Ahab Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 18 hours ago, teddyaware said: Well of course. But if the very essence of the mystique that makes the Trinity so awesome is the belief that it’s so inscrutable and “totally other” that it never can actually be understood, the chances that anyone will ever get around to solving the mystery are pretty slim. Not really, because once it is understood that it is the belief that the Trinity is so inscrutable and “totally other” that it never can actually be understood that is preventing someone from understanding it, and that with God to help us nothing is impossible including God helping us to understand him and the other 2 persons in the Trinity and how they are one to the point that we can believe him and what he tells us, we can then easily discard the belief that we can't understand God and the Trinity while also becoming one with them.
3DOP Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 On 3/8/2021 at 5:50 PM, teddyaware said: Catholics and Protestants will readily admit they believe the Godhead is incomprehensible and cannot, by any means, be defined nor understood by man. There’s nothing at all controversial nor demeaning about saying that the Godhead of Catholicism and Protestantism is incomprehensible to them because they will freely admit to the world they believe the Trinity is indeed an incomprehensible mystery. And the big problem Catholic and Protestant theologians have with the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is that our concept is too simplistic and easily comprehensible. Teddyaware. Hi. I agree that there is nothing disrespectful about saying that Catholics believe the Trinity to be an "incomprehensible mystery". I would be happy to discuss why I have a "big problem" with any Catholic theologian whose "big problem...with the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is that our concept is too simplistic and easily comprehensible". May I ask, which Catholic theologian(s) do you have in mind? Thanks, Rory
3DOP Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 (edited) 20 hours ago, teddyaware said: Of course there are many mysteries pertaining to God and his kingdom that have not yet been revealed, but for the Latter-Day Saints a basic understanding of the oneness of the three personages of the Godhead isn’t one of them. In LDS theology, the shared common substance that perfectly unifies the Godhead is the uncreated Spirit of Truth with which the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are filled to an infinite and eternal fullness. Since all three members of the Godhead are filled to an eternal fulness with that most holy substance called the Spirit of Truth, the perfect intelligence and wisdom of one is the perfect intelligence and wisdom enjoyed by the others; the most holy thoughts of one are the thoughts of the others; the emotions of one are the same as those experienced by the others, as are the perfect motivations, affections, behaviors, actions and capacity for boundless charity the same for one as they are for the others. This very same most holy substance, that perfectly unifies the Godhead, is the same holy substance that unifies the saints of God with God, and the saints of God with each other. This same unity of Spirit is what will also enable the saints to eventually become infinitely and eternally one with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost in the same way these three are now perfectly united as one. The reason why the Latter-Day Saints believe they will one day be filled with all the fulness of God is because the very same Spirit that raised the Son of God from death to glorious immortality, and from life on earth to an inheritance of the fullness of eternal life in heaven, will also raise his worthy sons and daughter from death to life and fill them with the very same uncreated Spirit to infinite and eternal fullness. We Latter-Day Saints take the words Christ’s in the Book of Revelation quite literally when he promises us that we will be joint heirs with him in All he posses. The only thing that will differentiate us one from another is where we will stand in the order of presiding authority and rulership. But the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost will always preside over us, worlds without end. And through the promise of the fullness of the Spirit we also take the promise of Christ quite literally when he assures us that one day we will become kings and queens and wear crowns of eternal glory, to rule and reign with a rod of iron while seated upon the very throne of his eternal power. Through the endowment of the Spirit, we believe it will not be robbery to one day become glorious divine beings who will be worthy of a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory than that enjoyed by the angels. Teddy. Hi again. I cannot help thinking that what you assume to be unique to LDS theology, is alive and well in Catholic hearts as well: "...The Lord cannot forget the saints, when they once lived on earth paid homage to Him by the total donation of their repose, their happiness, and their whole being...And the grateful God cries out, 'Now it is my turn! The saints have given me the gift of themselves: can I respond other than by giving myself, without restriction and without measure? If I place in their hands the scepter of creation, if I surround them with the torrents of my light, that is a great deal; it is going beyond their highest hopes and aspirations, but it is not the utmost endeavor of my heart. I owe them more than paradise, more than the treasures of my knowledge; I owe them my life, my nature, my eternal and infinite substance. If I bring my servants and friends in to my house, If I console them and make them thrill with joy by enfolding them in the embrace of my charity, this satisfies their thirst and their desires superabundantly, and is more than the perfect repose of their hearts requires; but it is not enough for the gratification of my divine heart, for the repletion and perfect satisfaction of my love. I must be the soul of their souls, I must penetrate them and imbue them with my divinity, as fire penetrates iron; by showing myself to their spirits, undisguised, unveiled,without the intervention of the senses, I must unite myself to them in an eternal face-to-face so that my glory illuminates them, exudes and radiates through all the pores of their being, so that, 'knowing me as I know them, they may become like Gods themselves.'" ---The End of the Present World, and the Mysteries of the Future Life, Fr. Charles Arminjon, Sophia Institute Press (2008), pp. 215, 216, (emphases are from the publisher). For my Catholic friends here: This book has been lying around my house for some time. What a treasure it has been. I anticipate that some of our LDS friends will want to object that a God who is wholly other (transcendent), cannot logically behave like we believe He does towards us. I think we may reply that we understand their thinking. But this is our faith, the mystery of faith. It is what the Catholic Church teaches. We can not make God be less, so that we can understand how He loves us more easily. We do not need to know how. We embrace the mystery of a transcendent God's infinite love for His sinful creatures. We think this God has revealed, without showing us how, the unspeakable greatness of His love. Originally written in 1881, I think the book is from a series of conferences given by Fr. Arminjon and transcribed in the probable familiar style of this French priest. It seems to me more like spoken, than written words. St. Therese of Lisieux said, "Reading this book was one of the greatest graces of my life." One other possible objection anticipated. Catholics don't believe God is in our debt because of our own goodness. God has made promises to His sons and daughters to which He is obliged. But He is not satisfied with merely making us happy. He gives those who die in a state of grace the same life eternal, which is enjoyed by the Holy and Blessed Trinity. In the communication of His love and goodness, the children of God "become like Gods themselves". Regards to all, Rory. Edited March 10, 2021 by 3DOP 1
teddyaware Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 50 minutes ago, 3DOP said: Teddyaware. Hi. I agree that there is nothing disrespectful about saying that Catholics believe the Trinity to be an "incomprehensible mystery". I would be happy to discuss why I have a "big problem" with any Catholic theologian whose "big problem...with the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is that our concept is too simplistic and easily comprehensible". May I ask, which Catholic theologian(s) do you have in mind? Thanks, Rory No Catholic theologian in particular. If you’re suggesting the Catholic Church has theologians who teach that the Godhead, and the mystical oneness of its three personages, isn’t really an incomprehensible mystery, I would be very interested to read what they have to say in this regard. Please provide names and the sources so I might become better informed?
teddyaware Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 21 minutes ago, 3DOP said: Teddy. Hi again. I cannot help thinking that what you assume to be unique to LDS theology, is alive and well in Catholic hearts as well: "...The Lord cannot forget the saints, when they once lived on earth paid homage to Him by the total donation of their repose, their happiness, and their whole being...And the grateful God cries out, 'Now it is my turn! The saints have given me the gift of themselves: can I respond other than by giving myself, without restriction and without measure? If I place in their hands the scepter of creation, if I surround them with the torrents of my light, that is a great deal; it is going beyond their highest hopes and aspirations, but it is not the utmost endeavor of my heart. I owe them more than paradise, more than the treasures of my knowledge; I owe them my life, my nature, my eternal and infinite substance. If I bring my servants and friends in to my house, If I console them and make them thrill with joy by enfolding them in the embrace of my charity, this satisfies their thirst and their desires superabundantly, and is more than the perfect repose of their hearts requires; but it is not enough for the gratification of my divine heart, for the repletion and perfect satisfaction of my love. I must be the soul of their souls, I must penetrate them and imbue them with my divinity, as fire penetrates iron; by showing myself to their spirits, undisguised, unveiled,without the intervention of the senses, I must unite myself to them in an eternal face-to-face so that my glory illuminates them, exudes and radiates through all the pores of their being, so that, 'knowing me as I know them, they may become like Gods themselves.'" ---The End of the Present World, and the Mysteries of the Future Life, Fr. Charles Arminjon, Sophia Institute Press (2008), pp. 215, 216, (emphases are from the publisher). For my Catholic friends here: This book has been lying around my house for some time. What a treasure it has been. I anticipate that some of our LDS friends will want to object that a God who is wholly other (transcendent), cannot logically behave like we believe He does towards us. I think we may reply that we understand their thinking. But this is our faith, the mystery of faith. It is what the Catholic Church teaches. We can not make God be less, so that we can understand how He loves us more easily. We do not need to know how. We embrace the mystery of a transcendent God's infinite love for His sinful creatures. We think this God has revealed, without showing us how, the unspeakable greatness of His love. Originally written in 1881, I think the book is from a series of conferences given by Fr. Arminjon and transcribed in the probable familiar style of this French priest. It seems to me more like spoken, than written words. St. Therese of Lisieux said, "Reading this book was one of the greatest graces of my life." One other possible objection anticipated. Catholics don't believe God is in our debt because of our own goodness. God has made promises to His sons and daughters to which He is obliged. But He is not satisfied with merely making us happy. He gives those who die in a state of grace the same life eternal, which is enjoyed by the Holy and Blessed Trinity. In the communication of His love and goodness, the children of God "become like Gods themselves". Regards to all, Rory. Is the process of theosis described here by Father Arminjon typical of mainline Catholic theology, or is he a sort of self-styled mystic and transcendentalist whose theological concepts exist only on the fringes of Catholic thought? It almost sounds like Arminjon is describing a kind of Catholic version of ‘nirvana’ wherein the faithful believers are absorbed into the very essence of the divine presence.
3DOP Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 11 minutes ago, teddyaware said: No Catholic theologian in particular. If you’re suggesting the Catholic Church has theologians who teach that the Godhead, and the mystical oneness of its three personages, isn’t really an incomprehensible mystery, I would be very interested to read what they have to say in this regard. Please provide names and the sources so I might become better informed? I wrote: "I agree that there is nothing disrespectful about saying that Catholics believe the Trinity to be an 'incomprehensible mystery'." This means that I agree with you as I said. Are you sure you read what I wrote? Or is it just that you know I am Catholic and you were expecting immediate opposition. I like to deliberately start a conversation amiably with something that the parties agree about. I do not see the disagreement on this point. You ask me to provide for something that I do not believe exists and which I never claimed existed. --- You said, "the big problem Catholic and Protestant theologians have with the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is that our concept is too simplistic and easily comprehensible." To my request that you provide the name of any Catholic theologian who takes that position, you say "No Catholic theologian in particular." That is inadequate. In this I oppose you. So what are you saying? None in particular? Well if none in particular, then apparently they all are guilty of such nonsense? Cite one statement from any Catholic theologian which supports your claim. Teddy, I am not against you. I have always liked you. I do right now. I think you're a great guy. I love your zeal. But your heart went past your head. Reel it back now. You don't have any sources, right? Its okay. Catholics are still apostate. You still have a testimony. I can't get at that. You'll get more respect all around. All you are doing is admitting that the Catholic faith is a little less stupid than how you portrayed it. My aims are modest. I am not asking you to renounce any beliefs about your faith, unless your faith hinges on the claim that "the big problem Catholic and Protestant theologians have with the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is that our concept is too simplistic and easily comprehensible." Regards, Rory 1
3DOP Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 18 minutes ago, teddyaware said: Is the process of theosis described here by Father Arminjon typical of mainline Catholic theology, or is he a sort of self-styled mystic and transcendentalist whose theological concepts exist only on the fringes of Catholic thought? It almost sounds like Arminjon is describing a kind of Catholic version of ‘nirvana’ wherein the faithful believers are absorbed into the very essence of the divine presence. Teddy...Hi again. Its in Scripture, Tradition, the Fathers, the Schoolmen, and the Liturgy. Where and when has it been emphasized, believed, and preached to the Catholic faithful? Always and everywhere. From St. Irenaeus to John Paul II quoting Irenaeus. From Sts. Augustine and Athanasius to St. Thomas Aquinas. You can't miss it in the Mass of All Times. Teddy...do you wish this was fringe Catholicism? It is not fringe Catholicism. All my best...late...probably can't do this again until the weekend. Rory 1
teddyaware Posted March 10, 2021 Posted March 10, 2021 (edited) 11 hours ago, 3DOP said: Teddy...Hi again. Its in Scripture, Tradition, the Fathers, the Schoolmen, and the Liturgy. Where and when has it been emphasized, believed, and preached to the Catholic faithful? Always and everywhere. From St. Irenaeus to John Paul II quoting Irenaeus. From Sts. Augustine and Athanasius to St. Thomas Aquinas. You can't miss it in the Mass of All Times. Teddy...do you wish this was fringe Catholicism? It is not fringe Catholicism. All my best...late...probably can't do this again until the weekend. Rory Very interesting. I performed a simple internet search under the terms “Catholic Church Men Becoming Like God” and the following from Saint Augustine is typical of articles that turned up in the search results: St. Augustine makes this all-important distinction clear when he says, He has called men gods, that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance. For He does justify, who is just through His own self, and not of another; and He does deify who is God through Himself, not by the partaking of another. But He that justifies does Himself deify, in that by justifying He does make sons of God. “For He has given them power to become the sons of God.” John 1:12 If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating. For the only Son of God, God, and one God with the Father, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, was in the beginning the Word, and the Word with God, the Word God. The rest that are made gods, are made by His own Grace, are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favor they should come to Him, and be fellow-heirs with Christ. (Exposition on Psalm 50, 2)” It appears that the main difference between the Catholic view on theosis and the view of the same by the Church of Jesus Latter-Day Saints is that Catholics believe the divine substance that makes the Father, Son and Holy Ghost one God is the exclusive domain and sole possession of the Godhead and therefore impossible to share with men. Conversely, the Latter-Day Saints believe God can fully share who and what he is with men because men are coeternal with God and of the same ultimate substance, which we Latter Day Saints define as the Spirit of Truth. The following is from Doctrine and Covenants 93: ”Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is a Spirit, even the Spirit of Truth.” And again, “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the Light of Truth, was not created nor made, neither indeed can be.” Where we part in this regard is that Catholics believe men can become godlike but not fully God, while the Latter-Day Saints believe men can become fully like God in every way, the lone exception being that no man can ever can take over God’s position of authority, seniority and rulership within the divine patriarchal order. So our point of departure all boils down to that thorny issue of the Catholic’s mysterious, undefinable, incomprehensible divine substance that is not possible for God to share with man. Edited March 10, 2021 by teddyaware 1
3DOP Posted March 13, 2021 Posted March 13, 2021 (edited) On 3/10/2021 at 9:07 AM, teddyaware said: Very interesting. I performed a simple internet search under the terms “Catholic Church Men Becoming Like God” and the following from Saint Augustine is typical of articles that turned up in the search results: St. Augustine makes this all-important distinction clear when he says, He has called men gods, that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance. For He does justify, who is just through His own self, and not of another; and He does deify who is God through Himself, not by the partaking of another. But He that justifies does Himself deify, in that by justifying He does make sons of God. “For He has given them power to become the sons of God.” John 1:12 If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating. For the only Son of God, God, and one God with the Father, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, was in the beginning the Word, and the Word with God, the Word God. The rest that are made gods, are made by His own Grace, are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favor they should come to Him, and be fellow-heirs with Christ. (Exposition on Psalm 50, 2)” It appears that the main difference between the Catholic view on theosis and the view of the same by the Church of Jesus Latter-Day Saints is that Catholics believe the divine substance that makes the Father, Son and Holy Ghost one God is the exclusive domain and sole possession of the Godhead and therefore impossible to share with men. Conversely, the Latter-Day Saints believe God can fully share who and what he is with men because men are coeternal with God and of the same ultimate substance, which we Latter Day Saints define as the Spirit of Truth. The following is from Doctrine and Covenants 93: ”Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is a Spirit, even the Spirit of Truth.” And again, “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the Light of Truth, was not created nor made, neither indeed can be.” Where we part in this regard is that Catholics believe men can become godlike but not fully God, while the Latter-Day Saints believe men can become fully like God in every way, the lone exception being that no man can ever can take over God’s position of authority, seniority and rulership within the divine patriarchal order. So our point of departure all boils down to that thorny issue of the Catholic’s mysterious, undefinable, incomprehensible divine substance that is not possible for God to share with man. It seems like you are merely asserting that the LDS teaching of deification is better than the Catholic teaching. You wrote: "So our point of departure all boils down to that thorny issue of the Catholic’s mysterious, undefinable, incomprehensible divine substance that is not possible for God to share with man." Are LDS taught from an early age that the Catholic belief about God is untenable? I fear that many LDS misunderstand what is meant by some of the words you complain about that are indeed used by Catholics. Used in theology or philosophy there are precise meanings that are unfortunately broadened in everyday speech. That we cannot define God or comprehend God means that there is mystery. There is always more truth to be discovered. To comprehend in the sense used by Augustine is to have exhaustive knowledge of God. Miserere Nobis was getting at this earlier when he suggested that you probably have mysteries too. For example, here is a definition of comprehend given in the Merriam-Webster on line dictionary: "To comprehend is to mentally grasp something's complete nature or meaning. Comprehend is thus often a bit stronger than understand: for example, you may understand the instructions in a handbook without completely comprehending their purpose." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprehend The same dictionary explains how Catholics are using the word definite. Definite is contrasted with infinite. Catholic theology is merely asserting the obvious when we say that anything that is infinite (God), can never be defined or comprehended. Not ever. But instead the detractors of the Catholic belief about God imagine that we are happy to know nothing. We know what is revealed, but everything is not revealed. It makes me wonder what is so great about continuing revelation when your knowledge of God is perfectly complete. Why do you have differences of opinion among you about that saying, I think attributed to Lorenzo Snow, about God being once man like us...something like that? I trhink you are allowed to believe either way. Why? Because your knowledge, is NOT comprehensive. Nor is it definite. From the same dictionary: To remember that the word ends in ite and not ate you can think of a few things: The word definite doesn't go on forever; it's finite. (Get it? deFINITE.) "The etymology of definite can also be useful in remembering the word's spelling. Definite traces back to the Latin word finire meaning "to limit, end, FINISH." Connect finish to definite and voilà: you can definitely spell definite correctly." Teddy, If you say that LDS God is defined and comprehensible according to the dictionary definition all I can say is that I do not see any advantage for you. Obviously we all are attached to our own customary ways of thinking. For what it is worth, this is why I am not in the least disturbed about worshipping what I understand, but do not comprehend. Edited March 13, 2021 by 3DOP 2
3DOP Posted March 18, 2021 Posted March 18, 2021 So...in conclusion... We all agree that when the Catholic Church says that Catholics cannot comprehend God, it does NOT imply ignorance of everything about God? Furthermore, we all agree that Catholics claim to know many, but not all things about God? Just for the record. I really think the case on this question should be closed. There is infinitely more to know about an infinite thing than there is a finite thing. LDS can hold Catholics to account for believing in an infinite thing (God) if they can. That seems fair. But it seems unfair to hold Catholics to account for admitting that they do not know everything about what they believe to be an infinite thing (God). The next one might not be as easy. In the interest of reviving further interest in this thread, may I ask, are we all in agreement with Teddy's claim that, "the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is...easily comprehensible."? 2
Calm Posted March 18, 2021 Posted March 18, 2021 1 hour ago, 3DOP said: are we all in agreement with Teddy's claim that, "the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is...easily comprehensible."? Teddy needs to post what it is specifically he is referring to, because there are a couple of issues I don’t believe are comprehensible...such as the nonorigin of God, either as an infinite regression of Gods or God has always existed. 2
mfbukowski Posted March 18, 2021 Posted March 18, 2021 1 hour ago, 3DOP said: So...in conclusion... We all agree that when the Catholic Church says that Catholics cannot comprehend God, it does NOT imply ignorance of everything about God? Furthermore, we all agree that Catholics claim to know many, but not all things about God? Just for the record. I really think the case on this question should be closed. There is infinitely more to know about an infinite thing than there is a finite thing. LDS can hold Catholics to account for believing in an infinite thing (God) if they can. That seems fair. But it seems unfair to hold Catholics to account for admitting that they do not know everything about what they believe to be an infinite thing (God). The next one might not be as easy. In the interest of reviving further interest in this thread, may I ask, are we all in agreement with Teddy's claim that, "the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is...easily comprehensible."? Note that question we are talking about is "the Godhead" or "Trinity" - not explaining other alleged attributes of God. omniscience etc. The question about the Godhead/Trinity of course is how to explain that three persons are united into "One God" At this stage of my life I really don't know that the Trinity is all that hard to understand and is in fact not that much more complex than the LDS Godhead is. I think it requires one more step though. LDS view: God is unified as three people united in love and purpose. Essentially it can be seen as a "family". I grew up as an only child and so that is a very EASY argument for me to understand because my whole family consisted of 3 people united into one family which was "made" of Love, and of course we had one purpose- getting along, loving each other, sharing chores etc. VERY easy. The Trinity is a little harder because the idea is that the unifying element is "substance"- they are consubstantial beings who are unified by Being itself. That is a little more vague and complicated, I think BUT if one sees the "substance" as love and purpose, then the LDS and Catholic positions are the same. See? Easy as pie! Postmodernism wins again! We both believe the same truth- just stated a little differently! 2
Ahab Posted March 18, 2021 Posted March 18, 2021 11 hours ago, 3DOP said: So...in conclusion... We all agree that when the Catholic Church says that Catholics cannot comprehend God, it does NOT imply ignorance of everything about God? Furthermore, we all agree that Catholics claim to know many, but not all things about God? Just for the record. I really think the case on this question should be closed. There is infinitely more to know about an infinite thing than there is a finite thing. LDS can hold Catholics to account for believing in an infinite thing (God) if they can. That seems fair. But it seems unfair to hold Catholics to account for admitting that they do not know everything about what they believe to be an infinite thing (God). The next one might not be as easy. In the interest of reviving further interest in this thread, may I ask, are we all in agreement with Teddy's claim that, "the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is...easily comprehensible."? I think all we need to understand for eternal life is how God is one thing and yet 3 (or more) people at the same time. That is what a correct understanding of the Trinity is all about, I think. So that we can know what we worship. So, to break it down into easily comprehensible steps, I start by determining what the one thing is that God is which is also what all 3 (or more) of the persons who are God is, too. What is that one thing that all of them are? Well, for one thing, they are all the same kind of being. That is one thing all 3 (or more) of those persons are. Is that all they are? No, but at least it is one thing we can easily comprehend. All of the persons who are God are one and the same kind of being, the kind of being we can refer to as God. Now with that as a basis for understanding that the word God can be understood to refer to a particular kind of being we can delve a little deeper to understand the kind of being God is. A kind of being that consists of more than one person, for example. And with one of those persons being the person we refer to as our Father who is in heaven. And then there is Jesus, too, who is another person who we know is God. And there is also a person we refer to as the Holy Ghost aka the Holy Spirit. So that is 3 persons who we know are God. Some people say Gods but I prefer to think of all 3 of them as God since they are all the same kind of being. And now we can delve even deeper to talk more about who and what God is. So your turn now. Do you know of anyone else who is the same kind of being as our Father in heaven? Do you understand that since our Father in heaven is God, and since we are is children, that makes us the same kind of being he is? So we are God, too. Can you think of anything else you know about him, or them, or us? Are we all equally intelligent, for example? No. But by learning all that our Father knows, as long as he is willing to teach us, we can eventually learn everything that he knows.
Popular Post caspianrex Posted March 18, 2021 Popular Post Posted March 18, 2021 I've been browsing this thread, and figured I'd throw in my 2¢. I'm a Trinitarian Christian, raised Lutheran, but I've served as a Music Director in United Methodist churches for the past dozen years or so. When I have chatted with LDS missionaries in the pasts (and enjoyable chats they were), I've made it clear where I disagree with LDS theology, but I've never seen those differences as an obstacle to fellowship. I feel that there is always plenty of room at Christ's table for a host of different nuances. Meanwhile, I would be lying if I claimed to have a complete understanding of the Trinity. So in my discussions with different kinds of Christ followers, I've chosen to focus on what we have in common. I always appreciate the (mostly) mutual respect I've experienced on this forum, and I realize, as a non-member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am a guest here. So I always treat my hosts with respect, as a good guest should. Peace be with you all... 6
JLHPROF Posted March 18, 2021 Posted March 18, 2021 13 hours ago, 3DOP said: The next one might not be as easy. In the interest of reviving further interest in this thread, may I ask, are we all in agreement with Teddy's claim that, "the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is...easily comprehensible."? No. In fact I've often felt like you'd be hard pressed to get two people to agree on every aspect of the Godhead. And that's without going into all the changes in Latter-Day Saint "understanding" that have occurred since the restoration began. If you mean that LDS understanding of the Godhead being non-trinitarian is easily comprehensible then sure. But that barely scratches the surface of the knowledge of the Godhead. 3
Ahab Posted March 18, 2021 Posted March 18, 2021 13 hours ago, 3DOP said: ...may I ask, are we all in agreement with Teddy's claim that, "the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is...easily comprehensible."? While I understand that all LDS do not agree with each other on everything I would say that most understand the Godhead to be our Father, our Lord and the Holy Ghost working together to help/save us. Anything difficult to comprehend about that? 1
3DOP Posted March 20, 2021 Posted March 20, 2021 (edited) On 3/18/2021 at 12:58 AM, Calm said: Teddy needs to post what it is specifically he is referring to, because there are a couple of issues I don’t believe are comprehensible...such as the nonorigin of God, either as an infinite regression of Gods or God has always existed. Yes, calm. The question isn't about whether Catholics and LDS believe they know something about the Godhead. The question is about whether Catholics and LDS believe they know everything about the Godhead. Catholics categorically deny that they know everything. That is what Catholics mean when they might say that the Godhead is incomprehensible. It appears to me that some LDS here have quite understandably misunderstood what the Catholics mean. It is not a difficult mistake to make. But it begins to appear that it might be a difficult mistake to acknowledge. Edited March 20, 2021 by 3DOP 3
3DOP Posted March 20, 2021 Posted March 20, 2021 On 3/18/2021 at 1:21 AM, mfbukowski said: Note that question we are talking about is "the Godhead" or "Trinity" - not explaining other alleged attributes of God. omniscience etc. The question about the Godhead/Trinity of course is how to explain that three persons are united into "One God" At this stage of my life I really don't know that the Trinity is all that hard to understand and is in fact not that much more complex than the LDS Godhead is. I think it requires one more step though. LDS view: God is unified as three people united in love and purpose. Essentially it can be seen as a "family". I grew up as an only child and so that is a very EASY argument for me to understand because my whole family consisted of 3 people united into one family which was "made" of Love, and of course we had one purpose- getting along, loving each other, sharing chores etc. VERY easy. The Trinity is a little harder because the idea is that the unifying element is "substance"- they are consubstantial beings who are unified by Being itself. That is a little more vague and complicated, I think BUT if one sees the "substance" as love and purpose, then the LDS and Catholic positions are the same. See? Easy as pie! Postmodernism wins again! We both believe the same truth- just stated a little differently! Thanks again Mark for your attempt to understand. Later, I might try to find some more resources that would explain the Catholic position in terms like you describe. For now I give you Eph. 3:14, 15 with a Catholic commentary: "For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named..." (Ep. 3:14, 15) Comment: "All paternity": Or, the whole family. God is the Father, both of angels and men; whosoever besides is named father, is so named with subordination to him. ---http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=3&l=15#x 1
3DOP Posted March 20, 2021 Posted March 20, 2021 On 3/18/2021 at 12:04 PM, caspianrex said: I've been browsing this thread, and figured I'd throw in my 2¢. I'm a Trinitarian Christian, raised Lutheran, but I've served as a Music Director in United Methodist churches for the past dozen years or so. When I have chatted with LDS missionaries in the pasts (and enjoyable chats they were), I've made it clear where I disagree with LDS theology, but I've never seen those differences as an obstacle to fellowship. I feel that there is always plenty of room at Christ's table for a host of different nuances. Meanwhile, I would be lying if I claimed to have a complete understanding of the Trinity. So in my discussions with different kinds of Christ followers, I've chosen to focus on what we have in common. I always appreciate the (mostly) mutual respect I've experienced on this forum, and I realize, as a non-member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am a guest here. So I always treat my hosts with respect, as a good guest should. Peace be with you all... If you mean that we can be friendly online with each other? Absolutely. We can discuss our differences with civility while sincerely trying to understand the other party. But I consider it a defective fellowship that stops short of being able to go to and belong to the same church together. I hope you understand. I completely affirm your sentiments as expressed. But I think that if we love one another, our hearts ought to ache at being divided. The aim is high, but it fuels every discussion. Progress brings a satisfaction that will never be complete without what I would describe as perfect fellowship. 4
3DOP Posted March 20, 2021 Posted March 20, 2021 On 3/18/2021 at 12:34 PM, JLHPROF said: No. In fact I've often felt like you'd be hard pressed to get two people to agree on every aspect of the Godhead. And that's without going into all the changes in Latter-Day Saint "understanding" that have occurred since the restoration began. If you mean that LDS understanding of the Godhead being non-trinitarian is easily comprehensible then sure. But that barely scratches the surface of the knowledge of the Godhead. Yup. That is what I thought. Parts of anything are not the whole! Below we observe the misunderstanding about comprehensive knowledge. One of the participants is going to share a comprehensive explanation of the part as though it proves comprehensive knowledge of the whole.
3DOP Posted March 20, 2021 Posted March 20, 2021 On 3/18/2021 at 12:43 PM, Ahab said: While I understand that all LDS do not agree with each other on everything I would say that most understand the Godhead to be our Father, our Lord and the Holy Ghost working together to help/save us. Anything difficult to comprehend about that? The question is not about whether we think we know something about the Godhead. The question is about whether we think we know everything about the Godhead. Catholics are mistakenly portrayed above as declaring ignorance about the Godhead because of a misunderstanding of terms. It seems to me like it should be obvious now that the Catholics are not declaring total ignorance of the Godhead. I doubt if LDS should say that they have comprehensive knowledge of the Godhead. By accepting that there are truths that are currently unknown, you could if you would, agree with Catholics that there are hidden truths about the LDS God too. Catholics refer to this hidden truth as mystery. I hope this helps. Regards, Rory 2
3DOP Posted March 20, 2021 Posted March 20, 2021 It takes great effort to gain comprehensive knowledge of virtually every created thing. I know what a cookie is and how to eat one. How to properly bake a cookie? Not me. I have partial knowledge of the cookie. That mystery is discoverable if I cared to learn. It would be proper, in my opinion, that comprehensive knowledge of the Godhead should be much more difficult than comprehensive knowledge of a cookie. The Catholic says that since God is infinite, the data is incomprehensible. But new mysteries can literally unfold forever. Those who attain to the Beatific Vision will have their healthy and hungry intellects ravished with wonders that will never cease. In this life, the intellect is weighed down by many factors that make our interests and speculations dulled and turned toward what is immediately perceived by the senses instead of what is perceived by the spirit. Since the LDS God, correct me if I am mistaken, is continually progressing, and will so forever, it seems like the faithful LDS would potentially expect a similar experience. The LDS God is finite in the sense of what He is. But the LDS God is infinite, as to what He is becoming. The truths are defined, within a boundary. But the boundary is always moving. It seems like mystery and incomprehensibility might be as inevitable for LDS as well as Catholics. I am just trying to understand you and you us. I welcome LDS criticisms of my analysis, especially from those who would continue to insist that "the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead is...easily comprehensible." Thanks much to all who have replied. I look forward to any further thoughts you might have. Rory 2
longview Posted March 20, 2021 Posted March 20, 2021 On 3/10/2021 at 8:07 AM, teddyaware said: ”Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is a Spirit, even the Spirit of Truth.” And again, “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the Light of Truth, was not created nor made, neither indeed can be.” Where we part in this regard is that Catholics believe men can become godlike but not fully God, while the Latter-Day Saints believe men can become fully like God in every way, the lone exception being that no man can ever can take over God’s position of authority, seniority and rulership within the divine patriarchal order. So our point of departure all boils down to that thorny issue of the Catholic’s mysterious, undefinable, incomprehensible divine substance that is not possible for God to share with man. We also believe that members of the Godhead to be personable and passionate beings whose actual image are humanoid in appearance and they truly love each other and all of us (His children). We also believe the words Jesus when He explicitly states His relationship with His Father (the Most High God) and He unequivocally asserts that He is submitting to the Will of His Father - - - Hannah sings praises to the Lord— 1 Samuel 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them. Speaking to His Apostles— Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. Here is at least two levels of thrones— Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. The Most High is greater than Jesus— John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. God the Father truly did require the sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son— Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (this was foreshadowed by Abraham being commanded to offer up "thine only son" Isaac) John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. Jesus in His physical body has the SAME appearance as His Father which was in Heaven— John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Even devils testify of the distinct personages of God the Father and His Son— Mark 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. Besides, consubstatiation is not hinted at or referred to anywhere in the scriptures. Constantine made a huge mistake. 1
teddyaware Posted March 21, 2021 Posted March 21, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, longview said: We also believe that members of the Godhead to be personable and passionate beings whose actual image are humanoid in appearance and they truly love each other and all of us (His children). We also believe the words Jesus when He explicitly states His relationship with His Father (the Most High God) and He unequivocally asserts that He is submitting to the Will of His Father - - - Hannah sings praises to the Lord— 1 Samuel 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them. Speaking to His Apostles— Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. Here is at least two levels of thrones— Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. The Most High is greater than Jesus— John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. God the Father truly did require the sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son— Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (this was foreshadowed by Abraham being commanded to offer up "thine only son" Isaac) John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. Jesus in His physical body has the SAME appearance as His Father which was in Heaven— John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Even devils testify of the distinct personages of God the Father and His Son— Mark 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. Besides, consubstatiation is not hinted at or referred to anywhere in the scriptures. Constantine made a huge mistake. Good stuff! But it’s important to realize that the Catholics (most Protestants too) don’t believe in Modalism, the idea that the Trinity is one person and therefore one God. But it needs to be seared into the mind of every Latter-Day saint that the Catholics believe Modalism (i.e. one person and one God) is a concept that they consider to be heresy. Rather, Catholics actually do believe the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost really are three separate and distinct personages, but then they go on further to say that in some mysterious, incomprehensible way the three separate personage are still one God due to the fact that they are of one common “divine substance.” Personally, I believe the only major sticking point that separates the Catholics and the Latter-Day Saints on the nature of the Godhead is that that the Latter-Day Saints actually define what the supposedly “incomprehensible” unifying substance actually is, namely matter. To flesh out this idea further, we believe both the Father and the Son have tangible glorified bodies of flesh and bond, and that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost have spirit bodies (in the case of both the Father and the Son, spirit bodies enclosed within resurrected tabernacles of clay) and that the spirit bodies of all three are composed of a finer and purer form of matter called uncreated intelligence, or the Spirit of Truth and the Light of Truth. The likely reason why the Catholics think the substance that unifies the Godhead is incomprehensible is because they believe that although the substance is real it’s somehow simultaneously immaterial. Meanwhile, we Latter-Day Saints believe spirit is matter, just a finer and purer form of matter than the kind we can see, observe, quantify and measure within the observable universe. And since the Catholics acknowledge they don’t know nor understand what the unifying immaterial substance might be, for for all they know, when the truth of the matter is finally demystified for them and revealed, they will be astounded to realize we Latter-Day Saints had it right all along. Yes indeed, while it may shock the sensibilities of some Latter-Day Saints to learn that the separate personages of the Father and Son do actually share two forms of very real substance — tangible glorified gross matter and highly refined and most glorious spiritual matter — it is true nonetheless. In fact, the primary mechanism that will enable the sons and daughters of God to become fully like him is through receiving the outpouring of the very same divine Spirit that unifies the members of the Godhead. It’s by this means that the saints of God are enabled to become one with each other, and also become one with God in the same way that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one. Edited March 21, 2021 by teddyaware 1
3DOP Posted March 21, 2021 Posted March 21, 2021 (edited) 20 hours ago, longview said: We also believe that members of the Godhead to be personable and passionate beings whose actual image are humanoid in appearance and they truly love each other and all of us (His children). We also believe the words Jesus when He explicitly states His relationship with His Father (the Most High God) and He unequivocally asserts that He is submitting to the Will of His Father - - - Hannah sings praises to the Lord— 1 Samuel 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them. Speaking to His Apostles— Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. Here is at least two levels of thrones— Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. The Most High is greater than Jesus— John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. God the Father truly did require the sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son— Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (this was foreshadowed by Abraham being commanded to offer up "thine only son" Isaac) John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. Jesus in His physical body has the SAME appearance as His Father which was in Heaven— John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Even devils testify of the distinct personages of God the Father and His Son— Mark 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. Besides, consubstatiation is not hinted at or referred to anywhere in the scriptures. Constantine made a huge mistake. I am glad that we agree that the Father intends for His Son to be King, and that Christ's faithful will reign with Him. When one reads the context of John 14 it becomes more difficult to believe that Jesus is emphasizing physical likeness to the Father: "If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him. Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, shew us the Father? Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" This passage shows how Christ wants to reveal His holy interior life to us. This is about the heart of Jesus, whose heart, and whose very being is of the same nature as the Father's. The heart is a symbol for the will, for what is desired, and Christ came to reveal the good will of His Father towards us. When Christ acted, the Apostles could have "seen" the Father working through the Son. So when St. Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father, he explains the way the Father shows Himself to us, not by a physical manifestation but through the works of the Son. It seems to me conclusive when we hear Christ ask if the Apostles believe that "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." This kind of unity cannot be attained physically, but by a union of the will. I do not say that this proves that the Father is incorporeal. But even if I were LDS, I would not believe that the knowledge that Jesus wishes for the Apostles to gain in this dialogue has anything to do with the physical nature of His Father. Surely you do not believe that the Father is physically inside the Son, while the Son physically inside the Father? Of course not...and even if you should somehow believe that (Talk about mystery!) it would not be important in comparison to what Christ is emphasizing. We are "seeing" something vastly more elevated than sense knowledge. It is the revelation of what the Son's all-benevolent and lovable Father is like, "on the inside", if you will, even if He has a physical body. Other passages. Jesus is obedient to His Father in heaven. He said His "meat" was to do the will of His Father. Shoot, He was subject to Joseph and Mary! Why? Because Joseph and Mary were in a very important sense, greater than Jesus, just as the Father is greater than the Son, as we read every Whitsunday (Pentecost) in the Catholic Church. Joseph and Mary and the Father enjoy positions of authority over Jesus. Do you think obedience always means an ontological superiority between the one issuing and the one receiving commands? Obedience to human authority never implies that the one who obeys is of an inferior nature, rather that perfect obedience is kept by those who have perfect understanding of hierarchical relationships among those who have the same nature. The same principle exists in the Godhead. These verses do not seem to offer any difficulty to how Catholics understand the word consubstantial. Obviously the word is not in Scripture, but descriptions of the word are everywhere. The very word father, implies a person who in a certain sense, reproduces himself when he generates offspring. All animal and vegetable life give us a picture of consubstantiality. There is a repetitious emphasis in Genesis of the plants and animals, that every living creature reproduced "after its kind". We have different "kinds" of living creature which have the same nature. That is to say, the different kinds, are consubstantial with one another. I presume you are attributing the Council of Nicea to the Emperor and to the Council an erroneous understanding of consubstantiality. Sorry, but this would be "a huge mistake", to use your words, on your part. If we move forward in history a little over a hundred years it might help us to gain a greater insight as to what Catholics mean when we recite the Nicene Creed on Sundays and other feast days: "Therefore, following the the holy Fathers, we all teach that with one accord we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in human nature, true God and true man, the same with a rational soul and a body, consubstantial with the Father according to divine nature, consubstantial with us according to the human nature..." ---Definition of the Two Natures of Christ, Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD, Denzinger #148 According to the Catholic faith, consubstantiality is not unique to the Godhead as you see. However, it is much more mysterious, and difficult to comprehend, in the Godhead. Thanks all. Rory Edited March 21, 2021 by 3DOP 1
Recommended Posts