5 things Latter-day Saints should know about ancient Christians

[Smiley McGee]

On 12/15/2022 at 7:14 PM, teddyaware said:

1) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we are able to define the spiritual substance that fills and unifies each member of the Godhead. (Lest any misunderstand, the primary reason why the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of one purpose and of one mind is because all three are filled with an infinite and eternal outpouring of the Spirit of Truth. Just as the only way the Church can achieve unity is through the unity of the Spirit, so also the only way the Godhead is able to achieve its perfect unity is through the unity of the Spirit.

2) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we believe all three members of the Godhead are material beings.

3) Unlike the Catholics and Protestants, we’ve believe God the Father has a glorified material body of flesh and bones.

Apologies for engaging in a bit of thread necromancy, but I couldn't help but be fascinated by the discussion in this thread. While I find these beliefs about the physical (for lack of a better term) make-up of the Godhead to be useful for drawing party lines, I'm curious how such beliefs regarding God's physical nature have an impact on your spiritual practice and experiences. In those moments when you are convinced you are in the presence of the Divine, do you get a distinct sense that you are communing with three distinct personages, or one of three distinct personages? Do you sense a personage with a physical body? Or do you simply experience God's presence as a distinct feeling or state of mind? Do you feel like God is more accessible to you since you believe that God is three distinct personages, two of which have physical bodies? Relatedly, do you think God is less accessible to Trinitarians because they don't believe God is three personages, two of which have physical bodies? Is your worthiness or ultimate reward contingent on how we answer questions about the physical nature of God?

[InCognitus]

On 2/18/2023 at 9:15 AM, Smiley McGee said:

Apologies for engaging in a bit of thread necromancy, but I couldn't help but be fascinated by the discussion in this thread. While I find these beliefs about the physical (for lack of a better term) make-up of the Godhead to be useful for drawing party lines, I'm curious how such beliefs regarding God's physical nature have an impact on your spiritual practice and experiences. In those moments when you are convinced you are in the presence of the Divine, do you get a distinct sense that you are communing with three distinct personages, or one of three distinct personages? Do you sense a personage with a physical body? Or do you simply experience God's presence as a distinct feeling or state of mind? Do you feel like God is more accessible to you since you believe that God is three distinct personages, two of which have physical bodies? Relatedly, do you think God is less accessible to Trinitarians because they don't believe God is three personages, two of which have physical bodies? Is your worthiness or ultimate reward contingent on how we answer questions about the physical nature of God?

I'm not teddyaware (obviously), but I think a key difference here is in how we view our relationship to God.  In the Latter-day Saint view, we are the very same kind of being as God (Acts 17:28-29) and God is the Father of spirits (Heb 12:9).  So God is our actual Father in a very real sense, a Father who loves us and cares about us.  And this goes far beyond the idea that God has a body.  But we are created in his image and likeness.  This is important to my experience with God, as I see him as my Heavenly Father.

I can't speak from experience for how this may be different for Trinitarians, but since most of the Christian world (other than Latter-day Saints) believe that God is a Divine Simplicity, and God created us and the universe out of nothing, which produces the idea that God is a completely different kind of being than we are (some say he is "wholly other"), I would think that this would impact how a person can relate to God.  Don't you?

[Smiley McGee]

18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I would think that this would impact how a person can relate to God.  Don't you?

I think you hit the heart of the matter better than I did. Certainly, how we conceive the nature of God impacts both how we relate to and worship God, and how we treat others. I don't agree, however, that all beliefs have a material impact. Specifically, I feel that the physical nature of God is immaterial to living the kind of life that Jesus taught was the essence of Heaven. Are LDSs more capable than Catholics of compassion for the hungry, naked, sick, downtrodden, beaten and left for dead, because they conceive of a Godhead consisting of three separate beings? Do LDSs sense the presence of God more than Catholics because they believe the Father and Son have a physical body? My experience, regardless of where I am of the spectrum of the physical nature of God, tells me that God's physical nature is of immaterial impact. Can that be different for another person at a given time? Absolutely. Do I feel like drawing these sorts of distinctions between groups is useful for anything other than drawing party lines? No. 

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

I think you hit the heart of the matter better than I did. Certainly, how we conceive the nature of God impacts both how we relate to and worship God, and how we treat others. I don't agree, however, that all beliefs have a material impact. Specifically, I feel that the physical nature of God is immaterial to living the kind of life that Jesus taught was the essence of Heaven. Are LDSs more capable than Catholics of compassion for the hungry, naked, sick, downtrodden, beaten and left for dead, because they conceive of a Godhead consisting of three separate beings? Do LDSs sense the presence of God more than Catholics because they believe the Father and Son have a physical body? My experience, regardless of where I am of the spectrum of the physical nature of God, tells me that God's physical nature is of immaterial impact. Can that be different for another person at a given time? Absolutely. Do I feel like drawing these sorts of distinctions between groups is useful for anything other than drawing party lines? No. 

I was, of course, talking about how a person can relate to God.  But how we relate to our fellowman is another question entirely. 

I would hope that the Latter-day Saint belief that every human on the planet is a child of God would inspire us to treat those not of our faith with more love and respect.  But, the Catholics excel at compassion for the hungry, naked, sick, downtrodden (etc. etc.).  So obviously that's not the deciding factor.  I think that comes from the heart and our desire to simply follow the teachings of the Savior, Jesus Christ.  He showed us the way.  Catholics do that too.

Of course Jesus has a body.     It would have been difficult for him to show us by his example without him being here physically, don't you think?

Edited February 20, 2023 by InCognitus

[Smiley McGee]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I was, of course, talking about how a person can relate to God.  But how we relate to our fellowman is another question entirely.

I'm not so sure I agree with this, since "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." It seems Jesus taught over and over that it is precisely through our compassion and patience towards others that we become the children of God, or enter the kingdom. 

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I would hope that the Latter-day Saint belief that every human on the planet is a child of God would inspire us to treat those not of our faith with more love and respect.  But, the Catholics excel at compassion for the hungry, naked, sick, downtrodden (etc. etc.).  So obviously that's not the deciding factor.  I think that comes from the heart and our desire to simply follow the teachings of the Savior, Jesus Christ.  He showed us the way.  Catholics do that too.

Therefore, what? Why draw distinctions if it doesn't change the important things?

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Of course Jesus has a body.     It would have been difficult for him to show us by his example without him being here physically, don't you think?

It could be argued that the incarnation of Jesus doesn't mean that God necessarily has a body, but as I've stated previously, I don't think it's all that important that one hold a certain view of God's physical nature.

[InCognitus]

15 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I was, of course, talking about how a person can relate to God.  But how we relate to our fellowman is another question entirely.

I'm not so sure I agree with this, since "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." It seems Jesus taught over and over that it is precisely through our compassion and patience towards others that we become the children of God, or enter the kingdom. 

Remember, in the parable of Matthew 25, Jesus says "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world"  (Matthew 25:34).  In other words, Jesus is "the King" in this parable, and he has a "Father".  So this is a depiction of the physical Jesus who came in the flesh with a body, judging as the King.  And he is saying that when we attend to the physical needs of others (real people with physical bodies) it's the same as doing it unto him (and he has a body).  Since you used this example, it would seem that you believe that Jesus having a physical body is an important part of connecting with God.  Is that correct?

But this is completely different than how you framed your original question with regard to the accessibility we have to God in our spiritual practices, and whether or not God having a body makes a difference.  This is what you said in your original post:

On 2/18/2023 at 9:15 AM, Smiley McGee said:

While I find these beliefs about the physical (for lack of a better term) make-up of the Godhead to be useful for drawing party lines, I'm curious how such beliefs regarding God's physical nature have an impact on your spiritual practice and experiences. In those moments when you are convinced you are in the presence of the Divine, do you get a distinct sense that you are communing with three distinct personages, or one of three distinct personages? Do you sense a personage with a physical body? Or do you simply experience God's presence as a distinct feeling or state of mind? Do you feel like God is more accessible to you since you believe that God is three distinct personages, two of which have physical bodies? Relatedly, do you think God is less accessible to Trinitarians because they don't believe God is three personages, two of which have physical bodies? Is your worthiness or ultimate reward contingent on how we answer questions about the physical nature of God?

Everything you said above had to do with how we feel God's presence in our communing with him and how "accessible" he is to us.  And that's why I focused on the Father to child relationship in my original post, and that has very little to do with him having a physical body.

35 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Therefore, what? Why draw distinctions if it doesn't change the important things?

But it does change the important things.  You used Catholics and Latter-day Saints as examples, and collectively they both do good things.  But I'm aware of people who claim they are Christians who view non-Christians as "children of the devil" (they have actually said that) and that impacts how they treat others.  If we start out viewing our fellowman as dirt, we're going to treat them like dirt. 

36 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

It could be argued that the incarnation of Jesus doesn't mean that God necessarily has a body, but as I've stated previously, I don't think it's all that important that one hold a certain view of God's physical nature.

Do you believe Jesus is God?  If so, then he definitely has a body.  But if by "God" you mean God the Father, then I'm not sure there is a distinction, since Jesus is the "express image" of the Father.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

, I don't think it's all that important that one hold a certain view of God's physical nature.

It might affect how one values the physical side of things and views of the importance of the body, maybe even views on suffering and health.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Calm

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Since you used this example, it would seem that you believe that Jesus having a physical body is an important part of connecting with God.  Is that correct?

I consider efforts to relieve suffering as an important part of connecting with God. A body seems incidental to that connection. I also like the parable of the lost sheep but I don't think that being a literal shepherd is integral to connecting with God. 

 

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Everything you said above had to do with how we feel God's presence in our communing with him and how "accessible" he is to us.  And that's why I focused on the Father to child relationship in my original post, and that has very little to do with him having a physical body.

Agreed:

9 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Certainly, how we conceive the nature of God impacts both how we relate to and worship God, and how we treat others. I don't agree, however, that all beliefs have a material impact. Specifically, I feel that the physical nature of God is immaterial to living the kind of life that Jesus taught was the essence of Heaven.

 

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I'm aware of people who claim they are Christians who view non-Christians as "children of the devil" (they have actually said that) and that impacts how they treat others.  If we start out viewing our fellowman as dirt, we're going to treat them like dirt. 

Agreed see my quote above. 

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Do you believe Jesus is God?  If so, then he definitely has a body.  But if by "God" you mean God the Father, then I'm not sure there is a distinction, since Jesus is the "express image" of the Father.

I'm not sure I'm following the logic here. 

[3DOP]

On 2/19/2023 at 4:15 PM, InCognitus said:

I'm not teddyaware (obviously), but I think a key difference here is in how we view our relationship to God.  In the Latter-day Saint view, we are the very same kind of being as God (Acts 17:28-29) and God is the Father of spirits (Heb 12:9).  So God is our actual Father in a very real sense, a Father who loves us and cares about us.  And this goes far beyond the idea that God has a body.  But we are created in his image and likeness.  This is important to my experience with God, as I see him as my Heavenly Father.

I can't speak from experience for how this may be different for Trinitarians, but since most of the Christian world (other than Latter-day Saints) believe that God is a Divine Simplicity, and God created us and the universe out of nothing, which produces the idea that God is a completely different kind of being than we are (some say he is "wholly other"), I would think that this would impact how a person can relate to God.  Don't you?

Incog. Hi.

I haven't been following the thread very far. But I agree with your concern that a God Who is "wholly other" might be difficult to relate to. But then, this wholly Other tells us that we are made in His image and likeness. What? God has made us like Himself in some significant way! Enough like Himself (the Father), that His very own and only Begotten Son, while remaining God, infinitely beyond us in nature, takes on our own nature. 

I speak as a Catholic of course. The Son of God Almighty takes a human nature. As we do every Sunday and feast day in the Creed, we genuflect at the word that says, "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us". The other is now another. We are like beings. Fantastic!

Maybe the "relationship" is different? I find it exhilarating. Different? Okay. Inferior? Never. No. Never.

But what is true? That which seems like what we are most attracted to? I dunno. I like being Catholic. And who can argue with how stupendous it would be if it were true? I think it is true...and fantastic, stupendous, the best news, the good Gospel that saves all who will accept it. I cannot want more.

3DOP

[Smiley McGee]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

It might affect how one values the physical side of things and views of the importance of the body, maybe even views on suffering and health.

If it for someone then great. Who am I to tell someone it’s not useful. It does however seem like a silly reason draw distinctions between groups of people who otherwise agree on more critical matters.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

does however seem like a silly reason draw distinctions between groups of people who otherwise agree on more critical matters.

Don’t disagree here except where referring to actual beliefs, I think it leads to confusion and misunderstandings if we act like the differences are immaterial even when it comes to doctrine.

[Smiley McGee]

19 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Incog. Hi.

I haven't been following the thread very far. But I agree with your concern that a God Who is "wholly other" might be difficult to relate to. But then, this wholly Other tells us that we are made in His image and likeness. What? God has made us like Himself in some significant way! Enough like Himself (the Father), that His very own and only Begotten Son, while remaining God, infinitely beyond us in nature, takes on our own nature. 

I speak as a Catholic of course. The Son of God Almighty takes a human nature. As we do every Sunday and feast day in the Creed, we genuflect at the word that says, "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us". The other is now another. We are like beings. Fantastic!

Maybe the "relationship" is different? I find it exhilarating. Different? Okay. Inferior? Never. No. Never.

But what is true? That which seems like what we are most attracted to? I dunno. I like being Catholic. And who can argue with how stupendous it would be if it were true? I think it is true...and fantastic, stupendous, the best news, the good Gospel that saves all who will accept it. I cannot want more.

3DOP

Beautifully put 3DOP. I attended mass for the first time this past December when I attended midnight mass at a local church — a beautiful experience. The music, the readings, the chanting, the incense all combined to create an environment of palpable reverence and devotion. I also attended mass at the National Shrine while in DC recently. Also a beautiful experience (and impressive Basilica). 
 

What hit me like a tons of bricks was how easy it was to worship with a group people with whom many of my beliefs differ but with whom I felt a strong commonality. I did not recite the Nicene creed because I didn’t feel like I could do it honestly, but I still felt strongly that we  worship the same God, and that we share common spiritual goals and desires. 

[InCognitus]

On 2/20/2023 at 8:20 PM, Smiley McGee said:

I consider efforts to relieve suffering as an important part of connecting with God. A body seems incidental to that connection.

I also consider efforts to relieve suffering as an important part of connecting with God.  But to the bolded part above, I presume you mean God having a body is incidental to that connection, because us having a body is essential to our efforts to relieve suffering (and thus connect with God), since a good part of that suffering is related to our physical world (although some of it can be spiritual suffering).  And I tend to agree that God the Father having a body would seem incidental to efforts to relieve suffering, although I consider it to be important for our relationship with God the Father as I explained in my first post.

But doesn't the fact that Jesus came in the flesh to teach us and show us the way play a part in how and why you want to relieve suffering in others?   Does his having a body and his sacrifice for us play any part in how you learned the importance of and how to go about relieve suffering in others?

On 2/20/2023 at 8:20 PM, Smiley McGee said:

I also like the parable of the lost sheep but I don't think that being a literal shepherd is integral to connecting with God. 

Me too, and it teaches us how to help relieve spiritual suffering by going out (physically) and finding those who might be "lost".  But we would likely not even know about this parable if Jesus hadn't come in the flesh to show us the way.

On 2/20/2023 at 8:20 PM, Smiley McGee said:

On 2/20/2023 at 6:25 PM, InCognitus said:

Do you believe Jesus is God?  If so, then he definitely has a body.  But if by "God" you mean God the Father, then I'm not sure there is a distinction, since Jesus is the "express image" of the Father.

I'm not sure I'm following the logic here. 

1. Do you believe Jesus is God?  (That's a direct question to you).  I presume you do, since you hint that you believe in the Trinity. 
2. Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead with his physical body?   

If you believe in the Trinity and you believe that Jesus rose from the dead with his physical body, then at least one person of the Trinity has a body.  So doesn't that mean that the triune God has a body, at least in some respect?

Does the physical mission of Jesus Christ as he came here to earth and took on flesh and blood and his atoning sacrifice for our sins influence your connection with God?  

For me, I would say that I have no lasting connection with God at all without Jesus Christ and his earthly mission and atoning sacrifice.  In that respect there's no getting away from the material aspect of God in our connection with him.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I also consider efforts to relieve suffering as an important part of connecting with God.  But to the bolded part above, I presume you mean God having a body is incidental to that connection, because us having a body is essential to our efforts to relieve suffering (and thus connect with God), since a good part of that suffering is related to our physical world (although some of it can be spiritual suffering).  And I tend to agree that God the Father having a body would seem incidental to efforts to relieve suffering, although I consider it to be important for our relationship with God the Father as I explained in my first post.

But doesn't the fact that Jesus came in the flesh to teach us and show us the way play a part in how and why you want to relieve suffering in others?   Does his having a body and his sacrifice for us play any part in how you learned the importance of and how to go about relieve suffering in others?

Me too, and it teaches us how to help relieve spiritual suffering by going out (physically) and finding those who might be "lost".  But we would likely not even know about this parable if Jesus hadn't come in the flesh to show us the way.

1. Do you believe Jesus is God?  (That's a direct question to you).  I presume you do, since you hint that you believe in the Trinity. 
2. Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead with his physical body?   

If you believe in the Trinity and you believe that Jesus rose from the dead with his physical body, then at least one person of the Trinity has a body.  So doesn't that mean that the triune God has a body, at least in some respect?

Does the physical mission of Jesus Christ as he came here to earth and took on flesh and blood and his atoning sacrifice for our sins influence your connection with God?  

For me, I would say that I have no lasting connection with God at all without Jesus Christ and his earthly mission and atoning sacrifice.  In that respect there's no getting away from the material aspect of God in our connection with him.

We need to start looking at these details not as "facts" - they may or may not be "true" - but how the belief FUNCTIONS in our lives to bring us closer to God and other beliefs, to help us become more like the ideal image of what a "Christ" would be.  How would the story of the prodigal son enhance our beliefs if it continued, say, to show how the prodigal's children grew closer to God through their father's experience of repentance?

The FUNCTION of how a belief works in our lives is more important than "what really happened"

[Smiley McGee]

9 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I also consider efforts to relieve suffering as an important part of connecting with God.  But to the bolded part above, I presume you mean God having a body is incidental to that connection, because us having a body is essential to our efforts to relieve suffering (and thus connect with God), since a good part of that suffering is related to our physical world (although some of it can be spiritual suffering).  And I tend to agree that God the Father having a body would seem incidental to efforts to relieve suffering, although I consider it to be important for our relationship with God the Father as I explained in my first post.

But doesn't the fact that Jesus came in the flesh to teach us and show us the way play a part in how and why you want to relieve suffering in others?   Does his having a body and his sacrifice for us play any part in how you learned the importance of and how to go about relieve suffering in others?

Me too, and it teaches us how to help relieve spiritual suffering by going out (physically) and finding those who might be "lost".  But we would likely not even know about this parable if Jesus hadn't come in the flesh to show us the way.

1. Do you believe Jesus is God?  (That's a direct question to you).  I presume you do, since you hint that you believe in the Trinity. 
2. Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead with his physical body?   

If you believe in the Trinity and you believe that Jesus rose from the dead with his physical body, then at least one person of the Trinity has a body.  So doesn't that mean that the triune God has a body, at least in some respect?

Does the physical mission of Jesus Christ as he came here to earth and took on flesh and blood and his atoning sacrifice for our sins influence your connection with God?  

For me, I would say that I have no lasting connection with God at all without Jesus Christ and his earthly mission and atoning sacrifice.  In that respect there's no getting away from the material aspect of God in our connection with him.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. FWIW, the physical nature of God is a mystery to me, and I’m not settled on a particular theology’s view of that matter, nor am I seeking resolve here. As I noted in my post above to @3DOP, reciting the Nicene creed would feel dishonest and disrespectful to me since I’m not sure I believe it.

[theplains]

On 2/18/2023 at 12:45 AM, InCognitus said:

So, to answer your question, according to Paul, those who are exalted (receiving everlasting life) are led by the Spirit of God (meaning they follow the Spirit) and they put off the works of the flesh and endure to the end.  Those who are not exalted may be or may have been influenced by the Spirit of God from time to time, but they don't let the Spirit of God lead them constantly throughout their life in what they do.  The Spirit of God doesn't rule their life.

So it seems the non-exalted beings in the telestial, terrestrial, and two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom
do not qualify as sons and daughters of God because they do not satisfy the conditions in verses 14-17.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

So it seems the non-exalted beings in the telestial, terrestrial, and two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom
do not qualify as sons and daughters of God because they do not satisfy the conditions in verses 14-17.

File a case with the supreme court on behalf of dead people IF you are "correct".

Good luck! 

See how silly that sounds?

We need to understand these are PARADIGMS- THEORIES- confirmed or not confirmed by our consciences/testimonies/ the spirit.

We cannot do a tv interview of God or put Him under a microscope, or get some DNA samples to see who is or not "sons/daughters" of God.

 

[InCognitus]

5 minutes ago, theplains said:

So it seems the non-exalted beings in the telestial, terrestrial, and two lower divisions of the celestial kingdom
do not qualify as sons and daughters of God because they do not satisfy the conditions in verses 14-17.

They don't qualify to be heirs of God in the behavioral sense of what it means to be sons of God, even though they are still sons of God in a literal sense. 

We've been over this several times, and I've explained this concept of why we must "become" sons of God elsewhere.  See my prior posts here, here, here and here. 

To summarize, we are all born as “the children of God” (in a literal sense - we are the very genos of God - Acts 17:28-29 and God is the Father of spirits (Heb 12:9)), but because of sin (our behavior) none of us are worthy to be called the “sons of God” in a behavioral and emulation sense of the word (we are the products of that which we serve). We must therefore be reconciled to God through the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and thus “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). Those who believe in Jesus Christ have the “power to become” sons of God (in a behavioral and emulation sense) because it is only through Jesus that our contrary behavior (sin) can be forgiven, thus making us clean and worthy “products” of his atonement. By believing in Jesus Christ we are to serve God the Father and Jesus Christ instead of sin.

A verse that I think illustrates the dual definition of the child/father relationship as understood by the Latter-day Saints is in Matthew 5:45. In the preceding verses Jesus indicates that we must “love our enemies” and “do good” to them that hate us.  Jesus says we must do these things so "that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven". Notice Jesus says God is “your Father”, and that we must behave like our Father so that we “may be” his children. In other words, God is our literal Father already.  But we must behave like our Father to be called “his children”. 

And that's why those in the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms would still be literal children of God but not the "sons of God" who enter into a covenant with God and emulate God the Father and Jesus Christ and are heirs of God.

[InCognitus]

12 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Thank you for bringing up the question, it was interesting to think about.

12 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

FWIW, the physical nature of God is a mystery to me, and I’m not settled on a particular theology’s view of that matter, nor am I seeking resolve here. As I noted in my post above to @3DOP, reciting the Nicene creed would feel dishonest and disrespectful to me since I’m not sure I believe it.

I sort of sensed that in your questions.  Thank you for sharing your point of view.

[theplains]

On 2/22/2023 at 9:29 PM, InCognitus said:

And that's why those in the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms would still be literal children of God but not the "sons of God" who enter into a covenant with God and emulate God the Father and Jesus Christ and are heirs of God.

Don't forget to also include the non-exalted beings who are said to exist in the two lower
divisions of the celestial kingdom. 

[mfbukowski]

On 2/18/2023 at 8:15 AM, Smiley McGee said:

Apologies for engaging in a bit of thread necromancy, but I couldn't help but be fascinated by the discussion in this thread. While I find these beliefs about the physical (for lack of a better term) make-up of the Godhead to be useful for drawing party lines, I'm curious how such beliefs regarding God's physical nature have an impact on your spiritual practice and experiences. In those moments when you are convinced you are in the presence of the Divine, do you get a distinct sense that you are communing with three distinct personages, or one of three distinct personages? Do you sense a personage with a physical body? Or do you simply experience God's presence as a distinct feeling or state of mind? Do you feel like God is more accessible to you since you believe that God is three distinct personages, two of which have physical bodies? Relatedly, do you think God is less accessible to Trinitarians because they don't believe God is three personages, two of which have physical bodies? Is your worthiness or ultimate reward contingent on how we answer questions about the physical nature of God?

Personally, I KNOW there is a person/being/intelligence out there who is NOT me or my own mind, speaking back to me.

I do not sense that intelligence to be more than ONE intelligence ; why is there a need for more beings in the paradigm, with one being administrator, one the communicator, and another who ..... what?  Delivers comfort?

Three persons in one "substance" is logically incoherent.  I don't see the need.

Three persons unified in purpose seems redundant.  I don't see why they are necessary.   YET if the church insists, my paradigm can account for that.  It could be, as Rorty implies, that the CAUSES of the experience are unknowable- we only know the experience itself.   We only know what we are CAPABLE of knowing- and I am only capable of knowing ONE distinct person and not three. 

 I speak to one who to me is a Father figure and am answered not necessarily verbally- but the answers come.   I need help, and many times it appears in unlikely circumstances, "out of the blue".

Honestly it doesn't matter much to me because I have no doubt that there is at least ONE such being who knows me, as a Father would know me, who directs me and loves me to a degree far beyond my ability to verbalize.

That's it.

I find little if any biblical evidence for three persons except of course in the story of Christ's baptism.   

Nothing else is necessary in my opinion.

An interesting article:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/judaic-islamic-trinity.html

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

An interesting article:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/judaic-islamic-trinity.html

That is an interesting article.

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, theplains said:

Don't forget to also include the non-exalted beings who are said to exist in the two lower
divisions of the celestial kingdom. 

Uh, he just did, in this very post

Edited February 25, 2023 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Three persons in one "substance" is logically incoherent.

Yet the experiences of mysticism suggest and even downright declare that an experience of the divine is beyond words, and therefore beyond logic. By saying this, I am not arguing in favor of the Trinity. I am just saying that when it comes to divinity, the ultimate ground of being, logic always seems to break down. Hence the use of paradox, poetry, and the via negativa. 
 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yet the experiences of mysticism suggest and even downright declare that an experience of the divine is beyond words, and therefore beyond logic. By saying this, I am not arguing in favor of the Trinity. I am just saying that when it comes to divinity, the ultimate ground of being, logic always seems to break down. Hence the use of paradox, poetry, and the via negativa. 
 

Interesting point, that apophatic theology enhances the actual EXPERIENCE of Christian prayer; I have to think about it.  Of course it is used in eastern meditation that way to enhance a mystical viewpoint in meditation, but coming from a more mindful approach that it would help me personally as a dyed-in-the-wool Pragmatist in DESCRIBING my experience.

There is a difference between the feeling of loving my wife and describing why I love her, and her particular characteristics which are partial causes of that love, one is more cognitive, and the other is just DOING it- looking across the room and just FEELING the love.  In speaking to her or saying "I love you", I am usually NOT thinking about her characteristics, I am just "loving her".

For me, when I pray, I am not thinking about God's  characteristics, as 3 in 1 substance, or 1 being "out there" though invisible, I am pouring out my heart to my Father.

 

It's the difference between a 3rd person description and a 1st person experience.  It is object vs subject.  It is thinking vs doing.

For me, I am not praying to a mystery, I am praying to my Father.

One person who loves me and vice versa