Misrepresentations by two BYU professors (Utah and Hawaii)

[David Waltz]

Last week, I received the book, How and What You Worship - Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph Smith, which contains the papers delivered at the 49th Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, and published in 2020 by the BYU Religious Studies Center (full book and PDFs available online HERE; videos of the presentations HERE.)

Two of the papers in particular stood out to me: Frederick’s, “Incarnation, Exaltation, and Christological Tension in Doctrine and Covenants 93:1–20”, and Lane's, “Choosing Divinity, Choosing Christ.” Both of these papers contain a misrepresentation of those Christian folk of the fourth century who utilized the Greek term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) to describe the relationship between God the Father and His Only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Frederick's wrote:

Debates such as these over the relationship between the Father and Son have deep roots, dating back to the fourth century CE. A similar controversy, which became quite heated and for a time divided the Roman Empire, centered around the question of whether Jesus Christ was homoousia (of the same substance) or simply homoiousia (of a similar substance) with the Father. The latter position was termed Arianism after one of its most prominent proponents, a fourth-century bishop named Arius. (Page 15 - link to paper HERE)

And from Lane we read:

Much of this view of Christ and human beings as agents that choose is different than the Christology of historical Christianity. To connect it with traditional christological and soteriological discussion, one could say that, like the Arians, members of the Church of Jesus Christ see the unity of God the Father and the Son as coming from the perfection of Christ’s will rather than from divine essence or substance. While we would use the Arian term homoiousios, being like God rather than being “of one substance with the Father” (homoousios), for us this does not result in Christ being a creature (that is, not divine) because we do not believe in an ontologically distinct divine substance or essence. (Pages 58, 59 - link to paper HERE)

The first misrepresentation I would like to address is that Arius was not, " a fourth-century bishop.” Arius was never a bishop, he was a presbyter under the episcopate of Alexander of Alexandria.

Moving on, neither of the two above authors seem to be aware that the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) was not an “Arian term”. In fact, the folk of the fourth century who held beliefs that emulated those of Arius (i.e. Homoians and Anhomians), repudiated the term. Perhaps even more importantly, two of the most prominent defenders of the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. in the fourth century—Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers—embraced those Christians who preferred the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) over ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) as brothers in Christ, and as fellow defenders against Arianism. Note the following:

Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks ; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential [ὁμοούσιον], must not be treated as enemies ; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers [ἀδελφοὶ πρὸς ἀδελφοὺς], who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence [ὑποστάσεως], and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential [ὁμοούσιου].' Now such is Basil, who wrote from Ancyra concerning the faith. For only to say 'like according to essence,' is very far from signifying 'of the essence,' by which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father is signified. Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, and gilt brass to the true metal ; but tin is not from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog'. But since they say that He is 'of the essence' and 'Like-in-essence [ὁμοιοούσιον],' what do they signify by these but 'Coessential [ὁμοούσιον]?' (Athanasius, De Synodis 41 – NPNF-2, 4.472 - bold emphasis mine)

And:

Holy brethren, I understand by ὁμοούσιον God of God, not of an essence that is unlike, not divided but born, and that the Son has a birth which is unique, of the substance of the unborn God, that He is begotten yet co-eternal and wholly like the Father. I believed this before I knew the word ὁμοούσιον, but it greatly helped my belief. Why do you condemn my faith when I express it by ὁμοούσιον while you cannot disapprove it when expressed by ὁμοιούσιον ? For you condemn my faith, or rather your own, when you condemn its verbal equivalent. Do others misunderstand it? Let us join in condemning the misunderstanding, but not deprive our faith of its security. Do you think we must subscribe to the Samosatene Council to prevent any one from using ὁμοούσιον in the sense of Paul of Samosata? Then let us also subscribe to the Council of Nicaea, so that the Arians may not impugn the word. Have we to fear that ὁμοιούσιον does not imply the same belief as ὁμοούσιον ? Let us decree that there is no difference between being of one or of a similar substance. The word ὁμοούσιον can be understood in a wrong sense. Let us prove that it can be understood in a very good sense. We hold one and the same sacred truth. I beseech you that we should agree that this truth, which is one and the same, should be regarded as sacred. Forgive me, brethren, as I have so often asked you to do. You are not Arians: why should you be thought to be Arians by denying the ὁμοούσιον ? (Hilary pf Poitiers, De Synodis – On the Councils, 88 – NPNF-2, 9.28 - bold emphasis mine)

 

Grace and peace,

David

[MiserereNobis]

I think Jolly Old St. Nick took care of the issue when he slapped Arius across the face.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, David Waltz said:

The first misrepresentation I would like to address is that Arius was not, " a fourth-century bishop.” Arius was never a bishop, he was a presbyter under the episcopate of Alexander of Alexandria.

Is this accurate?

Quote

The presbyters occupied an intermediate position between the bishop and the deacons. They constituted “the council of the bishop.” It was their duty to maintain order, exercise discipline, and superintend the affairs of the church. At the beginning of the 3rd century, if Tertullian is to be believed, they had no spiritual authority of their own, at any rate as far as the sacraments are concerned. The right to baptize and celebrate the communion was delegated to them by the bishop.

Did presbyters have more authority in the 4th century and if not, where did Arius’ influence come from (did he just make sense to his followers or was there more reason to respect him or see him as inspired)?

Quote

The word presbyter is etymologically the original form of “priest.”

If I understand the entry correctly, by the 5th and 6th centuries the presbyters were the priests of the local churches?  Is “presbyter” used officially today for a particular role?

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, David Waltz said:

Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, and gilt brass to the true metal ; but tin is not from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog'. But since they say that He is 'of the essence' and 'Like-in-essence [ὁμοιοούσιον],' what do they signify by these but 'Coessential [ὁμοούσιον]?' (Athanasius, De Synodis 41 – NPNF-2, 4.472 - bold emphasis mine)

 

Does this mean homoousios could be used to describe a family relationship such as exists between a mortal father and son?

[David Waltz]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Is this accurate?

Did presbyters have more authority in the 4th century and if not, where did Arius’ influence come from (did he just make sense to his followers or was there more reason to respect him or see him as inspired)?

If I understand the entry correctly, by the 5th and 6th centuries the presbyters were the priests of the local churches?  Is “presbyter” used officially today for a particular role?

In the 4th century presbyters were under the authority of the bishop of the the diocese they were in. Arius was one of the many presbyters under the the authority of Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria. I am pretty sure 4th century presbyters had no more authority in their day than the presbyters/priests of today. (Hope Catholics that may read this assessment will correct me if I am wrong.)

Elders/presbyters began to be termed priests (Latin: sacerdotes) in the 3rd century. Ordinarily speaking, elders/presbyters/sacerdotes were and are the pastors of local churches. To my knowledge, priests are not termed presbyters in any "official" sense within the RCC. (Once again, hope Catholics that may read this assessment will correct me if I am wrong.)

 

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Does this mean homoousios could be used to describe a family relationship such as exists between a mortal father and son?

All humans are homoousios with each other. The Symbol/Definition of Chalcedon (451) stated the Jesus Christ's human nature was homoousios with humanity/mankind.

 

Grace and peace,

David

[teddyaware]

8 hours ago, David Waltz said:

Last week, I received the book, How and What You Worship - Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph Smith, which contains the papers delivered at the 49th Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, and published in 2020 by the BYU Religious Studies Center (full book and PDFs available online HERE; videos of the presentations HERE.)

Two of the papers in particular stood out to me: Frederick’s, “Incarnation, Exaltation, and Christological Tension in Doctrine and Covenants 93:1–20”, and Lane's, “Choosing Divinity, Choosing Christ.” Both of these papers contain a misrepresentation of those Christian folk of the fourth century who utilized the Greek term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) to describe the relationship between God the Father and His Only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Frederick's wrote:

Debates such as these over the relationship between the Father and Son have deep roots, dating back to the fourth century CE. A similar controversy, which became quite heated and for a time divided the Roman Empire, centered around the question of whether Jesus Christ was homoousia (of the same substance) or simply homoiousia (of a similar substance) with the Father. The latter position was termed Arianism after one of its most prominent proponents, a fourth-century bishop named Arius. (Page 15 - link to paper HERE)

And from Lane we read:

Much of this view of Christ and human beings as agents that choose is different than the Christology of historical Christianity. To connect it with traditional christological and soteriological discussion, one could say that, like the Arians, members of the Church of Jesus Christ see the unity of God the Father and the Son as coming from the perfection of Christ’s will rather than from divine essence or substance. While we would use the Arian term homoiousios, being like God rather than being “of one substance with the Father” (homoousios), for us this does not result in Christ being a creature (that is, not divine) because we do not believe in an ontologically distinct divine substance or essence. (Pages 58, 59 - link to paper HERE)

The first misrepresentation I would like to address is that Arius was not, " a fourth-century bishop.” Arius was never a bishop, he was a presbyter under the episcopate of Alexander of Alexandria.

Moving on, neither of the two above authors seem to be aware that the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) was not an “Arian term”. In fact, the folk of the fourth century who held beliefs that emulated those of Arius (i.e. Homoians and Anhomians), repudiated the term. Perhaps even more importantly, two of the most prominent defenders of the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. in the fourth century—Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers—embraced those Christians who preferred the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) over ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) as brothers in Christ, and as fellow defenders against Arianism. Note the following:

Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks ; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential [ὁμοούσιον], must not be treated as enemies ; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers [ἀδελφοὶ πρὸς ἀδελφοὺς], who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence [ὑποστάσεως], and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential [ὁμοούσιου].' Now such is Basil, who wrote from Ancyra concerning the faith. For only to say 'like according to essence,' is very far from signifying 'of the essence,' by which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father is signified. Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, and gilt brass to the true metal ; but tin is not from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog'. But since they say that He is 'of the essence' and 'Like-in-essence [ὁμοιοούσιον],' what do they signify by these but 'Coessential [ὁμοούσιον]?' (Athanasius, De Synodis 41 – NPNF-2, 4.472 - bold emphasis mine)

And:

Holy brethren, I understand by ὁμοούσιον God of God, not of an essence that is unlike, not divided but born, and that the Son has a birth which is unique, of the substance of the unborn God, that He is begotten yet co-eternal and wholly like the Father. I believed this before I knew the word ὁμοούσιον, but it greatly helped my belief. Why do you condemn my faith when I express it by ὁμοούσιον while you cannot disapprove it when expressed by ὁμοιούσιον ? For you condemn my faith, or rather your own, when you condemn its verbal equivalent. Do others misunderstand it? Let us join in condemning the misunderstanding, but not deprive our faith of its security. Do you think we must subscribe to the Samosatene Council to prevent any one from using ὁμοούσιον in the sense of Paul of Samosata? Then let us also subscribe to the Council of Nicaea, so that the Arians may not impugn the word. Have we to fear that ὁμοιούσιον does not imply the same belief as ὁμοούσιον ? Let us decree that there is no difference between being of one or of a similar substance. The word ὁμοούσιον can be understood in a wrong sense. Let us prove that it can be understood in a very good sense. We hold one and the same sacred truth. I beseech you that we should agree that this truth, which is one and the same, should be regarded as sacred. Forgive me, brethren, as I have so often asked you to do. You are not Arians: why should you be thought to be Arians by denying the ὁμοούσιον ? (Hilary pf Poitiers, De Synodis – On the Councils, 88 – NPNF-2, 9.28 - bold emphasis mine)

 

Grace and peace,

David

I’ve never been able to understand why so many otherwise knowledgeable Latter-Day Saints fail to see something that’s so perfectly obvious. That fact being that Father and the Son actually are of one substance, that substance being the “Light of Truth” or the uncreated Holy Spirit of divine intelligence. The Father and the Son are both imbued with an infinite and eternal fullness of this uncreated holy light. In Latter-Day Saint theology, this selfsame intelligent unifying substance is an actual material substance. Although the Father and the Son are separate and distinct spiritual personages, the scriptures testify that the Father dwells within the Son and the Son dwells within the Father by means of this holy material substance of divine power and enlightenment known interchangeably as the Light of Truth or the Spirit of Truth, which is the same spiritual substance that spiritually unifies the saints with God. Latter-Day Saint doctrine boldly defines this unifying divine substance that the Trinitarians declare to be an unknowable mystery, and that unifying material substance is the uncreated Light of Truth that gives life, divine enlightenment and spiritual power to all things, including God.

6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehendeth all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;

7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things (including God), which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (Doctrine and Covenants 88)

Edited February 23, 2024 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I’ve never been able to understand why so many otherwise knowledgeable Latter-Day Saints fail to see something that’s so perfectly obvious. That fact being that Father and the Son actually are of one substance, that substance being the “Light of Truth” or the uncreated Holy Spirit of divine intelligence. The Father and the Son are both imbued with an infinite and eternal fullness of this uncreated holy light. In Latter-Day Saint theology, this selfsame intelligent unifying substance is an actual material substance. Although the Father and the Son are separate and distinct spiritual personages, the scriptures testify that the Father dwells within the Son and the Son dwells within the Father by means of this holy material substance of divine power and enlightenment known interchangeably as the Light of Truth or the Spirit of Truth, which is the same spiritual substance that spiritually unifies the saints with God. Latter-Day Saint doctrine boldly defines this unifying divine substance that the Trinitarians declare to be an unknowable mystery, and that unifying material substance is the uncreated Light of Truth that gives life, divine enlightenment and spiritual power to all things, including God.

Well, if we are on a similar timeline to Christianity in general we should see our version of the Nicene creed in the next 100 years. We can put this on the list of things to consider.

[Saint Bonaventure]

This little article from the Catholic Encyclopedia might be helpful as it gives context to David Waltz' second objection:

Homoousion

(Gr. homoousion-from homos, same, and ousia, essence; Latin consubstantialem, of one essence or substance), the word used by the Council of Nicaea (325) to express the Divinity of Christ. Arius had taught that the Son, being, in the language of Philo, the Intermediator between God and the world, was not eternal, and therefore not of the Divine substance, but a creature brought forth by the free will of God. (See ARIANISM) Homoousion was indeed used by philosophical writers to signify “of the same or similar substance”; but as the unity of the Divine nature wasn’t questioned, the word carried the fuller meaning: “of one and the same substance”. However, not only is homos ambiguous; the word ousia itself was often taken as equivalent to hypostasis (person), as apparently is the case in the anathema attached to the Nicene Symbol. And therefore the affirmation of the identity of nature might be taken in the heretical sense of the Sabellians, who denied the distinction of person. It was only after many years of controversy that the two words acquired their distinct meanings, and the orthodox were able to describe the Trinity as one in ousia and three in hypostasis or persona. Previously to the Council of Nicaea, Tertullian had already used the Latin equivalent of Homoousion, conceding to Praxeas the Sabellian that the Father and the Son were unius substantiae, of one substance, but adding duarum personarum, of two persons (Adv. Prax., xiii). And Dionysius of Alexandria used the actual word in a letter to Dionysius of Rome (Athan., “De dec. Syn. Nic.”, xxv, 26) and again in his letter to Paul of Samosata. On the other hand, Origen, who is, however, inconsistent in his vocabulary, expressed the anti-Sabellian sense of Dionysius of Alexandria by calling the Son “Heteroousion”. The question was brought into discussion by the Council of Antioch (264–272); and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heteroousion, “of other or different ousia”. Athanasius and Basil give as the reason for this rejection of Homoousion the fact that the Sabellian Paul of Samosata took it to mean “of the same of similar substance”. But Hilary says that Paul himself admitted it in the Sabellian sense “of the same substance or person”, and thus compelled the council to allow him the prescriptive right to the expression. Now, if we may take Hilary’s explanation, it is obvious that when, half a century afterwards, Arius denied the Son to be of the Divine ousia or substance, the situation was exactly reversed. Homoousion directly contradicted the heretic. In the conflicts which ensued, the extreme Arians persisted in the Heteroousion Symbol. But the Semi-Arians were more moderate, and consequently more plausible, in their Homoiousion (of like substance). When one considers how the four creeds formulated at Antioch (341) by the Semi-Arians approached the Nicene Creed as nearly as possible without the actual word Homoousion, there may be a temptation to think that the question was one of words only; and the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359) may seem to have been well advised in their conciliatory formula “that the Son was like the Father in all things, according to the Holy Writ”. But this very formula was forced from the Fathers by the Emperor Constantius; and the force and fraud which the Semi-Arians used throughout the greater part of the fourth century, are proof sufficient that the dispute was not merely verbal. The dogma of the Trinity was at stake, and Homoousion proved itself to be in the words of Epiphanius “the bond of faith”, or, according to the expression of Marius Victorinus, “the rampart and wall of orthodoxy.” (See ARIANISM; TRINITY.)

James Bridge, “Homoousion,” ed. Charles G. Herbermann et al., The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church (New York: The Encyclopedia Press; The Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1907–1913).

[Calm]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Latter-Day Saint doctrine boldly defines this unifying divine substance that the Trinitarians declare to be an unknowable mystery, and that unifying material substance is the uncreated Light of Truth that gives life, divine enlightenment and spiritual power to all things, including God.

And what exactly is this “Light of Truth”?  Our ‘boldness’ gives the mystery a name, but what knowledge do we have of this mystery that is more than the name?

[David Waltz]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

And what exactly is this “Light of Truth”?  Our ‘boldness’ gives the mystery a name, but what knowledge do we have of this mystery that is more than the name?

Hi Calm,

In my March 11, 2019 post, “God, LDS Metaphysics, and the Development of Doctrine - Blake Ostler: ‘all things indwell in God and God indwells all things'" (LINK), I provide selections from Ostler's Exploring Mormon Thought - The Attributes of God, that address your questions.

I also provide some of my own thoughts to supplement Ostler's cogent reflections. Towards the end of the post I wrote:

>>The descriptions of God in the above passages strongly suggest to me that those attributes which make God 'eternal', 'everlasting', 'infinite', 'one God', 'fill heaven and earth', 'fill the immensity of space', 'in all things', 'Spirit', etc., are descriptions of God's divine nature; a divine nature that sure seems to be identifying a "class or kind of being" who has a spiritual, infinite essence, rather than a corporeal, finite one.

I can now delineate why I believe that the phrase "totally incorporeal" lacks a certain degree of clarity when describing the person and or persons termed "God". Though God's divine nature is essentially "Spirit", this does not preclude Him from taking on corporeal form. With that said, I cannot help but maintain a correct reading of Scripture demands that we acknowledge God has in fact done so.>>

 

Grace and peace,

David

 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, David Waltz said:

Hi Calm,

In my March 11, 2019 post, “God, LDS Metaphysics, and the Development of Doctrine - Blake Ostler: ‘all things indwell in God and God indwells all things'" (LINK), I provide selections from Ostler's Exploring Mormon Thought - The Attributes of God, that address your questions.

I also provide some of my own thoughts to supplement Ostler's cogent reflections. Towards the end of the post I wrote:

>>The descriptions of God in the above passages strongly suggest to me that those attributes which make God 'eternal', 'everlasting', 'infinite', 'one God', 'fill heaven and earth', 'fill the immensity of space', 'in all things', 'Spirit', etc., are descriptions of God's divine nature; a divine nature that sure seems to be identifying a "class or kind of being" who has a spiritual, infinite essence, rather than a corporeal, finite one.

I can now delineate why I believe that the phrase "totally incorporeal" lacks a certain degree of clarity when describing the person and or persons termed "God". Though God's divine nature is essentially "Spirit", this does not preclude Him from taking on corporeal form. With that said, I cannot help but maintain a correct reading of Scripture demands that we acknowledge God has in fact done so.>>

 

Grace and peace,

David

 

Interesting, David (as always), will need a bit to digest the link

Edited February 23, 2024 by Calm

[OGHoosier]

@Calm This is going to be off-topic and I do not want to threadjack so I apologize, but are you still involved with FAIR? I wanted to volunteer my services to transcribe the remaining talks from this last conference, if it would be convenient, because I've noticed that most of them are not up yet and I would like to have them on hand as references. 

I tried to send you a private message about it but that didn't work, unfortunately, so this is the best I got.

Apologies, all, for the threadjack.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

@Calm This is going to be off-topic and I do not want to threadjack so I apologize, but are you still involved with FAIR? I wanted to volunteer my services to transcribe the remaining talks from this last conference, if it would be convenient, because I've noticed that most of them are not up yet and I would like to have them on hand as references. 

I tried to send you a private message about it but that didn't work, unfortunately, so this is the best I got.

Apologies, all, for the threadjack.

I must be maxed out again. I like to save old conversations with friends no longer around along with others for memory lane walks, so I have been struggling not to max out for a number of years now. 
 

I can’t remember if the volunteer form is working right now, use the ask FAIR option if not (or just go straight there if you prefer.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact

We would love to have the help.  You can tell them Cris Robinson vouches for you. Most also know me as Cal, but officially I use my real name and I don’t know if the person running that part knows my online name as well. I should probably check as I send people that way on occasion. 

Edited February 23, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 2/22/2024 at 7:33 PM, teddyaware said:

I’ve never been able to understand why so many otherwise knowledgeable Latter-Day Saints fail to see something that’s so perfectly obvious. That fact being that Father and the Son actually are of one substance, that substance being the “Light of Truth” or the uncreated Holy Spirit of divine intelligence. The Father and the Son are both imbued with an infinite and eternal fullness of this uncreated holy light. In Latter-Day Saint theology, this selfsame intelligent unifying substance is an actual material substance. Although the Father and the Son are separate and distinct spiritual personages, the scriptures testify that the Father dwells within the Son and the Son dwells within the Father by means of this holy material substance of divine power and enlightenment known interchangeably as the Light of Truth or the Spirit of Truth, which is the same spiritual substance that spiritually unifies the saints with God. Latter-Day Saint doctrine boldly defines this unifying divine substance that the Trinitarians declare to be an unknowable mystery, and that unifying material substance is the uncreated Light of Truth that gives life, divine enlightenment and spiritual power to all things, including God.

6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehendeth all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;

7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things (including God), which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (Doctrine and Covenants 88)

Muy Bien 👍 As I recently conversed with a Catholic friend and really tried to wrap by brain around Trinitarian teaching, I kept thinking "I think we're closer than we realize."

We are all infinite beings made out of the same infinite stuff, so indeed They, and we, are of one substance.

[Stargazer]

On 2/23/2024 at 7:25 PM, Calm said:

I like to save old conversations with friends no longer around along with others for memory lane walks,

As do I.  My oldest is with RenegadeOfPhunk, from 16 years ago. I'm at 93% at the moment.