Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians?

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

RebeccaJ:

Tom, Origen argued for an incorporeal (not embodied) God. He also was a man of his time, and held to Platonic ideas of Spirit having a material substance. Origen never argued that God the Father had a human body. That is you overlaying a foreign concept onto Origen.

Your not reading me. What I said and what you said are both true.
Origin claims that Christains believe in an embodied God, he argues against it.
He claims that scripture CAN be read as he reads it rather than as the Christians and Jews with whom he interacts read it.
He also explains that it is philosophy that motivated his view in opposition to the embodied view, not scripture.
Charity, TOm

Greeks influenced by Stoicism and Pagan ideas, yes, always envisioned God, or gods, as embodied. Origen argues from scripture and uses his training in metaphysics to make a reasoned argument against this.

Rebecca,
You assert that Origen’s multiple arguments against a Christian believe in a God who is not incorporeal is because those Christians were influenced by “Stoicism and Pagan ideas.” Is that correct? This is inconsistent with volumes of Origen that I have read in that Origen argues in two ways (one of which is undermined by other writings of his).
Origen argues that scripture does not DEMAND that God is corporal. Origen acknowledges that many, most, or all scripture points to a corporal God, but he argues that one can read these passages allegorically.
Origen further argues that it is SIMPLE Christians who believe the scriptures and they do not understand. Origen’s position is that it is philosophically ridiculous to believe in an embodied God (Origen at other places acknowledge that he is aware of St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis who was a prolific writer and Origen tells us that Melito believed God was embodied).
Now it may be true that Melito and Tertullian were educated and influence by Greek philosophy, but I would be interested where you see ORIGIN make this claim???
Most of Origen’s polemic against an embodied God is based on the obvious read of scripture (as opposed to the allegorical read of scripture) AND the simplicity of those who embrace an embodied God. AND Origen uses his Platonist philosophical understanding to argue that God MUST be incorporeal because any other position is ridiculous (not because other position are anti-scriptural or not ancient Christian beleifs).
I have found my book for Horton and will reproduce a much larger section for all here. I have search for where Origin might have made a claim like yours, but have not found it and I want to get my Winter quote up.
Could you provide what in Origin YOU BELIEVE indicates that he feels Christians who believe in an embodied God are “Greeks influenced by Stoicism and Pagan ideas.” I don’t think this is much or any of his argument, but I could be wrong.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

RebeccaJ:

Tom, Origen argued for an incorporeal (not embodied) God. He also was a man of his time, and held to Platonic ideas of Spirit having a material substance. Origen never argued that God the Father had a human body. That is you overlaying a foreign concept onto Origen.

Your not reading me. What I said and what you said are both true.
Origin claims that Christains believe in an embodied God, he argues against it.
He claims that scripture CAN be read as he reads it rather than as the Christians and Jews with whom he interacts read it.
He also explains that it is philosophy that motivated his view in opposition to the embodied view, not scripture.
Charity, TOm

Greeks influenced by Stoicism and Pagan ideas, yes, always envisioned God, or gods, as embodied. Origen argues from scripture and uses his training in metaphysics to make a reasoned argument against this. His arguments can’t be refuted by Mormonism, without destroying the underlying assumptions that Origen has…God is immutable, transcendent, etc. Traits of God that Christians held, and still hold. Origen rightly points out that an embodied God is none of these things.
There is no argument coming from Origen that supports Mormonism. His argument is against Pagan and Stoic ideas of an embodied God, not aligning to what scripture reveals about God. His position being, that only scripture reveals what we know about God…stil the position of Christianity today.

I further assert that Origen’s use of scripture indicates that the most NATURAL read of scripture is that God is embodied.
I recall that he does make reductio ad absurdum arguments against an embodied God, but I think those only show that ALL of scripture is not likely to be LITERAL, not that Origen’s allegorical method is to be preferred in all areas.
You are also correct, the original understanding of most of the scriptures used by those who deny God is embodied, was that they supported God as being corporal. The prime example of this is “God is spirit” was understood in the time and culture of Jesus to mean that God was corporal not incorporeal. I think this had more to do with the language of the day than the Stoic philosophy, but surely those are intertwined. In any case, that is how the audience of scripture understood the words UNTIL the developed theology was laid over this understanding.
It is philosophy that Origin embraces and leads to his non-embodied God position. That being said, if you would like to offer some arguments that indicate that to believe in an embodied God is ridiculous, I will entertain them.
Now, if there is nothing Origen to make this case, and your only point is the REASON demands that God is not embodied, you can provide this REASONING. I have never been persuaded by Origen or others to abandon the clear position of scripture, but I would be interested in reading your thoughts.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

You refuted nothing concerning the ECF who witnessed to the COMMON Christian belief that God was embodied.

You have provided zero evidence [quotes from primary sources]
to refute. Except the quote from Origen, which I refuted already.

The only thing I thought you refuted was the position that I never held. I never believed Origen personally embraced an embodied God. I only ever asserted that Origen witnesses to the common Christian belief that God is embodied, not that Origen embraced this belief.
Could you point me to somewhere where you think you refuted something I said?

I have provided Mormon belief from quotes from Mormon authority.
I know you don’t believe that God was once a man as declared by Mormon authority, but you have also claimed that you can become a God. I don’t see how you can believe B and reject A, because they are consistent with each other. Both A & B are the teachings for Mormon authority; especially its founder Joseph Smith.
You refuted nothing concerning the Mormon authorities witness to the COMMON Mormon belief about the nature of God.

Stephen, I do not dispute that the beliefs you so despise within Mormonism were once very common and are still at least somewhat common.
It is the absence of continued teaching in this area, the occasional comment from a leader against these former beliefs, AND the witness against these beliefs that I see in LDS scripture; that has lead me and many others to not hold to these beliefs. Many LDS have no concept of the ideas you insist we must believe.
I do not know what you want me to do to refute them?
I claim that Origin witnesses to the common Christian belief in an embodied God. I could ask you to defend scripturally and philosophically an embodied God, but I know you do not believe that.
You claim LDS leaders spoke of God the Father being once a man (not sure if anyone EVER suggested “sinful man,” but man). I do not believe God the Father was ever merely a man and I do not believe that God the Father has a Father. BUT, I acknowledge this is a view that was once prevalent among LDS.
What do you want me to refute?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen,
Concerning my not jumping through hoops for you:

I once had a Mormon say they would not prove their false claim because I didn’t ask nicely. I know they could not prove their claim, and even if I asked nicely they would come up with some other reason. I don’t play games. You can prove your claim or you can’t. I say you can’t, but it is up to you.

Stephen168,
I am not placing a “nice” requirement upon you. I am asking you to INTERACT with the efforts I put into ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.
This is a reasonable and a decent request. It is not a game. You frequently suggest that I make “false claims” or that I am lying or trying to deceive folks or trick them. Then I jump through hoops to prove I am not and you move on to some other stupid thing like “Mormon’s believe God was once a man.” This is a waste of my time.
You have asked for me to define “begotten” and “proceeding” a number of times, but you don’t want that. I think frequently you have not read the ECF and/or have not idea what the modern Catholic position is. I make a claim about one of both you find damaging to what you think Catholicism is so you throw up the specter that I don’t know what I am talking about. I then give evidence which you ignore. I honestly believe people on this thread can see that this is happening, but it has been happening for years.
So here is my request that has nothing to do with being NICE (I even joked that I didn’t expect nice in response).
I will explain what “begotten” and “proceeding” mean. I will explain why your statement that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are begotten is problematic
You will promise to agree with me and claim you were wrong to begin with (which is what I have been claiming and what you have refused to acknowledge) OR you will disagree with me and explain how what you said was perfectly orthodox and I don’t understand.
If you agree to this, I will step out into the thankless place of explaining Catholic theology to you (or quoting ECF or … it is all thankless) and then put on my Kevlar underwear and brace for your response.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

You are all up about something I never said.

We should seek to understand ancient writings in the context that they were written, would you agree? One context to consider is the culture of the time, author and audience. Would you agree? Origen lived in a culture whose religious beliefs were steeped n Stoicism and Paganism. I’m saying it is not shocking that Greek Christians believed in an embodied God.

Today all Mormons believe in an embodied God, which in Western culture is counter cultural. The Mormon position is that Christians are wrong.

You are the countering Origen by saying the COMMON belief was the right belief, but say today the COMMON belief is wrong. Yet as Stephen points out you ignore the COMMON belief of Mormonism. Beyond that, the COMMON belief is not always in alignment with orthodoxy. We see that in multiple areas of cultural beliefs today.

Origen argues that an embodied God is incompatable with Scripture, that reveals God’s qualities or characteristics as immutable, transcendent, etc. These are the orthodox belief that his argument is based on. You did not address this at all.

He emphasizes that he is using metaphysics for his argument, because as a culture with a Greek pagan background, metaphysics was used to reason and define how to live a moral life and a moral life was the most important thing to that culture. Greek pagans believed their gods judged individuals and societies based on their moality, and this belief transferred to Christianity that teaches the exact same thing about the God of Christianity.

Determining what comprised a moral life included that there were not flaws in ones reasoning, as a flawed reason could lead to amoral concepts and actions. The ancient Greeks were meticulous in this. Origen comes from this culture. Arguments using metaphysics was not suspect, as it is for you and all Mormons, it was expected. Origen emphasizes his use of metaphysics to make the point that he is making a moral argument, that is, one that has spiritual importance.

 

[Fauken]

Only our blessed ever Virgin non tainted Mother Mary who never knew Joseph can free us from our sins

Did one of the Pappas or the Catechism tell you this as well?

 

[gazelam]

Alongside the canonical definition of Christian, we might also use the word to describe anyone who believes in Christ; not just by name or by reference, but one who actually believes in the Christ Who lived 2000 years ago, was crucified, died, and rose.

That excludes groups like Mormons who believe in an entirely different Jesus than the one who lived 2000 years ago.

It is well know that there really was no uniform Christian belief regarding Christ for two plus centuries after the Apostles.

RPC Hansen asks:

"Finally, what is this Christian midrash [i.e., tradition]? What are its contents? The Gnostic formulae of Ignatius? The angel-Christology of Hermas? … or the economic Trinity of Irenaeus and of Tertullian? The modalistic monarchianism of Callistus and Zephyrinus? The graded Trinity of Origen? (R. P. C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church (London: SCM, 1962),244-45.

John Henry Newman writes:

If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered as a Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes. and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian … Tertullian is heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord’s divinity … Origen is. at the very least, suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian. (Newman, Essay, 43)

Perhaps by your logic neither Ignatius, nor Irenaeus, nor Tertullian, nor Pope Callistus I, nor Pope Zephyryinus, nor Origen, nor Justin, nor Hippolytus, nor Eusebius is Christian. They all believed in a different Jesus than the RCC teaches today.

 

[TOmNossor]

We should seek to understand ancient writings in the context that they were written, would you agree? One context to consider is the culture of the time, author and audience. Would you agree? Origen lived in a culture whose religious beliefs were steeped n Stoicism and Paganism. I’m saying it is not shocking that Greek Christians believed in an embodied God.

I agree that we “should seek to understand ancient writings in the context that they were written.” Origin was an educated man in Alexandria. The Neoplatonist took into account the ideas of the Stoics, but they rejected the idea of an embodied God. These were Origen’s people.
Origen does not argue that the Christians were considered Stoics, he argues they were simple and read the scriptures literally. He admits that he is aware of educated Christians such as Bishop Melito who believed in an embodied God, but he does not argue against Stoic ideas he argues for Neoplatonist ideas against the SIMPLE Christians and the simple reading of scripture.
One of his major works (probably the most quoted) was Against Celsus. Celsus criticizes Christians because they believe in an embodied God. Origen says that only simple Christians believe this.

Today all Mormons believe in an embodied God, which in Western culture is counter cultural. The Mormon position is that Christians are wrong.
You are the countering Origen by saying the COMMON belief was the right belief, but say today the COMMON belief is wrong.

I am saying (and many non-LDS Christians have said the same thing) that the believe in an incorporeal God developed. That the LDS view is the more ancient Christian and Jewish belief. And that it is the teachings of scripture before you lay volumes of allegorical interpretation over it.

Yet as Stephen points out you ignore the COMMON belief of Mormonism. Beyond that, the COMMON belief is not always in alignment with orthodoxy. We see that in multiple areas of cultural beliefs today.

I am arguing relative to a once common belief of CoJCoLDS in a very different way than Origin did against the once common belief of Christianity. LDS leaders today and the highest form of authoritative statement, the current canon of scriptures accepted by common consent teach and support the view I embrace. My main argument and that of Ostler is that we do not see a God above God the Father in scripture and LDS leaders do not teach this today AND give some reason to believe they reject it. Origin was quite clear that it is his philosophical understanding that leads him to believe in a non-embodied God. He uses the same arguments the Neoplatonists do, not scripture (I will acknowledge your absolutely unchanging read of scripture and talk about is shortly but it must be married to philosophical ideas to get non-embodied).
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Origen argues that an embodied God is incompatable with Scripture, that reveals God’s qualities or characteristics as immutable, transcendent, etc. These are the orthodox belief that his argument is based on. You did not address this at all.

Origen does make this argument. He claims that God is ABSOLUTELY immutable which is a good read of PARTS of scripture. This was not how early Christians and Jews read these “God does not change” passages because other places in scripture God does change. The consistent read of scripture is the earlier read of these “God does not change” passages.
On this DEVELOPMENT:

Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) pp. 22:
In Judaism it was possible simultaneously to ascribe change of purpose to God and to declare that God did not change, without resolving the paradox; for the immutability of God was seen as the trustworthiness of his covenanted relation to his people in the concrete history of his judgment and mercy, rather than as a primarily ontological category. But in the development of the Christian doctrine of God, immutability assumed the status of an axiomatic presupposition for the discussion of other doctrines.

I have believed and continue to believe that you do not follow Aquinas (or Origen for that matter) in embracing God’s absolute immutability. I think you want to keep the incorporeal nature but reject the premise. I do not think the premise is scriptural anyway.

He emphasizes that he is using metaphysics for his argument, because as a culture with a Greek pagan background, metaphysics was used to reason and define how to live a moral life and a moral life was the most important thing to that culture. Greek pagans believed their gods judged individuals and societies based on their moality, and this belief transferred to Christianity that teaches the exact same thing about the God of Christianity.

I included this little bit in a Sunday School lesson last year. I explained that it was only natural for ancient thinkers to reject God’s corporeality because that which was corporeal decayed and God was unchanging. I reject this argument because supernatural things happen like Christ rising from the dead.

Arguments using metaphysics was not suspect, as it is for you and all Mormons, it was expected. Origen emphasizes his use of metaphysics to make the point that he is making a moral argument, that is, one that has spiritual importance.

Arguments using metaphysics are fine as is obvious by my celebration of Ostler’s thought. All I am saying is the scripture teaches an embodied God, early Christians predominately believed in an embodied God. Flawed metaphysical arguments based on “absolutely immutability” and the NATURAL decay of all that is corporeal shouldn’t be used to CHANGE Christian belief in the absence of REVELATION. The writings of Origin witness to this change.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You are wrong. I’m sure there is more context to the quote but I’m sure you won’t provide it. There was nor is any reason to restore Christ’s Church. Your understanding is, once again, flawed and relies on a significant lack of information.

Here is the quote in context:

St Peter and the Popes Michael Morgan Winter, pp. 16-17:
Having enunciated the main promise, Christ proceeds to elucidate certain particular aspects of it. The first of these is the promise that the ‘gates of hell will not prevail against it’. This particular sentence has occasioned a certain amount of discussion and it is not altogether free from difficulties. The metaphor of the gates is taken directly from the Old Testament. The need of fortifying the gate, and the central position that it occupied in the cities of the ancients made it the natural focus of the town, the place of the law courts and a symbol of the city itself. The prevalence of this idea in the Oriental tradition explains the use of the title ‘Sublime Porte’ in the Ottoman Empire. The city in question is called hades (hell). This was the Greek word for the underworld of their mythology and religion, and the Greek translator of St. Matthew saw no harm in using it to denote the underworld of Jewish religious thought. The obvious question now arises, precisely who or what is the ‘it’ which will survive the onslaught of the power of the underworld? Grammatical considerations would indicate the nearest feminine noun as being that which is represented by the word autes (it). The word thus indicated is ekklesia (church) and not petra (rock). The precise nature of the onslaught to be survived is the matter which has caused the debate. The most obvious meaning to attribute to the expression is that of death, since it is most frequently used in this sense in the Old Testament. However, it must be noted that the use of the expression as denoting death is always in the sense of somebody going down to the underworld. The idea of the gates of the underworld being actively engaged is not found in this sense, and in the present instance the active use is the first indication that another meaning is to be sought. With the progress of Jewish theology they acquired more precise ideas about the nature of the underworld. In particular the notion of punishment after death introduced them to the idea of the underworld as a place of evil and the source of the power of evil. This later meaning is to be found in religious books immediately prier to the time of Christ and in the canonical New Testament. This later meaning of the expression is more suitable to the idea of an active onslaught such as is envisaged in the passage in question, and although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

This is just a repeat of the last half I offered in the last post.

St Peter and the Popes Michael Morgan Winter, pp. 17:
The idea of the gates of the underworld being actively engaged is not found in this sense, and in the present instance the active use is the first indication that another meaning is to be sought. With the progress of Jewish theology they acquired more precise ideas about the nature of the underworld. In particular the notion of punishment after death introduced them to the idea of the underworld as a place of evil and the source of the power of evil. This later meaning is to be found in religious books immediately prier to the time of Christ and in the canonical New Testament. This later meaning of the expression is more suitable to the idea of an active onslaught such as is envisaged in the passage in question, and although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.

After this Winter moves on to “the keys.”
As you can see Winter rejects the view that “it” is the “church” BECAUSE of the way “gates of hell” is used in the passage, in the Bible, and in the other writings of the day. Winter goes to great effort before this to defend the idea that this passage was originally in Matthew against a number of folks who suggest it was a latter addition and was anachronistic. I tend to agree with him here too.
Winter in a footnote also suggest that two other Catholic’s wrote about his position on “triumph over evil.” They are:
Lagrange, M.J., L’Evangile selon S. Matthieu, Paris, 1948 (7th ed.), p. 326
Prat, F., Jesus Christ, Paris, 1952 (21st ed.) p. 436

So, I think context vindicates the way I used it. It does not mean “survival of the church” according to Winter and likely according to Lagrange and Prat (though I couldn’t find their works in English and couldn’t easily in French.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

TOm, while conversations with you focus on ECF, IRL, my readings and studies are focused on various other topics. Of late it is the New Testament. I’ve been reading the book “An Introduction to the New Testament for Catholics” by Joseph F. Kelly. (Kelly is a professor of early Christianity and historical theology at John Carroll University). What I find relevant to this conversation, is in regards to development of doctrine. One thing you continually bypass is the belief of the early Christians that the Holy Spirit guided them, as a community of believers.

For all conversations with Mormons (and for large part Protestants, from whom Mormons descend), there is a denial, and even a refutation, that the Holy Spirit has always guided Jesus’ Church. For Mormons, it is impossible to accept that Jesus never abandoned His Church. For Catholics, it is impossible to deny.

Development of the doctrine of the Trinity is not an indication to Catholics that something is suspect, or that something went off the rails. It is sign of a living Church, that is guided by the Holy Spirit. Horton brought this up already in this thread, and I already said that Nicaea can be viewed as nut being cracked. We don’t view this a purely academic event, we see the Holy Spirit, guiding us to all truth.

Mormonism has a rational difficulty in this area, IMO. Claiming historically something wasn’t protected enough, that is, everything should remain static, ie, nothing should change. While simultaneously claiming that change is integral to a Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit…and then onto denying that Christ’s Church has always been guided by the Holy Spirit, and so it goes round and round.

Anyway, Catholic faith in a Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit vs. Mormon faith that in a Holy Spirit that exited at some time in the Early Church, is at the root of all things Catholic that you fight against. You want our faith in Jesus, who said He would never abandon us, to be ignored, or even discarded.

So while you accuse me an uneven application of rational thought, from Mormon to Catholic and Catholic to Mormon, my foundation is faith in Jesus Christ. God’s Word, who promised us that we are not left as orphans, to fend for ourselves, without guidance. This does not mean I don’t see failings or theological oddities or even downright stuff that just really ticks me off, within Catholicism. As Fr. Julian Carron put it, we return, wounded, to Christ.

While you apply unevenly, God’s actions in history through normal every day people. Sadly, you must view God as absent in history. If only you could accept a loving God… that is the God where my faith is placed.

Instead, Mormonism posits that for nearly 2000 years, there was no where to return to. I find this kind of belief in God, to be impossible to accept. There is no “it’s either Catholic or Mormon” for me.

BTW, I am glad to hear that you don’t reject metaphysics as a valid method of exploring and describing faith. I suspect this comes from your Catholic background, and I know for certain that it is not taught as a valid approach by Mormon leaders.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I agree that we “should seek to understand ancient writings in the context that they were written.” Origin was an educated man in Alexandria. The Neoplatonist took into account the ideas of the Stoics, but they rejected the idea of an embodied God. These were Origen’s people…[etc snip]

I have no problem with this.

I am saying (and many non-LDS Christians have said the same thing) that the believe in an incorporeal God developed. That the LDS view is the more ancient Christian and Jewish belief. And that it is the teachings of scripture before you lay volumes of allegorical interpretation over it.

I think you’d be hard pressed to convince that Hebrews/Israelites/Jews, post the Golden Calf incident, held to a belief in a corporeal God. They continued to fall into idolatry, until postexlic times when old pagan stuff was jettisoned forever. Greek Pagan converts, yes, that is where they came from.

The Jewish Christians of Jesus and the Apostles, would never accept that the Father was embodied. They believed that God became Man, and this God who became Man, BECAME INCARNATE. They held no belief that God the Father became incarnate before the Son did so.

I am arguing relative to a once common belief of CoJCoLDS in a very different way than Origin did against the once common belief of Christianity. LDS leaders today and the highest form of authoritative statement, the current canon of scriptures accepted by common consent teach and support the view I embrace. My main argument and that of Ostler is that we do not see a God above God the Father in scripture and LDS leaders do not teach this today AND give some reason to believe they reject it. Origin was quite clear that it is his philosophical understanding that leads him to believe in a non-embodied God. He uses the same arguments the Neoplatonists do, not scripture (I will acknowledge your absolutely unchanging read of scripture and talk about is shortly but it must be married to philosophical ideas to get non-embodied).
cont…

…and while you’re at it, explain how you reached your conclusions re: the Mormon concept of infinite regression being dropped, to not be married to philosophical ideas, as it absolutely is. The change is largely based on refutations using reason, by non-Mormons. It is an irrational explanation about God from Smith, and subsequent Mormon leaders until fairly recently (within the last 30 years).

Joseph Smith, who is revered above all Mormons by Mormons, disagrees with the current leaders of today. Is Smith the Origen of Mormonism, theologically speaking that is, was he orthodox in most places but heretical in others?

BTW, I’m not really on board that this Mormon idea of God has been dropped. Repackaged in different language perhaps, but it is still there.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I have believed and continue to believe that you do not follow Aquinas (or Origen for that matter) in embracing God’s absolute immutability.

You’d be wrong. And of course you know, that God’s omniscience and omnipresence accounts for any description of God “changing”. It is a “change” to our view of things…omniscience and omnipresence also being an orthodox belief of Origen and early Christians, that Mormons reject.

Mormonism’s human God has human characteristics, and so of course divine characteristics are not something that the Mormon God is, it is something that is taken on, learned, cultivated…an external power that grows internally, over vast amounts of time. For such a “god”, immutability is limiting and therefore impossible.

Our God is not limited by immutability, immutability is a characteristic of a being that doesn’t grow, as a human does. Immutability implies a being that is by nature, all and everything by nature.

I included this little bit in a Sunday School lesson last year. I explained that it was only natural for ancient thinkers to reject God’s corporeality because that which was corporeal decayed and God was unchanging. I reject this argument because supernatural things happen like Christ rising from the dead.

Everything in Mormonism has a natural explanation. Physical laws are immutable in Mormonism, even the Mormon God is subject to them, and there is no supernatural.

You are implying that God the Father was raised from the dead, or at least at one time was a mere human. How infinite regressive of you…who created the corporeal God the Father that you believe in. No where, at any time, has any Christian or Jew believed or taught God is created.

Arguments using metaphysics are fine as is obvious by my celebration of Ostler’s thought. All I am saying is the scripture teaches an embodied God, early Christians predominately believed in an embodied God. Flawed metaphysical arguments based on “absolutely immutability” and the NATURAL decay of all that is corporeal shouldn’t be used to CHANGE Christian belief in the absence of REVELATION. The writings of Origin witness to this change.

You’ve only moved the problem up a notch…a God who is not immutable, is no God at all. But I think you already know, Mormonism has a strong polytheistic/pagan streak. A God in the image of Man, isn’t a God, though I understand why thinking of oneself as a god, is appealing to some people.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I further assert that Origen’s use of scripture indicates that the most NATURAL read of scripture is that God is embodied.
I recall that he does make reductio ad absurdum arguments against an embodied God, but I think those only show that ALL of scripture is not likely to be LITERAL, not that Origen’s allegorical method is to be preferred in all areas.
You are also correct, the original understanding of most of the scriptures used by those who deny God is embodied, was that they supported God as being corporal. The prime example of this is “God is spirit” was understood in the time and culture of Jesus to mean that God was corporal not incorporeal. I think this had more to do with the language of the day than the Stoic philosophy, but surely those are intertwined. In any case, that is how the audience of scripture understood the words UNTIL the developed theology was laid over this understanding.
It is philosophy that Origin embraces and leads to his non-embodied God position. That being said, if you would like to offer some arguments that indicate that to believe in an embodied God is ridiculous, I will entertain them.
Now, if there is nothing Origen to make this case, and your only point is the REASON demands that God is not embodied, you can provide this REASONING. I have never been persuaded by Origen or others to abandon the clear position of scripture, but I would be interested in reading your thoughts.
Charity, TOm

SIMPLE reading, ie, childish (not child-like).

St. Paul criticized the pagan belief that an idol, carved by human hands, became the corporeal (embodied object), in which pagans believed.

Scripture reveals that God is Spirit, is unseen, is unmade. Mormonism posits that God is created, an embodied, created, object. It is the exact same idolatry that St. Paul literally, called foolish.

Romans 1:
19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

A WISE reading of scripture, reveals that Origen’s conclusions are correct. Otherwise, we (Christians) are falling into the errors of idolatrous pagans, believing in a God the Father that is the likeness and image of a mortal man.

Otherwise, you’re just arguing interpretation, and if you’re going with NATURAL interpretation, then you should be at Mass receiving Holy Communion.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I agree that we “should seek to understand ancient writings in the context that they were written.” Origin was an educated man in Alexandria. The Neoplatonist took into account the ideas of the Stoics, but they rejected the idea of an embodied God. These were Origen’s people…

I have no problem with this.

I am saying the belief in an incorporeal God developed. LDS view is the more ancient Christian and Jewish belief. it is the teachings of scripture before you lay volumes of allegorical interpretation over it.

I think you’d be hard pressed to convince that Hebrews/Israelites/Jews, post the Golden Calf incident, held to a belief in a corporeal God. … Greek Pagan converts, yes, that is where they came from.
The Jewish Christians of Jesus and the Apostles, would never accept that the Father was embodied. They believed that God became Man, and this God who became Man, BECAME INCARNATE. They held no belief that God the Father became incarnate before the Son did so.

Your view is the standard way to read the history, but I do not think it is the best way because I don’t think it deals with hardly any of the extra Biblical writings before the 2nd century. It is CLEAR that the Jews and Early Christians believed that God the Father choose to be in invisible and unseen and the Christ came to witness God the Father to them, but almost everything else in scripture and outside of scripture suggest that they did not believe that God the Father was without form, without a body.
Philo the Jew spoke against Alexandrian Judaism that was not philosophically sophisticated like he invited Jews (and Christians to become). Rabbinic literature before Philo and for many years after Philo continued to speak of a corporeal God and corporeal Spirit.
Unlike the invoking of Platonic ideas defended in the same way that Pagan philosophers defended them, Early Christian and Jewish believers in a corporeal God predominately just claimed their beliefs were THE beliefs or were taught in scripture. It was Philo and Origen and Augustine who engaged in argument for their position and used the words Pagan philosophers used to move Christianity to a noncorporeal.
We do not know Bishop Melito’s arguments. We do know Tertullian spoke against philosophy and claimed that he was defending the “regular faith” as delivered through the apostles. So Tertullian claims to argue against efforts to teach God is incorporeal and uses scripture and an appeal to ancient Christianity. Philo and Origen argue against simple Jews and Christians and use the arguments of non-Christian, non-Jewish Platonists like Celsus to explain why God is not embodied.
I do see how you can read scripture as saying that God was incorporeal and so Christ was sent, but I do not think that was evidenced in any writings before the late 2nd or early 3rd century. That is why I think the reading I propose is better.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I am arguing relative to a once common belief of CoJCoLDS in a very different way than Origin did against the once common belief of Christianity. LDS leaders today and the highest form of authoritative statement, the current canon of scriptures accepted by common consent teach and support the view I embrace. My main argument and that of Ostler is that we do not see a God above God the Father in scripture and LDS leaders do not teach this today AND give some reason to believe they reject it. Origin was quite clear that it is his philosophical understanding that leads him to believe in a non-embodied God. He uses the same arguments the Neoplatonists do, not scripture (I will acknowledge your absolutely unchanging read of scripture and talk about is shortly but it must be married to philosophical ideas to get non-embodied).

explain how you reached your conclusions re: the Mormon concept of infinite regression being dropped, to not be married to philosophical ideas, as it absolutely is. The change is largely based on refutations using reason, by non-Mormons. It is an irrational explanation about God from Smith, and subsequent Mormon leaders until fairly recently (within the last 30 years).
Joseph Smith, who is revered above all Mormons by Mormons, disagrees with the current leaders of today. Is Smith the Origen of Mormonism, theologically speaking that is, was he orthodox in most places but heretical in others?

First, Joseph Smith never taught an eternal regression of Gods. That was a latter teaching. I do not think it was ever declared to be revelation AND it is nowhere evident in our scriptures. I do not think any read of the King Follet Discourse OR the Sermon in the Grove is consistent with an eternal regress of Gods, and I think the best read of these is that God the Father does not have a Father.
I am quite sure the idea that God the Father had a Father was something I learned from critics of the CoJCoLDS. I had probably been reading and posting for only a little over a year before I was pointed to Ostler’s essay Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity by a friend (who was a Catholic at the time BTW). It argues for a Social Trinity and the idea that God the Father is the most high God primarily using LDS scriptural passages. That being said, I can acknowledge that Ostler thinks and writes as a philosopher, and I did not reach my view concerning God the Father because of my personal scriptural study.
I do not think Joseph Smith was that Origen of Mormonism. I believe Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were like Paul & James. Luther saw so much conflict between Paul & James, he called James “an epistle of straw.” I think both were inspired & taught truth. I think James was responding to a common but wrong understanding Paul. But, neither of them attempted the types of synthesis of inspired sources that Origen, Ostler, Arius, Athanasius, Paulsen or Weinandy (3 ancient Christians – 1 considered orthodox, 3 modern Christians, 1 Catholic and 2 LDS).
Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

The Bible and the BOM are primarily narrative books (with sermons and songs and commentary) that LDS believe are inspired. The D&C and PGP have a little more theology, but are certainly not primarily theological in nature.
The doctrine most discussed in this thread is the Trinity and the nature of God. That was not theological defined by the inspired authors of scripture. It is my position that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and … are like the authors of scripture. That Paulsen and Ostler are like Augustine and Aquinas. The biggest difference IMO is that there is significantly less emphasis placed upon theology in LDS belief so the work of Paulsen and Ostler is interesting to folks such as myself, but is much less important for directing the church.

BTW, I’m not really on board that this Mormon idea of God has been dropped. Repackaged in different language perhaps, but it is still there.

I don’t know what to say about your statement. I am a LDS and I am telling you what I believe. The only departure I am advocating is that God the Father does not have a Father.
There is a tension that exists when theology develops. This tension is smaller in a religion that has very little emphasis upon theology. I am a LDS and I embrace what I think is true. I hold a very strong view of the transformation of the sacrament into Christ’s body and blood; but as a LDS, I cannot partake in Eucharistic adoration (in a LDS chapel at all OR in more than a superficial way in a Catholic Perpetual Eucharist Adoration Chapel). I wouldn’t mind (would even like) much of the EO and Catholic “real presence” teachings to be part of the CoJCoLDS, but they are not. So I have “Holy Envy,” but I do not believe them.
That God the Father has a Father is not something taught in General Conference. It is not something I teach or have been taught in Sunday School.
I think this comparison LOOSES a lot, but we recently had a Catholic convert declare that he was never taught “no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” In a religion wear orthodoxy is so important, this teaching has been re-vision-ed at Vatican II and then de-emphasized so much in teaching that it is seldom heard. Vatican II’s re-vision-ing IMO is fairly authoritative (though an increasing number of folks who claim to be Catholic disagree), and this is seldom taught by the church today (I had no idea of it when I ceased to be Catholic). That being said, “no salvation outside the Cathoilc Chruch” is and has been a Catholic teaching. The fact that this idea is part of Catholicism has not changed. There are huge volumes of LDS who have never heard the idea that God the Father had a Father AND there are large numbers of folks who have thought about it and embrace Ostler’s view.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

I have believed and continue to believe that you do not follow Aquinas (or Origen for that matter) in embracing God’s absolute immutability.

You’d be wrong. And of course you know, that God’s omniscience and omnipresence accounts for any description of God “changing”. It is a “change” to our view of things…omniscience and omnipresence also being an orthodox belief of Origen and early Christians, that Mormons reject.

LDS like Catholics embrace God’s omniscience and omnipresence. LDS philosophers like Catholic philosophers qualify God’s omnipotence. Aquinas taught God could not change the past, a power God lacked. There are others. But the general idea that God is omniscient and omnipresent is as much a part of the CoJCoLDS as it is a part of Catholicism.

Mormonism’s human God has human characteristics, and so of course divine characteristics are not something that the Mormon God is, it is something that is taken on, learned, cultivated…an external power that grows internally, over vast amounts of time. For such a “god”, immutability is limiting and therefore impossible.
Our God is not limited by immutability, immutability is a characteristic of a being that doesn’t grow, as a human does. Immutability implies a being that is by nature, all and everything by nature.

Your view concerning God eternally being omniscient and omnipotent is again based on your insistence that God was once merely a man (not a man like Christ was a man, but merely a man). Few LDS embrace this view. In fact the most thorough going eternal regression folks still do not say that God the Father EVER sinned.
Concerning God’s absolutely immutability Aquinas outlined the problem with God’s immutability and human free will (libertarian free will). Aquinas invented a phrase to solve the problem, but the phrase is just an appeal to mystery. Luis de Molina’s middle knowledge addresses this problem, but it exists in a world without libertarian free will. You and I have discussed how God’s impassibility (which is just a subset of immutability) create problems in this area and associated with the PASSION of love.
Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

… it was only natural for ancient thinkers to reject God’s corporeality because that which was corporeal decayed. I reject this argument because supernatural things happen like Christ rising from the dead.

Everything in Mormonism has a natural explanation. Physical laws are immutable in Mormonism, even the Mormon God is subject to them, and there is no supernatural.
You are implying that God the Father was raised from the dead, or at least at one time was a mere human. How infinite regressive of you…who created the corporeal God the Father that you believe in. No where, at any time, has any Christian or Jew believed or taught God is created.

I reject the idea that everything in LDS theology is natural and nothing is supernatural.
I didn’t imply that God the Father was raised from the dead and I reject that He is or ever was a mere human. I am saying that Neoplatonists (Pagan and Christian) argued for God’s incorporeality based on the decay of that which is corporeal. Origen and other Christians made these arguments while acknowledging that scripture spoke of a corporeal God.
All LDS reject the idea that God is created. LDS scripture does not support this and I don’t think there have been any LDS leaders who have said God was created.

TOmNossor:

Christians predominately believed in an embodied God. Flawed metaphysical arguments based on “absolutely immutability” and the NATURAL decay of all that is corporeal shouldn’t be used to CHANGE Christian belief in the absence of REVELATION. The writings of Origin witness to this change.

You’ve only moved the problem up a notch…a God who is not immutable, is no God at all. But I think you already know, Mormonism has a strong polytheistic/pagan streak. A God in the image of Man, isn’t a God, though I understand why thinking of oneself as a god, is appealing to some people.

God is not “in the image of man.” This is not scriptural at all. Rather “man is in the image of God!!!”
I do not believe that the CoJCoLDS has a strong polytheistic/pagan streak. I think the CoJCoLDS aligns with ancient Jews “divine council” teaching and early Christian distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit AND early Christian deification teachings.
If you want to put teachings on a monotheistic to polytheistic chart, Catholics are more polytheistic than are ancient Sabalienians, Muslims, modern Jews, unitarians (or Oneness Penticostals) AND I can acknowledge that LDS are more polytheistic than Catholics. That being said, I think monotheism is true, but the LDS understanding of monotheism is the true understanding. The absolute monotheism of Muslims and modern Jews is not true because Jesus Christ is God. The modalistic monotheism is not true because God the Father and God the Son are two persons. And the Augustinian monotheism is not true because it adopts the modalist understanding of homoousian while demanding distinction.
Charity, TOm