Around and around the Trinity

[TOmNossor]

BJRumph:

Indeed it cannot, for according to the D&C, we all (and God as well) are uncreated Intelligences that could not be created, just as they cannot be destroyed. As such, and as we maintain our individuality (as there is no sufficient room in LDS doctrine for a enw-age Panteistic scheme), we are eternally separate from God, just as God is from Himself (the Father from the Son from the Spirit). Thus, why the church can only claim that they are “one in purpose”, they cannot be one in the sense known to Catholics.

I again disagree. In fact, I believe the departure from creation ex materia was what resulted in the radical ontological separation between God and man. To become One as John 17 states is certainly to become one in purpose, but I would suggest it is much more than we can observe in human purpose-unity. God became man so that we may become God and gods. The unity and the distinctness that exists in the Trinity is in my opinion the prototype of our relationship with the Trinity. The major difference is that God must lift us up, because we cannot do this on our own.

BJRumph:

Same mind/purpose, and made of the same clay; but still nothing more, at best, than a bundle of wires transmitting the same signal: In a limited sense “one”, but each fully independant and, ultimately, self sufficient. We are not emanations from a single Soul, or even springing from the creative Mind of God

My questions and answers:

Do God the Father and God the Son have two wills? My answer is, “yes both possess a will, but the Son freely and completely subordinates His will to God the Father’s will.” So there is a threeness and a oneness in just this tiny aspect of God.

I suggest that as we unite with the Triune God we do not loose our individuality just as Christ does not loose his individuality as part of the Trinity.

I am unaware of a Catholic salvation paradigm that would suggest that we loose our individuality. Certainly the idea of the beatific vision does not include this, but I would suggest the idea of uniting with God and becoming divine also does not include a loss of our individuality.

And I think BJRumph hints at my solution to the solution to the Heavenly Father vs. co-eternal intelligences paradigm, but I would express it differently AND I would acknowledge that perfect knowledge of this is not been revealed.

BJRumph:

Of course, I have never hear any mormon explain it this way, but it is the end result of what is taught in their “official” doctrine.

Well, the “wiggling of toes” metaphor suggest to me an irreverent and overly simplistic way of expressing something that I have thought before (and I think expressed on either Fair or ZLMB or both). Again though this is not something we have perfect knowledge about.

BJRumph:

Funny, if I had expressed it this way in a mormon board, it would be accepted as insightful (if trite); but I suspect here it will just be more “hateful lies” and “diatribe.” Oh well; hopefully I can at least add a new spin to the endless Circle.

“Wiggling toes” and the seemingly authoritative “this is the way it is” were the only things I found off-putting. There is a tendency to just disagree with anything a non-LDS says about LDS, but this is fairly universal as I have seen in here as a non-Catholic.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

ZLMB

What is this? Many here have mentioned posting here. I’m assuming it’s a forum similar to this one…

 

[TOmNossor]

Jerusha:

A triangle, when taken apart, is no longer a triangle. It is only some combination of lines with maybe an angle. It is not a triangle. Similarly, when one spends half one’s life, or even a day, intellectualizing upon the Trinity, one loses the understanding of Mystery.

I do not understand why this would be true, but I would suggest that many a Catholic saint has spent a many a day, “intellectualizing upon the Trinity,” if that is what I have been doing as I try to understand what I believe and what others believe.

Do you disagree?

Jerusha:

We are not talking about a triune God, or three Gods, but one God, made up of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The term “triune God” is very Catholic. It is used three times in the English translation of the CCC. I particularly like, CCC#254 “…The divine Unity is Triune.”

Jerusha:

First post on this thread. All I know is that how most Mormons understand the Trinity is too far away from how Catholics view it.

My list of various structures was designed to show that there are differences.

I would suggest to you that the average Catholic in the pew will modalize the Trinity. This has been my experience. For the purposes of comparing and contrasting different beliefs, I think it is better to seek the best rather than the average understanding.

Charity, TOm

 

[stillsearching]

Tom, one of the problems here, is as you state, certain doctrines and covenants stated by the LDS officially, is simply not believed by what you call “reasonable Mormons”. This is a problem, as these “reasonable Mormons” will be sending out their “reasonable children” on Mission and trying to evangelize others. And what happens is they evangelise with what they think is “reasonable” and then the poor dumb cluck who says hey, I did not know Mormons were so “reasonable” gets into what the Mormon church actually teaches, which you and I can agree apparently is not always so reasonable, and feels he has been dealt cards from a cheaters deck. You have a Church which prints, claims, holds, certain doctrines and covenants, that your so called “reasonable” Mormons do not believe, and somehow it all makes sense to you. But God says what he means and so does the Holy Spirit. God is rather a literal type of person in that His Yes means yes and his no means no. God does not say well i used to believe that but now I’m more reasonable. Because if God thought the way you and Casen, and B.J. do, this means he could change his mind about apostasy anyday now and realize he was wrong to say it in the first place and then suddenly Catholicism would be first class.
I tell you now- what you have in LDS is not theology but a constant endless struggle to rationalize that which is in conflict with God in the first place.

 

[Jerusha]

Mystery is a strong part of my faith. That is just me-- I have no idea if there is a Catholic-- LDS distinction in that or not.

My error. I caught it after the time limit ran out.
We are not talking about three Gods, but one triune God, made up of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I just prefer St. Patrick’s explanation, or the triangle-- although you can describe the parts, it is no longer a triangle if you take it apart.

 

[tkdnick]

I just prefer St. Patrick’s explanation, or the triangle-- although you can describe the parts, it is no longer a triangle if you take it apart.

I like that too. Makes the concept more conrete.

 

[stillsearching]

TOmNossor:

I do not understand why this would be true, but I would suggest that many a Catholic saint has spent a many a day, “intellectualizing upon the Trinity,” if that is what I have been doing as I try to understand what I believe and what others believe.

Do you disagree?

The term “triune God” is very Catholic. It is used three times in the English translation of the CCC. I particularly like, CCC#254 “…The divine Unity is Triune.”

My list of various structures was designed to show that there are differences.

I would suggest to you that the average Catholic in the pew will modalize the Trinity. This has been my experience. For the purposes of comparing and contrasting different beliefs, I think it is better to seek the best rather than the average understanding.

Charity, TOm

Two families on one street. Father, son and daughter. Not related by blood or marriage. One named brown and the other named brown. Are they the same family? No. And if the son of one kept insisting that the father in the other family was the same man as the father in his own family, you would think some hanky panky was gong on there now, wouldn’t you?
So why, Tom, when you have been told repeatedly by the Catholics on this forum that your Trinity is not the same Trinity as the Catholics proclaim, are you still arguing? Yes, you have that which you call God the Father, and that which you call God the Son, and that which you call spirit, and in none of these three person is there any resemblance to the same three persons of the Catholic Trinity and yet you keep claiming that they are the same family. Now you may intellectualize all day on the Trinity and the meaning and so forth, and there is no harm in it at all, and most Catholics, especially those who propose to discuss it with Mormons, would be well advised to “intellectualize” about it a bit more as well. But, Tom, Brown family A will still be A and Brown family B will still be B. they are not related and currently the way doctrines and covenants state their form and purpose, they never will be. The fact is Tom, there is no way you and I are coming from the same faith family even if we wre both named brown. It is two seperate and unrelated faith familes.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Do you consider this to be a problem? I would think that for a religion that is so (relatively) new and that claims to be the true church of Christ should have formally trained theologians. I think any religion needs to have formally trained theologians, but especially those that claim to be “the church”.

For the theologically minded folks, there is a great deal of LDS scholarship available and becoming available. There are theologians, they just are not official spokesmen. This is likely just part of the emphasis upon orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. As a LDS I would say that those who follow God more perfectly are called of God to serve the church in Bishoprics, Stake Presidencies, and as General Authorities. Those who understand theology better may be called to be Sunday School teachers (my ward has a great one) and other such things.

Should BYU institute a degree in theology? I don’t know. On the one hand it seems they have intentionally steered away from this in order to not suggest people can become professional theologians (which is something LDS seem to have a problem with). On the other hand, BYU has a number of professors who teach religion AND there are hundreds to thousands of institute teachers around the country.

My personally feeling on this are mixed as well.

I guess I do not know.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

For the theologically minded folks, there is a great deal of LDS scholarship available and becoming available. There are theologians, they just are not official spokesmen. This is likely just part of the emphasis upon orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. As a LDS I would say that those who follow God more perfectly are called of God to serve the church in Bishoprics, Stake Presidencies, and as General Authorities. Those who understand theology better may be called to be Sunday School teachers (my ward has a great one) and other such things.

Should BYU institute a degree in theology? I don’t know. On the one hand it seems they have intentionally steered away from this in order to not suggest people can become professional theologians (which is something LDS seem to have a problem with). On the other hand, BYU has a number of professors who teach religion AND there are hundreds to thousands of institute teachers around the country.

My personally feeling on this are mixed as well.

I guess I do not know.

All that just to say “I don’t know”???

 

[TOmNossor]

stillsearching:

Tom, one of the problems here, is as you state, certain doctrines and covenants stated by the LDS officially, is simply not believed by what you call “reasonable Mormons”. This is a problem, as these “reasonable Mormons” will be sending out their “reasonable children” on Mission and trying to evangelize others. And what happens is they evangelise with what they think is “reasonable” and then the poor dumb cluck who says hey, I did not know Mormons were so “reasonable” gets into what the Mormon church actually teaches, which you and I can agree apparently is not always so reasonable, and feels he has been dealt cards from a cheaters deck. You have a Church which prints, claims, holds, certain doctrines and covenants, that your so called “reasonable” Mormons do not believe, and somehow it all makes sense to you. But God says what he means and so does the Holy Spirit. God is rather a literal type of person in that His Yes means yes and his no means no. God does not say well i used to believe that but now I’m more reasonable. Because if God thought the way you and Casen, and B.J. do, this means he could change his mind about apostasy anyday now and realize he was wrong to say it in the first place and then suddenly Catholicism would be first class.
I tell you now- what you have in LDS is not theology but a constant endless struggle to rationalize that which is in conflict with God in the first place.

I disagree. Shocking I know!

What the average LDS gets in the pew is informative and uplifting. It moves them closer to a perfect relationship with God.

Lessons taught in general conference do not focus on many of the things that are highlighted by our critics.

As I have pointed to from a post by BJ, neither she nor her husband has encountered the Mormonism emphasized here at Catholic Answers. If she were to go to sites were the Catholic Church defends itself against rabid anti-Catholics she again would see a Catholicism she has never experience in her 6 years in the pew.

The average Catholic knows they pray to Mary. They cannot explain the difference between Latria and Dulia.

Catholics for centuries have struggled with creation ex nihilo and its implications upon Theodicy. A Protestant named Plantinga in my opinion has done what Augustine and Aquinas were not able to do, but few Catholics know about the philosophizing utilized by Plantinga, Augustine, and Aquinas. They just don’t need to know these things. And more interesting than this, many a former Catholic atheist departed the faith partially through their lack of satisfaction with what they were taught with regards to some of these deeper questions. I believe that if few could live a life of faith if they thought as LDS critics seem to suggest LDS should think about their religions. The path of such thinking is a departure from theism.

Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre]

TOmNossor:

For the theologically minded folks, there is a great deal of LDS scholarship available and becoming available. There are theologians, they just are not official spokesmen. .

This is the deceitful trick that Mormonism uses to escape accountability for its teachings. All of the scandelous, perverted
teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other LDS leaders are swept under the rug with the matra “those weren’t official teachings”. The problem with Mormonism is that, in the final analysis, it has no official teachings. It only has clever hooks to enslave the unsuspecting.

All of the official teachings that were taught in Sunday School manuals, Elders Quorum manuals, conference talks, books written by “prophets” and “apostles” (and published by Deseret Book) and every other LDS publication when I was LDS (1975-1986) are now considered “personal opinion” and “non-binding”. the LDS Church continues to try to deny its heritage and mainstream itself for maximum conversion rates (and hence maximum revenues).

What a load of bull-pucky! I’ll stick with my “Catechism of The Catholic Church”, thank you very much. At least I know what my Church teaches. The LDS Church relies, for its very existence, on the ignorance and pliability of its members.

 

[stillsearching]

TOmNossor:

I disagree. Shocking I know!

What the average LDS gets in the pew is informative and uplifting. It moves them closer to a perfect relationship with God.

Lessons taught in general conference do not focus on many of the things that are highlighted by our critics.

As I have pointed to from a post by BJ, neither she nor her husband has encountered the Mormonism emphasized here at Catholic Answers. If she were to go to sites were the Catholic Church defends itself against rabid anti-Catholics she again would see a Catholicism she has never experience in her 6 years in the pew.

The average Catholic knows they pray to Mary. They cannot explain the difference between Latria and Dulia.

Catholics for centuries have struggled with creation ex nihilo and its implications upon Theodicy. A Protestant named Plantinga in my opinion has done what Augustine and Aquinas were not able to do, but few Catholics know about the philosophizing utilized by Plantinga, Augustine, and Aquinas. They just don’t need to know these things. And more interesting than this, many a former Catholic atheist departed the faith partially through their lack of satisfaction with what they were taught with regards to some of these deeper questions. I believe that if few could live a life of faith if they thought as LDS critics seem to suggest LDS should think about their religions. The path of such thinking is a departure from theism.

Charity, TOm

Your letter reads like smith’s writings. Could you please explain more clearly what you are talking about? It seems you are rambling here without a point. Help.