Mormonisms Local God

[MiserereNobis]

Well . . . there is no scriptural basis that I'm aware of that compels me to accept that ontological difference

But you do accept extra-Biblical doctrines, yes? So the Bible is not the end-all of doctrinal discussions.

[Darren10]

so we don't have to be strictly bound to Biblical terms, like our poor protestant brothers try to be.

Whoohoo, you got that right!!!

The Trinity does not deny that the Father and the Son are distinct individuals, as long as individual refers to person and not being. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are of the same substance, and that substance is the Being of God, and there is only one Being that is God.

Here you're arguing a monos being as God, correct? Where in the Bible does the word "monos" or the Hebrew "yachid" which strictly mean numerically one ever used to declare God's oness?

I don't know if thisis the thread i previously posted this or not but for an LDS to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of the same substance, that is correct. We believe hat the three are all intelligence which is interpreted as "spirit". The LDS also believe that each human individual is made from the same substance. This goes directly contrary to the evolution of Christian theology which has for centries removed God and man as being of the same substance. As for the LDS, they believe that God the Father is the greateast of all the intelligences and that He created ("formed") them all. The LDS also believe that when Jesus was created/formed by the Father that He was "like unto God [the Father]". I often wonder if the trinitarian formula isn't an offshot of this doctrine assuming that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indeed a restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Also, I think pointing out that homoousia is an extra biblical terminology was to show that while Christianity traditionally rejects living revelation they at the same time act as if post biblical revelation was given. I personally find that Christians today much more often than not accept homoousia as biblical doctrine as opposed to what the Bible actually says regarding the divine oness of the Godhead.

And herein lies another great difference between Christianity and Mormonism. The Christian view is that God, angels, and humans are ontologically different.

Absolutely correct.

We are not different species, or different genus, or order or phylum or class or family or kingdom. We are made of different stuff entirely. I think this idea can be hard for us moderns to comprehend because we have a worldview of scientism that assumes there is only one substance in the world and that substance is physical. I would guess that LDS share this view, especially since spirit, in the D&C, is defined as matter.

Also correct. Let me add though, if I may, that the LDS believe that spirit is perfected matter. The LDS flat out rejects ex-nihilo (which, if I'm not istaken, was originally purported by gnostics) and teaches that spirit is eternal with no beginning. And thus uis matter. I think that the LDS accepts spiritual matter has no beginning nor does it have an end. Frankly, I have no idea how this works if the works of the Father are eternal and always expanding. But, like I said before, man cannot know all the things of God.

[USU78]

But you do accept extra-Biblical doctrines, yes? So the Bible is not the end-all of doctrinal discussions.

Of course not. Our claim is that G-d speaking through His prophets and apostles trumps political blackmail of bishops after the original apostles' deaths.

[Darren10]

But you do accept extra-Biblical doctrines, yes? So the Bible is not the end-all of doctrinal discussions.

But Catholics do believe that the bible is the end-all of doctrinaes, no? Not to say of "doctrinal discussions" (which I agree with) but of doctrines. Particularly of God-given doctrines.

[Darren10]

Of course not. Our claim is that G-d speaking through His prophets and apostles trumps political blackmail of bishops after the original apostles' deaths.

Doh. Themz' also fightin' words.

[mfbukowski]

But you do accept extra-Biblical doctrines, yes? So the Bible is not the end-all of doctrinal discussions.

Yeah but I don't think that pagan Greek philosophy qualifies as an encyclical does it?

[USU78]

Doh. Themz' also fightin' words.

Ain't I a stinker?

[MiserereNobis]

Also, I think pointing out that homoousia is an extra biblical terminology was to show that while Christianity traditionally rejects living revelation they at the same time act as if post biblical revelation was given.

This might be an incorrect understanding of what "revelation" means to Catholics (I'll avoid using "Christian" in order to not bring in the question of whether or Mormons are Christian or not). When Catholics say that revelation ceased at the deaths of the Apostles, we mean that all doctrines were given to their successors, the Bishops. The Apostles had all the doctrines and passed them on. There will be no new doctrines nor changes in doctrines. This, however, doesn't mean that all doctrines were clearly articulated and understood. The purpose of the Magesterium of the Church is to protect, defend, and when necessary, interpret the doctrines of the Faith. This could be a clarification, such as when dogmas are pronounced at Councils or ex cathedra by the Pope. It could also be an application to a new situation, such as when Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical that condemned modern birth control.

The Church is led by the Holy Ghost to a greater understanding of doctrines that the Apostles had been taught by Our Lord.

So, we are in the middle of the two options you list. We reject new revelation, because the Apostles had been given the truth from Our Lord (Who Himself was the perfect revelation), but we accept the power of the Holy Ghost to guide the Church to a greater understanding through clear and distinct formulations of the Faith, such as homoousia.

But, like I said before, man cannot know all the things of God.

Agreed.

[MiserereNobis]

Ain't I a stinker?

Yup, a non-Christian cultic one

[MiserereNobis]

But Catholics do believe that the bible is the end-all of doctrinaes, no? Not to say of "doctrinal discussions" (which I agree with) but of doctrines. Particularly of God-given doctrines.

No. The Faith is supported by Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. None contradicts the other and all three are necessary. Thus there can be doctrines from Tradition, formulated by the Magisterium, that are only hinted at in the Bible, but do not contradict the Bible.

The Bible was canonized by the Magisterium based on Tradition.

[Ahab]

No. The Faith is supported by Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. None contradicts the other and all three are necessary. Thus there can be doctrines from Tradition, formulated by the Magisterium, that are only hinted at in the Bible, but do not contradict the Bible.

The Bible was canonized by the Magisterium based on Tradition.

The Book of Mormon doesn't contradict the Bible, either, and neither one contradicts the Doctrine & Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price, or all of the other teachings of our Church leaders they have given through the power of the Holy Ghost.

I've often wondered, though, why don't you consider the teachings in your "Sacred Traditions" and from your "Magisterium" to be "Scripture", too? When you say "Scripture" you're talking about the Bible, only, right? I wonder why you limit your idea of what the "Scriptures" are.

[USU78]

Yup, a non-Christian cultic one

[Ahab]

We reject new revelation, because the Apostles had been given the truth from Our Lord (Who Himself was the perfect revelation), but we accept the power of the Holy Ghost to guide the Church to a greater understanding through clear and distinct formulations of the Faith, such as homoousia.

The Bible contains a quote from someone who said scripture is that which holy men write when moved by the Holy Ghost.

The fact that the apostles were given the truth from our Lord doesn't mean it would be bad for other people to repeat those same things, or expound on them, while considering the additional writings to be scripture, too. From my perspective, you reject scripture, because I know of additional works of scripture you do not accept, but more than that, if your Church leaders ever said anything as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, you would be rejecting scripture from them, as well, by not considering what they said to be scripture.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Ahab

[MiserereNobis]

The Book of Mormon doesn't contradict the Bible, either, and neither one contradicts the Doctrine & Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price, or all of the other teachings of our Church leaders they have given through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Of course, what we're both saying is that our rhurch's interpretations don't contradict themselves

I've often wondered, though, why don't you consider the teachings in your "Sacred Traditions" and from your "Magisterium" to be "Scripture", too? When you say "Scripture" you're talking about the Bible, only, right? I wonder why you limit your idea of what the "Scriptures" are.

Scripture means that it has been written down and canonized (the root is the Latin scriptura, which means "writing")

Tradition means that it has been passed on (the root is the Latin traditio, which means "a handing over")

Magisterium means the authority (the word itself is Latin and is related to "master")

So, we divide up the foundation of the Faith into three parts to make the distinction between that which has been written down and canonized, that which is passed down, and that which authoritatively guides and interprets. All three are needed.

[Ahab]

Of course, what we're both saying is that our rhurch's interpretations don't contradict themselves

Well, except for things like God not being somewhere and yet still somehow existing. I call that a contradiction, which you call a paradox, which for some reason you think is okay.

Scripture means that it has been written down and canonized (the root is the Latin scriptura, which means "writing")

That's your definition, maybe, but someone who wrote something in the Bible said it is what holy men write when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. He didn't say anything about it needing to be canonized before it was considered scripture. As long as it is what the Holy Ghost moves someone to write, then it is scripture. The "canon" is simply a "standard" by which we can measure and understand other scripture, including how to find out if something is scripture. That's why we call our quad our "standard works". They're a useful standard for measuring, but they're not the only scriptures God has given us.

Tradition means that it has been passed on (the root is the Latin traditio, which means "a handing over")

Magisterium means the authority (the word itself is Latin and is related to "master")

So, we divide up the foundation of the Faith into three parts to make the distinction between that which has been written down and canonized, that which is passed down, and that which authoritatively guides and interprets. All three are needed.

I don't have any problem with the idea of developing and passing on traditions or with having an authoritative body to make decisions for the whole Church. I just don't get why you don't consider more of your writings as scripture, considering what is written in the Bible about what scripture is. I guess your explanation is that it's not scripture because it's not canonized or included in what I would call your "standard" works, but I think you guys should still consider it to be scripture if it's what you believe holy men were moved by the Holy Ghost to write. That's another contradiction, in my book, for you guys. Edited September 13, 2012 by Ahab

[MiserereNobis]

The Bible contains a quote from someone who said scripture is that which holy men write when moved by the Holy Ghost.

The fact that the apostles were given the truth from our Lord doesn't mean it would be bad for other people to repeat those same things, or expound on them, while considering the additional writings to be scripture, too. From my perspective, you reject scripture, because I know of additional works of scripture you do not accept, but more than that, if your Church leaders ever said anything as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, you would be rejecting scripture from them, as well, by not considering what they said to be scripture.

I must say, Ahab, that your claim that we reject scripture because we don't call the writings of the Magisterium scripture is a strange one. It actually reminds me of little nit-picky anti-Mormon attacks.

Tell me, do Mormons refer to the Ensign as scripture? When a Mormon says to another one, "let's have scripture study tonight" do they pick up Brigham Young's Journal of Discourses? My bet is that they go to the "standard works" and that in the LDS church "standard works" and "scripture" are interchangeable. I think you are being to broad in your use of the word scripture, and I'd bet your fellow LDS members here might agree with me.

[Ahab]

I must say, Ahab, that your claim that we reject scripture because we don't call the writings of the Magisterium scripture is a strange one. It actually reminds me of little nit-picky anti-Mormon attacks.

I suppose it's my fault for hoping you would explain what I see as a contradiction within your own belief system.

Tell me, do Mormons refer to the Ensign as scripture?

Yes.

When a Mormon says to another one, "let's have scripture study tonight" do they pick up Brigham Young's Journal of Discourses?

Some do, some don't. Some stick mostly to the "standard" works, while others will study other scriptures.

My bet is that they go to the "standard works" and that in the LDS church "standard works" and "scripture" are interchangeable.

Well, the standard works are scripture, but not all scripture is in the standard works. Most members consider the Ensign messages to be scripture too, at least those from our First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, and some have learned enough from the scriptures to know how to tell when the Holy Ghost moves anyone to write anything, which is also scripture.

I think you are being to broad in your use of the word scripture, and I'd bet your fellow LDS members here might agree with me.

Some members here would agree with you, and some would agree with me. We're all at different stages, you know. You're never going to get everyone to agree on anything, even something as basic as this.

[Cobalt-70]

This might be an incorrect understanding of what "revelation" means to Catholics (I'll avoid using "Christian" in order to not bring in the question of whether or Mormons are Christian or not). When Catholics say that revelation ceased at the deaths of the Apostles, we mean that all doctrines were given to their successors, the Bishops. The Apostles had all the doctrines and passed them on. There will be no new doctrines nor changes in doctrines. This, however, doesn't mean that all doctrines were clearly articulated and understood.

Is that really Catholic doctrine? My understanding of the teaching, based on para. 66 of the Catechism, is that revelation is complete in the sense that there can be no more of it expected prior to the second coming of Christ. But that implies that there will or can be further revelation upon the second coming of Christ. If there can be further revelation when Christ comes, then the Apostles did not have "all the doctrines" revealed to them, and could not have passed along "all the doctrines" to the bishops.

So, while Jesus might be the embodiment of all revelation, he did not pass all all revelation along to the Apostles, and he is saving some of it for his later return.

Am I misunderstanding?

[Darren10]

Ain't I a stinker?

Not as much as my chihuahua. Nor is Inigo Mantoya as cute.

[Darren10]

This might be an incorrect understanding of what "revelation" means to Catholics (I'll avoid using "Christian" in order to not bring in the question of whether or Mormons are Christian or not). When Catholics say that revelation ceased at the deaths of the Apostles, we mean that all doctrines were given to their successors, the Bishops. The Apostles had all the doctrines and passed them on. There will be no new doctrines nor changes in doctrines. This, however, doesn't mean that all doctrines were clearly articulated and understood. The purpose of the Magesterium of the Church is to protect, defend, and when necessary, interpret the doctrines of the Faith. This could be a clarification, such as when dogmas are pronounced at Councils or ex cathedra by the Pope. It could also be an application to a new situation, such as when Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical that condemned modern birth control.

The Church is led by the Holy Ghost to a greater understanding of doctrines that the Apostles had been taught by Our Lord.

So, we are in the middle of the two options you list. We reject new revelation, because the Apostles had been given the truth from Our Lord (Who Himself was the perfect revelation), but we accept the power of the Holy Ghost to guide the Church to a greater understanding through clear and distinct formulations of the Faith, such as homoousia.

And just to solidify the ground wrk here, the guidance of the Holy Ghost to understand given revelation (and which I fully believe in and support using to understand revelation) must be done by those in authority, correct? A member of the Catholic Church cannot receive inspiration for and behalf of the Catholic Church but only those in authority to do so.

Now, if for example the trinitarian formula was inspired by the Holy Ghost as a means t clarify the given doctrine of the Bible to explain the ness of Elohim (the gods), why wuld it declare something as the following:

So that in all things, as is has been said above, the Unity is to be worshipped in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity.

He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity.

Quicumque / Athanasian Creed

Why not say that salvation is found in the worship of the Godhead?

[zerinus]

And herein lies another great difference between Christianity and Mormonism. The Christian view is that God, angels, and humans are ontologically different. We are not different species, or different genus, or order or phylum or class or family or kingdom. We are made of different stuff entirely. I think this idea can be hard for us moderns to comprehend because we have a worldview of scientism that assumes there is only one substance in the world and that substance is physical. I would guess that LDS share this view, especially since spirit, in the D&C, is defined as matter.

How do you square that statement with the following verses:

John 20:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Hebrews 2:

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Colossians 1:

                    

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Revelation 3:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

These verses suggest that Jesus and the rest of us are "ontologically the same". If we are all "of one," meaning of the same substance, essence, or type of being, for which cause He is willing io call us His "brethren," then essentially (or ontologically if you like) we are the same kind of being as He is; and if He is the same kind of being as His Father is (Who is our Father also), then we are all ontologically the same kind of being, or made of the same essence or substance. Here is another interesting scripture to consider:

John 4:

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

If God is spirit, and spirits are also (by definition) spirit, then essentially they are of the same essence, or substance, or whatever you may want to call it. And since we are also spirits (clothed in flesh, the essential part being spirit), then ontologically we are all of the same kind of stuff, whatever you want to call it. What is your answer to that? Do you accept what the Bible says, or do you like philosophical speculations better?

Edited September 14, 2012 by zerinus