Irenaeus Of Lyons

[BCSpace]

I have in this very thread. Feel free to address them. There's much more, but to prevent jumping around, we'll see if you can provide an adequate and non-contradictory counter-explaination.

They addressed them by saying they just don't count. As you pointed out, they have yet to offer a better counter-explanation, however.

Indeed.

Because they don't know what they're talking about. I wrote a paper explaining why Latter-day Saints shouldn't waste their time looking for hidden pockets of LDS doctrine in the early Fathers. A revised form of it will be published in BYU's upcoming Student Symposium publication. If you want to read the paper it can be found here:

http://mormonapologetics.org/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=703

I'm still looking for evidence that the ECF don't look more LDS the closer you get to Bible times. I never claimed they were perfectly LDS however.

Plurality of Gods, Anthropomorphic God, Subordinationism, Deification, Free Will, Degrees of Salvation, Preaching the Gospel to the dead, Works required for Salvation, Esoteric rites, Universal Apostasy etc. all factor into ECF doctrine yet generally are not extant at all in traditional (which means nonBiblical) Christianity.

[rhinomelon]

Interesting link, maklelan. I'll read it more in-depth later. As far as CFR for LifeonaPlate, I'll see what I can pull up today. If not, I can always check my bloated book collection back at home!

Take care, everyone

[LifeOnaPlate]

Indeed.

I'm still looking for evidence that the ECF don't look more LDS the closer you get to Bible times. I never claimed they were perfectly LDS however.

Plurality of Gods, Anthropomorphic God, Subordinationism, Deification, Free Will, Degrees of Salvation, Preaching the Gospel to the dead, Works required for Salvation, Esoteric rites, Universal Apostasy etc. all factor into ECF doctrine yet generally are not extant at all in traditional (which means nonBiblical) Christianity.

Indeed, the fact that there are shards is what interests me. To study them completely is better than isolating our favorite selections only, to understand they differed in many points of doctrine as well. Reading those sources is like looking through a cracked glass darkly, but still, sometimes yields some interesting truths.

The inconsistencies in Ireaneus's position as shown within this actual thread is interesting to note, and demonstrates evidence of apostasy.

My point in bringing up quotes by Ireaneus is in response to jason e.'s "discovery" of Ireaneus and his views, and I wished to demonstrate that we can go through practically all the early Christian fathers and find pieces of error and truth. The fact is, the authority of the apostles was gone and the church died on the vine.

Also, I think you gave the apocrypha a worse rap than it deserves. The scripture in D&C says there are truths there, but must be studied with the spirit, and that, ultimately, you'll glean more knowledge from the canonical bible and the other standard works.

[BCSpace]

Origen said: â??Do we acknowledge two Gods?â?

Heraclides said: â??Yes; the power is one.â?

Origen said: â??But since our brethren are shocked by the affirmation that there are two Gods, the

subject must be examined with care in order to show in what respect they are two and in what

respect the two are one God.â?

(The Early Christian Doctrine of God, Dialogue with Heraclides, pg. 68-70)

In one sense there are 3 Gods, but in another sense they are one God.

Yes, the Two Powers doctrine. Origen is far from being the only one on this. Justin Martyr, the Pastor of Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian is almost there (but going the wrong direction), Novatian, Lactantius seems to approve, Eusebius, the scholars Hatch and Danielou concur, etc.

[cksalmon]

Hi LOAP--

First of all, The Seer was denounced by the First Presidency as containing some heretical speculations.

You're right. Pratt's "heretical speculation" was that God does not progress in knowledge.

The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work--the Seer--together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate.

That is an interesting article. I'd recommend reading it, if only for the historical interest it holds. FAIR's quotation of B. H. Roberts here is acontextual and doesn't tell the whole story. Again, Pratt's work was repudiated by the First Presidency because Pratt speculated that God did not progress in knowledge. President Brigham Young quite disagreed.

â??Brother Orson Pratt, has in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithfulâ? (Young, Journal of Discourses 11:286)

President Wilford Woodruff concurred:

â??God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with usâ? (Woodruff, Journal of Discourses 6:120).

FAIR article: The fact that the Church publicly denounced them is simply a bothersome detail they correctly assume most people won't take the time to find out.

I wish the FAIR article would have contextualized the First Presidency's denouncement.

It turns out, though, in this regard, that Brigham Young and the First Presidency were actually the ones teaching heresy--not Pratt.

As Apostle Bruce R. McConkie explained in his talk, "The Seven Deadly Heresies":

â??Heresy #1: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.

This is falseâ??utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it. It grows out of a wholly twisted and incorrect view of the King Follett Sermon and of what is meant by eternal progressionâ?¦

[a joke stricken from most Internet sources] I have been sorely tempted to say at this point that any who so suppose have the intellect of an ant, and the understanding of a clod of miry clay in a primordial swamp. But, of course, I would never say a thing like thatâ?

If BRM is to be trusted on this point of doctrine (and I don't know why he shouldn't be), then history has vindicated Pratt's "speculation" in this regard. He was actually correct while BY was heretical.

However, where is an OFFICIAL SOURCE from the Church, not a speculative work, that claims there are billions [not millions] of Gods?

Given LDS belief about the infinitude of the material universe (spatially and "chronologically") coupled with the Law of Eternal Progression, to my mind, even "billions" of Gods is a conservative estimate. I don't see this as a strike against the LDS faith in and of itself. And I really don't see much point in distinguishing between millions of gods, on the one hand, and billions, on the other.

President Young preached the following:

How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity. You cannot comprehend this; but when you can, it will be to you a matter of great consolation (Journal of Discourses 7:333)

To my mind, it follows logically from this sort of reasoning that the number of gods is without number. But, as we've seen, Young is not the most reliable source of doctrine. And, of course, JoD is neither canonical nor official. Given certain assumptions, however (e.g., the infinitude of the universe and God's exemplary desire to make us like hiimself), I think one can deduce the numberless number of gods, so to speak, from Gospel Principles.

I, for one, would be glad if some LDS leader pronounced the "many gods" theology heretical and instructed Latter-day Saints to reject it. I don't believe that will happen, however, given the centrality of the Law of Eternal Progression to LDS thought.

Best.

CKS

[PacMan]

jason e,

bcspace;

you speak like the bible cleary teaches there are many gods (and not the lords sense but actual gods who are getting prayed to and the like). there is a huge burden of proof resting on you as the new (you) answers to the old, so please present your verses and context that supposedly prove the fact there are many gods. thanks.

Let me...

What about Psalms?

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High.

(Oh...please say what I think you're going to...)

PacMan

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi LOAP--

You're right. Pratt's "heretical speculation" was that God does not progress in knowledge.

That is an interesting article. I'd recommend reading it, if only for the historical interest it holds. FAIR's quotation of B. H. Roberts here is acontextual and doesn't tell the whole story. Again, Pratt's work was repudiated by the First Presidency because Pratt speculated that God did not progress in knowledge. President Brigham Young quite disagreed.

President Wilford Woodruff concurred:

I wish the FAIR article would have contextualized the First Presidency's denouncement.

It turns out, though, in this regard, that Brigham Young and the First Presidency were actually the ones teaching heresy--not Pratt.

As Apostle Bruce R. McConkie explained in his talk, "The Seven Deadly Heresies":

If BRM is to be trusted on this point of doctrine (and I don't know why he shouldn't be), then history has vindicated Pratt's "speculation" in this regard. He was actually correct while BY was heretical.

Given LDS belief about the infinitude of the material universe (spatially and "chronologically") coupled with the Law of Eternal Progression, to my mind, even "billions" of Gods is a conservative estimate. I don't see this as a strike against the LDS faith in and of itself. And I really don't see much point in distinguishing between millions of gods, on the one hand, and billions, on the other.

President Young preached the following:

To my mind, it follows logically from this sort of reasoning that the number of gods is without number. But, as we've seen, Young is not the most reliable source of doctrine. And, of course, JoD is neither canonical nor official. Given certain assumptions, however (e.g., the infinitude of the universe and God's exemplary desire to make us like hiimself), I think one can deduce the numberless number of gods, so to speak, from Gospel Principles.

I, for one, would be glad if some LDS leader pronounced the "many gods" theology heretical and instructed Latter-day Saints to reject it. I don't believe that will happen, however, given the centrality of the Law of Eternal Progression to LDS thought.

Best.

CKS

The Seer had more wrong with it than ideas of God progressing.

That being said, Elder McConkie is in line with the teaching of Pres. Woodruff, in the regard that God progresses by progressing his children. His knowledge of all things is requisite to Him being God, indeed, the eternal laws that He masters, and either Woodruff was speaking of progression in terms of advancement of His children (ie; because we become one with God, and we continue to learn, etc.) or Woodruff was wrong, or I misunderstand Woodruff. Either way, it doesn't matter to me.

You strain at these gnats yet swallow the camel of the Trinity part and parcel.

[cksalmon]

Hi LOAP--

The Seer had more wrong with it than ideas of God progressing.

There was the matter of spiritual atomism. Is that what you're thinking of?

That being said, Elder McConkie is in line with the teaching of Pres. Woodruff, in the regard that God progresses by progressing his children.

Woodruff: "God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge"

McConkie: "There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths. This is falseâ??utterly, totally, and completely."

McConkie's statement is in direct contradiction to Woodruff's. The two statements are oppositional rather than congruous.

either Woodruff was speaking of progression in terms of advancement of His children

Neither Woodruff nor, more importantly, Brigham Young were speaking "in terms of advancement of His children."

Woodruff was wrong

Yes, it would seem that both Woodruff and Brigham Young held and espoused what would later be labeled heresy.

You strain at these gnats yet swallow the camel of the Trinity part and parcel.

One man's gnat is another's camel, I suppose.

Best.

CKS

[BCSpace]

Let me...

What about Psalms?

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High.

(Oh...please say what I think you're going to...)

PacMan

He probably won't say anything at all other than to deflect. It's to his advantage to steer the conversation away from the scriptures, away from actual LDS doctrine, and away from history as he doesn't have a leg to stand on in this debate.

[David Waltz]

Hi CK,

I am a bit behind, so please excuse the tardiness of my response; you posted:

>>As you know, Irenaeus completely rejected the idea of "intermediate creators or gods," and consistently wrote against Gnosticism.

From his Against Heresies:

QUOTE

1. It is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.

For some LDS here, this won't land with the force with which Irenaeus intended it, simply because they view "God" as a titular distinction rather than a description of exclusive and inherent God-making properties.>>

Me: You are technically correct; however, your assessment needs some qualifications: first, â??the one Godâ? for Irenaeus was God the Father (Irenaeus, to my finite knowledge, never applies the term â??the one Godâ? to anyone but the Father); second, Irenaeus, as all the CFâ??s prior to Nicea, were subordinationists; third, Irenaeus clearly affirmed that the term â??Godâ? can be applied to the deified saints, His apopted Sons, and as such, calls them â??Godsâ?.

Grace and peace,

David

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi LOAP--

There was the matter of spiritual atomism. Is that what you're thinking of?

Woodruff: "God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge"

McConkie: "There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths. This is falseâ??utterly, totally, and completely."

McConkie's statement is in direct contradiction to Woodruff's. The two statements are oppositional rather than congruous.

Neither Woodruff nor, more importantly, Brigham Young were speaking "in terms of advancement of His children."

Yes, it would seem that both Woodruff and Brigham Young held and espoused what would later be labeled heresy.

One man's gnat is another's camel, I suppose.

Best.

CKS

Your selective response to my post perfectly demonstrates your method of selective argument, learning, research. You will cling to only that which supports your line of reasoning, no matter what else is on the page. You have no problem with isolating quotes and taking them out of context, or making them say what you think they ought to say. And you are capable of this selective editing in a few paragraphs on the internet. God Himself knows what you can do with this type of "research" in an entire discourse or book.

This phenomenon was also demonstrated in the original post, taking something Ireaneus said and isolating it to prove a point, rather than comprehensively dissecting Ireaneus's beliefs or works. When anything is proved to the contrary we see a wonderful exhibit of smoke and mirrors, a red herring is introduced or another point focused on.

Remember this: You seem to believe if we can find one prophet or apostle making a doctrinal mistake we have at once proven them to be, and with them the Church, false.

This approach may work on someone who believes in things like the infallibility of the demonstratably fallible Bible, but bounces off most Latter-day Saints like water off a ducks back.

[David Waltz]

Hello again CK,

You posted:

>>Do you hold a belief in the eternal generation of the Son? If not, how is your interpretation of LDS "monotheism" not functionally tantamount to bi- or tritheism?>>

Me: Although you directed the above to Latter-day Saints, I would like to offer some comments.

First, Unitarians (Arians, Socinians, Jews, Moslems, et al.) accuse (and not without some justification) Trinitarians of Tritheism. The fact that Trinitarians maintain that 3 separate, distinct, persons are all God, opens the door to such criticism.

Once again, the issue between â??historicâ? Trinitarians (the varying forms is another issue that needs to be explored) and most Latter-day Saints must be centered on 3 WHOs and 1 WHAT.

When Trinitarians (post-Augustinian) speak of â??one Godâ? they are not referring to a PERSON, but rather, are speaking of ontology/nature, and maintain that 3 PERSONS share in this â??oneâ? divinity.

Most Latter-day Saints hold the view that many more PERSONS are partakers of this â??oneâ? divinity (the number of which is essentially irrelevant to the main discussion). Though â??traditionalâ? Trinitarians sense a taint of polytheism with the popular LDS view, we need to be very with such labels, for our Unitarians friends are lying in wait with their â??one Godâ? two-by-four!

Grace and peace,

David

[cksalmon]

Your selective response to my post perfectly demonstrates your method of selective argument, learning, research. You will cling to only that which supports your line of reasoning, no matter what else is on the page. You have no problem with isolating quotes and taking them out of context, or making them say what you think they ought to say. And you are capable of this selective editing in a few paragraphs on the internet. God Himself knows what you can do with this type of "research" in an entire discourse or book.

Hi LOAP--

I was curious about why you felt I'd only selectively responded, so I went back and looked.

Your post follows below. I've lined through those portions to which I think I've already responded.

The Seer had more wrong with it than ideas of God progressing. [i suggested spiritual atomism as something else that was wrong and asked if that's perhaps what you were thinking of, but you didn't respond. I don't mind.--CKS]That being said, Elder McConkie is in line with the teaching of Pres. Woodruff [brigham Young seems to have been dropped from your response. I don't mind that you didn't respond to that.--CKS]in the regard that God progresses by progressing his children. His knowledge of all things is requisite to Him being God, indeed, the eternal laws that He masters, and either Woodruff was speaking of progression in terms of advancement of His children (ie; because we become one with God, and we continue to learn, etc.) or Woodruff was wrong, or I misunderstand Woodruff. Either way, it doesn't matter to me.

You strain at these gnats yet swallow the camel of the Trinity part and parcel.

You're correct, I suppose, in that I didn't respond to absolutely every single word you wrote, and I certainly don't mind doing so. Frankly, though, the comments to which I didn't specfically respond really didn't seem pertinent to my own response.

I certainly don't mind responding:

LOAP: "His knowledge of all things is requisite to Him being God, indeed, the eternal laws that He masters."

Me: Okay. I don't think he mastered any eternal laws, personally, but I understand why and that you believe that.

LOAP: "or I misunderstand Woodruff"

Me: If you believe McConkie's comments re: "Heresy #1" are congruous with Pres. Woodruff's statement that God progresses in knowledge, then I would suggest you have misunderstood Woodruff--in this instance at least.

LOAP: "Either way, it doesn't matter to me"

Me: Okay.

LOAP: "yet swallow the camel of the Trinity part and parcel"

Me: I might have written "swallowed [...] whole," I think, but I definitely understand what you're saying. I would say that belief in the Trinity is "part and parcel" of traditional Christian orthodoxy. Either way, you've got me pegged. I am a traditional trinitarian.

Your selective response to my post perfectly demonstrates your method of selective argument, learning, research.

By way of comparison, let me briefly point something out: in my post, in response to which your statement directly above was written (and which was informally fallacious, BTW ), I mentioned quite a few things that passed without comment in your reply.

(1) the Brigham Young quotation

(2) the charge of heresy by BRM, specifically

(3) the "chronological" and spatial infinitude of the LDS universe

(4) why I think one might reasonably infer from GP and (3) that the gods are numberless

(5) my wish that FAIR had contextualized the B. H. Roberts's quotation

(6) my hope that the "many gods" theology would eventually be rejected by LDS

It would seem that your response was a bit selective as well. But, I don't mind, frankly. I assume that you choose to comment on the things that most interest you and/or those things that you feel the need to clarify. That's what I do, at any rate, and I assume that others are a bit like me in that regard.

We certainly can't respond to each and every word in one another's posts. That would be endless!

Remember this: You seem to believe if we can find one prophet or apostle making a doctrinal mistake we have at once proven them to be, and with them the Church, false.

But, of course, I don't believe that at all. To affirm such would be logically fallacious.

My best to you.

CKS

PS. At the risk of being accused again of selective response, let me state for the record that I'm intentionally not responding to the personal insults in your most recent post.

These:

You will cling to only that which supports your line of reasoning, no matter what else is on the page. You have no problem with isolating quotes and taking them out of context, or making them say what you think they ought to say. And you are capable of this selective editing in a few paragraphs on the internet. God Himself knows what you can do with this type of "research" in an entire discourse or book.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi LOAP--

I was curious about why you felt I'd only selectively responded, so I went back and looked.

Your post follows below. I've lined through those portions to which I think I've already responded.

You're correct, I suppose, in that I didn't respond to absolutely every single word you wrote, and I certainly don't mind doing so. Frankly, though, the comments to which I didn't specfically respond really didn't seem pertinent to my own response.

I certainly don't mind responding:

LOAP: "His knowledge of all things is requisite to Him being God, indeed, the eternal laws that He masters."

Me: Okay. I don't think he mastered any eternal laws, personally, but I understand why and that you believe that.

LOAP: "or I misunderstand Woodruff"

Me: If you believe McConkie's comments re: "Heresy #1" are congruous with Pres. Woodruff's statement that God progresses in knowledge, then I would suggest you have misunderstood Woodruff--in this instance at least.

LOAP: "Either way, it doesn't matter to me"

Me: Okay.

LOAP: "yet swallow the camel of the Trinity part and parcel"

Me: I might have written "swallowed [...] whole," I think, but I definitely understand what you're saying. I would say that belief in the Trinity is "part and parcel" of traditional Christian orthodoxy. Either way, you've got me pegged. I am a traditional trinitarian.

By way of comparison, let me briefly point something out: in my post, in response to which your statement directly above was written (and which was informally fallacious, BTW ), I mentioned quite a few things that passed without comment in your reply.

(1) the Brigham Young quotation

(2) the charge of heresy by BRM, specifically

(3) the "chronological" and spatial infinitude of the LDS universe

(4) why I think one might reasonably infer from GP and (3) that the gods are numberless

(5) my wish that FAIR had contextualized the B. H. Roberts's quotation

(6) my hope that the "many gods" theology would eventually be rejected by LDS

It would seem that your response was a bit selective as well. But, I don't mind, frankly. I assume that you choose to comment on the things that most interest you and/or those things that you feel the need to clarify. That's what I do, at any rate, and I assume that others are a bit like me in that regard.

We certainly can't respond to each and every word in one another's posts. That would be endless!

But, of course, I don't believe that at all. To affirm such would be logically fallacious.

My best to you.

CKS

PS. At the risk of being accused again of selective response, let me state for the record that I'm intentionally not responding to the personal insults in your most recent post.

These:

You can accuse me of being picky and I can accuse you of being lazy. In the end it seems to be a battle of personal opinion. I do not believe in the Trinitarian view of God, and you misunderstand the LDS implications on the nature of God. It's pretty cut and dry.

[cksalmon]

Hi again, LOAP--

You can accuse me of being picky and I can accuse you of being lazy. In the end it seems to be a battle of personal opinion.

But, of course, I didn't accuse you of being picky. I stated and demonstrated that you responded to my post selectively. As you've patently done again with your most recent response. And so what? It doesn't bother me, frankly. I do find it odd, though, that you (i) accuse me (without any sort of reasonable justification) of selectively responding to you, (ii) fallaciously conclude from that premise that my supposed selective response "demonstrates [my] method of selective argument, learning, research," and then (iii) conspicuously avoid responding to the bulk of my last three posts.

On the other hand, you manifestly did accuse me of (1) laziness, (2) willful ignorance ("You will cling to only that which supports your line of reasoning, no matter what else is on the page"), (3) a lack of integrity ("You have no problem with isolating quotes and taking them out of context, or making them say what you think they ought to say"), and you strongly implied that I am unable to engage in honest "research" ("God Himself knows what you can do with this type of 'research' in an entire discourse or book").

I do not believe in the Trinitarian view of God, and you misunderstand the LDS implications on the nature of God. It's pretty cut and dry.

I'd very much like for you to list the implications you feel I have misunderstood. Perhaps then we discuss my misunderstandings, rather than my horrible self.

Best.

CKS

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi again, LOAP--

But, of course, I didn't accuse you of being picky. I stated and demonstrated that you responded to my post selectively. As you've patently done again with your most recent response. And so what? It doesn't bother me, frankly. I do find it odd, though, that you (i) accuse me (without any sort of reasonable justification) of selectively responding to you, (ii) fallaciously conclude from that premise that my supposed selective response "demonstrates [my] method of selective argument, learning, research," and then (iii) conspicuously avoid responding to the bulk of my last three posts.

On the other hand, you manifestly did accuse me of (1) laziness, (2) willful ignorance ("You will cling to only that which supports your line of reasoning, no matter what else is on the page"), (3) a lack of integrity ("You have no problem with isolating quotes and taking them out of context, or making them say what you think they ought to say"), and you strongly implied that I am unable to engage in honest "research" ("God Himself knows what you can do with this type of 'research' in an entire discourse or book").

I'd very much like for you to list the implications you feel I have misunderstood. Perhaps then we discuss my misunderstandings, rather than my horrible self.

Best.

CKS

This method of argument is very frustrating, eh? Do you feel like I just don't understand your point of view, and that I really believe I do, and yet I refuse to see it as it is?

Frustration!

[cksalmon]

Hi David,

As ever, I greatly appreciate your careful and insightful response here.

When Trinitarians (post-Augustinian) speak of "one God" they are not referring to a PERSON, but rather, are speaking of ontology/nature, and maintain that 3 PERSONS share in this "one" divinity.

One seems to see hints of this view in Tertullian as well via his notion of a countable distinctio or dispositio of an indivisible power ("essence"?); with regard to what is fundamentally shared among the manifestations, however, no separatio is in view for Tertullian.

Most Latter-day Saints hold the view that many more PERSONS are partakers of this "one" divinity (the number of which is essentially irrelevant to the main discussion).

Framed in this manner, the similarity is striking. The main difference I'd pinpoint would be that the three persons of the LDS Godhead have spatio-temporal coordinates. To my mind, this makes the notions of trinitarian coinherence and inseparability difficult to conceptualize. But, of course, no more difficult--or, perhaps better, it becomes difficult in a different way--for one attempting to conceptualize the way in which the same concepts obtain among the unembodied persons of the pre-Incarnational Trinity.

Of course, traditional Christians have their embodied Son as well. I hadn't really thought much of it before, but I suppose that if one must posit hypothetical spatio-temporal coordinates for post-resurrection trinitarian coinherence and inseparability, the material body of Christ would be the default choice. What's your take on this?

I'm no gnostic. I'm firmly committed to Christ's post-resurrection, post-ascension embodiment. Christ exists in a material form somewhere--well, perhaps, not somewhere, but somehow. I'm largely in line with Bishop of Durham NT Wright's understanding that the divine space is here among us, invisible for now, but not somewhere else (e.g., Kolob).

...

Still, I believe LDS want to claim more than simply that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in the same class of beings (divinized persons) and more than that they merely agree with each other about all relevant aspects of their divine oversight of creation.

I think you're absolutely correct to warn against a collapsing of the persons into some sort of unitarian schema. The line between traditional Christian trinitarianism and heretical unitarianism is razor-thin, to be sure. And that potential collapse is made much easier by virtue of the unembodied nature of the Father and Spirit. Even if, at the same time, the notion of coinherence is made easier as well.

I'm always interested in your thoughts. Thanks for commenting.

Best to you.

CKS

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi David,

As ever, I greatly appreciate your careful and insightful response here.

One seems to see hints of this view in Tertullian as well via his notion of a countable distinctio or dispositio of an indivisible power ("essence"?); with regard to what is fundamentally shared among the manifestations, however, no separatio is in view for Tertullian.

Framed in this manner, the similarity is striking. The main difference I'd pinpoint would be that the three persons of the LDS Godhead have spatio-temporal coordinates. To my mind, this makes the notions of trinitarian coinherence and inseparability difficult to conceptualize. But, of course, no more difficult--or, perhaps better, it becomes difficult in a different way--for one attempting to conceptualize the way in which the same concepts obtain among the unembodied persons of the pre-Incarnational Trinity.

None of it is difficult to grasp when it is simply understood that God, His Son, and the Spirit hold the same priesthood, are united in all things, including love, and that unity is the key to living with God again. It is simple enough for a child to understand, a Father and His Son, united in every way.

Christ plainly spelled out the notion of oneness in His great intercessory prayer in John 17:

1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be bone, as we are.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are bone:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the clove wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

We aren't to assume that the apostles were to literally become a part of God in substance, perhaps there is a different explanation for this prayer: the one restored by the prophet Joseph Smith.

[journeyman]

so im reading leo donald davis' book "the first seven ecumenical councils 325-787; their history and theology," and he quotes irenaeus of loyns, the first theologian who attempted to refute the gnostic christians and their cliams (as made by the like of the valentinuns and marcion) that there were at least 2 gods.

irenaeus says,

"either there must be one god who contains all things and has made every creature according to his will, or there must be many interminate creators or gods... but in this case we shall have to aknowledge that none of them is god. for each of them... will be defective in comparison ith the rest, and the title 'almighty' will not be reduced to naught." pg. 39

he seems to bring up a good point that im sure has already been adressed. what say you?

"And he must, as a satanist, knowing this, realizing what his human potential is eventually, and here is one of the essential points of satanism---attain his own godhead in accordance with his own potential. Therefore, each man, each women, is a god or goddess in satanism."

--Anton LaVey, The Revival of Evil documentary

I also think that it is interesting that Satan is the one that says we will be a god, in the garden of eden...

I am not saying that Mormons believe in Satan but the idea of humans becoming gods comes from the occultic and satanic teachings.

[urroner]

"And he must, as a satanist, knowing this, realizing what his human potential is eventually, and here is one of the essential points of satanism---attain his own godhead in accordance with his own potential. Therefore, each man, each women, is a god or goddess in satanism."

--Anton LaVey, The Revival of Evil documentary

I also think that it is interesting that Satan is the one that says we will be a god, in the garden of eden...

I am not saying that Mormons believe in Satan but the idea of humans becoming gods comes from the occultic and satanic teachings.

Did the serpent say that Adam and Eve would be gods if they partook of the fruit or that they would be "as gods, knowing good and evil?" There is a difference between being someone and having a certain characteristic of someone.

Journeyman, wouldn't you agree to that?

[Daniel Peterson]

the idea of humans becoming gods comes from the occultic and satanic teachings.

It also comes from the Bible and from the early Church Fathers.

You've committed at least two logical errors: (1) "P, therefore Q," does not entail "Q, therefore P." And (2) "All A are X" does not entail "All X are A."

To illustrate:

(1a) "Bullet holes through the brain cause death. George Washington is dead. Therefore, he must have been shot through the brain." (George Washington could have died from any number of other causes, and, in fact, was not fatally shot.)

(1b) "Satan teaches that humans can become like God. Brigham Fielding Pratt believes that humans can become like God. Therefore he must have been taught by Satan." (Several other sources besides Satanism teach that humans can become like God -- notably the early Greek, Syriac, and Latin Fathers, most of them considered orthodox and many of them canonized as saints, to say nothing of the Bible itself. B. F. Pratt could, accordingly, easily have received his instruction from some source other than Satan.)

(2a) "All squirrels are mammals. Therefore, all mammals are squirrels." (Some mammals -- e.g., bunny rabbits, Fido, and your Aunt Bertha -- are plainly not squirrels.)

(2b) "All followers of Satan believe that humans can become like God. Therefore, all who believe that humans can become like God are followers of Satan." (Some believers in the notion of humans becoming like God are generally regarded as Christian saints, not as followers of Satan. If you have evidence to demonstrate otherwise, it's urgently important that you present it to the Christian world.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

"And he must, as a satanist, knowing this, realizing what his human potential is eventually, and here is one of the essential points of satanism---attain his own godhead in accordance with his own potential. Therefore, each man, each women, is a god or goddess in satanism."

--Anton LaVey, The Revival of Evil documentary

I also think that it is interesting that Satan is the one that says we will be a god, in the garden of eden...

I am not saying that Mormons believe in Satan but the idea of humans becoming gods comes from the occultic and satanic teachings.

While DCP coherently and decisively demonstrated your logical fallacies, I thought I'd encourage you to read the whole chapter next time, and not just selections in an anti-Mormon tract:

The scriptures you select: Genesis 3:4-5

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die[a lie]: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.[truth.]

Continue until the end of the chapter:

Verse 22:

"And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us to know good and evil."

[jason e.]

jason e,

Let me...

What about Psalms?

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are achildren of the most High.

(Oh...please say what I think you're going to...)

PacMan

These are divinely appointed judges, at least thats what Talmage said;

"8 Divinely Appointed Judges, Called 'gods'-in Psalm 82:6, judges invested by appointment are called 'gods.' To this scripture the Saivor referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomon' porch. Judges so authorized officiated as the representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title 'gods.' Compare the similar appellation applied to Moses (Exodus 4:16, 7:1) Jesus Christ possesed divine authoritazation, not through the word of God transmitted to Him by man, but as an inherant atribute. The inconsistency of calling human judges 'gods,' and of ascribing blasphemy to the Christ who called Himself the Son of God, would have been apparent to the Jews but for their sin-darkened minds." (Jesus the Christ, 32nd ed. pg. 501)

[jason e.]

pac man where have you gone?

[LifeOnaPlate]

pac man where have you gone?

I know how you feel; I miss journeyman. And CK never responds, either.