Question about the Godhead

[Jason_J]

See my post to Vort. All of your biblical quotes could just as well be referencing the Trinity (and I , of course believe they are). As for your quotes of John 17, we become one, as Jesus and the Father are one, by becoming members of the mystical body of Christ, i.e. his Church. He was praying for unity. We believe that we are the body of Christ, just as Paul tells us we are.

Right, and this verse is specifically referring to the oneness of the Father and the Son, asking us to become one with each other just like how the Father and the Son are one with each other.

[Jason_J]

It is always good to find out where one sits before they tell you where they stand. So thank you for that. I am more than happy to provide you with mountains of evidence in the form of undisputed writings coming from the early Church, even from the first century, that prove you wrong in your claim that the Catholic Church cannot be traced to before Constantine. The New Testament is a Catholic document. It was written subsequent to the founding of the Catholic Church in 33 A.D. by members of this Church and finally canonized by this Church late in the 4th century. There was no other church in existence at that time and there is no other church that can trace a line of succession all the way back to Peter today.

While I don't agree that the Catholic Church began with Constantine, I think your above post is equally lacking in historical nuances of Christian history. I can just as validly claim that the New Testament is an Eastern Orthodox document, or an Oriental Orthodox document, etc. There indeed were many other churches in existence at that time, and there are indeed various other churches that have as valid a claim of apostolic succession as the Catholic Church (and the Catholic Church itself recognizes the apostolic succession of these churches, such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, etc). So you are incorrect in claiming that "There was no other church in existence at that time and there is no other church that can trace a line of succession all the way back to Peter today." if we use the Catholic Church's own standards of apostolic succession in other non-Catholic churches.

Also, as far as the canonization, are you talking about establishing the entire Biblical canon or just the New Testament canon? If the former, using the Catholic Church's own standards, the early councils on the canon were not Ecumenical, therefore they weren't universal binding canons on the Church. It wasn't until the Council of Trent that the Canon was infallibly declared, according to your church. Indeed, there have been varying canons throughout history, from very early on, with the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox using canons that differ from the Catholics, and have done so since ancient times.

[Jason_J]

So God is unchageable, according to the Book of Mormon, but changeable, according to the King Follett Doscourse, and you can somehow believe both at the same time? Please explain how this is not a contradition?

Well, those weren't my words, but whatever. My point is simply that if God was a man, even one who was without sin, who progressed to Godhood, then he changed. The unchangeable God, changed. That is a contradiction, pure and simple.

Christ was God from eternity, who became man. His divinity never changed, however. He was not half man and half God, rather fully man and fully God. His divine essence is eternal, unchageable. Maybe I have misunderstood your beliefs. Do you believe that Heavenly Father was God before he was a man, or that he was an intelligence that was given a human body who then progressed to Godhood. I've really never understood and would be happy to learn what you really believe.

I think that these articles sufficiently address this alleged contradiction:

Mormonism and the nature of God/Unchanging - FAIRMormon

Does the Mormon God Change

The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis - Blake T. Ostler - FARMS Review - Volume 8 - Issue 2 (this one is a little long, however the pertinent portion is section 4)

All of these articles address the issue of what exactly it means to say that God is unchanging (i.e. what about God is unchanging).

[Jason_J]

Its not difficult. Unchageable means that something does not change. The nature of God is the something about which we are speaking. Therefore when we say God is unchangeable we mean his nature, his person, his being, cannot change.

This does not seem technically correct from the Trinitarian viewpoint. Are you using "person" and "being" interchangeably here? While Latter-day Saints do so, Trinitarians do not. "Person" in the Trinity is referring to something different from "Being". Or, as Sheed says in Theology and Sanity, "Being" is the "what", "Person" is the "who". Also, don't you believe that God is three Persons, not one, so He would be unchangeable in "his persons", not "person". Also, it is quite clear that the person of the Son changed, since He incarnated. The hypostatic union states that God the Son took on a human nature, in addition to His divine nature, united in one Person (hypostasis). Therefore, since the Son did not have a human nature prior to the Incarnation, His Person (which you said is unchangeable above) changed.

[Jason_J]

Also StevenVH, if you are interested in debating Latter-day Saint theology, perhaps you would be interested in posting at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, which is an LDS board geared more to debating LDS theology. A few Catholics also participate there.

[SteveVH]

Can we look at Hebrew 13:8?

8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

This is a description of Christ. Was he not changed from being a God to a man? And then back to a God again? Is this not your belief?

Yet Paul describes him as the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

My point is Paul was not talking about the physical state of Christ when he said this, and the prophets and Christ himself was not saying that either in the following BoM references.

Christ was not changed from a God to a man. He never ceased being God. In addition to his unchanging divinity, he took on human flesh and became man in order to save us. It is in his divinity, the essence of his being, that he is unchangeable. He, being the unchangeable God (divine), became incarnate. God, by his very nature (which is unchanging) is omnipotent, all powerful, which means he can do any and all things he chooses to do, including taking on human flesh. It is his eternal, divine omnipotence and omniscience that cannot change. This does not mean he is limited in any way, but rather that he his limitless. The point is, from eternity, God possesed all glory and power. He did not transform from a weaker state to a stronger state or from a stronger state to a weaker state. Paul was making the point that Christ was, indeed, God, by stating that he is the same yesterday, today and forever. There was only one who would fit that description; God.

One area that makes this discussion more difficult is that, at least in my understanding of Mormon theology (which is admittedly limited), there is no distinction between the nature of a divine being (God) and a human being (man). You believe that we are both made of the same "stuff". There are only levels of exaltation that distinguish one from the other. As a Catholic I believe that God is divine; has existed from all eternity (no beginning and no end) and is the Creator of all things, seen and unseen. We, and everything else that exists, are creatures and the essence of our being is not divine, but human. We can share in God's divinity, not by our own nature, but by a gift from him. He raises our human nature from a natural state to a supernatural state. We cannot do this on our own. Even then, this does not mean that we will become "gods", as it were, but rather we will share in the life of the only true God; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Edited September 12, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by StephenVH

Its not difficult. Unchageable means that something does not change. The nature of God is the something about which we are speaking. Therefore when we say God is unchangeable we mean his nature, his person, his being, cannot change.

This does not seem technically correct from the Trinitarian viewpoint. Are you using "person" and "being" interchangeably here?

Thanks for pointing that out and sorry that I didn't communicate better. No, I do not use "person" and "being" interchangeably. When speaking of being, we are speaking of the nature of something. In the natural world, we can certainly see that a human, by nature, is different then an animal. A dog will never be a human, no matter how many tricks we teach it that mat seem human. When speaking of God we distinguish between God's "divine" nature and our "human" nature. God's divine nature cannot and has not ever changed. This is where we have the huge problem with the belief of man becoming God. Dvinity is not our nature. God, however, infuses us with his supernatural life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. When we share in God's life, we share in divine life, not of our own nature, but as a gift. We will be changed, but God will never change.

While Latter-day Saints do so, Trinitarians do not. "Person" in the Trinity is referring to something different from "Being". Or, as Sheed says in Theology and Sanity, "Being" is the "what", "Person" is the "who". Also, don't you believe that God is three Persons, not one, so He would be unchangeable in "his persons", not "person". Also, it is quite clear that the person of the Son changed, since He incarnated. The hypostatic union states that God the Son took on a human nature, in addition to His divine nature, united in one Person (hypostasis). Therefore, since the Son did not have a human nature prior to the Incarnation, His Person (which you said is unchangeable above) changed.

It seems that you have a pretty good grasp of the Trinitarian belief. When I say that God's "person" did not change, what I mean is that who he is cannot and has not changed. God has been Father, Son and Holy Spirit from eternity. The fact that Christ assumed human flesh does not change who God is. Nor has his divinity (the "what") ever changed. Christ remained fully divine even after assuming human flesh and becoming fully human. God can do what ever God wishes to do. That, as well, has never changed. He is omnipotent. As I stated in another post, the fact that God does not change is not a limiting factor; just the opposite. What we mean is that God has always been all powerful, all knowing, all present, all glorious. In other words, he never "became" God, he always was and will be God. What he wishes to do within the context of being God does not constiutute a change in his "being" (what he is) or his "person" (who he is).

[SteveVH]

While I don't agree that the Catholic Church began with Constantine, I think your above post is equally lacking in historical nuances of Christian history. I can just as validly claim that the New Testament is an Eastern Orthodox document, or an Oriental Orthodox document, etc. There indeed were many other churches in existence at that time, and there are indeed various other churches that have as valid a claim of apostolic succession as the Catholic Church (and the Catholic Church itself recognizes the apostolic succession of these churches, such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, etc). So you are incorrect in claiming that "There was no other church in existence at that time and there is no other church that can trace a line of succession all the way back to Peter today." if we use the Catholic Church's own standards of apostolic succession in other non-Catholic churches.

The schism between east and west did not occur until 1054 A.D. The Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church in 397 A.D. This was a Catholic council, even if there were other churches. But the fact is there was no other Christian Church at that time. Many non-Catholics wish to believe that Christianity was some mish-mash of individual churches all pretty much doing their own thing, but that is a myth. So I say to those who offer that as an argument to please name all of the Christian churches in existence at the time the Bible was canonized. Christ started one Church, not many Churches. The Church had spread all over the known world at that time, but there was only one Church, one faith, with a definite hierarchy. There are several different rites within the Catholic Church between east and west; each of them valid and each of them extrememly beautiful. There is no difference in belief. When we speak of the Eastern Orthodox, who definitely have claim to apostolic succession, yes we are separated by our leadership, but the differences in our beliefs are the same other than a few theological arguments such as the filioque.

Also, as far as the canonization, are you talking about establishing the entire Biblical canon or just the New Testament canon? If the former, using the Catholic Church's own standards, the early councils on the canon were not Ecumenical, therefore they weren't universal binding canons on the Church. It wasn't until the Council of Trent that the Canon was infallibly declared, according to your church. Indeed, there have been varying canons throughout history, from very early on, with the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox using canons that differ from the Catholics, and have done so since ancient times.

As with all councils, they come together for the purpose of defending what has always been believed by the Church. The Bible as we know it was in its entirety following the Council of Carthage in 397. That canon was defended at Trent in the face of the "Reformation" which sought to change the canon by removing the deuterocanonical books and portions of others. What the Church is saying is that "if there was ever any doubt as to what we believe, we are now making an official, infallible proclamation as to our beliefs". Before it was challenged, there was no need to do so.

[SteveVH]

Right, and this verse is specifically referring to the oneness of the Father and the Son, asking us to become one with each other just like how the Father and the Son are one with each other.

Well, as this discussion has proved, there are cerainly different ways we can look at what it means to be "one" with each other. You and I can be "one" if we agree and work toward a common goal. This would be a different sense of the word then how it would be used when describing how a family is one. I could never be one with you as you are one with your family, yet we could still be "one" in our purpose of accomplishing a goal.

I think I have already addressed this in a previous post, but I will never be a son of God as Jesus is the Son of God. He is eternally the Son of the Father and the Father is eternally the Father of the Son. I am not. I had a beginning. I will become a son of God through adoption, not through my nature. This is the importance of the sacrament of the Eucharist in Catholicism. We truly become "one" with God because he dwells within us, body, blood, soul and divinity. This is not due to some effort on our part other than responding to this gift in faith. We become the "Body of Christ" as Paul tells us. That is how we become one as Jesus and his Father are one. We are incorporated into the family of God through our Baptism which then allows God to dwell within us through the Eucharist. When we are baptized we are baptized into a name. That name is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the name of God. Did you ever wonder why Christ did not tell us to baptize just in the name of the Father, or just in the name of Jesus or the Holy Spirit? It is because there is only one God and that God is a Trintiy of Persons.

Edited September 12, 2011 by StephenVH

[Vort]

Well, as this discussion has proved, there are cerainly different ways we can look at what it means to be "one" with each other.

But that is not the point, Stephen. As has been stated numerous times, the point is:

We are to be one, even as Christ and the Father are one.

Whatever "oneness" you attribute to the Father and the Son is the same oneness that we are to have. So the Catholic "mystical unity" just does not fly as an explanation. At least, not for those who don't already accept it as a "mystery" -- in other words, those who are not already believing Catholics.

[SteveVH]

Also StevenVH, if you are interested in debating Latter-day Saint theology, perhaps you would be interested in posting at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, which is an LDS board geared more to debating LDS theology. A few Catholics also participate there.

I apologize to all if this is not the place to be having this discussion. Sorry, I was not aware of that. I'm a little confused. I chose this particular forum (LDS Gospel Discussion) to do just that; discuss. Can you please explain the difference between this and "Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board?

Thanks.

[SteveVH]

An unchangeable God...

Christ is God...

Before Christ was born of Mary what was he? After? Then after his death? Then after his resurrection?

Christ was a spirit... Then took on a human body with mortal frailties... Then lost that body... Then gained a perfect glorified body.

That sounds like a lot of changes for a God you claim can't have ever changed...

Sorry, I overlooked this post. I take it that since a Senior Moderator is participating in this discussion that it is alright to continue. Your own Book of Mormon states that God is unchanging; the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Hopefully you will read the previous posts that I have answered prior to getting to yours.

In a nut shell, God's unchanging nature does not mean that he is limited. His very nature means that he can do all things. It is that nature that does not change. He did not progress in degrees of divinity or power or glory. He has always been all powerful and has possesed all of his glory from all eternity. He did not somehow acquire these attributes, moving from lesser to greater or greater to lesser. That is what we mean when we say unchanging. He has always been the all powerful God, limitless in his abilities, including his ability to take on human flesh, if that is what he desires. So this has to be kept in its proper context. As the Scriptures tell us, "God's ways are not our ways". When we try to view God from a human perspective we cannot help but fail. His ways are infinitely above our ways. It is why we say that God's nature is a mystery. It is something that we simply cannot fully grasp with our finite human minds. We can, however, believe it because of the one who told us; Jesus Christ, who is God himself.

Edited September 12, 2011 by StephenVH

[Jason_J]

It seems that you have a pretty good grasp of the Trinitarian belief.

Well I was a very active and well-read Catholic before becoming a Latter-day Saint .

When I say that God's "person" did not change, what I mean is that who he is cannot and has not changed. God has been Father, Son and Holy Spirit from eternity. The fact that Christ assumed human flesh does not change who God is. Nor has his divinity (the "what") ever changed. Christ remained fully divine even after assuming human flesh and becoming fully human. God can do what ever God wishes to do. That, as well, has never changed. He is omnipotent. As I stated in another post, the fact that God does not change is not a limiting factor; just the opposite. What we mean is that God has always been all powerful, all knowing, all present, all glorious. In other words, he never "became" God, he always was and will be God. What he wishes to do within the context of being God does not constiutute a change in his "being" (what he is) or his "person" (who he is).

Right, so this seems to be talking about the "being" of God, which has not changed, as opposed to the "Persons" of God. As I mentioned, it is quite clear that according to orthodox Trinitarian belief, the Person of the Son underwent a change when He incarnated, since He took on human nature. This is not a comment on the divine nature of the Son, but specifically on the Personhood of the Son. The hypostatic union states that the Person of God the Son took on human nature in addition to His divine nature through the Incarnation, therefore having two natures in one Person. If this is true, then it is clear that God the Son underwent a change, since His Person did not have a human nature prior to the Incarnation. This is what I was talking about in relation to "change" in the Godhead (not necessarily a change in His divinity, but a change in His (the Son) Personhood).

[SteveVH]

Well I was a very active and well-read Catholic before becoming a Latter-day Saint .

Right, so this seems to be talking about the "being" of God, which has not changed, as opposed to the "Persons" of God. As I mentioned, it is quite clear that according to orthodox Trinitarian belief, the Person of the Son underwent a change when He incarnated, since He took on human nature. This is not a comment on the divine nature of the Son, but specifically on the Personhood of the Son. The hypostatic union states that the Person of God the Son took on human nature in addition to His divine nature through the Incarnation, therefore having two natures in one Person. If this is true, then it is clear that God the Son underwent a change, since His Person did not have a human nature prior to the Incarnation. This is what I was talking about in relation to "change" in the Godhead (not necessarily a change in His divinity, but a change in His (the Son) Personhood).

I don't think I disagree with anything you said. This discussion arose out of an apparent contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the King Follett Discourse which lends itself to the Mormon idea of progressing (changing) to Godhood. That is the context in which I am speaking; the idea that either God was always God, the all powerful, the all glorious, or he was not always God, but rather became God, increasing in power and glory. The Book of Mormon seems to favor the former; the King Follett Discourse, the later. To me it appears as a contradiction and forces one who holds both beliefs simultaneously to either compartmentalize the opposing beliefs or attribute meaning which they at first glance to not convey.

Edited September 12, 2011 by StephenVH

[Jason_J]

The schism between east and west did not occur until 1054 A.D.

Right, however that was not the first schism in Christian history.

The Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church in 397 A.D. This was a Catholic council, even if there were other churches. But the fact is there was no other Christian Church at that time. Many non-Catholics wish to believe that Christianity was some mish-mash of individual churches all pretty much doing their own thing, but that is a myth. So I say to those who offer that as an argument to please name all of the Christian churches in existence at the time the Bible was canonized.

This ignores a lot of history, not only that of the Oriental Orthodox, the Nestorians, etc. The fact is that the canon of the Bible has not been consistent even from the time the "Catholic Church" "set" the canon in 397 AD (which of course was a local, non-ecumenical council). Instead, the various Eastern, Oriental, etc. churches have had canons differing from the Catholic Church, as well as amongst each other, from ancient times to today. I'm sure they all would have a varying opinion as to your statement that the Catholic Church canonized the Bible in 397 AD and that was that.

Christ started one Church, not many Churches.

Yes, Latter-day Saints agree.

The Church had spread all over the known world at that time, but there was only one Church, one faith, with a definite hierarchy. There are several different rites within the Catholic Church between east and west; each of them valid and each of them extrememly beautiful.

Yes, I'm aware.

There is no difference in belief. When we speak of the Eastern Orthodox, who definitely have claim to apostolic succession, yes we are separated by our leadership, but the differences in our beliefs are the same other than a few theological arguments such as the filioque.

I don't think we need to discuss differences in theology between the Orthodox and the Catholics in this thread, but suffice to say that in my experience, Orthodox seem to think more about their differences from Catholics than Catholics do.

Also, I've always been puzzled by the Catholic claim that churches outside of itself, that are in schism (according to the CC), such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, can have valid priesthood and sacraments. It never really made sense to me (the whole "imperfect communion", being in schism from the one true Church yet being in somewhat communion with it, schismatic priesthood, etc). I find the Orthodox view (and of course the LDS view) on the issue of sacraments/ordinances and priesthood outside of itself to make more sense, IMO.

As with all councils, they come together for the purpose of defending what has always been believed by the Church. The Bible as we know it was in its entirety following the Council of Carthage in 397. That canon was defended at Trent in the face of the "Reformation" which sought to change the canon by removing the deuterocanonical books and portions of others. What the Church is saying is that "if there was ever any doubt as to what we believe, we are now making an official, infallible proclamation as to our beliefs". Before it was challenged, there was no need to do so.

The Council of Carthage was a local, non-Ecumenical Council. It did not define the Canon for the entire Church. Also, as mentioned, the Eastern churches, of varying communions, have had a canon different from the Catholic Church's canon from ancient times onward to today. So what happened there, if the canon was apparently established in 397 AD? This issue is really more complex that you are making it out to be. The Reformation was not the first instance of "challenging" the Catholic canon (not necessarily saying that that's what you're implying).

[Jason_J]

I apologize to all if this is not the place to be having this discussion. Sorry, I was not aware of that. I'm a little confused. I chose this particular forum (LDS Gospel Discussion) to do just that; discuss. Can you please explain the difference between this and "Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board?

Thanks.

Well sure, you can discuss on this forum. MDDB is more geared towards debate however, and there are many people over there, LDS, Catholics, Evangelicals, atheists, etc. that engage in debating LDS-related topics. This forum is more geared towards teaching people about what we believe, not necessarily debating about it. But feel free to keep participating!

I've gotta run, talk to you later, have a great day!

[NoGreaterLove]

Your own Book of Mormon states that God is unchanging; the same yesterday, today and tomorrow

Thanks for addressing my earlier statements. I read your response, but to be honest it was like reading a foreign language to me. It did not make any sense. But I imagine you feel the same way when reading ours.

I have to differ with your interpretation of the statement quoted above. If you read the entire context of this statement each time it is mentioned in our scriptures, you will see it is not saying what you espouse. It is speaking about a certain attribute of God, yes, but not the entire eternal nature of God as defined by his physical existence. The statement is being interpreted out of context. Even Pauls statement was interpreted out of context.

[Traveler]

Sorry, I overlooked this post. I take it that since a Senior Moderator is participating in this discussion that it is alright to continue. Your own Book of Mormon states that God is unchanging; the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Hopefully you will read the previous posts that I have answered prior to getting to yours.

In a nut shell, God's unchanging nature does not mean that he is limited. His very nature means that he can do all things. It is that nature that does not change. He did not progress in degrees of divinity or power or glory. He has always been all powerful and has possesed all of his glory from all eternity. He did not somehow acquire these attributes, moving from lesser to greater or greater to lesser. That is what we mean when we say unchanging. He has always been the all powerful God, limitless in his abilities, including his ability to take on human flesh, if that is what he desires. So this has to be kept in its proper context. As the Scriptures tell us, "God's ways are not our ways". When we try to view God from a human perspective we cannot help but fail. His ways are infinitely above our ways. It is why we say that God's nature is a mystery. It is something that we simply cannot fully grasp with our finite human minds. We can, however, believe it because of the one who told us; Jesus Christ, who is God himself.

So you are saying that G-d (Jesus) did not really suffer - just pretended to suffer because he was really all powerful and limitless? That G-d did not die - just pretend to die because he is all powerful and limitless?

Second point - if G-d is a mystery (to you) then you cannot know him, let alone be one with him. I would point out that in the New Testament that when Jesus taught that he was "one" with the Father the Jews sought to kill Jesus for blasphemy. The Jews argued that a man cannot be one with G-d the Father unless man becomes a G-d (see John 10:33). It is important to Christians to note that Jesus did not correct the notion that being one with G-d would require being a G-d. Rather he quoted scripture that man was “g-d”. Later he reaffirmed that man should become “one” with G-d (meaning that man becomes G-d to be one with him - John 17:21-23).

Note also in John 17 that the scriptures testify that Jesus did change and that he was given “Glory” and was “Sanctified”. We are also told in scripture that Jesus “grew in wisdom”.

The LDS doctrine is that Jesus is the example of G-d. That by understanding and knowing Jesus we come to understand and know G-d the Father. We believe that trying to understand the Father out of context of Jesus will only result in a flawed concept - that is why so many are responding that your concept is flawed - because you are trying to remove Jesus form your explanations of G-d the Father. That is your flaw, if you understanding excludes the example of Jesus; then we believe your explanation is flawed.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

So you are saying that G-d (Jesus) did not really suffer - just pretended to suffer because he was really all powerful and limitless? That G-d did not die - just pretend to die because he is all powerful and limitless?

Please provide the quote that even implies that I believe that Jesus did not really suffer and that he was just pretending. I believe that would fall into the category of docetism, a heresy condemned by our Church long ago. Not sure where you came up with that conclusion, but no, that is not what I believe. I belive that Christ was 100% divine (God) and 100% human and suffered tremendously for me.

Second point - if G-d is a mystery (to you) then you cannot know him, let alone be one with him. I would point out that in the New Testament that when Jesus taught that he was "one" with the Father the Jews sought to kill Jesus for blasphemy. The Jews argued that a man cannot be one with G-d the Father unless man becomes a G-d (see John 10:33). It is important to Christians to note that Jesus did not correct the notion that being one with G-d would require being a G-d. Rather he quoted scripture that man was “g-d”. Later he reaffirmed that man should become “one” with G-d (meaning that man becomes G-d to be one with him - John 17:21-23).

If you believe you can fully comprehend God, then you believe in a God who can be no greater than you. I will not know him fully until I reach my final destiny in heaven. What I do know of him is what was revealed by Jesus Christ. "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father". I know that he is a God of infinite mercy and love, who cares so much for me that he suffered and died for me.

Note also in John 17 that the scriptures testify that Jesus did change and that he was given “Glory” and was “Sanctified”. We are also told in scripture that Jesus “grew in wisdom”.

Yes, in his humanness, he grew in widsom. In his divinity he taught in the Temple when he was only twelve years old and amazed everyone.

The LDS doctrine is that Jesus is the example of G-d. That by understanding and knowing Jesus we come to understand and know G-d the Father. We believe that trying to understand the Father out of context of Jesus will only result in a flawed concept - that is why so many are responding that your concept is flawed - because you are trying to remove Jesus form your explanations of G-d the Father. That is your flaw, if you understanding excludes the example of Jesus; then we believe your explanation is flawed.

How have I left Jesus out of the discussion? Where did I discuss the Father "out of context of Jesus"? I don't disagree with you in that regard in the slightest. Jesus IS God's revelation of himself to mankind. He is God's only Word and he has no other. This is why we do not belive in further public revelation. All that God has to say has been said in his one Word, Jesus Christ. It is only through Christ that we can know God. But even then, we are still left with a finite intellect that is not capable of grasping the eternal God in his fullness. He is eternally greater than we are and any attempt to describe him can only fall short. We must be very careful not to make God in our own image for the sake of believing that we can then fully understand him.

Edited September 12, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Thanks for addressing my earlier statements. I read your response, but to be honest it was like reading a foreign language to me. It did not make any sense. But I imagine you feel the same way when reading ours.

I have to differ with your interpretation of the statement quoted above. If you read the entire context of this statement each time it is mentioned in our scriptures, you will see it is not saying what you espouse. It is speaking about a certain attribute of God, yes, but not the entire eternal nature of God as defined by his physical existence. The statement is being interpreted out of context. Even Pauls statement was interpreted out of context.

You may very well be correct. I do not spend my time in in depth study of the Book of Mormon. So maybe you can explain the proper context for these words so that I can better understand your position.

Thanks.

[Vort]

I belive that Christ was 100% divine (God) and 100% human

So clearly, you believe that a 100% human can be 100% divine. That's what we teach. So what's your beef with LDS doctrine?

[Guest mysticmorini]

So clearly, you believe that a 100% human can be 100% divine. That's what we teach. So what's your beef with LDS doctrine?

It would be hard to logically deny the two are mutually exclusive if you make that statement.

[SteveVH]

I don't think we need to discuss differences in theology between the Orthodox and the Catholics in this thread, but suffice to say that in my experience, Orthodox seem to think more about their differences from Catholics than Catholics do.

You've got that right!

Also, I've always been puzzled by the Catholic claim that churches outside of itself, that are in schism (according to the CC), such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, can have valid priesthood and sacraments. It never really made sense to me (the whole "imperfect communion", being in schism from the one true Church yet being in somewhat communion with it, schismatic priesthood, etc). I find the Orthodox view (and of course the LDS view) on the issue of sacraments/ordinances and priesthood outside of itself to make more sense, IMO.

Schism is a different matter from heresy. They have a valid priesthood and sacraments because they have legitimate apostolic succession. We know who laid hands upon whom. As far as our differences in belief, taken as a whole they amount to hardly anything. This differs from Protestantism in that many Protestants reject many of the basic doctrines of the Church, most especially the sacraments, but other fundamentals as well. That is heresy (and there are many more examples). It is difficult to discuss Protestantism as the beliefs vary so widely that they really cannot be placed into one category. Mormonism has been determined to not even qualify as heresy, but is considered as an entirely different religion altogether by our Church.

The Council of Carthage was a local, non-Ecumenical Council. It did not define the Canon for the entire Church. Also, as mentioned, the Eastern churches, of varying communions, have had a canon different from the Catholic Church's canon from ancient times onward to today. So what happened there, if the canon was apparently established in 397 AD? This issue is really more complex that you are making it out to be. The Reformation was not the first instance of "challenging" the Catholic canon (not necessarily saying that that's what you're implying).

I agree that the issue is more complex than I have made it out to be, but only because I didn't want this thread to transform into an in depth discussion on every nuance of the canon of scripture within every small ecclesial community. The Bible you use came originally from the Catholic Church and was then modified by the complete removal of certain books and portions of others within the Old Testament by the "reformers". The New Testament has been unmodified.

[SteveVH]

So clearly, you believe that a 100% human can be 100% divine. That's what we teach. So what's your beef with LDS doctrine?

Only one human, who was first God, has ever been 100% divine and 100% human and that was Jesus Christ. We believe that an all powerful God can be whatever he wishes to be. So God can become human if that is what he chooses to do. We, on the other hand, being human, cannot become God. We are created, God is not. We can share in God's divine life, but only because it is he, out of complete love for us, that lifts our nature from a natural to a supernatural state. We cannot have divine life on our own. We will not be Gods of our own universes. We can only share in the one, true God's divine life by becoming his adopted sons and daughters. There is a big difference.

Edited September 12, 2011 by StephenVH

[Traveler]

Please provide the quote that even implies that I believe that Jesus did not really suffer and that he was just pretending. I believe that would fall into the category of docetism, a heresy condemned by our Church long ago. Not sure where you came up with that conclusion, but no, that is not what I believe. I belive that Christ was 100% divine (God) and 100% human and suffered tremendously for me.

If the nature of G-d cannot change - Three things:

1. How can G-d be tempted? The temptation of an all powerful G-d would be false and a lie.

2. How can a G-d suffer because of sin? An all powerful G-d cannot be affected by pain or suffering.

3. How can a G-d die? An all powerful G-d cannot die.

Is docetism explained in scripture or is this something men dreamed up to explain something about G-d that they did not understand? If scripture; please provide the scripture reference. BTW the church also declared that heresy was punishable by death - do you still believe you should put to death those that disagree with you or was that doctrine itself heresy?

If you believe you can fully comprehend God, then you believe in a God who can be no greater than you. I will not know him fully until I reach my final destiny in heaven. What I do know of him is what was revealed by Jesus Christ. "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father". I know that he is a God of infinite mercy and love, who cares so much for me that he suffered and died for me.

Where did the term "fully" come from? Again I am only bringing up what is in scripture. Becoming one with G-d would require knowing G-d? Is this "fully" comprehending G-d" related to any scripture or is it an idea you made up? I am talking about knowing G-d as we are commanded in scripture. I am using the scripture concept addressed in John chapter 10 and again in 17 - which is to be "one" with G-d. The definition provided for being "one" with G-d from scripture is to be G-d. Do you disagree with scripture?

Yes, in his humanness, he grew in widsom. In his divinity he taught in the Temple when he was only twelve years old and amazed everyone.

Are you making this up? Where does it say his wisdom was humanness and his ability to teach was divine? I really believe you are making things up as you go - I do not believe the scriptures make any such distinctions.

How have I left Jesus out of the discussion? Where did I discuss the Father "out of context of Jesus"? I don't disagree with you in that regard in the slightest. Jesus IS God's revelation of himself to mankind. He is God's only Word and he has no other. This is why we do not belive in further public revelation. All that God has to say has been said in his one Word, Jesus Christ. It is only through Christ that we can know God. But even then, we are still left with a finite intellect that is not capable of grasping the eternal God in his fullness. He is eternally greater than we are and any attempt to describe him can only fall short. We must be very careful not to make God in our own image for the sake of believing that we can then fully understand him.

Jesus said that he did nothing but that he saw his Father also do it (see John 5:19) Jesus took upon himself a physical body - are you saying Jesus was not accurate when he stood there as a physical being and said, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

Do you read and understand the scriptures - are do you go back in time to when doctrines were declared outside of scripture - in an era when publically reading the scriptures or translating the scriptures into English was reason to be burned at the stake?

The Traveler

Edited September 12, 2011 by Traveler