LDS conception of God and apologetics

[Guest]

Wait, how can you say that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father but also believe that Jesus proceeds Him and the Father was perfect first? Wouldn't co-eternal mean they exist alongside each other simultaneously and always have. There was never a time when One was that the Other was not. Or when you say they're eternal do you mean as an intelligence but not as God?

Yes.

Now, in Catholicism - think about the teaching that Jesus proceeds from the Father but Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. It is inherently a contradiction. So, the only way to make it non-contradictory is to say the PERSON of Christ proceeds from the Father but they are co-equal and co-eternal in the God substance (which, because we don't know what that substance is becomes a great mystery).

Therefore, LDS and Catholic hold the same understanding that the physical body of God is eternal and that Godhood makes them equal - not their personages.

So, as you can see - the only difference here really is that in Catholicism, what makes them God is the substance, while in LDS, what makes them God is Perfection. This small smidgen makes a world of difference in everything else that follows.

And from here, it is easier to understand how LDS can expound on that and say Heavenly Father went through a process of perfection as well, as such is the pattern of life set forth before us. But how that perfection occured and how He attained it is not something that is revealed to us. As far as we are concerned, He is our Heavenly Father always and forever as it is through Him that we are.

Edited February 4, 2014 by anatess

[Dorian]

No. I am co-eternal with the Father. That does not mean I am not his creation.

Okay, if all you mean by co-eternal then is that the "stuff" Jesus is made of has always existed and that that goes for you, myself, and everyone else then when you profess Jesus as co-eternal with the Father you're using the same word but with a completely different meaning than the rest of Christianity. That's all I was trying to understand.

[Dorian]

Yes.

Now, in Catholicism - think about the teaching that Jesus proceeds from the Father but Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. It is inherently a contradiction. So, the only way to make it non-contradictory is to say the PERSON of Christ proceeds from the Father but they are co-equal and co-eternal in the God substance (which, because we don't know what that substance is becomes a great mystery).

Therefore, LDS and Catholic hold the same understanding that the physical body of God is eternal and that Godhood makes them equal - not their personages.

But Catholicism doesn't believe God is "made" out of physical stuff, so when we say that Christ is eternal we mean His person is eternal. God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons and each is eternal as a person united by a shared divine nature. To say that the Son "proceeds" from the Father doesn't imply that the Son existed after the Father in the same way the LDS saying that Christ is the creation of the Father does. I like the way this priest explains it:

So, as you can see - the only difference here really is that in Catholicism, what makes them God is the substance, while in LDS, what makes them God is Perfection. This small smidgen makes a world of difference in everything else that follows.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense now. So whereas in Catholicism Christ is God in virtue of His nature (substance) in Mormonism He is God because He acquired perfection and that's what we're all working towards too? I'm sure you get this a lot but how do you think that squares with Isaiah 43:10 (both in relation to Christ and also exaltation of good Mormons who die)?

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Dorian

[Vort]

Okay, if all you mean by co-eternal then is that the "stuff" Jesus is made of has always existed and that that goes for you, myself, and everyone else then when you profess Jesus as co-eternal with the Father you're using the same word but with a completely different meaning than the rest of Christianity. That's all I was trying to understand.

No. I mean that I, Vort (or whatever name I may have been known by in eons past), have always existed. Not merely the material my physical body is made of, and not merely the "spirit element" that composes my spirit being. I mean that I, personally, am a self-existent entity, co-eternal with God himself, and in that sense co-equal with God himself. But I am still his creation.

[Dorian]

No. I mean that I, Vort (or whatever name I may have been known by in eons past), have always existed. Not merely the material my physical body is made of, and not merely the "spirit element" that composes my spirit being. I mean that I, personally, am a self-existent entity, co-eternal with God himself, and in that sense co-equal with God himself. But I am still his creation.

Can you explain to me how something can be simultaneously eternal and created? Eternal means having no beginning in time (always being) and created means to be brought into existence. As far as I can see it's an obvious contradiction to say you're both created and eternal. The two are mutually exclusive.

[Guest]

But Catholicism doesn't believe God is "made" out of physical stuff, so when we say that Christ is eternal we mean His person is eternal. God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons and each is eternal as a person united by a shared divine nature. To say that the Son "proceeds" from the Father doesn't imply that the Son existed after the Father in the same way the LDS saying that Christ is the creation of the Father does.

I'm not sure what the quotes around "made" implies. Catholicism DO believe God has a physical substance. What THAT substance is is a mystery. God is immaterial - that doesn't mean that He has no material - it means that his matter is of Spirit and not something we sense through the 5 human senses. Jesus is both of human substance and God substance at the same time.

Now, I'm not sure if you understand what I said in the previous post. I NEVER said that Catholics OR the LDS believe that the Son existed after the Father. Jesus is Eternal. There was not a time when His Spirit did not exist. Spirit, like Energy, is eternal. Both Catholic and LDS hold that view.

I think we need to discuss the next step in the divergence between Catholic and LDS: What it means to be "made" or "created". Catholicism believe that we are made out of nothing. So you can literally have spirits that exist after another. The LDS do not subscribe to that teaching. LDS believe in the eternal nature of Spirits - this is consistent with scientific discovery of the eternal nature of Energy. And matter as a form of energy is also eternal. Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It is merely transformed. So, how can we have an eternal energy and have an ex-nihilo creation? We believe that Energy - our spirits - are eternal. Neither created/made nor destroyed.

In Catholic teaching - when the story of Genesis says Man was made from Dust and God breathed Spirit unto him, they interpret that to say that God first created Dust from nothing and then he formed that Dust into human flesh and bones and then He created the Spirit/Intelligence/Energy of life from nothing and put it into that flesh. That Spirit, therefore, has no existence prior to it being created just like that dust has no existence prior to it being created.

In LDS teaching - the story of Genesis says Man was made from Dust - dust is matter - it is eternal - it could have went through several evolutionary states before it became dust and then Man's Flesh. God created/made Man from that material, not from nothing. Therefore, the creation is a transformation from something. Not a creation out of nothing. When He breathed the Spirit into mortal flesh, He bonded our Eternal Spirit to our body creating/making Spiritual Man. That Spirit did not come from nothing. So, when you say LDS believes Jesus did not EXIST before the Father - that's not quite true because Jesus is Eternal.

I like the way this priest explains it:

Sorry to be such a downer but that youtube video is useless. It begs more questions than it answers. If there's anything that is more misunderstood than love, I don't know what that is. So to use love to explain how there are 3 persons in a God sounds touchy-feely-warm-and-fussy but utlimately useless.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense now. So whereas in Catholicism Christ is God in virtue of His nature (substance) in Mormonism He is God because He acquired perfection and that's what we're all working towards too? I'm sure you get this a lot but how do you think that squares with Isaiah 43:10 (both in relation to Christ and also exaltation of good Mormons who die)?

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Okay - here it is important to understand that in LDS teaching there is ONE God. ONE. Not 2 Gods, not 3 Gods. ONE.

But that singularity is not a SUBSTANCE. It's a State of Being - PERFECTION. I've said this several times on this thread so it should be very clear by now.

Now, take Isaiah 43:10 and all the other related Isaiah verses... in fact, take the entire 43, 44, and 45th Chapters of Isaiah as it covers the same theme - that of the Supremacy of God.

There is NO OTHER GOD. There is no other type of PERFECTION. There is ONE. Therefore, as Heavenly Father is God, Jesus Christ Unites with Him. He did not form another God or another type of Perfection. He becomes GOD - ONE with the Father. As we become one with Christ - as is stated many many times by Jesus Christ Himself - we don't become some other God or some other type of Perfection. We become ONE.

There is no other type of Perfection - no other united beings - no other gods like gods mentioned in Moses' sections of the OT - that is GOD. For all those other gods that the people of Moses worshipped has a different Will, different Desire, different idea of what leads to Joy as that of God. There is, therefore ONE True God. (Do you see how important it is to understand the LDS concept that God is not a substance but a state of being?)

Now, if we would speculate extra-cannon and go with some LDS' interpretation of the King Follet Discourse and think that Heavenly Father has a Father - that still doesn't make a different GOD. It's still ONE GOD. That same exact PERFECTION. Same Will, Same Desire, Same Joy.

And THAT is what Jesus Christ wants us to be. To be ONE in that Perfection.

Now, you might ask - but that's blasphemy - that we become co-equal in Perfection with God! Well then - Jesus was blasphemous - because that's EXACTLY what He told us he wants us to become - to be as He is, to inherit all that He has. But just as Jesus - regardless of Him being Perfect in God - still reveres and gives glory to the Father, so will we - regardless of us being Perfect in God - still revere and give glory to our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as our Savior and the Holy Ghost as our Comforter. That does not change just because we attained Perfection. And furthermore - if we attain that Perfection, Heavenly Father's glory is increased.

Did that make sense to you at all?

Edited February 5, 2014 by anatess

[Dorian]

I'm not sure what the quotes around "made" implies. Catholicism DO believe God has a physical substance. What THAT substance is is a mystery. God is immaterial - that doesn't mean that He has no material - it means that his matter is of Spirit and not something we sense through the 5 human senses. Jesus is both of human substance and God substance at the same time.

Sorry, I know you spent a lot of time as a Catholic, but I don't think that's a correct account of what Catholics believe about God. Contrary to what you wrote Catholicism does not teach God has a physical substance and that that substance is just a mystery. God is formless and not "made" of any thing. There's no "mystery substance" of which God is composed for Catholics. We believe that there are other types of being that exist other than material/physical. Existence does not have to be physical. I think you've misunderstood what we mean by the term 'substance'. As I said before the Greek term "ousis" means essence and nature. "Substance" is derived from the Latin translation of the Greek and does not mean matter or material (or "spirit matter", or any other kind of material). Again if we take into consideration the Christological heresies the Council was condemning (adoptionism and Arianism) we can see that by this term "consubstantial with the Father" the Church is teaching that Christ is absolutely equal to the Father in all ways and always has been. That is what "substance" means when used in Catholic theology.

Now, I'm not sure if you understand what I said in the previous post. I NEVER said that Catholics OR the LDS believe that the Son existed after the Father.

My apologies. I misunderstood.

Jesus is Eternal. There was not a time when His Spirit did not exist. Spirit, like Energy, is eternal. Both Catholic and LDS hold that view.

That is not the Catholic view of spirit. Spirit can be eternal (such as God) but we also believe in created spirits. The angels and human souls are examples of created spirits. They had a beginning in time but are immortal. So whereas the Spirit (God) has no beginning and no end our spirits (souls, angels) have a beginning in time but not end. This does differ from the LDS belief, yes?

Maybe I should rephrase my question. You believe Jesus is co-eternal with the Father but not that Jesus has eternally been a person of the Godhead? His existence but not His divinity is co-eternal with the Father? Is that more accurate?

I think we need to discuss the next step in the divergence between Catholic and LDS: What it means to be "made" or "created". Catholicism believe that we are made out of nothing. So you can literally have spirits that exist after another. The LDS do not subscribe to that teaching. LDS believe in the eternal nature of Spirits - this is consistent with scientific discovery of the eternal nature of Energy. And matter as a form of energy is also eternal. Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It is merely transformed. So, how can we have an eternal energy and have an ex-nihilo creation? We believe that Energy - our spirits - are eternal. Neither created/made nor destroyed.

This clears it up. Thanks!

Sorry to be such a downer but that youtube video is useless. It begs more questions than it answers. If there's anything that is more misunderstood than love, I don't know what that is. So to use love to explain how there are 3 persons in a God sounds touchy-feely-warm-and-fussy but utlimately useless.

I actually think it's quite a good analogy for understanding God as a communion of persons, but each to their own. If it doesn't work for you then fair enough.

Okay - here it is important to understand that in LDS teaching there is ONE God. ONE. Not 2 Gods, not 3 Gods. ONE.

But that singularity is not a SUBSTANCE. It's a State of Being - PERFECTION. I've said this several times on this thread so it should be very clear by now.

Now, take Isaiah 43:10 and all the other related Isaiah verses... in fact, take the entire 43, 44, and 45th Chapters of Isaiah as it covers the same theme - that of the Supremacy of God.

There is NO OTHER GOD. There is no other type of PERFECTION. There is ONE. Therefore, as Heavenly Father is God, Jesus Christ Unites with Him. He did not form another God or another type of Perfection. He becomes GOD - ONE with the Father. As we become one with Christ - as is stated many many times by Jesus Christ Himself - we don't become some other God or some other type of Perfection. We become ONE.

There is no other type of Perfection - no other united beings - no other gods like gods mentioned in Moses' sections of the OT - that is GOD. There is ONE God.

Now, if we would speculate extra-cannon and go with some LDS' interpretation of the King Follet Discourse and think that Heavenly Father has a Father - that still doesn't make a different GOD. It's still ONE GOD. That same exact PERFECTION. Same Will, Same Desire, Same Joy.

And THAT is what Jesus Christ wants us to be. To be ONE in that Perfection.

Now, you might ask - but that's blasphemy - that we become co-equal in Perfection with God! Well then - Jesus was blasphemous - because that's EXACTLY what He told us he wants us to become - to be as He is, to inherit all that He has. But just as Jesus - regardless of Him being Perfect in God - still reveres and gives glory to the Father, so will we - regardless of us being Perfect in God - still revere and give glory to our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as our Savior and the Holy Ghost as our Comforter. That does not change just because we attained Perfection.

Did that make sense to you at all?

It did, thanks a lot :) I appreciate you taking the time to explain all this to me.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Dorian

[Finrock]

Hi Dorian. It is a pleasure to meet you! I hope you are doing well tonight. :)

Can you explain to me how something can be simultaneously eternal and created? Eternal means having no beginning in time (always being) and created means to be brought into existence. As far as I can see it's an obvious contradiction to say you're both created and eternal. The two are mutually exclusive.

We believe to create is better translated as "to organize or to form". All of us who live on this earth lived with Heavenly Father as spirits before we came to earth. We are literally spirit children of Heavenly Father which means at some point Heavenly Father created or organized or formed spirit bodies for us.

Through mortality, or through this earthly experience, our spirits gain physical bodies. The physical body that my spirit is housed in was created or organized or formed from existing matter through a natural process by my mortal parents, yet I, as a spirit, existed prior to my physical body being created.

Each of us have existed as individual intelligences in some form eternally and yet God has created or formed or organized for us spirit bodies which have inherited from Him divine attributes. It is because of God that we have been brought in to the state of existence that we currently enjoy with a divine heritage and a divine potential. Without Him we would have no opportunity to become more than what we are.

-Finrock

Edited February 5, 2014 by Finrock

[Vort]

Can you explain to me how something can be simultaneously eternal and created? Eternal means having no beginning in time (always being) and created means to be brought into existence. As far as I can see it's an obvious contradiction to say you're both created and eternal. The two are mutually exclusive.

God created my spirit to house my "essence", which for lack of a more specific term we call "intelligence". My intelligence is self-existent. God did not "create" it in the sense of organizing it from non-intelligent stuff of some sort or other.

Of course, as Latter-day Saints we utterly reject ex nihilo creationism as meaningless. So my concept of "creation" doubtless differs from yours, anyway.

[Dorian]

Hi Dorian. It is a pleasure to meet you! I hope you are doing well tonight. :)

We believe to create is better translated as "to organize or to form". All of us who live on this earth lived with Heavenly Father as spirits before we came to earth. We are literally spirit children of Heavenly Father which means at some point Heavenly Father created or organized or formed spirit bodies for us.

Through mortality, or through this earthly experience, our spirits gain physical bodies. The physical body that my spirit is housed in was created or organized or formed from existing matter through a natural process by my mortal parents, yet I, as a spirit, existed prior to my physical body being created.

Each of us have existed as individual intelligences in some form eternally and yet God has created or formed or organized for us spirit bodies which have inherited from Him divine attributes. It is because of God that we have been brought in to the state of existence that we currently enjoy with a divine heritage and a divine potential. Without Him we would have no opportunity to become more than what we are.

-Finrock

Okay, that makes way more sense now! Thanks! So when you guys use the word "create" you mean to organise or bring into being from something that already exists? Kind of like "creating" a statue out of a block of stone rather than God bringing something into existence that didn't exist before? Now I see how Vort can claim to be created and eternal at the same time, because he means that God "organised" him rather than literally created Him?

So is this right:

You exist as intelligences co-eternal with God --- >God organises your pre-existent matter into spirit bodies and you become His children ---- > God sends you to earth to acquire physical bodies ---- > if you lived well your body is exalted and perfected just like God's is (and then some Mormons think you also become gods and have your own spirit children and create worlds, but that's not strictly speaking Church dogma?)

Is that right?

[Guest]

Sorry, I know you spent a lot of time as a Catholic, but I don't think that's a correct account of what Catholics believe about God. Contrary to what you wrote Catholicism does not teach God has a physical substance and that that substance is just a mystery. God is formless and not "made" of any thing. There's no "mystery substance" of which God is composed for Catholics. We believe that there are other types of being that exist other than material/physical. Existence does not have to be physical. I think you've misunderstood what we mean by the term 'substance'. As I said before the Greek term "ousis" means essence and nature. "Substance" is derived from the Latin translation of the Greek and does not mean matter or material (or "spirit matter", or any other kind of material). Again if we take into consideration the Christological heresies the Council was condemning (adoptionism and Arianism) we can see that by this term "consubstantial with the Father" the Church is teaching that Christ is absolutely equal to the Father in all ways and always has been. That is what "substance" means when used in Catholic theology.

It is what I was taught in 15 years of Catholic School. I had 3 credits of Religious Education Class per school year since I was in 1st Grade all the way through 5 years of Engineering school. Granted, it is not meant to make us Theologians - this requires at least 6 years of Theology College.

Most notable of those classes pertaining to this is the Belgian Priest who is the Chaplain of the school. I was asking the Priest, "So what exactly is God made of?", and he answers, "Spirit". And I asked, "what is that made of?". And he said, "it's like the wind - we can't see it but we know it is there". And I asked, "But I know air is made up of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc. What about God? What is He made of?".... this went on for a while where he touched on all the qualities of God which did not satisfy my question... and finally he told us the story of St. Augustine walking the beach and the kid putting water in the hole (I'm sure you're familiar with that story). To which I replied, "So, that's just a long way of saying you don't know.". And the priest said, "yes, I don't know". To which I replied, "But you know it's something." And he said, "Yes, it's something". I was a beligerent 14-year-old at the time.

That is not the Catholic view of spirit. Spirit can be eternal (such as God) but we also believe in created spirits. The angels and human souls are examples of created spirits. They had a beginning in time but are immortal. So whereas the Spirit (God) has no beginning and no end our spirits (souls, angels) have a beginning in time but not end. This does differ from the LDS belief, yes?

I usually follow the Catholic usage of capitalization (okay, I am not sure if this is universal in Catholic prep but it is what we used in my school) so that Spirit - with a capital S is different from spirit with lower-case. The capital letter denotes God or anything referring to Him (notice the capitlization here of the pronoun).

But yes, when I'm writing long things like these on the internet, I tend to not be careful with grammar, spelling, and the like. So, sometimes I mix up things. But in the usage I have of Spirit above, it merely refers to God's Spirit and not other disembodied beings.

In any case, yes, I explained how "creation" is different between LDS and Catholic. Outside of God, everything is created. For Catholics everything is created out of nothing. For LDS, everything is created out of something.

Maybe I should rephrase my question. You believe Jesus is co-eternal with the Father but not that Jesus has eternally been a person of the Godhead? His existence but not His divinity is co-eternal with the Father? Is that more accurate?

To answer the question simply, Yes. But to answer the question more fully, not really. But to expound on that I have to touch on Eternal Progression and that is another layer to this.

So, for now, let's just say Yes.

I actually think it's quite a good analogy for understanding God as a communion of persons, but each to their own. If it doesn't work for you then fair enough.

Works for me.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain all this to me.

And I appreciate your patience as I flesh out my very very personal beliefs on paper to be perused and critiqued and all that stuff!

[Vort]

because he means that God "organised" him rather than literally created Him?

Oh, God literally created me, all right. But "ex nihilo" creationism is a false and meaningless concept.

I don't pretend to know a whole lot about Catholic dogma (although fourteen months in Italy convinced me I know at least as much as the average Italian Catholic), but I am quite sure that Catholics believe that:

1. Jesus is God

2. Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead

Ergo...God has a body.

What am I missing here, Catholic dogma-wise?

[Lakumi]

I always got the impression he transended physical form when he went to heaven, I always assumed heaven was a plain of existance far above our own and truly beyond our limited understanding

[Dorian]

Oh, God literally created me, all right. But "ex nihilo" creationism is a false and meaningless concept.

I'm going to ask a favour. Do you mind cutting the condescension? I'm just here because I want to understand your beliefs. I don't want to argue and I'd prefer not to have my own religious beliefs constantly called false & meaningless in the process. Strictly speaking the word "create" originally means to bring into being from nothingness. That is its original meaning, that is how it is used by 99.99% of Christians, and Jews, and Muslims, and pretty much everyone else who believes in God. I'm grateful to Finrock and Anatess for pointing out those differences to me and how we use the same word with different meanings.

Also you've accused classic Christian conceptions of God and creation of being meaningless multiple times now but not once actually provided a reason as to why you constantly dismiss them as such. To be honest, from what I've seen, I don't think you know enough about my religion to make that kind of judgment. If you'd like to outline why you think 2000 years of Christian philosophy and theology about God is stupid then I'd find that really interesting to read, but simply accusing those beliefs of being meaningless concepts or useless strings of contradictory words isn't going to get either of us anywhere.

I don't pretend to know a whole lot about Catholic dogma (although fourteen months in Italy convinced me I know at least as much as the average Italian Catholic), but I am quite sure that Catholics believe that:

1. Jesus is God

2. Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead

Ergo...God has a body.

What am I missing here, Catholic dogma-wise?

That we believe Christ a union of two natures: divine and human and that strictly speaking Christ's physical body belongs to His human nature which God the Son, second person of the trinity, took upon Himself at the incarnation. It's complicated and if you're genuinely interested then I'm happy to explain it in further detail to you (maybe over PM's) but the point is it differs quite significantly from the LDS claim that God is inherently material or that spirit is actually made out of very fine matter (the idea of spirit matter is oxymoronic to most people), which is what I'm trying to understand.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Dorian

[Seminarysnoozer]

I always got the impression he transended physical form when he went to heaven, I always assumed heaven was a plain of existance far above our own and truly beyond our limited understanding

This is true in the sense that our physicality is different than the physicality of a resurrected being. Of the little we know, God has a physical body of flesh and bone eternally combined with His spirit but I agree it is of a plain of existence different from our current surroundings. As a result of the Fall of Adam and Eve, the whole world changed separating us physically and spiritually from God. The atonement allows for a reversal of that change, thus the returning or resurrection. We must be born again of the water and the spirit, not just the spirit alone.

John 3:5 " 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

[Vort]

I'm going to ask a favour. Do you mind cutting the condescension?

I have not been condescending. I have been explaining the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the LDS Church. You may have missed that this is the "LDS Gospel Discussion" forum, where we discuss the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the LDS Church.

I'm just here because I want to understand your beliefs. I don't want to argue and I'd prefer not to have my own religious beliefs constantly called false & meaningless in the process.

Not sure I understand. Do you want to understand LDS doctrine or don't you? I have not been attacking your religion; I have been responding strictly to the ideas you ask about. In LDS doctrine, the entire idea of ex nihilo creation is meaningless and absurd. You don't create something from nothing; it's a contradiction in terms.

I understand that you have a religious belief that insists such meaningless terms have meaning. That's fine. You can believe whatever you want. But when you ask about LDS beliefs, you should steel yourself for a sudden onslaught of LDS beliefs, some of which -- horrors! -- you might not agree with.

Strictly speaking the word "create" originally means to bring into being from nothingness. That is its original meaning,

Nonsense. "Create" means "to bring into existence". It originates from the same Latin verb, crescere (to grow), as the word "crescent", and has the root idea of growth and development. It derives from the proto-Indo-European root word *ker-³, meaning "to grow", and is seen in such words and names as Ceres, increase, decrease, recruit, adolescent, crescent, and yes, create.

If you claim an original meaning that includes "from nothingness", please be so good as to establish this. I believe you cannot do so, because I believe there is no such original meaning attached to the word "create".

Or are you saying this linguistic point is another of your religious beliefs? Again, you may religiously believe that the word "create" originates from wolves howling at the moon, and I won't cry about it. But don't get all offended when you ask about LDS beliefs and find out they don't coincide with yours and then claim your religious beliefs as a basis for historical word meanings.

that is how it is used by 99.99% of Christians, and Jews, and Muslims, and pretty much everyone else who believes in God.

I will accept your "99%" figure as obvious hyperbole. Even so, you are wrong. If you create a masterpiece of sculpture, you have not brought it into being ex nihilo. No one -- no one -- uses "create" in that manner to describe things that they somehow thought into existence from nothing at all. (If you don't like my use of "no one", consider it hyperbole, equivalent to your "99%".)

Also you've accused classic Christian conceptions of God and creation of being meaningless multiple times now but not once actually provided a reason as to why you constantly dismiss them as such.

Of course I have. Are you actually reading what I write? For example, in this response, I wrote:

What does that even mean? "a time when He was not God"? How does one define "time" in that sense?

These words are like saying "sinful God" or "salvation in sin" or "existing non-existence". They are a meaningless contradiction in terms. They are merely words, sounding like they might mean something, but in reality not meaning anything.

[...]

Again, words without meaning. "Divine substance"?

This concept was invented 1600 years ago to try to "solve" a non-existent problem based in the neoPlatonic idea that matter was all corrupt and only the ideal, superexistential "spirit" was perfect, or even perfectable.

To be honest, from what I've seen, I don't think you know enough about my religion to make that kind of judgment.

Believe whatever you like. The "classic concepts of Christianity" are based on neoPlatonic philosophy, including the ideas of corrupt matter and incorruptible spirit. I know you wish to believe that these were revealed from heaven to the Church fathers, but they weren't (and the Church fathers themselves never claimed any such things).

If you'd like to outline why you think 2000 years of Christian philosophy and theology about God is stupid then I'd find that really interesting to read, but simply accusing those beliefs of being meaningless concepts or useless strings of contradictory words isn't going to get either of us anywhere.

I have already provided my explanations, as shown above. That you don't like my explanations says more about you than it does about the explanations.

That we believe Christ a union of two natures: divine and human and that strictly speaking Christ's physical body belongs to His human nature which God the Son, second person of the trinity, took upon Himself at the incarnation.

Is "God the Son, second person of the trinity", God, or is he not God? Yes or no? It's really a simple dichotomy: He is or he isn't. If he is God, then by your own words, God has "human nature". God has a body. Period. And if he isn't God, then your disbelief in Jesus Christ as God arguably disqualifies you as a "Christian".

But this is the LDS Gospel Discussion forum, not the Catholic discussion forum. Such a thread would be better done in another forum, perhaps the Christian Beliefs forum.

It's complicated and if you're genuinely interested then I'm happy to explain it in further detail to you (maybe over PM's) but the point is it differs quite significantly from the LDS claim that God is inherently material or that spirit is actually made out of very fine matter (the idea of spirit matter is oxymoronic to most people), which is what I'm trying to understand.

Not sure why you think I don't understand that your belief "differs quite significantly" from ours. Be assured, I do understand that perfectly well. But your allegations against me of "condescension" and of calling your religious precepts "false" and "meaningless" without providing explanation are false.

It's a bit silly for you to come to a forum called "LDS Gospel Discussion" and then get all bent out of shape when someone explains to you LDS gospel doctrine.

[Traveler]

....

Also you've accused classic Christian conceptions of God and creation of being meaningless multiple times now but not once actually provided a reason as to why you constantly dismiss them as such. To be honest, from what I've seen, I don't think you know enough about my religion to make that kind of judgment. If you'd like to outline why you think 2000 years of Christian philosophy and theology about God is stupid then I'd find that really interesting to read, but simply accusing those beliefs of being meaningless concepts or useless strings of contradictory words isn't going to get either of us anywhere.

Dorian - I am an engineer and scientist and work as a consultant in the field of automation, robotics and artificial intelligence. Christian concepts have been evolving for some time because science is rapidly advancing and changing how people think. Many religious theologians are stuck with failing concepts like the tradition Christian view of evolution because they do not understand evolution and are scared to death that it disproves G-d - not realizing that science has moved on and is currently dealing with non-linear space time, dark matter and dark energy and many more things. Along the way traditional Christian theology has a hard time admitting how badly it missed up so many things including the believe that the universe revolved around the earth. Most people have not yet grasped the idea that 20 years ago the Hubble Telescope pointed at a dim star to discover a supper cluster of galaxies larger than what we thought the universe was just 100 years ago.

As much as you think your religion is not understood - it is my general point of view that you (and most theologians) do not understand much concerning rhetorical logic and empirical arguments. I do not mind that religious thinkers specify that spiritual concepts are different than scientific thinking and logic. Which is find but then in the next breath attempt rhetorical logic and empirical arguments to prove their religious points. My point is that if you demand religious thinking is outside of rhetorical logic and empirical thinking - then do not use empirical constructs as proof - the contradiction makes you look very foolish.

That we believe Christ a union of two natures: divine and human and that strictly speaking Christ's physical body belongs to His human nature which God the Son, second person of the trinity, took upon Himself at the incarnation. It's complicated and if you're genuinely interested then I'm happy to explain it in further detail to you (maybe over PM's) but the point is it differs quite significantly from the LDS claim that God is inherently material or that spirit is actually made out of very fine matter (the idea of spirit matter is oxymoronic to most people), which is what I'm trying to understand.

If you want to understand the LDS religion - I submit that Jesus Christ is the logic and key to such understanding. This should not be a problem for you because in your traditional theology and logic you claim that Jesus (the Son) and the Father are "equal". Using rhetorical logic of the term equal (which traditional Christians do in creating their empirical arguments) just substitute the term "Jesus" for "G-d" and the LDS concepts become very easy and simple to understand.

For example : the couplet you referenced could read: "As man is Jesus once was, and as Jesus is man may become." This simple concept is taught in scripture - you may not agree Bible scripture implies such a thing but the point is that there are scripture that can be understood to explain exactly that. You may think such scripture teaches of a "different Jesus". But if you think to use rhetorical logic as a method of proof then you must realize that such thinking is a two edge sword and can just as easily be use to show your arguments baseless.

The Traveler

Edited February 5, 2014 by Traveler

[Dorian]

Look, I'm not going to get into a prolonged argument over this or delve into semantics and etymology. The point is when most people talk about theistic creation (God created me, the earth, etc) they mean creation from nothing. This is what Muslims, Christians (four billion of 6 billion people right there), Jews, and many other religions mean by "creation". Now that Finrock has explained to me that by the word "create" Mormons mean "organise" whereas most other Christians mean bring into being from nothing we can put this issue to rest. That's all that needed to be done, and Finrock's approach was much more helpful than yours.

I have not been condescending. I have been explaining the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the LDS Church. You may have missed that this is the "LDS Gospel Discussion" forum, where we discuss the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the LDS Church.

Not sure I understand. Do you want to understand LDS doctrine or don't you? I have not been attacking your religion; I have been responding strictly to the ideas you ask about. In LDS doctrine, the entire idea of ex nihilo creation is meaningless and absurd. You don't create something from nothing; it's a contradiction in terms.

I understand that you have a religious belief that insists such meaningless terms have meaning. That's fine. You can believe whatever you want. But when you ask about LDS beliefs, you should steel yourself for a sudden onslaught of LDS beliefs, some of which -- horrors! -- you might not agree with.

Nonsense. "Create" means "to bring into existence". It originates from the same Latin verb, crescere (to grow), as the word "crescent", and has the root idea of growth and development. It derives from the proto-Indo-European root word *ker-³, meaning "to grow", and is seen in such words and names as Ceres, increase, decrease, recruit, adolescent, crescent, and yes, create.

If you claim an original meaning that includes "from nothingness", please be so good as to establish this. I believe you cannot do so, because I believe there is no such original meaning attached to the word "create".

Or are you saying this linguistic point is another of your religious beliefs? Again, you may religiously believe that the word "create" originates from wolves howling at the moon, and I won't cry about it. But don't get all offended when you ask about LDS beliefs and find out they don't coincide with yours and then claim your religious beliefs as a basis for historical word meanings.

I will accept your "99%" figure as obvious hyperbole. Even so, you are wrong. If you create a masterpiece of sculpture, you have not brought it into being ex nihilo. No one -- no one -- uses "create" in that manner to describe things that they somehow thought into existence from nothing at all. (If you don't like my use of "no one", consider it hyperbole, equivalent to your "99%".)

Of course I have. Are you actually reading what I write? For example, in this response, I wrote:

What does that even mean? "a time when He was not God"? How does one define "time" in that sense?

These words are like saying "sinful God" or "salvation in sin" or "existing non-existence". They are a meaningless contradiction in terms. They are merely words, sounding like they might mean something, but in reality not meaning anything.

[...]

Again, words without meaning. "Divine substance"?

This concept was invented 1600 years ago to try to "solve" a non-existent problem based in the neoPlatonic idea that matter was all corrupt and only the ideal, superexistential "spirit" was perfect, or even perfectable.

Believe whatever you like. The "classic concepts of Christianity" are based on neoPlatonic philosophy, including the ideas of corrupt matter and incorruptible spirit. I know you wish to believe that these were revealed from heaven to the Church fathers, but they weren't (and the Church fathers themselves never claimed any such things).

I have already provided my explanations, as shown above. That you don't like my explanations says more about you than it does about the explanations.

First, no I do not believe that the eternality and aseity of God was revealed to the Church Fathers. No Catholic believes that, we believe revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. This is exactly what i mean about you clearly not knowing enough about my religion to act so haughty. I believe that these doctrines are clearly taught in the bible and Apostolic Tradition.

Yes, I did read what you wrote. I even responded to it and you neglected to reply. Here is what I wrote:

No, it's not. "existing non-existence" is an oxymoron. By the term "a time when He was not God" I was attempting to illustrate a difference in my conception of God and yours (general you): I believe God has always existed as God (as opposed to believing He always existed as intelligence and then became God). By "time" I don't merely mean since the creation of this world, or since humanity began measuring time and history, but that God has always been God and exists outside of all measurements of time. He didn't become God, He doesn't have His origin in another God or on another world. This isn't a meaningless contradiction in terms, actually, but a fairly well thought out philosophical concept called aseity; a quality that my religion applies to God. Aseity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It means God had no beginning and has no end, given that Joseph Smith appears to have taught that God did have a beginning and "became" God (became implying a change from one state to another) then it seems clear that the Mormon conception of God isn't of one that is eternal, and if the word eternal is used then it is done so with a different meaning.

My point is that labelling a belief "a meaningless contradiction in terms" is a declarative statement and doesn't provide any reasoning for that claim. For billions of people the idea of a God outside of time, or a God Who creates from nothing, isn't a contradiction in terms. To be honest I think many of your beliefs are far more oxymoronic and contradictory. For example there's nothing inherently contradictory about "timeless God" whereas there certainly is (to most people's minds, anyway) something oxymoronic in the term "spirit matter".

I get that you think these ideas are contradictory and meaningless - you've said that multiple times now - please provide me with a reason why you think the terms are meaningless and without value? Don't just state it, but explain it. Why is creation ex nihilo or the idea of an uncaused cause/prime mover meaningless? That's what I'm asking you to do. I apologise if you did not intend to come off as condescending and I wrongly interpreted your tone.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Dorian

[bytebear]

Look, I'm not going to get into a prolonged argument over this or delve into semantics and etymology. The point is when most people talk about theistic creation (God created me, the earth, etc) they mean creation from nothing. This is what Muslims, Christians (four billion of 6 billion people right there), Jews, and many other religions mean by "creation".

This is a false argument. First it's false to say that because a majority believe it, it must be true. Second, it's not even true.

From the Wikipedia article on ex nihilo.

Ancient Near Eastern mythologies and classical creation myths in Greek mythology envisioned the creation of the world as resulting from the actions of a god or gods upon already-existing primeval matter, known as chaos.

Philo equated the Hebrew creator-deity Yahweh with Aristotle's primum movens (First Cause) in an attempt to prove that the Jews had held monotheistic views even before the Greeks. However, this was still within the context of creation from pre-existing materials (i.e. "moving" or "changing" a material substratum.)

The classical tradition of creation from chaos first came under question in Hellenistic philosophy (on a priori grounds), which developed the idea that the primum movens must have created the world out of nothing.

Theologians debate whether the Bible itself teaches creation ex nihilo.

There are philosophical and theological arguments against the concept throughout history.

See Nothing comes from nothing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Dorian]

This is a false argument. First it's false to say that because a majority believe it, it must be true. Second, it's not even true.

From the Wikipedia article on ex nihilo.

There are philosophical and theological arguments against the concept throughout history.

See Nothing comes from nothing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never said that because it's commonly believed it must be true.

I recall listing Jews, Muslims, and Christians. I don't think I listed Near East Ancient myths (and I wonder how many people still believing that are around).

[bytebear]

I guess I should have linked the part where there is debate on whether the Bible teaches the concept. The larger point you are choosing to bounce around is that even amongst Christians, the concept is debated.

[Traveler]

Look, I'm not going to get into a prolonged argument over this or delve into semantics and etymology. The point is when most people talk about theistic creation (God created me, the earth, etc) they mean creation from nothing. This is what Muslims, Christians (four billion of 6 billion people right there), Jews, and many other religions mean by "creation". Now that Finrock has explained to me that by the word "create" Mormons mean "organise" whereas most other Christians mean bring into being from nothing we can put this issue to rest. That's all that needed to be done, and Finrock's approach was much more helpful than yours.

...

The theistic talk you reference is deeply imbedded in constructs "created" during the Dark Ages at a time that it was believed that all things were comprised of earth, wind, fire and water. In essence the traditional view of ex nihilo is by theology stuck with understandings of constructs that are no longer applicable.

Since Galileo traditional theology has been so threatened by empirical reality that rather than realize that G-d is honest and does not hide in lies, hold illogically to conflicting concepts proven to be false. The idea of "nothing" from traditional thinking of the Dark Ages when considering particle physics and quantum mechanics is obviously out of touch with empirical reality.

Even now (as you have quoted) traditional religious thinkers, trying to resolved conflicts with newly discovered realities are beginning to realize that Biblical scripture can be interpreted with less conflict. Almost to the point that some deny that Galileo in his book of "Tides" never contradicted traditional Christianity. I will submit to you that the more Biblical scripture is interpreted to include observable empirical reality (as begun with Galileo) - the closer traditional thinkers will come to LDS theology. What I do not understand is why therefore you think LDS theology to be illogical and difficult to understand?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe God has always existed as God (as opposed to believing He always existed as intelligence and then became God). By "time" I don't merely mean since the creation of this world, or since humanity began measuring time and history, but that God has always been God and exists outside of all measurements of time. He didn't become God, He doesn't have His origin in another God or on another world. This isn't a meaningless contradiction in terms, actually, but a fairly well thought out philosophical concept called aseity; a quality that my religion applies to God. Aseity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It means God had no beginning and has no end, given that Joseph Smith appears to have taught that God did have a beginning and "became" God (became implying a change from one state to another) then it seems clear that the Mormon conception of God isn't of one that is eternal, and if the word eternal is used then it is done so with a different meaning.

Has your father always been your father? You can say yes because before he had children he wasn't a "father". Do you have another (biological) father? No, there is only one. Will he always be your father? Yes.

God is the father of all creation. He is our Heavenly Father. According to our understanding of God, He is a creator, He is our Father. These are requisite characteristics of "God". Without being a Father or a creator, He could no be a God. If one thinks our Heavenly Father was always a God then by the defining features of God all creation and all parenting always existed. If all creation always existed then how is He a creator? He would just be co-existent and not a creator. If God created this world, there was a beginning to this world (without going into the definitions of creation) then He had a beginning also as His creations define Him.

Does God's glory expand? If there is expansion then there is passage of time. Genesis describes before and after events before the creation of Adam and Eve. Timelessness is a man-made concept. We know that God's glory is in 'bringing to pass...', which means there is a difference in magnitude from before to after. We also see in Jesus an increase in stature amongst God and man, not just man. Luke 2; " 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." How could anything increase with God if there is no passage of time? One could not have a purpose without the passage of time. We don't believe in a purposeless God.

[Traveler]

This is a false argument. First it's false to say that because a majority believe it, it must be true. Second, it's not even true.

From the Wikipedia article on ex nihilo.

There are philosophical and theological arguments against the concept throughout history.

See Nothing comes from nothing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Ancient Near Eastern mythologies and classical creation myths in Greek mythology envisioned the creation of the world as resulting from the actions of a god or gods upon already-existing primeval matter, known as chaos.

Philo equated the Hebrew creator-deity Yahweh with Aristotle's primum movens (First Cause) in an attempt to prove that the Jews had held monotheistic views even before the Greeks. However, this was still within the context of creation from pre-existing materials (i.e. "moving" or "changing" a material substratum.)

The classical tradition of creation from chaos first came under question in Hellenistic philosophy (on a priori grounds), which developed the idea that the primum movens must have created the world out of nothing.

Theologians debate whether the Bible itself teaches creation ex nihilo.

From this quote I would point to this part "The classical tradition of creation from chaos first came under question in Hellenistic philosophy (on a priori grounds), which developed the idea that the primum movens must have created the world out of nothing."

I would point out that Hellenistic philosophy is directly related to the paganization of Traditional Christian philosophy - and as quoted from Wikipedia the development of the idea of "ex nihilo" was not so much an ancient Hebrew concept imbedded in Genesis as it it a result from Hellenistic Philosophy intruding on Christian thinking.

The quote in essence disproved ex nihilo as being ancient Biblical.

The Traveler