Son of God?

[Vort]

Catholics *do* say that Mary is the mother of us all. But not in the way that the LDS church has to conclude that in order for God the Father to create all of His spirit children, He would need a fellow progressed god to help him do it.

Mary is not our literal, biological mother.

You also do not believe God to be the literal biological father of humanity, yet you call him Father. I know that many Catholics call Mary "Mother Mary", and I have never heard a Catholic say this is incorrect.

But Mary is not a goddess, is of the same species as all humans, is not equal to God, cannot grant prayers of her own power, does not share in creation, did not exist before she was born on Earth, and is not our literal mother. So I think the ideas are very different.

This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. If Mary is "our mother", even metaphorically, and if she is in heaven, and if we are supposed to pray to her, then in what sense is she not "our mother in heaven"? If I recall your prayer "Hail Mary" correctly (and forgive me if I don't; I'm going from Christmas songs I've heard):

Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui Iesus. Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostræ. Amen.

Seriously, how is this not a prayer to a heavenly mother?

Who better to ask for intercession than someone in the very presence of the One who can do all things?

Latter-day Saints would say Jesus, the Great Intercessor.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Vort

[annewandering]

If that's so, I apologize. When I refreshed the page her comment came up before Vort's for some reason.

But actually, it is the official Catholic take that Mary is "the mother of us all" and no Catholic would be confused if someone said that. (In fact, it is quite common. Mary has many titles. We say she is mother of a lot of things.) We just do not mean she is *literally* our mother.

I was uncertain of what actual doctrine was but it is good that Mary is respected and loved.

Shelly, has the doctrine on this evolved in recent times?

[rameumptom]

Actually, one cubed is not a bad mathematical analogy.

Except it is modalistic! Instead, you would have to use 3 to the first power, or something. Not quite sure.

[Shelly200]

You also do not believe God to be the literal biological father of humanity, yet you call him Father. I know that many Catholics call Mary "Mother Mary", and I have never heard a Catholic say this is incorrect.

This is a distinction without a difference. If Mary is "our mother", even metaphorically, and if she is in heaven, and if we are supposed to pray to her, then in what sense is she not "our mother in heaven"? If I recall your prayer "Hail Mary" correctly (and forgive me if I don't; I'm going from Christmas songs I've heard):

Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui Iesus. Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostræ. Amen.

Seriously, how is this not a prayer to a heavenly mother?

There is a huge distinction between asking for prayers from a person who is Heaven, and praying to a mother goddess, who is our literal mother, who helped God the Father create us, who is a woman who used to be a human like me but is now exalted, who is of a different species than me, who is divine. Mary is none of these things; the LDS heavenly mother is all of these things. She would have to be to make the concept work.

Once again I think it is a wording/definition issue. Mary is our figurative mother, if you'd like. She is the mother of our Savior, we are members of the body of Christ, therefore she is like our mother as well. If you want to call her your "mother in Heaven" you may, and I don't believe any Catholic would fight you on it... *unless* you were to give her more than her due. She is not due worship, because she is not divine. She is a human, just like you and me. She has not progressed into godhood in our minds, therefore is very distinctly *not* the same, or comparable to, the LDS concept of the heavenly mother who is exalted, helped create us, etc.

The LDS church does not teach that the heavenly mother is our mother metaphorically; therefore the two concepts are ultimately completely different.

Perhaps Jesus, the Great Intercessor?

Forgive me, I might have misrepresented myself. We pray to Jesus and in the name of Jesus. He is the great Mediator.

I was making reference to the intercessory prayer we ask for from our brothers and sisters in Christ. We ask our friends to pray for us when we have a surgery; we also ask the saints in Heaven to pray for us too. Because they are already in Heaven in the presence of God. God hears all prayers, but I would think He hears them especially so from those who are in His very presence and who are not tainted with sin and death. The saints can offer more perfect prayers because they have been purified and are no longer entangled in the snare of sin and Earthly imperfections. They also have a more perfect love for us for the same reason. Therefore, just as we ask our friends on Earth to pray for us, we should ask our friends in Heaven to pray for us too.

[rameumptom]

The key difference here, is that Trinitarians and modalists generally believe that God is of a perfect substance, while all else is of imperfect substance and can never truly be equal with God. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are consubstantiated, of the exact same substance.

There are some mainstream Traditional Christian religions that are modalistic, not just the Community of Christ.

Meanwhile, LDS believe that God and his creations are all made of the same substance. Since we are made of God-stuff, we can someday be just like him. When we say we are children of God, we can determine it in a literal way, and not just as metaphor. LDS exaltation means we are just like God and Christ and share all in common with them. Trinitarian exaltation means one becomes holy, but still of other substance than God, and thus never quite the same as a truly divine being.

Catholics believe that saints and Virgin Mary have earned more salvation brownie points due to their good works than necessary for their own salvation. They can pray to these holy beings, who can then use their excess brownie points to bless them directly, or can redirect prayers to God. In many areas of the world, the saints and Virgin are equally as important as Jesus Christ is in their salvation. The American Catholic church is very different than it is in South America, for instance.

[Shelly200]

I was uncertain of what actual doctrine was but it is good that Mary is respected and loved.

This is strictly in the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church. Most -- not all, but most -- Protestant churches don't touch Mary with a ten foot pole, and usually only ever talk about her on Christmas... if they even mention her then. Some Protestants are... not necessarily hostile toward Mary, but hostile towards the *false* idea that Catholics worship her.

Shelly, has the doctrine on this evolved in recent times?

I honestly do not know much on this subject. I know that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially declared in 1854, and the doctrine of the Assumption officially declared in 1950. However, an official declaration does not mean that the doctrines were suddenly made up one day; both doctrines were commonly held since Antiquity. Both feast days concerning these doctrines are Holy Days of Obligation.

Her title as mother of the living also refers to her title as the New Eve. The Catechism quotes: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."

Other than that, I do not know much about how some of these doctrines came to be. I know the doctrine of the Assumption is only believed by Catholic and Orthodox (who call it the Dormition, or falling asleep, of Mary), but that these beliefs go back very early in Church history. There are also many claims of people throughout the world and throughout the years that Mary has made visits to them. As these are all private revelation, they are not required to be believed by the faithful, but the Church investigates the claims and says whether or not they think the claims have any right to legitimacy.

I'm not sure. There are many articles, blog posts, and books on the Virgin. I know it was a hurdle for me when I came into the Faith. But I also know that now I pray everyday; to the Lord, to the Virgin for her prayers, to St. Thomas More (my patron saint) for his prayers, and recently to St. Nicholas for his prayers, and to other saints at other occasions, and I pray the Rosary every now and then (not nearly as often as I should), and pray Hail Marys and Our Fathers while doing chores. Mary is always linked to her Son; she is nothing without Him, and she points the way to Him. But as always, you will find that different people give different levels of devotion; some Catholics only ever pray to Mary if she comes up in Mass, some pray to her everyday and say a Rosary everyday and do every devotion possible. But she should always lead us back to Christ.

[Vort]

Some Protestants are... not necessarily hostile toward Mary, but hostile towards the *false* idea that Catholics worship her.

Please understand that, to us, this too is a distinction utterly without a difference. Catholics venerate Mary. Catholics pray to Mary. The distinction between venerating and praying to someone and worshiping someone is nonexistent to us, as meaningless as the doctrine of the Trinity.

We accept that you don't believe you worship Mary. But to us, if it looks like worship and sounds like worship and feels like worship and smells like worship and tastes like worship, then...

[Snow]

This is strictly in the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church. Most -- not all, but most -- Protestant churches don't touch Mary with a ten foot pole, and usually only ever talk about her on Christmas... if they even mention her then. Some Protestants are... not necessarily hostile toward Mary, but hostile towards the *false* idea that Catholics worship her.

It is NOT a false idea in the least. Lots of Catholics worship Mary.

I lived in South America where is was common. Outside big Catholic church you could buy knick knaks and stuff. In front of one large Church you could buy a picture of Mary, carrying the cross, walking on water. In a Church there was a statue on the wall of Mary hanging on the Cross. Mary, among some circles, was more popular and more worshiped that Christ.

[Shelly200]

Please understand that, to us, this too is a distinction utterly without a difference. Catholics venerate Mary. Catholics pray to Mary. The distinction between venerating and praying to someone and worshiping someone is nonexistent to us, as meaningless as the doctrine of the Trinity.

We accept that you don't believe you worship Mary. But to us, if it looks like worship and sounds like worship and feels like worship and smells like worship and tastes like worship, then...

I understand that point of view; I am a convert to Catholicism from the Southern Baptist church.

This is also something that is considered by Catholics to set them apart from non-Catholics: the idea of worship. And the difference between worship and veneration. We save all worship for the One True God. We venerate and honor the saints in Heaven. We know the difference, we feel it. We do not pray to the saints in the same way we pray to God.

Here: this tract explains the idea of Saint veneration better than I could. Reading it will help you understand the concept from the Catholic point of view.

Saint Worship?

[prisonchaplain]

Except it is modalistic! Instead, you would have to use 3 to the first power, or something. Not quite sure.

I do not see that the analogies you describe are modalistic--none of them have to be, unless taken too far.

1x1x1=1.

Each person has his distinct place in the equation. Nevertheless, they are one, and only they are one. It's not that one is sometimes in the first position, sometimes second, and sometimes third. They can all three be in their place, and still be 1.

Hey none of these are perfect, but I'd not see that as modalism.

To me modalism is 1 in three, rather than three in one. 1 = 1 or 1 or 1 would be the best equation I could come up with.

[Justice]

Heck, if you're feeling really crazy, you can attend a Mass once. Just to see what it's like and gain some perspective on the Catholic view of things.

I have, actually, many times. I used to work with a man who is Catholic (I've known many Catholics, I used to date one and went to a few Catecism classes with her and had one on one sessions with the priest -- interesting stories... priest told her never to see me again) and we each decided to go to each other's church. Turns out he only wanted me to go to his, he never came to mine. Same went for the Baptist friend I had who made the same agreement with me.

I have an LDS friend myself who I'm thinking of asking if I can go to church with her one Sunday (as long as I've gone to Mass Saturday night - a precept of the Church), so I can see a service for myself and maybe sit it on one of the Sunday School classes that visitors can go to. No better way to learn about someone than from the source. Keep up the journey!

I'm curious to know what you think... and how you feel.

[Shelly200]

I have, actually, many times. I used to work with a man who is Catholic (I've known many Catholics, I used to date one and went to a few Catecism classes with her and had one on one sessions with the priest -- interesting stories... priest told her never to see me again) and we each decided to go to each other's church. Turns out he only wanted me to go to his, he never came to mine. Same went for the Baptist friend I had who made the same agreement with me.

You'll be hard pressed to find a Baptist willing to go to a non-Baptist church, even once... unless he wants to go liberal and join the Methodists. :)

And, just like with any group, you have so-so leaders/priest, pretty bad leaders/priests, and really awesome leaders/priests. I've been lucky to know personally 1 awesome, amazing, coolest-priest-ever, and a few really good priests, and no bad priests.

I'm curious to know what you think... and how you feel.

When I go home to visit my parents: they have the BYU channel... I've seen a couple of "sacrament meetings" (which I put in quotes, because they don't show the whole thing, they just skip to the talks), but they all look like they're from the 80s or something. :/

[Snow]

I have, actually, many times. I used to work with a man who is Catholic (I've known many Catholics, I used to date one and went to a few Catecism classes with her and had one on one sessions with the priest -- interesting stories... priest told her never to see me again) and we each decided to go to each other's church. Turns out he only wanted me to go to his, he never came to mine. Same went for the Baptist friend I had who made the same agreement with me.

I too go to Catholic mass with some regularity. There is a local church in So Cal I go to yearly and when I am in Salt Lake I sometimes catch an early morning service at the Cathedral of the Madeleine... which by the way is a beautiful church, especially as the morning sun pours through the east side stained glass windows.

I think it is healthy to attend other denomination's services - I don't think there is a major one that I have skipped.

[mordorbund]

Reposting, since I'm curious about the phrase "eternally begotten".

I really appreciate this thread. My understanding of the trinitarian position is that God the Father is in very fact the father of God the Son. God the Son is in very fact the sone of God the Father. These two are co-eternal persons, but the same being. Further, this relationship is also an eternal relationship. There was never a time when the Son was just a glimmer in the Father's eye, if you catch my drift. If that is correct, then I think I can see where you're coming from. This is what has been revealed, either through scriptures or council, and to go any farther is to land on shaky ground.

I can see how the "origin story" - or lack of one, reflects in each group's theology. For trinitarians, God is wholly other (my words) and our relationship with him is via adoption, so we have an origin story for entering God's family. We confess Christ, and as necessary, are baptized. We follow the path Christ marked in this life for us. I emphasize that we have an origin in this family, pinpointing some time or event, but the Son does not. Being God and wholly other, there was no time that he was not the Son. Even if some heretic were to presume that there was some story (a divine consort; the Father took an axe to his head; placed a portion of himself in a heavenly vessel he found lying around; cloning) - it wouldn't matter because our path to sonship is wholly different from His.

For the LDS, we find that before this life the Son was already marking the path for us. He was a spirit child of our Father, as were we. He was obedient to Father's plan and wanted to participate in the way God specified (as did we). So when we follow Christ in this life, we are continuing the journey we started before we were born. When we hear his origin story, we learn something more about our nature. (all that being said, while we do have a similar claim to sonship in the spirit child sense, we also believe that our "rebirth" into the divine family comes through adoption (on account of our sins, where Christ did not)).

Here's where I'm getting fuzzy. What's this notion of "eternally begotten"? The way I see it, there's no need for a begetting at all. God just is. The Father and the Son are just father and son because of their relationship. To me this sounds like a teaching that comes about because someone like Justice approached the Bishops and started asking about the Son's beginning, and so they responded strongly since he was getting such a following. Is there some specific meaning to being eternally begotten? Or is this statement supposed to mean that the Son is indeed begotten (as opposed to us "created"s) and that has been the case for all eternity?

[Traveler]

I do not see that the analogies you describe are modalistic--none of them have to be, unless taken too far.

1x1x1=1.

Each person has his distinct place in the equation. Nevertheless, they are one, and only they are one. It's not that one is sometimes in the first position, sometimes second, and sometimes third. They can all three be in their place, and still be 1.

Hey none of these are perfect, but I'd not see that as modalism.

To me modalism is 1 in three, rather than three in one. 1 = 1 or 1 or 1 would be the best equation I could come up with.

Often in debates over the Trinity - I must admit that I am perplexed and confused. Please allow me to explain in terms of mathematical principles. For some reason I excelled in math as a youth. Please do not think that I brag too much. My class mate growing up always beat me. He was just smarter. He took 1st place in the state mathematics contest so I always knew I was good but I also knew that I was not the best.

I believe that mathematics is a gift from G-d and part of the language he speaks. As a language mathematics is without ambiguity - therefore - like the language of G-d it is perfect and cannot express a false or untrue concept. If someone used the language improperly it is obvious. Not only will the syntax of mathematics prevent error but any attempt to lie, immediately exposes the author of it. So it is that the proper use of the syntax of mathematics prevents any possible incorrect conclusion.

The biggest problem I have with the Trinity is that it seems to me apologists by intent create definitions of ambiguity. I do not mean to offend but I feel your use of mathematics takes a lot of liberties that just are not true, both with the multipliable identity (one - also known as the singularity integer) and the equivalence symbol (=). The binary operations of addition and multiplication are such that 1X1X1=1; cannot describe 3 persons. What that statement says is that the same person considered 3 times still results in the same and specific unique person. The expression of a number may be made in any of several ways but as soon as there is any distinction at all between 2 numbers they are not and cannot be equal by definition.

I believe that the problem many, like myself have with the concept of “one” in trinity G-d is that if one is going to reference a term to associate with G-d there cannot be any ambiguity attached to a term that was invented specifically to prevent any ambiguity. I know this sounds like semantics - but it is by words that we communicate and model our understanding of things. For me the effort to use words beyond the extent of their meaning is the essence of what is false or a lie. If one says 1+1=5 we know because number theory has no such ambiguity that the person putting forth the concept is wrong - if by intent then we say they lie - if not by intent then we say they have errored badly.

As soon as we define persons as unique (singular) then any intersection of their sets cannot be singular. (Note that an empty set is not singular but void or null) The only way to make such possible with rhetorical mathematical logic is to either lie or error badly.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

The scripture in Hebrew was used by ancient Gnostics to teach the concept that Jesus and Christ were two separate beings. Jesus was just an ordinary mortal man. When Jesus was baptized, the Christ (God) entered into him and then began his 3 year ministry. Upon the cross, Christ left Jesus to suffer alone ("My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"). The concept being that God is totally unmoved by anything outside himself. He cannot experience pain, suffering, etc. But he can allow another mortal to suffer, instead.

For the great trials Jesus was put through, he was the first to be resurrected.

While this goes beyond what traditional Christianity believes today, there are undeniable links on the concept of "Unmoved Mover."

[rameumptom]

That not only was he foreordained to be the Savior, but at baptism, he was also reaffirmed as the Son of God.

[prisonchaplain]

I believe that the problem many, like myself have with the concept of “one” in trinity G-d is that if one is going to reference a term to associate with G-d there cannot be any ambiguity attached to a term that was invented specifically to prevent any ambiguity. I know this sounds like semantics - but it is by words that we communicate and model our understanding of things. For me the effort to use words beyond the extent of their meaning is the essence of what is false or a lie. If one says 1+1=5 we know because number theory has no such ambiguity that the person putting forth the concept is wrong - if by intent then we say they lie - if not by intent then we say they have errored badly.

As soon as we define persons as unique (singular) then any intersection of their sets cannot be singular. (Note that an empty set is not singular but void or null) The only way to make such possible with rhetorical mathematical logic is to either lie or error badly.

The Traveler

I mostly understand what you are saying, and have admitted that every analogy has its weaknesses. They are meant to illustrate, not define. The problem with most illustrations is when you come across someone that knows enough about the illustration being used to find exceptions, gaps, and inconsistencies that make the analogy falter.

If I were asked to explain the Trinity to fourth graders, the equation might work sufficiently well enough. Try it on someone with college level knowledge, and it works less well. Try on someone with advanced mathematics who is not particularly married to the doctrine, and the illustration probably fails completely.

[prisonchaplain]

* peeking in *

ran across this scripture this morning:

It is talking about Jesus, and how he became the son of God. (not through Heavenly Mother becoming pregnant with a spirit child - but because Jesus followed the Father)

(New Testament | Hebrews 1:5)

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Heb 1:5 makes it sound like, in the premortal world, Jesus was one of the angels (like us). Because of his pure spirit, Jesus was singled out from among us - and then became the son of God, when God brought him forth and said something to the effect of "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. I will be to you a Father, and you shall be to me a Son."

To offer a contrast, I look at Hebrews 1:5 as saying that it was Jesus, not any of the angels, that is the Son of God. The angels could not dare say such a thing--but Jesus can. In other words, I didn't see the Father picking Jesus amongst the angels, but instead of the angels.

[Shelly200]

I mostly understand what you are saying, and have admitted that every analogy has its weaknesses. They are meant to illustrate, not define. The problem with most illustrations is when you come across someone that knows enough about the illustration being used to find exceptions, gaps, and inconsistencies that make the analogy falter.

If I were asked to explain the Trinity to fourth graders, the equation might work sufficiently well enough. Try it on someone with college level knowledge, and it works less well. Try on someone with advanced mathematics who is not particularly married to the doctrine, and the illustration probably fails completely.

The problem is that there isn't an Earthly example that can perfectly illustrate the Trinity, because the Trinity is a supernatural concept; all natural examples fall short.

It is similar to trying to prove the existence of God to an atheist who only uses science; science cannot prove or disprove God, because science deals with the natural, material world, and God exists outside of the bounds of the natural, material world.

So our material examples of the Trinity can help us get closer to Him, but will never explain His existence perfectly or completely.

Which is frustrating, yes, but once again, God does not (and should not) fit into our intellect.

[rameumptom]

Maybe the math angle does not work well because one is using regular math theory.

Perhaps if you began with imaginary numbers, you could discover a workable math solution to Trinity. While the Trinity is not imaginary (according to traditional Christians), the definition of something pure in an impure world is never sufficient.

That is why I do not attempt to understand the Trinity, except in that it is incomprehensible and nothing like we can imagine. In doing so, I can deal with it. However, I'm still very insistent that Trinitarians also accept that. Why? Because when they attempt to explain it with faulty logic, they are only making the Trinity seem more imaginary than believed to be. Either they use modalism as a form to describe it, and in doing so are heretics; or they fall far short of how something can be one and three at the same time.

This and the concept of creatio ex nihilo are two major reasons why I am a Mormon today. The doctrine of One God in agreement, but three substances that is perfected made from substance of the matter we are made of, and that matter always exists in some form or another, fits with science, ancient religion, and logic. It does not require doing mathematical jumping through hoops to explain. It is ancient in concept, and restored in our day through Joseph Smith and modern prophets.

Several Bible scholars (including some evangelicals) are beginning to return to the concept of a "social" Trinity: three completely separate personages. They are moving away from the Unmoved Mover of Augustine, and towards the Most Moved Mover concept suggested in LDS theology (see Moses 1:39 for an example). As mentioned before, more and more scholars are accepting the ancient concept of an anthropomorphic God, and that ancient Israel and Christianity were into monolatry, not strict monotheism.

From my perspective, the centuries of mistaken understanding regarding these concepts are beginning to come to an end, as scholarship uses modern tools and knowledge to look at what was once taken for granted. And their new consensus is heading in the direction taught by a New York farm boy over 150 years ago.

[Vort]

Perhaps if you began with imaginary numbers

I'm sure the atheists will be only too happy to agree with that assessment.

Any example is just that: An example. God is not really 1³ or -(i²) or any other such mathematical construct, simple or complex. God is God.

Believers of all stripes, including Latter-day Saints, are constantly guilty of boxing their idea of "God" into a confined, understandable space. So we say "God is love", then we generalize to say that any position we suppose to be "loving" must be Godly, and any that we suppose not to be "loving" must not be Godly. Then we wonder in amazement how it can be that a God of love can allow such terrible things to happen as <insert random terrible event or condition>. For example, someone in a recent thread mentioned how he cannot believe a loving God would have allowed such a large percentage of living species to be parasites.

Catholic theology at least attempts to deal with this conundrum by frankly saying, "It's a mystery that we cannot understand." There is some honesty to this approach; it frankly acknowledges our position of ignorance. The problem with it, of course, is that it leaves infinite hedge room for any old doctrine one cares to foist on it. What is "the Trinity"? Don't know; it's a mystery. Why are innocent children who die in infancy condemned to hell? Don't know; it's a mystery. Why are good people who are non-Catholic condemned to hell while wicked people who perform the Catholic sacraments and have people pray for them and light votive candles eventually to end up in heavenly bliss? Don't know; it's a mystery.

And the other problem is, while Catholics may say that something or other is a "mystery", they still tell fables about children digging holes in the sandy beach or some such in order to explain, as they suppose, these inexpressible doctrines. Yet if the doctrine is truly inexpressible and above our comprehension, why would anyone waste time constructing examples with must by definition be wrong?

As Latter-day Saints, we approach things differently. We acknowledge that many things are "mysteries", but we define that word much differently from others. We say that a "mystery" is something that cannot be comprehended by the carnal mind -- thus the need for spiritual inspiration and the revelations of the Holy Ghost. We acknowledge God as a man, though we do not know exactly what that means. But where the rubber meets the road, too often we are in the same position as the Catholics and other non-LDS Christians: We guess and tell fables because we don't know what we're talking about.

In my opinion, the whole "God is like a number raised to a power" analogy just does not have legs. It does not effectively illustrate anything about God's attributes, no matter whether we make the numbers negative, imaginary, or transcendental.

Not to criticize anyone's input, just giving my own.

[rameumptom]

Vort, while I agree with your points to a point, there are some major differences. Catholics and others get their claims from ancient creeds based upon councils and scriptures.

LDS get their concept of God from claimed modern revelation, as well as from the scriptures. We believe Father and Son exist, because we have modern witnesses (Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, etc). We believe they are separate beings because of those modern witnesses.

True, we still do not know everything it all entails. But we can establish by eye witnesses what we do believe.

[Shelly200]

This and the concept of creatio ex nihilo are two major reasons why I am a Mormon today. The doctrine of One God in agreement, but three substances that is perfected made from substance of the matter we are made of, and that matter always exists in some form or another, fits with science, ancient religion, and logic. It does not require doing mathematical jumping through hoops to explain. It is ancient in concept, and restored in our day through Joseph Smith and modern prophets.

Several Bible scholars (including some evangelicals) are beginning to return to the concept of a "social" Trinity: three completely separate personages. They are moving away from the Unmoved Mover of Augustine, and towards the Most Moved Mover concept suggested in LDS theology (see Moses 1:39 for an example). As mentioned before, more and more scholars are accepting the ancient concept of an anthropomorphic God, and that ancient Israel and Christianity were into monolatry, not strict monotheism.

From my perspective, the centuries of mistaken understanding regarding these concepts are beginning to come to an end, as scholarship uses modern tools and knowledge to look at what was once taken for granted. And their new consensus is heading in the direction taught by a New York farm boy over 150 years ago.

Honestly, this is one reason why I canNOT be a Mormon today: the doctrines surrounding Creation. To each his own, I guess; I don't want to get into this subject, because this is not the point of this thread. But it is important to know that throughout the course of Christian history there have been many heresies and breakings away; so the fact that some Evangelicals and/or Bible scholars are turning away from the Trinity to something else is neither surprising nor holds much weight with Trinitarians. To Trinitarians -- especially to Catholics -- Trinitarianism is Truth and cannot be changed, so anyone leaning away from it toward another concept is leaning away from Truth toward untruth.

Once again, it comes down to the idea of Authority. I will not speak for Protestants, since I left Protestantism because I felt it did NOT have Authority, but for Catholics the Truth is protected and nourished within the Authority of the Church and it (the Church) cannot teach untrue dogma. Since the concept of the Trinity was defined and nourished within the context of the Church, it is True, for the Church cannot teach dogmatic untruth, through the power and protection of the Holy Spirit. The LDS church denies this Authority and believes in its own and in its own prophet; whatever the prophet received in revelation is Truth, because God gave it to him. Truths are seen within the context of the LDS church, because it is considered the true church. The RCC makes the same claim.

[Shelly200]

Catholic theology at least attempts to deal with this conundrum by frankly saying, "It's a mystery that we cannot understand." There is some honesty to this approach; it frankly acknowledges our position of ignorance. The problem with it, of course, is that it leaves infinite hedge room for any old doctrine one cares to foist on it. What is "the Trinity"? Don't know; it's a mystery. Why are innocent children who die in infancy condemned to hell? Don't know; it's a mystery. Why are good people who are non-Catholic condemned to hell while wicked people who perform the Catholic sacraments and have people pray for them and light votive candles eventually to end up in heavenly bliss? Don't know; it's a mystery..

I think you have a few misconceptions about the Catholic Church. For one thing, most Catholics are not using the "it's a mystery" explanation as an excuse; it is a legitimate answer to questions that only God can answer. Still, we are humans and have curious minds, so we ask the questions. We will try to find the answers the best way we can, but we believe in the concept of a God who is outside our realm of reason, so we try and try to answer these questions, get as close as we humanly can, and then leave the rest to God to reveal to us after death. Every church and religion makes similar claims, just maybe with different wording; many LDS on this board have said "I don't know the answer to that, everything will be taken care of after death." It is a similar answer to "I don't know, it's a mystery."

Secondly, your examples are exagerated at best. I have beent taught within the Catholic Church that we trust God and His infinite mercy in all things; we are *extremely* loathe to condemn anyone to Hell. Judas? Might be Heaven, we don't know. Hitler? Sure, maybe. 9/11 suicide bombers? Only God knows. We have our own dogmas that we teach, what God commands of us to do His will, but we do not claim to know the infinite and vast mind of God. We can *assume* some people are in Heaven (Saints) and some people are in Hell, but, unlike being able to find many lists on those propsed Saints in Heaven, you will not find a list of those condemned to Hell. The Church does not make a list because she does not know, and she puts her trust in God's mercy. Catholics are a little bit harsher on their own members -- mortal sins are indeed a ticket to Hell -- but, again, we don't live our lives in constant fear because we trust God's infinite love and mercy and our own contrition. God judges the heart.

And the other problem is, while Catholics may say that something or other is a "mystery", they still tell fables about children digging holes in the sandy beach or some such in order to explain, as they suppose, these inexpressible doctrines. Yet if the doctrine is truly inexpressible and above our comprehension, why would anyone waste time constructing examples with must by definition be wrong?

... children digging holes in a sandy beach? I'm unfamiliar with that fable.

But again, humans have a curious intellect, given to us by our Creator, and we naturally ask questions. It is only natural that we should also *attempt* to answer them in the ways we know how. That's why we provide and answer to a point... and then leave the rest to God and His understanding.

In my opinion, the whole "God is like a number raised to a power" analogy just does not have legs. It does not effectively illustrate anything about God's attributes, no matter whether we make the numbers negative, imaginary, or transcendental.

I agree.

Vort, while I agree with your points to a point, there are some major differences. Catholics and others get their claims from ancient creeds based upon councils and scriptures.

You are right; we recite the Nicene Creed in Mass every day. The three legs of the Catholic Church are: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium (Church and her leaders).

LDS get their concept of God from claimed modern revelation, as well as from the scriptures. We believe Father and Son exist, because we have modern witnesses (Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, etc). We believe they are separate beings because of those modern witnesses..

I'm curious then, would the LDS church not believe in the Father and Son had they not appeared to Joseph? Does it automatically take a revelation or appearance to come to a dogmatic conclusion?

Have either the Father or the Son appeared to any of the recent LDS prophets/presidents?