Ahab Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 16 minutes ago, Calm said: 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”. We could get bogged down in all kinds of ways to understand words, some right ways and some wrong, but what is important here in this thread for this topic is to know the one God and who was sent. 16 minutes ago, Calm said: If I understand correctly, The “being” of God is unique because it is infinite where all other types of beings are finite and there the God Being had different attributes that are beyond our understanding of how three persons can be one infinite being. Do you mean if you understand Catholics correctly or if you understand the truth correctly? The truth may be that all kinds of beings are eternal, including chickens in all of their stages of development, with their eggs as eternal as fully grown chickens. But let's not get into that now, or even what Catholics believe. Let's just state what we know about God and who was sent. 16 minutes ago, Calm said: 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. Ideas of what "might be" are not really the point of this thread, and coming up with analogies of what "might be" would be a waste of our time when all we have to do is simply state what we know about God and who was sent. 16 minutes ago, Calm said: Love to know if I need to scrape my ideas and go read something more detailed from believers. I recommend you ask God about that while asking God what you should believe. 16 minutes ago, Calm said: 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. Okay. Your choice to make, I suppose. 16 minutes ago, Calm said: 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 are you talking about? What you think Catholics believe, or what is true, or what you only imagine that might be true? I'd rather see you simply state what you know is true than to see you talk about other options. 16 minutes ago, Calm said: 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. You sound like you're more into the what-might-be true stuff and what you are curious about than trying to share your own knowledge of truth. Fun for some, I suppose, but I'd rather see truth than just speculation.
InCognitus Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: Which is why you say Jesus is A God, instead of God, right? I think we would refer to God the Father as "a God" too, and Jesus as "a God", but mainly to describe the distinction between the individuals. And while the average LDS member on the street should recognize that Jesus is a divine being, my sense is that they probably wouldn't normally say he is "God", since we tend to reserve that title for application to God the Father. But according to our scriptures and church teachings, there really shouldn't be any reservation in referring to Jesus as "God". Our scriptures are quite clear on this point. Here are some examples: The title page of the Book of Mormon (which was part of the translation done by Joseph Smith), states that one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon is "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations". This is also stated multiple times in the text of the Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 26:12; "And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;" 3 Nephi 11:14: "Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world." And from the Doctrine and Covenants: D&C 18:33: "And I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, have spoken it." D&C 35:1-2; "Listen to the voice of the Lord your God...I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world..." D&C 38:1-3, "Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end..." Jesus fully represents God the Father, and consequently there should be no reason to distinguish between them except for their relative position (pun intended) and respective roles in carrying out the Father's plan of salvation. Jesus submitted to the Father's will and carries out his plan to perfection. Therefore to see Jesus is the same as seeing the Father (to paraphrase John 14:9), he is the exact representation of the Father (Heb 1:3). They are "one" in all that they do. 3
InCognitus Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 51 minutes ago, Calm said: 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. I just got a chuckle at your choice of words there 3
Calm Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) 22 hours ago, mfbukowski said: 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. I like the idea that it is Christ’s phone and he is the one who speaks, but the phone is on speaker. Christ can hear what others listening in are saying even if we can’t and at times may either convey their thoughts or pass the phone to them. Edited February 24, 2021 by Calm 1
Calm Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 Just now, InCognitus said: I just got a chuckle at your choice of words there I am so glad. It was intentional, of course. Made me grin myself. 3
InCognitus Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, Calm said: I am so glad. It was intentional, of course. Made me grin myself. I'm also glad to know that I'm not the only one who laughs at their own jokes 1
Calm Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 56 minutes ago, Ahab said: o you mean if you understand Catholics correctly Yes
Calm Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, Ahab said: I'd rather see truth than just speculation Then hanging out on the board is a waste of your time. Edited February 24, 2021 by Calm 4
MiserereNobis Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 4 hours ago, Calm said: 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. I like this! Especially because it combines science/math and the (very Catholic medieval) idea of the the Great Chain of Being. What a great analogy. Thanks for sharing it. 1
Popular Post MiserereNobis Posted February 24, 2021 Popular Post Posted February 24, 2021 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: 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 Thanks for sharing. I think this is the 2nd Father Barron video you've posted. I appreciate that you've been listening to a Catholic priest. It appears that you have left the Catholic Church but you couldn't leave it alone 5
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I am changing my views on what is meant by "substance" As I have previously argued on this board, there is zero reason for Latter-day Saints to get hung up on the issue of one substance in relation to the Godhead. Where we get really 'heretical' is when we assert that we are likewise the same substance as the Father and the Son.
blueglass Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 On 2/22/2021 at 9:43 PM, JLHPROF said: 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. "Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”? No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine." https://news-ca.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/mormonism-101-faq#C14 "Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000. Just think of the possibilities, the potential." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1975/10/the-privilege-of-holding-the-priesthood?lang=eng 1
Calm Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 33 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: I like this! Especially because it combines science/math and the (very Catholic medieval) idea of the the Great Chain of Being. What a great analogy. Thanks for sharing it. Thanks. I am not good on the nuances and was concerned one of those rendered the analogy useless. Glad to hear it works well enough. Had thought of the Flatland analogy since high school for God interacting with man, but the pool noodle just popped into my head today as an easier way to present 3 are 1. I actually started thinking of a chain, but then it shifted to the hot pink fat noodle I rested my head on in the evenings a few summers ago...and now sitting on the back porch....when we actually got a semi working pool up instead of just planning on one (one year out of ten isn’t too bad, right?). It isn’t an elegant image, but easily pictured by most, I think. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: As I have previously argued on this board, there is zero reason for Latter-day Saints to get hung up on the issue of one substance in relation to the Godhead. Where we get really 'heretical' is when we assert that we are likewise the same substance as the Father and the Son. How do we differ then in "substance" and if that is the case, how then can we become "AS" they are- not LIKE they are but AS they are? I guess it comes down the definition of "substance" Edited February 24, 2021 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Thanks for sharing. I think this is the 2nd Father Barron video you've posted. I appreciate that you've been listening to a Catholic priest. It appears that you have left the Catholic Church but you couldn't leave it alone Well sure- my only problem with the RC church now is that the philosophy and its view of the world is quite different than mine, in its descriptions of God. But that is not new. Actually if the CoJCLDS went extinct I would probably be Eastern Orthodox. I used to attend a Byzantine Rite liturgy a lot before I left, and I liked it quite a bit. I wanted to be a "priest" AND be married, and now I am. Officiating in temple ordinances is profoundly fulfilling, as was my experience as a bishop. 3
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 (edited) 56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: How do we differ then in "substance" and if that is the case, how then can we become "AS" they are- not LIKE they are but AS they are? The early debates involved Creator vs created, and that got entangled with subordination in some ways. Neo-Platonism couldn't tolerate more than one God (nor a material one), so there had to be an answer to Jesus's obvious divinity that didn't divide God or 'trap' Jesus in a material state. Fine on the first point. Not so fine on the second one. But then what about us? Yes, we are created, but from what? Intelligences that are co-eternal with the Father? Boom. We are now likewise homoousia. That's the real divider. Are we children of God by adoption only or also by birth? We teach our children to sing the truth of the latter. This isn't really (much) about the Son's relationship to the Father; it's about the sons' (and daughters'!) relationship to the Father ... and what that teaches us about Who He really is. The Neo-Platonic influence on Christianity would only allow a single Being made of immaterial (because everything material is yucky) God-stuff (substance). In contrast, the true and living God is a family Man: I had learned to call thee Father, Thru thy Spirit from on high, But, until the key of knowledge Was restored, I knew not why. Edited February 24, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan 2
InCognitus Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: As I have previously argued on this board, there is zero reason for Latter-day Saints to get hung up on the issue of one substance in relation to the Godhead. Where we get really 'heretical' is when we assert that we are likewise the same substance as the Father and the Son. I agree with you that Latter-day Saints shouldn't get hung up on the issue of one substance in the way you have explained it. But the idea of "one substance" can mean different things to different people, and so this is a really hard thing for Latter-day Saints to not get hung up about at face value. This is why I specified in my earlier post that "the primary LDS objection [to the Nicene creed) would be with the post-Nicene understanding of the statement in the creed that Jesus is "consubstantial [homoousios] with the Father". I think originally (at the time of the creed) it was explained in a way that Latter-day Saints might accept. But today, the "one substance" concept is often explained by Christians to mean "one being" (another confusing term), and that's where we might have the problem. 3
AtlanticMike Posted February 24, 2021 Author Posted February 24, 2021 13 hours ago, InCognitus said: Jesus fully represents God the Father, and consequently there should be no reason to distinguish between them except for their relative position (pun intended) and respective roles in carrying out the Father's plan of salvation. Jesus submitted to the Father's will and carries out his plan to perfection. Therefore to see Jesus is the same as seeing the Father (to paraphrase John 14:9), he is the exact representation of the Father (Heb 1:3). They are "one" in all that they do. I have a question. As you said, we believe Jesus fully represents God the father, but, does God the father of this earth still represent his God the father? Since we believe in progression and eternal families, I guess that would mean I'm talking about our grandfather God.
mfbukowski Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 (edited) 14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: I like this! Especially because it combines science/math and the (very Catholic medieval) idea of the the Great Chain of Being. What a great analogy. Thanks for sharing it. This is a great analogy also called the flatland analogy https://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2011/08/20/a-flatland-analogy-of-god’s-foresight/ Edited February 24, 2021 by mfbukowski 1
InCognitus Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 5 hours ago, AtlanticMike said: I have a question. As you said, we believe Jesus fully represents God the father, but, does God the father of this earth still represent his God the father? Since we believe in progression and eternal families, I guess that would mean I'm talking about our grandfather God. That's a very good question, but one that requires more information than we have right now. I don't accept the idea that God the Father has a father as the default view in our doctrine, even though I recognize that is one possible view. The book of Abraham teaches us that, of all the intelligences that exist, God the Father is more intelligent than them all. That statement stands out to me as a way to understand the others. If you want to see some of the various views, check out FAIR Mormon's page on Mormonism and the concept of infinite regress of gods. 1
MiserereNobis Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: This is a great analogy also called the flatland analogy https://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2011/08/20/a-flatland-analogy-of-god’s-foresight/ Yes, but Calm's addition of the pool noodle was genius 😁 1
MiserereNobis Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Actually if the CoJCLDS went extinct I would probably be Eastern Orthodox. I used to attend a Byzantine Rite liturgy a lot before I left, and I liked it quite a bit. Don't forget that the Catholic Church also includes 23 Eastern Catholic Churches. So, you could still attend a Byzantine Rite liturgy AND be in communion with the Pope 😁 There are also Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, East Syriac (Chaldean), West Syriac, and Maronite Rites in the Eastern Catholic Churches. I think (?) you've mentioned the Coptic Rite before. Edited February 24, 2021 by MiserereNobis
Ahab Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 19 hours ago, Calm said: Then hanging out on the board is a waste of your time. No, or at least it hasn't been. I have seen a lot of truth while I have hung out here. And a lot of misrepresentations of the truth, too.
Ahab Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: As I have previously argued on this board, there is zero reason for Latter-day Saints to get hung up on the issue of one substance in relation to the Godhead. Where we get really 'heretical' is when we assert that we are likewise the same substance as the Father and the Son. If by substance we are simply referring to matter, rather than some kind of immaterial substance, isn't it all the same as long as it is some form of matter? I think so.
mfbukowski Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 19 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: As I have previously argued on this board, there is zero reason for Latter-day Saints to get hung up on the issue of one substance in relation to the Godhead. Where we get really 'heretical' is when we assert that we are likewise the same substance as the Father and the Son. Well if we haven't even defined "substance" it would be difficult to even make that claim, I think. Let's make up a new undefined word- :"Blutans" So is saying that we are the same blutans as father and son, are we still heretical? I am serious. Everyone seems to think they can just use the words substance or essence as if it is something observable and well defined that everyone knows what it means. "Guess what! I saw 17 substances to day!" One might mean that he saw a metallic substance, a watery substance, a rocky substance, a shiny substance ... etc until one gets to 17 different substances. THAT I would understand But that "Being" is a "substance" says nothing at all to me! It is straight 13th century mumbo jumbo in my opinion and should be restricted to discussions about alchemy which did in fact use such terms- as in swapping the accidents of lead for the accidents of gold. (or was it the other way around?) That's all you had to do to turn lead into gold! But of course you needed the philosopher's stone to do that.... On the other hand you could take Rorty's "causes of experience" - the UNDER-LYING "effects of causes which do not include mental states". Now THAT I get ----- BUT you cannot use those "causes" as anything we can speak about because by definition in that schema we do NOT perceive those "causes" BECAUSE by definition they do not involve human mental states. They are not perceivable, and therefore cannot BE a "human mental state" and then cannot be known. So if you can straighten me out on what "substance" means in an intelligible way that would be great. But remember we only perceive "accidents" in scholastic philosophy, NOT substances. I have no clue how we could possibly determine if ANYTHING is the "same substance" as anything else. To me it's just a meaningless word that we throw out there and then everyone says" OH YEAH! I get it NOW! They are the same SUBSTANCE! That explains it perfectly!" It doesn't explain anything! It's a "virtus dormitiva" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_principle Quote A modern translation of Latin, virtus dormitiva, coined by Molière in The Imaginary Invalid. In the play, he lampoons a group of physicians providing an explanation in macaronic Latin of the sleep-inducing properties of opium as stemming from its "virtus dormitiva". So some doctors in the past are puzzling over how it is that opium causes sleep. One erudite scientists says "It's simple!" It's because opium has sleep inducing properties!! Of course that explains the Trinity. Why the three are of the same "substance"! Easy as pie! You could also use the words "being" or "essence" or any other similarly-used word
Recommended Posts