Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

[JMM1957]

Now you’re changing the question. Previously it was about overcoming problems, which is a positive thing. Now it’s about having problems, which sounds like someone who needs counseling, or something.

Are you asking a new question? What’s the point here? There are many things about God that LDS don’t claim to know. Has your question changed from problems to sins?

You asked about overcoming problems and asked for a scripture. I provided one. You don’t have to take the verse at its word, of course.

About “overcoming problems”, I was speaking of what LivingWaters7 mentioned, and was interpreting “problems” as negative, not positive actions. We were on a slightly different wavelength. How LDS teach that the Father, as once a human, had to deal with temptations and the struggles of human weaknesses, before he became exalted to being a God of this universe, was what I was getting at.

 

[Stephen168]

Let us be clear here. The issue isn’t merely overcoming “problems”. The exact statement from the church manual is this:

The underlined sentence is the one in question. It is teaching that the Father “became” the Father (implying that He wasn’t always the Father), and that He did so by “overcoming problems”, just like we do (providing a corollary to our own path to exaltation).

That is the issue at hand. This of course goes along with the teachings of Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse, where he teaches that God wasn’t always God from all eternity. You will not find such an idea anywhere in the Bible nor any other ancient Christian writings, nor anywhere in the ancient Christian Church.

"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see."
lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

Latter-day Saints believe that God achieved his exalted rank by progressing much as man must progress and that God is a perfected and exalted man: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,-I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another” (TPJS, p. 345).
eom.byu.edu/index.php/Godhood

Exactly:thumbsup:
The subject of the thread is: Are Mormons Christian? The answer is no, due to their understanding of God, which was NEVER Christian.

Christians believe the God always was and Mormons believe God became.

 

[Stephen168]

I will still maintain that the Fathers at Chalcedon did not have in mind your ideas here. I will still maintain that the Fathers at Nicea held different views. I will still maintain that homoousian in the generic sense was much of the semi-Arian controversy that raged for decades and that homoousian in the numeric sense is now the orthodox position. I will still maintain that all this is evidence that Catholicism DEVELOPED.

While you maintain, you are wrong.

And truth be told in response to those who bash my faith, I will say that God as three and God is one homoousian (numerically) when embraced by rationalist demanding human reason be brought to bear absolutely is not just mysterious, but a violation of the law on non-contradiction (because I believe if you move past “mystery” you can in fact bring to bear human reason and show contradiction, some theologians claim “God can make a square circle or a married bachelor because He is omniscient,” but I believe God desires we use reason and a sentence that makes no sense does not make sense merely because God becomes part of this sentence).

A practitioner of a religion that believes God was once a man would have difficulty in understanding the God of Christianity. They would be limited by their belief that God must exist and operate within the laws of nature because the Mormon God is a creature just like man.

 

[Michael68]

About “overcoming problems”, I was speaking of what LivingWaters7 mentioned, and was interpreting “problems” as negative, not positive actions. We were on a slightly different wavelength. How LDS teach that the Father, as once a human, had to deal with temptations and the struggles of human weaknesses, before he became exalted to being a God of this universe, was what I was getting at.

This sounds a lot like an ancient astronaut theory. Are you sure this is correct?

 

[JMM1957]

This sounds a lot like an ancient astronaut theory. Are you sure this is correct?

No LDS has said otherwise, this is what I believe they teach. Maybe someone will respond.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This sounds a lot like an ancient astronaut theory. Are you sure this is correct?

Though not in the same vein as Scientology. Rather than an ancient advanced civilization, Mormonism teaches of a way things has always existed. It’s eternal laws and principles that exist with no beginning and no end.

But we have this from Joseph Fielding Smith:

1. Worlds without number have been created.
2. They have been created as habitations for the children of God.
3. The great work and glory of our Father is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
4. Inhabitants of other worlds are begotten sons and daughters of God.
5. When one earth passes away to its exaltation another comes.
6. The making of earths is a glorious work which has been carried on eternally.
   This being true, then does it not appear to you that it is a foolish and ridiculous notion that when God created this earth he had to begin with a speck of protoplasm, and take millions of years, if not billions, to bring conditions to pass by which his sons and daughters might obtain bodies made in his image? Why not the shorter route and transplant them from another earth as we are taught in the scriptures? –Man His Origin And Destiny

 

[Tarquin]

Though not in the same vein as Scientology. Rather than an ancient advanced civilization, Mormonism teaches of a way things has always existed. It’s eternal laws and principles that exist with no beginning and no end.

But we have this from Joseph Fielding Smith:

1. Worlds without number have been created.
2. They have been created as habitations for the children of God.
3. The great work and glory of our Father is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
4. Inhabitants of other worlds are begotten sons and daughters of God.
5. When one earth passes away to its exaltation another comes.
6. The making of earths is a glorious work which has been carried on eternally.
   This being true, then does it not appear to you that it is a foolish and ridiculous notion that when God created this earth he had to begin with a speck of protoplasm, and take millions of years, if not billions, to bring conditions to pass by which his sons and daughters might obtain bodies made in his image? Why not the shorter route and transplant them from another earth as we are taught in the scriptures? --Man His Origin And Destiny

How curious. That he should ridicule the passage of millions or billions of years “to bring conditions to pass by which his sons and daughters might obtain bodies made in his image” - because it seems to me it must have taken trillions of years to get to that point in a Mormon cosmology!

First God takes an “intelligence” (nondescript individuated substance never adequately described), puts that “intelligence” into a spirit body. According to the founding and subsequent prophets of the Church those spirit bodies are created by a Father and Mother in the same way physical bodies are created on earth. There will therefore be union, conception, gestation, birth, and then of course a growing period. Only after these spirit children have learned enough can they be trusted to be born in bodies on earth (where they will have forgotten everything they needed to learn before being born ).

Whether God has one, two, or a hundred wives to help him, it seems that an incredible amount of time must pass for the creation (conception, gestation, labor, birth) of these spirit sons and daughters, and their period of learning. There are over seven billion people living on earth today. Physical children are born nine months after conception. That would be 63 billion months divided by however many wives God used for this process of putting intelligence into spirit bodies. Maybe gestation is shorter in heaven. Nine days instead of nine months. That would help because then God’s wives could give birth 40 times a year instead of just once. Add to that the number of people who lived before today, plus any numbers on other planets that God has placed people on.

Ans that’s only two thirds of his spirit children. Remember, according to Mormon teaching, one-third of the spirit children of God followed Satan. This process of bringing forth spirit sons and daughters, and then teaching them over the course of their first 21 years or so of growth and education (times 1,000 since one day in Heaven is a thousand days on earth?) surely took billions, if not trillions, of years, Joseph Fielding Smith’s foolish and ridiculous notion notwithstanding.

That seems quiet alien to original, historical, tradition, and current Christianity.

 

[RebeccaJ]

How curious. That he should ridicule the passage of millions or billions of years “to bring conditions to pass by which his sons and daughters might obtain bodies made in his image” - because it seems to me it must have taken trillions of years to get to that point in a Mormon cosmology!

First God takes an “intelligence” (nondescript individuated substance never adequately described), puts that “intelligence” into a spirit body. According to the founding and subsequent prophets of the Church those spirit bodies are created by a Father and Mother in the same way physical bodies are created on earth. There will therefore be union, conception, gestation, birth, and then of course a growing period. Only after these spirit children have learned enough can they be trusted to be born in bodies on earth (where they will have forgotten everything they needed to learn before being born ).

Whether God has one, two, or a hundred wives to help him, it seems that an incredible amount of time must pass for the creation (conception, gestation, labor, birth) of these spirit sons and daughters, and their period of learning. There are over seven billion people living on earth today. Physical children are born nine months after conception. That would be 63 billion months divided by however many wives God used for this process of putting intelligence into spirit bodies. Maybe gestation is shorter in heaven. Nine days instead of nine months. That would help because then God’s wives could give birth 40 times a year instead of just once. Add to that the number of people who lived before today, plus any numbers on other planets that God has placed people on.

Ans that’s only two thirds of his spirit children. Remember, according to Mormon teaching, one-third of the spirit children of God followed Satan. This process of bringing forth spirit sons and daughters, and then teaching them over the course of their first 21 years or so of growth and education (times 1,000 since one day in Heaven is a thousand days on earth?) surely took billions, if not trillions, of years, Joseph Fielding Smith’s foolish and ridiculous notion notwithstanding.

That seems quiet alien to original, historical, tradition, and current Christianity.

Well, his target was science, and he certainly wasn’t talking science in rebuttal.

Mormon scripture teaches that one day to their God is 1000 of our years (Kolob involved in that reckinomg). So take all the millions, billliions, trillions and divide by 1000. Then take the human gestation of 280 days and calculate what that is in Kolob time. Not sure if the calculation would be 280 days is a blink of an eye, or 280 days of time as reckoned by Kolob, which would be a longgggg time for a spiritual pregnancy.

When looking at Mormon doctrines on space (for lack of a better description) it’s pseudo science with a good mix of sci-fi imagination. Some of the craziest stuff I was taught is around space speculations and/or their millennium.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Well, his target was science, and he certainly wasn’t talking science in rebuttal.

Mormon scripture teaches that one day to their God is 1000 of our years (Kolob involved in that reckinomg). So take all the millions, billliions, trillions and divide by 1000. Then take the human gestation of 280 days and calculate what that is in Kolob time. Not sure if the calculation would be 280 days is a blink of an eye, or 280 days of time as reckoned by Kolob, which would be a longgggg time for a spiritual pregnancy.

When looking at Mormon doctrines on space (for lack of a better description) it’s pseudo science with a good mix of sci-fi imagination. Some of the craziest stuff I was taught is around space speculations and/or their millennium.

I mean no harm to LDS posters, but I am going to ask this in all seriousness: Would it be correct to classify LDS as a UFO religion? As to the OP, I have to say that many Mormons do love God and try to serve him the best they can, but the problem is, from Catholic perspective, that Mormons have a misunderstanding on the nature of God

 

[jane_doe]

I mean no harm to LDS posters, but I am going to ask this in all seriousness: Would it be correct to classify LDS as a UFO religion? As to the OP, I have to say that many Mormons do love God and try to serve him the best they can, but the problem is, from Catholic perspective, that Mormons have a misunderstanding on the nature of God

Let’s flip this question around:

I mean no harm to [Catholic] posters, but I am going to ask this in all seriousness: Would it be correct to classify [Catholic] as a UFO religion? As to the OP, I have to say that many [Catholic] do love God and try to serve him the best they can, but the problem is, from [LDS] perspective, that [Catholics] have a misunderstanding on the nature of God?

Clearly the answer to both questions is “No”.

 

[Stephen168]

Let’s flip this question around:

Flipping the question doesn’t make any sense.

Clearly the answer to both questions is “No”.

There was only ONE question. It seems to me you would have to know exactly what he means by “UFO Religion” to honestly answer the question.

The second sentence was a statement.

As to the OP, I have to say that many Mormons do love God and try to serve him the best they can, but the problem is, from Catholic perspective, that Mormons have a misunderstanding on the nature of God.

Yes, the Mormon understanding of the nature of God is not the Christian understanding.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Let’s flip this question around:

I mean no harm to [Catholic] posters, but I am going to ask this in all seriousness: Would it be correct to classify [Catholic] as a UFO religion? As to the OP, I have to say that many [Catholic] do love God and try to serve him the best they can, but the problem is, from [LDS] perspective, that [Catholics] have a misunderstanding on the nature of God?

Clearly the answer to both questions is “No”.

Perhaps his question is related to ideas consistent with Mormon theology that have been taught at some time or another:

1)the Father is an exalted and resurrected man
2) the Father lived on an earth like this
3) the Father had a Father, who had a Father, etc. (i.e. infinite regress of Gods)

So, presumably, his question is based on the idea that there is at least one other “earth” that existed where the Father was once a man on (as taught by various LDS leaders, manuals, etc.), and that “man” existed before God created man (I’m not talking about the pre-mortal existence), presumably on that other earth that the Father lived on. Therefore, your “flip” of his question does not make sense, if we actually understand the context of his question (a context not entertained or logically derived from Catholic theology).

 

[RebeccaJ]

I mean no harm to LDS posters, but I am going to ask this in all seriousness: Would it be correct to classify LDS as a UFO religion? As to the OP, I have to say that many Mormons do love God and try to serve him the best they can, but the problem is, from Catholic perspective, that Mormons have a misunderstanding on the nature of God

There’s a wide variety of beliefs among individual LDS members. Way back when a Sunday school teacher taught us that Jesus and the Father travelled in beams of light. Other LDS would view that as making a hobby of Mormon doctrines on space, as found in their scriptures.

 

[TOmNossor]

The example you provide of Peter, John and Paul is incorrect to reflect all the aspects of the Trinity. Indeed, you cannot find an example in the whole reality that exists that reflects ALL the aspects of the Trinity. Every example will fail in one aspect or another.

Do you agree with the Catholic scholar I quoted:
“But the three divine persons are numerically the same being and essence. This is a unity that we cannot even comprehend. It is not only a unity than which none greater can be conceived; this unity itself cannot even be conceived. We grasp things intellectually by dividing them (into genus and species). So a Being that cannot be divided even formally is unintelligible to us. Before we seek to understand the doctrine of the Trinity, we first have to recognize the incomprehensible unity within which the Son and Spirit process.”

It is like trying to project the surface of our Planet inside a paper map. You cannot project it preserving all the characteristics, the angles, the areas and the shapes of the countries and oceans. No matter the projection you use, it always fails to preserve one of the three.

What you say is true when we project three dimensions into two, but the lost information is rational. It is even true that 4 dimensional space is virtually impossible for us who live in a three special dimensions to physically perceive. That being said, it can be mathematically represented and there is no violation of the law of non-contradiction. If I say that I stand at point w,x,y,z and I shoot 4 bullets at all 90 degree angles to one another in 4 different directions, you might think, “impossible,” but in 4 dimensional space it is just the way things work. It is not a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

The only example of the Trinity is the Trinity itself. Nothing in reality is like God. No matter the projection, it always will fail on something. The example of:

• Superman: Jehovah’s Witnesses: The three Greek gods: The ice, water and vapour: The clover: Etc.

I’m not saying examples cannot be used to explain the Trinity, I’m saying they cannot fully represent it.

I agree the Trinity is unique. I also agree that there is no PERFECT analogy.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

In regard to the word homousian at the Council, Father Davis said and other Catholic posters have said: The word had one meaning at the Council and it was the generic meaning. Its numeric meaning would be modalist which is heresy.

You continue to conflate the words consubstantial and homoousian into some pre-Nicean confusion the word consubstantial never had.

Stephen,
I suspect you do not understand well (despite you claiming I do not understand).
You and I agree that homoousian in the numeric sense is the modalist heresy.
Father Davis, you, and I all agree that many (most probably) of the Father’s at Nicea used homoousian in the generic sense.
Father Davis and I agree that Athanasius after the council brought forth homoousian in the numeric sense (when referring to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and that this is integral to the Catholic teaching on the matter. Catholic scholar Dr. Bryan Cross agrees.
I am not sure if you have read Father Davis, but I am quite convinced you do not understand what you are talking about. Actually, you understand well when you claim when/if homoousian is used of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the numeric sense; that is modalist. You are right there. I suspect Father Davis disagrees with TOm and Stephen on this.
Concerning your “conflate” comment, are you suggesting that “consubstantial” ALWAYS has mean “homoousian in the numeric sense” and that this is modalism?
Perhaps I misunderstand you. Maybe this is because I am too stupid or maybe it is because you are not trying to help me understand. But, the majority of Catholic scholars believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are homoousian/consubstantial in the numeric sense. You, me, and David Kembal –Cook agree that such is modalism.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Continued from post #870.

I’m neither saying that the Trinity is contradictory for cannot being fully represented. God is unique, and is above our understanding. If you fully understand God, then that is not God, it’s your idol, your creature made by you (let me the expression). God will always be deeper.

I have no problem with God being “deeper.” I actually believe that we make idols of anything we love if we think we can reduce them to “true propositions.” God most of all.
But we can say untrue things about God, we can say true things about God. And, I maintain that one way in which we are “made in the image of God” is that we can reason. I maintain that we should not postulate the irrational and declare all is well because the subject of the irrational is God. And most importantly, as I have said a few times in this thread, I think it inappropriate to declare that the tools of reason destroy my faith when the law of non-contradiction is violated by the most prevalent conception of the Trinity held by Catholic scholars. Add this, while I cannot perfectly draw the lines between Social and Monarchical forms within the Trinity, I see nothing that contradicts the reason God gave us, so I spend a lot of time REASONING as best I am capable of reasoning. I imagine my reasoning about God may be sinful. I turn the one I should love into an object I analyze. This works great when dialoguing with anti-Mormons, but it can leave me farther from God. I need to guard against this (but of course that too is prescriptive and intellectual, I think I will pray)!

But God has revealed to us how he is, in Jesus Christ. And the Church has the right and the duty to correct the errors when talking about God (heresies), and to explain the truth, little by little, as necesary, as she is getting more and more understanding when contemplating Jesus, the revelation given to us. Like the one who has a precious treasure and extracts from it the new and the old things (Matthew 13,44).

I am somewhat sympathetic to this. I am not sure how to respond. I think this is reasonable Catholic self-understanding.
I do not believe this is what the apostles did. LDS send out 18-22 year olds because our message is “come and see.” I personally spend a lot of time with “let us reason together,” and I lean toward believing this is something that it is appropriate for me to do.
I do not believe that asking someone to define consubstantial when they make a good point about John 17:21 is either “come and see” or “let us reason together.” And if reason is not on the side of the believer in consubstantial (and Catholics will deny dogma because they do not understand the word), I thought I would point it out.
Oh, and I strenuously object to the idea that LDS send out 18-22 year olds and say, “come and see” because reason is not on our side. I think reason is on our side, TOO. I just think God is more about “come and see” than “let us reason together.”

When it is stated that the Son is consubstantial with the Father doesn’t mean the Son is the Father, like your option 4.1. Otherwise, the Council fathers would have said: “the Son is the Father”. Easier impossible. So the numerical identity is discarded.
It doesn’t mean they are two different gods of the same type (option 4.2), because it is said in the same creed, that the Son is God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God. Light which proceeds from Light doesn’t divide itself. So the generic identity is also discarded.
The Holy Spirit is fully God (not one third), YHVH, the Son is fully God, YHVH and the Father is fully God, YHVH. They are exactly the same in everything you can say about God. Only they differ in one thing: the relationships they have among them. Without these relations that happen in God (by his nature), God would be one being, and one person. But revelation says these relationships are in God, then there are three persons, one being.

I am not sure if being between Scylla and Charybdis had progressed from its original Greek context of an IMPOSSIBLE middle way to its more modern context (lost from American education only a few decades ago) of a difficult choice, when Augustine used it (Augustine is known for not being good with the Greek language, he might have been poor with its mythology too) or not. I see in Augustine’s writings assertions that he is not a modalist, not Arian, and not a Trithiest. I see no definition of a “middle way” in his writings or in your writings above. Claiming that God is one being and three persons does not educate. There is no four dimensional math that enables us to “reason together” to a non-contradictory position. I just do not see it working.
I agree with the Catholic scholar I quoted before, it is “unintelligible to us.”
I assert,

1. Christ is fully God.
2. There is One God.
3. I cannot perfectly explain how the above two things are true. There is mystery there.
   Am I a Christian?
   Perhaps my intellect is not up to the task. Perhaps it is just me and Dr. Cross who consider it “unintelligible to us,” but at least I am in good company.
   Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I think this expresses fairly well what believing scholars are talking about when they point to generic and numeric sense. I hope I have satisfied the request to define these two senses of homoousian. I find it unlikely that I will just accept the bald assertion, “it has only one meeting.”

No one has claimed anything different.

Kyrie Eleison
Christe Eleison
Kyrie Eleison

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 consubstantial as “same nature” rather than “one being”. We human beings are all consubstantial. The three divine persons are consubstantial.

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.
I see what you did there.
"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).

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.

Remember you challenged us to define consubstantial.

As I have said several times and you continue to ignore: There is only one “sense” and meaning to the word consubstantial.

You continue to conflate the words consubstantial and homoousian into some pre-Nicean confusion the word consubstantial never had.

In regard to the word homousian at the Council, Father Davis said and other Catholic posters have said: The word had one meaning at the Council and it was the generic meaning. Its numeric meaning would be modalist which is heresy.

You continue to conflate the words consubstantial and homoousian into some pre-Nicean confusion the word consubstantial never had.

You continue to conflate the words consubstantial and homoousian into some pre-Nicean confusion the word consubstantial never had.

You continue to conflate the words consubstantial and homoousian into some pre-Nicean confusion the word consubstantial never had.

You and I agree that homoousian in the numeric sense is the modalist heresy.
Father Davis, you, and I all agree that many (most probably) of the Father’s at Nicea used homoousian in the generic sense.

Actually, you understand well when you claim when/if homoousian is used of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the numeric sense; that is modalist. You are right there.

Concerning your “conflate” comment, are you suggesting that “consubstantial” ALWAYS has mean “homoousian in the numeric sense” and that this is modalism?

How you can even ask that question after writing the four statements before it, is baffling.

I’m suggesting that consubstantial means exactly what HojaVerde said it means. And your sophistry has not proven otherwise.

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen,
You misquoted me. In doing so you removed my point and then claimed that it was baffling and I was lying (using “sophistry”). If you had not misquoted me, my point would be clear (at least clearer). I will demonstrate. You saying that I am lying doesn’t respond to what I am saying, and I am not lying.
Here is the relevant part as you produced it (except I added in ellipses “…” where you removed my words):

TOmNossor;14189260:

You and I agree that homoousian in the numeric sense is the modalist heresy.
Father Davis, you, and I all agree that many (most probably) of the Father’s at Nicea used homoousian in the generic sense.
…
Actually, you understand well when you claim when/if homoousian is used of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the numeric sense; that is modalist. You are right there.
…
Concerning your “conflate” comment, are you suggesting that “consubstantial” ALWAYS has mean “homoousian in the numeric sense” and that this is modalism?

How you can even ask that question after writing the four statements before it, is baffling.
I’m suggesting that consubstantial means exactly what HojaVerde said it means. And your sophistry has not proven otherwise.

Here is what I said with the “…” replaced by bolded words that were originally not bolded, but were part of my statement to you in the post you misquoted.

You and I agree that homoousian in the numeric sense is the modalist heresy.
Father Davis, you, and I all agree that many (most probably) of the Father’s at Nicea used homoousian in the generic sense.
Father Davis and I agree that Athanasius after the council brought forth homoousian in the numeric sense (when referring to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and that this is integral to the Catholic teaching on the matter. Catholic scholar Dr. Bryan Cross agrees.
I am not sure if you have read Father Davis, but I am quite convinced you do not understand what you are talking about. Actually, you understand well when you claim when/if homoousian is used of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the numeric sense; that is modalist. You are right there. I suspect Father Davis disagrees with TOm and Stephen on this.
Concerning your “conflate” comment, are you suggesting that “consubstantial” ALWAYS has mean “homoousian in the numeric sense” and that this is modalism?

Stephen, I am quite clearly saying that you have adopted a view at odds with Catholic scholar Father Don Davis (and Dr. Bryan Cross). That you have claimed the view Father Davis says is the view of Athanasius and the only view that preserves monotheism, is modalism.
If you edit out the parts of my statement where I explain you do not understand Father Davis, then it makes it hard to see my point. My last question was because you claim you agree with Father Davis, but then you claim that this is modalism. You claim “conflate” and one meaning, but how can you say this? My last question was an attempt to show how at odds with Father Davis your understanding was. Perhaps I could have chosen better words. You claim to agree with Father Davis, but he is quite clear that Athanasius brought out the Catholic view of homoousian in the numeric sense, which is the view you call modalism.
Do you understand now? Did you just miss the relevant parts where I told you that you and Father Davis disagreed? How did you produce the misquoted section of my statement?

Oh, and let me state again, I am not lying. I really think there are things you do not understand about this discussion, about Father Davis’s scholarship, and about the position staked out by the Catholic Church. And I really believe that the main thing non-modalist about Father Davis and Dr. Bryan Cross’s embracing of homoousian/consubstantial in the numeric sense is the bald assertion, “no modalism here!” Dr. Cross at least acknowledges that it is “unintelligible to us.” I agree with that too!
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Oh, and let me state again, I am not lying.

You are being dishonest as you continue in your sophistry.

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

Jesus is consubstantial with us in his humanity, and with God in his divinity.

Generally speaking, I would understand consubstantial as “same nature” rather than “one being”. We human beings are all consubstantial. The three divine persons are consubstantial.

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 personally believe LDS are on common ground (in common with most or all Catholics) when they do not know what to mean when saying "consubstantial. “

Mormons believe human beings are consubstantial with God the Father; having the same nature. Something NEVER believed in all of Christian history.

 

[TOmNossor]

You are being dishonest as you continue in your sophistry.

Mormons believe human beings are consubstantial with God the Father; having the same nature. Something NEVER believed in all of Christian history.

Stephen,
You did not respond to me.
I hope Catholic and non-Catholic on this thread can see this.
You edited my post and then claimed to not understand the edit. I showed how it makes much more sense before your edit. Do you need more clarity on this. Here is where I showed this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14189603&postcount=874

And your accusation is not correct.
I am not “being dishonest.”

I believe you do not understand and I believe I am showing where you do not understand. Then you are “responding” by saying I am “being dishonest.” That is not a response.
I am showing where you and Father Davis (and Hola Verde and Father Davis) disagree. Because of this I believe the Catholic view is as Father Davis (and many others) have expressed it and that you do not understand. I do not know why you respond to me saying this with “You are being dishonest.” That is not true and not a response.
Again, I hope this is obvious to other posters.
Charity, TOm