fuzzy@portia.stanford.edu (Daniel Zappala) (09/20/90)
There have been many discussions recently concerning Mary as the Mother of God or Mother of the Son of God, etc. This led our moderator to say: >[ ... But I believe once the Trinity and >Incarnation were formulated, it was taken for granted that it was the >specifically the Son that suffered, and presumably also experienced >birth through Mary. Thus I believe Mary was seen as the Mother >specifically of the Son rather than the Father. However the Trinity >envisions a unity among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit tight enough that >all actions of any of them are actions of all three. Thus ultimately >I think we must say that the Father participated in Christ's birth and >death. It is not yet clear to me whether the LDS concept of the >Godhead involves so close a unity among the three persons. I suspect >that formally speaking LDS could accept the phrase "mother of God" in >something like the orthodox sense, meaning by God specifically the >Son. But whether it would have the same significance for them that it >does for orthodox Christians depends upon whether they accept the >concept that all actions of the Son are ultimately actions of the >Godhead as a whole. --clh] And so now we have come full circle again to the question of the nature of the Godhead. I know there have been discussions on this before, but I'd really like to formalize the discussion a bit and take a good look at the Godhead once again. Orthodox Christians hold that there is a unity of substance or being in the Godhead (making it the Trinity) and LDS members hold that the unity extends only as far as doctrine, purpose, etc, and does not include their actual beings (which for God and Jesus are actual bodies too). Now, we've been through the Biblical aspects of this. I think it is pretty apparent to anyone who reads the New Testament that Jesus generally speaks from the "three persons" mode, constantly referring to the Father as a greater being, submitting to His will, praying to Him, being introduced to John the Baptist by him, etc. Occasionally he speaks from the "one" mode, referring to himself and the father as one. It is a source of debate as to whether he is referring to actual oneness of being or a unity of purpose and doctrine, such as the unity of all believers with the Godhead. I would then like to concentrate on rational justifications for the nature of the Godhead, i.e. what man has to say. I know that there will be some who will say that the nature of God can only be known by revelation (via Scriptures or the prophets). For instance, the foundation of LDS beliefs rely on revelation, and hence LDS members can say that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith as separate entities and that the Doctrine And Covenants specifically state their nature also. However, Catholic tradition holds that man can reason about the nature of God to the full extent that his mind allows him, as long as the final results are approved by the Church. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated by those of philosophical inclination, and approved by the Church formally in a council. Many Christians take the concept of the Trinity for granted, as the Catholic Church established it. Recently, however, I began questioning this doctrine, and sought to find some sort of justification for it. Naturally, I went to a conservative Catholic priest, who is strictly in line with Catholic beliefs and runs an abbey in Southern California. His basic line of reasoning was that the Trinity must be true because God by nature must be singular, as proven by metaphysics. He defines God as "a being greater than all other beings." By that definition, he claims, the Father and the Son must be one. If they were separate but equal, then there would be two Gods, which by his definition is impossible. In order for Jesus to maintain his divinity, he claims, he must be one being with the Father. This line of reasoning of course assumes that Jesus is divine, which is perfectly reasonable since this is a Christian discussion. Now, my understanding of LDS doctrine is that Jesus and God the Father are separate beings, but equal in power. This, the good priest claims, is impossible by his definition of God. However, I believe he has missed a point. Even granting him his definition (which I won't contest for now), the LDS God is indeed greater than Jesus simply because he is the Father. It is his paternal relationship that gives him his greatness, not any extra abilities or powers. Hence LDS beliefs have formulated a divine Jesus who can indeed claim a separate being from the Father. So it seems to me that the LDS concept of the Godhead, insofar as it deals with Jesus and God, is a perfectly valid one, at least as far as human reasoning can decipher it. What did the priest have to say about the LDS rebuttal? He retreated his ground and said that ultimately human reason can't adequately explain the Godhead, and that their unity is a mystery of the Catholic faith. And so a Catholic believer is again faced with accepting the Church's claim to authority through tradition, something I am not comfortable doing. Ok, now all you Christian netters out there. I want to hear from you on this. Please don't throw Biblical quotes at me, because I think we've gone over that enough and shown the issue to still be open to the interpretation of "oneness". Does anyone out there have a good reason why they believe in the Trinity? Thanks, Daniel Zappala [There's nothing logically impossible about your view. I've always said that the Trinity is inevitable under the assumption that you take seriously both the distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit and a requirement to have just one God. If you're willing to say that there are three gods (even though one of them has supreme authority) then of course the Trinity is not necessary. Generally our LDS correspondents have been unwilling to say that they are tritheists, and so I've always assumed that they have in the back of their mind that in some way Father, Son and Holy Spirit together form one God. The issue is what you mean by "God". Typically God has been seen as the only self-existent thing, the source of everything else. I don't see how there can be more than one of those. From the rest of what you say, I assume you are going to say that the Son came from the Father, and therefore that he is not self-existent. So by my definitions, he isn't really God. If I try to extrapolate what you mean by God, in a way that includes even a "subsidiary" one like the Son, it seems to me that you have to mean someone who has enough power to create a universe, but is not necessarily the ultimate source of everything. Note that in my attempt to deemphasize differences between LDS and classicial doctrines I may have allowed something to slide that I shouldn't have. When creeds talk about "begotten not made" or "begotten of the Father before all worlds", what is being said is that the Son is just as self-existent as the Father. "There was not a time when he was not." "begotten" is being used in a very special way, not to mean that the Son came from the Father at a specific time (as begotten would normally mean with humans) -- not even at a "time" before earthly time started -- but as an eternal relationship "within" the one God. Words become very murky here, and frankly I think there may be some additional philosophical work needed, but the point is that classical theology sees only one uncreated entity, which in some sense "includes" Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. --clh]
fuzzy@portia.stanford.edu (Daniel Zappala) (09/20/90)
There have been many discussions recently concerning Mary as the Mother of God or Mother of the Son of God, etc. This led our moderator to say: >[ ... But I believe once the Trinity and >Incarnation were formulated, it was taken for granted that it was the >specifically the Son that suffered, and presumably also experienced >birth through Mary. Thus I believe Mary was seen as the Mother >specifically of the Son rather than the Father. However the Trinity >envisions a unity among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit tight enough that >all actions of any of them are actions of all three. Thus ultimately >I think we must say that the Father participated in Christ's birth and >death. It is not yet clear to me whether the LDS concept of the >Godhead involves so close a unity among the three persons. I suspect >that formally speaking LDS could accept the phrase "mother of God" in >something like the orthodox sense, meaning by God specifically the >Son. But whether it would have the same significance for them that it >does for orthodox Christians depends upon whether they accept the >concept that all actions of the Son are ultimately actions of the >Godhead as a whole. --clh] And so now we have come full circle again to the question of the nature of the Godhead. I know there have been discussions on this before, but I'd really like to formalize the discussion a bit and take a good look at the Godhead once again. Orthodox Christians hold that there is a unity of substance or being in the Godhead (making it the Trinity) and LDS members hold that the unity extends only as far as doctrine, purpose, etc, and does not include their actual beings (which for God and Jesus are actual bodies too). Now, we've been through the Biblical aspects of this. I think it is pretty apparent to anyone who reads the New Testament that Jesus generally speaks from the "three persons" mode, constantly referring to the Father as a greater being, submitting to His will, praying to Him, being introduced to John the Baptist by him, etc. Occasionally he speaks from the "one" mode, referbing to himself and the father as one. It is a source of debate as to whether he is referring to actual oneness of being or a unity of purpose and doctrine, such as the unity of all believers with the Godhead. I would then like to concentrate on rational justifications for the nature of the Godhead, i.e. what man has to say. I know that there will be some who will say that the nature of God can only be known by revelation (via Scriptures or the prophets). For instance, the foundation of LDS beliefs rely on revelation, and hence LDS members can say that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith as separate entities and that the Doctrine And Covenants specifically state their nature also. However, Catholic tradition holds that man can reason about the nature of God to the full extent that his mind allows him, as long as the final results are approved by the Church. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated by those of philosophical inclination, and approved by the Church formally in a council. Many Chbistians take the concept of the Trinity for granted, as the Catholic Church established it. Recently, however, I began questioning this doctrine, and sought to find some sort of justification for it. Naturally, I went to a conservative Catholic priest, who is strictly in line with Catholic beliefs and runs an abbey in Southern California. His basic line of reasoning was that the Trinity must be true because God by nature must be singular, as proven by metaphysics. He defines God as "a being greater than all other beings." By that definition, he claims, the Father and the Son must be one. If they were separate but equal, then dhere would be two Gods, which by his definition is impossible. In order for Jesus to maintain his divinity, he claims, he must be one being with the Father. This line of reasoning of course assumes that Jesus is divine, which is perfectly reasonable since this is a Christian discussion. Now, my understanding of LDS doctrine is that Jesus and God the Father are separate beings, but equal in power. This, the good priest claims, is impossible by his definition of God. Howefer, I believe he has missed a point. Even granting him his definition (which I won't contest for now), the LDS God is indeed greater than Jesus simply because he is the Father. It is his paternal relationship that gives him his greatness, not any extra abilities or powers. Hence LDS beliefs have formulated a divine Jesus who can indeed claim a separate being from the Father. So it seems to me that the LDS concept of the Godhead, insofar as it deals with Jesus and God, is a perfectly valid one, at least as far as human reasoning can decipher it. What did the priest have to say about the LDS rebuttal? He retreated his ground and said that ultimately human reacon can't adequately explain the Godhead, and that their unity is a mystery of the Catholic faith. And so a Catholic believer is again faced with accepting the Church's claim to authority through tradition, something I am not comfortable doing. Ok, now all you Christian netters out there. I want to hear from you on this. Please don't throw Biblical quotes at me, because I think we've gone over that enough and shown the issue to still be open to the interpretation of "oneness". Does anyone out there have a good reason why they believe in the Trinity? Thanks, Daniel Zappala [There's nothing logically impossible about your view. I've always said that the Trinity is inevitable under the assumption that you take seriously both the distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit and a requirement to have just one God. If you're willing to say that there are three gods (even though one of them has supreme authority) then of course the Trinity is not necessary. Generally our LDS correspondents have been unwilling to say that they are tritheists, and so I've always assumed that they have in the back of their mind that in some way Father, Son and Holy Spirit together form one God. The issue is what you mean by "God". Typically God has been seen as the only self-existent thing, the source of everything else. I don't see how there can be more than one of those. From the rest of what you say, I assume you are going to say that the Son came from the Father, and therefore that he is not self-existent. So by my definitions, he isn't really God. If I try to extrapolate what you mean by God, in a way that includes even a "subsidiary" one like the Son, it seems to me that you have to mean someone who has enough power to create a univerce, but is not necessarily the ultimate source of everything. Note that in my attempt to deemphasize differences between LDS and classicial doctrines I may have allowed something to slide that I shouldn't have. When creeds talk about "begotten not made" or "begotten of the Father before all worlds", what is being said is that the Son is just as self-existent as the Father. "There was not a time when he was not." "begotten" is being used in a very special way, not to mean that the Son came from the Father at a specific time (as begotten would normally mean with humans) -- not even at a "time" before earthly time started -- but as an eternal relationship "within" the one God. Words become very murky here, and frankly I think there may be some additional philosophical work needed, but the point is that classical theology sees only one uncreated entity, which in some sense "includes" Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. --clh]
farkas%qual@sun.com (Frank Farkas) (09/25/90)
In article <Sep.20.05.24.49.1990.20229@athos.rutgers.edu>, fuzzy@portia.stanford.edu (Daniel Zappala) writes:
I have deleted Daniel's and the moderators response, because it would have
been too long to include them. However, I would like provide an explanation
which could further contribute to the understanding of the nature of the
Godhead.
First of all, we are all familiar with the many comments Jesus made
regarding his oneness with the Father. Now, if he wouldn't have provided
any explanation regarding what he ment by it, I could understand our
confusion. The fact is that he did explain it:
John 17:11
----------
"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come
to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given
me, that they be one as we are"
John 17:20-21
=============
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on
me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world
may believe that thou hast sent me."
Now, from these words of Jesus it is very clear that the Father is not
one with his Son as far as the "substance" is concerned, but in fact they are
one in spirit and purpose. Another scripture regarding this issue is
Hebrews 1:6-14 where the Father speaks about his Son.
The big question is, how is it possible that the Father is God, the Son is
God and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet they are three separate beeings.
We need to ask the question, who is God? We describe God by his atributes.
Some of his atributes are: love, justice, mercy, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.
Now, let me ask, would God be God if he would lack any one of his atributes?
The answer is no! Let me ask the question, is it possible that more than one
beeing possesses these atributes? The answer is yes! Another question, does
the fact that more than one being possesse these atributes diminish either
one? The answer is no! So, the question is, who is God? The answer is that
all those who possesses God's atributes are Gods, even one God, because
they all possess the same atributes to their perfections. For there is only
one perfect love, one perfect truth, one perfect justice, etc.
Now lets look at some Bible passages:
Col 1:19
========
"For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;"
Col 2:9
=======
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
What is this fulness which is mentioned in the above verses? It is nothing
more or less than the atributes of God the father.
Interestingly, these also explains why the LDS believes that those who will
be exalted, will also become gods. Here are some of the passages regarding
these issue:
Romans 8:16-17
==============
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children
of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with
Christ:..."
Ephesians 4:13
==============
"Till we all come in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the
Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ:"
Rev. 21:7
=========
"He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he
shall be my son."
The promisses for those who repent and follow Christ are great. I have
difficulties with trying to understand what it means to be "joint heirs with
Christ", to be able to come "unto the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ", and to "inherit all things". I am greatfull for what
Jesus has done for me, that he is my Friend, Savior, Master, even my God.
Now, you may ask, are our believes different than the "ortodox Christian"
believes? In some cases yes, and other cases no. We do not believe the
concept of Trinity. In fact, the concept of Trinity is not Biblical. I
find it interesting that we LDS are accused of not believing that the Bible
is the word of God, yet those who are saying this will deny what the Bible
says about their false traditions, which they are not willing to give up.
With brotherly love,
Frank
[I have a feeling we're looping here. I know I've explained all of
this before. I'd rather not get involved in the question of "of the
same substance", since the language was ambiguous from the beginning.
I think in fact you probably misunderstand it. But rather than get
embroiled in metaphysics, let me try to find a way to put things that
isn't quite so philosophical (and which I think can be tied fairly
closely to the Bible).
So let me suggest that a better way to compare yourselves with
orthodox Christianity is to look at the basic question of whether you
believe that God is the source of all that is. If you're going to say
that anything possessing God's attributes it God, I'm afraid that most
of us would want to include that as one of God's attributes. As I
understand LDS belief, there is at least some speculation that the
Father is the source of this universe, but that Christ may end up
having his own universe, and our Father may have played some other
role in an earlier universe which had its own Father. It's not
critical whether you actually believe this. I realize it's probably
not official doctrine. But the question is whether you see it as at
least possible according to your understanding of what it means to be
a god. If you do, then I believe you have three separate gods, none
of whom would meet the orthodox criteria for being God. Because our
definition of God includes not just omniscience and all that, but
being the source of all that is. Not just the source of one universe
out of many possible ones, but the source of all that is. I don't see
how there can be more than one of those. So if you accept that as
being one of the attributes of God, and you want to say that Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are all really God, then you have to say that
somehow they all together form a single source of all that is. Once
you've said that, it's pretty easy to show that as you try to sharpen
up your definitions, you end up with the Trinity.
Note however that all of this is basically irrelevant to most of the
Scripture references you have cited. You cited passages where Jesus
talked about his unity with the Father. Remember that orthodox
Christianity has two doctrines that talk about the relationship
between Father and Son: the Trinity and the Incarnation. We consider
humans to be a different kind of thing from God. The Trinity talks
about the relationship between the Father and the preexistent Son --
the preexistent Logos referred to in the prolog to John and such
passges as Colossians 1. The Incarnatino talks about the relationship
between this preexistent Logos and the human being Jesus. The claim
is that the Father and the preexistent Logos are of the same
substance, namely "divine", and Jesus is of a very different
substance, namely human. So in fact orthodox Christians agree with
your assertion that the Bible doesn't claim that God and Jesus are of
the same substance. The claim is that Christ has two separate
substances: divine and human, which however are united in such a way
that they form a single entity.
--clh]hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (09/26/90)
[I've been trying to get some of our LDS correspondents to clarify their concept of God. In response to a posting from Daniel Zappala I was trying to see whether they believe in one God or three. >The issue is what you mean by "God". Typically God has been seen as the >only self-existent thing, the source of everything else. I don't see how >there can be more than one of those. --clh] Yes, this seems to be the heart of the issue, what we mean by "God." When discussing LDS beliefs many Christians are also at a disadvantage in that the LDS have nothing to compare with the creeds etc. that others often use to define the term. We are urged to study the scriptures and learn from the Holy Ghost. Therefore while you can find a lot of unofficial stuff on the subject, there is simply no LDS equivalent to the Nicene or Apostles Creeds. If anyone is interested in doing a study of this for themselves I would suggest getting a copy of the LDS "triple combination" (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) and looking in the index under such terms as God the Father, Jesus, Holy Ghost, Godhead, etc. Try to get a printing after 1981 when the index was greatly improved. It would also be useful to look up the same topics in the the topical guide of the LDS printing of the Bible from the same time frame. Another good source is "A Doctrinal Dissertation on the Father and the Son" in _Messages of the First Presidency_ Vol 5 pp 26-34, James R. Clark, Ed. Bookcraft, 1971. I will try to explain how I see things from my own study but be advised that this is in no way official. Usually when the LDS us the word "God" we are referring to God the Father. He is self-existent and the source of everything else. A strict reading of your definition of God would leave Him as God but rule out Jesus and the Holy Ghost. However I think few if any LDS would define God so narrowly. Your "subsidiary" God mentioned below fits my idea of Jesus, he is the son of the Father and subordinate to His Father. However I still consider Him to be a God. > From the rest of what you say, I >assume you are going to say that the Son came from the Father, and >therefore that he is not self-existent. So by my definitions, he >isn't really God. If I try to extrapolate what you mean by God, in a >way that includes even a "subsidiary" one like the Son, it seems to me >that you have to mean someone who has enough power to create a >universe, but is not necessarily the ultimate source of everything. Right (or at least consistent with what I believe). >Note that in my attempt to deemphasize differences between LDS and >classical doctrines I may have allowed something to slide that I >shouldn't have. When creeds talk about "begotten not made" or >"begotten of the Father before all worlds", what is being said is that >the Son is just as self-existent as the Father. "There was not a time >when he was not." "begotten" is being used in a very special way, not >to mean that the Son came from the Father at a specific time (as >begotten would normally mean with humans) -- not even at a "time" >before earthly time started -- but as an eternal relationship "within" >the one God. Well, I and I think most LDS would part ways with the creeds here. We do not consider the Son self existent but take the begotten to mean something close to what it means here on earth. Most would probably think of this in terms of time. (Of course what is "time" in the eternal sense, anyway? I'm not sure our human concept is adequate to include what happens eternally.) He was certainly begotten before the creation of the worlds since He was charged with their creation (D&C section 76). However, I consider him, in a very real sense, "younger" than the Father. > Words become very murky here, and frankly I think there >may be some additional philosophical work needed, but the point is >that classical theology sees only one uncreated entity, which in some >sense "includes" Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. My picture which I think most LDS share is that they are one in the same sense that we are expected to be one (John 17:21, 23).
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (09/27/90)
There is one God, in 3 Divine persons. That there is one God is provable through metaphysics. The gist of the proof is given in Romans: "The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made." The existence of the Creator is knowable from a consideration of the creation. That the one God is composed of three Persons is *not* provable, but knowable by revelation only. The reason for the difference here is that the creation is the work of all three Persons equally, so there is nothing manifest in the creation from which we can deduce the existence of the 3 Persons. Had God given us something accessible to our senses to reason from, we might be able to deduce the Trinity, but there is no such sense evidence available. The doctrine is not founded upon reason, but faith. Joe Buehler
farkas%qual@sun.com (Frank Farkas) (09/27/90)
In article <Sep.25.03.47.25.1990.6282@athos.rutgers.edu>, farkas%qual@sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >In article <Sep.20.05.24.49.1990.20229@athos.rutgers.edu>, fuzzy@portia.stanford.edu (Daniel Zappala) writes: Our moderator responded to my explonation regarding how it is possible that the Father, the So and the Holy Ghost are separate beings, yet they are one God, by saying: [Long quotation omitted. I noted that LDS concepts seem to be based on the concept of Gods that can be the source of one of many universes, whereas traditional theology assumes there is a single God that is the source of all that is. However we relate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, if we want them all to be truly God, and consider there to be only a single source of everything, then we somehow have to end up rolling Father, Son, and Holy Spirit up into one God. --clh] First of all, I am not sure what it means that God is the source of all things. If you refer to the so called creation out of nothing, that is another para scripture without any Biblical foundation. What the Bible says in actuallity is that God organized the world out of choas. The Hebrew word which is translated as create, also means organize. Lets look at what it means if I, you or anyone else creates something? Does it imply that we have created something out of nothing? Of course not. I accept that one of the atributes, or characteristics of God that he is the creator of all things which you see around you, including our spirit and of course our bodies. If we examine the Bible, than we find statements, over and over again, that He is the creator of all things. Most people believes that the Bible refers to the Father. However, when I get to the new testament I find out that the creation of this world and others was actually done by the Son. Hebrews 1:2 =========== "...whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." >Note however that all of this is basically irrelevant to most of the >Scripture references you have cited. You cited passages where Jesus >talked about his unity with the Father. Remember that orthodox >Christianity has two doctrines that talk about the relationship >between Father and Son: the Trinity and the Incarnation. We consider >humans to be a different kind of thing from God. The Trinity talks >about the relationship between the Father and the preexistent Son -- >the preexistent Logos referred to in the prolog to John and such >passges as Colossians 1. The Incarnatino talks about the relationship >between this preexistent Logos and the human being Jesus. The claim >is that the Father and the preexistent Logos are of the same >substance, namely "divine", and Jesus is of a very different >substance, namely human. So in fact orthodox Christians agree with >your assertion that the Bible doesn't claim that God and Jesus are of >the same substance. The claim is that Christ has two separate >substances: divine and human, which however are united in such a way >that they form a single entity. > I believe that when the philosophers gets hold of the scriptures, they get into a run away condition and trying to explain things in a complicated way as to assure their own importance. When I read the Bible I understand that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are three seperate individuals, yet they are all one, they all agree. I have no problem with this. The concept of the Trinity is unexplainable, and not understandable. Only self serving philosophers could come up with such discriptions of God, as this one(this happens to be the Presbyterian description of God, Presbyterian Church Confession of Faith): "There is but one living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts or passion, immutable, immens, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his immutable and righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long suffering, abunded in godness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and with all most just and terrible in his judgements; hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty." Now, compare this with the testimonies of those who have seen him and talked with him as one man talks with another and what the Bible has to say about him: Jacob's tetimony - Genesis 33:30 Mose' testimony - Exodus 24:9-10 Exodus 33:9-11 Paul's testimony - Hebrews 1:3 Stephen's testimony - Acts 7:55-56 John's testimony - Mathew 3:16-17 Joseph Smith's testimony- Joseph Smith History 1:16-17 (quoted below): "...I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me." "It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. one of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other-This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" Deut 4:28 ========= "And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell." John 17:3 ========= "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." There is some thing terribly wrong with the philosophers idea of God. Ortodox Christian believes are based on philosophers description of God, not which is provide by revelations and testimonies recorded in the Bible. If it is true that God is "incomprehensible", than what chance do I have to gain eternal life, based on what Jesus said? How can I possibly come to know him? If he is "without body, parts or passion", than who is Jesus? Why was Jesus resurrected with his physical body? Why didn't he just return into a "pure spirit", without having a physical body? Are you telling me that the only begotten Son in the flesh of God the Father has a body and his Father don't? How can he be without passion? The dictionary states that passion means: 1. Suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross. 2. Any emotion as hate, love, etc. To me, the above quoted Presbyterian, and other like descriptions of God, is nothing but some mumbo jumbo. It doesn't help me at all to come to know God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. In fact, if I believe them, it would become difficult, or impossible. >--clh] With brotherly love, Frank [I was not attempting to convince anyone of the Trinity. I brought it into the picture simply to provide a comparison with LDS beliefs. My goal in this discussion has not been to convert any LDS, but to try to make sure I understand what they believe. In fact is is possible to express the Trinity in ways that do not depend upon neo-Platonic philosophy. It is also possible to connect it pretty closely with the Bible. But since we had discussions of that sort of few months ago, I was (and am) avoiding doing so again. I believe that my basic goals have been achieved. I think I do understand the difference in our ideas of God, and how other differences follow from that. I'd summarize it by saying that the mainline Christian concept is based on a strict monotheism: a God whose nature and power is such that there can't be another like him. Thus if the Father and Son are both truly God they must be in some way the same God. The LDS idea seems to be what I'd call henotheism. I.e. the Father is clearly in control of our universe, but his nature is not such as to prevent there from being others of the same kind. I'm avoiding making the standard accusation of polytheism, because that doesn't seem quite fair. While others may end up as gods in their own right, it seems clear that at least in our universe LDS do agree on the preeminent authority of God, and our complete dependence upon Christ. --clh]
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (10/01/90)
Re: Joe Buehler In article <Sep.27.03.31.22.1990.14605@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >There is one God, in 3 Divine persons. >That there is one God is provable through metaphysics. Hi, Joe! I'm certainly no expert on metaphysics, but I am versed (to some meager extent) in logic and philosophy, and I'd be inclined to group BOTH of your above statements in the domain of the unprovable. Thus far, all the "proofs" of God have been invalid, incomplete, or otherwise inadequate to prove the existence of a Supremely Perfect Being beyond all doubt. In all such "proofs", one must be predisposed to believing in the assertions in order to accept them, since they carry no objective proof value. Now, let me say something for the record: just to nip-in-the-bud any suspicions that I am atheist, agnostic, or otherwise not fully dedicated to God, let me assert that I am certainly NOT against belief in God... but I *do* get nervous over "proofs". Anytime someone tries to prove an infinite God by our finite means, it spells certain failure. Philosophically, that's no big deal... but if someone had actually BASED his/her faith on that "proof", they would fall, and fall *HARD*, when the "proof" is discredited. As a personal plea, I beg you... DON'T tie your belief in God to any "proof", scientific or otherwise!! Believe because you WANT to believe, or you feel OBLIGATED to believe by a force from within (or without). Believe because you feel that it is NATURAL for you to believe! If there exists anything that does NOT NEED proof, it most certainly is God. God is self-evident to all who accept Him... once you decide to believe in Him (for WHATEVER reason), that's all that's necessary. Let God do the rest... for, if one believes at all in the Christian teachings, one must agree that God is worthy to be the "pilot of one's soul... the master of one's destiny" (can anyone tell me where that's from, by the way? I've been wracking my brain on it...). -- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu