Bruce R. McConkie

[Anakin7]

Recently I have been asked why Bruce R.McConkie In Mormon Doctrine states that we do not believe in the traditional Christ. I thought I would run this by all here to get thoughts so I can get back with him and share. thank you all in Advance.

The Atonement It is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

He Died To Make Man Holy -It's just not 6 words to a song It has eternal Meaning.

[Duncan]

do you have a quotation?

[InCognitus]

50 minutes ago, Anakin7 said:

Recently I have been asked why Bruce R.McConkie In Mormon Doctrine states that we do not believe in the traditional Christ. I thought I would run this by all here to get thoughts so I can get back with him and share. thank you all in Advance.

The Atonement It is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

He Died To Make Man Holy -It's just not 6 words to a song It has eternal Meaning.

I think whoever asked you this meant to ask about Gordon B. Hinckley (here, and here), not Bruce R. McConkie and Mormon Doctrine.  But since Mormon Doctrine is the default quotation book for so many claims and rumors, I can see why they may have gotten them confused  

Edited June 23, 2020 by InCognitus

[Calm]

From an antisite so no link (they were good and provided a link to his full talk so I may change my mind, need to look at the site more....nope, won't  misrepresents our teachings):

Quote

As a Church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. (Gordon B. Hinckley, "We Look to Christ", from April 2002 General Conference.)

The traditional Christ of whom they [evangelical Christians] speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages. Gordon B. Hinckley, LDS Church News, June 20, 1998, p. 7

From another one I definitely won't:

Quote

“And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg.269).

These may have been confused.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Calm

[JamesBYoung]

McConkie is misquoted and misunderstood by LDS as well as non-members, so I think the OP, while the best to it, is on a fruitless quest.

[JAHS]

11 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

Recently I have been asked why Bruce R.McConkie In Mormon Doctrine states that we do not believe in the traditional Christ. I thought I would run this by all here to get thoughts so I can get back with him and share. thank you all in Advance.

If Elder McConkie did say that he would be right in the sense that  "Traditional" means the way most other Christians describe Him.

[Damien the Leper]

If this quote is correct from McConkie and Hinckley then they are correct. They don't believe in the traditional Christ as witnessed and testified of by the Holy Spirit. Arius taught the heretical  idea that Christ is a creation of the Father. However, in fairness to LDS theology, I would not classify members of the the LDS faith as Arian or semi-Arian because they cannot fully commit to the full dogma and doctrine espoused by Arius himself. Thankfully, the Spirit annihilated such heresy from infecting the Lord's Church. Thankfully, we have the promise that the Spirit will protect the Church and we will never stray into an apostate state of existence. I'll leave such nonsense to the sedevacantists.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

Recently I have been asked why Bruce R.McConkie In Mormon Doctrine states that we do not believe in the traditional Christ. I thought I would run this by all here to get thoughts so I can get back with him and share. thank you all in Advance.

The Atonement It is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

He Died To Make Man Holy -It's just not 6 words to a song It has eternal Meaning.

Despite the title the book is wrong in many areas and its publication was opposed by the 12.  I would take anything in there with a teaspoon of salt.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

If this quote is correct from McConkie and Hinckley then they are correct. They don't believe in the traditional Christ as witnessed and testified of by the Holy Spirit.

If you replace "the Holy Spirit" with "man-made creeds which weren't generated until centuries after His death" then we would probably be in agreement.  

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Never mind.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Damien the Leper]

41 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If you replace "the Holy Spirit" with "man-made creeds which weren't generated until centuries after His death" then we would probably be in agreement.  

 

Not gonna happen. You've obviously never read the statement by statement explanation of the Apostle's and Nicene Creed.

If you'd like to discuss 19th century man-made American religion that is the result of the dubious Second Great Awakening...we can open another thread. 

[rpn]

Well, we don't believe in the trinitarian Christ.   We believe He is an actual resurrected person, like Heavenly Father was before Him and that He is the appointed God of this earth we live in, doing the will of His Father here.

You might refer your friend to Jesus the Christ and the updated secular scholarship in Jehovah of the World and the Old Testament; and Jesus the Christ Study Guide.

And maybe also to Believing Christ by Stephen Robinson.  (An understanding of the Atonement lays to rest the faith/works fight that often erupts between the traditional views of Christ and our faith.)

[Anakin7]

    My critic friend jut got back to me and stated that I was correct it was not Bruce R. McConkie but Gordon B. Hinckley. I am going to be forwarding some links for him. thank you all so far for your comments.

[Islander]

20 minutes ago, Anakin7 said:

    My critic friend jut got back to me and stated that I was correct it was not Bruce R. McConkie but Gordon B. Hinckley. I am going to be forwarding some links for him. thank you all so far for your comments.

Is he a critic or an investigator? There are some that just like to contend. They are not interested in learning more about the Restored Gospel and what we really believe and that is why they search anti-LDS literature. The real test is always the same. I have read the OT and NT cover to cover and know it fairly well. I can have a very articulate discussion about it. But the other person, if he/she has not read the BoM is very ill-equipped to have a conversation about it. It should always start there and then we can talk about it. If not, is rather a potential waste of time, IMHO.

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

If this quote is correct from McConkie and Hinckley then they are correct. They don't believe in the traditional Christ as witnessed and testified of by the Holy Spirit. Arius taught the heretical  idea that Christ is a creation of the Father. However, in fairness to LDS theology, I would not classify members of the the LDS faith as Arian or semi-Arian because they cannot fully commit to the full dogma and doctrine espoused by Arius himself. Thankfully, the Spirit annihilated such heresy from infecting the Lord's Church. Thankfully, we have the promise that the Spirit will protect the Church and we will never stray into an apostate state of existence. I'll leave such nonsense to the sedevacantists.

One thing I noticed about the so-called “heresies” in Christian history and even today is that when group A perceives what they consider to be a heresy in group B, then group A tends to overreact to the point of erring in the opposite direction of what group B is teaching.   This even happens among the Latter-day Saint membership as is illustrated in the often quoted story that Robert Millet tells about him asking his dad a question just before leaving on his mission, “What does it mean to be saved by grace?”  His dad responded quickly, “We don’t believe that”, and when asked “Why” his dad responded, “Because the Baptists do!”    Humans tend to recoil at the perception of error, and sometimes they do so in such extreme ways that they may abandon a few true teachings in the process, the proverbial act of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And this is exactly the kind of thing that I see happened with the whole Arian controversy in Christian history.  Like most “heresies”, Arianism developed based on some true teachings that were well known and taught among the early Christians.   Subordinationism was taught among the pre-Nicene Christian Fathers along with the idea that Jesus was the “second God” (Origen Against Celsus, book V chapter XXXIX,  Lactantius, The Divine Institutes - Book IV, Chap. VI), or as Justin Martyr taught, “that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things” (Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch LVI ).   But this kind of thinking was made anathema by the creed created at the first council of Nicea,  with the simple insertion into the creed of the non-biblical word “homoousios” (consubstantial, one substance), chosen specifically to thwart off Arianism because the word was not in the Bible accounting to some accounts. 

So if we consider what this doctrine of a “homoousios” Father and Son has become as it evolved after the first council of Nicea (and it went through many debates as to its meaning and application) and as it has been incorporated into “traditional” Christian thinking, President Hinckley is absolutely right:  We don’t believe in the “traditional” Christ of post-Nicene creed historical Christianity.  We believe in the Jesus Christ as made known to us through revelation, restoring the original teachings back to the earth today.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

Not gonna happen. You've obviously never read the statement by statement explanation of the Apostle's and Nicene Creed.

If you'd like to discuss 19th century man-made American religion that is the result of the dubious Second Great Awakening...we can open another thread. 

So Isaiah's revelations were not "man made" but Joseph Smith's ARE?

And is God not a glorified Man of Holiness?   Is Christ himself not a human man?  And when the Hebrews believed in an anthropomorphic God that was not "the philosoophies of men" but today if you say that Christianity is Humanism, THAT is a philosophy of men?

And when the Nicene Creed speaks of "consubstantiality" which comes straight out of Aristotelian pagan Greek philosophy, that is NOT a philosophy of men right?

So I guess we throw out all revelation and philosophy. 

YAY we get to go back to the Spirit!!  

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

One thing I noticed about the so-called “heresies” in Christian history and even today is that when group A perceives what they consider to be a heresy in group B, then group A tends to overreact to the point of erring in the opposite direction of what group B is teaching.   This even happens among the Latter-day Saint membership as is illustrated in the often quoted story that Robert Millet tells about him asking his dad a question just before leaving on his mission, “What does it mean to be saved by grace?”  His dad responded quickly, “We don’t believe that”, and when asked “Why” his dad responded, “Because the Baptists do!”    Humans tend to recoil at the perception of error, and sometimes they do so in such extreme ways that they may abandon a few true teachings in the process, the proverbial act of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Yeah, which is what I just did above.

😒

Quote

 

And this is exactly the kind of thing that I see happened with the whole Arian controversy in Christian history.  Like most “heresies”, Arianism developed based on some true teachings that were well known and taught among the early Christians.   Subordinationism was taught among the pre-Nicene Christian Fathers along with the idea that Jesus was the “second God” (Origen Against Celsus, book V chapter XXXIX,  Lactantius, The Divine Institutes - Book IV, Chap. VI), or as Justin Martyr taught, “that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things” (Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch LVI ).   But this kind of thinking was made anathema by the creed created at the first council of Nicea,  with the simple insertion into the creed of the non-biblical word “homoousios” (consubstantial, one substance), chosen specifically to thwart off Arianism because the word was not in the Bible accounting to some accounts. 

So if we consider what this doctrine of a “homoousios” Father and Son has become as it evolved after the first council of Nicea (and it went through many debates as to its meaning and application) and as it has been incorporated into “traditional” Christian thinking, President Hinckley is absolutely right:  We don’t believe in the “traditional” Christ of post-Nicene creed historical Christianity.  We believe in the Jesus Christ as made known to us through revelation, restoring the original teachings back to the earth today.

 

Bravissimo!

Edited June 23, 2020 by mfbukowski

[2BizE]

Bruce R. McConkie said many things in his lifetime that if he were alive today he would dreadfully regret saying....

[nuclearfuels]

On 6/22/2020 at 11:42 PM, Anakin7 said:

Recently I have been asked why Bruce R.McConkie In Mormon Doctrine states that we do not believe in the traditional Christ. I thought I would run this by all here to get thoughts so I can get back with him and share. thank you all in Advance.

The Atonement It is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

He Died To Make Man Holy -It's just not 6 words to a song It has eternal Meaning.

The traditional Christ is God the Father, the Beloved Son, and the Holy Ghost all in one Personage. We don't believe that.

The traditional Christ didn't visit the Americas and Isles of the Sea, according to some. We don't believe that.

The traditional Christ didn't call Apostles after His 12 Disciples. We don't believe that.

The traditional Christ and His Church never had an Apostasy. We don't believe that.

The traditional Christ was not known as Jehovah premortally since He was all 3 members of the Godhood. We don't believe that.

The traditional Christ does not allow God's children to progress to the status of godhood. We don't believe that.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

The traditional Christ is God the Father, the Beloved Son, and the Holy Ghost all in one Personage. We don't believe that.

It's even worse than that.

They are all in one "substance" whatever that means.  Straight Aristotle, a pagan Greek.   We don't believe that.    One in love and purpose?  Now THAT is an intelligible statement. 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

The traditional Christ is God the Father, the Beloved Son, and the Holy Ghost all in one Personage. We don't believe that.

I have learned (or have tried to understand),  that it is incorrect to represent the doctrine of the Trinity as teaching they are "all in one Personage".  As I understand the doctrine, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are said to be three persons but they are one in essence or being.

Below are two separate excerpts from a very long statement on the doctrine of the Trinity that tries to explain how the persons are to be understood, and in what way they are "one".  This is from The Eleventh Council of Toledo on the Trinity (675).  If anyone knows of a good online source for this, I'd like to find it (I did find it in a couple of Google Books):

Quote

"Yet in all things the Son is equal to God the Father, for He has never begun nor ceased to be born. We also believe that He is of one substance with the Father; wherefore He is called homoousios with the Father, that is of the same being as the Father, for homos in Greek means 'one' and ousia means 'being', and joined together they mean 'one in being'."

"While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance. Although we profess three persons, we do not profess three substances, but one substance and three persons."

And if you want an opinion from a Protestant (Calvinist) point of view, here's an explanation of the Trinity from James White in his book, The Forgotten Trinity:

Quote

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (The Forgotten Trinity - Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, by James R. White (1998, Bethany House Publishers), p.26, emphasis added)

Here's another explanation from the book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Robert M. Bowman, Jr:

Quote

"Another aspect of God's oneness is the fact that there are no separations or divisions or partitions in God. The trinitarian doctrine holds that God is a single infinite being, transcending the bounds of space and time, having no body either material or spiritual (except the body that the Son assumed in becoming a man). Thus the trinitarian God has no parts. You cannot divide infinite being into components. The Athanasian Creed affirms that God is not divided by the three persons when it states that the trinitarian faith does not allow for "dividing the substance" (using "substance" to mean the essence or being of God). The three persons, consequently, are not three parts of God, but three personal distinctions within God, each of whom is fully God" (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity - An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., 1989 Baker Book House, pp.12-13)

I'm not sure if any of that helps, but at least that's the way that people who believe in the doctrine explain it.

By the way, I'm no expert on these things by any means.  But I try hard to represent the beliefs of others in the same way they would try to explain them themselves.  

Edited June 25, 2020 by InCognitus

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I have learned (or have tried to understand),  that it is incorrect to represent the doctrine of the Trinity as teaching they are "all in one Personage".  As I understand the doctrine, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are said to be three persons but they are one in essence or being.

Below are two separate excerpts from a very long statement on the doctrine of the Trinity that tries to explain how the persons are to be understood, and in what way they are "one".  This is from The Eleventh Council of Toledo on the Trinity (675).  If anyone knows of a good online source for this, I'd like to find it (I did find it in a couple of Google Books):

And if you want an opinion from a Protestant (Calvinist) point of view, here's an explanation of the Trinity from James White in his book, The Forgotten Trinity:

Here's another explanation from the book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Robert M. Bowman, Jr:

I'm not sure if any of that helps, but at least that's the way that people who believe in the doctrine explain it.

By the way, I'm no expert on these things by any means.  But I try hard to represent the beliefs of others in the same way they would try to explain them themselves.  

Interestingly, your quote contradicts itself, AND the notion of "substance" comes from Greek philosophy- Plato and Aristotle- it is not biblical.

The notion of "substance" is vague to us in the 21st century, since it cannot be defined clearly.   It is of course the same term used in alchemy and the theological idea of "transubstantiation"

The idea is - to make it very simple, that all things are made up of "appearances" or "accidents" and their "substance"

Appearances are characteristics of how the objects appear to us, but the substance is what they "really are".   So take a lamp on your desk.   The substance of the lamp is it's "lampness"- the characteristics it has in common with all lamps.   Perhaps those would include a lamp's ability to give off light, be somewhat portable perhaps etc.

On the other hand the "appearance" of the lamp is just that- it might be a simple torch, it could be made of gold or lead, it might be decorated in a certain way etc.

So in the example of transubstantiation, the substance of the bread is its breadiness- made of wheat, functions as food for us, all the essence of what bread is.

It's appearance might be round, or as a tortilla, flat, it might vary in color etc.

So in transubstantiation supposedly it CHANGES "substance"- "trans-substance"into the substance of the flesh of Christ- body blood soul and divinity of Christ- while retaining the appearance of bread.

Perfectly logical right?    Not necessarily to us in different times.   Similarly in alchemy, lead can be transformed into gold by simply  keeping its metallic substance and changing its appearances- taking on the appearance of gold in color, weight etc.

So the theory is that all three persons have the same "substance" and "nature" while being different persons

The problem of course is Christ who's nature is that of a man AND God, while God is a spirit.  So now to keep this idea allegedly logical, one must conclude that Christ as TWO natures, one is the nature of a man- and the other is the nature of God- which is his divinity

But in our age, saying something like "the substance of being a man is his manliness"  or the "nature of a man is to be a man" is clearly a circular definition which defines nothing. 

That makes the whole idea of "essence" or "substance" incoherent, in my opinion

And then we have the contradiction in your quote above:

Quote

The trinitarian doctrine holds that God is a single infinite being, transcending the bounds of space and time, having no body either material or spiritual (except the body that the Son assumed in becoming a man). Thus the trinitarian God has no parts. You cannot divide infinite being into components. The Athanasian Creed affirms that God is not divided by the three persons when it states that the trinitarian faith does not allow for "dividing the substance" (using "substance" to mean the essence or being of God). The three persons, consequently, are not three parts of God, but three personal distinctions within God, each of whom is fully God" (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity - An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., 1989 Baker Book House, pp.12-13)

This definition shows its exception and contradiction right in the definition itself!!

If God is a single infinite being having no body- then how is the  MATERIAL body of the Son PART of God?  Christ is often described as being "fully God and fully man" while apparently not violating the standards stated in the quote.

When asked these kinds of questions the answer is usually something like "It's a MYSTERY"!

Well fine, if it's a mystery then why try to define it with contradictory statements?   Why not just state from the start that "We don't understand how this works, but we believe _________".??

I asked a Jesuit father this question once and he could not answer it

These are just a few of the reasons I am no longer Catholic

[Anakin7]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's even worse than that.

They are all in one "substance" whatever that means.  Straight Aristotle, a pagan Greek.   We don't believe that.    One in love and purpose?  Now THAT is an intelligible statement. 

 

 

To Evangelicals "substance" means Being/Essence/Nature of which We True Grace Empowered LDS have no problem with the 3 being/having  and each one possessing the True God "DNA" "Being" Essence" Nature"  though not one God "Entity". 

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

He Died To Make Man Holy 

[InCognitus]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This definition shows its exception and contradiction right in the definition itself!!

If God is a single infinite being having no body- then how is the  MATERIAL body of the Son PART of God?  Christ is often described as being "fully God and fully man" while apparently not violating the standards stated in the quote.

When asked these kinds of questions the answer is usually something like "It's a MYSTERY"!

Well fine, if it's a mystery then why try to define it with contradictory statements?   Why not just state from the start that "We don't understand how this works, but we believe _________".??

I asked a Jesuit father this question once and he could not answer it

I just provided the sources and explanations, I never said they made any sense  

Athanasius himself admitted he couldn't comprehend it.  You're probably already familiar with the quotation in the introduction to History of the Church, p. lxxxv, that B.H. Roberts used from Athanasius, as paraphrased by Edward Gibbon in his The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, but the original source that Gibbon quotes is online.   

It's found in Athanasius, Letter 52, First Letter to Monks. (Written 358-360).

Quote

1. In compliance with your affectionate request, which you have frequently urged upon me, I have written a short account of the sufferings which ourselves and the Church have undergone, refuting, according to my ability, the accursed heresy of the Arian madmen, and proving how entirely it is alien from the Truth. And I thought it needful to represent to your Piety what pains the writing of these things has cost me, in order that you may understand thereby how truly the blessed Apostle has said, O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God;’ and may kindly bear with a weak man such as I am by nature. For the more I desired to write, and endeavoured to force myself to understand the Divinity of the Word, so much the more did the knowledge thereof withdraw itself from me; and in proportion as I thought that I apprehended it, in so much I perceived myself to fail of doing so. Moreover also I was unable to express in writing even what I seemed to myself to understand; and that which I wrote was unequal to the imperfect shadow of the truth which existed in my conception.   (Athanasius: Letters of Athanasius Personal Letters Ch. 52 ¶2)
 

Of course most Latter-day Saints would immediately recognize this as an example of what is described in Doctrine and Covenants 9:8-9:

Quote

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.  But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by InCognitus

[Spammer]

When discussing the God of Trinitarian Christianity, it's crucial to grasp that Creedal Christians like Athanasius never think of God as a material being.  The LDS Heavenly Father is a man, made of matter, a god with a spatial location who experiences the passage of time.  Athanasius's God is not a man, is not made of matter, does not have a spatial location and created matter and time.  Church fathers like Athanasius therefore knowingly use totally inadequate and inappropriate human language - necessarily, inescapably and inevitably rooted in our material existence and experience - in an effort to grasp God's immaterial nature.  It's ultimately a fools errand for us to try to describe such a god, as Athanasius well knew.   That's why, even though he makes the attempt, he calls God incomprehensible.  Duh. Thomas Aquinas did the same at the end of his life. Compared to what God is, our human notions are dross.  Aquinas's detractors (and Aristotle's, through Aquinas) often miss the point that 'substance theology' is grounded on belief in immaterial substance and that immaterial substance is Being itself.  God is not a being among beings (like beings in the 'world') but is Being itself.  Whatever that means.  That's what Athanasius is talking about.  Unfortunately, thinking about an immaterial 'substance' requires thinking about it in material substance categories, but doing so is ridiculous.  Still, the attempt is made. What else can material beings who experience things through the five senses do?  

So...if you approach the topic from an LDS standpoint, asserting a priori that nothing exists that isn't material (including God), without first grasping that Trinitarians are talking exclusively of the immaterial ground of Being, of course the Trinitarian idea seems utterly ridiculous.  Trying to make something made of matter to be both one and three is incoherent.  It also seem ridiculous if 1. you understand that Trinitarians are contemplating the immaterial and 2. deny that anything immaterial exists.  Naturally. 

Of course, whether nothing exists that isn't material, is something that neither science nor our direct experience can prove.  By definition and in principle.  The immaterial exists/nothing immaterial exists ideas are two axioms that lead to different conclusions.  These interminable debates about the Creedal definition of God hinge on which unprovable axiom grounds your belief.  That's the issue that's usually sidestepped in these sorts of conversations.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Spammer