All things created spiritually before naturally

[RevTestament]

45 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said:

Substance means Godhead  or God  - 3 persons ONE GOD just like 2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44, Mormon 7:7 and the testimony of the 3 witnesses - So the Book of Mormon clearly teaches the Father, son and holy spirit are one substance 

You do not know your history. One substance or homoousios was declared inappropriate by regional council which excommunicated Paul of Samosata for using it. The word does not mean God. It is a term used to describe the oneness of the Father and the Son. As a matter of fact the Council of Nicea kinda left out the Holy Ghost, so He was expressly included about fifty years later in the Council of Constantinople.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Josh Khinder said:

Substance means Godhead  or God  - 3 persons ONE GOD just like 2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44, Mormon 7:7 and the testimony of the 3 witnesses - So the Book of Mormon clearly teaches the Father, son and holy spirit are one substance 

 

 

 

 

Wrong

Substance is Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy.  Pagan Greeks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia

[RevTestament]

48 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You do not know your history. One substance or homoousios was declared inappropriate by regional council which excommunicated Paul of Samosata for using it. The word does not mean God. It is a term used to describe the oneness of the Father and the Son. As a matter of fact the Council of Nicea kinda left out the Holy Ghost, so He was expressly included about fifty years later in the Council of Constantinople.  

i should add that the Greek word homoousios is known to have first been used by gnostics to describe God - which is probably why the 3rd century council of Antioch excommunicated Bishop Paul for using it. Just fifty years later though the Council of Nicea used the word to define God.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Wrong

Substance is Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy.  Pagan Greeks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia

Yahweh comes from pagan Edomites. El comes from those pagan Canaanites. The idea of an end of the world comes from those pagan Zoroastrians. Pagans everywhere I tell you! 

Edited June 16, 2018 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

i should add that the Greek word homoousios is known to have first been used by gnostics to describe God - which is probably why the 3rd century council of Antioch excommunicated Bishop Paul for using it. Just fifty years later though the Council of Nicea used the word to define God.

More accurately, what creates the glue that makes three Gods one

It is also crucial to what makes bread into flesh and lead into gold. Great stuff for shape shifters, unfortunately it's a totally incoherent notion in logic.

 

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Yahweh comes from pagan Edomites. El comes from those pagan Canaanites. The idea of an end of the world comes from those pagan Zoroastrians. Pagans everywhere I tell you! 

Although Edom had been a land of Canaanites, it became the inheritance of Esau, who presumably knew God. Chronologically, the Egyptian connection of YHWH to the land is not early enough to disprove the name came from Israel. El doesn't come from pagan Canaanites really. It is an ancient Semitic word, so was common to all Canaanites, Hebrews, and northern Semites. It was a generic word, and not the name of any particular god - much like the English word, God. In fact it apparently forms the root for Allah as well. Trying to connect YHWH and El this way is faulty.

Edited June 16, 2018 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

More accurately, what creates the glue that makes three Gods one

It is also crucial to what makes bread into flesh and lead into gold. Great stuff for shape shifters, unfortunately it's a totally incoherent notion in logic.

I think we are pretty much going to see eye to eye. What forms the glue that makes a family one family? I agree the early Greek attempts to define God used faulty logic. They tried nonetheless, because I believe certain people wanted to discredit Arius who had a problem with using the word homoousios, more than they cared about truly understanding God scripturally. In essence I believe it was a power struggle. The Alexandrians were alarmed that the views of Arius were gaining sway, and wanted to maintain their seat as the pinnacle of Church teaching and authority. They couldn't let this uppity pupil's views continue to gain popularity. Who knows in the end, but one thing is for sure. They created "a monster" which was to take over "orthodox Christianity" for more than a thousand years. I believe it is only natural to try to understand God, but their attempt was a fumbled, poor attempt, which resulted in much bloodshed and persecution in the end. I can hardly understand how Christians can believe God approves of such inanity, although to be fair, there are verses which seem to support the idea of a singular being as God, and I believe only the Father is the Most High El. In the end it comes down to the context of interpretation, personal revelation, etc. It would be interesting to have seen what would happen to Christianity without the Nicene Council and Creed. Somehow I believe there would have been a lot less bloodshed, torture and persecution of "heretics." 

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think we are pretty much going to see eye to eye. What forms the glue that makes a family one family? I agree the early Greek attempts to define God used faulty logic. They tried nonetheless, because I believe certain people wanted to discredit Arius who had a problem with using the word homoousios, more than they cared about truly understanding God scripturally. In essence I believe it was a power struggle. The Alexandrians were alarmed that the views of Arius were gaining sway, and wanted to maintain their seat as the pinnacle of Church teaching and authority. They couldn't let this uppity pupil's views continue to gain popularity. Who knows in the end, but one thing is for sure. They created "a monster" which was to take over "orthodox Christianity" for more than a thousand years. I believe it is only natural to try to understand God, but their attempt was a fumbled, poor attempt, which resulted in much bloodshed and persecution in the end. I can hardly understand how Christians can believe God approves of such inanity, although to be fair, there are verses which seem to support the idea of a singular being as God, and I believe only the Father is the Most High El. In the end it comes down to the context of interpretation, personal revelation, etc. It would be interesting to have seen what would happen to Christianity without the Nicene Council and Creed. Somehow I believe there would have been a lot less bloodshed, torture and persecution of "heretics." 

Well yes, the councils were convened really for political purposes by Constantine and their actual purpose was to keep his Empire from falling apart.

What makes a family one is love and unity of purpose.

Sounds like God to me. Only of course the three I am sure know the thoughts of all perfectly, perfect communication and being  "of one mind".

Spouses can say pages to each other with a glance- imagine no need even for a glance!

But I am sure we are in for a full page of green crayon soon.

It's as if he doesn't even read the replies, he goes by what he thinks the person said. He seems to be arguing with himself - that is telling. No comprehension or communication.

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well yes, the councils were convened really for political purposes by Constantine and their actual purpose was to keep his Empire from falling apart.

What makes a family one is love and unity of purpose.

Sounds like God to me. Only of course the three I am sure know the thoughts of all perfectly, perfect communication and being  "of one mind".

Spouses can say pages to each other with a glance- imagine no need even for a glance!

But I am sure we are in for a full page of green crayon soon.

It's as if he doesn't even read the replies, he goes by what he thinks the person said. He seems to be arguing with himself - that is telling. No comprehension or communication.

Josh? I'm not sure what his point is. Trying to teach LDS that we are trinitarians? LOL. I don't mind though. He is welcome to stick around and learn all the ways LDS are not trinitarians. I don't mind. I've spent a lot of my life on the subject in my own personal attempts to understand God, and welcome the chance to let this newbie learn a few things - even if it's only by osmosis. He seems to believe that if one believes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Elohim, that makes them trinitarian without fully understanding the history of that concept and all the doctrines that it incorporates. If he wants to keep trying, I'll welcome more opportunities to show why the doctrines of the trinity are not scriptural. 

Ultimately, history shows that Church doctrine began to be formulated in the power centers of the Empire - those were Constantinople, Rome and Alexandria which at the time was the learning or scholar center of the empire. The early centers of Christianity, Jerusalem and Antioch, got replaced, along with the earliest traditions and teachings of Christianity. For instance the wards in Jerusalem got replaced with Roman diocese, which were a military geographical division. Roman and Greek ideals infiltrated Church doctrine and teachings in the new power centers of the empire. Once these ideals became incorporated into creeds which were read in all the churches of the empire through force of law, early Christianity became doomed, and fell to a state religion. As Christ said "the night cometh when no man can work." 

[Josh Khinder]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

No kidding!?

Well, goodnight!   I have to clean up this sticky God off of my floor and then pray to substance before bed.

P.S.  We don’t believe that there is only 1 “being” in the Godhead, neither did Penrose.

Since Being is a synonym for God or Godhead the Book of Mormon and President Charles W Penrose did teach the Trinity 

[Josh Khinder]

12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You do not know your history. One substance or homoousios was declared inappropriate by regional council which excommunicated Paul of Samosata for using it. The word does not mean God. It is a term used to describe the oneness of the Father and the Son. As a matter of fact the Council of Nicea kinda left out the Holy Ghost, so He was expressly included about fifty years later in the Council of Constantinople.  

 

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I think we are pretty much going to see eye to eye. What forms the glue that makes a family one family? I agree the early Greek attempts to define God used faulty logic. They tried nonetheless, because I believe certain people wanted to discredit Arius who had a problem with using the word homoousios, more than they cared about truly understanding God scripturally. In essence I believe it was a power struggle. The Alexandrians were alarmed that the views of Arius were gaining sway, and wanted to maintain their seat as the pinnacle of Church teaching and authority. They couldn't let this uppity pupil's views continue to gain popularity. Who knows in the end, but one thing is for sure. They created "a monster" which was to take over "orthodox Christianity" for more than a thousand years. I believe it is only natural to try to understand God, but their attempt was a fumbled, poor attempt, which resulted in much bloodshed and persecution in the end. I can hardly understand how Christians can believe God approves of such inanity, although to be fair, there are verses which seem to support the idea of a singular being as God, and I believe only the Father is the Most High El. In the end it comes down to the context of interpretation, personal revelation, etc. It would be interesting to have seen what would happen to Christianity without the Nicene Council and Creed. Somehow I believe there would have been a lot less bloodshed, torture and persecution of "heretics." 

Section 20 of The D&C is almost word for word taken from the Nicean Creed

 

 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Although Edom had been a land of Canaanites, it became the inheritance of Esau, who presumably knew God. Chronologically, the Egyptian connection of YHWH to the land is not early enough to disprove the name came from Israel. El doesn't come from pagan Canaanites really. It is an ancient Semitic word, so was common to all Canaanites, Hebrews, and northern Semites. It was a generic word, and not the name of any particular god - much like the English word, God. In fact it apparently forms the root for Allah as well. Trying to connect YHWH and El this way is faulty.

Since Hebrew religion and culture evolved from Canaanite religion and culture, the Canaanite El is the most obvious source. As you say, El was also broader than that. The connection is evident in early worship of Asherah, at times consort of El and Yahweh.

According to Mark Smith, the Hebrews probably picked up Yahweh from their trade with Edom. Yahweh as not originally in the pantheon of El.

 

Edited June 16, 2018 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Since Hebrew religion and culture evolved from Canaanite religion and culture, the Canaanite El is the most obvious source. As you say, El was also broader than that.

According to Mark Smith, the Hebrews probably picked up Yahweh from their trading with Edom. Was not originally in the El pantheon.

 

The concept of the Christ enabled Christianity to still at least have an embodied God. It enabled at least a shred of the belief that a man can be exalted, to survive.

Thank God literally that at least that much remained of the concept after Neoplatonism, scholasticism, and the Theology of substance destroyed everything else.

I recalled teaching once a Catholic priest who said that if God was embodied he could not be perfect.

I simply asked him if that made the resurrected Christ imperfect and he had no answer.

 

Edited June 16, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Josh? I'm not sure what his point is. Trying to teach LDS that we are trinitarians? LOL. I don't mind though. He is welcome to stick around and learn all the ways LDS are not trinitarians. I don't mind. I've spent a lot of my life on the subject in my own personal attempts to understand God, and welcome the chance to let this newbie learn a few things - even if it's only by osmosis. He seems to believe that if one believes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Elohim, that makes them trinitarian without fully understanding the history of that concept and all the doctrines that it incorporates. If he wants to keep trying, I'll welcome more opportunities to show why the doctrines of the trinity are not scriptural. 

Ultimately, history shows that Church doctrine began to be formulated in the power centers of the Empire - those were Constantinople, Rome and Alexandria which at the time was the learning or scholar center of the empire. The early centers of Christianity, Jerusalem and Antioch, got replaced, along with the earliest traditions and teachings of Christianity. For instance the wards in Jerusalem got replaced with Roman diocese, which were a military geographical division. Roman and Greek ideals infiltrated Church doctrine and teachings in the new power centers of the empire. Once these ideals became incorporated into creeds which were read in all the churches of the empire through force of law, early Christianity became doomed, and fell to a state religion. As Christ said "the night cometh when no man can work." 

I genuinely wish I could be so nice.  The reason I left academic philosophy was because I did not want to keep teaching the same fundamentals over and over and over and over again.   I just did not have the patience for it.   I am working on it but I am still far from being there and cannot seem to find the solution.  Each time I go through the drill I just get more impatient.

Not sure what I can do to remedy that except maybe to give it up, but that feels like quitting on something I have yet to learn.  Frustrating!

Edited June 16, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Josh? I'm not sure what his point is. Trying to teach LDS that we are trinitarians? LOL. I don't mind though. He is welcome to stick around and learn all the ways LDS are not trinitarians. I don't mind. I've spent a lot of my life on the subject in my own personal attempts to understand God, and welcome the chance to let this newbie learn a few things - even if it's only by osmosis. He seems to believe that if one believes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Elohim, that makes them trinitarian without fully understanding the history of that concept and all the doctrines that it incorporates. If he wants to keep trying, I'll welcome more opportunities to show why the doctrines of the trinity are not scriptural. 

Ultimately, history shows that Church doctrine began to be formulated in the power centers of the Empire - those were Constantinople, Rome and Alexandria which at the time was the learning or scholar center of the empire. The early centers of Christianity, Jerusalem and Antioch, got replaced, along with the earliest traditions and teachings of Christianity. For instance the wards in Jerusalem got replaced with Roman diocese, which were a military geographical division. Roman and Greek ideals infiltrated Church doctrine and teachings in the new power centers of the empire. Once these ideals became incorporated into creeds which were read in all the churches of the empire through force of law, early Christianity became doomed, and fell to a state religion. As Christ said "the night cometh when no man can work." 

What about Christians in the Persian Empire and points east? They were never subject to Rome, its emperors (including Constantine), and the councils of the Roman state church. Persian subjects supporting the Roman state church were viewed as supporting the Romans and their emperor, a seditious act. Whenever the Roman/Byzantine Empire and Persia would go to war, members of the Persian church were subject to horrific persecutions at the hands of the Persian emperors and their Zoroastrian priests. They never were subjects of the Roman/Byzantine Empire and its state church, yet at that time and to this day they were and still are Nicene Creedal Christians and Trinitarians. Why is that?

Edited June 17, 2018 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Spammer said:

What about Christians in the Persian Empire and points east? They were never subject to Rome, its emperors (including Constantine), and the councils of the Roman state church. Persian subjects supporting the Roman state church were viewed as supporting the Romans and their emperor, a seditious act. Whenever the Roman/Byzantine Empire and Persia would go to war, members of the Persian church were subject to horrific persecutions at the hands of the Persian emperors and their Zoroastrian priests. They never were subjects of the Roman/Byzantine Empire and its state church, yet at that time and to this day they were and still are Nicene Creedal Christians and Trinitarians. Why is that?

An interesting question, I would probably ask you how that happened.

I just presume it was the influence of Greek philosophy in the culture of the area. But I am not familiar with the doctrinal fathers of the church in those groups.

These comments seem to indicate that they only recently accepted the Nicene Creed.

http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/846-persian-orthodox-liturgy/

"Persian is the national language spoken in Iran. Before the Islamisation of Iran, there were Orthodox Churches that thrived there. They were however split into two groups; the Nestorians and Thomists. I wonder why they never maintained contact with Byzantium. Recently I hear they have accepted the Nicene Creed. Is there any Byzantine/Syrian Orthodox in Persia now?"

Edited June 17, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Josh Khinder]

Compare the D&C section 20 with the Nicean Creed 😃

 

https://beggarsbread.org/2017/08/06/the-abomination-of-doctrine-and-covenants-20/

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said:

Compare the D&C section 20 with the Nicean Creed 😃

 

https://beggarsbread.org/2017/08/06/the-abomination-of-doctrine-and-covenants-20/

 

Whoever wrote this was mistaken or a fool or deliberately misleading people.

The Nicene Creed speaks Christ being "one substance" with the father

D&C does not.  End of story.  Period.It's clear right there on the chart.

Your own quote proves you wrong!!

This thread is about the trinity.   That's the whole point of the thread- we do not believe in consubstantiality.

You go to anti-Mormon sources for your information and find lies.  That's your choice of sources.  It's like asking a Democrat to show Trump's good points.  Also misspelling does not help your credibility  on something so basic as  "Nicene".

Edited June 17, 2018 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Spammer said:

What about Christians in the Persian Empire and points east? They were never subject to Rome, its emperors (including Constantine), and the councils of the Roman state church. Persian subjects supporting the Roman state church were viewed as supporting the Romans and their emperor, a seditious act. Whenever the Roman/Byzantine Empire and Persia would go to war, members of the Persian church were subject to horrific persecutions at the hands of the Persian emperors and their Zoroastrian priests. They never were subjects of the Roman/Byzantine Empire and its state church, yet at that time and to this day they were and still are Nicene Creedal Christians and Trinitarians. Why is that?

Y'know I really don't know much about the Church of the East, and why they seemed to adopt the Nicene Creed. I do know the Syrian Church wasn't into the two natures of Christ, and got persecuted for that by the Roman State Church. After the Nicene Creed the Church seemed to do a bit of a splinter job, and has been splintering ever since. My take is that it was all in the cards. 

My guess is the Church of the East wanted to maintain communion with the rest of the Church, and didn't see anything wrong with the Nicene Creed, so adopted it. However, they have not been on all fours with the Roman Catholic Church, and were themselves persecuted by Roman Catholic priests in India, who burned all their books. The Nicene Creed is not all bad. Much, if not most of it, is accurate and scriptural, and I don't personally have problems with the good. It is the unscriptural parts and speculation which I have problems with. Nor am I much familiar with your alleged mistreatment of Christians by the Persians. I know there was some. The Parthians and Christians seemed to get along fine, but of course we don't have much record of that time period. The Church doesn't seem to note any extreme persecution though. The Persian Emperors were a little more intemperate. It is kinda moot in my book, because it soon was almost wiped out by Islam. Then the endurance of the Church of the East really began - if only they hadn't accepted that Nicene Creed   

No matter -

the time is swiftly coming that they will see out of obscurity and into light. For Islam will fall, and teachers will come forth to lead the people out of obscurity.

[Gray]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The concept of the Christ enabled Christianity to still at least have an embodied God. It enabled at least a shred of the belief that a man can be exalted, to survive.

Thank God literally that at least that much remained of the concept after Neoplatonism, scholasticism, and the Theology of substance destroyed everything else.

I recalled teaching once a Catholic priest who said that if God was embodied he could not be perfect. 

I simply asked him if that made the resurrected Christ imperfect and he had no answer. 

 

That theology doesn't work for you, therefore it's not true for you. But it seems to work just fine for millions of Christians, therefore it's true for them, right?

 

[Spammer]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

An interesting question, I would probably ask you how that happened.

I just presume it was the influence of Greek philosophy in the culture of the area. But I am not familiar with the doctrinal fathers of the church in those groups.

These comments seem to indicate that they only recently accepted the Nicene Creed.

http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/846-persian-orthodox-liturgy/

"Persian is the national language spoken in Iran. Before the Islamisation of Iran, there were Orthodox Churches that thrived there. They were however split into two groups; the Nestorians and Thomists. I wonder why they never maintained contact with Byzantium. Recently I hear they have accepted the Nicene Creed. Is there any Byzantine/Syrian Orthodox in Persia now?"

The Persian church (aka Nestorian Church aka Church of the East) officially accepted the Creed in 410 at the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, shortly after the Persian emperor (temporarily) legalized Christianity, allowing the persecuted church to leave the underground, organize and worship publicly. In 431, the Nestorian Church and the Roman state church broke communion, the latter formally anathematizing the former over Christological issues. The churches are still not in communion, although both have the same liturgical form of worship and recite the Nicene Creed each Sunday.

Edited June 17, 2018 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Spammer said:

The Persian church (aka Nestorian Church aka Church of the East) officially accepted the Creed in 410 at the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, shortly after the Persian emperor (temporarily) legalized Christianity, allowing the persecuted church to leave the underground, organize and worship publicly. In 431, the Nestorian Church and the Roman state church broke communion, the latter formally anathematizing the former over Christological issues. The churches are still not in communion, although both have the same liturgical form of worship and recite the Nicene Creed each Sunday.

Thanks

All this confusion is created when people think that a human cannot BECOME divine, almost as a caterpillar can become a butterfly.

It's a shame no one ever came up with that analogy in the early church

Sigh.

"Life is change- how it differs from the rocks!  I've seen their ways too often for my liking !  "

"You are the crown of creation, and you've got no place to go"

- gospel according to Jefferson Starship= which was MY gospel 50 years ago before I found the church. 

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

On 6/16/2018 at 10:04 PM, Josh Khinder said:

Compare the D&C section 20 with the Nicean Creed 😃

https://beggarsbread.org/2017/08/06/the-abomination-of-doctrine-and-covenants-20/

As others noted those are pretty weak parallels. Most significantly though the key ontological aspects of the Nicean Creed aren't in section 20. As Mark noted there's no discussion of ousia or hypostasis. Beyond that though the link claims a parallel in "who proceedeth from the Father and the Son." That's a key theological point in the doctrine of the Trinity. However the purported parallel given is "prophets, who spake as they were inspired by the gift of the Holy Ghost." That's not just a non-parallel syntactically but completely avoids the ontological claim.

That said, I actually do think Mormonism is compatible with the Nicean Creed proper. The big divergences are over the embodiment of the Father and creation ex nihilo. But those, while often tied to the Trinitarian doctrine aren't formally part of the creeds. Now of course most Mormons tend to adopt a more nominalist conception of the unity of the Godhead. So they think the only unity is having similar desires and thoughts along with the same knowledge. That is there's nothing real shared they just think similarly with similar powers.

However there's certainly more substantial conceptions of the Godhead in Mormon thought. Orson Pratt for instance effectively created a Stoic version of the Trinity in his theology - largely by following Tertullians views combined with Priestly's then popular conceptions of atoms. (The Stoics had interpenetrating fluids rather than atoms) But effectively the shared ousia of the Trinity becomes a shared divine spirit that all divine beings share in and that gives them their power. The hyperousia is the atom representing the soul of each divine being. While Orson's view never really caught on in Mormon thought it indirectly did influence a lot of other thinkers.

Personally while I think Orson wrong, I do think he's right in that there's something substantial between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost that goes beyond mere similar thoughts. Many others do as well even if it's a minority position.

Edited June 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Josh Khinder]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

As others noted those are pretty weak parallels. Most significantly though the key ontological aspects of the Nicean Creed aren't in section 20. As Mark noted there's no discussion of ousia or hypostasis. Beyond that though the link claims a parallel in "who proceedeth from the Father and the Son." That's a key theological point in the doctrine of the Trinity. However the purported parallel given is "prophets, who spake as they were inspired by the gift of the Holy Ghost." That's not just a non-parallel syntactically but completely avoids the ontological claim.

That said, I actually do think Mormonism is compatible with the Nicean Creed proper. The big divergences are over the embodiment of the Father and creation ex nihilo. But those, while often tied to the Trinitarian doctrine aren't formally part of the creeds. Now of course most Mormons tend to adopt a more nominalist conception of the unity of the Godhead. So they think the only unity is having similar desires and thoughts along with the same knowledge. That is there's nothing real shared they just think similarly with similar powers.

However there's certainly more substantial conceptions of the Godhead in Mormon thought. Orson Pratt for instance effectively created a Stoic version of the Trinity in his theology - largely by following Tertullians views combined with Priestly's then popular conceptions of atoms. (The Stoics had interpenetrating fluids rather than atoms) But effectively the shared ousia of the Trinity becomes a shared divine spirit that all divine beings share in and that gives them their power. The hyperousia is the atom representing the soul of each divine being. While Orson's view never really caught on in Mormon thought it indirectly did influence a lot of other thinkers.

Personally while I think Orson wrong, I do think he's right in that there's something substantial between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost that goes beyond mere similar thoughts. Many others do as well even if it's a minority position.

You are wrong since D&C 20:28 tells us all three persons are ontological ONE GOD which ousia or hypostasis means  😃

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

You are wrong since D&C 20:28 tells us all three persons are ontological ONE GOD which ousia or hypostasis means  😃

Nothing in that verse says the unity is ontological. It could just as easily be read nominalistically. Indeed historically that's how it's typically been read. Even Pratt's more Stoic view of the ousia really isn't an ontological unity ala the Trinity but a kind of shared material fluid. Thus it's a common physical substance but not an ontological unity.

Now personally I think there is some kind of ontological unity - although I'd favor the Nothing of say Duns Scotus for various reasons. (Mainly dealing with Levinas' view of how God is absolutely other but so too are other minds and thus our own ontological ground) However there's really no textual reason to take that interpretation.

I'd not you're misusing hypostasis when you say One God. The traditional formulation, which shifted the normal Roman sense of the terms somewhat, is that there's one ousia but three hypostasis. The hypostasis is thus not shared.

My suggestion would be that whenever you read a passage don't assume the way you read it is correct. Rather consider the range of ways that passage could be read. Typically, especially with difficult passages, the text is somewhat vague and thus open to many competing readings.

Edited June 19, 2018 by clarkgoble