JLHPROF Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, blueglass said: According to footnote 35 of the becoming like God essay "While the King Follett discourse represents Joseph Smith’s most detailed known discussion of divine nature and exaltation, it is important to note that because of the wind on the day the sermon was delivered and the limitations of transcription techniques, we are left without certainty" Ah thats too bad. I guess 177 years later divine beings are still "incomprehensible" That's as lame an excuse as "we lived polygamy because of a shortage of men" or "Brigham was misquoted about Adam". Seriously, who makes this stuff up. 1
3DOP Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) On 2/21/2021 at 12:52 PM, AtlanticMike said: Thank you. And I understand not all Christians think Mormonism is a heathen version of christianity. But some of my earliest memories are going to church, coming home and watching football while eating, then my mom and her brothers spending the next 3 to 4 hours, what I call "bible bashing" and never convincing the other that what they believe is true. Verse after verse after verse after verse after verse, back and forth, it was ridiculous, but I remember it like it was yesterday. I actually grew up believing Christians were some of the most uninformed people walking the planet. Because of my family views about coffee and wine(alcohol), I never really had a close relationship with most of my cousins who were Christian, my mom wouldn't allow it. But, some of my Christian friends had parents who felt the same. One of my junior high friends(Christian), his parents wouldn't let me swim in their pool because I was Mormon. When my mom found out she confronted the lady and almost got thrown in jail because she flipped out on the lady🤣. Also, alot of Christian schools in our area in the 80s and 90s wouldn't allow mormons to attend k-12. So I am glad to see a lot of that hostility has subsided, but we have a long way to go on both sides. I was only talking about the word "Christian" with a loose definition; I was not saying that this is an equalizer. LDS identify as Christian. What else could you be? But if I am the principal of a Catholic school, my students need to be Catholic. Would you agree with the Catholic Church that it would be wrong to baptize a non-Catholic child without the parents permission? I hope you would agree with the Catholic Church that this would be wrong. Catholics believe that both reason and revelation point to the truth that parents are the primary teachers of children. It is only confusing to a child be taught at school what is not accepted by the parents. I think it would be wrong to confuse an LDS child by teaching the importance of being baptized Catholic in school, when the child's parents disagree. And that is what the LDS child would learn at a good Catholic school. Religious education is not optional. We are taught that it is wrong to undermine parental authority and guidance of children. I am sure Catholics have violated that principle occasionally with perhaps good (from a Catholic perspective) motives. But we cannot do wrong, in order to do right. We cannot prey on non-Catholic children. We love them, but we must ordinarily wait until adulthood to begin to share with them why their parents are wrong. This is why non-Catholic Christians would not properly belong at a Catholic school. As I said above, I am in favor of allowing the other party to define who is Christian. I suspect that Catholics would not be welcome in the school you are talking about either. I respect that. With some lamentable exceptions when I allowed our two oldest to spend two years in public schools, I didn't send my children to schools that disagree with my faith. Above I said that religious is not optional. By ignoring religion, public education can make religion seem unimportant instead of all-important...in my opinion. Thankfully, this trend (where my children and their children avoid non-Catholic education) has continued through eleven grandchildren with two more on they way! All that said, Catholics believe it is perfectly wonderful if LDS would like to swim in Catholic swimming pools. I agree that is taking our faith differences too far. I think Catholics should swim in LDS pools too, if we are welcome! Edited February 23, 2021 by 3DOP 2
MiserereNobis Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 1 hour ago, 3DOP said: All that said, Catholics believe it is perfectly wonderful if LDS would like to swim in Catholic swimming pools. Can we drop some holy water in the pool..? 1
mfbukowski Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 5 hours ago, Ahab said: Nah, not even if I was sitting on the stand right next to him while he was giving his talk. He'll learn what he doesn't know now, eventually. Well maybe the next time you are in that situation, you can show him the way to the Truth. I am sure he will be grateful.
Calm Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) Mfb, just came across this article and thought of you. So many unquestioned assumptions in it.... https://theconversation.com/can-the-laws-of-physics-disprove-god-146638 Hopefully not off topic too much, not tracking conversations here well last few days. Too distracted. Edited February 23, 2021 by Calm
Stargazer Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: I think the issue is the apparent disparity between how LDS want others to view your church and the LDS belief that God thinks our beliefs are an abomination. If you believe that our doctrines are an abomination, have it! But then don't complain when people use similar terminology to describe your doctrines (cult, from the devil, etc.). I personally have no issue with this, but I can understand where some people might be coming from and just want to (perhaps) clarify their issue. I'm all about that scene! I like to point to it (and others) when people try to foist WWJD. No one really ever knows what He would do. Well since they didn't, that means we're left with you believing our creeds are an abomination, not God Hey, no offense, it's just some good natured ribbing Oh, definitely no offense intended nor taken, believe me! I'm no enemy of the Catholic Church, nor of Catholics, as I hope you're aware. And I understand that there will be those who see God's pronouncement to Joseph as Joseph's words, not His. That they're incorrect on that score is their problem, not mine! Everyone who sits down with the missionaries for the first time are going to hear that story, including the bit about abominable doctrine. Having tried my best for 2 years once upon a time to pass that message on to others, nobody of those with whom I shared it with reacted with "How dare you!?" concerning the abomination pronouncement. They apparently recognized that I was just passing along a message, and in the spirit of "Don't shoot the messenger," reserved their outrage (if they had any) for a man 130 years dead rather than my companion and me. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Calm said: Mfb, just came across this article and thought of you. So many unquestioned assumptions in it.... https://theconversation.com/can-the-laws-of-physics-disprove-god-146638 Hopefully not off topic too much, not tracking conversations here well last few days. Too distracted. Thanks- I can see just from the title they are making the usual logical mistaken- mixing scientific ways of seeing the world vs looking for meaning and purpose in the world. Can physics show me what gives me joy and gives my life meaning? Ridiculous assumption out the gate! Edit: Well there you go- just read it. You know what they say about ***-umptions right? I was totally wrong- she gets it afterall!! Thanks- I might steal that article sometime ! Edited February 23, 2021 by mfbukowski
Calm Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) 27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Thanks- I can see just from the title they are making the usual logical mistaken- mixing scientific ways of seeing the world vs looking for meaning and purpose in the world. Can physics show me what gives me joy and gives my life meaning? Ridiculous assumption out the gate! Edit: Well there you go- just read it. You know what they say about ***-umptions right? I was totally wrong- she gets it afterall!! Thanks- I might steal that article sometime ! The assumptions I was focusing on had to do with the nature of God....pretty much the standard traditional view of a omnipresent God, not bound by law having created ‘it’ and everything else. I thought the discussion was done well if one takes those as givens, but would have been much more interesting to me if different views of the nature of God were used beyond using “she” as the pronoun for God and then compared on how they fit current knowledge...just for fun. Edited February 23, 2021 by Calm 1
Ahab Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Just to be clear, the trinitarian view of God and the LDS view of the Godhead are not compatible. I think that if you gave the issue enough consideration you would be able to comprehend how those 3 are in unity, though. As of now all you have said is that you don't comprehend it, and I think you think that because you don't, nobody else does either.
MiserereNobis Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 5 minutes ago, Ahab said: I think that if you gave the issue enough consideration you would be able to comprehend how those 3 are in unity, though. As of now all you have said is that you don't comprehend it, and I think you think that because you don't, nobody else does either. I understand the LDS view of the Godhead united in purpose, and I understand (as far as human intelligence can) the Trinitarian view of one God with three consubstantial Persons. The two views are not compatible with each other. 1
Ahab Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 18 hours ago, AtlanticMike said: To explain the trinity to me my mom said imagine 3 birthday candles burning together in one big flame, and at any time one of the candles can separate, but always be part of the big flame. But in Mormonism, the birthday candles are always separate, like on a birthday cake. Do you not see how the 3 candles are separate and still part of the one big flame with each 1 of them contributing what they each contribute to it? In this case we're just talking about 3 people who are one and the same kind of being, rather than candles.
Ahab Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: I understand the LDS view of the Godhead united in purpose, and I understand (as far as human intelligence can) the Trinitarian view of one God with three consubstantial Persons. Then what about it do you not comprehend? 3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: The two views are not compatible with each other. You can keep saying that as much as you want to but once you comprehend how those 3 are united you will know the one true God and how Jesus and our Father are one.
MiserereNobis Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 16 minutes ago, Ahab said: Then what about it do you not comprehend? I never said I don't comprehend. I said they are not compatible. 17 minutes ago, Ahab said: You can keep saying that as much as you want to but once you comprehend how those 3 are united you will know the one true God and how Jesus and our Father are one. I said the LDS Godhead and the Trinitarian God are incompatible beliefs. This was your response. So, before I reply, I want to be clear I understand your position.: are you arguing that the LDS church is trinitarian? 1
Ahab Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: I never said I don't comprehend. I said they are not compatible. Ah, okay. I also comprehend how those 3 are in unity with each other, so what is it about our beliefs on that issue that you think are not compatible? 2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: I said the LDS Godhead and the Trinitarian God are incompatible beliefs. This was your response. So, before I reply, I want to be clear I understand your position.: are you arguing that the LDS church is trinitarian? If being "trinitarian" is all about believing those 3 persons are united, and both The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AND the Catholic church believe those 3 persons are united, wouldn't that automatically mean both churches are trinitarian?
MiserereNobis Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: If being "trinitarian" is all about believing those 3 persons are united, and both The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AND the Catholic church believe those 3 persons are united, wouldn't that automatically mean both churches are trinitarian? It's all about HOW they are united. The LDS church believes they are united in purpose, not being (right?). That they are 3 distinct persons? Catholicism believes they are consubstantial: they are one being with one divine nature with three persons. 1
Ahab Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: It's all about HOW they are united. The LDS church believes they are united in purpose, not being (right?). That they are 3 distinct persons? We believe those 3 are 3 persons as well as one and the same kind of being. When we say God we are usually referring to our Father in heaven but we also recognize that his son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit are also the same kind of being he is. 4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Catholicism believes they are consubstantial: they are one being with one divine nature with three persons. We believe they are one being with the word "being" referring to a specific kind or type of being, and that all 3 of the have one and the same divine nature. Anything else you can think of to throw into the mix here? We also believe we are the same kind of being they are even though most of us are not as perfect/complete as they are, yet, while we all have the same potential. So consider that too.
AtlanticMike Posted February 23, 2021 Author Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Ahab said: We believe they are one being with the word "being" referring to a specific kind or type of being, and that all 3 of the have one and the same divine nature. Anything else you can think of to throw into the mix here? We also believe we are the same kind of being they are even though most of us are not as perfect/complete as they are, yet, while we all have the same potential. So consider that too. We've had apostles stand at the pulpit in the past 10 years and say Catholics dont know who god is. Our view of the Godhead is totally different than the trinitarian View. Edited February 23, 2021 by AtlanticMike 1
MiserereNobis Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 8 minutes ago, Ahab said: When we say God we are usually referring to our Father in heaven but we also recognize that his son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit are also the same kind of being he is. Which is why you say Jesus is A God, instead of God, right? And in Trinitarianism, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same being. 9 minutes ago, Ahab said: We believe they are one being with the word "being" referring to a specific kind or type of being, and that all 3 of the have one and the same divine nature. The Trinity goes further than this. 9 minutes ago, Ahab said: Anything else you can think of to throw into the mix here? We also believe we are the same kind of being they are even though most of us are not as perfect/complete as they are, yet, while we all have the same potential. So consider that too. Sure, I'll consider it It takes you even farther away from Trinitarianism. I guess I find it really odd to be arguing with an LDS person that the LDS church is non-trinitarian, on a thread where one of your apostles pokes fun at trinitarianism. But I never rule things out with you, Ahab. So I'll stop here with this conversation. I'm happy that you think you are a trinitarian! But the rest of your church claims to be non trinitarian (I just looked up Godhead on the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and it confirmed what I've been saying here). 2
Ahab Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said: We've had apostles stand at the pulpit in the past 10 years and say Catholics dont know who god is. Our view of the Godhead is totally different than the trinitarian View. I think that's mainly because we know Catholics don't realize God is the same kind of being they/we are. They think God is a different kind of being than them or us. But we all believe those who are God are the same kind of being.
Ahab Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Which is why you say Jesus is A God, instead of God, right? Yes, Jesus is a God, the only true God there is. And our Father in heaven is the only true God there is, too. All who are God, and I mean the only true God, are the only kind of being that is God. 3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: And in Trinitarianism, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same being. Same being to us, too. The kind of being we refer to as "God" while knowing there is only kind of being that is the true God. 3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: The Trinity goes further than this. To where? Name something that you think we do not consider. 3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Sure, I'll consider it It takes you even farther away from Trinitarianism. No, we still believe all 3 of those persons are united so if trinitarianism is all about believing those 3 persons are united and the same kind of being then we are trinitarians. 3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: I guess I find it really odd to be arguing with an LDS person that the LDS church is non-trinitarian, on a thread where one of your apostles pokes fun at trinitarianism. But I never rule things out with you, Ahab. Thank you. 3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: So I'll stop here with this conversation. I'm happy that you think you are a trinitarian! But the rest of your church claims to be non trinitarian (I just looked up Godhead on the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and it confirmed what I've been saying here). Okaly dokaly. Whatever floats your boat.
AtlanticMike Posted February 23, 2021 Author Posted February 23, 2021 21 minutes ago, Ahab said: I think that's mainly because we know Catholics don't realize God is the same kind of being they/we are. They think God is a different kind of being than them or us. But we all believe those who are God are the same kind of being. Check out this video of Elder Ballard. In your opinion, is he talking about the trinity, I've never really understood what he's talking about. Go to 58:50 to 59:25 https://youtu.be/
Ahab Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 7 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said: Check out this video of Elder Ballard. In your opinion, is he talking about the trinity, I've never really understood what he's talking about. Go to 58:50 to 59:25 https://youtu.be/ I think what he was referring to in that segment of that video is how (he thinks) Catholics don't correctly understand the trinity, because to correctly understand it they would need to understand how Jesus and our Father are one while still separate persons.
mfbukowski Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 12 hours ago, Calm said: The assumptions I was focusing on had to do with the nature of God....pretty much the standard traditional view of a omnipresent God, not bound by law having created ‘it’ and everything else. I thought the discussion was done well if one takes those as givens, but would have been much more interesting to me if different views of the nature of God were used beyond using “she” as the pronoun for God and then compared on how they fit current knowledge...just for fun. Good to have a conversation with you! I see God- Jehovah/Christ as being fully self-determined- meaning literally that he has created laws for himself which he himself has accepted FOR HIMSELF and all humanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory Here is something about self- determination theory which explains it in humanistic terms- so the principles in this silly little article are sound, but have to be amplified to infinity to "inflate" these ideas to the level of Godhood. Of course these ideas are not "correct" in the sense of being "The Way God Is", but simply a paradigm that works for me in understanding how God is human and we are gods in embryo. Self-determination is the idea that a person takes upon herself (!) rules which he/she have created for themselves and so their will becomes determined- they actually become subservient -to their OWN laws. So if you are on a diet- you don't eat chocolate cake- say. You have made that rule for yourself, or another rule might be "I will serve others", and so you do. My model says God has taken a similar stance in order to serve/save humankind. Or put in another paradigm, we project these ideas as a model of a perfect human onto "God" So on this view God both creates the rules of nature and as part of his own will to serve humanity- bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man- and voluntarily then places himself under the laws he has created for himself and all other humans. So there is no need to postulate "two natures" for Christ- there is ONE only- the nature of a perfect human, who made the commandments and then follows them himself, just like being on a diet or changing to become vegetarian etc. I am also playing around with the idea that Father is perhaps more removed than we postulate- but of course that does not affect our use of the language in describing him as "omniscient" or "omnipresent"- whatever that means. Of course His Intelligence monitors every"thing", which is a simple somewhat meaningless phrase to describe an Intelligence we cannot comprehend. All that matters is that we believe he watches over us and loves us, which I think is true. But Jehovah/Christ is the only God "with whom we have to do"- (who said that? BY?) So shrinking the universe down to ward level- Christ is the bishop, Father the SP, The Holy Ghost is the RS president. Father himself is subject to the Council of the Gods- I think- including Eloheim's Father- etc. - those would be represented by the seventies and finally the prophet. I have no clue who would correspond to the prophet. The bottom line is that in my communication with the Lord I am only communicating with ONE person whom I believe to be Jehovah/Christ. The atonement starts with the sacrifice involved in obedience to His own self-determination, to obey the laws he set for himself, and becoming immanent rather than transcendent. In so doing he raised us to beings who could become as He is through believing in Him- or at least that the pragmatic belief so motivates us to emulate that ideal. 1
Calm Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, Ahab said: the same kind of being You are using the word in a different way than meant by Trinitarians. In essence, I am thinking you are saying men and gods are the same species and the three persons of the Godhead are separate examples of that species. LD Saints also can think of a collective ‘being’, persons organized into one entity like a family. These, however, are not how most trinitarians define “being” though. And acting as if they are is not reasonable anymore than insisting someone always/also means a closet full of bottles of water when they say “water closet”. If I understand correctly, the “being” of God is unique because it is infinite where all other types of beings are finite and therefore the God Being had different attributes that are beyond our understanding of how three persons can be one infinite being. It might be dimly like some alien who had never seen humans finding a mannequin shop and thinking that the individual pieces of legs and arms and heads were the complete ‘being’ of the mannequin, because they had never seen an actual human person and how a body functioned (I was going to use a morgue or anatomy class, but thought that too morbid...plus mannequin parts can function on their own as well as all together). And the alien might have guess how the mannequins fit together except there were no trunks included as that shipment was delayed. (humans lack knowledge of the incomprehensible part of how the persons of God can together be the being of God.). And then to expect those aliens to understand human anatomy from just those few clues. My analogy fails because our experiences with God are not with some artificial construct of God in the sense that the man who walked with us, Jesus, was nothing like a mannequin. However, what we imagine of the nature of God in our heads might be said to be closer to mannequin pieces than the actual being of God. However, this is from a nontrinitarian view of the Trinity and I may be missing something crucial that destroys that as an analogy. I think better analogies are likely to come from those who live and breathe with the idea of God in this way. Love to know if I need to scrape my ideas and go read something more detailed from believers. Since I am mathematically inclined, I have chosen to imagine/define the persons vs the infinite being of the Catholic image of God in terms of a couple of higher ‘orders’ of beinghood. The finite beings that are human individuals are (choosing to work with physical properties of line and space) like points and lines and shapes in two dimensions while the being of God is four or five dimensions or even infinite. Thus we only capable of seeing parts of God. The three persons of God are independent of each other when viewed where God intersects with the two dimensional world, but we would see them all as one when they are seen and functioning in the additional dimensions. Think a long curving pool noodle that passes through a plane three times. It looks like it is three circles if you just interact with the noodle on the plane and the three circles can be treated and act like three circles on a plane. However, if one is aware of more dimensions, one sees they are not only much more, they are one, not three. Now what might be the dimensions of person and being that might make this analogy actually work semi decent, I have no clue. Maybe what makes a person a person ultimately has little to do with time and space and other known physical properties. And my vision may be nothing like the actual Catholic imagining of infinite being. But it works for me in believing the Trinity is a reasonable, intelligent approach to understanding God rather than letting myself get hung up in ‘but persons and beings are the same thing’. I don’t need others to use the same language as I do to believe they know what they are talking about better than I do. I don’t know if if the issue of being vs person is different in other languages or if such confusion is inherent to the choice of labels. Am curious about that. Edited February 24, 2021 by Calm 1
mfbukowski Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: It's all about HOW they are united. The LDS church believes they are united in purpose, not being (right?). That they are 3 distinct persons? Catholicism believes they are consubstantial: they are one being with one divine nature with three persons. I really like Robert Barron. Here is an explanation of the Real Presence that even I could accept. I am changing my views on what is meant by "substance" This is one way words change reality. Words change the substance of what we believe, and belief IS our reality Edited February 23, 2021 by mfbukowski 3
Recommended Posts