Why was it revealed to JS that 'all other creeds are an abomination?'

[iguy2314]

The bolded and red above is what makes "essence" an incomplete depiction of ousia.  By the way, did you click on that underlined ousia word in my post?  It takes you to the Wikipedia entry of what that means.  It clearly defines why it says ., the divine substance, essence or nature instead of just substance itself or essence itself or nature itself - each of the 3 words having very slight variations in meaning, each of which encompasses ousia.

 

But, it might be that we are not understanding each other because of my usage of the word "Physical".  This word is important in distinguishing Trinity from Godhead.  I am using the word physical as a label to what he is made of - his substance (incorporeal - not made of matter).  It was not meant to denote anthropomorphistic qualities to God.  I may be using that word incorrectly.

 

Thanks for clarifying!

 

 

Yeah, i think this is showing that it's extremely important to get one's terms correct as well, to make sure we're not talking about moving targets.

 

From my friend's email (who is Catholic/completing his doctorate in philosophy)

 

"What a catholic means by the term 'person' is 'an individual subsistence of a rational essence'. 'Individual' means that it is distinguished from some other, 'subsistence' means that it's real and continues to exist by fact of itself rather than inside of something else (the color red exists in a ball, a fictional character exists in a mind, but a human exists independently), 'rational' means intellectual or capable of apprehending truth, and 'essence' means the overarching and immanent principle which causes something to be the sort of thing that it is.

 

On the other hand, a 'being' is 'an essence conjoined with an act of existence'. 'An act of existence' is the very reality of a thing. So, David, you came to exist before I did, and whichever one of us ceases to exist first won't cause the other to cease to exist. This is because, though our essence is the same (humanity), our acts of existence are separate.

 

The reason that you can't see the logical coherency of the Trinity is because you're trying to make an analogy between how human persons are distinguished from one another and how the Divine Persons are distinguished. There isn't any analogy between the two. Our essence is conjoined to an act of existence according to the mode of efficient causation, ie we come to exist as human beings because of something outside of ourselves (our parents, space, etc). The Divine Essence is 'conjoined' to it's act of existence according to the mode of identity, ie God's essence and His act of existence are the same thing, so His essence is His act of existence.

 

This is relevant because where one can err is in noticing that, in human persons, our acts of existence are and must be distinguished from one another, so no two human persons can 'share being'. In all instances and by definition two distinct acts of existence means two distinct persons for humans, and likewise, only one act of existence means only one person. This is different with God because His mode of being itself is different and disanalogous to how anything else exists.

 

Not only do the three Divine Persons share the same essence, but they also share the same act of existence (since that is the essence after all). What individuates Them, therefore, is not what individuates human persons. Literally, the only thing which individuates Them is Their relationships with Each Other. They are the same being, since the act of existence is the same. God the Word and God the Father are One Being, identical in every respect of Their existence. How to understand the way that relationship can exist within one Being is fascinating as well, but I think I've used enough jargon for one facebook message . Feel free to ask for clarification; I've tried to distinguish the terms as best as possible, but I haven't really tried to explain them super specifically since that would have increased the size of this a lot."

[Guest]

I don't not take your word. I just believe that the Trinity is not truly understandable because it is senseless.

 

I will grant, that my understanding of it is not well studied...shallow reading at best...but those explanations I have read are back-bending, mind-twisting, illogical logical efforts to try and explain the unexplainable. Which, frankly, seems strange to me. There are things in LDS teachings that are unexplainable -- even in the nature of God. We understand, for example, that God has a physical body -- but how He is able to see all things at once, travel anywhere immediately, attend to all things all the time, etc., etc... We do not understand. We cannot understand. Saying that we understand that God is all knowing does not mean we actually understand God being all knowing.

 

Even if one were to concede the Trinity as truth, to say that one understands that God is three separate persons in one being does not mean that this concept is, in the least, understandable.

 

Everything that are unexplainable about the Godhead is the exact same things that are unexplainable in the Trinity.  And just as if we are to concede that the Godhead is truth, to say that one understands that God is three separate persons in One God does not mean that this concept is, in the least, understandable (see * below).  The same thing that you have no idea about - about what exactly God's Spirit Body is (and our own spirit bodies for that matter) - is the same exact mystery of what the Trinitarian God's substance is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

* I'm reminded by that discussion we have sometime a long time ago - I can't remember who it was with anymore - where two LDS people were debating about how we can still maintain our uniqueness and individuality and be one with God... showing how God is One is not completely understandable...

[Guest]

 

Thanks for clarifying!

 

 

Yeah, i think this is showing that it's extremely important to get one's terms correct as well, to make sure we're not talking about moving targets.

 

From my friend's email (who is Catholic/completing his doctorate in philosophy)

 

"What a catholic means by the term 'person' is 'an individual subsistence of a rational essence'. 'Individual' means that it is distinguished from some other, 'subsistence' means that it's real and continues to exist by fact of itself rather than inside of something else (the color red exists in a ball, a fictional character exists in a mind, but a human exists independently), 'rational' means intellectual or capable of apprehending truth, and 'essence' means the overarching and immanent principle which causes something to be the sort of thing that it is.

 

On the other hand, a 'being' is 'an essence conjoined with an act of existence'. 'An act of existence' is the very reality of a thing. So, David, you came to exist before I did, and whichever one of us ceases to exist first won't cause the other to cease to exist. This is because, though our essence is the same (humanity), our acts of existence are separate.

 

The reason that you can't see the logical coherency of the Trinity is because you're trying to make an analogy between how human persons are distinguished from one another and how the Divine Persons are distinguished. There isn't any analogy between the two. Our essence is conjoined to an act of existence according to the mode of efficient causation, ie we come to exist as human beings because of something outside of ourselves (our parents, space, etc). The Divine Essence is 'conjoined' to it's act of existence according to the mode of identity, ie God's essence and His act of existence are the same thing, so His essence is His act of existence.

 

This is relevant because where one can err is in noticing that, in human persons, our acts of existence are and must be distinguished from one another, so no two human persons can 'share being'. In all instances and by definition two distinct acts of existence means two distinct persons for humans, and likewise, only one act of existence means only one person. This is different with God because His mode of being itself is different and disanalogous to how anything else exists.

 

Not only do the three Divine Persons share the same essence, but they also share the same act of existence (since that is the essence after all). What individuates Them, therefore, is not what individuates human persons. Literally, the only thing which individuates Them is Their relationships with Each Other. They are the same being, since the act of existence is the same. God the Word and God the Father are One Being, identical in every respect of Their existence. How to understand the way that relationship can exist within one Being is fascinating as well, but I think I've used enough jargon for one facebook message . Feel free to ask for clarification; I've tried to distinguish the terms as best as possible, but I haven't really tried to explain them super specifically since that would have increased the size of this a lot."

 

 

Yep, that's it.  Very long explanation but, that is it.

 

I felt referring to existence as Physical and spirit as Essence is simpler... but yeah, might lead to more misunderstanding of the terms.  English is not my first language, unfortunately.

 

Okay, so, if you want to know why God revealed to JS that all that explanation of what God is that we've been talking about is an abomination then you'll have to try to understand what JS says God is...

[spamlds]

Yep, that's it.  Very long explanation but, that is it.

 

I felt referring to existence as Physical and spirit as Essence is simpler... but yeah, might lead to more misunderstanding of the terms.  English is not my first language, unfortunately.

 

Okay, so, if you want to know why God revealed to JS that all that explanation of what God is that we've been talking about is an abomination then you'll have to try to understand what JS says God is...

 

It all comes down to the Sacred Grove.  Joseph Fielding McConkie explained this well in his book "Here We Stand."  We can substantiate much of our beliefs using scripture.  We can show such-and-such to be biblical.  But it all comes down to the same exact quandary that the ancient apostles had.  How could they prove that Jesus was resurrected.  If that one fact was not true, then nothing else mattered.  But how could they prove it?

 

They did miracles and people still didn't believe them.  They reasoned and argued with scripture and logic.  No matter what, they couldn't prove to the Jews or the Gentiles that Jesus was resurrected.  It all comes down to whether or not their hearers could hear the voice of the Good Shepherd or not.  Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice."  Their job, then was to simply preach to as many people as they could and the ones whom Jesus had called at that time would hear, understand, and receive the message.  

 

For those who were not ready, nothing would ever prove that Jesus was resurrected.  For those who were ready and embraced the truth, spiritual gifts came to them following their covenant of baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit confirmed the truth to them.

 

Today, proving Mormonism is true is like proving the resurrection of Jesus.  We say that God spoke to Joseph Smith.  We have the Book of Mormon as "proof" but people may not accept it.  Like the scribes and Pharisees of old, they argue that it doesn't fit their creeds or their doctrines.  It's no different.  Even Jesus couldn't convert Caiaphas or Pilate.  They were too invested in their own thing to accept anything new.  

 

Interestingly, God gave 11 witnesses of the Book of Mormon--the same exact number as the witnesses of the resurrection.  There are still people who don't believe in the resurrection despite those 11 witnesses.  It's not surprising that people reject the 11 witnesses of the Book of Mormon.  They can't see it because they don't hear the voice of the Good Shepherd.

 

We know what we know because of the Holy Ghost.  We know the doctrine of the Triune/Trinity is false because our prophets (and some of the lay members of the Church) have seen God and Christ.  We have members who have seen angels.  We have had spiritual gifts in our midst for almost 200 years.  The very survival of Mormonism is a miracle!  The miracle of the quails and the miracles of the seagulls!  The miracles of Joseph Smith healing hundreds of people along the banks of the Mississippi river bottoms!  The transfiguration of Brigham Young after the death of Joseph.  Thousands of healings.  Angels in the Kirtland Temple!  It goes on and on and it isn't finished!  What a marvelous thing!

 

Yet it all comes down to the First Vision.  Ask any Christian to prove that Jesus was resurrected.  It can't be done.  It's a matter of faith.  Ask a Mormon to prove that Joseph saw the Father and Son in the sacred grove?  It can't be done.  The Holy Spirit bears witness and only those who are called will hear and obey that voice.  We have to preach it to everyone, but the gate is strait and the way narrow.  Few will truly find it.

[Maureen]

 

...Not only do the three Divine Persons share the same essence, but they also share the same act of existence...

 

 

I love that sentence, it explains it so succinctly.

 

M.

[faith4]

And let's not lose the larger point. There has always been some sort of limitation to who has access to true religion. For most of history (from the biblical record), God has only been dealing with people in a small geographic area. While it's true that some had the means to travel to the holy land and thereby gain exposure to the covenant people (and the covenant), for the most part, the sound majority had no such access. And that's just those that lived on the same land mass. There was also a huge plot of land with countless people who had no access to the covenant people or the covenants (again, strictly following the biblical narrative) because of vast oceans. How is God still just?

 

If you are uncomfortable with the belief that God created a temporal (time-based) barrier to accessing His truth and covenants, you should also be uncomfortable with the belief that God created a spatial (geographic) barrier to accessing His truth and covenants. If you find a way to be at ease with the spatial challenge, you'll find the same argument then works for the temporal issue.

 

Orthodox Christianity believes this was part of the Plan of Salvation, which is different than what your church teaches.  We believe, God began to reveal Himself to more and more people throughout history, so that He could eventually reveal Himself to everyone in the world.  He began with just two people, Adam and Eve.  Then Noah and his family.  Then Abraham and his tribe.  Notice that when God commanded Abraham to be circumsized to enter into the covenant, all the males with him (slaves, and their male children included) had to also be circumsized.  After this, comes Jacob who becomes Israel and fathers a nation through his 12 sons (and Josephs 2 sons).  God then focused on this nation, making them a people set apart, different from all other nations.  And why?  Because He was preparing a people who would know Him and expect the arrival of His Son, the Messiah.  He needed a people set apart, who didn't worship pagan gods while also worshipping Him.  A people set apart who would learn his commands and love Him.  Who would pray for a Messiah to come and save them, and to be able to recognize Him when He did come.  Who would understand sin, and the value of a sacrifice as an atonement for sin, especially in light of the exodus (redemption) from Egypt.  Of course, the Israelites did a pretty terrible job at all this, and in the end, only the tribe of Judah (and Levites to tend to the Temple duties) really passed the tests.  (Though of course, they were also punished from time to time by invasions for their infidelity as well).  Through all this, God always kept his covenant promises to His people, He always had a faithful remnant to carry through the tough times of infidelity.  When Jesus did come, He was recognized by some of his fellow Jews (Jew, comes from the word Judah), and Jesus used these disciples of His to teach them more about the Kingdom of God and the New Covenant He was establishing for everyone.  As for the Jews who did not believe in Jesus, a veil has covered their eyes until the full number of gentiles comes in.  If they had all accepted Him as the Messiah, they would have never crucified Him, instead they would've made Him their King and expected Him to overthrow the Romans.  That's not what Jesus came to do, so a veil had to cover their eyes and cloud their hearts so that they would not recognize Him.  When those who are Jewish now begin to convert to Christianity and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah, that will be a sign that the Second Coming is near, for the veil will be lifted from their eyes. 

 

*shrug*  This is really long and wordy, and most likely doesn't make any sense to you.  And obviously I can't get into intricate detail about this, but this is a short synopsis of what we believe. :)  But, I guess what I am trying to say is, the limitation to knowledge of God (to a relatively small group of people), and the geographical barriers are not an issue in what we believe.  God is just, and judges accordingly    

[Traveler]

Is this also a part of LDS theology? Considering human beings, made in the image of God, "minions?" Every myth, every crazy sacrificial and every polytheistic religion was false, ....

 

But I also know that the Church declared the indigenous had souls and were human beings, hundreds of years before it became mainstreamed and protected by law. I believe that Our Lady of Guadalupe was a blessing to Mexico and all of Americas, that the Gospel was inculcated into my ancestor's cultures, having appeared on the feast of their indigenous Easter. The soul of Latin America is Catholic and that will never change.

 

 

Thanks for the kind words, and I hope that all faiths can promote and act in God's love for humanity, through his Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

My use of the term minions is based in historical sarcasm – One of the first civilizations discovered in the Americas were the Lucayans.  They were a peaceful people that lacked even a word for “war” in their language.  They lived in family tribes without police, lawyers or judges.  They had no weapons (offensive or defensive).  They greeted the new explorers of their lands with gifts and acts of kindness. In response Christian missionaries were sent to convert them.  The Christian missionaries were not able to obtain a single convert in over 100 years – after which there is no record of their existence.  Today there are no genetic markers anywhere - in other words complete and total genocide.  There is no record by any Christian (Pope, king, scholar, priest, monk, or member) belonging to any Christian society that had interface with Lucayans in all of history indicating a single word of criticism for the persecution of the Lucayans and eventual genocide of the Lucayans.  Not a single letter or document anywhere.  In fact I have yet to encounter a Christian of a traditional faith that cares beyond a pseudo lip service of saying something along the line that all religions have dark individuals.

 

In contrast when the Buddhist missionaries went into China, which was at the time gripped in an era of war and terror, they brought peace and an attitude of cooperation even with rival religions.  One historical incident I find most interesting is that by the 2^nd century some Buddhists encountered Christian missionaries making their way into China.  The Christians were not being well received in general but were protected by the Buddhist missionaries (at the risk of their own lives) that ended up hiding the Christian scriptures to preserve them.  What is interesting to me is that these are the earliest Christian “Bible” scriptures of historical record; yet are unrecognized and unreferenced by any traditional Christian sect.

 

It was this discovery that almost convinced me to be a Buddhist.  In essence Traditional Buddhist care more about such things than Traditional Christians.  It may interest you to know that the only Zen Master outside of Asia resides here in Salt Lake City.  When I asked him why here?  His response was because of the spirituality and kindness of the Mormons.

[Traveler]

...

 

But I also know that the Church declared the indigenous had souls and were human beings, hundreds of years before it became mainstreamed and protected by law. I believe that Our Lady of Guadalupe was a blessing to Mexico and all of Americas, that the Gospel was inculcated into my ancestor's cultures, having appeared on the feast of their indigenous Easter. The soul of Latin America is Catholic and that will never change.

 

...

 

I found this particular statement quite interesting.  One of the doctrines in the religion of the indigenous peoples of the Americas was what was called the “Fountain of Youth”  In essence it was believed that  to those that drank of these living watters; eternal life or life without death.  What I find interesting is that the Christian conquers never recognized that Jesus Christ is the true and actual “Living Waters” or “Fountain of Youth”.  Rather than recognize any possibility that the G-d that had come down from heaven and taught the indigenous peoples this doctrine – they forgot their connection to their own G-d and sought their misunderstanding to their own destruction.  If the “Fountain of Youth” was a representative of Christ – Then the Christians (including Christian institutions) that sought to destroy this so called myth in the Americas did a disservice to their own cause.

[Guest]

I love that sentence, it explains it so succinctly.

 

M.

 

I know, right?  That's why I think just saying They are one in essence just doesn't quite encompass it.  Ousia should be added to the English language...

[Guest]

Orthodox Christianity believes this was part of the Plan of Salvation, which is different than what your church teaches.  We believe, God began to reveal Himself to more and more people throughout history, so that He could eventually reveal Himself to everyone in the world.  He began with just two people, Adam and Eve.  Then Noah and his family.  Then Abraham and his tribe.  Notice that when God commanded Abraham to be circumsized to enter into the covenant, all the males with him (slaves, and their male children included) had to also be circumsized.  After this, comes Jacob who becomes Israel and fathers a nation through his 12 sons (and Josephs 2 sons).  God then focused on this nation, making them a people set apart, different from all other nations.  And why?  Because He was preparing a people who would know Him and expect the arrival of His Son, the Messiah.  He needed a people set apart, who didn't worship pagan gods while also worshipping Him.  A people set apart who would learn his commands and love Him.  Who would pray for a Messiah to come and save them, and to be able to recognize Him when He did come.  Who would understand sin, and the value of a sacrifice as an atonement for sin, especially in light of the exodus (redemption) from Egypt.  Of course, the Israelites did a pretty terrible job at all this, and in the end, only the tribe of Judah (and Levites to tend to the Temple duties) really passed the tests.  (Though of course, they were also punished from time to time by invasions for their infidelity as well).  Through all this, God always kept his covenant promises to His people, He always had a faithful remnant to carry through the tough times of infidelity.  When Jesus did come, He was recognized by some of his fellow Jews (Jew, comes from the word Judah), and Jesus used these disciples of His to teach them more about the Kingdom of God and the New Covenant He was establishing for everyone.  As for the Jews who did not believe in Jesus, a veil has covered their eyes until the full number of gentiles comes in.  If they had all accepted Him as the Messiah, they would have never crucified Him, instead they would've made Him their King and expected Him to overthrow the Romans.  That's not what Jesus came to do, so a veil had to cover their eyes and cloud their hearts so that they would not recognize Him.  When those who are Jewish now begin to convert to Christianity and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah, that will be a sign that the Second Coming is near, for the veil will be lifted from their eyes. 

 

*shrug*  This is really long and wordy, and most likely doesn't make any sense to you.  And obviously I can't get into intricate detail about this, but this is a short synopsis of what we believe. :)  But, I guess what I am trying to say is, the limitation to knowledge of God (to a relatively small group of people), and the geographical barriers are not an issue in what we believe.  God is just, and judges accordingly    

 

Hi faith4... I understand what you're saying here but there is a nuance here that is incorrect.  I bolded a couple of sentences above to illustrate...

 

From the bolded lines, it gives the impression that God prevented these people from righteousness.  A sentence before that (I highlighted in red) also implies that because God fulfills His convenant faithful people remained... which kinda indicates that God caused these people to be faithful.

 

This is not how covenants work.  In Catholic teaching (it's also the same in LDS), free will is God's greatest gift to man.  This free will is what necessitated the Atonement.  His covenants are built upon this gift.  Therefore, it is incorrect to say that God somehow prevented these people from righteousness so that they will kill Jesus just as it is incorrect to say that because God fulfills His covenants, it caused people to remain faithful.

 

God fulfills His part always.  But that is predicated upon people's exercise of free will to fulfill their side of the covenant.  But God, in His infinite wisdom, knows each and every person's heart and, therefore, knows the time when all things shall come to pass for the salvation of mankind.  Therefore, Jesus came in the exact same time that He did because man, through his free will, has created the conditions ripe for the Atonement to be fulfilled.

[iguy2314]

I found this particular statement quite interesting.  One of the doctrines in the religion of the indigenous peoples of the Americas was what was called the “Fountain of Youth”  In essence it was believed that  to those that drank of these living watters; eternal life or life without death.  What I find interesting is that the Christian conquers never recognized that Jesus Christ is the true and actual “Living Waters” or “Fountain of Youth”.  Rather than recognize any possibility that the G-d that had come down from heaven and taught the indigenous peoples this doctrine – they forgot their connection to their own G-d and sought their misunderstanding to their own destruction.  If the “Fountain of Youth” was a representative of Christ – Then the Christians (including Christian institutions) that sought to destroy this so called myth in the Americas did a disservice to their own cause.

 

I'm not even sure how to respond to this.

 

The "Christian Conquerers" you so aptly named do not represent the doctrine/authority of Catholicism. They represent Colonialism and the temporal power of nation-states.

 

Many religions, great/minor/crazy have dealt with, often through myth or storytelling, some aspect of immortality. This is as old as death itself. What distuingishes Christ from all others is that he defeated death by death, and didn't just seek an infitite stopper to death and a continution of this life, but one beyond it. Linking a legend of the fountain of youth, which could probably be found in 10 other regions/cultures in Africa/Asia/anywhere simply by googling, does not in any historical/theological way show that Christ came here. I believe all of those legends and myths have been pointing to God, because man has been made for God, and can yearn for him with his imagination and intellect.

 

What you are proposing is unhistorical and baseless. You're seeing what you want to see. Christ never came to the Americas, and as someone with an indiginous background, I find it very offensive to say otherwise.

 

Is the "Fountain of Youth" myth actually a part of LDS history and scholarship? Did the newest Indiana Jones movie consult anyone about it?

 

And you never addressed how the doctrines of Catholicism established the dignity and equality of all people from the New World.

[Guest]

Let me just interject on these things:

 

What you are proposing is unhistorical and baseless. You're seeing what you want to see. Christ never came to the Americas, and as someone with an indiginous background, I find it very offensive to say otherwise.

 

You keep on touting your "indiginous background".  One doesn't need "ancient Egyptian background" to believe that God revealed Himself to Moses... and I don't see how believing that God revealed Himself to Moses is offensive to Atheist Ancient Egyptian and Egyptian Archeology experts...

 

You don't have to believe that Christ, after his resurrection, revealed Himself to people in the American continent.  Just like people don't have to believe that Mary revealed herself to the children of Fatima and Lourdes... just like people don't have to believe that Jesus revealed himself to Joseph Smith in New York in the 1800's... just like people don't have to believe that Jesus revealed himself to Saul... people don't even have to believe that Jesus revealed Himself as the Son of God to anybody!

 

Your indiginous background and even my theological studies does not help either of us when it comes to matters of faith because our expertise in anything does not prove one way or the other that 1.) there is a God., 2.) Jesus Christ is the Son of God who is also God., 3.) they're capable of revealing themselves to anybody of their choosing.

 

So, if you find it offensive that the LDS believe that Christ revealed Himself to people you don't think He should be revealing Himself to, then why are you here on lds.net asking us questions?  You think we should just not answer?  Or are you just looking for ways to express your offense or whatever?  I think that would be better served by you writing a blog about your offenses instead of coming here.

 

 

Is the "Fountain of Youth" myth actually a part of LDS history and scholarship? Did the newest Indiana Jones movie consult anyone about it?

 

Is this supposed to be an insult?  If you study LDS beliefs instead of being offended by it at every turn, you will find out that the Fountain of Youth is not part of LDS history and scholarship.

 

 

 

 

And you never addressed how the doctrines of Catholicism established the dignity and equality of all people from the New World.

 

Uhm, what? 

[prisonchaplain]

Nobody understands the Trinity.

 

Yes and no.  Yes, nobody fully understands the Trinity, because no one fully understands God.  However, on a simple level, most thinking trinitarians understand that God is three persons, yet one God.  Can we get tied up in knots when critics try to dissect person, substance, how three can be one, etc.?  Without a doubt.  Understand, that critics are not unified either.  For example subordinationists (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) suggest that Jesus is something less than God.  Modalists say that Jesus is God, and that Father, Son, Spirit are roles that Jesus takes on.  Then there is the LDS Godhead, in which the Father, Son, and Spirit are absolutely separate, are all God, yet primary worship goes to the Father.  (LDS posters feel free to fine tune and correct nuances).

 

All this to say, we understand what we believe, and can explain it.  How the Trinity is possible, or how God manages himself--yeah nobody fully understands God, because we are not him.

[Guest]

Yes and no.  Yes, nobody fully understands the Trinity, because no one fully understands God.  However, on a simple level, most thinking trinitarians understand that God is three persons, yet one God.  Can we get tied up in knots when critics try to dissect person, substance, how three can be one, etc.?  Without a doubt.  Understand, that critics are not unified either.  For example subordinationists (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) suggest that Jesus is something less than God.  Modalists say that Jesus is God, and that Father, Son, Spirit are roles that Jesus takes on.  Then there is the LDS Godhead, in which the Father, Son, and Spirit are absolutely separate, are all God, yet primary worship goes to the Father.  (LDS posters feel free to fine tune and correct nuances).

 

I believe it is important to state that the LDS believes in One God.  What makes Them one is not Their ousia but the perfect unity of Their Will.

 

This is really very important in understanding why free will is not only God's gift to man, but a necessary attribute of God's Kingdom.

[faith4]

Hi faith4... I understand what you're saying here but there is a nuance here that is incorrect.  I bolded a couple of sentences above to illustrate...

 

From the bolded lines, it gives the impression that God prevented these people from righteousness.  A sentence before that (I highlighted in red) also implies that because God fulfills His convenant faithful people remained... which kinda indicates that God caused these people to be faithful.

 

This is not how covenants work.  In Catholic teaching (it's also the same in LDS), free will is God's greatest gift to man.  This free will is what necessitated the Atonement.  His covenants are built upon this gift.  Therefore, it is incorrect to say that God somehow prevented these people from righteousness so that they will kill Jesus just as it is incorrect to say that because God fulfills His covenants, it caused people to remain faithful.

 

God fulfills His part always.  But that is predicated upon people's exercise of free will to fulfill their side of the covenant.  But God, in His infinite wisdom, knows each and every person's heart and, therefore, knows the time when all things shall come to pass for the salvation of mankind.  Therefore, Jesus came in the exact same time that He did because man, through his free will, has created the conditions ripe for the Atonement to be fulfilled.

 

Hmmmmm...no...I understand what you're trying to say as well, but I still hold to what I've written.  I view this as part of the mystery which ties into free will and yet, God already knows what's going to happen.  God has given each of us gifts, some have more gifts than others, and it's up to us to use them wisely.  God has given some people a greater propensity towards the gift of faith, and through this gift, He already knows that they will choose to remain faithful.  All the Prophets are like this, as well as all the Patriarchal fathers and John the Baptist.  There was always the choice to reject him, like what Jonah tried to do, yet He already knew that they would choose to follow Him, and obey.     

 

"Do you not know what the scripture says about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?  Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life."  But what is God's response to him? "I have left for myself seven thousand men who have not knelt to Baal."  So also at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace."  (Rom 11:2-5)

 

As with the Jews who "eyes" have been "veiled", this is for a purpose, it is not to prevent these people from rightousness.  Do you think God acted unjustly with the Egyptians when he continued to darken the heart of Pharaoh so that He could show his mighty deeds to the Hebrews?  Ten terrible plagues he sent upon them b/c of the darkening of Pharaohs heart, was this simply vanity on Gods part?  No, even this served a purpose, it was all a part of the Plan of Salvation.  This story of redemption from Egypt would provide a "type" of the redemption to come through Jesus. 

 

"Hence I ask, did they stumble so as to fall?  Of course not!...Now if their transgression is enrichment for the world, and if their diminished number is enrichment for the Gentiles, how muc more their full number...For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?...I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not become wise in your own estimation: a hardening has come upon Israel in part, until the full number of the Gentiles comes in, and thus all Israel will be saved...For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."

(Rom 11:11-12; 15; 25; 29).

 

"You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can oppose his will?"  But who indeed are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Will what is made say to its maker, "Why have you created me so?"  Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one?  What if God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction?  This was to make known the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared previously for glroy, names, us whom he has called, no only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles."  (Rom 9:19-24)

[iguy2314]

Let me just interject on these things:

 

 

You keep on touting your "indiginous background".  One doesn't need "ancient Egyptian background" to believe that God revealed Himself to Moses... and I don't see how believing that God revealed Himself to Moses is offensive to Atheist Ancient Egyptian and Egyptian Archeology experts...

 

Except that the story in Exodus actually deals with historical facts and peoples. The miracles/plagues/wonders are all things to be believed in faith, but not whether the Egyptians actually enslaved Israelites, not whether the Israelites were a real people in a real place.

 

Christ coming here and teaching to the Indigenous cultures is not backed up by one iota of historical/archealogical evidence and does an extreme disservice to the ingenuity and uniqueness of their cultures. Honestly, it's 19th century white-savior complex being induced on a spiritual/theological level. The Aztecs, the Mayans, the Toltecs and hundreds of other cultures stand on their own merit. Why didn't Christ appear in South Africa? To the Australian aborigines? To the Chinese? To the Philipines?

 

 

 

You don't have to believe that Christ, after his resurrection, revealed Himself to people in the American continent.  Just like people don't have to believe that Mary revealed herself to the children of Fatima and Lourdes... just like people don't have to believe that Jesus revealed himself to Joseph Smith in New York in the 1800's... just like people don't have to believe that Jesus revealed himself to Saul... people don't even have to believe that Jesus revealed Himself as the Son of God to anybody!

 

 

Mary appeared to devout catholics, not to Egpytians or Muslims or Buddhists, IE somebody outside of their faith. Why would anyone care if a 14 year old who is a super catholic is supposedly hearing stuff from the Virgin Mary? If I was not Catholic, I would not care. But if I started my own sect of Christianity that started espousing (without any evidence) that Christ had appeared in the 600's to Muhammad, or to any of the great dynasty's of China and teaching this as fact,  I would be injecting my "beliefs" into somebody's history and culture.

 

 

Your indiginous background and even my theological studies does not help either of us when it comes to matters of faith because our expertise in anything does not prove one way or the other that 1.) there is a God., 2.) Jesus Christ is the Son of God who is also God., 3.) they're capable of revealing themselves to anybody of their choosing.

 

I am almost done with my investigation into the LDS Church and I'm sorry if I've offended anyone here. It's cool that you guys believe Christ appeared here, but that is a belief that must be purely a matter of faith, much like the resurrection or the assumption. It's different that believing that Christ was a historical figure and a Jewish teacher that walked the earth and was crucified, which has been established historically. There is no historical establishment of any Christian/Mormon kingdom here in the New World. My indiginous background DOES help me because it's a part of who I am. I have studied my culture as much as any person from England would study theirs, as any American historian would delve into what happened using facts/reason/evidence. A Mormon missionary telling me that Christ appeared here and that there were Christian kingsdoms here is, and will always be, extremely offensive without an ounce of data, or ANY professional historian/archealogist backing it up.

[Traveler]

I'm not even sure how to respond to this.

 

The "Christian Conquerers" you so aptly named do not represent the doctrine/authority of Catholicism. They represent Colonialism and the temporal power of nation-states.

 

Many religions, great/minor/crazy have dealt with, often through myth or storytelling, some aspect of immortality. This is as old as death itself. What distuingishes Christ from all others is that he defeated death by death, and didn't just seek an infitite stopper to death and a continution of this life, but one beyond it. Linking a legend of the fountain of youth, which could probably be found in 10 other regions/cultures in Africa/Asia/anywhere simply by googling, does not in any historical/theological way show that Christ came here. I believe all of those legends and myths have been pointing to God, because man has been made for God, and can yearn for him with his imagination and intellect.

 

What you are proposing is unhistorical and baseless. You're seeing what you want to see. Christ never came to the Americas, and as someone with an indiginous background, I find it very offensive to say otherwise.

 

Is the "Fountain of Youth" myth actually a part of LDS history and scholarship? Did the newest Indiana Jones movie consult anyone about it?

 

And you never addressed how the doctrines of Catholicism established the dignity and equality of all people from the New World.

I find your response very contradictory to the notion you put forward and insist - that there can be truth in all religions – that there is no reason to think of one true and living religion as even a remote possibility.  Then when you see a possibility and common doctrine across many ancient religions you refuse to consider the possibility that the myth may have some actual merit and even testify of Christ????  Dare I say – according to your words – how arrogant to think of your version of the myth as the only one to have any truth to it?

[estradling75]

Except that the story in Exodus actually deals with historical facts and peoples. The miracles/plagues/wonders are all things to be believed in faith, but not whether the Egyptians actually enslaved Israelites, not whether the Israelites were a real people in a real place.

 

Christ coming here and teaching to the Indigenous cultures is not backed up by one iota of historical/archealogical evidence and does an extreme disservice to the ingenuity and uniqueness of their cultures. Honestly, it's 19th century white-savior complex being induced on a spiritual/theological level. The Aztecs, the Mayans, the Toltecs and hundreds of other cultures stand on their own merit. Why didn't Christ appear in South Africa? To the Australian aborigines? To the Chinese?

 

 

 

Except that Mary appeared to devout catholics, not to Egpytians or Muslims or Buddhists. Why would anyone care if a 14 year old who is a super catholic is supposedly hearing stuff from the Virgin Mary? If I was not Catholic, I would not care. But if I started my own sect of Christianity that started espousing (without any evidence) that Christ had appeared in the 600's to Muhammad, or to any of the great dynasty's of China and teaching this as fact,  I would be injecting my "beliefs" into somebody's history and culture.

 

 

I am almost done with my investigation into the LDS Church and I'm sorry if I've offended anyone here. It's cool that you guys believe Christ appeared here, but that is a belief that must be purely a matter of faith, much like the resurrection or the assumption. It's different that believing that Christ was a historical figure and a Jewish teacher that walked the earth and was crucified, which has been established historically. There is no historical establishment of any Christian/Mormon kingdom here in the New World. My indiginous background DOES help me because it's a part of who I am. I have studied my culture as much as any person from England would study theirs, as any American historian would delve into what happened using facts/reason/evidence. A Mormon missionary telling me that Christ appeared here and that there were Christian kingsdoms here is, and will always be, extremely offensive without an ounce of data, or ANY professional historian/archealogist backing it up.

 

 

If that is what you choose to believe then that is what you will see.  While the numbers of professional historian/archealogist who are looking for such thing in the Americas are no were near the numbers you have in the middle east...  It is not factual to say there are none.  John L. Sorenson is one.   He published his findings showing how the Book of Mormon can does fit into the geography and cultures of the central Americas.  He recently put out a book with his findings http://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Codex-Ancient-American-Book-ebook/dp/B00F64T8SA

By so doing he counters your claim that there is none.

 

Part of the reason he did so is to encourage more Historians and Archeologist to take the area seriously, if for no other reason then to 'prove' him wrong.

 

The simple fact is that the Americas are much more neglected by the Historians and Archeologist when compared to the middle east

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes and no.  Yes, nobody fully understands the Trinity, because no one fully understands God.  However, on a simple level, most thinking trinitarians understand that God is three persons, yet one God.  Can we get tied up in knots when critics try to dissect person, substance, how three can be one, etc.?  Without a doubt.  Understand, that critics are not unified either.  For example subordinationists (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) suggest that Jesus is something less than God.  Modalists say that Jesus is God, and that Father, Son, Spirit are roles that Jesus takes on.  Then there is the LDS Godhead, in which the Father, Son, and Spirit are absolutely separate, are all God, yet primary worship goes to the Father.  (LDS posters feel free to fine tune and correct nuances).

 

All this to say, we understand what we believe, and can explain it.  How the Trinity is possible, or how God manages himself--yeah nobody fully understands God, because we are not him.

 

Here's my take on it, if you'll indulge me.

 

At it's core, the idea of 3 Gods but 1 God is a contradictory idea. The LDS point of view resolves this by reference to meaning, specifically, the meaning of "one". In other words, three is literal, one is figurative (referring to purpose rather than existence).

 

The theory of the trinity, on the other hand (and forgive me and correct me if I'm wrong) takes both three and one as literals, thereby substantially, attempting to render them equal. It is ultimately incomprehensible, beyond the abstract, because three does not equal one.

 

The LDS idea does not require equality, because literal does not need to equal figurative. It's a very understandable idea, in spite of the fact that some may have a hard time with it, disagree with it, or consider it non-Biblical. But it's certainly easy to understand.

 

As I said before, there's nothing necessarily insulting about the trinity concept being incomprehensible. I am not using it as an argument of inauthenticity. But it is, for that reason, why I claim no one can truly understand it.

 

Now, assuming I've made an idiot of myself because my knowledge of the trinity comes from wikipedia, please let me have it.   

[Leah]

Except that the story in Exodus actually deals with historical facts and peoples. The miracles/plagues/wonders are all things to be believed in faith, but not whether the Egyptians actually enslaved Israelites, not whether the Israelites were a real people in a real place.

 

Christ coming here and teaching to the Indigenous cultures is not backed up by one iota of historical/archealogical evidence and does an extreme disservice to the ingenuity and uniqueness of their cultures. Honestly, it's 19th century white-savior complex being induced on a spiritual/theological level. The Aztecs, the Mayans, the Toltecs and hundreds of other cultures stand on their own merit. Why didn't Christ appear in South Africa? To the Australian aborigines? To the Chinese? To the Philipines?

 

 

 

Mary appeared to devout catholics, not to Egpytians or Muslims or Buddhists, IE somebody outside of their faith. Why would anyone care if a 14 year old who is a super catholic is supposedly hearing stuff from the Virgin Mary? If I was not Catholic, I would not care. But if I started my own sect of Christianity that started espousing (without any evidence) that Christ had appeared in the 600's to Muhammad, or to any of the great dynasty's of China and teaching this as fact,  I would be injecting my "beliefs" into somebody's history and culture.

 

 

I am almost done with my investigation into the LDS Church and I'm sorry if I've offended anyone here. It's cool that you guys believe Christ appeared here, but that is a belief that must be purely a matter of faith, much like the resurrection or the assumption. It's different that believing that Christ was a historical figure and a Jewish teacher that walked the earth and was crucified, which has been established historically. There is no historical establishment of any Christian/Mormon kingdom here in the New World. My indiginous background DOES help me because it's a part of who I am. I have studied my culture as much as any person from England would study theirs, as any American historian would delve into what happened using facts/reason/evidence. A Mormon missionary telling me that Christ appeared here and that there were Christian kingsdoms here is, and will always be, extremely offensive without an ounce of data, or ANY professional historian/archealogist backing it up.

"Investigation" into the LDS church? What was your goal? You certainly aren't open-minded about anything.

[prisonchaplain]

I believe it is important to state that the LDS believes in One God.  What makes Them one is not Their ousia but the perfect unity of Their Will.

 

This is really very important in understanding why free will is not only God's gift to man, but a necessary attribute of God's Kingdom.

 

I've encountered LDS who say, as you do, that God is one, and that they are monotheists.  Others have said that there may be other gods (or even Gods), but that LDS only worship the Godhead (again, mainly the Father).  Still others have said that admit LDS theology is more or less polytheistic, since they hope to be exalted to deity.  My guess is that if I were LDS I'd tell others the theology is henotheist...but I leave this discussion to actual members.  :-)

[The Folk Prophet]

 My guess is that if I were LDS I'd tell others the theology is henotheist...but I leave this discussion to actual members.  :-)

 

Sounds moderately reasonable. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Folk Prophet is correct that the Trinity treats the oneness of God and the threeness of personalities as both being literal.  Yes, it is not easy to disect the absolute oneness of God's being, while considerding the unique personality of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  On the other hand, the LDS Godhead veers uncomfortably close to sounding like tri-theism.  Jews and Muslims already look askance at the Trinity, seeing it as a ruse for polytheism.   No skeptic will consider a "oneness of purpose" to be an acceptable monotheism.  Again, even some learned LDS have labeled themselves henotheist.  So, to committed monotheists, the comparitive ease with which the Godhead can be grasped comes the price of an even weaker semblence to belief in one true God. 

[Guest]

Folk Prophet is correct that the Trinity treats the oneness of God and the threeness of personalities as both being literal.  Yes, it is not easy to disect the absolute oneness of God's being, while considerding the unique personality of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  On the other hand, the LDS Godhead veers uncomfortably close to sounding like tri-theism.  Jews and Muslims already look askance at the Trinity, seeing it as a ruse for polytheism.   No skeptic will consider a "oneness of purpose" to be an acceptable monotheism.  Again, even some learned LDS have labeled themselves henotheist.  So, to committed monotheists, the comparitive ease with which the Godhead can be grasped comes the price of an even weaker semblence to belief in one true God. 

 

I agree with this.  Because... in every single Christian faith the title GOD is an existence.  Even LDS people see the title GOD as an existence.  And that's where the weakness comes in.

 

In LDS belief though, the title God is not the existence... it is the will/purpose.  And there is just simply one of it... because if any other celestial being has a different will/purpose - even the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - then he is not God.

 

And therefore, even henotheism (and every other kind of theism there is out there) doesn't encompass the LDS belief.  Because there is nothing out there that uses the title GOD as the Will and not the existence.

[The Folk Prophet]

I agree with this.  Because... in every single Christian faith the title GOD is an existence.  Even LDS people see the title GOD as an existence.  And that's where the weakness comes in.

 

In LDS belief though, the title God is not the existence... it is the will/purpose.  And there is just simply one of it... because if any other celestial being has a different will/purpose - even the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - then he is not God.

 

And therefore, even henotheism (and every other kind of theism there is out there) doesn't encompass the LDS belief.  Because there is nothing out there that uses the title GOD as the Will and not the existence.

 

This is a very interesting thought anatess.

 

Prison Chaplain, earlier, made a point that I think plays into the LDS belief as well -- though it's less easy to reconcile -- and I don't know if all LDS universally think this way. But as for me, if I am saying God, I mean God the Father. God the Father is God. Even Jesus worships Him.

 

So, from a certain perspective, there is only one God, and Jesus and the Holy Ghost do His will. When they speak, they speak on His behalf. They represent Him, doing His will in all things, and submit entirely to Him.

 

In this regard, LDS are, actually, monotheistic. But it requires as much word play as does explaining the trinity, I think, to get there. And, unquestionably, when you take into account that we believe it was fairly exclusively (in almost every case) Jesus (Jehovah) who was the "one God" of the Old Testament, it quickly gets messy to explain.

 

And, like I said, I'm not sure all LDS would even see it that way.

 

But it's a thought.