Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

[HojaVerde]

Well, the alternative of believing in other sentient species is rather silly

If you mean species, why not just say species? (I mean no offense by this, it just seems more direct).

You lost me here. If you want to define being as “what” someone is, how is that different than species?

Oh, I’m not so fluent at English so as to understand the difference between species and nature, or which one is more appropriate. Nature is more familiar for me due to my own language (naturaleza, in Spanish) instead of species (especies). It sounds more theological, more accurate for this topic. I don’t know!

 

[jane_doe]

Oh, I’m not so fluent at English so as to understand the difference between species and nature, or which one is more appropriate. Nature is more familiar for me due to my own language (naturaleza, in Spanish) instead of species (especies). It sounds more theological, more accurate for this topic. I don’t know!

Ok, so that addresses the “If you mean species, why not just say species? (I mean no offense by this, it just seems more direct)” question.

So on to the next question: If you want to define being as “what” someone is, how is that different than species?

 

[HojaVerde]

Ok, so that addresses the “If you mean species, why not just say species? (I mean no offense by this, it just seems more direct)” question.

So on to the next question: If you want to define being as “what” someone is, how is that different than species?

What is the difference between species and nature? Are they synonyms?

The dictionary of Oxford renders nature as follows:

1. The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something
   2.1. The innate or essential qualities or character of a person or animal:

For Species:

1. A kind or sort

And for being:

2.- The nature or essence of a person

I think nature fits better.

 

[jane_doe]

What is the difference between species and nature? Are they synonyms?

The dictionary of Oxford renders nature as follows:

1. The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something
   2.1. The innate or essential qualities or character of a person or animal:

For Species:

1. A kind or sort

And for being:

2.- The nature or essence of a person

I think nature fits better.

… I’m getting rather loss…

 

[Horton]

Oh, I’m not so fluent at English so as to understand the difference between species and nature, or which one is more appropriate. Nature is more familiar for me due to my own language (naturaleza, in Spanish) instead of species (especies). It sounds more theological, more accurate for this topic. I don’t know!

You fluency in English is fine. There is a huge wall that must be breached to get many LDS to understand Catholic or really any non-LDS concepts. Just like with the word “nature”. To me your description made perfect sense. They are so conditioned to believe anything Catholic is bad so it is almost an automatic response to disagree with any statement that supports our faith.

This also leads me to another issue. Many LDS, when confronted with a concept they are unable to challenge will attempt to direct the conversation in another direction. Just as Jane did here with the single word “nature”. I don’t think Jane is a stupid woman and your examples made perfect sense so I struggle with the idea she didn’t understand what you were saying.

 

[jane_doe]

I don’t think Jane is a stupid woman and your examples made perfect sense so I struggle with the idea she didn’t understand what you were saying.

If you want to know, feel free to read my posts.
And yes, I am honestly confused.

 

[HojaVerde]

You fluency in English is fine. There is a huge wall that must be breached to get many LDS to understand Catholic or really any non-LDS concepts. Just like with the word “nature”. To me your description made perfect sense. They are so conditioned to believe anything Catholic is bad so it is almost an automatic response to disagree with any statement that supports our faith.

Thank you Horton. It is difficult to speak about these things, much more in another language. But we are here to explain our faith as far as we can.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I’m guessing we’ll never know what jane doe believes “consubstantial” to mean.

 

[Horton]

I’m guessing we’ll never know what jane doe believes “consubstantial” to mean.

Nope

 

[JMM1957]

Any JW’s out there who want to contribute their opinion to help clarify things? LOL.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Any JW’s out there who want to contribute their opinion to help clarify things? LOL.

Yes, I’d like to hear from them too.

 

[Michael68]

Yes, I’d like to hear from them too.

Good Luck with that! I don’t blame them if they stay out of this

 

[JMM1957]

I used to talk with some JW’s at work years ago, and if I remember correctly, they deny the Trinity as Mormon’s do, but they have a different understanding of the Father, Son, and HS than Mormon’s. Jehovah is God Almighty, Jesus was a created spirit creature (Michael the Archangel) and the HS is just God’s active force which accomplishes His will. Is that about right?

 

[mackbrislawn]

I used to talk with some JW’s at work years ago, and if I remember correctly, they deny the Trinity as Mormon’s do, but they have a different understanding of the Father, Son, and HS than Mormon’s. Jehovah is God Almighty, Jesus was a created spirit creature (Michael the Archangel) and the HS is just God’s active force which accomplishes His will. Is that about right?

Since no JW dares appear, I’ll answer. Yes, exactly right.

An interesting observation is that in their early years of existence, JW’s did not call themselves Christian. They wanted to distance themselves as much as possible from that evil “Christendom.”

 

[Stephen168]

Note: LDS do not use the word “nature” and there isn’t really a concept of it.

How would you define the difference between “being” and “person”. It is my understanding that Catholics do believe that the Father, Son, Spirit are 3 different people. (Please correct me if I am misunderstanding).

"Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius:

A person is an individual substance of a rational nature.

Webster:

A being is the quality or state of having existence

Webster:

Species is a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus

In addition to species:
Catholic Encyclopedia:

nature implies a dynamic point of view and refers to innate tendencies.

In this case I wanted to express an ontological condition. For Arians, the Son was a different kind of being from the kind of being of the Father. So they believed they are of different natures.
Mormons believe all the rational beings are of the same species, i.e. the same kind of being, only they differ in their respective current progress (but I am speaking of the final step, that of the gods as understood by mormons). So in terms I used, they would be of the same nature.

jane_doe;14151694:

Well, the alternative of believing in other sentient species is rather silly

God and man are both rational beings. Mormons believe they have the same nature while Christians believe they do not.

You lost me here. If you want to define being as “what” someone is, how is that different than species?

The above definitions should help.

A sheep is a being but not a person

A human is a being with one person

God is a being with three persons.

 

[TOmNossor]

Consubstantial/homoousian/ομοούσιον means same substance/essence/nature.

I am glad we agree on this (assuming the “ιον” is at the end of the correct Greek. I don’t read Greek, but by now I recognize the end of the word Homoousian). BTW, there are “Englishized” versions of homoousian too like “homoousios” that also are the same word.

Consubstantial has the same meaning whether you apply it to humanity (generic to use your term) or to the Trinity (numeric to use your term). God has one nature and humanity has one nature.
“That they (the disciples) may be one (generically in substance, a single nature) as thou, Father, art in me I in thee, that they also may be one (numerically in substance, a single nature)”

I do not understand.
I claimed that “homoousian” has two meanings.
When applied humanity, it means “one generically in substance, a single nature” when applied to God it means “one numerically in substance, a single nature.”
You say, “homoousian” has one meaning, but then say:

“That they (the disciples) may be one (generically in substance, a single nature) as thou, Father, art in me I in thee, that they also may be one (numerically in substance, a single nature)”

You are giving it two meaning and claiming it has one???

Now two other points of importance that may be worthwhile as you try to explain to me what you mean (and I hope you will address also).

#1 These different “meanings” of homoousian are just “as I say.” There is evidence for them in the ancient Greek. Scholars talk about them. If you intend to say there are not two meanings, that is all good and well. But, I have already seen a Catholic poster claim that, “No we are not consubstantial.” And that we are not consubstantial with Christ. This shows a misunderstanding AND denies Catholic dogma. It will take a lot more than your confident assurance for me to believe that the idea that Homoousian has more than one meaning was just a big misunderstanding.
Here is the discussion of Catholic Father (and Scholar) Don Davis:

However, homoousios was at the time a notoriously slippery word and could have three principal meanings. First, it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individual men, both of who share human nature while remaining individuals. Secondly, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Sonare identical in concrete being. Finall, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay.(p. 61 The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) by Leo D. Davis SJ)

Father Davis continues to explain (like other scholars) that Constintine denied the third meaning was what the council meant. He said the council likely meant the first meaning. AND that Athanasius brought out the second meaning:

But implicit in their statement was numerical identity, that Father and Son are of a single divine substance, an aspect brought out by Athanasius in the course of the long struggle following the Council.(p. 61 The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) by Leo D. Davis SJ)

Father Davis then tells us that it is likely most bishops opposed the term and “it seems clear that the authority of Constantine was the main motivating force.” I might mention that Father Davis then offer Ossius of Cordoba as Constantine’s advicer who was probably behind Constantine’s insistence.
If you search on Google Scholar, you can find MANY discussions of the multiple use of the word.

#2 While Father Davis and many Catholic and Protestant scholars express what I consider to be the historical Catholic view (after all Athanasius is the hero of orthodoxy), there are many MODERN Catholics who have CHANGED their minds on this. Catholic “Social Trinitarians” if aware of the two meanings, embrace the “generic.” These folks MAY not be Catholic, but they and I agree largely when it comes to the oneness of God. I mention this because I believe I have come across Catholic scholars who say “homoousian has multiple meanings, but we should use the generic meaning when conceiving of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” That is not a view without adherents within Catholic scholarship, but it is at odds with Athanasius and the culmination of decades of post Nicene wranglings.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168 has explained about the meaning of consubstantial when applied to two different natures!

Thank you brother!

I may not get back to this today, but please see my comments to Stephen168 above.
Charity, TOm
BTW, your English is great, I didn’t even realize it was a second language for you. Impressive!

 

[ajcstr]

Any JW’s out there who want to contribute their opinion to help clarify things? LOL.

I don’t even know if they would identify themselves as Christians per se. They have a somewhat derogatory term “Christendom” which refers to traditional christianity.

Ah - should have read all earlier posts, therefore - I concur with the post 454 !

 

[ajcstr]

What is the difference between species and nature? Are they synonyms?

The dictionary of Oxford renders nature as follows:

1. The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something
   2.1. The innate or essential qualities or character of a person or animal:

For Species:

1. A kind or sort

And for being:

2.- The nature or essence of a person

I think nature fits better.

I think I may have been the one to throw out “species”, that was never intended to be a declaration of what the church teaches, just another term to define how the three persons of the Trinity are of the same substance. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Stephen168]

I do not understand.

I claimed that “homoousian” has two meanings.
When applied humanity, it means “one generically in substance, a single nature” when applied to God it means “one numerically in substance, a single nature.”
You say, “homoousian” has one meaning, but then say:

Clearly I said Consubstantial has one meaning. To help you understand, let’s review. You started the conversation with:

Can you or any Catholic define “consubstantiation” or more importantly the creedal word you say every Sunday "consubstantial? "

It was clearly defined several times to mean- same substance/nature/essence.
HojaVerde did the first and best job of it:

Generally speaking, I would understand consubstancial as “same nature” rather than “one being”. We human beings are all consubstancial. The three divine persons are consubstancial.
The human nature allows many instances of human beings, due to our finity and condition of creatures. The divine nature not, thus the three are one being.

I even quoted the creed in several languages to show what the word means. To a person seeking understanding that should be the end of it.
But you try to introduced one of your rhetorical sleight of hand tricks (sophistry) by introducing the word homoousian and its 1600 year old meanings.
"Tom:

Your view that “consubstantial” is synonymous with “of the same species” cannot account for the ways this term is used within Catholic circles and Catholic history. One simple way of illustrating this is … what is called by scholars the “generic” meaning of homoousian (consubstantial).

I see what you did there.

Then you use the controversy of its pre-Nicaean meanings to claim there is a controversy about the meaning of consubstantial or consubstantiation. The meaning of consubstantial is clear. The meaning is just as HojaVerde explained it.

Now that we know what consubstantial means, HojaVerde then did a great job of bringing it back to the subject of the thread and showing why Arians could still be called monotheists while Mormons cannot.

Arians, Mormons and Catholics agree that the Father and the Son are different persons, but they differ in their respective beliefs about how many beings they are and about their nature. Let us see:

• Arians: The Father and the Son are different beings and have different natures.
• Mormons: The Father and the Son are different beings and have the same nature.
• Catholics: The Father and the Son are the same being and have the same nature.

We know by Apostolic Tradition that there exists only one God (for example 1 Tim 2,5):

• Arians pass this test, because for them the Father was the unique God, and the Son, as different being, has a different and lesser nature, he was for them a kind of a creature, a minor god if you want, but infinitely inferior; and therefore, not the unique God (uncreated).
• Catholics pass this test as well, because for us the Father is the unique God, and the Son, although a different person, is also this unique God. They are not two gods, but the same one.
• But Mormons do not pass it, because for you, The Father and the Son have the same nature and at the same time they are different beings. Then, they are two gods. Even more, counting the Holy Spirit, the wife/s of the Father (goddesses) and multiple other gods, the father of the Father, and other relatives, the next generation of gods, and so on; there are many more. So Mormons do not pass it.

Therefore, Mormons are not Christians