Creedal Christian god= Para Brahman?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I really like this! 

To be the best humanists we need to follow to ultimate human.

That's exactly it.  And that was clearly Jesus Christ, and for us, Father himself.   It is pretty clear though that all Christians would readily accept the notion that "doing what Jesus would do" is the best course of action.  And how do you do that?  "Listen to the Universe" as is suggested in the Oprah Winfrey video.

So if we want to say that we should "follow the Spirit to emulate Jesus Christ" in LDS language translates to "Act as the Ideal Human would act, as the Universe will teach you." in Oprah language

Pragmatically the two ideas are one.

If we can use that kind of language, I think we could move many toward (a little bit at very least) the gospel of Jesus Christ.   It is hard to argue that, even if Jesus never existed, the character does not represent the Ideal Human.

And so for me, that removes the historicity problem we often hear about "Mormonism".   If one simply acts as how you would believe the Ideal Human would act,  you would be well on the way to a religion which emulates Christ.

And I am a fully spiritually believer in the church- Joseph HAD to be a prophet to even create doctrine which is MEANT BY GOD to be preached today.   It is so obvious to me!  I was a Bishop and a temple worker- it is not that I am criticizing the church one iota- I completely accept every doctrine and paradigm-I might just see them in Humanist Language as opposed to the Olde Mormonese. 

So in Humanist LDS language, every word spoken is just a symbol - a noise in the air or a squiggle on a page!    We get to INTERPRET those symbols according to what "the universe" dictates. 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, manol said:

Okay. 

But if that's what works for someone, is there anything wrong with it?

For those that believe there is nothing wrong with it.

For those who don't, there is.   The objective is to discuss it within the realms of reason, and what the Spirit tells us individually.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

With apologies, I can't make heads or tails of what you've written here. 

I said:

Quote

 

The difference of course between your description and what Catholics believe is that what you exclude is the assumption that grandma, as a saint, would have a better path to God than we do. 

We want saints to "intercede" for us with God, suggesting that their prayers are somehow "better" than ours.

Our view is that we don't need intercessors.

 

AND I agree with you 100!   I wrote that in a very noisy room and posted it without checking for errors.

It was that second sentence that was gibberish, though perhaps you had other reasons- but that is what popped out when I just re-read it.

The second sentence was supposed to say: "Catholics apparently want saints to "intercede" for us with God, suggesting that their prayers are somehow "better" than ours.

I hope that is a tad better.  

Regardless, my opinion is that we don't need anyone else between us and God even to help us, or somehow "intercede" for us.

I hope that at least makes sense to you!   I would like to understand that better, because I did not believe it as a Catholic either.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's the general doctrine as taught by the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

A few years ago some women were being vocal about praying to Heavenly Mother and in response we had a special saturday session of general conference where Elder Renlund said this--

"The Savior taught His disciples, “Always pray unto the Father in my name.” We follow this pattern and direct our worship to our Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ and do not pray to Heavenly Mother."

We are even instructed that we should not pray to Jesus directly--

"While Latter-day Saints do worship Jesus Christ as explained here, they do not pray to Him. That is reserved for only God the Father."

While Catholics have different latin terms to describe prayers to those other than God the Father, in our doctrine there is no differentiation caused by the purpose of prayer.  It is always a means of worship and reserved exclusively for the relationship between our Heavenly Father and His children. 

I often just pray with "Lord, in the Name of Jesus, please help me figure out....", or often also "Dear Father..... and end "In Jesus' Name"

And I have not been struck by lightning yet!

[manol]

@mfbukowski, what are your thoughts about the Nephites praying to Jesus?  From 3rd Nephi chapter 19, verses 17 - 30:

"And it came to pass that when they had all knelt down upon the earth, he commanded his disciples that they should pray.  And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God... 

"they did still continue, without ceasing, to pray unto him...

"And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him...

"And Jesus said unto them: Pray on; nevertheless they did not cease to pray.

"and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, unto him..."

Apparently this was perfectly okay with Jesus. The specifics of what happened next are evidently more than we are allowed to be told at this time.  Picking up with verse 31 and continuing through verse 34, and note that this is happening WHILE they are praying to Jesus: 

"And it came to pass that he went again a little way off and prayed unto the Father; And tongue cannot speak the words which he prayed, neither can be written by man the words which he prayed. And the multitude did hear and do bear record; and their hearts were open and they did understand in their hearts the words which he prayed.  Nevertheless, so great and marvelous were the words which he prayed that they cannot be written, neither can they be uttered by man."  (emphasis mine)

Edited April 27, 2024 by manol

[Zosimus]

On 4/26/2024 at 5:58 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I recently watched a video by an Indian guy who talks about Hindu sites and statues and things. At the end of the video he talked about Para Brahman and it struck me how similar the description is to the creedal Christian concept of God. Maybe creedal Christianity is really an offshoot of Hinduism?

The challenge is that noone can agree on what "Hinduism" is: 

"Hinduism can hardly be called a religion at all in the popularly understood sense of the term. Unlike most religions, Hinduism does not regard the concept of god as being central to it. Hinduism is not a system of theology—it does not make any dogmatic affirmation regarding the nature of god. . . . Similarly, Hinduism does not venerate any particular person as its sole prophet or as its founder. It does not also recognize any particular book as its absolutely authoritative scripture. Further, Hinduism does not insist on any particular religious practice as being obligatory, nor does it accept any doctrine as dogma. Hinduism can also not be identified with a specific moral code. Hinduism, as a religion, does not convey any definite or unitary idea."  R.N. Dandekar (source)

I mentioned The Birth of Orientalism in another thread a day or two ago. In it, Urs App answers your question with a surprising twist:

"Whether one agrees with [Dandekar's comments] or not, it is clear that at some point in history exactly these characteristics were projected on the dominant religion of the Indians and that this is how “Gentooism” or “Hinduism” as a “religion in the popularly understood sense” was invented. Its inventor, I propose, is Mr. John Zephaniah Holwell, and the year of this invention is 1766"

JZ Holwell was a British civil servant who had published an account of West Bengal describing a sort of Utopian kingdom along the Ganges River. Holwell claimed that the people in this kingdom prospered because they followed the oldest form of Brahmanism, as found within an ancient Indian text called the Chartah Bhade of Brahma. Holwell translated and published a portion of this text, which Urs App proposes becomes the first real codified interpretation of "Hinduism'. Now for the twist:

Holwell's translation/interpretation of the text is based on the lectures of a printer from London named Jacob Ilive. (source)

In the Indian text, a Para-Brahman-like being called the Eternal One (God) exists in a sort of pre-mortal realm where he creates three other beings. The "first-created" he named Birmah, who Holwell identifies as Jesus Christ. God then creates an angelic host "whom he placed in subjection to [Birmah/Jesus] his first created". God "created them all free, and intended they should all be partakers of his glory and beatitude, on the easy conditions of their acknowledging him their Creator, and paying obedience to him, and to the three primary created personages, whom he had put over them."

I'll just quote the text directly:

"That, in process of time, a large portion of the angelic host at the instigation of Moisasoor and others of their chief leaders, rebelled and denied the supremacy of their Creator, and refused obedience to his commands. That in consequence the rebels were excluded heaven, and the sight of their Creator, and doomed to languish for ever in sorrow and darkness. That, after a time, by the intercession of the three primary, and the rest of the faithful angelic beings, God relented, and placed the delinquents in a more sufferable state of punishment and probation, with powers to gain their lost happy situation. That for that purpose a new creation of the visible and invisible worlds instantaneously took place, destined for the delinquents..." The probationary world created by God for the rebellious spirits was Earth. 

"That mortal bodies were prepared by God, for the rebel angels, in which they were for a space to be imprisoned, and subject to natural and moral evils, more or less painful in proportion to their original guilt, and through which they were doomed to transmigrate under eighty-nine different forms, the last into that of man, when the powers of the animating rebel spirits, are supposed to be enlarged equal to the state of their first creation. That under this form God rests his chief expectations of their repentance and restoration, and if they fail, and continue reprobate under this form, they are returned to the lowest region, and sentenced to go through the same course of punishment..."

This (mis)translation of a missing Indian shastra describing the creation of Brahma is, according to Urs App, the account behind the invention of Hinduism in the 18th century. The ideas found in the translation come primarily from Jacob Ilive who had claimed to recover and translate the biblical Book of Jasher (source). Holwell's translation of the Chartah Bhade of Brahma also draws from the Travels of Cyrus, a book written by Chevalier Ramsay, which was available in the Manchester Library. (source)

Edited April 27, 2024 by Zosimus

[Saint Bonaventure]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I said:

AND I agree with you 100!   I wrote that in a very noisy room and posted it without checking for errors.

It was that second sentence that was gibberish, though perhaps you had other reasons- but that is what popped out when I just re-read it.

The second sentence was supposed to say: "Catholics apparently want saints to "intercede" for us with God, suggesting that their prayers are somehow "better" than ours.

I hope that is a tad better.  

Regardless, my opinion is that we don't need anyone else between us and God even to help us, or somehow "intercede" for us.

I hope that at least makes sense to you!   I would like to understand that better, because I did not believe it as a Catholic either.

Thanks for clarifying. I think we have a difference in worldview here, as I see prayer as integral to John 17's admonition to be as one even as the Son and the Father are one. You may be familiar with what I'm about to share, but I'll nonetheless share it for the benefit of everyone who is reading our interaction.

Catholics believe that the apostles continue to be sent forth by the Lord, they continue to bind and loose, the Church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, and that the gates of hades (death/hell) have not prevailed against the church. In LDS terminology, Catholics believe that Peter still has the keys, so to speak, and hence all of the popular depictions of Peter at the gate of heaven, etc. 

There is a fundamental disjunction between Catholics and LDS that I'm going to emphasize because it's vital. Catholics consider the Church in three senses, and yes, Catholic theologians have done what I find to be incredibly illuminating work regarding the three senses of the Church and the Trinity (Augustine, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, von Balthasar. This is one of the best, most faith-affirming subjects I've studied in my life). The three senses of the Church are 1) The Church Militant (on earth), The Church Suffering (in Purgatory), The Church Triumphant (in Heaven). All three senses are the Body of Christ, and when the Passion of the Church is concluded and the Church is atoned with the Trinity, all the Church will be the Church Triumphant (we're deep into Catholic eschatology and divinization/theosis here).

Put differently, Catholics believe that Christ's admonition in John 17 that we should be one even as the Father and the Son are one is taken to mean--and this is crucial--that oneness in the Church (and among mankind, in another sense) is to correspond to the oneness amongst the Persons of the Trinity (which, for Catholics is a oneness in love, and not merely in purpose). It is that idea that is at the core of Catholic understandings of the Communion of the Saints, and it's why we think that intercessory prayer happens on both sides of the veil, and continually. This is also where an abundance of puzzlement occurs between Catholics and Latter-day Saints, as Latter-day Saints talk about Peter giving his keys to Joseph Smith, the Church not having authority during the great apostasy, etc., and Catholics talk about the Church having apostles even though they all died (and most all of them were martyred). Catholics and LDS often talk past one another on these things.   

The Bible has an abundance of intercessory prayer, of persons praying for someone else (Moses for the Israelites, Job for his friends, Daniel for the Israelites, Paul for the various churches, etc.). And crucial to Catholics is the passage in Revelation 5 wherein the elders hold the bowls that are filled with the prayers of God's people. At a basic level, the elders holding the bowls are interceding. The very act of holding is interceding. Moreover, Sacred Tradition affirms intercessory prayer and repeatedly explores it in these and other passages.

I would not say that the prayers of the Saints are somehow better, that they are qualitatively superior in some sense. Scripture does teach that prayers are not equal in their efficacy, though. James 5:16 teaches that, "...the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."

If I have helped anyone reading this understand the vital points even a little, then this absurdly long post has been worthwhile.

[ZealouslyStriving]

40 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Thanks for clarifying. I think we have a difference in worldview here, as I see prayer as integral to John 17's admonition to be as one even as the Son and the Father are one. You may be familiar with what I'm about to share, but I'll nonetheless share it for the benefit of everyone who is reading our interaction.

Catholics believe that the apostles continue to be sent forth by the Lord, they continue to bind and loose, the Church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, and that the gates of hades (death/hell) have not prevailed against the church. In LDS terminology, Catholics believe that Peter still has the keys, so to speak, and hence all of the popular depictions of Peter at the gate of heaven, etc. 

There is a fundamental disjunction between Catholics and LDS that I'm going to emphasize because it's vital. Catholics consider the Church in three senses, and yes, Catholic theologians have done what I find to be incredibly illuminating work regarding the three senses of the Church and the Trinity (Augustine, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, von Balthasar. This is one of the best, most faith-affirming subjects I've studied in my life). The three senses of the Church are 1) The Church Militant (on earth), The Church Suffering (in Purgatory), The Church Triumphant (in Heaven). All three senses are the Body of Christ, and when the Passion of the Church is concluded and the Church is atoned with the Trinity, all the Church will be the Church Triumphant (we're deep into Catholic eschatology and divinization/theosis here).

Put differently, Catholics believe that Christ's admonition in John 17 that we should be one even as the Father and the Son are one is taken to mean--and this is crucial--that oneness in the Church (and among mankind, in another sense) is to correspond to the oneness amongst the Persons of the Trinity (which, for Catholics is a oneness in love, and not merely in purpose). It is that idea that is at the core of Catholic understandings of the Communion of the Saints, and it's why we think that intercessory prayer happens on both sides of the veil, and continually. This is also where an abundance of puzzlement occurs between Catholics and Latter-day Saints, as Latter-day Saints talk about Peter giving his keys to Joseph Smith, the Church not having authority during the great apostasy, etc., and Catholics talk about the Church having apostles even though they all died (and most all of them were martyred). Catholics and LDS often talk past one another on these things.   

The Bible has an abundance of intercessory prayer, of persons praying for someone else (Moses for the Israelites, Job for his friends, Daniel for the Israelites, Paul for the various churches, etc.). And crucial to Catholics is the passage in Revelation 5 wherein the elders hold the bowls that are filled with the prayers of God's people. At a basic level, the elders holding the bowls are interceding. The very act of holding is interceding. Moreover, Sacred Tradition affirms intercessory prayer and repeatedly explores it in these and other passages.

I would not say that the prayers of the Saints are somehow better, that they are qualitatively superior in some sense. Scripture does teach that prayers are not equal in their efficacy, though. James 5:16 teaches that, "...the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."

If I have helped anyone reading this understand the vital points even a little, then this absurdly long post has been worthwhile.

Yes, another instance where Catholics and Latter-day Saints agree more than they think they do and just talk past each other.

Latter-day Saints also believe that priesthood authority continues after this life and priesthood holders (men & women) continue in their work after this life and are aware of what happens here on earth and continue to pray for us.

Where we differ is that we don't believe we should be making requests of those who have passed beyond the veil and that prayers should only be directed at Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ. But again, that is not to say that those in the Spirit world, (especially our own ancestors) don't pray on our behalf concerning matters they know are of are particular concern to us- for they know our salvation and their salvation are tied together in some important and wonderful way.

Edited April 27, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Saint Bonaventure]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yes, another instance where Catholics and Latter-day Saints agree more than they think they do and just talk past each other.

Latter-day Saints also believe that priesthood authority continues after this life and priesthood holders (men & women) continue in their work after this life and are aware of what happens here on earth and continue to pray for us.

Where we differ is that we don't believe we should be making requests of those who have passed beyond the veil and that prayers should only be directed at Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ. But again, that is not to say that those in the Spirit world, (especially our own ancestors) don't pray on our behalf concerning matters they know are of are particular concern to us- for they know our salvation and their salvation are tied together in some important and wonderful way.

I intend my comments in a spirit of gentleness, and at the same time I want to emphasize that your comments are not accurately representing what I wrote.

Please consider that I am telling you that we are not in agreement, and that your exaggeration of agreement is, I think, something that is hindering our discussion. 

Specifically, your statement that "Latter-day Saints also believe that priesthood authority continues after this life and that priesthood holders (men & women) continue in their work after this life..." inaccurately presumes Catholic belief and distorts what I wrote. It assumes a shared understanding of priesthood, ignores what I wrote about the Church's foundation in the apostles which is fundamentally irreconcilable with a restorationist notion of great apostasy, and frames what I presented as unity in love that corresponds to the unity amongst the Persons of the Trinity as "continuing in work." 

Why would the differences I just listed not undermine your assertion that Catholics and Latter-day Saints "agree more than they think they do" on these issues?

Again, I don't intend to be harsh. I'm just not going to ignore that you began this thread entertaining a thought that creedal Christianity is apostate because it is somehow rooted in paganism from the Indian subcontinent, and now you're saying, "We agree more than we think." 

 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

 

Again, I don't intend to be harsh. I'm just not going to ignore that you began this thread entertaining a thought that creedal Christianity is apostate because it is somehow rooted in paganism from the Indian subcontinent, and now you're saying, "We agree more than we think." 

 

Is that what he was doing?  I didn't read it that way at all.  I read it the opposite, that he was suggesting that a pagan religion from India has some Christian roots. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Is that what he was doing?  I didn't read it that way at all.  I read it the opposite, that he was suggesting that a pagan religion from India has some Christian roots. 

In his OP, he said this:

Quote

Maybe creedal Christianity is really an offshoot of Hinduism?

Given the age of Hinduism, it would be more natural to assume Hinduism influenced the development of Christianity, though of course later influences could impact an older faith as well. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If I have helped anyone reading this understand the vital points even a little, then this absurdly long post has been worthwhile.

Your posts are always worthwhile in increasing understanding.

[The Nehor]

On 4/26/2024 at 12:05 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I understand that is why I was careful with my language. 

But the fact remains that these people whom they petition to intervene for them are similar to polytheistic gods who have their different areas of expertise. And we have never been advised to pray to/seek the intervention of the dead anywhere in scripture, in fact it seems quite the opposite- we intervene for them by providing ordinances they may have missed out on.

Not really. Polytheism is generally more about placating the gods. You might seek their favor but the first thing you do is make sure they don’t destroy you. That is usually not how Catholics approach the saints.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

what I presented as unity in love that corresponds to the unity amongst the Persons of the Trinity as "continuing in work." 

 

Can you explain if you see a major difference between a unity in love in the Trinity and the LDS belief that the Godhood’s work is to bring to pass the eternal life of mankind (the joyful existence that is pointed to in the verse “Man is that he might have joy”) because of their love for God’s family and all those who belong to it?

[The Nehor]

On 4/26/2024 at 12:46 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I guess the central question- going back to my original post- is it possible that the polytheistic backgrounds of early Christian converts was a major factor in the arrival at the Trinitarian concept of God. Did Roman/Greek polytheism include an equivalent to Para Brahman?

I think it was more likely to come from Hermetic philosophy. Hermes Trismegistus or “Hermes the Thrice Greatest” who is also an amalgamation of several deities into one was very prominent. It doesn’t map with the Trinity completely but Tertullian and Augustine at least were familiar with Hermes Trismegistus and iirc Tertullian coined the term for the Trinity.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

In his OP, he said this:

Given the age of Hinduism, it would be more natural to assume Hinduism influenced the development of Christianity, though of course later influences could impact an older faith as well. 

I missed that part.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can you explain if you see a major difference between a unity in love in the Trinity and the LDS belief that the Godhood’s work is to bring to pass the eternal life of mankind (the joyful existence that is pointed to in the verse “Man is that he might have joy”) because of their love for God’s family and all those who belong to it?

I wondered this as well, since LDS would say that a unity of love is a main aspect of the Godhead.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I intend my comments in a spirit of gentleness, and at the same time I want to emphasize that your comments are not accurately representing what I wrote.

Please consider that I am telling you that we are not in agreement, and that your exaggeration of agreement is, I think, something that is hindering our discussion. 

Specifically, your statement that "Latter-day Saints also believe that priesthood authority continues after this life and that priesthood holders (men & women) continue in their work after this life..." inaccurately presumes Catholic belief and distorts what I wrote. It assumes a shared understanding of priesthood, ignores what I wrote about the Church's foundation in the apostles which is fundamentally irreconcilable with a restorationist notion of great apostasy, and frames what I presented as unity in love that corresponds to the unity amongst the Persons of the Trinity as "continuing in work." 

Why would the differences I just listed not undermine your assertion that Catholics and Latter-day Saints "agree more than they think they do" on these issues?

Again, I don't intend to be harsh. I'm just not going to ignore that you began this thread entertaining a thought that creedal Christianity is apostate because it is somehow rooted in paganism from the Indian subcontinent, and now you're saying, "We agree more than we think." 

 

I'm sorry you feel as though I was disrespecting you. I was posting in a spirit of ecumenism, while also being clear on differences- or so I thought. After receiving a comeuppance at the hands of several posters, I too am trying to be more kind in how I write and approach things.

The question in the original post was meant to elicit discussion. Which it has done. Mission accomplished?

...

Responding to your post would be easier if I wasn't doing everything on my phone, so please be patient:

While I agree we are not in total agreement, I thought your ideas of Peter expressed thus:

"In LDS terminology, Catholics believe that Peter still has the keys, so to speak, and hence all of the popular depictions of Peter at the gate of heaven, etc. "

were similar enough I thought them worth mentioning- as we also believe priesthood power remains with the priesthood holder after death enabling them to preach the gospel (and whatever else it is they do) in the world of spirits. I would *personally* say that power also likely involves some work here with us mortals, as we see angels as beings having been attached to this earth.

I believe Peter holding the Presiding keys later bestowed upon the Prophet Joseph Smith does not negate the reality of an earthly apostasy- as Revelation points out the woman (representing the Church) would be hid in the wilderness from 1260 days/years.

Now, give me a hug. 🫂

Edited April 27, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

posters, I too am trying to be more kind in how I write and approach things.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

In his OP, he said this:

Given the age of Hinduism, it would be more natural to assume Hinduism influenced the development of Christianity, though of course later influences could impact an older faith as well. 

Yes, it might be natural to assume this, but in my opinion, when Adam and Eve instructed their children, their instructions and knowledge were carried after the Flood to all corners of the earth Thus it was that many true and eternal principles were carried into all faiths. And would have reverberated back and forth, so if it appears that certain Hindu principles were incorporated into Christianity, it is more likely that they were in agreement already due to the human diaspora post-Noah. Even if one wishes to assume that Noah is a legendary figure, and the Flood was a regional and not a global event. When one remembers that most human cultures have a legend about a flood, it seems that it might have been global enough, or repeated in many places.

I find it interesting that my own Indian ancestors have a creation myth that shares some elements with the Genesis tale. In particular, Genesis 1 talks about there being a worldwide ocean, with land coming up from it: "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so." In Maidu myth (and this is just one version), the world started from a worldwide ocean, with Turtle and Pehe-ipe (the father of the Kuksu cult or secret society) floating on it in a raft. Earthmaker (or Earth-initiate) comes down from heaven on a feather rope and asks Turtle to go down and get some mud so he could make land. Just to be sure to enable Turtle to come back up, he tied a rope to him for safety. Turtle went down, and was gone for six years (the ocean was very deep). He managed to collect some mud, but in coming back up most of the mud fell off. Fortunately, there was enough mud left under his fingernails for Earthmaker to make dry land with. What is it about 6 years? Well, in Genesis, the creation takes 6 days. Is it a genuine parallel to Genesis? Good question! Anyway, it goes on from there, and you can imagine that there were many different versions of this, since the Maidu had about four subtribes, each with a similar but different language. Anyway, you can see my point. Many US west coast tribes have interestingly similar creation stories.

Also very common to west coast tribes is the figure of Coyote. He is the Lucifer analog, except that he doesn't exactly rebel against Earthmaker. He's simply a bumbling trickster figure (like Loki in Norse legend), who sometimes tries to improve on Earthmaker's creation, or tries to recreate what Earthmaker has done, and completely hoses it up each time. He's also responsible for bringing death into the world.

You might be interested to listen to a retelling of the Maidu creation myth. This is a YouTube video: Maidu Creation Legend. Out of the different versions that one can find, this is the one my subtribe (the Konkow) tell. You'll hear elements that sound remarkably like the events described in Genesis.

Edited April 27, 2024 by Stargazer

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Thanks for clarifying. I think we have a difference in worldview here, as I see prayer as integral to John 17's admonition to be as one even as the Son and the Father are one. You may be familiar with what I'm about to share, but I'll nonetheless share it for the benefit of everyone who is reading our interaction.

Catholics believe that the apostles continue to be sent forth by the Lord, they continue to bind and loose, the Church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, and that the gates of hades (death/hell) have not prevailed against the church. In LDS terminology, Catholics believe that Peter still has the keys, so to speak, and hence all of the popular depictions of Peter at the gate of heaven, etc. 

There is a fundamental disjunction between Catholics and LDS that I'm going to emphasize because it's vital. Catholics consider the Church in three senses, and yes, Catholic theologians have done what I find to be incredibly illuminating work regarding the three senses of the Church and the Trinity (Augustine, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, von Balthasar. This is one of the best, most faith-affirming subjects I've studied in my life). The three senses of the Church are 1) The Church Militant (on earth), The Church Suffering (in Purgatory), The Church Triumphant (in Heaven). All three senses are the Body of Christ, and when the Passion of the Church is concluded and the Church is atoned with the Trinity, all the Church will be the Church Triumphant (we're deep into Catholic eschatology and divinization/theosis here).

Put differently, Catholics believe that Christ's admonition in John 17 that we should be one even as the Father and the Son are one is taken to mean--and this is crucial--that oneness in the Church (and among mankind, in another sense) is to correspond to the oneness amongst the Persons of the Trinity (which, for Catholics is a oneness in love, and not merely in purpose). It is that idea that is at the core of Catholic understandings of the Communion of the Saints, and it's why we think that intercessory prayer happens on both sides of the veil, and continually. This is also where an abundance of puzzlement occurs between Catholics and Latter-day Saints, as Latter-day Saints talk about Peter giving his keys to Joseph Smith, the Church not having authority during the great apostasy, etc., and Catholics talk about the Church having apostles even though they all died (and most all of them were martyred). Catholics and LDS often talk past one another on these things.   

The Bible has an abundance of intercessory prayer, of persons praying for someone else (Moses for the Israelites, Job for his friends, Daniel for the Israelites, Paul for the various churches, etc.). And crucial to Catholics is the passage in Revelation 5 wherein the elders hold the bowls that are filled with the prayers of God's people. At a basic level, the elders holding the bowls are interceding. The very act of holding is interceding. Moreover, Sacred Tradition affirms intercessory prayer and repeatedly explores it in these and other passages.

I would not say that the prayers of the Saints are somehow better, that they are qualitatively superior in some sense. Scripture does teach that prayers are not equal in their efficacy, though. James 5:16 teaches that, "...the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."

If I have helped anyone reading this understand the vital points even a little, then this absurdly long post has been worthwhile.

Thanks and hardly "absurdly long" compared to some of the tomes we see here.   I don't know if people think that this is a place to publish "papers" with every comment?

Wonderful post, and I will respond tomorrow-Sunday- when I have "some more time for Jesus!"

We are, I think, FAR closer than others may see!   There was a recent conference talk that will back me up, at least about our version of the Eucharist.

The spiritual PURPOSE of the sacrament/Eucharist is I think, identical, for both of us, pragmatically, though of course our metaphysics differ wildly.  My contention is that we both (Catholicism and JC LDS) need to step back and see the similarities at least to the extent that we need not to squabble over what may  not be important, and stand for what IS important.

We certainly need, imo, to understand how close we are pragmatically in our understanding the need for 1- Baptism, which partially relates then with 2- the need for systematic Authority beliefs and 3-"work for the dead" to get them out of "spirit prison" vs "Purgatory" and thereby how we must become one with Christ and our Father who is in heaven, and as His children are to become one with them all, without worrying about metaphysics.

I am fascinated by the concept of the "senses" of the church and see how it is the crux of it all- but we need some clarification on that as well.

I am sure it will be an interesting discussion.   I have told this story before here, about my mother's funeral mass (R. Catholic of course) in which a young priest allowed me as an LDS "Bishop"-(more differences in usage between us there!) to speak from within the sanctuary, -not unlike "behind the veil" for LDS readers- because, he told me personally, that "it's all the same anyway".

In many ways I think he was right- but more tomorrow!

Incidentally I still have a paper signed by someone under the authority of  Pius XII that grants my family, allegedly, a "Plenary Indulgence" if at the moment of death I simply repeat the word "Jesus" , so I am OK anyway!  😉

Best to you and yours!

Edited April 27, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Can you explain if you see a major difference between a unity in love in the Trinity and the LDS belief that the Godhood’s work is to bring to pass the eternal life of mankind (the joyful existence that is pointed to in the verse “Man is that he might have joy”) because of their love for God’s family and all those who belong to it?

The major differences, at least from my perspective, are in the definitions of key terms.

I'll try to be brief, but accurate.

For Catholics, love is inherent in the Trinity, is a way of describing God in unity and Being, and is a way of describing the relationships between the Persons. Love is not a quality, is not something that increases, decreases, changes, or is possessed. Love is not something that is had for something, but not for something else. It is. Love is the eternal begetting of the Son by the Father and the Holy Spirit that eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. This love transcends time and space, and is eternal. 

God is love, and so a conclusion like "God loves one person or group more than another person or group," does not follow from the premises. I'm emphasizing this point because an implication for this discussion is that God does not love Catholics more than He loves Latter-day Saints. The whole idea is a non-sequitur.

I'm also emphasizing this point because, for Catholics, the begetting of the Son by the Father is unique, and while humans are created in the image of God, they are God's creations and are not themselves creators, and do not have the relationship of eternal begetting that the Father has with the Son. In Catholic belief, humans are adopted as God's sons and daughters at baptism (Romans 8 is often referenced in this regard), and while through the atonement of Jesus Christ they are reconciled to God, that reconciliation does not change the fact that humans were created and needed redemption. One metaphor that has been used, that might be helpful, is that in Catholic belief humans reconciled to God are like wood added to, and forever burning in, an eternal fire. There is a sense in which this reconciliation is "The Lord's Day," and is the dawn of a new heaven and a new earth. In that sense there might be some consistency with LDS belief. Catholic theologians sometimes speculate about this, and Orthodox theologians speculate about it more, but it isn't a common subject of discussion. The Catechism does gesture to the belief, though, in paragraphs 460 and 1996, when it alludes to humans becoming "partakers of the divine nature," and references 2 Peter 1:4. Being a partaker of the divine nature is not considered to be the same thing as being the divine nature, but it is thought to be partaking of "love in the Trinity."  It is being reconciled to love, and not having love for.

My understanding is that for Latter-day Saints, all humans have always existed as intelligences, but have, at a point in time, been begotten in spirit by heavenly parents. Moreover, these spirit children are of the same species as their heavenly parents, are creators in embryo, although they are not as far along in a process of progression and so need to receive mortal bodies on earth. The Son is considered an elder brother, a first-born spirit child with a unique role and a shared purpose with the Father, but the Son is also considered to be in a process of progression. I believe there is some dispute in LDS belief around ideas of the Father progressing. Regardless, Latter-day Saints consider these relationships to be familial in every sense, and I do not doubt that Latter-day Saints perceive immense joy and love in the redemption and exaltation of the members of this family. 

I hope the differences are clear, and am very willing to be corrected if my representation of LDS belief is in error. I am striving to be accurate, but also brief, and my experience with Latter-day Saints is that there is a wide range of belief, and even regarding fundamental matters. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Being a partaker of the divine nature is not considered to be the same thing as being the divine nature, but it is thought to be partaking of "love in the Trinity."  It is being reconciled to love, and not having love for.

 

So the wood burns with the fire (is consumed, but is not consumed), but is not the fire…but God is the fire that exists independently of all else, will burn eternally without wood or anything to consume, but he chooses to share the experience of his being ( the fire) with humans (the wood)?

I realize analogies are not perfect parallels, so if I took it too far, just say, ‘nah, doesn’t work’.

Would it make a difference if love as a noun was a different word than love as a verb?  Or is the issue thinking of love as needing an object to love?

How can love exist outside a relationship?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

My understanding is that for Latter-day Saints, all humans have always existed as intelligences, but have, at a point in time, been begotten in spirit by heavenly parents. Moreover, these spirit children are of the same species as their heavenly parents, are creators in embryo, although they are not as far along in a process of progression and so need to receive mortal bodies on earth. The Son is considered an elder brother, a first-born spirit child with a unique role and a shared purpose with the Father, but the Son is also considered to be in a process of progression. I believe there is some dispute in LDS belief around ideas of the Father progressing. Regardless, Latter-day Saints consider these relationships to be familial in every sense, and I do not doubt that Latter-day Saints perceive immense joy and love in the redemption and exaltation of the members of this family. 

 

Nailed it, imo.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

So the wood burns with the fire (is consumed, but is not consumed), but is not the fire…but God is the fire that exists independently of all else, will burn eternally without wood or anything to consume, but he chooses to share the experience of his being ( the fire) with humans (the wood)?

I realize analogies are not perfect parallels, so if I took it too far, just say, ‘nah, doesn’t work’.

Would it make a difference if love as a noun was a different word than love as a verb?  Or is the issue thinking of love as needing an object to love?

How can love exist outside a relationship?

I think that you have hit the main point- a lot of these similarities rely on hermeneutics, which is exactly why much of "ALL" theology ends up being  ambiguous.

That is why we LDS avoid "theology" per se and rely pretty completely on personal "revelation"-  seen as an independently personal and therefore subjective communications with what we call the "Spirit".  

In other words, we avoid "the mysteries" while Catholics, to their credit, attempt to explore those areas, but in my opinion, inevitably run into problems with word meanings and definitions which can be the source of confusion in discussions.

Terms like "substance" or "essence" for example, can be very ambiguous, as well as a term like "nature".   What is the "nature" of men?  What men do.   What is the "nature" of dogs?  What dogs do.  Divine nature?  I suppose that means what Divine Beings do! Unfortunately that doesn't really express what "divine" MEANS.

For us, the Godhead is one in PURPOSE.  Very simple.  What is their purpose"?  "Bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man."  That's it. That's the "Family Business"! 

 We of course have the same problems when we get into "theology", but we are encouraged to NOT get into it, for this reason!

Edited April 28, 2024 by mfbukowski