) above.

(1) Jesus became fully divine without a mortal probation

(2) The Holy Spirit became fully divine without a mortal probation

To these we might provisionally add

(3) Elohim became fully divine without a mortal probation

Assuming the veracity of (3), we now find ourselves with a henotheistically-delimited trinity for whom mortal probation played absolutely no role in exaltation and must ask the question: Is a mortal probation necessary to exaltation to godhood? Answer: No! Not for any of the Gods of whom we are aware.

To underscore this point (literally and figuratively): there are no Gods in LDS theology who needed to experience mortality in order to obtain exaltation to godhood.

This realization seems quite at odds with the plain teaching of Gospel Principles referenced above: (i) "Yet they knew we could not progress beyond a certain point unless we left them for a time. They wanted us to develop the godlike qualities that they have. To do this, we needed to leave our celestial home to be tested and to gain experience. We needed to choose good over evil. Our spirits needed to be clothed with physical bodies,â? (ii) "â?¦ we could not progress further in heaven," and "We learned that if we followed his plan [including necessary mortality], we would become like him."

Kerry writes, "A body is not necessary to become a God." I assume he means a physical body. And heâ??s right. If (3) is true, then no LDS God ever experienced mortality prior to divinization. At the very least, this calls into question the foundational LDS teaching that a mortal probation is a necessary step along the path of Eternal Progression. In fact, LDS theology provides absolutely no examples of this principle being true. The three Godâ??s (the only three Gods) of LDS theology are exceptions to the rule.

Either that, or Elohim was actually once a man (and also a man who achieved exaltation only after mortality, unlike his son, Jesus).

In sum, Kerryâ??s realization (via Ostler) that the Holy Spirit did not require a mortal probation in order to be exalted to godhood only problematizes oneâ??s understanding of LDS soteriology. What would it mean if all known LDS Gods are exceptions to the general rule?

Best.

CKS

[maklelan]

So, did Elohim pass through a mortal probation along the path to exaltation? The answer is unclear. Iâ??m tempted to believe in Hinckleyâ??s endorsement of the idea, given the fact that he approvingly quoted the King Follett Discourse as well as Snowâ??s famous couplet in General Conference. (Interestingly, Iâ??ve read LDS posters here who deny that Joseph Smith himself even uttered the famous â??eternal progressionâ? section of KFD.) On the other hand, the GC quotation predates both interviews excerpted above. Itâ??s possible that Hinckleyâ??s confidence in his GC 1994 statement had waned by 1997 and he felt the need to be much more circumspect in his handling of this issue.

One thing is clear: he hasnâ??t admitted a belief in Elohimâ??s past mortality to the general, non-LDS public.

Nor to the LDS public. He endorses one half of the couplet, but can you find a statement by him that either affirms that God was once a man or confirms that we're not sure if we can become gods? The half of that couplet that GBH endorses has always been church doctrine, but the other half is just speculation, which is why GBH will not endorse it. He's not waffling in the least, nor is he downplaying doctrine. He's giving the doctrine and being moderate on the speculation. I see nothing wrong with this and wish people would stop conflating his statements.

[cksalmon]

Nor to the LDS public. He endorses one half of the couplet, but can you find a statement by him that either affirms that God was once a man or confirms that we're not sure if we can become gods?

mak--

I was attempting to be fairminded. I would assume that GBH is more confident of those statements in KFD supportive of the second half of the couplet than with those supportive of the first.

My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being he is

...

I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to enquire after God; for I want you all to know him, and to be familiar with him; and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am his servant; for I speak as one having authority.

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.

...

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.

Assuming the legitimacy of KFD, Joseph Smith clearly taught as a first principle of the Gospel and the "great secret" that Elohim was once a man. In the 1994 GC quotation, Hinckley endorses KFD without identifying or elaborating on any misgivings he might have had with some of the teachings of that sermon. Obviously, Hinckley endorses the "second half" teachings therein.

From other statements, Hinckley has made it clear that he is quite uncomfortable discussing Elohim's pre-divine state. Per those statements (quoted by me above), one can be fairly confident that he really just doesn't know whether or not Joseph Smith was right or wrong re this doctrinal matter.

If Smith was wrong, and Elohim was never a man, then, again, I find it odd that all LDS Gods are exceptions to the rule (per GP) that mortal embodiment is "necessary" to progression. We would then have no examples of divinized persons for whom this step was actually necessary.

Best.

CKS

[maklelan]

From other statements, Hinckley has made it clear that he is quite uncomfortable discussing Elohim's pre-divine state. Per those statements (quoted by me above), one can be fairly confident that he really just doesn't know whether or not Joseph Smith was right or wrong re this doctrinal matter.

We've been told that we will receive no revelation pertaining to issues outside the Godhead, so speculating on it is (in my and many other people's opinion) silly.

[Jerubaal]

One small thing I would like to point out in your post, CKS: The authorship of the 5th lecture in the Lectures on Faith iis commonly attributed to Sidney Rigdon, not Joseph Smith.

[cksalmon]

One small thing I would like to point out in your post, CKS: The authorship of the 5th lecture in the Lectures on Faith iis commonly attributed to Sidney Rigdon, not Joseph Smith.

Hey J--

Thanks for pointing that out.

I would still assume that Joseph Smith approved of the doctrinal content Lectures and was substantially involved in their preparation for publication.

Best.

CKS

[Jerubaal]

Hey J--

Thanks for pointing that out.

I would still assume that Joseph Smith approved of the doctrinal content Lectures and was substantially involved in their preparation for publication.

Best.

CKS

Not according to some. There was a BYU studies article on it once, but I'm on dial-up right now, so I'm not eager to go searching for it.

[David Waltz]

Hello mak,

Thanks for responding to my comments; you wrote:

>>But this means that there was a time that Christ did not exist, except in fundamental elements that independently had no identification with him, and this is explicitly condemned by Nicea.>>

Me: I must submit that there are two problems with your response: first, you are selecting only one of three accepted/allowed positions concerning the LDS teaching of the nature of intelligences, and while the one you endorse is not compatible with the Nicene creed, one of the other two is.

>>This is the fallacy of equivocation. When we say the same "substance" it's not the same thing that the Nicean Creed means. The Nicean Creed is stating that they share the exact same substance. The creeds say the substance is not divided, meaning to think of it in the same way as a child shares the same substance as their father is incorrect. The analogy would be that the child is inseparably attached to the body of its father. I think you're stretching the doctrine a little too far to make it similar.>>

Me: I strongly disagree with your assessmentâ??it seems that you have not read my first post in the thread â??The LDS Quad Metaphysics and the Early Creedsâ?, so I shall repost it:

>>From the Nicene Creed of 325:

QUOTE

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten out of his Father, only-begotten (monogenE), that is, out of the substance (ousias) of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one/same substance (homoousiov) with the Father. (Greek text from Philip Schaff's, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, p. 60; this literal/wooden trans. mine.)

Now, I think it is important to determine exactly how the term "same substance" (homoousios) was being used shortly after 325. I shall now turn to Athanasius who wrote:

De Synodis 53 -

QUOTE

Even this is sufficient to dissuade you from blaming those who have said that the Son was coessential with the Father, and yet let us examine the very term "Coessential," in itself, by way of seeing whether we ought to use it at all, and whether it be a proper term, and is suitable to apply to the Son. For you know yourselves, and no one can dispute it, that Like is not predicated of essence, but of habits, and qualities; for in the case of essences we speak, not of likeness, but of identity. Man, for instance, is said to be like man, not in essence, but according to habit and character; for in essence men are of one nature. And again, man is not said to be unlike dog, but to be of different nature. Accordingly while the former are of one nature and coessential, the latter are different in both. Therefore, in speaking of Like according to essence, we mean like by participation; (for Likeness is a quality, which may attach to essence), and this would be proper to creatures for they, by partaking, are made like to God. For "when He shall appear", says Scripture, "we shall be like Him" (1 John 3:2), like, that is, not in essence but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him. If then ye speak of the Son as being by participation, then indeed call Him Like-in-essence; but thus spoken of, He is not Truth, nor Light at all, nor in nature God. For things which are from participation, are called like, not in reality, but from resemblance to reality; so that they may swerve, or be taken from those who share them. And this, again, is proper to creatures and works. Therefore, if this be out of place, He must be, not by participation, but in nature and truth Son, Light, Wisdom, God; and being by nature, and not by sharing, He would properly be called, not Like-in-essence, but Coessential. But what would not be asserted, even in the case of others (for the Like has been shewn to be inapplicable to essences), is it not folly, not to say violence, to put forward in the case of the Son, instead of the "Coessential"? (NPNF-2, vol. 4, pp, 478, 479.)

Ad Serapionem II.3 -

QUOTE

We men, indeed, we are alike and share the same identity, are one in essence (homoousioi) with each other. (Quoted in Keith Norman's, The Place of Deification in the Doctrinal System of Athanasius, p. 37.)

In the above selections from Athanasius, we find that he is clearly using the term "same substance" in a generic sense. Put simply this means that just as all men share in one nature (humanity), so too God the Father and His only-begotten Son share in one nature (divinity).

Athanasius' interpretation is confirmed by a subsequent council; for in the symbol/creed from Chalcedon (451) we read:

QUOTE

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

I submit that there can be no mistake as to how homoousios/substance/nature was understand in the Nicene creedâ??it was clearly in a â??generic senseâ?.

I know that going back and reading older threads is not great â??funâ??, but I think the two I linked to earlier would be beneficial for our current discussion at hand.

Grace and peace,

David

[cksalmon]

Not according to some. There was a BYU studies article on it once, but I'm on dial-up right now, so I'm not eager to go searching for it.

Might this be it? Gentry, Leland H. "What of the Lectures on Faith?" BYU Studies 19 (Fall 1978):5-19.

I can't find it online, but I might have it at home.

I did find the following on a BYU Studies page at the BYU site. Per Larry E. Dahl, co-editor with Charles D. Tate of The Lectures on Faith in Historical Perspective ( Provo, Utah, 1990 [see (here):

No clear evidence documents who actually wrote the lectures. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. Joseph Smith

[David Waltz]

Hello again mak,

You posted:

>>If that's not fascinating I don't know what is. A Gnostic text talking about emanation and using the term homoousios just like it would later be used in Nicea. In addition, Constantine has been shown to have been heavily influenced by Hermeticism. Forgive me if I feel this information closes the books on where "consubstantial" and "begotten" come from. I think it's quite clear.>>

Me: Christopher Steadâ??s marvelous treatment, Divine Substance, takes issue with some of your conclusions. The entire book is a must read, but especially so his chapter, â??The Word Homoousiosâ?. Stead demonstrates that Irenaeus and Tertuallian (and many other CFâ??s), though using the same phraseology of the Gnostics, have something different in mind. The following quote is but one sample:

It is especially noteworthy that Tertullian, who relies upon the phrase una substantia to express the unity manifested in the three Persons of the Godhead, and is willing to borrow Gnostic terms such as probolē, â??emanationâ??, nowhere himself is appropriates any word coined on the model of â??homoousiosâ??. He does indeed introduce two forms, consubstantialis and consubstantivus; but only to represent his opponentsâ?? theoriesâ?¦the sense of substantia which is here implied is not that which Tertullian himself most commonly gives to the termâ?? consubstantialis does not mean â??made of the same stuffâ??, but rather â??having the same nature, status, or rankâ??â?¦(Stead, Divine Substance, pp. 202, 203.)

I submit that one should not look to Plotinus for an understanding of how homoousios is used in the Nicene Creed, but rather, to the Church Fathers, who though used the terminology of the Gnostics, but then went to great lengths to distance themselves from how the Gnostics applied the terms.

Grace and peace,

David

[maklelan]

Me: I must submit that there are two problems with your response: first, you are selecting only one of three accepted/allowed positions concerning the LDS teaching of the nature of intelligences, and while the one you endorse is not compatible with the Nicene creed, one of the other two is.

Is that a fact? What are the other two LDS teachings?

Me: I strongly disagree with your assessmentâ??it seems that you have not read my first post in the thread â??The LDS Quad Metaphysics and the Early Creedsâ?, so I shall repost it:

>>From the Nicene Creed of 325:

QUOTE

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten out of his Father, only-begotten (monogenE), that is, out of the substance (ousias) of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one/same substance (homoousiov) with the Father. (Greek text from Philip Schaff's, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, p. 60; this literal/wooden trans. mine.)

Now, I think it is important to determine exactly how the term "same substance" (homoousios) was being used shortly after 325. I shall now turn to Athanasius who wrote:

De Synodis 53 -

QUOTE

Even this is sufficient to dissuade you from blaming those who have said that the Son was coessential with the Father, and yet let us examine the very term "Coessential," in itself, by way of seeing whether we ought to use it at all, and whether it be a proper term, and is suitable to apply to the Son. For you know yourselves, and no one can dispute it, that Like is not predicated of essence, but of habits, and qualities; for in the case of essences we speak, not of likeness, but of identity. Man, for instance, is said to be like man, not in essence, but according to habit and character; for in essence men are of one nature. And again, man is not said to be unlike dog, but to be of different nature. Accordingly while the former are of one nature and coessential, the latter are different in both. Therefore, in speaking of Like according to essence, we mean like by participation; (for Likeness is a quality, which may attach to essence), and this would be proper to creatures for they, by partaking, are made like to God. For "when He shall appear", says Scripture, "we shall be like Him" (1 John 3:2), like, that is, not in essence but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him. If then ye speak of the Son as being by participation, then indeed call Him Like-in-essence; but thus spoken of, He is not Truth, nor Light at all, nor in nature God. For things which are from participation, are called like, not in reality, but from resemblance to reality; so that they may swerve, or be taken from those who share them. And this, again, is proper to creatures and works. Therefore, if this be out of place, He must be, not by participation, but in nature and truth Son, Light, Wisdom, God; and being by nature, and not by sharing, He would properly be called, not Like-in-essence, but Coessential. But what would not be asserted, even in the case of others (for the Like has been shewn to be inapplicable to essences), is it not folly, not to say violence, to put forward in the case of the Son, instead of the "Coessential"? (NPNF-2, vol. 4, pp, 478, 479.)

Ad Serapionem II.3 -

QUOTE

We men, indeed, we are alike and share the same identity, are one in essence (homoousioi) with each other. (Quoted in Keith Norman's, The Place of Deification in the Doctrinal System of Athanasius, p. 37.)

In the above selections from Athanasius, we find that he is clearly using the term "same substance" in a generic sense. Put simply this means that just as all men share in one nature (humanity), so too God the Father and His only-begotten Son share in one nature (divinity).

Athanasius' interpretation is confirmed by a subsequent council; for in the symbol/creed from Chalcedon (451) we read:

QUOTE

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

I submit that there can be no mistake as to how homoousios/substance/nature was understand in the Nicene creedâ??it was clearly in a â??generic senseâ?.

If you use substance in that way then Latter-day Saints will say they believe they are also of the same substance as God. We are genetically linked to him, just as humans are to each other, meaning that Christ's consubstantiality with the Father is hardly unique, we are just fallen.

[maklelan]

Hello again mak,

You posted:

>>If that's not fascinating I don't know what is. A Gnostic text talking about emanation and using the term homoousios just like it would later be used in Nicea. In addition, Constantine has been shown to have been heavily influenced by Hermeticism. Forgive me if I feel this information closes the books on where "consubstantial" and "begotten" come from. I think it's quite clear.>>

Me: Christopher Steadâ??s marvelous treatment, Divine Substance, takes issue with some of your conclusions. The entire book is a must read, but especially so his chapter, â??The Word Homoousiosâ?. Stead demonstrates that Irenaeus and Tertuallian (and many other CFâ??s), though using the same phraseology of the Gnostics, have something different in mind. The following quote is but one sample:

I submit that one should not look to Plotinus for an understanding of how homoousios is used in the Nicene Creed, but rather, to the Church Fathers, who though used the terminology of the Gnostics, but then went to great lengths to distance themselves from how the Gnostics applied the terms.

Grace and peace,

David

I'll check out his book.

[maklelan]

Thought I might mention something from the pronouncements of Chalcedon: a mention in the letter of Pope Leo to Flavian about the Father and Son being one in being:

Cum enim deus et omnipotens et pater creditur, consempiternus eidem filies demonstratur, in nullo a patre differens, quia de deo deus, de omnipotente omnipotens, de aeterno natus est coaeternus, non posterior tempore, non inferior potestate, non dissimilis gloria, non divisus essentia.

My rather stale translation:

When God is believed to be omnipotent and father, the son is shown to be coeternal with him, in nothing different from the father, since he was born of God, from omnipotent, omnipotent, from eternal, coeternal, not later in time, not inferior in power, not dissimilar in glory, not divided in being.

[AZBeliever]

I want to know if there is anyone out there who can explain the Hypostatic Union and how it is consistent with biblical Christianity.

I'll take a stab at your question. The best Biblical support for the notion of hypostatic union is probably in John chapter 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men...

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Christ took on flesh in the incarnation, although he was fully God from eternity past before this event in history. He temporarily set aside the fully expression of his divine attributes when he was on earth, but had His glory restored after he made purification for the sins of his people.

Christ is fully God:

Called "God"

Eternal

All powerful

Creator

Forgave Sins

Was worshipped

and yet Christ is fully man:

Grew in wisdom and stature as a boy

Wept

Was hungry

Was weary

Human birth

He is fully God and yet fully man at the same time. If He were not human, His death would not have been an acceptable sacrifice for the Father. If He were not divine, he would not have been able to live a sinless, perfect life.

Hope this helps,

AZBeliever

[David Waltz]

Hey mak,

You asked:

>>Is that a fact? What are the other two LDS teachings?>>

Me: I will let CES director Kenneth W. Godfrey answer:

It was in the Spring of 1833, while residing in Kirtland, Ohio, that the Prophet received a revelation now known as Section ninety-three of the Doctrine and Covenants. In the twenty-ninth verse we read that "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." This, it appears, was the first reference in modern scripture to something in or about the idea that man was not created or made, nor could he be. It seems that Joseph Smith did not provide the Saints with additional information at that time as to just what this scripture meant or [p.216] what additional implications he saw in the Lord's pronouncement. It is also not entirely clear whether intelligence is something individual or collective, or an attribute or principle. In fact,it is not clear what this verse means when the Lord says, â??Man was also in the beginning with [Him].â? (Kenneth W. Godfrey, â??The History of Intelligence in Latter-day Thoughtâ?, in The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations From God, ed. by Peterson and Tate, pp. 215,126.)

It is the last option that fits well with my comments, and I would argue, with some important verses in D&C. Concerning these verses, I posted the following on ZLMB quite sometime ago:

>>I was reading D&C last night and would like to share a few verses that may be pertinent to the John 4:24 question.

D&C 84:45-47.

45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.

D&C 88:11-13

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space--

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

D&C 88:41 He 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, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.

D&C 93:29-36

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

D&C 131:7, 8

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

The above verses bring up all kinds of thoughts and questions for me:

1.) Is â??The light which 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...â? (i.e. â??The light of Christ/the Spirit of Christ) matter? (Keep in mind 131:7-.

2.) D&C 84:45 says, â??the word of the Lord is truth...truth is light...light is Spirit...â?. Now does this mean that truth, light, and Spirit are matter? (Keep in mind 131:7,.

3.) Intelligence = the light of truth (93:29); Man is spirit and the elements are eternal (93:33) spirit and elements are inseparably connected (93:33) and the elements are the tabernacle of God (93:35). As I pointed out in another thread, Jesus Christ was God before he received a body of flesh and bones (i.e. a tabernacle). Because of this I would argue that the essential nature of Christ is spirit. It is interesting that this essential nature (i.e. spirit) fills â??the immensity of spaceâ? and all â??tabernaclesâ? (i.e. elements).

Now, it seems to me that the non-Mormon Christian conception of God has much more merit than Mormons usually allow it when we consider the above implications. When Christians say that God is â??immaterialâ?, is this concept so far removed from the D&Câ??s concept of spirit/light/God as being something other that the â??elements/tabernaclesâ??

It is important to note that non-Mormon Christians do not deny that God cannot have a body, but what they do deny is that if God chooses dwell in a â??tabernacleâ? the tabernacle is not His essential nature, but rather His essential nature remains spirit.>>

To the above, I would add that if intelligence is in fact an â??attribute or principleâ?, then I have no problem at all in stating that there is a sense in which part of man is â??eternalâ?.

Grace and peace,

David

[maklelan]

The above verses bring up all kinds of thoughts and questions for me:

1.) Is â??The light which 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...â? (i.e. â??The light of Christ/the Spirit of Christ) matter? (Keep in mind 131:7-.

I don't think that light is necessarily matter. I don't equate the light of Christ and the Spirit of Christ.

2.) D&C 84:45 says, â??the word of the Lord is truth...truth is light...light is Spirit...â?. Now does this mean that truth, light, and Spirit are matter? (Keep in mind 131:7,.

I don't think so. I think what it's saying is that those things accompany each other. I see it as wherever you find truth you will find light, and wherever you find light you will find spirit. The next verse says the spirit giveth light. I don't think that necessarily means it is giving itself, but that it endows those who partake in the spirit with a principle intimately associated with the Spirit. D&C 50:24 says that which is of God is light. I think this is not referring exclusively to the spirit, although the spirit would be the vehicle, in a sense. D&C 93:36 says intelligence is light and truth. I don't think this is saying A=A=A.

3.) Intelligence = the light of truth (93:29); Man is spirit and the elements are eternal (93:33) spirit and elements are inseparably connected (93:33) and the elements are the tabernacle of God (93:35). As I pointed out in another thread, Jesus Christ was God before he received a body of flesh and bones (i.e. a tabernacle). Because of this I would argue that the essential nature of Christ is spirit. It is interesting that this essential nature (i.e. spirit) fills â??the immensity of spaceâ? and all â??tabernaclesâ? (i.e. elements).

Two things. First, Jesus had an unfulfilled mission while he was incorporeal, meaning he was not yet complete. After his earthly life he maintained his corporeal state. If it were not an essential element of his being, why would he do that? LDS leaders have also stated that the Holy Ghost will one day have a body. Second, spirit is a more pure manifestation of matter, according to Joseph Smith, so technically Christ has always been material, but he has not always had a tabernacle of flesh.

Now, it seems to me that the non-Mormon Christian conception of God has much more merit than Mormons usually allow it when we consider the above implications. When Christians say that God is â??immaterialâ?, is this concept so far removed from the D&Câ??s concept of spirit/light/God as being something other that the â??elements/tabernaclesâ??

I think the difference is that LDS find the fullness of joy and being in the joining of spirit and element, while Christianity has traditionally shunned the flesh as an impediment to the spirit.

It is important to note that non-Mormon Christians do not deny that God cannot have a body, but what they do deny is that if God chooses dwell in a â??tabernacleâ? the tabernacle is not His essential nature, but rather His essential nature remains spirit.>>

In my research and experiences I have found that most of Christianity (at least that portion with which I have dealt) finds the idea of a corporeal God to be offensive to their sensitivities, as if the flesh is somehow corrupt.

To the above, I would add that if intelligence is in fact an â??attribute or principleâ?, then I have no problem at all in stating that there is a sense in which part of man is â??eternalâ?.

I've got to track down the Improvement Era from August 1916 to find a doctrinal exposition from the First Presidency regarding the doctrine of our intelligences.

[soren]

I would say the concepts are different, but I believe they're artificial. Just because a person can create a distinction between two things does not mean that God possesses the qualities. I believe this argument is begging the question. The need to make this distinction does not exist unless the conclusion is already in place. I find this argument making its way back from the conclusion.

In a way that is true. The doctrine of the incarnation is deducible from the conclusion, which is the faith-proposition that the scriptures are true. It is very provable from scripture that Christ was God, that Christ was man, and that man and God are different. With data like that, we must search for explanation, but also acknowledge limits on our capacity to explain.

So the argument is making its wayback from the conclusion, because the conclusion is established by revelation not argument, and the argument exists to defend it.

But you say that he is infinite in absolutely every capacity. WE find no reason to think that.

I am not familiar with any respect in which you think he is infinite.

Kinda like being 100% God and 100% human. Actually, I think it's exactly like that.

This is profoundly wrong. In fact, thinking that it is a limitation to God if he cannot lie and thinking there is a contradiction in one person with two natures are similar blunders. The common thread is that each depends on not thinking deeply enough about the terms involved. I am convinced most people who see a contradiction in one person and two natures do so because they donâ??t think deeply (or in most cases not at all) about the meanings of person and nature. If one assigns no particular meaning to these words, then they tend to drop out of the picture, leaving the mind to grapple with â??1=2,â? which misses the point completely.

(By the way â??100% God and 100% humanâ? is very inexact language. â??Wholly God and wholly humanâ? is more correct because â??100%â? implies exhautiveness, that is, it sounds as if Christâ??s humanity is his entire identity, which isnâ??t right. The difference is subtle but the consequences down the road are big.)

I think his influence is infinite, spatially, but since I believe in a corporeal God, I believe his body is not. Thus, the scriptures may speak of people leaving his presence.

So it is really not God who is infinite but his influence?

Did they? I invite you to look up the Plotinian Trinity, because that concept of God is what started the Gnostics going, and that was the Greek philosophy most closely related the Christianity.

I already knew about Plotinus, though I have never really studied him. Since he is Third Century, he couldnâ??t have started the Gnostics going, though he did influence them. (Perhaps thatâ??s what you mean.) I think the similarities between the Plotinian â??Trinityâ? and the Christian one are skin-deep, but I will make a study of this subject before commenting more. I am going to read Plotinusâ??s Enneads and get back to you.

He says they are aware of God, not that they understand his nature perfectly. â?¦ Some truth, but not esoteric constructs that speculate on his nature.

Of course, I donâ??t attribute perfect understanding to them. Christianity was needed to provide that. But Paul does not limit himself to saying they knew about his existence. They knew â??even his eternal power and Godhead.â? Thatâ??s a big claim.

Reason is as accessible to the natural man as it is to the Christian. The Greeks had no divinely invested authority, but they could know a lot about God inasmuch as reason can find him out from created things. The metaphysical nature of God is in fact a truth that can be known from reason, and it doesnâ??t matter whether a Greek makes the argument or a Christian or a Muslim. Has it ever occurred to you that your whole dismissal of the Greeks is purely ad hominem? What you are really objecting to is not Greek philosophy as such, but that God can be known by reason.

Besides, there are loads of LDS doctrines that have cognates in pagan philosophy and religion. For instance, the epicureans believed that the soul was made of matter, but was invisible, being more subtle in its nature and organization. Plato argued for the preexistence of souls, Mani and other philosophers taught a concept of good and evil akin to the Law of Opposition. Aristotle thought matter was eternal. Anthropomorphic gods and theomorphic men abound in Greek mythology. Many more examples can be drawn. In fact, the Greek philosophers themselves used the same kinds of arguments against the incarnation that you have been making.

Let me be clear: I donâ??t think the similarities between LDS theology and ancient philosophies are a problem with Mormonism, but I do think you must take care to keep your standards consistent if you will lay such a charge on other faiths.

The Fathers didn't think so. They taught that Plato stole ideas fro Moses and passed them down, not that the Greeks figured anything out on their own.

I recall reading in Augustineâ??s â??City of Godâ? that Plato was instructed by the prophet Jeremiah, but one must remember that this claim was in answer to the charge that Christianity was responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire. Augustine wanted to credit Christianity with as much good as possible to counter this charge. It was a silly argument, but I donâ??t think it amounts to what you say.

And, like I said before, an understand that a God exists who holds us accountable for our sins (which is what I believe Paul is talking about) is a far cry from knowing intimate details about how Christ and the Father are consubstantial.

The relation of Christ and the Father is absolutely not one of the things the Greeks knew (including Plotinus). If you still think that is the claim I am making, you still understand nothing.

And the only reason that irritates anyone is because Greek philosophy considers it an abomination. From Felix:

The vulgar speak of God as a person, but they are wrong. . . . The philosophers, on the other hand, hold very nearly the same opinion of God as we do. Plato's opinion especially is virtually identical to our own.

The only reason? You donâ??t think that any of the biblical texts concerning Godâ??s omnipresence have anything to do with it?

BTW: Who is Felix?

I would like to think so. I just checked out a dozen books from the library on the early Christological controversy. I've decided to get right to work on the paper. I must say, your explanations have made it clear what the point is from which our doctrines diverge.

Let me know when you get your paper done, and also tell me which books you find the most useful. I am just starting grad school and plan to do some research and writing on this subject as well.

[rhinomelon]

Soren, just out of curiosity, which graduate school will you be attending, and in what field? I'm actually starting up MA studies at Catholic University of America in the field of Church History, so we'll see how that goes

And as far as a few fathers writing that various Old Testament figures actually taught the Greeks, I seem to remember Justin Martyr making that argument at some point. I'm not sure if Justin said that the teaching was face-to-face, or if the Greeks just had access to the ancient Hebrew writings, though. For what it's worth.

And excellent points, soren. I really enjoy reading your posts

Take care, everyone

[cdowis]

Soren, just out of curiosity, which graduate school will you be attending, and in what field? I'm actually starting up MA studies at Catholic University of America in the field of Church History, so we'll see how that goes

I think Nibley's "The World and the Prophets" should be required reading. Read the chapters on Augustine, and write a paper on it.

It will blow your professors away.