Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Fair Mormon's new YouTube branding strategy

phaedrus ut

By phaedrus ut
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

bluebell Grand Master

bluebell

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, juliann said:

The Trinity is the pretzel. It solved the problem of a polytheistic religion needing to be monotheistic. But it has never been successfully explained, it can only be respected. The LDS Godhead is a very foundational strong point for Mormonism.

And for a lot of Jewish people, the Trinity is just as polytheistic as the Godhead seems to be for non-Latter-day Saint Christians.

1
Link to comment
juliann Grand Master

juliann

Posted
Posted
Just now, Maureen said:

I'm going to have to say, based on your statement above, that your understanding has missed the mark.

In understanding the Trinity, the words "being" and "person" are not synonyms. In the Trinity, all "persons" of the Trinity are indeed distinct from each other, but they are one "being", because there is only one God. That is where the term "3 in 1" comes from. Three "persons" in one "being".

M.

Any definition has always relied on using carefully selected and combined words that in any other circumstance, are meaningless. That is why it isn't understood. If you emphasize the persons, you end up with social trinitarianism. That is declared a heresy so you have to go back to the one being. In English, these are competing concepts. This is a prime example of the chicken and egg problem, do thoughts create words or do words create the thoughts. Until there are words for multiple people making one being beyond the mere assertion, it will remain a mystery.

2
Link to comment
juliann Grand Master

juliann

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I'm going to have to say, based on your statement above, that your understanding has missed the mark.

In understanding the Trinity, the words "being" and "person" are not synonyms. In the Trinity, all "persons" of the Trinity are indeed distinct from each other, but they are one "being", because there is only one God. That is where the term "3 in 1" comes from. Three "persons" in one "being".

M.

Yet we call ourselves human beings.

1
Link to comment
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My posts on the previous page include hyperlinks to old discussions. :good:

Edited:

The only post of yours on page 32 links to one of the MIckey Mouse videos and does not mention that Joseph did not believe in an embodied God after the first vision.

Sorry I don't want to be a pest but my understanding was always that this info was deduced from the First Vision.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
juliann Grand Master

juliann

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Yes, but God in the trinitarian sense is the "one and only" divine being.

M.

I understand that. But then using the word being as if it is meaningful as a means of distinguishing between persons when you are calling God both isn't effective as a means of explaining what really is an inexplicable concept.  

2
Link to comment
juliann Grand Master

juliann

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There are no posts from you on the "previous page".   It would help perhaps if you mentioned the page number etc if you do not want to re-post the link, or just forget about it if you don't have the time, and I will do my own research.  Could you just tell me in which work you discovered this?

Sorry I don't want to be a pest but my understanding was always that this info was deduced from the First Vision.

I'd love to see a thread on this. 

Link to comment
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I know! Church leaders sometimes make this mistake too. :( I sincerely hope that increased awareness of the documentary record (and better understanding by the Saints of traditional Christian concepts*) will over time weed this falsehood out of the Church body and its literature.

But what should it tell us that this very point is showing up in a video series that people are labelling as superficial and ill-informed?

_____

* As noted above, I have written on this misunderstanding multiple times in this forum, including on a common Latter-day Saint misreading of 'one substance' in the Nicene Creed. Our 'heresy' is not that we reject the concept that the Father and the Son are separate persons made of the same substance; rather, it is that we insist that a) we are also made of the same substance and b) this divine substance can be -- and in fact ideally should be -- embodied. 

Incidentally, Aristotle would have problems with God being material- and also there are other problems for Aristotle. Consult the article on "substnce" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The term substance is often translated as "being" which is about as meaningless as "substance" anyway.

But those issues do not affect when Joseph learned that God had a material body

1
Link to comment
MiserereNobis Grand Master

MiserereNobis

Posted
Posted
On 12/11/2020 at 3:11 PM, Maureen said:

Yes, that is correct, I am not a member. I am protestant who accepts the trinity. I'm curious what @MiserereNobisthinks of this video. 

M.

I was confused at first, because I thought it was going to attack the doctrine of the Trinity, but it was doing something else. Subsequent posts here clarified that was attacking the CES letter, so that made a little more sense.

The biggest misunderstanding I see among LDS with the Trinity is that they actually criticize modalism. I also sometimes see the doctrine of the Trinity brushed off as being really stupid instead of just theologically wrong. I don't mind if you think it's wrong (I mean, you're wrong about that, but ;) ), I just think it's too dismissive to say it's stupid. Some of the best minds in Western Civilization believed and defended it.

4
Link to comment
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'd love to see a thread on this. 

Me too, but so far I have not found his links

Do you realize that right now we have virtually no active links about theology on this board?

Bring back the "Pundits" board!!  ;)

 

Link to comment
OGHoosier Mentor

OGHoosier

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'd love to see a thread on this. 

I'm in. Got David Paulsen (may he rest in peace and work in heaven) and Blake Ostler on standby.

Link to comment
  • Popular Post
MiserereNobis Grand Master

MiserereNobis

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, juliann said:

No one beyond theologians know how to understandably explain the Trinity, to be honest.

Human minds cannot completely understand the Trinity. It is beyond our comprehension, so analogies are the best way to get at it. It is one of the mysteries of faith. Now, i know people will say, "how convenient," but every faith has mysteries that are incomprehensible or illogical to humans now, even the LDS faith. Mark even posted one with the "Hie to Kolob" lyrics. LDS believe in unending gods, no causation, no beginning. That's illogical and incomprehensible, too. And what is a god anyway? Etc. I'm not offering this as criticism (or even to you specifically), but just to stave off any criticism that a mystery of faith is somehow "deficient."

5
Link to comment
MiserereNobis Grand Master

MiserereNobis

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, juliann said:

The Trinity is the pretzel. It solved the problem of a polytheistic religion needing to be monotheistic. But it has never been successfully explained, it can only be respected. The LDS Godhead is a very foundational strong point for Mormonism.

But the LDS Godhead is also unexplainable. I mean, LDS can say words like "unity" and "purpose" but then I'll just dive deeper and ask how exactly are they exalted? What exactly is the priesthood they hold and how is its power used? How did they organize intelligences? How were their intelligences organized? Where did it all begin? (nowhere, it seems)

LDS can give approximate answers, or analogies, but at some point you'll end up with "I don't know" or "I don't understand" or "I can't explain" or "we'll have to wait until the next life" which is like the doctrine of the Trinity.

Again, this is not an argument over which doctrine is right or wrong. It's kind of my pet peeve that the mystery of the Trinity is held against it. I actually find it comforting. If my puny finite mind could comprehend the true nature of God, I wouldn't think that would be much of a god, honestly. It would be an idol that I've set up in my mind to worship.

2
Link to comment
Stargazer Grand Master

Stargazer

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/2/2020 at 9:11 PM, Analytics said:

It's more like a boy who named himself Richard because he thought it would be funny to have the nickname ****.

The folks at FAIR are aware of acronyms. That is why their organization is called the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research and not the Defensive Institute of the Celestial Kingdom.

Good grief.

Not to be too pedantic, and this is just for the sake of information, there are initialisms and then there are acronyms. Acronyms are intended to be pronounced as words. Titles of organizations or shows are frequently devised specifically with that in mind.  Initialisms are spoken letter by letter, are not necessarily intended to be pronounced as a word, and are frequently very awkward when so treated.

And now to the point. I don't believe FM chose "This is the Show' to be acronymed or initialised. But it's awkward to say, or especially write the name out fully each time. So one may choose to find a way to abbreviate it.

But do you say U-S-o-A or "You-so-ah" when you initialise or acronymise the name of the United States of America? No, you say USA, with each letter pronounced individually with its commonly spoken name, leaving out the "minor" word "of" that are not capitalized in the written-out form. And the name can't reasonably be acronymed. The letters which are almost always left out of abbreviated initialisms are the ones which correspond to: "of"; "the"; and "in". "is" doesn't show up in titles very often, so perhaps it might reasonably be used in an initialism, or ignored, at the user's choice.

Keeping that in mind, you can reasonably initialize "This is the Show" as TS or TIS. Going to "T.i.T.S." or "T.i.t.S" is clearly an attempt to ridicule. And not in good taste, either. You might reasonably remark that the show's name is badly named for one reason or another (it doesn't make any sense to me, I will freely admit). But I don't buy your attempt to seem innocent at the implications of your initialisation/acronym. Sorry.

------------

I just realized that I was responding to a 10 day old post, and the discussion has wandered off into strange paths and gotten lost in the meantime. 

Edited by Stargazer
3
Link to comment
Stargazer Grand Master

Stargazer

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Some of the best minds in Western Civilization believed and defended it.

So if one errs one can at least say one errs in good company!

1
Link to comment
Stargazer Grand Master

Stargazer

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So if one errs one can at least say one errs in good company!

It is not often I stumble across such a lovely straight line that I can zing in good humor! Thanks, @MiserereNobis, for the "Like". Cheered me up immensely!

1
Link to comment
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

And the Council of Athens would have slapped him with anathema for denying that God is both transcendent and immanent ;) 

Yep

And Wittgenstein in the Pre-Existence would be clapping and saying "Wait til I get down there!!   I'm going to show them all how it's all only SEMANTICS"

Barron is actually the one who introduced me to the idea that the Trinity leaves room for a material God.  No he doesn't say it, but being "one in Being" opens up that possibility.

But it's still semantics ;)

But don't tell anyone.  Christianity is a big business!  ;)

See next post

1
Link to comment
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is what we need to do:

The Catholic Trinity Made Easy

This is a PERFECT EXEMPLAR of what FairMormon should be doing.   Not the doctrine- but the ease of explanation is just beautiful

AND as a bonus for those brushing up on Czech.....

 

Edited by mfbukowski
2
Link to comment
MiserereNobis Grand Master

MiserereNobis

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is what we need to do:

The Catholic Trinity Made Easy

This is a PERFECT EXEMPLAR of what FairMormon should be doing.   Not the doctrine- but the ease of explanation is just beautiful

AND as a bonus for those brushing up on Czech.....

 

I hadn't watched this before. I love how he organizes his examples on the great chain of being -- so very Catholic. I also like it when people speak in front of their bookshelves so we can see what they read. I noticed Hegel there at the bottom left, ha.

Great explanation, too. I highly recommend it for LDS who are interested in a good explanation from a Catholic point of view of doctrine of the Trinity. And posted by an LDS to boot!

(did I miss the Czech in there..?)

 

Edited by MiserereNobis
2
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...