My Friendly Friday Questions

[mfbukowski]

One more suggestion, I forgot.

I am not near my library at the moment but if you google "Robert Millet heophanies" you will find a ton of info on this subject 

Edited March 17 by mfbukowski

[MustardSeed]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

For us as well there really are not "levels" in the priesthood. I will have to get back to you on that as well.

The administrative functions of who presides are simply... administrative 

Area authorities for example have the same priesthood as a humble missionary, though they might preside administratively over, say an area as large as the "Western United States".

Both of those individuals are correctly called "elders" while one is 19 and the other 70 years old with 50 years of leadership experience 

 

Technically not levels.  Socially, I think we might congratulate men who “progress”. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Technically not levels.  Socially, I think we might congratulate men who “progress”. 

Typically for bishops, former bishops greet them with "My condolences for your new calling" with a big smile!

Even apostles have the title of "elder", which is usually given to any new convert within or soon after the 1st anniversary of their baptism.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Technically not levels.  Socially, I think we might congratulate men who “progress”. 

I felt that even as the son of the bishop growing up ( my dad was bishop for 10 years of my childhood [2-12 years old]).  "Oh, your bishop's son, welcome!"  Along with that came greater expectations of me.  I remember vividly some older kids in my ward being shocked at some rebellious stuff I was doing, and commenting about how they couldn't believe that the bishops son would do that.   I think there are social pedestals for sure.  

Edited March 17 by pogi

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Typically for bishops, former bishops greet them with "My condolences for your new calling" with a big smile!

In an Elders Quorum lesson a month or so ago, we were discussing things that we do that are "customary" as compared to other things that are doctrinal.  Someone brought up using individual sacrament cups for taking the sacrament compared with the prior custom of everyone drinking from the same cup, and asked how it would work out if we returned to the custom of everyone drinking from the same cup.  In response, someone said, "It would probably increase the number of people willing to sit on the front row."  And then someone else said, "And we'd likely have many more that would aspire to be a bishop".  You could change your comment to "congratulations" instead of "condolences" in that case.

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 3/17/2023 at 10:57 AM, mfbukowski said:

Very interesting, thanks!

The quick answer is that our paradigm avoids the whole topic by eliminating the idea that Father is "invisible" because Joseph saw Him, and apparently the Savior as well, appearing as virtually identical twins.  There are other accounts through Christian (Protestant) history of theophanies as well.

While you're thinking I'll see if I can provide a little grist for your mill.

What Catholics and Orthodox, and probably Trinitarians in general are getting at with God being invisible is the idea that God is beyond human comprehension, sense, and ultimately, any mortal's physiology. God is beyond, as it were.

That's not to say that God doesn't manifest His glory in different ways, whether in the person of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and even with the limitation that no person who experiences a theophany comprehends God. Catholics do believe in theophanies, after all.

The appearance of the Father and the Son as virtually identical, as described by Joseph Smith, has me thinking in a psychological direction. Hypnagogic phenomena, where part of the brain is in a sleep state, and part is awake, can be accompanied by frightening sleep paralysis (Satan coming upon Joseph Smith), and are prone to duplicated images. Hypnagogia can also contribute to a person going into a revelatory, trance-like state (Hypnagogia is related to narcolepsy). I should clarify that I don't think I have some sort of comprehensive, defeating explanation for Joseph Smith's vision and prophecies; rather, I think hypnagogia could be related to legitimately mystical experience.

What's at stake here is pretty important to me, though. It might be possible that Latter-day Saints and Catholics are talking about God differently, and not just about different Gods. From my perspective, if LDS are taking embodied theophany for their notion of God, there could be significant dialogue. In this sort of dialogue, I would ask Latter-day Saints, for example, if they believe God is a body, or if God merely has a body. 

 

On 3/17/2023 at 10:57 AM, mfbukowski said:

Secondly, we do not accept original sin.

It is believed that Aquinas was too immersed in Greek philosophy to be relevant on matters such as this, and no, Sirach is not canonical for us.

Joseph also said that Christ was the explicit image of his Father iirc

But it's a great topic, give me some time to think about it more!!

I appreciate that Latter-day Saints reject notions of original sin. I'll spare you the verses, but there is a strong case to be made for it from the Bible.

I realize you're not a fan of St. Thomas, but it's not as simple as he's too immersed in Greek philosophy, and therefore should be ignored. Theophany, after all, is a Greek concept.

I'm looking forward to your thoughts, and to others' thoughts too.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I realize you're not a fan of St. Thomas, but it's not as simple as he's too immersed in Greek philosophy, and therefore should be ignored. Theophany, after all, is a Greek concept.

I want to emphasize this. Catholic theologians were not dumb or somehow obviously blinded. They could be wrong, for sure, but they can’t be waved away. Some of the brightest minds in Western Civilization believed in and argued for Catholic doctrine. I usually point this out in discussions of the Trinity. 

[3DOP]

17 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

While you're thinking I'll see if I can provide a little grist for your mill.

What Catholics and Orthodox, and probably Trinitarians in general are getting at with God being invisible is the idea that God is beyond human comprehension, sense, and ultimately, any mortal's physiology. God is beyond, as it were.

That's not to say that God doesn't manifest His glory in different ways, whether in the person of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and even with the limitation that no person who experiences a theophany comprehends God. Catholics do believe in theophanies, after all.

The appearance of the Father and the Son as virtually identical, as described by Joseph Smith, has me thinking in a psychological direction. Hypnagogic phenomena, where part of the brain is in a sleep state, and part is awake, can be accompanied by frightening sleep paralysis (Satan coming upon Joseph Smith), and are prone to duplicated images. Hypnagogia can also contribute to a person going into a revelatory, trance-like state (Hypnagogia is related to narcolepsy). I should clarify that I don't think I have some sort of comprehensive, defeating explanation for Joseph Smith's vision and prophecies; rather, I think hypnagogia could be related to legitimately mystical experience.

What's at stake here is pretty important to me, though. It might be possible that Latter-day Saints and Catholics are talking about God differently, and not just about different Gods. From my perspective, if LDS are taking embodied theophany for their notion of God, there could be significant dialogue. In this sort of dialogue, I would ask Latter-day Saints, for example, if they believe God is a body, or if God merely has a body. 

 

I appreciate that Latter-day Saints reject notions of original sin. I'll spare you the verses, but there is a strong case to be made for it from the Bible.

I realize you're not a fan of St. Thomas, but it's not as simple as he's too immersed in Greek philosophy, and therefore should be ignored. Theophany, after all, is a Greek concept.

I'm looking forward to your thoughts, and to others' thoughts too.

St. B. The Scriptures that we accept along with the LDS probably does not resolve the question of original sin either for or against the Catholic teaching. However, I have been thinking that if we Catholics would understand our LDS friends better, and they us, both sides could benefit from finding that we agree more about the question of original sin than we might have realized. By not taking their claims of denying original sin for granted, it seems to me like we can show more clearly, and what precisely we mean, by "original" vs. actual sin.

For the record, this is all in the "if I am not mistaken" category. If LDS say that newborn babes do not need Christ's Passion and Death on the Cross, and instead merit salvation themselves, apart from Christ's work, I will retract the proposition I am making.  The conversation as undertaken by Catholics, or other Christians who believe as we do about the question, should begin to insist that LDS believe in original sin just as Catholics do. Here is my proposed explanation for why this should be the case: 

IIANM (if I am not mistaken), LDS do not believe that a newborn baby that dies, goes straight to the most exalted place, except because Jesus died for them.

A newborn baby has never committed an actual sin at all. Why would a baby need Christ when it has never actually sinned? IIAMN, because like Catholics, Mormons believe that in Adam all die. THAT is, of course, because of what Catholics call, the original sin of Adam. In Adam all die, in Christ all live.

IIANM, many LDS understandably, but falsely think, that because baptism is unnecessary for a newborn in their view, that they do not believe in what Catholics call original sin. But IIANM, if they think the baby needs the merits of Christ, it is because they DO believe in original sin. It must be granted that the blood of Christ is applied to newborns APART from baptism in the LDS scheme. But the LDS do appear to, IIANM, believe that newborns need Christ's atonement. It should not necessarily be granted that LDS reject the original sin of Adam in all his subsequent offspring. I say this in an effort to help us understand that we are closer than either side has seen very often. 

If I am correct about what I think the LDS teach on this matter from my interaction here over the years, I doubt that it is accurate for Catholics to admit that LDS reject what we call original sin. LDS accept original sin (as Catholics understand it). What LDS reject is pedobaptism as a sacramental medium for the remission of original sin in those who have not reached the age of reason. 

In my opinion, we do not differ about original sin. We differ about how original sin is remitted. IIANM, this should shift the discussion in important ways.

"And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."

---I Cor. 15:22

Edited Sunday at 06:26 PM by 3DOP

[3DOP]

16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I want to emphasize this. Catholic theologians were not dumb or somehow obviously blinded. They could be wrong, for sure, but they can’t be waved away. Some of the brightest minds in Western Civilization believed in and argued for Catholic doctrine. I usually point this out in discussions of the Trinity. 

Yeah Miserere, I remember one noted LDS apologist was here for a while in the early days, who subsequently abandoned the LDS faith, refer to Aquinas as an "idiot". That is not what Mark would say I know. He would probably say that Aquinas was brilliant at taking false presuppositions to logical conclusions. We should be dealing with presuppositions, not logical conclusions, and certainly not imaginary idiotic conclusions. As with us, there are always "faithful" souls in every camp, who do not seem to be able to rest secure in their faith, unless other successful errors are obviously stupid. 

[Hamilton Porter]

On 6/10/2022 at 11:16 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

The LDS Articles of Faith seem very similar to a creed. Is there a difference?

It's a creed in that it's a statement of belief. It's not a creed in that you have to believe every single article to get a temple recommend. You just have to believe (1), (3), and that the Church was restored through Joseph Smith.

On 6/14/2022 at 10:40 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I use an RSV as my main Bible, but also have an NRSV that includes the additional canonical books of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches.

RSV is my favorite as well. I use it in my personal study, and use the KJV when I'm at Church. The Orthodox Study Bible (which I also have) translates the OT out of the Septuagint.

Edited Sunday at 07:27 PM by Hamilton Porter

[mfbukowski]

On 3/17/2023 at 12:51 PM, InCognitus said:

And then someone else said, "And we'd likely have many more that would aspire to be a bishop".  You could change your comment to "congratulations" instead of "condolences" in that case.

The other side of this is that it is also NOT cool to openly aspire to be a bishop, and the "condolence" thing might be designed to emphasize that.

Maybe just a tad of false humility?

But who wants another unpaid 30-40 hour per week responsibility listening to stories of pain and woes?

It's not a lot of fun. 

Edited Wednesday at 02:55 AM by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

Following up on the discussion of the LDS Articles of Faith:

A strong argument can be made of the necessity of a Christian creed from Matthew 28:19-20. Those verses declare that:

Quote

 

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 ¶ teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” 

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), Mt 28:19–20.

 

The apostles were to teach all nations to "observe all that I have commanded you." 

I think this passage strongly implies that what the apostles were commanded to teach was not merely opinion. Their teaching was to be authoritative, was to be for everyone, and was to form Christianity's essential doctrines.

I accept that Latter-day Saints may say that at some point those foundational teachings were lost. 

However, I am uncertain as to what teachings Latter-day Saints would teach to all nations as the objective truths commanded by the Son. I'm not doubting their existence so much as I'm confessing that I'm not sure what they are and will appreciate any enlightenment offered. 

Edited Wednesday at 01:40 AM by Saint Bonaventure

[mfbukowski]

On 3/19/2023 at 11:47 AM, 3DOP said:

He would probably say that Aquinas was brilliant at taking false presuppositions to logical conclusions.

Dang, that is a really brilliant way of putting it, and you pegged it exactly!

Aquinas was a follower of Aristotle, the philosophical giant of that time, and Aquinas did in fact apply Aristotle's views to religion, and so also magnifying Plato's role in influencing Christian theology.

But his assumptions are highly incompatible with the LDS paradigm.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Following up on the discussion of the LDS Articles of Faith:

A strong argument can be made of the necessity of a Christian creed from Matthew 28:19-20. Those verses declare that:

The apostles were to teach all nations to "observe all that I have commanded you." 

I think this passage strongly implies that what the apostles were commanded to teach was not merely opinion. Their teaching was to be authoritative, was to be for everyone, and was to form Christianity's essential doctrines.

I accept that Latter-day Saints may say that at some point those foundational teachings were lost. 

However, I am uncertain as to what teachings Latter-day Saints would teach to all nations as the objective truths commanded by the Son.

In no way do the AoF constitute anything close to "all that I have commanded you."

I see the Articles as what they were, essentially a quick article and almost a sales pitch to be published in a newspaper. 

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In no way do the AoF constitute anything close to "all that I have commanded you."

I see the Articles as what they were, essentially a quick article and almost a sales pitch to be published in a newspaper. 

 

Fair enough.

At the same time, a sales pitch in newspaper is a far cry from the historical relevance of "articles of faith." Not everyone would think the LDS Articles of Faith have the gravity of the Nicene Creed, but many would associate them with something on the level of the Westminster Confession of Faith. 

I am very much still interested in what authoritative teaching is commanded to be taught to everyone, at least from a Latter-day Saint perspective.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Fair enough.

At the same time, a sales pitch in newspaper is a far cry from the historical relevance of "articles of faith." Not everyone would think the LDS Articles of Faith have the gravity of the Nicene Creed, but many would associate them with something on the level of the Westminster Confession of Faith. 

I am very much still interested in what authoritative teaching is commanded to be taught to everyone, at least from a Latter-day Saint perspective.

I agree. IMO they are very very misunderstood.

Joseph himself repeatedly said that we should NOT have creeds, dogmas, or doctrines, but are free to follow the spirit wherever it leads.

That was the way he "found" his path after all and he was not about to impose his views on others.

I think Prof Givens has a lot to say about this.

But you have to understand how confident Joseph was of his position- he believed that anyone could ask God for answers and they would be directed as he was.

That is the backbone of the church.

We may disagree on some points, but as long as we are honestly able to pass a temple recommend interview - we are as much "good latter-day Saints" as anyone.

We are all to be our own "prophets"

In the temple we are all dressed identically as a symbol of this.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Fair enough.

At the same time, a sales pitch in newspaper is a far cry from the historical relevance of "articles of faith." Not everyone would think the LDS Articles of Faith have the gravity of the Nicene Creed, but many would associate them with something on the level of the Westminster Confession of Faith. 

I am very much still interested in what authoritative teaching is commanded to be taught to everyone, at least from a Latter-day Saint perspective.

Here's some quick "research"

https://www.deilataylor.com/joseph-smith-did-not-a-mormon-creed/

https://www.ldsliving.com/all-in/fiona-and-terryl-givens-the-restoration-of-all-things

Edited Wednesday at 04:36 PM by mfbukowski