Theologically Uninformed Evangelicals and LDS Beliefs

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/10/2016 at 9:52 AM, stemelbow said:

I'd agree with Five Solas in that people typically aren't interested enough to get all technical about the whys and hows of belief and religious affiliation.  Plus, it's not as if this course of answering simple questions in an LDS way has made a huge impact on Evangelical-types who aren't into the details (it used to be said all we have to do is answer the three questions of where we come from? why we're here? and where we're going? and people will be jumping in the waters of baptism left and right).  As soon as they hear something as simple as LDS practiced polygamy, and/or held dear racist doctrine for most of their existence, and/or Jesus and Satan are brothers...they'll run for the hills.  Most of them anyway. 

...............................................................

Trouble is that it took much longer for the deeply racist and previously slave-holding members of the Southern Baptist Convention to apologize to Black people for their horrific behavior than it did for the Mormons to grant the priesthood to all -- and they did not have a tradition of slavery-abolition and ordaining Black people early on, as we did (we betrayed our own tradition).  This was a problem for all so-called "christian" churches in the South, even after the Civil War and Emancipation.  Bob Jones Univ, which did not even admit Black students until the 1970s, was still prohibiting inter-racial dating until 2000, and I personally knew evangelicals, who sent their children to Bob Jones, who were deeply racist -- and who saw nothing wrong with that.  Few evangelicals know what to do when they learn that Martin Luther argued vehemently that polygamy was biblical and there was no biblical argument against it.  Most evangelicals do not know their Bible well.  If they did, they would have no problem with LDS theology -- including Jesus and Satan being brothers.

[Five Solas]

8 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

MFB: Numerous Christians believe LDS theology in the main and only need it presented clearly to recognize where and how they could grow towards Christ.

FS:  No, the problem with Evangelical Christians who do not hold to the “orthodox” Christian view is that they are not committed Christians seeking truth.  Thus, the presentation of LDS views is not likely to move them.

...

You have a gift for succinctness, TOmNossor.  Our positions on the topic, in a nutshell. 

--Erik

PS.  But I don't think I'm up for addressing your points concerning our Triune God at the moment, maybe later. 

:0)

[Five Solas]

On 10/10/2016 at 11:15 AM, mfbukowski said:

Before I joined the church, even as a child I felt a certainty that I lived before...

One of my all-time favorite movies is Patton.  There are many memorable moments in this excellent film--but the one your post calls to mind is where General Patton (played by George C. Scott) tells General Omar Bradley, "It was here..." "2000 years ago..." "I was here..." "You don't believe me do you, Brad?"

Of course, General Patton wasn't really there, or any of the other places he believed himself to have been in history.  And there's little point debating the matter.  But a much more interesting question, at least in my mind, is how much his belief in reincarnation contributed to his strength and ability as an American general?  And likewise your heart-felt, gut level belief in a pre-existence no doubt makes you a better Mormon.

It's interesting, for sure. 

--Erik

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

One of my all-time favorite movies is Patton.  There are many memorable moments in this excellent film--but the one your post calls to mind is where General Patton (played by George C. Scott) tells General Omar Bradley, "It was here..." "2000 years ago..." "I was here..." "You don't believe me do you, Brad?"

Of course, General Patton wasn't really there, or any of the other places he believed himself to have been in history.  And there's little point debating the matter.  But a much more interesting question, at least in my mind, is how much his belief in reincarnation contributed to his strength and ability as an American general?  And likewise your heart-felt, gut level belief in a pre-existence no doubt makes you a better Mormon.

It's interesting, for sure. 

--Erik

I don't know that Patton believed in reincarnation when he imagined himself to have been Hannibal at Carthage.  I recall that scene and took it to mean that he saw himself as a magnificent general, as redoubtable in every way as the great Hannibal "The Grace of Baal."  On that score, Bradley and Ike certainly believed their West Point classmate to be a legend in his own time -- and they made full use of that reputation to scare the Nazis.  They had faith in him, and it was justified.

So, we should not take it so lightly when one of our colleagues (or Tavis Smiley or Cornel West) asks us to "Keep the faith!"  It is meant with great sincerity, Erik.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[theplains]

On 09/10/2016 at 5:47 PM, mfbukowski said:

It took some time to dream up the idea of the Trinity- 300 years!

Yes truth is revealed line upon line.  I fail to see how that is relevant.  Genesis was revealed first theoretically according to most EV's I imagine. Pick the first book revealed- I don't care which one it was-  Is the rest of the Bible therefore wrong because it took time to reveal?

No, Just wondering why the early Latter-day Saints did not view the Holy Spirit as a personage in
the Godhead when probably the Christian groups in Smith's area may have believed it.  Or maybe
it was because his visitor said "all their creeds are an abomination to me" so he rejected the teaching
of the Trinity.

Regards,
Jim

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

No, Just wondering why the early Latter-day Saints did not view the Holy Spirit as a personage in
the Godhead when probably the Christian groups in Smith's area may have believed it.  Or maybe
it was because his visitor said "all their creeds are an abomination to me" so he rejected the teaching
of the Trinity.

Regards,
Jim

Odd question.

I would not adopt a religious faith based on my neighbors beliefs, would you?

[boblloyd91]

On October 11, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Trouble is that it took much longer for the deeply racist and previously slave-holding members of the Southern Baptist Convention to apologize to Black people for their horrific behavior than it did for the Mormons to grant the priesthood to all -- and they did not have a tradition of slavery-abolition and ordaining Black people early on, as we did (we betrayed our own tradition).  This was a problem for all so-called "christian" churches in the South, even after the Civil War and Emancipation.  Bob Jones Univ, which did not even admit Black students until the 1970s, was still prohibiting inter-racial dating until 2000, and I personally knew evangelicals, who sent their children to Bob Jones, who were deeply racist -- and who saw nothing wrong with that.  Few evangelicals know what to do when they learn that Martin Luther argued vehemently that polygamy was biblical and there was no biblical argument against it.  Most evangelicals do not know their Bible well.  If they did, they would have no problem with LDS theology -- including Jesus and Satan being brothers.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Edited October 13, 2016 by boblloyd91

[Five Solas]

On 10/11/2016 at 6:44 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't know that Patton believed in reincarnation when he imagined himself to have been Hannibal at Carthage.  I recall that scene and took it to mean that he saw himself as a magnificent general, as redoubtable in every way as the great Hannibal "The Grace of Baal."  On that score, Bradley and Ike certainly believed their West Point classmate to be a legend in his own time -- and they made full use of that reputation to scare the Nazis.  They had faith in him, and it was justified.

So, we should not take it so lightly when one of our colleagues (or Tavis Smiley or Cornel West) asks us to "Keep the faith!"  It is meant with great sincerity, Erik.

You're likely mistaken if you think the screenwriter (Francis Ford Coppola) was taking undue liberty with Patton and reincarnation, RFS.  Nothing out there suggests Patton intended it as a ruse--and he made similar comments to a number of people over the course of his career.  Let Google be your friend if you continue to doubt me on this. 

Regarding your last couple of sentences--I haven't questioned anyone's sincerity on this thread.  And I find your examples of respected African-American social commentators disconcerting.  I've shown no disrespect to either--and there's no evident connection between them & the discussion that's unfolded in this thread.  Did you intend a non sequitur just to try to rattle me?  If so, mission accomplished...

;0)

--Erik

[theplains]

On 12/10/2016 at 2:25 AM, mfbukowski said:

Odd question.

I would not adopt a religious faith based on my neighbors beliefs, would you?

I would have to make a choice for myself based on what they said are their beliefs. The choice
would be made on examination and study.  I don't believe you can determine truth based on a
feeling you get.

Jim

[Five Solas]

On 10/11/2016 at 1:51 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Trouble is that it took much longer for the deeply racist and previously slave-holding members of the Southern Baptist Convention to apologize to Black people for their horrific behavior than it did for the Mormons ...

Except the SBC actually *did* apologize.  As for the LDS Church making apology--in the immortal words of Dallin H. Oaks--"we don't give them."

That's pretty awkward for your position/your post, the rep points you collected for it, notwithstanding...

--Erik 

PS.  TOmNossor is doubtless awaiting me to take up his several thoughtful points on the Trinity, back on page 1.  I'm clearing the easy stuff first, Tom.  It's coming.

:0)

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Except the SBC actually *did* apologize.  As for the LDS Church making apology--in the immortal words of Dallin H. Oaks--"we don't give them."

That's pretty awkward for your position/your post, the rep points you collected for it, notwithstanding...

--Erik 

PS.  TOmNossor is doubtless awaiting me to take up his several thoughtful points on the Trinity, back on page 1.  I'm clearing the easy stuff first, Tom.  It's coming.

:0)

I am very glad that the SBC gave a formal apology, even if it was much longer in coming than the granting of priesthood to all Mormon males regardless of race (which was actually a reinstituting of what Joseph Smith had begun doing at the outset).  Pretty good apology in my book.  In any case, SBC members had been night-riding with the Klan, and lynching Black men, and otherwise violating the Gospel of Jesus Christ for generations.  Unlike you and TOm Nossor, I gave a balanced appraisal.  You might try giving up the partisan effort you enjoy and join those of us who seek truth, no matter who it hurts or helps.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/11/2016 at 8:55 AM, TOmNossor said:

Mfbukowski and Five Solas and ALL,

Hello!

I want to respond to a simplistic summary:

MFB: Numerous Christians believe LDS theology in the main and only need it presented clearly to recognize where and how they could grow towards Christ.

FS:  No, the problem with Evangelical Christians who do not hold to the “orthodox” Christian view is that they are not committed Christians seeking truth.  Thus, the presentation of LDS views is not likely to move them.

 

As a BIASED LDS, I lean towards defending MFB’s position, but before I start let me acknowledge that there is GREAT deal of apathetic believers in the ranks of both our churches.  LDS typically call them “inactive” and sometimes they are more than just inactive, but intentionally separated from our church.  LDS also have many folks who attend, are passionately involved with Christ and His church, and yet have little use for theological definitions.  Non-LDS Christians have these groups too.

That being said, there are passionate Christians that when presented with the philosophical underpinnings or the Trinity baulk.

I will offer three things:

#1  Nobody prays to the immaterial being of orthodox Christianity.  Many who had loving fathers think of God as a more perfect, more glorified father figure better than our own father.  Many who had abusive or absent fathers think of God as the divine answer to what we didn’t get.  As a youth and young adult I envisioned God as a kind man dressed like a kind Catholic priest of whom I have no specific memories.  I would suggest it is almost impossible to pray to the immaterial force that rules the universe.

#2  Almost nobody believes in the Trinity. Here is what Dr. Bryan Cross says (bolding mine):

.

            It is impossible to actively embrace something that is “unintelligible to us,” and most Christians RUN from the idea that the Trinity is an “incomprehensible unity,” specifically because they know they do not believe in such.

#3  Nobody prays and few believe in an impassible God.  Here is what Catholic Father Thomas Weinandy says:

This quote is from Weinandy’s Does God Suffer.  https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/11/does-god-suffer

Weinandy will go on to defend the scholastic God of Aquinas and his points are not without merit.  I bought his book of the same name to see if I could be remotely persuaded, but BIASED as I am I was not.  To me his strongest point was that the first 4-7 councils utilized this impassible understanding of God to define the Trinity and if you embrace the Trinity then …, of course I do not embrace the philosophical Trinity.  Weinandy, Dr. Paul L. Gavrilyuk and others believe God is impassible.  Many scholars do not.  And virtually all the folks who pray to God do not pray as if God is so unchangeable that we cannot freely choose to pray and CHANGE Him through our reaching out in love and hope and pain and fear and ….  The two natures of Christ was defined as it was because clearly the human Christ hungered and … and such is not possible for the impassible God.

 

So, often when I dialogue with intelligent folks on the Internet, they CLAIM to not believe the above three things.  They seldom deny #1, but often deny parts of #2 and almost always deny #3.  That being said, when I meet folks in real life who love God so much we talk about it, they speak of God as a loving Father who is relationship with Son and Holy Spirit and with them.  This is not the God defined in the first 7 councils.  In real life I try to lift them up in their beliefs and seldom if ever invite them to reject the foundations of their beliefs.

 

Anyway, apathy is a big problem.  We worship sex, power, intellect, …  Just 200-300 years ago if you did not believe in God you were considered crazy.  Today, you are celebrated as “bright” or “liberated” or “recovered.”  If you believe AND let your belief inform virtually every aspect of your life, you are viewed as a little crazy.  The forces for apathy and non-belief are strong.  Many folks who understand that God is an impassible, impersonal, incomprehensible, immaterial being do not hold tightly enough to God to weather this force.  Thus, many of the “informed” are apathetic, and many of the passionate are uninformed.

Charity, TOm

 

 

Tom Good to see you!  It's been a while!  We former RC's gotta stick together!

I tend to get very busy and if I am not quoted on a post I do not get notified and tend to miss the post and that is what happened here.

I have done a lot of meditation and the first premise of meditation is that the goal is that one rises above feelings of despair etc and can get beyond "maya" and the entanglements of this world and become a pure spiritual entity.  When I first heard of the Mormon "God who cries" that really bothered me- this talk about God retreating to some corner of the universe in despair at the death of his Son I thought was virtually blasphemy.   In my universe, God would look upon Christ's death with rejoicing at the triumph of his son who endured the test and passed it with glorious results

I still actually feel that that was "what really happened" or at least that that position is more consistent with my version of "true Christianity".  But Givens has used that image so successfully to illustrate God's immanence and "humanity" and it is such an accepted image in LDS circles that I myself have used it simply to make the point that God does feel joy and compassion and triumph etc.  Of course grief is as much an emotion as is joy.  I think God has ONLY positive emotions - after all the scriptures say "God is love" which is not to say that in worshiping God we are worshiping "Love" as some abstract principle.  I think the Catholic idea of the Beatific vision, in my version, would just be constant overwhelming joy just being in God's presence.  I have been blessed with that kind of emotion from time to time but of course not what "eyes have not seen nor ears heard" what awaits us.

I believe that TRUST is key to the belief in God- perhaps that IS the essence of belief in God.  You have to believe in some way that God is there, covering your back no matter what happens.  Yes everyone has to die and no one has an easy life- but God is there in the end.  Again- Viktor Frankl- one can have joy and trust in God in the worst possible circumstances.  To me THAT is the essence of religion- finding joy somehow at the worst moments in your life.

I find the Trinity overwhelmingly philosophically erroneous.  I don't care what scholars say- I am coming from an analytical philosophy background and believe that yes there are experiences that are unspeakable for a reason- that they transcend language and if the Trinity is a mystery fine- then shut up and don't try to explain it!   I find it hard to even read Aquinas these days it seems so bad to be after being in analytical philosophy for so long now.  Aquinas was obviously a total unqualified genius beyond genius, but the logic and understanding of language and the philosophy of language was just not there.  Social trinitarianism is the only way it makes sense, as the LDS see it, as a divine Family unified by love and of one mind and purpose.  So for me the councils also have no credibility whatsoever.  It's just bad philosophy.

But looking at your post, I think it is clear we have no substantive disagreement.  Yes I agree your point on apathy but that simply adds to the strength of "simple religion"- God loves his children and might scold us, but will always be fair and not condemn anyone for what they could not know.  

That throws out Calvinism and a host of its cousins right there for the simple folk.  Fire and brimstone is simply no longer politically correct- it's not the liberal mindset. It's so.... old fashioned.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Except the SBC actually *did* apologize.  As for the LDS Church making apology--in the immortal words of Dallin H. Oaks--"we don't give them."

That's pretty awkward for your position/your post, the rep points you collected for it, notwithstanding...

--Erik 

PS.  TOmNossor is doubtless awaiting me to take up his several thoughtful points on the Trinity, back on page 1.  I'm clearing the easy stuff first, Tom.  It's coming.

:0)

Best wishes.   

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Five Solas said:

 

PS.  TOmNossor is doubtless awaiting me to take up his several thoughtful points on the Trinity, back on page 1.  I'm clearing the easy stuff first, Tom.  It's coming.

:0)

Erik

This is the kind of thing you are up against- quoting from the article Tom quoted

Quote

Negatively, God is immutable in the sense that He does not change as do creatures, but He does not change for positive reasons as well. God’s immutability radically affirms and profoundly intensifies the absolute perfection and utter goodness of God, who, as Creator, is the one who truly lives and exists. Because God’s love is unchangeably perfect and so cannot diminish, He is then the eternally living God who is unreservedly dynamic in His goodness, love, and perfection. Similarly, while the divine attribute of impassibility primarily tells us what God is not, it does so for entirely positive reasons. God is impassible in that He does not undergo successive and fluctuating emotional states, nor can the created order alter Him in such a way so as to cause Him to suffer any modification or loss. Nor is God the possessor of negative and sinful passions as are human beings, with their susceptibility to fear, anxiety, dread, greed, lust, or unjust anger. For the Fathers, to deny that God is passible is to deny of Him all such passions that would debilitate or cripple Him as God. Almost all the early Fathers attributed impassibility to God in order to safeguard and enhance His utterly passionate love and all-consuming goodness, that is, the divine fervor and zealous resolve with which He pursues the well-being of His cherished people. Origen, for example, while ardently upholding God’s impassibility, can equally speak of His “passion of love” for fallen humankind. Even God’s anger was not conceived by the Fathers as a separate passion or intermittent emotional state within Himself, but as constitutive of His unchanging perfect goodness and providential care in the face of sin and evil. 

The present critique of the Fathers is then entirely misconceived. Contemporary theologians wrongly hold that the attribute of impassibility is ascribing something positive of God, that is, that He is static, lifeless and inert, and so completely devoid of passion. This the Fathers never countenanced. The Fathers were merely denying of God those passions that would imperil or impair those biblical attributes that were constitutive of His divine being. They wished to preserve the wholly otherness of God, as found in Scripture, and equally, also in accordance with Scripture, to profess and enrich, in keeping with His complete otherness, an understanding of His passionate love and perfect goodness. 

Aquinas brought new depth both to this patristic understanding of God and to our understanding of why He is immutable and impassible. Creatures constantly change because they continually actualize their potential either for good, and so become more perfect, or for evil, and so become less perfect. God is not in this act/potency scheme of self-actualization. God, Aquinas argued, is “being itself” or “pure act” and so cannot undergo self-constituting change by which He would become more perfect. Two pertinent points flow from this. 

First, by being pure act, God possesses the potential to perform acts that are singular to His being pure act. While we cannot comprehend how God, as pure act, acts, the act of creation is God acting as pure act, whereby created beings are related to God as He is and so come to exist. Thus, the very act of creation that assures the wholly otherness of God is the very same act that assures creation’s immediate, intimate, dynamic, and enduring relationship with God as God truly is in all His transcendent otherness. Second, as pure act or being itself, all that pertains to God’s nature is in pure act. While God and rocks may both be impassible, they are so for polar opposite reasons. A rock is impassible because, being an inert impersonal object, it lacks all that pertains to love. God is impassible because His love is perfectly in act (“God is love”) and no further self-constituting act could make Him more loving. God is absolutely impassible because He is absolutely passionate in His love. Thus creatures, and particularly human beings, through the act of creation are immediately and intimately related to God as He exists in His perfectly actualized love. 

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/11/does-god-suffer

Obviously this is full of metaphysical jargon which is unexplained and unfounded, and "plucked from the air".  There IS no "argument", no attempt to justify any of it, except what "the fathers" said.

It IS beautiful metaphysical poetry, and with my left brain unplugged, I want to jump right into it. "Yeah, sure!  God is pure act!"

But that is with my logic unplugged.  What does that mean- "pure act"?  Where did that idea come from?

What is this distinction between creator and created?  I take some wood, cut it into shapes and organize it into a table.  Certainly there is a distinction between me and the table, between the organizer and what is organized.  But people are not tables.  Am I the "creator" of my children?  The process of making babies is not like making a table at all.

The distinction is presumed from the beginning- the very distinction results from a question-begging argument.  Ex-nihilo creation is presumed, making things and people and the earth like a table to a creator God who snaps his fingers and makes tables and people and worlds.  And that is just the presumptions in the distinction between creator and created.

The creator is the only one who truly exists?  Where did that come from?

And that is just the first sentence!

Wittgenstein or James or Rorty- or anyone in analytical philosophy would.......  well let's just say "disagree" to keep this charitable.

"The fathers" lived a long time ago.  Our modes of thought have changed immeasurably since the Nicene Creed was written under the influence of Constantine.

Erik, I would love to see some good arguments from you, but I think you are taking on an impossible task.   There's just nothing there to work with.

So from a debate point of view, I think my OP point stands.  People like it direct, pure, and simple.  I don't think there is an EV out there who could read the above and understand it and agree with its logic.  It's not about EV's- it's about anyone trying to follow the logic or evidence for the truth of any of it.

There's just nothing there.  Times have changed, and the theology of the Trinity- and related assumptions as the above shows- no longer applies to the way people think today.

This can only possibly appeal to those immersed in Scholasticism, with all those assumptions already in place.  Many of those are brilliant scholars, without question, and I would not dare to question their intelligence or ability.  They are brilliant people.

But in my opinion, medieval philosophy belongs in its age and not in the 21st century.  

Edited October 14, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Another point from the above quote

Quote

The present critique of the Fathers is then entirely misconceived. Contemporary theologians wrongly hold that the attribute of impassibility is ascribing something positive of God, that is, that He is static, lifeless and inert, and so completely devoid of passion. This the Fathers never countenanced. The Fathers were merely denying of God those passions that would imperil or impair those biblical attributes that were constitutive of His divine being. They wished to preserve the wholly otherness of God, as found in Scripture, and equally, also in accordance with Scripture, to profess and enrich, in keeping with His complete otherness, an understanding of His passionate love and perfect goodness. 

Note what he is saying- I will translate his argument as I see it

"All those who wanted to define God as devoid of passions wanted to do, is show that their Neo-Platonic ideas were compatible with the Bible."

Well they did not succeed because that view is NOT compatible with the Bible.
 

[TOmNossor]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Another point from the above quote

Note what he is saying- I will translate his argument as I see it

"All those who wanted to define God as devoid of passions wanted to do, is show that their Neo-Platonic ideas were compatible with the Bible."

Well they did not succeed because that view is NOT compatible with the Bible.
 

Hello.  Good to see you too, but I read and lurk more often than I post so I have seen you here!

I will try to quote you this time so you can see it.

Sorrow is one of the less necessary emotions as I see it, but I will not deny that God sorrows.  I will offer you a little from either Weinandy or Gavrilyuk (I think Gavrilyuk, but cannot remember).  Which God would you find more praiseworthy?

1. God comes upon a burning building filled with men, woman, and children.  He is so filled with compassion that He begins to weep for the pain and sorrow felt.

2. God comes upon the same burning building, but from His transcendent state He goes about saving and comforting those who can be saved and those who need to be comforted. 

This is probably over simplified even beyond what I remember as oversimplified.   And while it captures some of why divine passibility has eclipsed divine impassibility, it fails to really deal with how God was defined as impassible and what this really does.  Sorrow is not the main issue in the early church for the defining of impassiblity and it is not the main issue in my rejection of impassibility today.  The early church could not allow God to CHANGE at all.  Pelakan (the EO scholar) mentions how God’s unchanging-ness for the Jews was really His covenantal faithfulness (truth IMO), but became immutability for the early Christians (profound error IMO).  I do not think I could believe that God loves via an impassible love so this is the issue for me. 

The God of the first 4-7 councils (the God presupposed by both sides at Nicea) makes the God of John 13:34, “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” absent.  God loves impassibly.  God exist “a se.”  God is totally unaffected by anything we say or do.  God is imutable and unchanging.  If the greatest Christian revival ever happens next year and 80%+ of atheists/agnostics/non-Christians accepts Christ as their savior, God is totally unaffected.   If the 4 horsemen of atheism conquer the intellectual life of all folks and within a generation there are no believers, God is totally unaffected.  We do not and cannot love like this.  We can have pure self giving love as we grow in Christ, but not impassible love.

You mention Aquinas.  Aquinas had a huge problem.  He tried to explain how God knew a freely chosen action.  If the CAUSE of the action was the free choice of TOm, how could God’s knowledge of the action not be caused by the free choice of TOm in at least some component.  God’s knowledge cannot be from TOm’s choices because this causes an affect upon God from TOm.  Aquinas (as best I can tell) never solved the problem but punted to a “divine sight” that is some mystery.  Molina solved the problem by claiming that what God knew is a product of “Counterfactual of Creaturely Freedom.”   God created us such that He knew what we would do in a specific instance so this knowledge is not caused by our free choice.  As best I can tell this results in a pure determinism, and requires a compatibilist view of freedom (or a denial of freedom).   {You should check my thinking here, but this is how I remember Aquinas and Molina}

So few Christians recognize their God as one who is imutable and impassible and exist “a se.”   A human father who was unaffected by the pain of his children is viewed as a monster, not as a hero.

But what do I do with “the sorrow of God.”  I think this is from Ostler, but I am not sure.  I believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit exist in a relationship of love so profound and wonderful that though they are affected by the sorrow of me cursing when I stub my toe AND of the death and suffering of millions of Jews in the holocaust, they are never OVERWHELMED.  The well of love that exists in the Trinity is such that God always has joy even when “weeping” for his children.  He is not the “unmoved mover,” but the “most moved mover;” however, He is never overcome by sorrow and pain due to the infinite well of love He always enjoys.  In addition to this, God has designed the world and prepared for our salvation.   While it may sometimes look like the forces of evil are gaining ground, God sees the end from the beginning.  He is the “self-surpassing surpassor of all.  The world is marching towards God’s perfect ending where every knee will bow and every tongue confess.  God’s joy is ever increasing.

So, I find it important that God can experience joy and sorrow, but net-net, I think He is quite joyful AND I believe He is more joyful each day.  We may choose to be part of that joy with Him or reject Him.  If we reject Him, this will mean He has less joy and more sorrow than He would have had we accepted Him, but it hardly means He will be overcome by sorrow.

 

 

 

I see you included a lot more from the article.

The way I characterize that is that God’s “love” is the love a benevolent and brilliant ruler has for his subjects.  He passionately wants what is best for them.  He sets up the “laws of the land” and importunes us to follow them to our happiness.  He has no specific knowledge of any individual in his kingdom, but he wills their wellbeing with all his might. 

I want more.  I want God to love me for me.  I think it is great that He designed the universe to help me become like Him, but if He does not know and love me, I struggle to know and love Him.  I would rather live in a universe with an impassible God who loves like the benevolent ruler than in an impersonal universe without a great mind at its head PERHAPS.  But, an impassible God and no-God at all feel similar in many ways to me.

Finally, let me say that I am not interested in loving a God that does not exist.  If I am wrong about the God who truly loves, who calls us to love LIKE He loves, who is not impassible; then I want to know.  I want to love the actual God, not a God who feels good.  But this impassible God is not the God of the Bible and it is not the God I have experienced when He carries me through my trials and celebrates with me my triumphs.  Perhaps it is all an illusion, but I doubt it.

 

Oh, and Thomas Aquinas doubts it too.  Toward the end of his life, he experienced God.  He claimed all he ever wrote was straw.  He never wrote again and never explained what he meant.  I think Thomas experienced God, passionate and mutable, in relation with Thomas, the lover of God and seeker of Him.  The unmoved mover was not who Thomas met that day.

Charity, TOm 

[RevTestament]

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 8:39 PM, theplains said:

No, Just wondering why the early Latter-day Saints did not view the Holy Spirit as a personage in
the Godhead when probably the Christian groups in Smith's area may have believed it.  Or maybe
it was because his visitor said "all their creeds are an abomination to me" so he rejected the teaching
of the Trinity.

Regards,
Jim

You keep saying this, but it is just not so.

2 Nephi 31:21

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Doctrine and Covenants 20:28

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

We have always considered the Holy Spirit part of the Godhead. We don't use the word "trinity" because with that comes all the false baggage of the creeds, such as the Son was "begotten before all aieon or ages/worlds." That is not scriptural, Biblical, or true. Scripturally, He was begotten when the Father told Him "this day I have begotten thee." That troubled "the Fathers" so they changed it.

[theplains]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You keep saying this, but it is just not so.

2 Nephi 31:21

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Doctrine and Covenants 20:28

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22

We have always considered the Holy Spirit part of the Godhead. We don't use the word "trinity" because with that comes all the false baggage of the creeds, such as the Son was "begotten before all aieon or ages/worlds." That is not scriptural, Biblical, or true. Scripturally, He was begotten when the Father told Him "this day I have begotten thee." That troubled "the Fathers" so they changed it.

See attached. Also, in Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith, the Trinity is said to be 3 Gods,
not 1 God.

Thanks,
Jim

 

lds-lectures-on-faith-fifth.pdf

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, theplains said:

See attached. Also, in Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith, the Trinity is said to be 3 Gods,
not 1 God.

Thanks,
Jim

lds-lectures-on-faith-fifth.pdf

Scripture trumps dictations of scribes from their notes.

It can be said they are three separate beings or personages in one Elohim.

This goes back to English translation of the Hebrew, which I feel could be much better. Elohim gets translated as God and gods, but is probably best understood as "family/house of immovable powers/forces" in English. El Elyon, the Most High El/power is correctly understood as singular, and refers only to the Father. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not El Elyon, but they are all  Elohim or one family of power or "one God" per the Book of Mormon. One family can be spoken of as a singular or a plural of its members, and thus you see both in the Hebrew.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

Hello.  Good to see you too, but I read and lurk more often than I post so I have seen you here!

I will try to quote you this time so you can see it.

Thanks for that!

Quote

 

Sorrow is one of the less necessary emotions as I see it, but I will not deny that God sorrows.  I will offer you a little from either Weinandy or Gavrilyuk (I think Gavrilyuk, but cannot remember).  Which God would you find more praiseworthy?

God comes upon a burning building filled with men, woman, and children.  He is so filled with compassion that He begins to weep for the pain and sorrow felt.

God comes upon the same burning building, but from His transcendent state He goes about saving and comforting those who can be saved and those who need to be comforted. 

This is probably over simplified even beyond what I remember as oversimplified.   And while it captures some of why divine passibility has eclipsed divine impassibility, it fails to really deal with how God was defined as impassible and what this really does.  Sorrow is not the main issue in the early church for the defining of impassiblity and it is not the main issue in my rejection of impassibility today.  The early church could not allow God to CHANGE at all.  Pelakan (the EO scholar) mentions how God’s unchanging-ness for the Jews was really His covenantal faithfulness (truth IMO), but became immutability for the early Christians (profound error IMO).  I do not think I could believe that God loves via an impassible love so this is the issue for me. 

 

Well I think this whole problem derives from a pretty simple source and that is that to the Greeks, the word "perfect" meant "complete".  If something is incomplete it is not perfect.  God is perfect therefore he must be complete.  If something is complete, it is unchangeable.  Done, perfect as He is, no need to change anything.  And so in his transcendence he is immutable and impassible.  Plato comes up with the Form of the Good- and equates it with the sun in that it is the source of all understanding as the sun is the source of all light.  Aristotle sees the Form of Good as virtually semantically equal to the idea of Oneness.   Plotinus takes all of this and makes the One God the source of light and understanding and intelligibility, and this comes into Christianity as the unchangeable One Perfect Transcendent Immutable Impassible God.  But wait a minute,   Christ also has to be God, and what about the Holy Spirit?  And so the Trinity is born, three persons in one "substance" or "Being".

Regarding the sorrow issue, if those are the only possible choices, I will go with God number 2- the one who does something about the situation.

I have been lately enamored with a concept William James puts forth to resolve the problem of the transcendence and immanence conflict in Christianity- how do we describe a God "knows everything" and interacts with mankind as a Father, when the ideas of omnipotence and omniscience and in this case impassibility as well imply a transcendent being who does not interfere with the workings of his perfect creation.

James speaks of an analogy of a Super Chessmaster, God, playing a chess game with a total novice, us.  No matter what possible move we make, he knows a counter-move which will always result in his will being done.  He uses no supernatural ability- it is just that his intelligence is so far above ours that he can actually teach us chess by simply playing the game with us. 

I feel that such a God can be said to "know all things" through "natural" intelligence, show compassion, and be as a father to us while satisfying all the traditional properties ascribed to Godhood.  I see the Social Trinity as a deified human family.   So yes, I go for God number 2 with that proviso- that such a being does what we need to teach us and guide us without interfering with our "game" and the way we play it.  The choices are all ours and not determined by anyone but us, but he does interact to help us.

And of course such a God would also know that in the burning building the suffering will be temporary and will know the glories which await those who go through that suffering.

Quote

The God of the first 4-7 councils (the God presupposed by both sides at Nicea) makes the God of John 13:34, “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” absent.  God loves impassibly.  God exist “a se.”  God is totally unaffected by anything we say or do.  God is immutable and unchanging.  If the greatest Christian revival ever happens next year and 80%+ of atheists/agnostics/non-Christians accepts Christ as their savior, God is totally unaffected.   If the 4 horsemen of atheism conquer the intellectual life of all folks and within a generation there are no believers, God is totally unaffected.  We do not and cannot love like this.  We can have pure self giving love as we grow in Christ, but not impassible love.

Agreed.

Quote

You mention Aquinas.  Aquinas had a huge problem.  He tried to explain how God knew a freely chosen action.  If the CAUSE of the action was the free choice of TOm, how could God’s knowledge of the action not be caused by the free choice of TOm in at least some component.  God’s knowledge cannot be from TOm’s choices because this causes an affect upon God from TOm.  Aquinas (as best I can tell) never solved the problem but punted to a “divine sight” that is some mystery.  Molina solved the problem by claiming that what God knew is a product of “Counterfactual of Creaturely Freedom.”   God created us such that He knew what we would do in a specific instance so this knowledge is not caused by our free choice.  As best I can tell this results in a pure determinism, and requires a compatibilist view of freedom (or a denial of freedom).   {You should check my thinking here, but this is how I remember Aquinas and Molina}

Well I don't pretend to be a medieval scholar and I won't bother to look it up, but I do agree completely with your argument.  Sounds like pure determinism to me.  Perhaps of course the argument could be that knowing what someone will do does not cause them to do it.  I think the "therefore they could not do otherwise" is nonsense.  If you have kids and leave the cookie jar open, you know which individual child WILL end up with his hand in  that jar, but you sure don't cause them to do it.   And I have no more problem in "causing" a reaction from my creator than I do with the idea of making a move against a Chessmaster "causing" him to make a counter move.  The hypothetical chessmaster is still infinitely above us in intelligence, and as Hume showed, defining a "cause" is impossible in a complex world.   Perhaps the move the chessmaster makes in "reaction" to my move is also compatible with with he planned on doing anyway, etc.

Quote

 

So few Christians recognize their God as one who is imutable and impassible and exist “a se.”   A human father who was unaffected by the pain of his children is viewed as a monster, not as a hero.

But what do I do with “the sorrow of God.”  I think this is from Ostler, but I am not sure.  I believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit exist in a relationship of love so profound and wonderful that though they are affected by the sorrow of me cursing when I stub my toe AND of the death and suffering of millions of Jews in the holocaust, they are never OVERWHELMED.  The well of love that exists in the Trinity is such that God always has joy even when “weeping” for his children.  He is not the “unmoved mover,” but the “most moved mover;” however, He is never overcome by sorrow and pain due to the infinite well of love He always enjoys.  In addition to this, God has designed the world and prepared for our salvation.   While it may sometimes look like the forces of evil are gaining ground, God sees the end from the beginning.  He is the “self-surpassing surpassor of all.  The world is marching towards God’s perfect ending where every knee will bow and every tongue confess.  God’s joy is ever increasing.

 

 

 

Again I would always balance that with joy that his children are able to overcome the world.  He DID say that you know- (of course) that it was up to us to OVERCOME the world, and that takes pain and suffering.   I watch kids struggling with math- do I help them, or let them figure it out for themselves?  Does it help them to always step in when they are struggling?   Of course not.  So when he sees us with our hand in the cookie jar, is he really feeling pain?  Some of this stuff seems pretty "feelie- touchie" if you are old enough to remember that phrase from the '60's - I am not a fan of a wimpy God either!    Again I think the image of the chessmaster teaching us the game by our mistakes is a valuable analogy.

Quote

So, I find it important that God can experience joy and sorrow, but net-net, I think He is quite joyful AND I believe He is more joyful each day.  We may choose to be part of that joy with Him or reject Him.  If we reject Him, this will mean He has less joy and more sorrow than He would have had we accepted Him, but it hardly means He will be overcome by sorrow.

Yep!  Again, agreed!

Quote

 

I see you included a lot more from the article.

The way I characterize that is that God’s “love” is the love a benevolent and brilliant ruler has for his subjects.  He passionately wants what is best for them.  He sets up the “laws of the land” and importunes us to follow them to our happiness.  He has no specific knowledge of any individual in his kingdom, but he wills their wellbeing with all his might. 

I want more.  I want God to love me for me.  I think it is great that He designed the universe to help me become like Him, but if He does not know and love me, I struggle to know and love Him.  I would rather live in a universe with an impassible God who loves like the benevolent ruler than in an impersonal universe without a great mind at its head PERHAPS.  But, an impassible God and no-God at all feel similar in many ways to me.

 

 

 

I want to laugh out loud sometimes when the LDS say "Remember- God knows your name" like it's some big deal for him to do that.  We also teach that he hears and answers prayer.   If he is able to hear and answer my silent prayers of desperation, he better know me a lot better than just "knowing my name"  !!!    I don't know where we get this stuff.  Does your father know your name?   I suppose if he has 46 wives and 83 children that might be a problem- that's perhaps where it comes from.  But I am sure my Father in heaven knows me intimately, knows my thoughts and needs.  If I have the Holy Ghost as a "constant companion" does that communication only go one way?   That makes no sense to me whatsoever!

Quote

 

Finally, let me say that I am not interested in loving a God that does not exist.  If I am wrong about the God who truly loves, who calls us to love LIKE He loves, who is not impassible; then I want to know.  I want to love the actual God, not a God who feels good.  But this impassible God is not the God of the Bible and it is not the God I have experienced when He carries me through my trials and celebrates with me my triumphs.  Perhaps it is all an illusion, but I doubt it.

Oh, and Thomas Aquinas doubts it too.  Toward the end of his life, he experienced God.  He claimed all he ever wrote was straw.  He never wrote again and never explained what he meant.  I think Thomas experienced God, passionate and mutable, in relation with Thomas, the lover of God and seeker of Him.  The unmoved mover was not who Thomas met that day.

Charity, TOm 

 

Yes and I remember that story well.  I am so glad he finally found Him!  Reminds me of the story of Augustine and the child on the beach trying to put the ocean in his little hole in the sand.

We cannot tap the depths - he who thinks language can contain God is stuck with the theology they think works I suppose.   There IS a reason we LDS are not know for our writers of "theology".

Great discussion!

Edited October 15, 2016 by mfbukowski

[paulhadik]

the "uninformed evangelical"? Pretty oxymoron-ic don't you think? Those of us who have studied the Bible carefully (and there are many many around the world) do find serious issues with LDS teaching starting with the crux of the matter-the worldwide apostasy. Many "uninformed evangelicals" have never studied their Bible, get their theology from popular yet vapid mega-churches and are comfortable believing only comfortable thoughts like "all or most people get to heaven". (and some of us graduated from Bob Jones and married Pacific Islanders so we weren't too stained by southern backward thinking)

[boblloyd91]

3 hours ago, paulhadik said:

the "uninformed evangelical"? Pretty oxymoron-ic don't you think? Those of us who have studied the Bible carefully (and there are many many around the world) do find serious issues with LDS teaching starting with the crux of the matter-the worldwide apostasy. Many "uninformed evangelicals" have never studied their Bible, get their theology from popular yet vapid mega-churches and are comfortable believing only comfortable thoughts like "all or most people get to heaven". (and some of us graduated from Bob Jones and married Pacific Islanders so we weren't too stained by southern backward thinking)

You don't believe in an apostasy, yet I'm guessing if you went to Bob Jones University you hold to a Protestant Fundamentalist pov, which means you consider the church in error until Martin Luther came along. If I'm misrepresenting you,let me know, but I've yet to meet an Evangelical who doesn't see things this way, which to me sounds like a belief in an apostasy. Not the exact same as LDS belief to be sure, but close enough.

 The only other exception are the Evangelicals who hold to the "trail of blood" theory that various groups were carrying on the "true gospel" but were constantly being killed by Rome. I haven't seen this argument for a while.

[paulhadik]

Hi Bob:

 

Happy Lord's Day from the Islands!  It is one thing to say the Roman Catholic Church was in error and quite another to say that the Catholic Church was in error or to say that there is a necessary "earthly" authority that must exist for the church to exist. I think this is closer to the Reformed pov then what you mentioned.  The trail of blood theory is one that certain Baptists groups hold to trace a "baptist" line back to the disciples. I do not see a point where Christ ever sanctioned a denomination or boxed in His church. Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name there I am also.

Take care, 

 

paul

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, paulhadik said:

Hi Bob:

 

Happy Lord's Day from the Islands!  It is one thing to say the Roman Catholic Church was in error and quite another to say that the Catholic Church was in error or to say that there is a necessary "earthly" authority that must exist for the church to exist. I think this is closer to the Reformed pov then what you mentioned.  The trail of blood theory is one that certain Baptists groups hold to trace a "baptist" line back to the disciples. I do not see a point where Christ ever sanctioned a denomination or boxed in His church. Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name there I am also.

Take care, 

 

paul

 While this is true:

Doctrine and Covenants 10:67

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

He also said His Father's house has many rooms - not one big one.

 

[3DOP]

38 minutes ago, paulhadik said:

Hi Bob:

 

Happy Lord's Day from the Islands!  It is one thing to say the Roman Catholic Church was in error and quite another to say that the Catholic Church was in error or to say that there is a necessary "earthly" authority that must exist for the church to exist. I think this is closer to the Reformed pov then what you mentioned.  The trail of blood theory is one that certain Baptists groups hold to trace a "baptist" line back to the disciples. I do not see a point where Christ ever sanctioned a denomination or boxed in His church. Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name there I am also.

Take care, 

 

paul

 

 

I am lured from my lair. I hope you are well Paul. I have not moved to right or left.

Rory