What's Your Analogy Of The Trinity

[Calm]

Reading this material will help you know what is and isn't speculation (and that includes speculation from past leaders), if it isn't there, it is likely speculation:

http://www.lds.org/topics/god-the-father?lang=eng

The "the Father was a man who died" is an extrapolation from a revealed belief...it may be logical, many Lds may believe it, but not all assumed implications are found to be accurate when more is revealed so such assumptions should not be taught as doctrine. Leadership is much more careful about that now having seen the fallout from previous errors as well as seeing members commonly take leaders' speculations even further.

For the couplet often used to justify speculation:

http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-5-the-grand-destiny-of-the-faithful?lang=eng

For the remark of JS that is used, it is quoted in the Exaltation chapter of the GP manual, iirc and is from the King Follett Discourse you can read here:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

To understand the process of recreating the text of the KFS:

http://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/18.2LarsonKingFollett-788e0c92-f320-42a3-bccc-7bf232ab8432.pdf

Edited January 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Here is the relevant part....the question is whether Joseph came to this specific belief through reasoning from the scripture (which is my belief because of the way he phrases his teaching) or through revelation. People need to decide this for themselves:

"The scriptures inform us (Mark it, Brother Rigdon) that Jesus Christ said:—What did Jesus say?—As the Father has power in Himself, even so has the Son power in himself. To do what? Why, what the Father did. That answer is obvious; even in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? “To lay down my life as my Father laid down His body that I might take it up again.” Do you believe it? If you don’t believe it, you don’t believe the Bible. The Scriptures say it and I defy all hell—all the learned wisdom and records and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it!...

It is plain beyond comprehension and you thus learn that these are some of the first principles of the Gospel, about which so much has been said....

I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in the Bible. If I should, you would cry treason, and I think there are so many learned and wise men here who would put me to death for treason. I will, then, go to the old Bible and turn commentator today."

Edited January 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I don't normally watch videos, but this one is relatively painless and parts of it are very funny in a very intelligent way, IMO...and it speaks directly to your analogy so I second this advice, PG.

Having now watched a few variations of this type of video, including the Mormon elders one which was impressive for finding something uncommon to fix on and by approaching it in a logical manner....but missing how LDS would actually reason about (John the Apostle was not called to minister as an apostle to the modern church for one...I am finding the two Irishmen irritating. It gets old fast. I wonder if Irish appreciate being presented that way...or St. Patrick. . Newness of humour, I find, too often gets confused with quality because it has one laughing as much out of being surprised as actually being funny

I have always thought that analogies were more confusing than just saying it outright though, so I do agree on that point.

Edited January 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[3DOP]

For some, what follows might be a mystery. But there is a history (between mfbukowski and myself) that resolves the mystery. For polemical reasons, some act like a mystery must always be an excuse to say that what is false is true. But I would suggest that it can also mean that we just don't have all the facts for one reason or other. What is certain in life, is that there are true mysteries.

 

bukowski

It's supposed to be a mystery.

 

3DOP

But it isn't? What do you think we mean by "mystery"? As a former Catholic, it seems like you understand less about the Catholic faith than most Mormons. It is not a little unlike the Mormons who leave but can't be quiet about what they perceive Mormonism to be. Mystery is always present when something is left unrevealed. "For the Lord knoweth all knowledge, and hath beheld the signs of the world, he declareth the things that are past, and the things that are to come, and revealeth the traces of hidden things."

 

bukowski

So God is not smart enough to explain it in a way we can understand?

 

3DOP

If we fully understood, where is faith? You have a "faith" without mystery, that is completely comprehensible to human reason? Congratulations...if that is what lights your fire. That is not what I would expect. I can't understand algebra. 

 

bukowski

Why is the trinity not in the bible?

 

3DOP

Who that believes in it has conceded that the Trinity is absent from the Bible? Oh wait. You don't mean the concept. You insist that the word "Trinity" needs to be in the Bible or it is unbelievable. Well, bukowski, the word is not in the Catholic Bible because for purpose of conversation, debate, and discussion, the idea of "Trinity" was expressed in longer sentences. I don't care if the word is in the Scripture. There are lots of things you believe in that aren't compressed into one word in the Bible either. Shall I compile a list? If you insist, I'll only use words that I can find in the Bible to defend my faith. It will be a tedious exercise both writing and reading, but if it will prove a point it could be worthwhile. Is every theological concept that you believe expressed by a single word in the Bible? Just wondering. Are you willing to go out on that limb?   

 

bukowski

Isn't that [the BIble] supposed to contain all revelation?

 

3DOP

No, the Bible is supposed not to contain all revelation according to the Catholic faith. All revelation which includes Scripture and Tradition doesn't even contain all truth, only all revealed truth. Truths are revealed which are adequate to salvation but inadequate to satisfy the proud and curious.

 

bukowski

I guess that would mean the trinity is not revelation

 

3DOP

Bad guess.

 

bukowski

The whole concept is incoherent.

 

3DOP

As if your epistemologically skeptical philosophy is coherent. The only thing it has going for it here is that you and some (far from all) of your LDS friends get some kind of faith boost from being encouraged that "apostate Christianity" is really stupid. But there are some who aren't persuaded by your attempts to make simple things confusing. Many who are honest will have to admit to themselves that they wish what you say was right...because of what you say it concludes. But they don't understand you any more than they understand Aristotle. Less. Aristotle is much more accessible if they knew it. Anyway, they know I am talking about them.

 

The sum total of your argument against the Trinity consists of insisting that there is no such thing as elephant nature, oat nature, human nature, or divine nature. Your argument against the Trinity, based on your ridicule of nature, could be as readily reduced to an argument against referring to a kind of an animal that we can call "horse". Our philosophy which you find so incoherent, is based on a common sense view of the universe, that reveals to us that in the beginning, that God created the plants and animals, "after their kind". There are nuances to the different words. But the main idea that is understood when we speak of a nature, substance, essence, or being is that of things that are "of a kind". There are kinds of dogs, with different species. To be "kind" is to share the same nature. Even colloquially, to be kind, means an ability and desire to gain "sameness" with someone. 

 

To speak of a nature is not intended to mean that we, any more than the author of Genesis, has comprehensive knowledge of all the attributes of any kind of nature. I am sure there are facts about goats and butterflies that have eluded us. Does that mean that we cannot identify a goat or butterfly when we see one? Hellenized Catholics didn't make up the expression "divine nature".LDS Scripture speaks of it in 2 Peter:

 

"By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature:"

 

When you mock us for speaking of divine nature, you mock Holy Scripture. You mock God. I have no difficulty conceding that the nature of a goat, which we cannot fully comprehend either, is far more accessible, than the nature of God. It is assuredly not for this life, and only by degrees in the next, that we believe we can explain the nature of God Almighty. When we speak of God's nature, essence, being or substance, we know what we mean. It is incoherent to you because you stubbornly insist that when we speak of nature, it implies that we have comprehensive knowledge. No. We never claimed that. In fact, we specifically deny that we have comprehensive knowledge, even of goats, much more do we deny comprehensive knowledge of God. The claim that the Son is consusbtantial with the Father only intends to insist that it is biologically analogical. As a daddy goat reproduces only goats, so God the Father. If it is revealed that God the Father says that He has a Son, we understand that without comprehensive knowledge of that nature, the nature is the same. It is a most harmless, coherent, and literal interpretation of the Scriptures which reveal God the Father and God the Son as "after their kind", with the same nature. This is the limit of the meaning which you call incoherent. Consubstantiality was only proposed against those who refused to believe that God's "Son" was fully God. You have no reason to oppose consubstantiality because understood properly, that is what Mormonism teaches too. It isn't even complicated, let alone incoherent.

 

If you will condemn the Catholics and Protestants who insist that the Son has the same nature as the Father, that is your business but you are missing the point. Mock away, if that gives you greater faith, but in this question of consubstantiality, you should insist that we are correct. We have real differences enough. But our real differences are not about whether the Father and Son are consubstantial. On this concept, whatever you or Wittgenstein might say, thoughtful LDS cannot but agree.

 

3DOP

 

PS: Mark, you had to know I wouldn't let this go by. I am not offended. You just get excited. You're zealous. Us old guys too easily lose that. I admire you Mark and I care about you inasmuch as I have known you here. God help us both.

 

When I understand what the Councils meant by consubstantiality, and you come along and insist that its incoherent it leaves me almost speechless. Not entirely as you see, heh. You might as well say that 1+1=2 is incoherent. Argue that we are wrong. I am fine with that. Just don't misunderstand what we say. We disagree about God's attributes, sure, but we agree that whatever God's attributes, the Son shares those of the Father. That is the sum total of what we are meaning when we say they are consubstantial. You can have a quarrel because of other specifics we might believe about God's attributes, but not whether the Son and the Father have the same attributes. Like it or not, LDS believe in consubstantiality, properly understood.

Edited January 27, 2014 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Rory, aka 3DOP 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply and the time you took for your thorough  discussion.

 

You are right.  If all Catholics meant by Consubstanial was that the persons of the trinity were of the same "kind", then I would say we were in agreement on the trinity.  But unfortunately it is not.

 

We also say that that the three persons of the Godhead are of the same "kind".  They are Gods.  They have the same nature, and indeed they have the same nature as we humans have, except they are infinitely above us, indeed we are like embryos compared to what we may become.

 

But I don't think that comes close to what you are saying.  It is certainly not Catholic doctrine.

 

What is incoherent in my opinion is the combination of neoplatonism and the bible.  We have discussed that in some detail in the past.  

 

I am sorry you think I mock God.  I do not and never will.  I should not mock ideas about God which I find to be faulty, but I find that difficult in a forum such as this one in which my beliefs are mocked continually.

 

As far as my philosophy, unfortunately I must not have explained it well, because you don't seem to quite have it yet.  In fact I wish it WAS my philosophy but of course I have stolen it all from Rorty and Wittgenstein and others, so if yo find it incoherent, I suggest you write your criticisms and submit them to th proper philosophical journals.

[3DOP]

Hi Mark, and my LDS friends,

 

The implications of consubstantiality are different for you and us. But you have no reason to oppose the idea conveyed by the word consubstantial. 

 

Let us disagree about creation ex nihilo. Fine. Let us disagree about whether God has all the omnis. Fine. But we cannot disagree about consubstantiality.

 

I am not trying to suggest that we all agree and believe the same things. But if you would properly accept the benign meaning of homoousious (consubstantiality), and the reason why the phrase was coined, it would be a nice step in the proper direction. Some of you would mistakenly oppose Catholic doctrine one step too early. Unfortunately, it seems to me like many of you have too much intellectual toil invested in opposing something that shouldn't bother you at all. You don't have to worry about me watering down the Catholic faith so as to say we are all one big happy family. We are not. It is in that respect, that I admire LDS zeal when it insists upon our profound differences. I think you fail to appreciate how I leave you plenty of room to disagree. I am only insisting that we argue about true disagreements and that they be be well understood.

 

It is folly for Mormons to oppose the concept of consubstantiality, properly understood. You need to oppose the implications of consubstantiality for us as opposed to the implications of the very same consubstantiality for you. The implications ARE dramatic and significant. I think I am being forthcoming. I am helping you here into an area where I have less ability and less confidence intellectually (even though my faith is unwavering). Your argument is with how we disagree about how to interpret "I am." Go there, and perhaps I will have less to say. At least that is what I fear.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

Edited January 27, 2014 by 3DOP

[Calm]

If consubstantiality allows for a belief that the "being" that is God could be a social construct such as a family...we after all can describe a family as a type of entity, I would agree with you, Rory. I think I even discussed this eons ago on ZLMB when I first read the Catechism, that it seemed to allow for this type of interpretation of the Trinity.

But I have been told by some that is a view that is contrary to its meaning.

[mfbukowski]

If consubstantiality allows for a belief that the "being" that is God could be a social construct such as a family...we after all can describe a family as a type of entity, I would agree with you, Rory. I think I even discussed this eons ago on ZLMB when I first read the Catechism, that it seemed to allow for this type of interpretation of the Trinity.

But I have been told by some that is a view that is contrary to its meaning.

Catholicism as far as I know has repeatedly denounced the idea of a Social Trinity.   I hope I am wrong.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/social-trinitarianism-and-the-catholic-faith/

Edited January 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Catholicism as far as I know has repeatedly denounced the idea of a Social Trinity.   I hope I am wrong.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/social-trinitarianism-and-the-catholic-faith/

This is a quote from that site and shows the totally abstract and undefined language which usually attends these discussions and with which I and others have problems

 

It Makes Each Divine Person Differ in Species

When two beings each have the same nature, something else must differentiate them, because otherwise they would be one being, instead of two beings. For Aquinas, what differentiates one human being from another, is matter. Each human being has a distinct material principle which differentiates his instantiation of human nature from every other instantiation of human nature. Since angels are immaterial, there cannot be two or more angels of the same species; otherwise nothing would differentiate them. That is, nothing would make them two instead of one. Hence, according to Aquinas, each angel must differ in species from every other angel.⁴

The notion of sharing part of the same essence with some other being is equivalent to being members of the same genus, while differing in species. Take, for example, Aristotle’s claim that the human is a rational animal. The genus, in that case, is ‘animal.’ The differentia [i.e. that which differentiates the species from every other species in that genus] is rationality, because rationality differentiates humans from everything else in the genus ‘animal.’ Every other animal species shares this genus with humans, but has something other than rationality as that which differentiates it from every other species in this genus. For example, saying that both humans and prairie dogs share part of the same nature or essence translates into humans and prairie dogs sharing the same genus, but differing in species. Being one in partial-essence is equivalent to being one in genus but distinct in species.

This first statement for example, is highly problematic.

When two beings each have the same nature, something else must differentiate them, because otherwise they would be one being, instead of two beings

I have no idea why one would think that would be the case. Such statements are about semantics. There is no "evidence" for the statement and nothing in logic to dictate that that is the case. But statements like that make up the logic of the trinity.

Edited January 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And that is not "mocking God".  Those statements have nothing to do with God.  He is the Father of our Spirits. Simple. We all have the same nature with him.  We have a spark of divinity inside us that he gave us. 

 

Given an eternity that spark can grow into a fire as his has.  I don't think that idea mocks God at all.

How many angels can fit in one space has nothing to do with it.

Edited January 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Also from the same site- I think I need not comment further

The Fourth Lateran Council teaches that in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity consisting of Father, Son, Spirit, and divine essence. But the divine essence is not an abstraction. The divine essence is neither a fourth thing in God, nor an abstraction, nor something participated in by the persons or something had by the persons. The divine essence is the very being or substance of God. The divine essence truly is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The divine essence is not the sum of the three persons; it is what each of the persons is, and what all three are. That which is the Father is the Son and the Holy Spirit; the persons are not three realities. The persons are consubstantial, i.e. the same reality, the same substance, and same essence.

 

[Coreyb]

So this from a former Mormon is incorrect?

LDS Article 1: "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.""

Mormons do not believe in the Trinity as we understand it. They believe that God and Jesus were separate physical people" who dwelled on the earth, Johnston said. God was Jesus' father, and both men died."They do have a 'Holy Ghost' that is very similar to our understanding of the Holy Spirit,"

doctrinal explanations from former Mormons wont hold much weight here.

[merman]

3 legged stool, perfectly balanced.

[Calm]

3 legged stool, perfectly balanced.

I think the video described that partialism. God is without parts, theSpirit, the Son, the Father are all fully God, they are not one "leg" or a third of God.

[3DOP]

Cal, bukowski...Later tonight I hope. We are supposed to be examining the meaning of consubstantiality, not whether the Catholic Church teaches a Social Trinity. It might be helpful for us to understand if the reason for opposition to LDS doctrine has to do with consubstantiality, or whether the problem lies elsewhere.

 

As for mocking God, Mark, I have not checked thoroughly, but I intended to be specific. I think I used it one sentence, where I anticipated ridicule of the idea of "nature". I said, "You mock God when..." Please don't think I would wish to expand my accusation beyond those bounds. If I did, my apologies. I retract such parts. I was not suggesting that every opposition to my belief appears to mock God. Go see when I say you mock God, I think you will see it is connected with your Holy Scripture and words that you are supposed to accept. This seems ironic from someone who wants to insist that the word Trinity must be found in Scripture, because there is another concept you don't seem to like, divine nature, plain as day, and the biblical words used are...divine nature. In the past I seem to recollect that you have had a little fun with some idea about how it is supposedly absurd to speak of something having a "nature". Is my recollection faulty? For the record, that ridicule (as I recall) is what I consider to have been mockery, and when applied to 2 Peter, mockery of God. If my memory is faulty, you have my apologies for the accusation.

 

Late for work...out.

 

Rory

Edited January 27, 2014 by 3DOP

[Calm]

I don't think the Catholic Church teaches a Social Trinty.

They take the implications on consubstantiality in a different direction. I am trying to figure how far down the road we could walk until it forks and we must follow one and you guys the other.

I read your post to be saying this happens after consubstantiality and if so, I was examining how one could include it in the Mormon definition. If it doesn't have to exclude immediately a Social Trinity, if there are other reasons that is excluded (or at least is not the only wat the Trinity is one), perhaps this is where the differentiation begins....

[Freedom]

I do not understand why there is even a debate. The bible is so very clear they are three separate people. Nowhere does it state that they are one person with three attributes. 

[Ahab]

A perfect analogy of the Trinity is any other example of 3 persons being in perfect unity with each other so that anything done or said by any one of the 3 would be approved by the 2 others.

Most of us as children of our Father have a hard time relating to that degree of unity because most of us don't know 2 other persons who approve of us and our actions that much, but it is possible to develop that kind of unity with others, and the Trinity is proof of that fact.

[longview]

I do not understand why there is even a debate. The bible is so very clear they are three separate people. Nowhere does it state that they are one person with three attributes. 

I strongly agree.  I consider the Trinity doctrine to be an "insult" to each member of the Godhead.  Emperor Constantine was a Pagan with a strong background in Greek Mythology so he was pretty amenable to the Trinity.

[Rob Osborn]

I strongly agree.  I consider the Trinity doctrine to be an "insult" to each member of the Godhead.  Emperor Constantine was a Pagan with a strong background in Greek Mythology so he was pretty amenable to the Trinity.

Maybe this is how brain cancer started. Even mention the word "trini.....ouch...my heads hurting...

 

what were we discussing again?

[Calm]

I do not understand why there is even a debate. The bible is so very clear they are three separate people. Nowhere does it state that they are one person with three attributes.

The Trinity is not one person with three attributes...that would most likely be modalism, a heresy to traditional Trinitarians.

It is three persons, one being (infinite and therefore not to be confused with finite beings, having different attributes).

Edited January 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[ChristKnight]

I do not understand why there is even a debate. The bible is so very clear they are three separate people. Nowhere does it state that they are one person with three attributes.

The Trinity doctrine doesn't teach that they are one person with three attributes.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Also from the same site- I think I need not comment further

Having participated in several of these threads I just can't make heads or tails of it. I get what people say but when I started to analyze the specifics it is just like you said a "semantics game". Nature= substance = devine attributes. I mean terms that are synonyms get thrown around to try and justify an interpretation that doesn't make sense logically. I mean in the end to each their own. If it works for you great. Maybe this time will be different than all other times?

[Calm]

Maybe this time will be different than all other times?

I doubt it.  We are dealing with a view of an "infinite being" while mankind is seen as "finite".****  Words will never come close.

 

****While LDS see mankind as infinite as well.

Edited January 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Cal, bukowski...Later tonight I hope. We are supposed to be examining the meaning of consubstantiality, not whether the Catholic Church teaches a Social Trinity. It might be helpful for us to understand if the reason for opposition to LDS doctrine has to do with consubstantiality, or whether the problem lies elsewhere.

 

As for mocking God, Mark, I have not checked thoroughly, but I intended to be specific. I think I used it one sentence, where I anticipated ridicule of the idea of "nature". I said, "You mock God when..." Please don't think I would wish to expand my accusation beyond those bounds. If I did, my apologies. I retract such parts. I was not suggesting that every opposition to my belief appears to mock God. Go see when I say you mock God, I think you will see it is connected with your Holy Scripture and words that you are supposed to accept. This seems ironic from someone who wants to insist that the word Trinity must be found in Scripture, because there is another concept you don't seem to like, divine nature, plain as day, and the biblical words used are...divine nature. In the past I seem to recollect that you have had a little fun with some idea about how it is supposedly absurd to speak of something having a "nature". Is my recollection faulty? For the record, that ridicule (as I recall) is what I consider to have been mockery, and when applied to 2 Peter, mockery of God. If my memory is faulty, you have my apologies for the accusation.

 

Late for work...out.

 

Rory

No problem!  Of course I am perfectly even tempered at all times, so I never get offended too easily or respond too rashly. 

 

God's not done with me yet, and more importantly, I'm not done with me yet either!    I want to become a masterpiece, but so far I am pretty much just a crayon drawing by a 5-year-old. 

 

But consubstantiality is inextricably linked with this discussion of "nature".  Look at post 34 and you will see what I mean. 

 

Take care of yourself- we have been over this quite a few times anyway, and I am in no hurry.

 

Mark

Edited January 27, 2014 by mfbukowski