My Friendly Friday Questions

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I appreciate the simplicity of the formula of prayer, and also the functionality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as regarding that formula. I certainly am familiar with, and respect, prayers said in the fashion you describe.

The oneness in purpose is still eluding me, though, at least in some respects. I can see the distinct roles in prayer as you describe them, and at the same time the purposes seem to all enfold into obedience to the Father (the ultimate authority and source of blessings), and therefore into subordination to the Father on the part of the Son (who relays messages from the Father) and of the Holy Spirit (perhaps the means through which the Son relays the Father's messages). Such an understanding of roles in prayer could collapse into:

Formula of prayer is to pray: To Zeus, from whom authority and blessings ultimately derives, in the name of Hermes, as a mediator between Zeus and sinful man, and through the wind of the Anemoi that connects us all. 

I don't assume that's what you believe; I'm just sharing my thinking so you know how what you've written is landing in my mind. 

My question is that if oneness in purpose for the LDS Godhead is ultimately about "Father Knows Best" and a subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit, then that oneness looks to me not like shared purpose, but simply like obedience.

Historically, subordinationism was a controversy in the church in the 2nd century (the adoptionists and others) and again in the 4th century (the Arians). I am not saying that Latter-day Saints are subordinationists, although that possibility is occurring to me. I'm very willing to be corrected.

I don't believe that God can be described or restricted by definitions. Nothing else can be either, really, and that is the problem- with the correspondence theory of truth.

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I appreciate the simplicity of the formula of prayer, and also the functionality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as regarding that formula. I certainly am familiar with, and respect, prayers said in the fashion you describe.

The oneness in purpose is still eluding me, though, at least in some respects. I can see the distinct roles in prayer as you describe them, and at the same time the purposes seem to all enfold into obedience to the Father (the ultimate authority and source of blessings), and therefore into subordination to the Father on the part of the Son (who relays messages from the Father) and of the Holy Spirit (perhaps the means through which the Son relays the Father's messages). Such an understanding of roles in prayer could collapse into:

Formula of prayer is to pray: To Zeus, from whom authority and blessings ultimately derives, in the name of Hermes, as a mediator between Zeus and sinful man, and through the wind of the Anemoi that connects us all. 

I don't assume that's what you believe; I'm just sharing my thinking so you know how what you've written is landing in my mind. 

My question is that if oneness in purpose for the LDS Godhead is ultimately about "Father Knows Best" and a subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit, then that oneness looks to me not like shared purpose, but simply like obedience.

Historically, subordinationism was a controversy in the church in the 2nd century (the adoptionists and others) and again in the 4th century (the Arians). I am not saying that Latter-day Saints are subordinationists, although that possibility is occurring to me. I'm very willing to be corrected.

Prayer and other functions are all done by synergetic cooperation of the three to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.  The Father cannot interact with us (in a non-lethal manner) without the cooperation of his Son and the Holy Spirit filtering the interaction both ways. The Father can't tolerate sin, we can't tolerate glory. The three form a perfect alignment in will and purpose to save us. Because of these layers, brings about a certain equivalency. Jesus is always the mediator between the two parties. So, even YHWH who speaks to human prophets and a tells them he is God or what God said, is Jesus. He's speaking as his Father and inherited his Father's great name (Hebrews 1). Whatever he says, authority he invokes, power he uses is the same and equal to Father's. A subordinate as... a Son is, though he's much more to us he's the legal heir and representative of his Father when we are concerned.

[Saint Bonaventure]

9 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Prayer and other functions are all done by synergetic cooperation of the three to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.  The Father cannot interact with us (in a non-lethal manner) without the cooperation of his Son and the Holy Spirit filtering the interaction both ways. The Father can't tolerate sin, we can't tolerate glory. The three form a perfect alignment in will and purpose to save us. Because of these layers, brings about a certain equivalency. Jesus is always the mediator between the two parties. So, even YHWH who speaks to human prophets and a tells them he is God or what God said, is Jesus. He's speaking as his Father and inherited his Father's great name (Hebrews 1). Whatever he says, authority he invokes, power he uses is the same and equal to Father's. A subordinate as... a Son is, though he's much more to us he's the legal heir and representative of his Father when we are concerned.

So many interesting ideas--thank you.

 I may have questions at some point, but for now I'll do a little digesting.

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 3/27/2023 at 12:47 PM, Pyreaux said:

Prayer and other functions are all done by synergetic cooperation of the three to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

This line of your response spurred several thoughts for me:

• I'm not enthusiastic about the term "cooperation" in this context as it could imply that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity:
  • Do not each fully possess the Divine Nature.
  • Have separate, subjective "divine wills" that can cooperate (or not).
  • Are subject to something that generates the conditions and possibility of the cooperation of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. Whatever that something is, it seems more fundamental than the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, and that something would be a precondition for the three Persons, and would consequently make the three Persons something other than eternal.

I realize that my concerns may not be shared by Latter-day Saints, but I'm exressing them in the spirit of mutual understanding.

At the same time, a cooperation/synergism framework makes sense to me in a different context, and particularly in the context of the Church as the body of Christ, and of intercessory prayer. Briefly, what you've written reminds me of the reasons why Catholics ask for the intercession of the Saints. 

On 3/27/2023 at 12:47 PM, Pyreaux said:

  The Father cannot interact with us (in a non-lethal manner) without the cooperation of his Son and the Holy Spirit filtering the interaction both ways.

We might have some agreement here, although I'd phrase things more like, "No man/woman can see God in all His glory." Certainly, I believe the Son is fully God, but veiled in human flesh, which prevented people from seeing Him in all His glory.

The term "filtering" is interesting, and I may not be understanding your usage of it. I'd prefer "mediating." The Son as Mediator is fundamental for Christians; He is both fully God and fully man. The Holy Spirit certainly fills, anoints, and is poured out on men and women.

On 3/27/2023 at 12:47 PM, Pyreaux said:

The Father can't tolerate sin, we can't tolerate glory. The three form a perfect alignment in will and purpose to save us. Because of these layers, brings about a certain equivalency. Jesus is always the mediator between the two parties. So, even YHWH who speaks to human prophets and a tells them he is God or what God said, is Jesus. He's speaking as his Father and inherited his Father's great name (Hebrews 1). Whatever he says, authority he invokes, power he uses is the same and equal to Father's. A subordinate as... a Son is, though he's much more to us he's the legal heir and representative of his Father when we are concerned.

I believe in a single, undivided divine will, so we're probably just coming at things differently here. I'm not sure I could separate will from purpose, although you seem to be considering individual, distinct, subjective purposes (wills?) for each of the Divine Persons that cooperate to an effect that transcends their individual, distinct, subjective purposes. In my thinking, no purpose or effect can transcend any of the three Divine Persons as God, as He, Himself eternally transcends.

I would not say that the Son is subordinate to the Father. I would go to Philippians 2 and suggest that while the Son was temporarily in a lesser position through being fully human, He is nevertheless fully God, exactly as the Father is fully God and the Holy Spirit is fully God.  

I'll be grateful for correction, clarification, and further discussion, as I learn more with each interaction.

And, once again, thank you for this delightful exchange.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Certainly, I believe the Son is fully God, but veiled in human flesh, which prevented people from seeing Him in all His glory.

I understand your point, but that's not our way of seeing it.

To us, human flesh CAN BE "glorious" just as it is. Father himself is made of human flesh, just as we are.

We do not have the Platonic notion that somehow human flesh is ... on a lower rung than spiritual immaterial substance

[Saint Bonaventure]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I understand your point, but that's not our way of seeing it.

To us, human flesh CAN BE "glorious" just as it is. Father himself is made of human flesh, just as we are.

We do not have the Platonic notion that somehow human flesh is ... on a lower rung than spiritual immaterial substance

Understood.

Catholics do not believe flesh is evil. That thinking was heretical as early as the 2nd century, so there's at least a shared rejection of that notion. 

1 Corinthians 15 is important to this topic. I also like the theologian von Balthasar on this, and he's German so you can probably like him too.

[Pyreaux]

23 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

This line of your response spurred several thoughts for me:

• I'm not enthusiastic about the term "cooperation" in this context as it could imply that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity:
  • Do not each fully possess the Divine Nature.
  • Have separate, subjective "divine wills" that can cooperate (or not).
  • Are subject to something that generates the conditions and possibility of the cooperation of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. Whatever that something is, it seems more fundamental than the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, and that something would be a precondition for the three Persons, and would consequently make the three Persons something other than eternal.

I realize that my concerns may not be shared by Latter-day Saints, but I'm expressing them in the spirit of mutual understanding.

At the same time, a cooperation/synergism framework makes sense to me in a different context, and particularly in the context of the Church as the body of Christ, and of intercessory prayer. Briefly, what you've written reminds me of the reasons why Catholics ask for the intercession of the Saints. 

Hmm, I'm trying to communicate that each member of the Godhead has a necessary and unique role, and all these roles need to be used in tandem or else individual encounters are ineffective if not futile. The main function of the Son and Spirit is their role as intercessors for the Father. Jesus is unique as a perfected human and the Spirit is unique by being a spirit (the only one, in our view) qualities needed to bridge the divide between God and fallen humans.

Indeed, intercession of the Saints isn't a custom, though I'm not against it per se. I have suspicions that Mary, Mother of the Lord, historically became confused with the Holy Spirit, aka Lady Wisdom, the other Mother of the Lord, as an intercessor. The Holy Spirit is definitely an intercessor. Through its own desires for you, it will intercept prayers, add or correct things on your behalf, perhaps adds things you forgot to pray for or translates it to be more appropriate. Jewish Great Midrash even says it will speak out against the judgments of God against you (Leviticus Rabbah 6:1). Depicting an independent will from God the Father.

Concerning wills: I believe the scriptural oneness is basically an aligned will, a lack of distinction AND a heavenly legal system that justifies the oneness of multiple beings. The main issue with the Trinity is a seemingly non-scriptural description of the oneness of being due to an indivisible "substance", which recently I'm told does not necessarily mean the persons don't have their own mind and will. This may not be a correct Catholic notion of the trinity doctrine, but many Protestant trinitarians I've heard lately concede the scripture depict that at least the "persons" do have their own "wills" as separate but aligned; like the Son yields to the Father's will in Gethsemane, only the Father knows the hour of the second coming, etc. The notion maybe disturbing to think that they have "free will" and anytime they could refuse each other, but I think of it like: I may have a choice to save a close family member from peril, and yet if I have any goodness in me, then you and I both know, I really don't have that choice. 

23 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

We might have some agreement here, although I'd phrase things more like, "No man/woman can see God in all His glory." Certainly, I believe the Son is fully God, but veiled in human flesh, which prevented people from seeing Him in all His glory.

The term "filtering" is interesting, and I may not be understanding your usage of it. I'd prefer "mediating." The Son as Mediator is fundamental for Christians; He is both fully God and fully man. The Holy Spirit certainly fills, anoints, and is poured out on men and women.

I'm trying to convey, I guess, the Holy Ghost specifically "filtering" the glory of divine beings. If I see Jesus, he's glorified and beyond the veil. Even just the glory of the Son could be lethal on his own. He blinded Paul and John the Revelator fell over "as dead" to see Christ's transfigured form. But the Holy Spirit is what make the sight into the invisible world possible, Paul's companions perceived nothing, and if Jesus does not utilize the Holy Ghost, and tried an encounter in person, would melt the elements and consume all the humans, not just the most wicked. The Holy Spirit shields the prophets and seers, and "filtering" radiant and deadly glory that might just kill them.

23 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I believe in a single, undivided divine will, so we're probably just coming at things differently here. I'm not sure I could separate will from purpose, although you seem to be considering individual, distinct, subjective purposes (wills?) for each of the Divine Persons that cooperate to an effect that transcends their individual, distinct, subjective purposes. In my thinking, no purpose or effect can transcend any of the three Divine Persons as God, as He, Himself eternally transcends.

I would not say that the Son is subordinate to the Father. I would go to Philippians 2 and suggest that while the Son was temporarily in a lesser position through being fully human, He is nevertheless fully God, exactly as the Father is fully God and the Holy Spirit is fully God.  

I'll be grateful for correction, clarification, and further discussion, as I learn more with each interaction.

And, once again, thank you for this delightful exchange.

One will, purpose and goal to save humanity. Individual wills willingly bent into one will and cause. The Father cannot save us alone. Perhaps as some cosmic force of justice, He must let another legally deal mercy. They must work together or most, if not all, humans will not survive long enough to be saved.

Concerning equality. The crimes of blasphemy against Christ were not for claiming to be “God the Father", it is His status as the "Son of God" alone that made a claim to be equal to God. Jesus' equality with the Father seems to be brought on by his sonship (John 5:18 Philip 2:6), thus the Father and Son are indeed equal (Matthew 20:12; Luke 20:36; John 5:18; Philip 2:6). By whatever heavenly laws make sons and heirs equal to their Fathers. Jesus adopts humans as sons, making new sons of God. As Paul puts it, by God’s “adoption of sons” (Galatians 5:4), equivocates with other sons “thou art no more a servant but a son, and if a son, the heir of God” (Galatians 4:8) and if heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, etc. By becoming a “son” renders everyone equal regardless of original decent (Galatians 3:27-28). Notice at first, John was not rebuked for worshiping the Christ-angel (Revelations 1:17) but after his induction into the holy of holies in heaven to become a born again son/High Priest, he is then rebuked for worshiping the Christ-angel for the reason that both John and the Christ were (now, not before) “fellow servants” to God the Father (Revelations 19:10; 22:8-9).

Edited March 31, 2023 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Understood.

Catholics do not believe flesh is evil. That thinking was heretical as early as the 2nd century, so there's at least a shared rejection of that notion. 

1 Corinthians 15 is important to this topic. I also like the theologian von Balthasar on this, and he's German so you can probably like him too.

I can like him despite being German.

My Polish great grandfather came to the US after being conscripted into Bismarck's Prussian army. Poland is regularly conquered by Germany for awhile, then Russia, then Germany, etc.  It's a flat plane, nice and easy to march across by opposing armies for a little exercise.

But wow, for philosophy, the Germans are the world champions imo.

1 Corinthians 15:29

Maybe we will get into that one sometime.

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

In my thinking, no purpose or effect can transcend any of the three Divine Persons as God, as He, Himself eternally transcends.

But saying he is both transcendent and immanent enough to call "Father" is contradictory to me.

Our God as a sacrifice, imo, gives up transcendence to become immanent through Jesus Christ.

It is his choice to do so, to lift man, but still not reduce his abilities.

He can talk baby talk to his babies in order to help them grow up to like him.

[MiserereNobis]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But saying he is both transcendent and immanent enough to call "Father" is contradictory to me.

Our God as a sacrifice, imo, gives up transcendence to become immanent through Jesus Christ.

It is his choice to do so, to lift man, but still not reduce his abilities.

He can talk baby talk to his babies in order to help them grow up to like him.

To me, there is no contradiction here. A transcendent God chooses immanence, so He is both transcendent and immanent. 
 

But also, I think any description of God will eventually breakdown into paradox, so contradictions about the nature of God don’t bother me. Our logical minds cannot comprehend Him. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

To me, there is no contradiction here. A transcendent God chooses immanence, so He is both transcendent and immanent. 
 

But also, I think any description of God will eventually breakdown into paradox, so contradictions about the nature of God don’t bother me. Our logical minds cannot comprehend Him. 

It's complicated! 🤔

 

Edited March 31, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 3/30/2023 at 11:19 AM, Pyreaux said:

Hmm, I'm trying to communicate that each member of the Godhead has a necessary and unique role, and all these roles need to be used in tandem or else individual encounters are ineffective if not futile. The main function of the Son and Spirit is their role as intercessors for the Father. Jesus is unique as a perfected human and the Spirit is unique by being a spirit (the only one, in our view) qualities needed to bridge the divide between God and fallen humans.

Thanks for your response, I'll try to help our conversation on my end.

Your response prompts a few questions and thoughts:

• When you say "member of the Godhead" are you thinking of persons? Of beings?
• Your use of "necessary" has my wheels turning. Necessary for? Necessitated by?
• I don't doubt that your use of "function" and "role" make sense for Latter-day Saints. "Role" might relate to my understanding of the Divines Persons in some sense, but "function" has me thinking that you might be dividing God on the level of Being, that is, asserting a notion of multiple beings that all function within something larger, something that necessitates roles/functions and that would render the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as something less than all powerful (and specifically less than whatever is doing the necessitating).
• I think we have some agreement on the Son being unique. I'd phrase the Son's uniqueness as His being both fully God and fully human, that is, in the Son have two natures, a Divine nature and a human nature. That is wherein Christ as Intercessor and Mediator comes to the fore.
• How do you approach John 4:24? 

 

On 3/30/2023 at 11:19 AM, Pyreaux said:

Indeed, intercession of the Saints isn't a custom, though I'm not against it per se. I have suspicions that Mary, Mother of the Lord, historically became confused with the Holy Spirit, aka Lady Wisdom, the other Mother of the Lord, as an intercessor. The Holy Spirit is definitely an intercessor. Through its own desires for you, it will intercept prayers, add or correct things on your behalf, perhaps adds things you forgot to pray for or translates it to be more appropriate. Jewish Great Midrash even says it will speak out against the judgments of God against you (Leviticus Rabbah 6:1). Depicting an independent will from God the Father.

• Do you believe the OT references to Wisdom in the feminine are references to the Holy Spirit? And as a follow up, do you consider the Holy Spirit in feminine terms?
• There are many volumes over centuries on the Marian doctrines. Rachel Fulton is a favorite author of mine in this area.
• Romans 8:26-27 is a great, reassuring passage and I'm appreciating your allusion to it.
• Catholics understand the Son's independent will as being a fact of the Son having a human will in addition to the Divine will. 

On 3/30/2023 at 11:19 AM, Pyreaux said:

Concerning wills: I believe the scriptural oneness is basically an aligned will, a lack of distinction AND a heavenly legal system that justifies the oneness of multiple beings. The main issue with the Trinity is a seemingly non-scriptural description of the oneness of being due to an indivisible "substance", which recently I'm told does not necessarily mean the persons don't have their own mind and will. This may not be a correct Catholic notion of the trinity doctrine, but many Protestant trinitarians I've heard lately concede the scripture depict that at least the "persons" do have their own "wills" as separate but aligned; like the Son yields to the Father's will in Gethsemane, only the Father knows the hour of the second coming, etc. The notion maybe disturbing to think that they have "free will" and anytime they could refuse each other, but I think of it like: I may have a choice to save a close family member from peril, and yet if I have any goodness in me, then you and I both know, I really don't have that choice. 

• What you've written above is helping me put together some of the puzzle pieces. Thank you.
• There is so much out there on the Trinity, and I enjoy St. Augustine's classic work on it. There's a chapter in the Ancient Christians: An Introduction for Latter-day Saints book that I highly recommend. Those BYU scholars that contributed to that book are doing some serious heavy lifting to help Latter-day Saints, Catholics, Orthodox, and others understand one another better than they have historically.
• I addressed the wills issue above, and can say more as needed. The foundational difference in understandings here seems to be that Catholics teach that the Son has two wills (human will and Divine will).

On 3/30/2023 at 11:19 AM, Pyreaux said:

I'm trying to convey, I guess, the Holy Ghost specifically "filtering" the glory of divine beings. If I see Jesus, he's glorified and beyond the veil. Even just the glory of the Son could be lethal on his own. He blinded Paul and John the Revelator fell over "as dead" to see Christ's transfigured form. But the Holy Spirit is what make the sight into the invisible world possible, Paul's companions perceived nothing, and if Jesus does not utilize the Holy Ghost, and tried an encounter in person, would melt the elements and consume all the humans, not just the most wicked. The Holy Spirit shields the prophets and seers, and "filtering" radiant and deadly glory that might just kill them.

• I think we might agree, at least in part. A few months ago, I described mortals' inability to see God in His glory in a fashion that reminded me of scenes in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (think of Ex. 33, 1 Timothy 6, etc.). I don't think "filter" works for me, and I do have some questions in this area, but the idea that mortal men can't just see God in his glory? Yep, I think we're agreeing. 

On 3/30/2023 at 11:19 AM, Pyreaux said:

One will, purpose and goal to save humanity. Individual wills willingly bent into one will and cause. The Father cannot save us alone. Perhaps as some cosmic force of justice, He must let another legally deal mercy. They must work together or most, if not all, humans will not survive long enough to be saved.

• The main notion this is conveying to me is that you don't consider a notion of God that isn't understood as the Divine Persons (or Personages/Beings in LDS parlance?). I consider the Persons as the "Who" of God and the Divine Being (or Nature) as the "What" of God. 

On 3/30/2023 at 11:19 AM, Pyreaux said:

Concerning equality. The crimes of blasphemy against Christ were not for claiming to be “God the Father", it is His status as the "Son of God" alone that made a claim to be equal to God. Jesus' equality with the Father seems to be brought on by his sonship (John 5:18 Philip 2:6), thus the Father and Son are indeed equal (Matthew 20:12; Luke 20:36; John 5:18; Philip 2:6). By whatever heavenly laws make sons and heirs equal to their Fathers. Jesus adopts humans as sons, making new sons of God. As Paul puts it, by God’s “adoption of sons” (Galatians 5:4), equivocates with other sons “thou art no more a servant but a son, and if a son, the heir of God” (Galatians 4:8) and if heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, etc. By becoming a “son” renders everyone equal regardless of original decent (Galatians 3:27-28). Notice at first, John was not rebuked for worshiping the Christ-angel (Revelations 1:17) but after his induction into the holy of holies in heaven to become a born again son/High Priest, he is then rebuked for worshiping the Christ-angel for the reason that both John and the Christ were (now, not before) “fellow servants” to God the Father (Revelations 19:10; 22:8-9).

I can say more on this topic another time. Just out of time tonight.

[Pyreaux]

On 4/2/2023 at 8:12 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Thanks for your response, I'll try to help our conversation on my end.

Your response prompts a few questions and thoughts:

• When you say "member of the Godhead" are you thinking of persons? Of beings?
• Your use of "necessary" has my wheels turning. Necessary for? Necessitated by?
• I don't doubt that your use of "function" and "role" make sense for Latter-day Saints. "Role" might relate to my understanding of the Divines Persons in some sense, but "function" has me thinking that you might be dividing God on the level of Being, that is, asserting a notion of multiple beings that all function within something larger, something that necessitates roles/functions and that would render the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as something less than all powerful (and specifically less than whatever is doing the necessitating).
• I think we have some agreement on the Son being unique. I'd phrase the Son's uniqueness as His being both fully God and fully human, that is, in the Son have two natures, a Divine nature and a human nature. That is wherein Christ as Intercessor and Mediator comes to the fore.
• How do you approach John 4:24? 

 

• Do you believe the OT references to Wisdom in the feminine are references to the Holy Spirit? And as a follow up, do you consider the Holy Spirit in feminine terms?
• There are many volumes over centuries on the Marian doctrines. Rachel Fulton is a favorite author of mine in this area.
• Romans 8:26-27 is a great, reassuring passage and I'm appreciating your allusion to it.
• Catholics understand the Son's independent will as being a fact of the Son having a human will in addition to the Divine will. 

• What you've written above is helping me put together some of the puzzle pieces. Thank you.
• There is so much out there on the Trinity, and I enjoy St. Augustine's classic work on it. There's a chapter in the Ancient Christians: An Introduction for Latter-day Saints book that I highly recommend. Those BYU scholars that contributed to that book are doing some serious heavy lifting to help Latter-day Saints, Catholics, Orthodox, and others understand one another better than they have historically.
• I addressed the wills issue above, and can say more as needed. The foundational difference in understandings here seems to be that Catholics teach that the Son has two wills (human will and Divine will).

• I think we might agree, at least in part. A few months ago, I described mortals' inability to see God in His glory in a fashion that reminded me of scenes in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (think of Ex. 33, 1 Timothy 6, etc.). I don't think "filter" works for me, and I do have some questions in this area, but the idea that mortal men can't just see God in his glory? Yep, I think we're agreeing. 

• The main notion this is conveying to me is that you don't consider a notion of God that isn't understood as the Divine Persons (or Personages/Beings in LDS parlance?). I consider the Persons as the "Who" of God and the Divine Being (or Nature) as the "What" of God. 

I can say more on this topic another time. Just out of time tonight.

• The Godhead has multiple beings, persons and beings are not distinguished in the Bible nor in LDS thought. I am intrigued by the Kabbalistic idea of God having multiple aspects of himself. LDS description that we are all uncreated intelligences, this interests me, maybe we are all independently thinking aspects of God's own mind. Or like in Tolkien's Silmarillion, the "offspring after his own thoughts". But at the very least they are multiple "selves", its biblically illegal for the members of the Godhead to ever say they are the same self, or you may rather say they are merely "legal persons". There are 3 distinct members in the Godhead because they testify of each other which according to the Law of Witnesses prohibits anyone to testify of "yourself", but 2 or 3 witnesses who cannot be the same self.
• Necessary for humans.
• Oh, I have an unconventional vocabulary you may have to excuse. I don't make much use out of those... word dinosaurs... A thesaurus? By needing others to fill different roles, I could be saying God is too powerful, so proxies are needed just to buffer such an extreme being. I can't say an all-powerful being's chosen solution is the only possible solution, but probably the best, since that is how he solved the issue of communing and saving humanity in a safe way.
• John 4:24 "God is Spirit", I've adopted the LDS idea John is describing an attribute rather than a definition, so when John says "God is light" or "God is love" it's an attribute, his being not just sunshine, his being is not just an emotion in our hearts. Apologists quote from Non-LDS Christopher Stead to explain how ancient Judaism would understand it, "By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that he has no body … but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure." (Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge University Press, 1994), 98.) There is no Old Testament or a Talmud teaching of an aphysical God. Though I believe Yhwh, God of Israel, was the Spirit of Jesus.
• Yes, I believe the Spirit of Wisdom, the Wisdom figure in Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon is the Holy Spirit, and it is a female, the OT Spirit is consistently female, where OT God is always male. Mormons very conservative at odd times on classic teachings, so because of John, most don't think the Spirit is female, even though they mostly believe in a divine feminine.
• I do agree all humans have a Dual Nature but even a Divine-Spirit Will would still be his own will, I think. I believe I've heard the logic of it before. I just think the Spirit of Jesus was always in existence and has a will apart from (though aligned with) the Father. I have little reason to think Spirit Jesus's will wasn't at submissive odds with the Father's will at Gethsemane, though his body could be at odds with own spirit's will, except for him specifically saying it was the Father's will, who cannot legally be himself.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Saint Bonaventure]

So.....

What happened in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that this last week I had two LDS family members asking me about Palm Sunday?

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

So.....

What happened in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that this last week I had two LDS family members asking me about Palm Sunday?

We were encouraged by a First Presidency message First Presidency’s 2023 Easter Message (churchofjesuschrist.org) and in General Conference The Greatest Easter Story Ever Told (churchofjesuschrist.org) to observe the Easter holiday in a more personal way than just attending Church. This was also announced in February (that we would only have a one-hour sacrament, and no "second block" for this purpose). Our Come Follow Me lessons have a special emphasis on Easter (but this is not unusual in the years we study the New Testament -- but the CFM approach may mean more people are studying the scriptures better).

As far as what has been happening in the Church to prompt this, it may be more a matter what is going on the world around us, and an invitation to shore up personal devotion considering all the distractions. We do not use a liturgical calendar, but Christmas and Easter certainly provide opportunities to publicly commemorate with others, reflect upon and spread the joy of the Gospel and the Restored Gospel, both of which are in increasingly great need as time rolls on.

What was the nature of your family members' questions about Palm Sunday?

Edited April 8, 2023 by CV75

[Saint Bonaventure]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We were encouraged by a First Presidency message First Presidency’s 2023 Easter Message (churchofjesuschrist.org) and in General Conference The Greatest Easter Story Ever Told (churchofjesuschrist.org) to observe the Easter holiday in a more personal way than just attending Church. This was also announced in February (that sacrament meting would only be one hour, for this purpose). Our Come Follow Me lessons have a special emphasis on Easter (but this is not unusual in the years we study the New Testament -- but the CFM approach may mean more people are studying the scriptures better).

As far as what has been happening in the Church to prompt this, it may be more a matter what is going on the world around us, and an invitation to shore up personal devotion considering all the distractions. We do not use a liturgical calendar, but Christmas and Easter certainly provide opportunities to publicly commemorate, reflect upon and spread the joy of the Gospel and the Restored Gospel, both of which are in increasingly great need as time rolls on.

What was the nature of your family members' questions about Palm Sunday?

Thanks for asking.

Last Saturday, my sister-in-law texted and asked if I did anything special for Palm Sunday. I did; my parish gathered in the parish hall and my priest read the Gospel from Matthew 21 and blessed the palm fronds. Then we shouted "Hosanna" and processed into the church while holding the fronds and while singing "All Glory, Laud, and Honor." I was the lector on Palm Sunday, so I read from Isaiah 50 and from Paul's Letter to the Philippians. 

Then the entire parish stood for the Gospel reading (we always stand respectfully for the Gospel reading, but on Palm Sunday we're standing for 15-20 minutes) which was St. Matthew's account of the Passion of our Lord (Matthew 26-27). 

I was then grateful to participate in the Palm Sunday narrative as "The Speaker." I have one of those voices that sounds like I could be an announcer for NPR. It's great for expressive reading, but not so good for organizing an unruly crowd.

Palm Sunday afternoon my niece, who is going to marry in a Latter-day Saint Temple in California in the summer, asked if Catholics take the fronds and make a cross from them. I have heard of this activity, but I have never done it. There are Palm Sunday traditions going way back. I think they go back to at least the 4th century. 

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Saint Bonaventure

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Thanks for asking.

Last Saturday, my sister-in-law texted and asked if I did anything special for Palm Sunday. I did; my parish gathered in the parish hall and my priest read the Gospel from Matthew 21 and blessed the palm fronds. Then we shouted "Hosanna" and processed into the church while holding the fronds and while singing "All Glory, Laud, and Honor." I was the lector on Palm Sunday, so I read from Isaiah 50 and from Paul's Letter to the Philippians. 

Then the entire parish stood for the Gospel reading (we always stand respectfully for the Gospel reading, but on Palm Sunday we're standing for 15-20 minutes) which was St. Matthew's account of the Passion of our Lord (Matthew 26-27). 

I was then grateful to participate in the Palm Sunday narrative as "The Speaker." I have one of those voices that sounds like I could be an announcer for NPR. It's great for expressive reading, but not so good for organizing an unruly crowd.

Palm Sunday afternoon my niece, who is going to marry in a Latter-day Saint Temple in California in the summer, asked if Catholics take the fronds and make a cross from them. I have heard of this activity, but I have never done it. There are Palm Sunday traditions going way back. I think they go back to at least the 4th century. 

 

Yes, I grew up in NYC and the palm fronds that were blessed and then made into crosses were used the following year for making the ashes on Ash Wednesday.

You might enjoy Elder Rasband's recollection of a Palm Sunday in Ghana: Hosanna to the Most High God (churchofjesuschrist.org). He sattes:

"Even the parishioners in a church nearby were honoring Palm Sunday. As I was speaking from the pulpit, I noticed out the window they were joyfully walking down the street waving palms in their hands, much like those in this photo. It was a sight I will never forget—all of us that day worshipping the King of kings.

"President Russell M. Nelson has admonished us to make Palm Sunday “truly holy by remembering, not just the palms that were waved to honor the entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, but by remembering the palms of His hands.*” Then President Nelson referred to Isaiah, who spoke of the Savior’s promising, “I will never forget you,” with these words: “Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands.”

*See Russell M. Nelson, “The Peace and Hope of Easter” (video), Apr. 2021, ChurchofJesusChrist.org/media; Isaiah 49:16.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/2/2023 at 6:12 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

When you say "member of the Godhead" are you thinking of persons? Of beings?

I have never understood the difference if there is one. I presume the difference is more mystical than a difference between species? If it's alive and exists I suppose it is BE-ING, as opposed to NOT be-ing?

"BEING" seems like a meaningless word to me?

"A state of being?"

Does California qualify?

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

Could a Latter-day Saint view the suffering in Gethsemane as the acceptance of the cup of the New Covenant? I am referring to our Lord accepting the cup, of Him holding, hefting, and carrying the cup that the Father has handed to him. Our Lord will next drink of the cup, down to the dregs, but first He holds it and asks if the Father will take the cup back (Luke 24:43).

Could a Latter-day Saint view Gethsemane as the acceptance of the cup?

Quote

 

612 The cup of the New Covenant, which Jesus anticipated when he offered himself at the Last Supper, is afterwards accepted by him from his Father’s hands in his agony in the garden at Gethsemani, making himself “obedient unto death.” Jesus prays: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.…” Thus he expresses the horror that death represented for his human nature. Like ours, his human nature is destined for eternal life; but unlike ours, it is perfectly exempt from sin, the cause of death.436 Above all, his human nature has been assumed by the divine person of the “Author of life,” the “Living One.” By accepting in his human will that the Father’s will be done, he accepts his death as redemptive, for “he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.”438 (532; 2600; 1009)

Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), 159.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/15/2023 at 2:42 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Could a Latter-day Saint view the suffering in Gethsemane as the acceptance of the cup of the New Covenant? I am referring to our Lord accepting the cup, of Him holding, hefting, and carrying the cup that the Father has handed to him. Our Lord will next drink of the cup, down to the dregs, but first He holds it and asks if the Father will take the cup back (Luke 24:43).

Could a Latter-day Saint view Gethsemane as the acceptance of the cup?

 

I like that a lot!

We speak of "The  Covenant Path", in this paradigm and for the savior, it does seem to add another covenant not given to ordinary folks : to die for others: a covenant to give one's life for others, for all humanity.

"Accepting the Cup" could represent another ordinance we still have not approved, a part of other temple ordinances not yet revealed, or presently widely known.

What we DO know is that there are other ordinances of exaltation only presented to the few which qualify, and which are not disclosed publically.  All who are actually exalted, I think, receive such ordinances, but it is considered bad form to discuss or speculate about them.

It HAS been said that resurrection IS an ordinance/sacrament we will eventually perform and receive. This sort of thing fits well into that kind of model.

Good stuff.   You can think "LDS"; you, I think are becoming more fluent in our mental language

Edited April 18, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

I ask this with a bit of levity:

How on earth do Latter-day Saints read their standard works when someone hit return at the end of every single verse?

Are their readers editions available, i.e., editions that are layed out so as not to trigger a headache?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I ask this with a bit of levity:

How on earth do Latter-day Saints read their standard works when someone hit return at the end of every single verse?

Are their readers editions available, i.e., editions that are layed out so as not to trigger a headache?

It makes it easier to speed read….also to lose track.

There is at least one, BoM by Grant Hardy.

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Readers-Grant-Hardy/dp/025207341X

[ksfisher]

7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I ask this with a bit of levity:

How on earth do Latter-day Saints read their standard works when someone hit return at the end of every single verse?

Are their readers editions available, i.e., editions that are layed out so as not to trigger a headache?

How is the bible that you use formatted?

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I ask this with a bit of levity:

How on earth do Latter-day Saints read their standard works when someone hit return at the end of every single verse?

Are their readers editions available, i.e., editions that are layed out so as not to trigger a headache?

Kind of 

Like

This post? 🤔 🥰

Them's speed bumps!

[InCognitus]

8 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I ask this with a bit of levity:

How on earth do Latter-day Saints read their standard works when someone hit return at the end of every single verse?

Are their readers editions available, i.e., editions that are layed out so as not to trigger a headache?

I like it that way since I'm often making note of verse references as I'm reading.  It also makes it easier to find your place if you are reading from a passage in a talk or in a lesson or classroom setting.

But I also listen to the scriptures when I'm out walking, and of course the verse divisions aren't noticeable when someone is reading the text to you.  But that unbroken flow if hearing it read to me also bugs me if I'm trying to make mental notes of things that I want to look up or to add a note to my electronic scriptures when I get back home.  I'm just very very glad we live in a day when we can literally search our scriptures electronically.  

I served my mission at about the same time the church was developing the topical guide, and I purchased a hard bound book version of the topical guide while on my mission.  Of course just a couple of years later, the 1981 edition of the scriptures were published and it included the topical guide.  But the layout of our scriptures at that time was important to my remembrance of how to find a verse in the scriptures.  I didn't always remember the chapter and verse (I generally remembered the book), but I almost always remembered exactly where it could be found on the page (I had a mental picture of it), so I could flip through the book and find it easily.  I still have the editions of the scriptures I used on my mission and can still remember where to find some of the verses by muscle memory.