Incoherency of Mainstream Christology

[ChristKnight]

Yes, they would have come from the CK or hevean. In LDS thought hevean in the general sence of the word is the CK.

Well I can live with that.

Thank you for being candid in your responce. It is debatable weather the Father has a phsycial body and a point that I don't want to debate here.

It sounds as if you have a great understanding of LDS beliefs.

I have one other point for your consideration. Did Jesus ever loose his physical body? If this is the case do you use a biblical refrence for this thought? Thanks.

I will explaine once you have clarified your position.

Thank you. I am somewhat familiar with LDS doctrines, having browsed the LDS.org and mormon.org websites, as well as Jeff Lindsay and random articles from the Maxwell Institute.

No, Jesus did not lose His physical body. He was bodily resurrected, and bodily ascended to Heaven. It is in this that we see the image of our own resurrection and hopefully our own eternal life in Heaven.

[ChristKnight]

Also, a quick Google search of "Trinity water analogy" shows that many that use it and/or say that it is fallacious do not use the same analogy as I do. For them, water in a bucket may appear as ice, liquid, or steam, depending. This is more modalistic, since it is essentially saying that water cannot be ice, liquid and steam at the same time. This is a completely different analogy than the one I am using, since mine does not say that the water is simultaneously ice, liquid and steam, which is physically and chemically impossible.

[Mudcat]

Is there a verse of scirpture that tells us specifically taht one cannot know the nature of God or that it is incomprehendable?

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

as well as the origins of the Son (from my understanding, LDS believe that Jesus is the firstborn of the Father's spirit children, though that is so far back that the concept of "time" or "beginning" of Jesus is irrelevant. Perhaps someone could explain that better than me, haha).

I wanted to touch upon this a little bit. This is part of LDS theology that is difficult to understand as we are talking about "eteral" aspects here.

It is LDS theology and doctrine that all of us are eternal and have always exsisted. In a sence we are created and in anther we are not. Did we always have a phsyical body? No. Will we ever loose that phsycial body? No. Could it be said in a certain sense then that we will always have a phsyical body and that our phsycial body is eternal even though we havn't always had one?

My head hurts to even think about it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

One could interpret those verse that way. Thanks Mud.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Also, a quick Google search of "Trinity water analogy" shows that many that use it and/or say that it is fallacious do not use the same analogy as I do. For them, water in a bucket may appear as ice, liquid, or steam, depending. This is more modalistic, since it is essentially saying that water cannot be ice, liquid and steam at the same time. This is a completely different analogy than the one I am using, since mine does not say that the water is simultaneously ice, liquid and steam, which is physically and chemically impossible.

The above quote is indeed modalism.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thank you. I am somewhat familiar with LDS doctrines, having browsed the LDS.org and mormon.org websites, as well as Jeff Lindsay and random articles from the Maxwell Institute.

No, Jesus did not lose His physical body. He was bodily resurrected, and bodily ascended to Heaven. It is in this that we see the image of our own resurrection and hopefully our own eternal life in Heaven.

I didn't think you believed that Jesus lost his body but some people do hold that belief.

Is your main contention about the Father not having a physical body, is it just that the bible doesn't say "God has a physical body"? I am aware of the verse of scripture about "God is a spirit".

It would seem that having a phsycial body doesn't disqualify one form the Godhead as Jesus has a body.

[changed]

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 13:12)

God is not unknowable, just temporarily unknown.

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

(New Testament | John 17:3)

[ChristKnight]

I didn't think you believed that Jesus lost his body but some people do hold that belief.

Is your main contention about the Father not having a physical body, is it just that the bible doesn't say "God has a physical body"? I am aware of the verse of scripture about "God is a spirit".

It would seem that having a phsycial body doesn't disqualify one form the Godhead as Jesus has a body.

Right, well for Catholics, we don't see any Biblical evidence that the Father has a body of flesh and bones. The verses that LDS see as pointing to the physicality of God are interpreted as metaphors in traditional Trinitarianism. So, it isn't really that having a physical body disqualifies one from the Godhead, but that we don't see that belief as being taught in the Bible, or among the early Church fathers. Also, we know that Jesus incarnated on earth, and that is how He received His physical body (glorified after the resurrection of course). So, if the Father also has a body of flesh and bones, it would seem to be logical that He also incarnated at some point to receive His, at least if we're following the same reasoning as to how it occurred for Jesus. Well, that's pretty controversial, and of course would be an entire new thread.

[ChristKnight]

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 13:12)

God is not unknowable, just temporarily unknown.

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

(New Testament | John 17:3)

Yes, we will be able to see God and fully know Him in the afterlife. It is just that our limited human brains cannot fully comprehend the Eternal. The beatific vision is what this is for Catholics, the immediate knowledge and vision of God.

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it thus:

"The immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven. It is called "vision" to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life. And since in beholding God face to face the created intelligence finds perfect happiness, the vision is termed "beatific""

[changed]

No problem! Just remember, always go to official sources for what others believe, as that quote from Facebook was very...off.

The people on FB may not have been Catholic, just random Christians coming spouting off about how Mormons worship a different God than we do etc. etc.

Catholics do not believe that God is "nothingness" or "without substance" (I admit I am a little confused with those terms).

so, what substance do you believe He is made out of? What does He look like?

many times we say that the Holy Spirit speaks to us. Does the Holy Spirit have a mouth?

Actually the Holy Spirit does have a mouth. Spirits are in the same form as the body they will someday inhabit. Before we came to Earth, our Spirits looked like we look now - fingers / toes/ legs / arms etc. etc.

"What was the form of man, in the spirit and in the body, as originally created? All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity. God created man in His own image. This is just as true of the spirit as it is of the body, which is only the clothing of the spirit, its complementthe two together constituting the soul."

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=55bf8c6a47e0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

The image and likeness of God is also interpreted differently. Many may say that I am the image of my father. Do they always mean that I look like him? Not always. However, they may also say that I have the same temperament as him, a similar mindset, etc. That is more of the Catholic view of that.

It does seem that mankind's temperment is not in the image of God though ... natural man an enemy of God... The entire prob down here is that we do not have the same mindset/temperment of God, so image must mean something else IMO.

We also believe that many did indeed see God, Jesus Christ. And of course God certainly is not imaginary.

Just curious, we see Jesus as a God, but we only pray to our Father in Heaven (in the name of Jesus, not to Jesus). Do you only pray to Heavenly Father? or do you pray to all three at once? just curious.

[changed]

Now, as to Joseph Smith's First Vision, that gets a little more complex for me. When the Father and the Son came down to JS, were they also in Heaven/Celestial Kingdom? As in, did they leave the Celestial Kingdom to visit JS, or were they there as well?

Is God all-present?

There are scripts saying God comes / goes - ascends/decends

example

33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham:

(Old Testament | Genesis 18:33)

I don't think time applies to God...

8 Now whether there is more than one atime appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 40: 8 )

You know how Hermoine in Harry Potter has the little time device that allows her to be in multiple classes all at the same time? LOL! I think it might be something similar with God. He is not confined with time, and can therefore be multiple places at the same time. JMO though. without time, it makes no sense to try and figure out where he was when - there is no "when" for God.

[maklelan]

Sorry, I missed your post among the multitude of others.

No worries.

Actually, this is incorrect, because you are misinterpreting my water analogy, since it seems that others have correctly interpreting what I am presenting. It is not that water, steam, and ice are existing simultaneously in and of themselves. As I presented it, there is a table. On that table is a cup of water, a bowl of ice, and water vapor in the air. This is a closed system at equilibrium,

No, it's not a closed system. So many different outside forces are operating on these three entirely different objects, it's not at all closed.

which will account for any nit picking by saying that ice is melting and water is evaporating.

I never said anything about the substances changing.

What is the "one substance"? It is two hydrogen atoms and one water atom, or H2O. Therefore, we have three separate, distinct things on the table (water, ice, vapor), yet they all obviously are H2O.

But they are not unified in substance, they are only unified taxonomically. It's the same as saying the sock, the shirt, and the dollar bill illustrate the Trinity because they are all 100% cotton. Unity in substance means the same ontological substance, not the same kind of substance. Dave and Dan are made up of the same substance, but they are not concsubstantial. This is why Athanasius says "neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance." You've greatly misunderstood consubstantiality.

The substance is not divided. To understand this analogy, we must also acknowledge that God does not have an origin, or a beginning. Therefore, in the water analogy, I did not pour water in a cup, etc. It was just there, in this system. Related to the Trinity, we believe that the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God. They are not 1/3 God each. Likewise, water is fully H2O, ice is fully H2O, and vapor is fully H2O. When Jesus incarnated on Earth, He was not 1/2 God, and 1/3 of God was not present on earth. Jesus was literally God on earth, not partly God on earth, emphasizing the fullness of Divinity in Him.

Nor was he divided into three different containers. They were all in one, according to Trinitarianism. The substances are divided, whether you assert a closed system or not, and therefore the union broken.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Right, well for Catholics, we don't see any Biblical evidence that the Father has a body of flesh and bones. The verses that LDS see as pointing to the physicality of God are interpreted as metaphors in traditional Trinitarianism. So, it isn't really that having a physical body disqualifies one from the Godhead, but that we don't see that belief as being taught in the Bible, or among the early Church fathers. Also, we know that Jesus incarnated on earth, and that is how He received His physical body (glorified after the resurrection of course). So, if the Father also has a body of flesh and bones, it would seem to be logical that He also incarnated at some point to receive His, at least if we're following the same reasoning as to how it occurred for Jesus. Well, that's pretty controversial, and of course would be an entire new thread.

You bring up an awesome point. What if the Father had done what Christ had done? Perhaps on a different earth?

(I am trying to not make this sound conry so bare with me.)

Or that Jesus did only what He saw His Father do.

Consider this verse of scripture.

John 5:19

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

This verse of scripture seems to have some very deep implicatings running through it.

"What did Jesus do". One might ask. He came down was born and recieved a phsycical body died and then was resurrected.

Reason stands that the Father did this also as "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do".

What do you think?

[blueadept]

Just curious, we see Jesus as a God, but we only pray to our Father in Heaven (in the name of Jesus, not to Jesus). Do you only pray to Heavenly Father? or do you pray to all three at once? just curious.

From Is 44:6 I am the first, I am the last, besides me there is no other........

you add the thought of God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit.....with the understanding that there is only one God..........

You add what Thomas said, "My Lord and My God".........we do not have the issue of making sure we are addressing the correct being as LDS need to keep straight........they are one and the same for us.

I've understood what LDS sees in the 1st Vision, it's still the one item I prefer not to be displayed in my home. My wife has the same hang up with the crucifix.......so I guess it's even.

[ChristKnight]

The people on FB may not have been Catholic, just random Christians coming spouting off about how Mormons worship a different God than we do etc. etc.

Ahh okay. Their statement on God was very weird.

so, what substance do you believe He is made out of? What does He look like?

God is made of the Divine substance, whatever that is. As far as what God looks like, we know (or at least know a lot about) what Jesus Christ looked/looks like, as He incarnated. However, we do not know what the Father "looks like", especially since this implies a physicality that is apparent when we discuss what Jesus looks like, as He incarnated. Likewise, we don't know what the Holy Spirit looks like.

Actually the Holy Spirit does have a mouth. Spirits are in the same form as the body they will someday inhabit. Before we came to Earth, our Spirits looked like we look now - fingers / toes/ legs / arms etc. etc.

"What was the form of man, in the spirit and in the body, as originally created? All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity. â??God created man in His own image.â? This is just as true of the spirit as it is of the body, which is only the clothing of the spirit, its complementâ??the two together constituting the soul."

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=55bf8c6a47e0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

I think this gets into speculation that we just don't know about (i.e., this is where I can comfortably say that we don't know). For example, do spirits also have vocal cords to speak? What about lungs? Do we breathe? If souls have fingers and legs, do they have nails, which are mostly dead skin? What about hair? If spirits look like us, what age do they look like? Is this the same for everyone? Therefore, in areas such as that, we choose not to say, because we do not know.

It does seem that mankind's temperment is not in the image of God though ... natural man an enemy of God... The entire prob down here is that we do not have the same mindset/temperment of God, so image must mean something else IMO.

I think these websites give a good, brief overview of what we see as the "image and likeness of God" in relation to humans:

http://home.att.net/~jamspsu84/ttocimage.html

http://www.antiochian.org/image-and-likeness

Just curious, we see Jesus as a God, but we only pray to our Father in Heaven (in the name of Jesus, not to Jesus). Do you only pray to Heavenly Father? or do you pray to all three at once? just curious.

We can pray to any of the three if we desire, since they are all fully God. However, I would say that the prayers generally depend. For example, one may pray to the Holy Spirit "dear Holy Spirit, please inspire me as I read the Scriptures. Amen", or something to that effect. We can and do pray to Jesus as well. We also pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. In church, many of our prayers end "we ask this in the name of Jesus Christ your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever, Amen."

[ChristKnight]

No worries.

No, it's not a closed system. So many different outside forces are operating on these three entirely different objects, it's not at all closed.

It may not be a closed system in reality, however this is a hypothetical analogy. In physics and chemistry courses, we make hypothetical "closed systems" to study the effects of forces and chemicals on other substances and objects. Otherwise, this would not be possible, since there are so many other things to consider. Therefore, we posit a "closed system" at equilibrium, where the ice is not melting and the water is not evaporating.

I never said anything about the substances changing.

But they are not unified in substance, they are only unified taxonomically. It's the same as saying the sock, the shirt, and the dollar bill illustrate the Trinity because they are all 100% cotton. Unity in substance means the same ontological substance, not the same kind of substance. Dave and Dan are made up of the same substance, but they are not concsubstantial. This is why Athanasius says "neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance." You've greatly misunderstood consubstantiality.

Actually, I believe I am accurately portraying consubstantiality, especially since this is related to our understanding of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (difference in substance versus properties or accidents). I do not see the cotton example as valid, because the sock, shirt and dollar bill are made of cotton, but what is cotton made of? What else goes into making socks, shirts, and dollar bills? I see water as the purest example, since we have H2O, the lowest common denominator, and is really what the water, vapor and ice are.

Dave and Dan are made up of the same substance, and therefore they are consubstantial. I am curious as to your reasoning behind including the quote from the Athanasian Creed. Immediately after what you posted, he says: "For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.". What does "dividing the substance" mean to you? To us, it means that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate Persons, as Athanasius posits as well. However, they are one in substance, and yet this substance is not divided. Therefore, each Person is fully God. They are not 1/3 God each.

Nor was he divided into three different containers. They were all in one, according to Trinitarianism. The substances are divided, whether you assert a closed system or not, and therefore the union broken.

Again, I'm not sure who you are saying is doing the dividing. In my example, as with the real Trinity, the ice, vapor, and water existed as such, separately/distinctly, from the beginning (i.e. eternally). Each is fully H2O, thus there is no separation. Also, are you discussing the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or the hypostatic union of the human nature and Divine nature in Jesus. This is where I think we're having an issue. My water example has nothing to do with Jesus' human and Divine natures. In Jesus, He was fully man and fully Divine, in one Person. The separateness of the members of the Trinity show us that the Father and the Holy Spirit were not also fully human.

Here is a little from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to make our belief explicit:

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

[ChristKnight]

Is God all-present?

There are scripts saying God comes / goes - ascends/decends

example

33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham:

(Old Testament | Genesis 18:33)

I don't think time applies to God...

8 Now whether there is more than one atime appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 40: 8 )

You know how Hermoine in Harry Potter has the little time device that allows her to be in multiple classes all at the same time? LOL! I think it might be something similar with God. He is not confined with time, and can therefore be multiple places at the same time. JMO though. without time, it makes no sense to try and figure out where he was when - there is no "when" for God.

Thank you for that. Yes, Catholics believe that God is present in many ways. We make this very explicit with our belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (communion). Jesus is present in Heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father. He is also present when two or more are gathered in His name. For Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, and others), the body and blood of Christ is also really present in the Eucharist.

Nice Harry Potter analogy!

[ChristKnight]

Dave and Dan are made up of the same substance, but they are not concsubstantial. This is why Athanasius says "neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance." You've greatly misunderstood consubstantiality.

What do you think this statement means, from "Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture":

To assert that Jesus Christ is "consubstantial" with God the Father, sharing in the all the attributes of divinity, is but one pole of Christology. It is incomplete without saying that a second pole. Jesus Christ is equally consubstantial with us humans, sharing in everything that it means to be human. It is as vital to assert this "double consubstantiability" as it is to assert the "double birth".

If Jesus' human nature is consubstantial with our own, then how are you saying that Dave and Dan are not conbsubstantial, when it is clear from this that we are consubstantial with each other? You say "Dave and Dan are made up of the same substance", which seems to be the same as homoousios.

[ChristKnight]

You bring up an awesome point. What if the Father had done what Christ had done? Perhaps on a different earth?

(I am trying to not make this sound conry so bare with me.)

Or that Jesus did only what He saw His Father do.

Consider this verse of scripture.

John 5:19

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

This verse of scripture seems to have some very deep implicatings running through it.

"What did Jesus do". One might ask. He came down was born and recieved a phsycical body died and then was resurrected.

Reason stands that the Father did this also as "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do".

What do you think?

Thank you for that verse, and I was actually expecting it, haha. Yes, I think that the implication of "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do" can lead one to believe that the Father therefore also incarnated on another world. I think that the following verses emphasize what Jesus does, as well as the Father, namely that the Son gives life to those that He is pleased to give it to, as well as the Son being the Judge of all. This also emphasizes the union of will in the Godhead. However, I can see how a very literal reading of 19 can lead to one believing that EVERYTHING that the Son did, the Father did as well, including incarnating.

[changed]

One more note regarding God â??creatingâ? Satan/evil/everything.

One of the reasons I converted to Mormonism was because it did not teach ex-Nihlo creation. Rather than â??createâ? â?? the word â??transformâ? might be better.

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

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29)

God is cleaning up a mess He didnâ??t make. He did not create Satan, or evil.

25 â?¦ for there is nothing which is good save it comes from the Lord; and that which is evil cometh from the devil.

(Book of Mormon | Omni 1:25)

The pre-existence, that God is transforming what eternally exists rather than creating out of nothing, explains the origin of evil. God is totally separated from evil, He did not create it, is in no way responsible for it.

Laws of thermo - conservation principles - conservation of mass/energy, things change form, but do not blink in and out of existence. You don't get something from nothing. Something has always existed, changing form - everything that now is is eternal.

Everyone states that evil comes from agency â?? but only an independent self-existent being can have an independent will. If part of us is not independent and not created, everything we do could be traced back to how we were created â?? as a robots actions can be traced to itâ??s program. IMO agency only exists for eternal beingsâ?¦

Eternal life â?? the word eternal used to describe eternal life is the same word to describe Godâ?¦. We would not be able to have eternal life if we were not already eternalâ?¦ Beings with a beginning cannot have anything eternal.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/5_creator.html

Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"

Meaning: To build a nest.

Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.

seems like "create" is a bad translation.

[ChristKnight]

One more note regarding God creating Satan/evil/everything.

One of the reasons I converted to Mormonism was because it did not teach ex-Nihlo creation. Rather than create the word transform might be better.

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

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29)

God is cleaning up a mess He didnt make. He did not create Satan, or evil.

25 â?¦ for there is nothing which is good save it comes from the Lord; and that which is evil cometh from the devil.

(Book of Mormon | Omni 1:25)

The pre-existence, that God is transforming what eternally exists rather than creating out of nothing, explains the origin of evil. God is totally separated from evil, He did not create it, is in no way responsible for it.

Laws of thermo - conservation principles - conservation of mass/energy, things change form, but do not blink in and out of existence. You don't get something from nothing. Something has always existed, changing form - everything that now is is eternal.

Everyone states that evil comes from agency but only an independent self-existent being can have an independent will. If part of us is not independent and not created, everything we do could be traced back to how we were created as a robots actions can be traced to its program. IMO agency only exists for eternal beingsâ?¦

Eternal life the word eternal used to describe eternal life is the same word to describe Godâ?¦. We would not be able to have eternal life if we were not already eternalâ?¦ Beings with a beginning cannot have anything eternal.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/5_creator.html

Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"

Meaning: To build a nest.

Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.

seems like "create" is a bad translation.

Thank you, that is very interesting and I will definitely think about this post of yours. I am familiar with the LDS concept of intelligence existing always. Also, on the note of "eternal", one of the definitions of eternal is also "outside of time and space". I think that is very important when considering Trinitarianism, as well as the creation in mainstream Christianity. In that, we must wonder, does God exist in this universe, or outside of it? Is God subject to the laws of this universe, or can He work both with them and outside of them? In that, we can wonder about the traditional concept of creation. In fact, there are many advances in particle physics related to creation of matter from nothing, as well as particle accelerators. I am not well read in such matters, however they do provide interesting insights into matter. Also, do scientists believe that matter always existed, or did it come into existence with the big bang theory?

In LDS thought, are our bodies eternal?

[maklelan]

It may not be a closed system in reality, however this is a hypothetical analogy. In physics and chemistry courses, we make hypothetical "closed systems" to study the effects of forces and chemicals on other substances and objects. Otherwise, this would not be possible, since there are so many other things to consider. Therefore, we posit a "closed system" at equilibrium, where the ice is not melting and the water is not evaporating.

It's a static state, so to speak. I gotcha. I have no problem with that consideration.

Actually, I believe I am accurately portraying consubstantiality, especially since this is related to our understanding of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (difference in substance versus properties or accidents). I do not see the cotton example as valid, because the sock, shirt and dollar bill are made of cotton, but what is cotton made of? What else goes into making socks, shirts, and dollar bills? I see water as the purest example, since we have H2O, the lowest common denominator, and is really what the water, vapor and ice are.

But water is divisible into oxygen and hydrogen. I think that's an irrelevant distinction to make.

Dave and Dan are made up of the same substance, and therefore they are consubstantial.

So a mother, father, and son are ontologically identical to the Trinity? Consubstantiality means they all participate in the exact same substance. It's as if I said my wife and I are wearing the same shirt. I don't mean we're both wearing charcoal Hanes T-shirts, I mean we're both squeezed into the same single shirt. Consubstantial does not mean taxonomical sameness, but ontological sameness the exact ontological substance of Christ is the very same substance as that in which the father participates. I don't know how to make this any more clear, but none of your responses give me the impressions you understand my point.

I am curious as to your reasoning behind including the quote from the Athanasian Creed. Immediately after what you posted, he says: "For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.". What does "dividing the substance" mean to you? To us, it means that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate Persons, as Athanasius posits as well. However, they are one in substance, and yet this substance is not divided. Therefore, each Person is fully God. They are not 1/3 God each.

To not divide the substance means they all are squeezed into the same shirt, so to speak. They're not all wearing the same color, brand, and size, they are all three squeezed into the same single shirt. That is what the Athanasian creed means. You cannot assert that Christ participates in any substance that is separate ontologically, from the substance of the father, irrespective of their identical properties. They all participate in one and the same totality of substance. To say one part of the substance that represents Christ is in a bowl in one state and another part is in another state representing the Father on the other side of the table. That's the very definition of dividing the substance. Christ (water) is not God (ice) if you divide the substance, he's just the same species (H2O) as God.

Again, I'm not sure who you are saying is doing the dividing. In my example, as with the real Trinity, the ice, vapor, and water existed as such, separately/distinctly, from the beginning (i.e. eternally). Each is fully H2O, thus there is no separation.

Yes, there is. The molecules in the water are not the molecules in the ice or the steam. They are entirely separate molecules. Taxonomical identification does not = consubstantial.

Also, are you discussing the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or the hypostatic union of the human nature and Divine nature in Jesus. This is where I think we're having an issue. My water example has nothing to do with Jesus' human and Divine natures. In Jesus, He was fully man and fully Divine, in one Person. The separateness of the members of the Trinity show us that the Father and the Holy Spirit were not also fully human.

I brought up the Hypostatic Union, but consubstantiality was then brought up, and now we're discussing that. I'm aware the Hypostatic Union is a different animal altogether.

Here is a little from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to make our belief explicit:

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

This doesn't address my concerns directly.

[Brenda]

One could interpret those verse that way. Thanks Mud.

I wish we had more responses like that in other threads. How refreshing to hear, "Yes, I can see what you're saying and why you interpret it as you do."

Back to discussion ....

[changed]

Thank you, that is very interesting and I will definitely think about this post of yours. I am familiar with the LDS concept of intelligence existing always. Also, on the note of "eternal", one of the definitions of eternal is also "outside of time and space". I think that is very important when considering Trinitarianism, as well as the creation in mainstream Christianity. In that, we must wonder, does God exist in this universe, or outside of it? Is God subject to the laws of this universe, or can He work both with them and outside of them? In that, we can wonder about the traditional concept of creation. In fact, there are many advances in particle physics related to creation of matter from nothing, as well as particle accelerators. I am not well read in such matters, however they do provide interesting insights into matter. Also, do scientists believe that matter always existed, or did it come into existence with the big bang theory?

In LDS thought, are our bodies eternal?

There is no such thing as the creation of matter from nothing i physics - string theory starts with strings (not nothing), big bang starts with an incredibly dense core etc. etc. matter can become energy (E = mc^2) etc. but energy is a something, not a nothing.

"Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Big Bang is basically everything in the entire universe crammed into a very small volume - incredible high density / high energy ball that exploded - everything's still expanding away from the original explosion site etc. etc. Nothing went out of existence, everything was just all crammed together.

I don't think spirits/ intelligences were part of the big bang... the universe is basically made out of two substances -

1.) that which acts

2.) that which is acted upon.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created(formed) all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:4)

IMO what was in the big bang was all the stuff that "is acted upon".

LDS are not the only ones who believe in a pre-existence... Here is an example poem:

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:

The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,

Hath had elsewhere its setting,

And cometh from afar:

Not in entire forgetfulness,

And not in utter nakedness,

But trailing clouds of glory do we come

From God, who is our home:

Heaven lies about us in our infancy!

http://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/W/WordsworthWi/5Ourbirthisb.htm

I think many people have the subconscious idea that babies are angels from heaven

just a random google example:

http://www.yuckles.com/babies.html

the stork bringing babies down to earth from the sky etc. etc.

People have this idea in their heads, but don't realize the full magnitude of it.

Here is something I dug out of my files:

Does the bible teach that God made everything? I do not think that it does.

John 1:

1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Does not say God and Jesus were alone, nor does it say they created everything -

"made" is different than create - I can make a cake, but I don't make it out of nothing.

“That was made” – IF it was made, He made it. However, some things are not madeâ?¦

God did not create everything. God did not create Himself. God did not create evil. He is all powerful – what He is surrounded by He can control, but there is no need that He created it from nothingâ?¦ He is forming, organizing, reformingâ?¦ If He created it there would be no need for reform. No evil, no lost souls.

Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

The potter did not make the clay – he only forms what already existsâ?¦

Does it say God created man from nothing? It does not –

Gen 2:

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Formed – is different than created from nothingness – formed, organized, changed what was already thereâ?¦ then “breathed” life into Adam, not created, breathed it in, placed it inâ?¦.

There are actually 2 different accounts of the creation in Gen, Chapter 1 gives one account, chapter 2 gives another account in which the creative days are given a different order. Here is chapter 2, in which Adam is created (7) before the garden of Eden (vs 8 ) . Atheists use this as one example where the Bible contradicts itself. I see it as describing two different creative periods, one in heaven “the generations of the heavens” and one on earth - seems pretty clear that chapter 2 is discussing formation/organization in heaven, before spirits were placed in the Earthâ?¦ see vs 5. â?¦ first He forms Adam’s spirit, then He places the spirit in a formed body in Edenâ?¦

generations of heaven - heavenly formation... then generations of earth, earthly formation.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Our birth was not our beginningâ?¦

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

We existed before the foundation of the world.

Eph 1: 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Job 38: 4 Where wast thouâ?¦

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

We are sons and daughters of God –

Psa 82: 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

we were there – we shouted for joy.

Ecc 12: 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

“return” means coming to a state that we have previously been to – not “come” as if it were our first experience, but “return”

Zech 12:1 â?¦the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

He “formed” our spirit before He placed us here on Earth. We call him our “Heavenly” Father because He is literally the father of our spiritâ?¦ spirit not created from nothingness, formed out of intelligences that God found Himself surrounded by.

There was a war in heaven in which Satan sought to take away our free agency. 1/3 of the formed spirits followed Satan and became fallen angels, never to receive a body. The other 2/3 – us – chose to come here. We are here because we chose to come here.

Rev 12: 7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Luke 10: 18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Isaiah 14: 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

More details on this war..

Moses 4: 1 AND I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

What would it take to save everyone? It would require taking away our agency... Satan sought to take away our agency, our free will, in exchange for promised life free of pain, free from ever making a mistake... I don't think those who followed satan and became fallen angels are free of pain though.

All who are now here chose to come to Earth. All those who are here fought in the war in heaven, and followed God's plan of salvation in which we come to Earth to learn/grow/be tested...â?¦