HUGE Questions for Mormons

[ex-mormon]

…more

**Tertullian **

"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . .

"We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . this rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the Gospel, before even the earlier heretics . . .

"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the Three are the Father, Son, and Spirit.

"They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one substance, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other.

This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (Against Praxeas 2:1-4; 9:1 [A.D. 213]).

**Origen **

"For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a substance outside himself, so that there were a time when he [the Son] did not exist.

"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however–that there was never a time when he did not exist–is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity.

For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" (Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 220]).

**Pope Dionysius **

Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate. . . .

Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd. . . .

Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the Universe. ‘For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’" (Epistle to Dionysius of Alexandria 1-3 [A.D. 262]).

It all seems to make sense to me. However, what doesn’t make sense to me about your Trinity doctrine is why you believe God has to be “simple” (this is from Vatican I), i.e., not having parts. In are view, “God” has parts–e.g., the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate Beings in a corporate unity. Where do you get the idea that God shouldn’t have “parts”? (I’ll tell you where I think the idea comes from later.)

I would say that the trinity is the only thing that can make sense.
Polytheistic views are teachings of Egyptian, Mayan, Greek, Roman, Chineese…ect, ect, ect. I think the bible and your Book of Mormon clearly define a Monotheistic view that is accepted by all christianity. I would be enlightened to know were the idea of your divinity or lack of trinity come from later.

God Bless,

ex-mo

 

[BDawg]

Hi CDude,
Catholic Dude:

Well here are a few more:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.(1Jn5, not in some Bibles)

This is the famous “Johannine Comma,” and is considered by most NT scholars to be a late insertion. In any case, I don’t have any problem saying that the Trinity is “one.” The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants say essentially the same thing.
Catholic Dude:

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.(Jn10)

Check. The Jews didn’t like Jesus saying he was “one” with the Father. Still doesn’t say anything about the nature of that oneness.
Catholic Dude:

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost(Matt28, courtesy of Subrosa)

The “name” thing is interesting. Did you know that God said that His angel would go before the Israelites, and the Israelites should obey the angel because God’s “name” is in him?

Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him (Exodus 23:20–21).

It seems to me that three persons having the same name might be interpreted in more than one way, don’t you think? God putting his name in the Angel of the Lord meant that the angel could act with the full power and authority of God, and if he gave the Israelites a command, they should have obeyed him just as if he were God.
Catholic Dude:

Are saying that one day we have the chance to become a god or equal to god? In reading the whole chapter it is a deep deep love that Jesus has for His people. What greater love is there than the Son to the Father? If humans could be that way, I do agree it is an ideal we should shoot for, but not to become God, but to understand and love as He loves. Catholics stand at the front of the line when it comes to recieving God, its called The Eucharist, which Jesus says is His real body. While I was looking on the LDS.com webpage I read a part where JS changed “this is my body” to say “this represents my body”.

Maybe we can discuss deification doctrines later? I would like to stick to one topic so the posts don’t get too big. I think our differences about the nature of the Divine Unity and the nature of God should be understood first before trying to understand the extent to which humans can become like God.
Catholic Dude:

I dont know what you mean about “simple” or fully know what you mean by “parts”.

There is a little article on Divine Simplicity in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here it is:

newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IC

However, it is a little wordy and hard to understand, I think. I hope it helps.
Catholic Dude:

It seems to me here is the part where I cant fully understand the LDS position, by “Beings” do you mean Gods? The easiest idea that God shouldnt be looked at as 3 separate Gods (if that is what you are saying) is because all throughout the OT it was almost always God, singular.

But if you admit that it was “almost always,” then you admit that sometimes the OT talks about “gods,” and we are arguing about semantics. If both elements are there–unity and plurality–then which one receives more emphasis would depend on the circumstances. When the OT was written, all the surrounding cultures had polytheistic pantheons, and so naturally the Divine Unity would be emphasized more.
Catholic Dude:

Plus the Father and Son relationship indicates they have a special unity, like a human father has to his son (same flesh and blood), but the human son was created, but we know that Jesus was never created so there is a deeper bond/relation than we can understand.

I don’t get your meaning here.

BDawg

 

[Subrosa]

BDawg:

It seems to me that three persons having the same name might be interpreted in more than one way, don’t you think? God putting his name in the Angel of the Lord meant that the angel could act with the full power and authority of God, and if he gave the Israelites a command, they should have obeyed him just as if he were God.

Hi BDawg!

There is an interesting concept of some angels actually not being angels that has been forwarded by a few early church fathers.

One that I can think of is St Augustine. In his treatise *On The Trinity *Book 2, Chap 12, he describes the meeting of the two strangers with Lot. In his description he summizes that the two strangers that have come to destroy Sodom are actually two persons of the Trinity. If you read the passages, it makes sense from his point of view.

In Chap. 13 he describes a similar occurance when Moses meets God in the burning bush.

In both instances, he says, the encounter with angels is somehow turned into encounters with what ultimately turns out to be God. In the Sodom story, in particular, it is more than one person that is God (angel).

It’s an interesting read. Try it.

newadvent.org/fathers/130102.htm

Jerry

 

[Subrosa]

BDawg:

Regarding your assertion that it is blasphemy for us to talk about “Gods,” even for descriptive purposes, is blasphemy, you’d better fire up the stake for St. Justin Martyr, who called Jesus

another God [or a “second god,” deuteros theos] and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things–above whom there is no other God–wishes to announce to them… I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,–numerically, I mean, not[distinct] in will. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:223.)

Hmmmm. Here we have a very early Christian calling Jesus a “second god,” who is “subject to” the Father, and distinct from the Father “numerically” but one “in will.”

BDawg

Good morning BDawg !

I read this your post last night and decided to have a look at JM’s treatise. (Quotes used from the treatise)

Yes, he uses the words “another God”, no doubt. But, in reading the treatise, I see that JM is trying to convince Trypho the Jew of the true deity of Christ, and that while actually a seperate being from the Father (another God), is in fact God (Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel) [Immanuel means *God among us]

It seems to me that the whole treatise points in the direction of making Jesus both distinct from the Father and is fully the deity.

Keep in mind the many exhortations, in the old testament especially, that God is One. The whole treatise is written in the understanding of this precept. There is way too much in the treatise for me to quote.

I am curious. Do you fully understand the Trinity doctrine? It states that there are three distinct persons, One in being with the Father. If you’ld like, I’ll post a treatise that I wrote concerning Trinity that more fuly explains it.

Another thing. Are you associating the Trinity doctrine with the Catholic Church alone? It is, in fact, the doctrine of the protestant and the Orthodox churches.

God bless you, Christ love you,
Jerry

 

[BDawg]

Hi everyone,

I apologize if I don’t get to answering everyone’s comments–there are just too many! Also, I’m putting off a full discussion of deification till later (I hope you don’t mind.) However, here are a few points I can make to address at least some of what has been said.

First, ex-mo’s points about monotheistic statements in the Bible, Fathers, and Book of Mormon are well taken. I agree with all of them, except for some specific things in some of the Fathers. (I’ll get to that later.) But the question is still, “How can more than one person be spoken of as 'one God?” None of the quotations you gave address this question. Brigham Young said, “Is he one? Yes. Is his trinity one? Yes. Is his organization one? Are the heavens one? Yes.” (Journal of Discourses 14:93-94) And yes, we do believe that men can become deified, but how? By becoming ONE with the Trinity. BY also said, “If men are faithful, the time will come when they will possess the power and the knowledge to obtain, organize, bring into existence, and own. ‘What, of themselves, independent of their Creator?’ No. But they and their Creator will always be one, they will always be of one heart and of one mind, working and operating together; for whatsoever the Father doeth so doeth the son, and so they continue throughout all their operations to all eternity.” (JD 2:305-306)

I understand that it bothers you that we sometimes also say there are “Gods,” but until you accept the fact that we also believe they are ONE, no matter how many “persons” are involved, you will never understand our doctrine. Perhaps this is why you left the Church–you never really bothered to understand it fully.

Do you realize that Muslims often attack the Trinity as “polytheistic”? This is hogwash. The question between you and Muslims should be the nature of God’s oneness, and whether there is any plurality involved. In our case, we all agree that there is both oneness and plurality, so that is where I start. From there we must go to a discussion of HOW God is one, and HOW God is plural. This gets at the heart of the issue between us. What you are doing overemphasizes the differences and ignores the similarities, so that we have no true basis for comparison.

So, can we agree that the discussion should be about HOW God is one, and HOW God is plural? If not, I don’t think a productive conversation on this topic is possible.

BDawg

 

[BDawg]

Hi again,

Second, you have been quoting the early Fathers quite selectively. I suspect you either cherry-picked them from Father Jurgens’ collection, or from a Catholic Answers tract that cherry-picked them from Father Jurgens. Yes, the early Fathers did believe that God is ONE, and that Jesus is really God, and yet, not in the way that later Trinitarian dogma would dictate. The fact is that prior to about A.D. 300, everyone but the Modalists believed that the Son and Spirit were SUBORDINATE to the Father, i.e., lower in rank and glory. Here is a quotation from a well-known patristics scholar to support this point.

Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology. [R.P.C. Hansen, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD,” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honor of Henry Chadwick (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 153.]

Justin Martyr is a good example. We have already seen that he said there is “one God,” but Jesus is “another God” who is subordinate to the Father, but “one in will” with the Father. Check out another passage from his writings that is, frankly, horrendously unorthodox for modern Catholicism.

We reverence and worship Him and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who are about Him and are made quite like Him, and the Prophetic Spirit. [Justin Martyr, First Apology 6, in William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970), 1:51. ]

“But that doesn’t mean…!” you say. Well, Father Jurgens disagrees. In the footnote to this passage he says that Justin “apparently [made] insufficient distinction between Christ and the created Angels,” and that there “are theological difficulties in the above passage, no doubt. But we wonder if those who make a great deal of these difficulties do not demand of Justin a theological sophistication which a man of his time and background could not rightly be expected to have.” [Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 1:56, n. 1.] So let’s just face it. Justin didn’t have an “orthodox” view of the Trinity. Why? Not because he was some raving heretic, but because he lived in a “theologically unsophisticated” time. That is, all the other theologians during the second century were yokels just like Justin.

But consider this. Mormons believe 1) that God is ONE, 2) and yet there is more than one person who is truly God. We believe that 3) Jesus is subordinate to the Father, and 4) can be called “another God,” who is 4) “one in will” with the Father. Finally, we believe that 5) Jesus and the angels are the same species. We do disagree with Justin on some points, e.g., he thought the Father was non-anthropomorphic (not in the form of a man), but much of his view of the Trinity is straight out of Mormonism 101. And this is what Mormons would expect. After the loss of prophetic direction in the Church, the doctrines gradually drifted from the original teachings. If you like, I can present arguments that the original Christian and Jewish doctrine was that God is human-like (anthropomorphic) in form.

BDawg

 

[Tmaque]

BDawg:

But consider this. Mormons believe 1) that God is ONE, 2) and yet there is more than one person who is truly God. We believe that 3) Jesus is subordinate to the Father, and 4) can be called “another God,” who is 4) “one in will” with the Father. Finally, we believe that 5) Jesus and the angels are the same species. We do disagree with Justin on some points, e.g., he thought the Father was non-anthropomorphic (not in the form of a man), but much of his view of the Trinity is straight out of Mormonism 101. And this is what Mormons would expect. After the loss of prophetic direction in the Church, the doctrines gradually drifted from the original teachings. If you like, I can present arguments that the original Christian and Jewish doctrine was that God is human-like (anthropomorphic) in form.
BDawg

Are you saying that the ECF believed that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones?
Are you saying that they believed he obtained that body because he was once a mortal man and had been resurrected? That’s what LDS believe, is it not?

I’ve noticed that LDS apologists are great at pointing out slight differences in theological points by various ECF. You point out how these variances agree with current LDS doctrine. One ECF will agree with you on a point here, another will agree with you on point there, but none ever agree with LDS doctrine in general. In fact, you can’t find an LDS who can agree on LDS theology from one century to another. Is this evidence of “loss of prophetic direction”? A few examples…
Polygamy is a good thing, Polygamy is a sin.
Birth control is an abomination, Birth control is ok.
Word of Wisdom is a suggestion, W of W is a commandment
Blacks can’t hold priesthood, Blacks can hold priesthood
Adam is God the father, Adam is not God

We all have our own differing opinions about things like the exact nature of God. It varies from person to person even in the same faith tradition. This is because the true nature of God is beyond our comprehension. You claim that the Catholic Church can be proven wrong on points like the one made by Justin Martyr in his argument with Trypho. Yes, his view of God does not square precisely with today’s Catholic doctrine. What does that prove? Even if most theologians of his day held that view, does it make that view correct? Is an imperfect understanding evidence of anything sinister? Almost all LDS held the Adam/God doctrine as truth in the late 19th century along with everything I else mentioned. Does that mean the LDS Church is now in a state of apostasy?

I know what your answer will be. It’s so convenient to simply say that new revelation changed LDS church doctrine. Why is it impossible that new revelation changed Catholic doctrine? The Catholic doctrinal changes are far less dramatic than the LDS, and they happened over a much longer period of time. This suggests greater care and a sincere reluctance to vary from earlier modes of understanding. There seems to be no such reluctance in LDS doctrinal changes. I find the criticism of Catholic doctrine by LDS a perfect example of “the pot calling the kettle black”. LDS apologists hold the Catholic church up to a standard that their own church cannot meet. Not even close.

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

1. Jesus and the angels are the same species.

That’s different than I have ever heard from an LDS! I’ve always heard that angels were servants, that they were lower than humans.

 

[Subrosa]

BDawg:

Hi everyone,

I apologize if I don’t get to answering everyone’s comments–there are just too many! Also, I’m putting off a full discussion of deification till later (I hope you don’t mind.) However, here are a few points I can make to address at least some of what has been said.

First, ex-mo’s points about monotheistic statements in the Bible, Fathers, and Book of Mormon are well taken. I agree with all of them, except for some specific things in some of the Fathers. (I’ll get to that later.) But the question is still, “How can more than one person be spoken of as 'one God?” None of the quotations you gave address this question. Brigham Young said, “Is he one? Yes. Is his trinity one? Yes. Is his organization one? Are the heavens one? Yes.” (Journal of Discourses 14:93-94) And yes, we do believe that men can become deified, but how? By becoming ONE with the Trinity. BY also said, “If men are faithful, the time will come when they will possess the power and the knowledge to obtain, organize, bring into existence, and own. ‘What, of themselves, independent of their Creator?’ No. But they and their Creator will always be one, they will always be of one heart and of one mind, working and operating together; for whatsoever the Father doeth so doeth the son, and so they continue throughout all their operations to all eternity.” (JD 2:305-306)

I understand that it bothers you that we sometimes also say there are “Gods,” but until you accept the fact that we also believe they are ONE, no matter how many “persons” are involved, you will never understand our doctrine. Perhaps this is why you left the Church–you never really bothered to understand it fully.

Do you realize that Muslims often attack the Trinity as “polytheistic”? This is hogwash. The question between you and Muslims should be the nature of God’s oneness, and whether there is any plurality involved. In our case, we all agree that there is both oneness and plurality, so that is where I start. From there we must go to a discussion of HOW God is one, and HOW God is plural. This gets at the heart of the issue between us. What you are doing overemphasizes the differences and ignores the similarities, so that we have no true basis for comparison.

So, can we agree that the discussion should be about HOW God is one, and HOW God is plural? If not, I don’t think a productive conversation on this topic is possible.

BDawg

Hi BDawg -

It is an issue that is beyond discussion. This is something taken on faith as revealed by the scripture. There is no expanation. It is inconceivable by humans.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called “the Theologian”, entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:

“Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. .”

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 40,41: PG 36,417.

 

[tkdnick]

“Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. .”

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 40,41: PG 36,417.

I like that quote!!! What year was this written in?

 

[BDawg]

Hi Tmaque,

I am saying that many early Christians and most Jews of the same period (i.e., the period when Christianity was born from Judaism) believed that God has a body in human form. If you would like to see evidence for this assertion, click on the following link to read an essay by an LDS person who was responding directly to a Catholic Answers tract against anthropomorphism.

fairlds.org/pubs/GodHaveBody.pdf

You can find the Catholic Answers tract here (at least, I think it is the same one):

catholic.com/library/god_has_no_body.asp

You bring up a good point about the fact that LDS doctrines have changed over the years (at least in some cases). However, I think it turns out to be a good point for me, not you. You ask why there couldn’t have been further revelation in Catholicism. The answer is that Catholicism specifically denies the possibility of further public revelation. Here is a quotation from the current catechism:

66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[28] Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

Can Catholic doctrines change? Sure–but not by revelation. Without revelation, though, how is further understanding reached? Cardinal Newman had some ideas on this, but he fudged a bit and appealed to new revelation, anyway. I suppose you could extend the faith by logical extrapolation and reasoning, but it seems to me that this rampant early Christian subordinationism that I pointed out flatly contradicts current dogma, and is not just a logical extension.

So yes, Mormons proudly claim that we have received further revelation that clarifies our understanding of God. No revelation is perfect, because it comes through imperfect human vessels, so naturally we have had to throw out some previous misunderstandings. Still, you grossly overstate the extent to which changes have occurred.

For example, the Book of Mormon, published just before our church was organized, says in Jacob 2:30 that usually God commands monogamy, but sometimes he allows it to raise up seed to Him. So in the beginning of Mormonism, monogamy was the rule. Then God gave the command to practice plural marriage. Then God revoked that command. So what? It all follows the principle laid down right from the first. For that matter, why was plural marriage common among Old Testament patriarchs and prophets, but in the New Testament, it says bishops and deacons should have only one wife? If you think the polygamy thing was all a big mistake, check out 2 Samuel 12:7. I think you might be surprised.

Also, what do you think is the problem with God first saying the WofW is a suggestion, and then upgrading it to a commandment? Do you think maybe God was trying to ease people into something that would be a hard change for some?

Finally, prophets have opinions, and God doesn’t always jump in to correct all of our mistakes. If Brigham Young had a few weird ideas about Adam, so what? He never presented a revelation to the Church about this to be accepted as sripture. (That’s how new revelations are canonized in our Church.) If Brigham Young had some racist ideas that he picked up from the culture he grew up in (most of the stuff he said about blacks was straight out of American Protestantism,) so what? God eventually corrected the situation, and again, he never presented any revelation to the Church about his policy change. We have a long history of LDS leaders wondering whether this was just a policy and not a doctrine. As for birth control, where is the revelation on that?

So that’s the bottom line. We recognize that people (including us) are liable to get off on the wrong track, sometimes. We recognize that we don’t have all the answers, and are sometimes left to our own devices to make sense of things. And therefore, we recognize that the Church needs correction from time to time, and that can only come by direct revelation from God.

BDawg

 

[BDawg]

Subrosa:

Hi BDawg -

It is an issue that is beyond discussion. This is something taken on faith as revealed by the scripture. There is no expanation. It is inconceivable by humans.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called “the Theologian”, entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:

“Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. .”

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 40,41: PG 36,417.

This flatly contradicts the earlier subordinationism represented by Justin.

Here is another example from Origen:

“We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God.” (Against Celsus 5:39)

"And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will.” (Against Celsus 8:12)

“We say that the Son and the Holy Spirit excel all created beings to a degree which admits of no comparison, and are themselves excelled by the Father to the same or even greater degree.” (Commentary on John 8:25)

Just another example of a pre-Nicene father who was both a subordinationist, and one who said that Jesus was a second God in one sense, but part of the one God in the sense that he is perfectly united in WILL with the Father.

BDawg

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

Can Catholic doctrines change? Sure–but not by revelation. Without revelation, though, how is further understanding reached? Cardinal Newman had some ideas on this, but he fudged a bit and appealed to new revelation, anyway. I suppose you could extend the faith by logical extrapolation and reasoning, but it seems to me that this rampant early Christian subordinationism that I pointed out flatly contradicts current dogma, and is not just a logical extension.

I think you’re mixing words here. The Catholic Church does not deny the power, nor validity of revelation. However, the Catholic Church does hold that there will be no more public revelation. There are various kinds of revelation and the Catholic Church only states that there will be no more public revelation. Catholic doctrines develop based on additional knowledge about a subject.

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

He never presented a revelation to the Church about this to be accepted as sripture. (That’s how new revelations are canonized in our Church.)

You will be at least the 4th person I’ve asked this question to, none of which who have been able to satisfactorily answer the question…Where can I read all of the canonized doctrines of your church? I want to sit down and read all those things that as an LDS I would be required to believe. In what book can I find them?

 

[Tmaque]

BDawg:

Hi Tmaque,

You bring up a good point about the fact that LDS doctrines have changed over the years (at least in some cases). However, I think it turns out to be a good point for me, not you. You ask why there couldn’t have been further revelation in Catholicism. The answer is that Catholicism specifically denies the possibility of further public revelation. Here is a quotation from the current catechism:

Can Catholic doctrines change? Sure–but not by revelation. Without revelation, though, how is further understanding reached? Cardinal Newman had some ideas on this, but he fudged a bit and appealed to new revelation, anyway. I suppose you could extend the faith by logical extrapolation and reasoning, but it seems to me that this rampant early Christian subordinationism that I pointed out flatly contradicts current dogma, and is not just a logical extension.

So yes, Mormons proudly claim that we have received further revelation that clarifies our understanding of God. No revelation is perfect, because it comes through imperfect human vessels, so naturally we have had to throw out some previous misunderstandings. Still, you grossly overstate the extent to which changes have occurred.

Finally, prophets have opinions, and God doesn’t always jump in to correct all of our mistakes. If Brigham Young had a few weird ideas about Adam, so what? He never presented a revelation to the Church about this to be accepted as sripture. (That’s how new revelations are canonized in our Church.) If Brigham Young had some racist ideas that he picked up from the culture he grew up in (most of the stuff he said about blacks was straight out of American Protestantism,) so what? God eventually corrected the situation, and again, he never presented any revelation to the Church about his policy change. We have a long history of LDS leaders wondering whether this was just a policy and not a doctrine. As for birth control, where is the revelation on that?

So that’s the bottom line. We recognize that people (including us) are liable to get off on the wrong track, sometimes. We recognize that we don’t have all the answers, and are sometimes left to our own devices to make sense of things. And therefore, we recognize that the Church needs correction from time to time, and that can only come by direct revelation from God.

BDawg

You can get as specific as you want with a particular point. My problem with LDS thinking and doctrine is a general one. It is a church with doctrines in constant, swift, transition. Not much can ever be counted on to be here in the long run. It now appears, given the recent statements by President Hinckley that the Church is moving away from it’s “God was once a man, man may become a God” theory…at least in it’s common understanding over the last 160 years. What will LDS doctrines be in 100 years regarding the social issues of our time? Will some future prophet receive revelation that homosexual relationships are completely valid? Or, that women can hold the Priesthood? Or, perhaps that the Book of Mormon should not be viewed as authentic history? All of these things I see as very distinct possibilities given the track record of LDS doctrinal shifts. How is it that every doctrinal shift since the death of John Taylor has been in line with common, social mores of general(non-LDS) society? Changes to the Book of Mormon, temple ceremonies, polygamy, priesthood availability, temple garments, birth control, even the Word of Wisdom, all were responses TOWARDS the social norms of the times. Is this coincidence? Or, has society at large been more enlightened than modern LDS leadership?

To claim all of these changes were due to divine influence or revelation is hard to accept. I realize that the Catholic church doesn’t use the word “revelation”. Let’s not get hung up on words here. We both agree doctrinal shifts occur because of spiritual enlightment, call it what you will, the point is that it occurs with God’s direction. Again, why are small doctrinal shifts in Catholicism wrong, but dramatic doctrinal shifts in Mormonism divinely inspired? You cannot seriously claim that the Catholic church has apostatized because of doctrinal development when even more dramatic doctrinal developments have occurred in your own church.

 

[BDawg]

tkdnick:

You will be at least the 4th person I’ve asked this question to, none of which who have been able to satisfactorily answer the question…Where can I read all of the canonized doctrines of your church? I want to sit down and read all those things that as an LDS I would be required to believe. In what book can I find them?

In our canonized scriptures. Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck. Sorry, but we don’t have a “catechism.” The Church publishes various handbooks, and the like, but they are not considered to be infallible guides to the scriptures.

One thing you have to realize is that LDS are not focused on passing some kind of multiple-choice test on theology before we pass through the pearly gates. God can reveal more truth than the Church at large has to any lowly person given the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Why would we want to squelch such a personal connection with God just so we can have a “systematic theology”?

It seems to me that Catholicism is too much focused on this kind of thing, i.e., systematic theology, moral theology, etc. I just don’t think the scriptures can ever quite fit into the box you make for it.

BDawg

 

[Tmaque]

tkdnick:

You will be at least the 4th person I’ve asked this question to, none of which who have been able to satisfactorily answer the question…Where can I read all of the canonized doctrines of your church? I want to sit down and read all those things that as an LDS I would be required to believe. In what book can I find them?

The doctrines change so rapidly that such a publication would be impossible. I think the LDS leadership would want to specifically avoid creating such a book because it might limit, or at least cast doubt upon, what the church could claim as new revelation in the future. And, as we know, anything is possible in LDS doctrine. The Journal of Discourses has created, and still does create all sorts of problems for modern LDS leaders because it shows that the church of that period is simply not the same church that exists today.

 

[tkdnick]

BDawg:

In our canonized scriptures. Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck. Sorry, but we don’t have a “catechism.” The Church publishes various handbooks, and the like, but they are not considered to be infallible guides to the scriptures.

We have no infallible guides to scripture either. What I want is to read what the LDS church teaches as official church doctrine. I’m tired of asking LDS about things only to get 5 different answers as to what is official and what is not and how something was up for common consent or wasn’t. How can I, a non-LDS, learn what the LDS church OFFICIALLY teaches?

 

[tkdnick]

Tmaque:

The doctrines change so rapidly that such a publication would be impossible. I think the LDS leadership would want to specifically avoid creating such a book because it might limit, or at least cast doubt upon, what the church could claim as new revelation in the future. And, as we know, anything is possible in LDS doctrine. The Journal of Discourses has created, and still does create all sorts of problems for modern LDS leaders because it shows that the church of that period is simply not the same church that exists today.

That’s what I’m thinking too, but I want an LDS to tell me why there’s no book. I guess maybe I’m asking for too much. Seems REALLY fishy to me that there is no way to know who or what has been officially approved by the LDS church!

 

[BDawg]

tkdnick:

I think you’re mixing words here. The Catholic Church does not deny the power, nor validity of revelation. However, the Catholic Church does hold that there will be no more public revelation. There are various kinds of revelation and the Catholic Church only states that there will be no more public revelation. Catholic doctrines develop based on additional knowledge about a subject.

Hi tkdnick,

So what do you call it when the Holy Spirit supposedly moves the church to reject the subordinationism of the earlier fathers. Isn’t it revelation? Isn’t it public? I mean, everyone is supposed to believe it, aren’t they? Am I missing some esoteric definition of “public revelation”?

BDawg