The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[James 1 5]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes they believe that

Articles of faith say we are not responsible for Adam's transgression.

We were never under "Adam's curse", we are baptized for our own sins, after we reach the age where we know right from wrong, around age 7 or 8.

Around that age Catholics have their first confession and first communion

A little later, around 13, they are confirmed, indicating being a full fledged member of Jesus' church, ready to stand up and defend the church, around the age our boys receive the Aaronic Priesthood 

I received a full Catholic education until I was half way through High School.

Articles of Faith 

 

"2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

 

 

Hmm.  I thought I was seeing that maybe we have something in common with the Catholic church there.  Intent, or something.  Maybe not.  

This new insight you gained and were talking about in previous posts.  Can you expand on what you now see more clearly that you did not see as well before?

Maybe Catholics consider baptism more essential to salvation than we do?  They seem to believe baptism is so vital to salvation than even little children will not be saved unless they are baptized.  We say they are okay until they are 8 years old.

[James 1 5]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes they believe that.

Articles of faith say we are not punished for Adam's transgression, hence my confusion.

We were never under "Adam's curse", we are baptized for our own sins, after we reach the age where we know right from wrong, around age 7 or 8.

We say we won't be punished for Adam's transgression because we know our Lord took care of that for us. 

If our Lord did not and never did take care of that transgression then we would all suffer the same fate as Adam and Eve would have without an atonement. 

As of now, and as of the day of our Lord's atonement, we are only going to be punished for any wrongdoing we do that we do not repent from.  Our Lord can't make right any wrong we continue to do.

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Around that age Catholics have their first confession and first communion, indicating they have had enough time to have sinned on their own. Confession includes absolution from sin, a requirement before communion/ receiving the Eucharist.

A little later, around 13, they are confirmed, indicating being a full fledged member of Jesus' church, ready to stand up and defend the church, around the age our boys receive the Aaronic Priesthood 

I received a full Catholic education until I was half way through High School.

Articles of Faith 

"2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

I'm open to believing you understand this issue as well as anyone in the Catholic church.  I know a lot about a Protestant church called the Church of Christ because I was once a member and minister in that church.  We usually learn more as we live.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, James 1 5 said:

We say we won't be punished for Adam's transgression because we know our Lord took care of that for us. 

If our Lord did not and never did take care of that transgression then we would all suffer the same fate as Adam and Eve would have without an atonement. 

As of now, and as of the day of our Lord's atonement, we are only going to be punished for any wrongdoing we do that we do not repent from.  Our Lord can't make right any wrong we continue to do.

We need to also take care of something called "the blood and sins of this generation".  I don't claim to fully understand it, but as a former hippie/yippie atheist and student of Angela Davis, I was responsible for, in a MINISCULE way, for spreading the false "gospels" of all of those movements.

I might have contributed to influencing a few people in some small ways to adopt those harmful ideas.

I cannot repent for those actions because I have no way to know if they even happened.  Maybe I have taught wrong ideas to my kids? 

Anyway, I believe that I am forgiven from the "blood and sins of this generation" by the atonement for sins and the sinful ways I may have influenced others without even knowing about it.  

There is not much published about it, but there are references about being cleansed in the temple.  Of course all of this is through the atonement, and does not include repentence because we many not even known about how we influenced others in our "blood and sins of this generation"

Found this, some references toward the end:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1990/09/the-atonement-of-jesus-christ-part-3?lang=eng

Edited February 11, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

18 hours ago, James 1 5 said:

Hmm.  I thought I was seeing that maybe we have something in common with the Catholic church there.  Intent, or something.  Maybe not.  

This new insight you gained and were talking about in previous posts.  Can you expand on what you now see more clearly that you did not see as well before?

Maybe Catholics consider baptism more essential to salvation than we do?  They seem to believe baptism is so vital to salvation than even little children will not be saved unless they are baptized.  We say they are okay until they are 8 years old.

In the Catholic Church there is a possibility that unbaptized children go to heaven. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

In the Catholic Church there is a possibility that unbaptized children go to heaven. 

Unless things have changed, like Limbo, I believe the old rules taught that anyone in an emergency can baptize a catholic baby if they use the correct language, except I believe LDS folks.  Correct?

Sensus fidei and all that....

Sensus fidelium - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_fidelium

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Unless things have changed, like Limbo, I believe the old rules taught that anyone in an emergency can baptize a catholic baby if they use the correct language, except I believe LDS folks.  Correct?

Sensus fidei and all that....

Sensus fidelium - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_fidelium

 

LDS folks would not be excluded. 

"In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation." (CCC 1256)

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

LDS folks would not be excluded. 

"In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation." (CCC 1256)

...Which is what we do too.

But of course it is a "Different God" who has body parts and passions, but I guess the Bible got that wrong.

I wonder what happened to Jesus' immortal resurrected body, if God cannot have a body?  I never got that one answered either, even from priests.

Golly, if baptism is so important, one might think God would have other options available for innocents.

BUT- Baptism by desire.

So if it's so important, who would NOT DESIRE it ? Everyone would want it, if they knew about it, and if they didn't know about it and so weren't baptized, that would be unjust! 

You don't get salvation because you never heard of God? How is that just?

So why then is Baptism is so important?  Everyone presumably can have baptism by desire anyway.

The more anything is easily available, the less it is worth. 

I never understood that. But of course it is  mystery.

We solve that mystery in our paradigm

Edited February 11, 2022 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

Mark, c'mon, you are making a caricature and a straw man of Catholic theology here. It bugs me when people do this -- point out some "obvious" issue like it's a gotcha, ignoring the fact that some of the best minds of western civilization have devoted themselves to Catholic theology. I mean, do you think St. Thomas Aquinas would read your post and be like "man, I never thought of that before!" In other words, your issues have answers. Obviously you don't have to agree with the answers, but you can't just toss them out with a one sentence glib response.

So let's look at some of the issues:

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

...Which is what we do too.

Referring to baptism. Yes, you baptize using a "Trinitarian" formula, but the meanings behind the words are quite different. That's one of the reasons that Catholicism does not accept LDS baptism. Here is an excerpt from the document that fully explains the rejection of your baptism (I recommend reading the whole thing. It's not long):

Quote

As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.

Your baptism uses the words, but it does not mean the same thing. Now, as to the question if an LDS person could validly baptize someone Catholic in an emergency, it is true. However, the intention (as St. Bonaventure points out) would have be to do what the Catholic Church would do. In other words, the LDS person would have to intend to baptize the person as a Catholic, not as LDS.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But of course it is a "Different God" who has body parts and passions, but I guess the Bible got that wrong.

You're sola scripture now, eh?  The impassibility of God is a dogma, true. The expressions of God's emotions in the Bible are metaphorical anthropomorphisms that help us understand our relationship to Him. Also, Jesus did have human passions, while also retaining His divine impassibility. Remember, he was 100% divine and 100% human. Does God "love" us? Of course. But true love is way more than changeable passionate emotion.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I wonder what happened to Jesus' immortal resurrected body, if God cannot have a body?  I never got that one answered either, even from priests.

I somehow doubt that a priest couldn't answer this. Perhaps you just weren't satisfied with the answer..?

From the Catechism:

Quote

659 "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." Christ's body was glorified at the moment of his Resurrection, as proved by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and permanently enjoys. But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familiarly with his disciples and teaches them about the kingdom, his glory remains veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity. Jesus' final apparition ends with the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory, symbolized by the cloud and by heaven, where he is seated from that time forward at God's right hand. Only in a wholly exceptional and unique way would Jesus show himself to Paul "as to one untimely born", in a last apparition that established him as an apostle.

660 The veiled character of the glory of the Risen One during this time is intimated in his mysterious words to Mary Magdalene: "I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." This indicates a difference in manifestation between the glory of the risen Christ and that of the Christ exalted to the Father's right hand, a transition marked by the historical and transcendent event of the Ascension.

Christ's words to Mary Magdalene point to the two "stages" of His resurrection: His return to life, and then His ascension. In the ascension, His humanity (including His body) was fused, so to speak, into the divinity of God. So it will be with us.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

BUT- Baptism by desire.

So if it's so important, who would NOT DESIRE it ?

You misunderstand baptism by desire. Baptism by desire is for catechumens who already desire baptism but die before it actually takes place. For example, from the time I desired baptism until the baptism actually occurred was about 2 months. If I had been killed in that interval, I trust that I would have received baptism by desire. It's not just some vague desire to be saved or some such thing.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Everyone would want it, if they knew about it

This is false. People reject the Catholic Church all the time, just as they reject your missionaries. Just knowing about baptism doesn't cause someone to desire it. You have to believe it first.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

and if they didn't know about it and so weren't baptized, that would be unjust! 

You don't get salvation because you never heard of God? How is that just?

Here's a great teaching from the Catechism, bold mine:

Quote

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

We don't know of any other way to salvation except baptism, but that doesn't mean God is bound to that.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So why then is Baptism is so important?

Because Jesus Christ commanded it. Do you agree?

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Everyone presumably can have baptism by desire anyway

See my statement above about your misunderstanding of baptism by desire.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I never understood that.

Clearly  

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But of course it is  mystery.

I suppose it is a pet peeve of mine, but it surely bugs me when people look down on the mysteries of God, as if something being a mystery means it is lesser. Every religion has mysteries, yours included. Saying something is a mystery is saying "we look through a glass darkly." Or do you think you can comprehend the mind and will of God? Do you know the ends and outs of His ways?

A Christian religion that declares there are no mysteries has lost itself in insufferable hubris.

Edited February 12, 2022 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Mark, c'mon, you are making a caricature and a straw man of Catholic theology here. It bugs me when people do this -- point out some "obvious" issue like it's a gotcha, ignoring the fact that some of the best minds of western civilization have devoted themselves to Catholic theology. I mean, do you think St. Thomas Aquinas would read your post and be like "man, I never thought of that before!" In other words, your issues have answers. Obviously you don't have to agree with the answers, but you can't just toss them out with a one sentence glib response.

So let's look at some of the issues:

Referring to baptism. Yes, you baptize using a "Trinitarian" formula, but the meanings behind the words are quite different. That's one of the reasons that Catholicism does not accept LDS baptism. Here is an excerpt from the document that fully explains the rejection of your baptism (I recommend reading the whole thing. It's not long):

Your baptism uses the words, but it does not mean the same thing. Now, as to the question if an LDS person could validly baptize someone Catholic in an emergency, it is true. However, the intention (as St. Bonaventure points out) would have be to do what the Catholic Church would do. In other words, the LDS person would have to intend to baptize the person as a Catholic, not as LDS.

You're sola scripture now, eh?  The impassibility of God is a dogma, true. The expressions of God's emotions in the Bible are metaphorical anthropomorphisms that help us understand our relationship to Him. Also, Jesus did have human passions, while also retaining His divine impassibility. Remember, he was 100% divine and 100% human. Does God "love" us? Of course. But true love is way more than changeable passionate emotion.

I somehow doubt that a priest couldn't answer this. Perhaps you just weren't satisfied with the answer..?

From the Catechism:

Christ's words to Mary Magdalene point to the two "stages" of His resurrection: His return to life, and then His ascension. In the ascension, His humanity (including His body) was fused, so to speak, into the divinity of God. So it will be with us.

You misunderstand baptism by desire. Baptism by desire is for catechumens who already desire baptism but die before it actually takes place. For example, from the time I desired baptism until the baptism actually occurred was about 2 months. If I had been killed in that interval, I trust that I would have received baptism by desire. It's not just some vague desire to be saved or some such thing.

This is false. People reject the Catholic Church all the time, just as they reject your missionaries. Just knowing about baptism doesn't cause someone to desire it. You have to believe it first.

Here's a great teaching from the Catechism, bold mine:

We don't know of any other way to salvation except baptism, but that doesn't mean God is bound to that.

Because Jesus Christ commanded it. Do you agree?

See my statement above about your misunderstanding of baptism by desire.

Clearly  

I suppose it is a pet peeve of mine, but it surely bugs me when people look down on the mysteries of God, as if something being a mystery means it is lesser. Every religion has mysteries, yours included. Saying something is a mystery is saying "we look through a glass darkly." Or do you think you can comprehend the mind and will of God? Do you know the ends and outs of His ways?

A Christian religion that declares there are no mysteries has lost itself in insufferable hubris.

My good friend, thanks for the rebuke. I felt bad for that post all afternoon, but did not have a chance to get back here. Especially sorry to @Saint Bonaventure, who answered my question very well, and then I sock him with that stuff.

Sorry all, it has been a hard day and I was a jerk.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

LDS folks would not be excluded. 

"In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation." (CCC 1256)

Thanks for the quote and the answer!

I am sorry I was a jerk, it was totally uncalled for, see above.

It won't happen again 

[Saint Bonaventure]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for the quote and the answer!

I am sorry I was a jerk, it was totally uncalled for, see above.

It won't happen again 

No worries. Please think no more of it. 

I'm new and am just enjoying getting to know everyone a little bit.

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My good friend, thanks for the rebuke. I felt bad for that post all afternoon, but did not have a chance to get back here. Especially sorry to @Saint Bonaventure, who answered my question very well, and then I sock him with that stuff.

Sorry all, it has been a hard day and I was a jerk.

No worries. We've known each other quite some time now and as I recall I've had to apologize to you before, too. It's all good  I hope you have a better weekend!

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

No worries. Please think no more of it. 

I'm new and am just enjoying getting to know everyone a little bit.

Hey, look, you're at 25 posts and so now we can react to your posts. Bravo! And it's nice having you around  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

No worries. We've known each other quite some time now and as I recall I've had to apologize to you before, too. It's all good  I hope you have a better weekend!

I feel we are pretty good friends.

I would at some point like to get into those questions again though assuming I can remain civil, for me they are not even close to being resolved. For an example, no, I was not lying about the priest, and I had a companion who will tell the same story.

If you have some info on how Christ's resurrected body does not conflict with God not being embodied, I would like to see it.

How is Christ still consubstantial with the Father and Holy Ghost with a body?

Edited February 12, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

No worries. Please think no more of it. 

I'm new and am just enjoying getting to know everyone a little bit.

Well I hope you continue here, I look forward to further discussions 

[InCognitus]

18 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Referring to baptism. Yes, you baptize using a "Trinitarian" formula, but the meanings behind the words are quite different. That's one of the reasons that Catholicism does not accept LDS baptism. Here is an excerpt from the document that fully explains the rejection of your baptism (I recommend reading the whole thing. It's not long):

Quote

As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.

Your baptism uses the words, but it does not mean the same thing. Now, as to the question if an LDS person could validly baptize someone Catholic in an emergency, it is true. However, the intention (as St. Bonaventure points out) would have be to do what the Catholic Church would do. In other words, the LDS person would have to intend to baptize the person as a Catholic, not as LDS.

I've read the document that you posted above previously, and I just read it again, and it's quite interesting, but I also find it puzzling on several levels.  I'm not the least bit offended by the fact that Latter-day Saint baptisms are not considered valid by the Catholic church, but the reasons for doing so are fascinating to me.

I don't want to pick it apart (there are a few interpretations of Joseph Smith's teachings in the article that could be questioned), but there is one reference to "Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552" in the article that I haven't been able to figure out how the interpretation given in the article is derived from the reference.   The statement in your linked article is about the doctrine of the divinity of God in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and it says:

Quote

The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552).

Page 552 of Encyclopedia of Mormonism concludes an article on "WORK AND GLORY OF GOD" (it starts on page 551), and there is an article on "GODHEAD" on page 552, but I don't find anything defining the divinity of God the way it is expressed in the article.  My guess is that they are referring to the statements about the "glory" of God, which isn't quite the same thing.  I don't expect you to be able to answer my question regarding this (because you didn't write the article), but it's just something that I noticed.

The parts of the Validity of Baptism article that I find puzzling have to do with some of the reasoning as to why Latter-day Saint baptisms are not valid, even when others are valid.  The concluding summary is stated as:  "Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism".

First, on the Trinity:  It could be argued that none of the pre-Nicene Christians held a view of the Trinity in the way that modern day Christians might view the Trinity (and you know what I've said about the early Christian teachings on the doctrines of gods or "another God" in previous posts).  But the article even seems to be accepting of baptism performed by Arians:  "Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians."  

Second, the statement about Original Sin almost seems to be included as a retaliatory reaction:  "In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid."  How can we be certain that the earliest Christians also believed in original sin?   The Wikipedia article on Original Sin contains sufficient references to question that this belief was understood by the earliest Christians the same way it was taught later on.

Finally, "that Christ did not institute baptism":  This one is perhaps the most curious to me.  The article implies that baptism, at least in the form that it is understood by the Catholic church today, was an innovation by Christ.  Perhaps this is referring to the Trinitarian language in the performance of the baptism (Matt 28:19).  The article acknowledges that John (the Baptist) baptized prior to Christ, but says there is "an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism", and it doesn't elaborate on the differences.  I'm not aware of any definitive statement in the New Testament that explains the exact wording that John used in his baptism.  Is there a tradition that explains how John performed his baptisms?  Jesus was baptized by John, is that not valid?  How were the apostles baptized, and the other Christians prior to the ascension of Christ?

The reasons for rejecting the Latter-day Saint baptism in this regard are stated in this quote: 

Quote

The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).

I'm not sure why denying the "newness" of the doctrine would invalidate the baptism.  This seems somewhat arbitrary or trivial, and I would also question the early Christian understanding of this point for the same reasons as stated previously.  Even in our belief and understanding, the baptisms instituted beginning with Adam were done with the intent of looking forward to the atonement of Christ (his atonement for our sins, death, and resurrection).  They have the same purpose throughout all time.  

Those are my thoughts anyway.  It is an interesting article.   Thanks for sharing it.

Edited February 12, 2022 by InCognitus

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I feel we are pretty good friends.

I would at some point like to get into those questions again though assuming I can remain civil, for me they are not even close to being resolved. For an example, no, I was not lying about the priest, and I had a companion who will tell the same story.

If you have some info on how Christ's resurrected body does not conflict with God not being embodied, I would like to see it.

How is Christ still consubstantial with the Father and Holy Ghost with a body?

@MiserereNobis

I suppose I could answer my own question simply by saying that being embodied is an accident, like appearing as the Eucharist is, without changing the substance.

(Did I get that transubstantiation analogy backwards? )

Of course I do not accept that metaphysics, bu I think that would make your position justified within in its paradigm 

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552).

You did not say the above, but it was a quote in your post.

We do not accept the Scholastic, "substance" metaphysics of Aquinas, but instead we look to an instrumentalist/pragmatic view, so of course we look to function rather than the indefinable term "substance"

 

[InCognitus]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You did not say the above, but it was a quote in your post.

We do not accept the Scholastic, "substance" metaphysics of Aquinas, but instead we look to an instrumentalist/pragmatic view, so of course we look to function rather than the indefinable term "substance"

 

I can understand the objection to our not accepting the metaphysics of Aquinas, but it's the "only" and "because" clause that has me confused:  "The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation."  Where does that idea come from?

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I can understand the objection to our not accepting the metaphysics of Aquinas, but it's the "only" and "because" clause that has me confused:  "The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation."  Where does that idea come from?

I agree.

I think the author wanted to present his case by using language and a point of view more friendly to Catholics, but I don't know.

The fact that I have been preaching hereabouts forever is that LDS THEOLOGY IS PRAGMATISM, or is based on an instrumentalist, functional viewpoint which parallels ancient Hebrew ways of thinking and is very Biblical.

We have no real "theology" yet it is clear that we interpret scripture as a Pragmatist would, while Catholicism sees things through Aquinas and Scholasticism, which derived from Plato and Aristotle.  I think that is beyond debate.

Pragmatism requires seeing the world as defined by a human perspective, hence we are more humanistic, while Scholasticism sees a world beyond human understanding.

No value judgments there, those are pretty well established ideas imo.

But the thing here about divinity?

I have not seen how that makes sense yet either.

Let me know if you figure it out!

 

 

[InCognitus]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The fact that I have been preaching hereabouts forever is that LDS THEOLOGY IS PRAGMATISM, or is based on an instrumentalist, functional viewpoint which parallels ancient Hebrew ways of thinking and is very Biblical.

We have no real "theology" yet it is clear that we interpret scripture as a Pragmatist would, while Catholicism sees things through Aquinas and Scholasticism, which derived from Plato and Aristotle.  I think that is beyond debate.

Pragmatism requires seeing the world as defined by a human perspective, hence we are more humanistic, while Scholasticism sees a world beyond human understanding.

No value judgments there, those are pretty well established ideas imo.

I agree 100%.  There are no theology requirements imposed in the New Testament teachings of Christianity, it was all a very practical application of the teachings of the Savior.

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I agree 100%.  There are no theology requirements imposed in the New Testament teachings of Christianity, it was all a very practical application of the teachings of the Savior.

Read John 17 if you haven't recently from the LDS point of view.

I don't know how Catholics understand it

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I can understand the objection to our not accepting the metaphysics of Aquinas, but it's the "only" and "because" clause that has me confused:  "The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation."  Where does that idea come from?

The idea grows out of the everlasting truth that God the Father is utterly impotent and incapable of acting in his divine role as ‘the most high God’ unless he acts in perfect interdependence and unity with God the Son and God the Testator (the Holy Ghost); that God the Son is utterly impotent and incapable of acting in his divine role as Savior and Redeemer unless he acts in perfect interdependence  and unity with God the Father and God the Testator; and that God the Testator is utterly impotent and incapable of acting in his all important revelatory and sanctifying role unless he acts in perfect interdependence and unity with God the Father and God the Son. There is no God unless there is union of three distinct personages, with there own distinct salvative roles, within a Godhead of three interdependent and perfectly United divine personages. There is no God unless there is a Father, Son, and Holy Ghost working together interdependently and in perfect unity in their distinctive salvative roles. God is a Presidency of three distinct but utterly interdependent personages or there is no God. This is why God the Father calls Christ “the Word of his power.”

Edited February 12, 2022 by teddyaware

[InCognitus]

33 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The idea grows out of the everlasting truth that God the Father is utterly impotent and incapable of acting in his divine role as ‘the most high God’ unless he acts in perfect interdependence and unity with God the Son and God the Testator (the Holy Ghost); that God the Son is utterly impotent and incapable of acting in his divine role as Savior and Redeemer unless he acts in perfect interdependence  and unity with God the Father and God the Testator; and that God the Testator is utterly impotent and incapable of acting in his all important revelatory and sanctifying role unless he acts in perfect interdependence and unity with God the Father and God the Son. There is no God unless there is union of three distinct personages, with there own distinct salvative roles, within a Godhead of three interdependent and perfectly United divine personages. There is no God unless there is a Father, Son, and Holy Ghost working together interdependently and in perfect unity in their distinctive salvative roles. God is a Presidency of three distinct but utterly interdependent personages or there is no God. This is why God the Father calls Christ “the Word of his power.”

That is perhaps one (but only one) way of defining what it means to be "God", but that isn't the only way to understand "divinity" or even who God is.  Even in your own explanation, you describe "three independent and perfectly United divine personages". 

And for the sake of discussion, let's assume your explanation is what the Validity of Baptism Catholic article had in mind.  Where is that idea found in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article referenced in their quote?  (See link to Encyclopedia of Mormonism page reference, below) :

"The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552)."

The closest I can find to this idea in the EM article is found at the bottom of page 552 continuing on to 553:

Quote

The unity prayed for in John 17 provides a model for the LDS understanding of the unity of the Godhead—one that is achieved among distinct individuals by unity of purpose, through faith, and by divine will and action. Joseph Smith taught that the Godhead was united by an "everlasting covenant [that] was made between [these] three personages before the organization of this earth" relevant to their administration to its inhabitants (TPJS, p. 190). The prime purpose of the Godhead and of all those united with them is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39; Hinckley, p. 49-51).

Perhaps the Catholic article is defining "divinity" only in the sense that it can be found within "The Godhead", because the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article makes no mention of the origination of "divinity" in anything it says.

 

Edited February 12, 2022 by InCognitus

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

The idea grows out of the everlasting truth that God the Father is utterly impotent and incapable of acting in his divine role as ‘the most high God’ unless he acts in perfect interdependence and unity with God the Son and God the Testator (the Holy Ghost); that God the Son is utterly impotent and incapable of acting in his divine role as Savior and Redeemer unless he acts in perfect interdependence  and unity with God the Father and God the Testator; and that God the Testator is utterly impotent and incapable of acting in his all important revelatory and sanctifying role unless he acts in perfect interdependence and unity with God the Father and God the Son. There is no God unless there is union of three distinct personages, with there own distinct salvative roles, within a Godhead of three interdependent and perfectly United divine personages. There is no God unless there is a Father, Son, and Holy Ghost working together interdependently and in perfect unity in their distinctive salvative roles. God is a Presidency of three distinct but utterly interdependent personages or there is no God. This is why God the Father calls Christ “the Word of his power.”

Do you have a reference for this view?