LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

[1holycatholic]

I confess that you lost me right there. Latter-day Saints don’t worship an abstract God that is the product of philosohical musings; we worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not the God of Middle Platonism.

So in Romans and Colossians where you are told you can know true philosophy from false philosophy, you just ignore that part?

 

[Caprica]

Aquinas doesn’t rely solely on apophatic knowledge of God. We have more apophatic knowledge of God than cataphatic knowledge.

There is no need for me to write up my own description of “person” since Aquinas does an exhaustive job of it.

So you expect us to simply not have a dialogue on our own thoughts, but just post dissertation length documents instead. Okay.

You can start a thread in the scripture forum if you want to quibble over the references to the Trinity in the Bible -* a Catholic book*. We’re talking about natural theology where Mormonism falls flat on it’s face. You’re trying to divert the discussion away from that painful, irrefutable reality.

I have no interested in quibbling. What I am asking you to demonstrate is the evidence in the Bible of God being three persons in one being. You made an assertion in this thread, and I am asking you to back it up. If you cannot do so, then please just say so instead of telling someone to go to another forum.

Mormonism does not fall flat on its face, since you have yet to demonstrate that a distinction of Persons within God is not a distinction within God. It is this issue that shows that your criticism of Mormonism similarly condemns Trinitarianism. Your assertion rests on what exactly is “being”, and whether such a definition is standard. It is clear that it is not (especially since there is such diversity in defining “being” by various theologians. Is it referring to “nature”, the “essential attributes of something”, etc.).

 

[Caprica]

So in Romans and Colossians where you are told you can know true philosophy from false philosophy, you just ignore that part?

How do you know which “philosophy” is consistent with Hebrew thought? The Hellenization of Judeo-Christianity is obviously well known. The question is, was it inspired and consistent with Hebrew thought on the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob?

 

[hosemonkey]

I’m glad to see that you are an enthusiastically orthodox Catholic, Hosemonkey. But I hope you can keep your enthusiastic orthodoxy from overflowing into zealotry. It might help for you to keep in mind these two facts:

1. 
   *]There are enthusiastically orthodox followers of many belief systems; and
   *]Such followers invariably understand their beliefs better than you do. Just as you understand your beliefs better than they do.
   
   Don’t you think it might be just a little bit presumptuous for you to presume to interpret for me an experience that you did not share?
   I have never taken an acid trip either, but I have it on good authority that LSD(LDS?) causes permanent Psychosis, so I don’t do it.
   
   Why, thank you for the compliment.
   No complement intended.
   
   No.
   
   Does the fact that people can be well aware of what you imagine to be “the multitude of errors, anomalies, impossibilities and outright lies of the BOM” and actually regard them as defensible by the very same arguments that are used to defend similar problems in the Bible – if not downright trivial – cause you to reconsider the confidence you repose in** this discredited polemic**?
   Horses, steel, reenforced concrete, cureloms, amazing Shizz and on and on and on. The BOM(If you can stay awake) reads like the Chronicles of Narnia, it lacks only an Ice Queen. L. Ron Hubbard in all his glory could not have done better. Archeology sustains the Bible. Archeology can find nothing of the BOM. Find me one piece of Nephite armour, one Nephite chariot at Hill Cumorah and I will retract everything I’ve said about mormonism, because the BOM is the Rock of mormonism along with it’s author, Joseph Smith, the treasure-digger and peep-stone gazer.
   Discredited polemic???
   Discredited by who? Joseph Smith? Please don’t use him for a reference, be like using David Koresh as an authority.
   
   Really.
   
   Latter-day Saint Christians worship the God revealed in the Bible.
   

   Our doctrine naturally has some points of difference, and important ones at that, from the theology of other Christians.

 

[1holycatholic]

So you expect us to simply not have a dialogue on our own thoughts, but just post dissertation length documents instead. Okay.

I don’t need to reinvent the wheel. It already exists, so I’ll use it. You don’t appear to be familiar with the material, or interested in understanding it.

I have no interested in quibbling. What I am asking you to demonstrate is the evidence in the Bible of God being three persons in one being. You made an assertion in this thread, and I am asking you to back it up. If you cannot do so, then please just say so instead of telling someone to go to another forum.

Mormonism does not fall flat on its face, since you have yet to demonstrate that a distinction of Persons within God is not a distinction within God. It is this issue that shows that your criticism of Mormonism similarly condemns Trinitarianism. Your assertion rests on what exactly is “being”, and whether such a definition is standard. It is clear that it is not (especially since there is such diversity in defining “being” by various theologians. Is it referring to “nature”, the “essential attributes of something”, etc.).

I have backed it up. Your insistence on a one to one relationship between persons and beings has already been disproven. You just don’t like the answer because it shows the irrationality of Mormonism.
“This revelation of God the Father to us in the Person of his only Son is divine revelation simply and accurately put. This revelation is transmitted to us in a Trinitarian way. There is one God. There is one Word of God. However, we know that God, although One is three divine Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Wherever one Person of the most holy Trinity is there the other two must be due to the absolute unity of the Trinity. This is what we refer to in theology as the divine perichoresis or circumincession. Simply put, wherever one Person of the Trinity is, there the other two must be.”

• Fr. John Corapi

 

[Caprica]

I don’t need to reinvent the wheel. It already exists, so I’ll use it. You don’t appear to be familiar with the material, or interested in understanding it.

I’m already familiar with the material (I’ve read quite extensively on the issue of hypostasis vs. ousia in the history of Christianity as well as its origins in Greek philosophy. What I’m asking you to do is provide your own thoughts on the matter, since this is a dialogue. If you are not able to do so, that is okay.

I have backed it up. Your insistence on a one to one relationship between persons and beings has already been disproven. You just don’t like the answer because it shows the irrationality of Mormonism.

Except that you haven’t addressed the issue of a one to one relationship between persons and beings, because you have yet to provide a definition for “being”, since anyone familiar with the history of the words “ousia” and “hypostasis”, as well as some theologians defining “being” as “nature”, shows that there is no one definition for “being”. Therefore, you have ignored the actual underlying issue since there is no one accepted definition. Your presumption is that an equivalence of “person” and “being” is modalism, when it is clear that this depends on the definition used (since Mormons are quite obviously not Modalists).

“This revelation of God the Father to us in the Person of his only Son is divine revelation simply and accurately put. This revelation is transmitted to us in a Trinitarian way. There is one God. There is one Word of God. However, we know that God, although One is three divine Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Wherever one Person of the most holy Trinity is there the other two must be due to the absolute unity of the Trinity. This is what we refer to in theology as the divine perichoresis or circumincession. Simply put, wherever one Person of the Trinity is, there the other two must be.”

• Fr. John Corapi

None of this addresses the actual issue. If you cannot substantiate your claim that the Biblical definition of God is three Persons in one Being, then please say so so that we can move on.

Latter-day Saints use “one God” in multiple senses. We believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in purpose, and are referred to as the Godhead. We believe that the Father is the “one God”, consistent with 1 Corinthians 8:6 (which clearly refers to the “one God” as the Father). We also have no problem referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three Gods.

 

[Pahoran]

Caprica and 1HolyCatholic:

Please can we take the philosophical discussion to another thread?

Don’t get me wrong: this is a good discussion. I like this discussion. I’d like to see where it goes. But it is not this thread. This thread is not about whether LDS doctrine is true or “philosophically sound,” but what are valid sources therefor, and what is the scope thereof.

BTW, 1Holy: “Natural theology” isn’t something we recognise as a valid source of doctrine, only revealed truth.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[dianaiad]

I have never taken an acid trip either, but I have it on good authority that LSD(LDS?) causes permanent Psychosis, so I don’t do it.

You realise how old and tired that one is, right?

True, it was funny in 'Star Trek, the Voyage Home," but that WAS nearly a quarter of a century ago.

I am, frankly, rather amazed at the patience, courtesy and iron plate thick skin Pahoran is showing here. I would, at this point, be counting to a thousand before responding. Twice–and wishing I had counted three times.

 

[Caprica]

You realise how old and tired that one is, right?

True, it was funny in 'Star Trek, the Voyage Home," but that WAS nearly a quarter of a century ago.

I am, frankly, rather amazed at the patience, courtesy and iron plate thick skin Pahoran is showing here. I would, at this point, be counting to a thousand before responding. Twice–and wishing I had counted three times.

Oh, his comment has already been reported to the moderators .

 

[1holycatholic]

BTW, 1Holy: “Natural theology” isn’t something we recognise as a valid source of doctrine, only revealed truth.

It’s revealed truth that you are supposed to know natural theology, you have “no excuse” yet you choose to ignore it.

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m already familiar with the material (I’ve read quite extensively on the issue of hypostasis vs. ousia in the history of Christianity as well as its origins in Greek philosophy. What I’m asking you to do is provide your own thoughts on the matter, since this is a dialogue. If you are not able to do so, that is okay.

Except that you haven’t addressed the issue of a one to one relationship between persons and beings, because you have yet to provide a definition for “being”, since anyone familiar with the history of the words “ousia” and “hypostasis”, as well as some theologians defining “being” as “nature”, shows that there is no one definition for “being”. Therefore, you have ignored the actual underlying issue since there is no one accepted definition. Your presumption is that an equivalence of “person” and “being” is modalism, when it is clear that this depends on the definition used (since Mormons are quite obviously not Modalists).

I gave an example of three different beings: one being of no persons, one being of one person, and one being of three persons. I didn’t equivocate person and being. That’s your tired shtick.

Here are your topic shifting The Holy Trinity: Biblical Proofs. But they’re irrelevant. Multiple gods are logically impossible, you don’t need to look in a Catholic book like the Bible for proof of that fact.

 

[Caprica]

It’s revealed truth that you are supposed to know natural theology, you have “no excuse” yet you choose to ignore it.

Except if something is revealed truth (i.e from God, revelation), then it doesn’t fit the definition of “natural theology”.

 

[1holycatholic]

Except if something is revealed truth (i.e from God, revelation), then it doesn’t fit the definition of “natural theology”.

It’s written in the Bible that you are supposed to know Natural Theology, even in the stripped down Protestant version that Mormons use.

 

[dianaiad]

it’s written in the bible that you are supposed to know natural theology, even in the stripped down protestant version that mormons use.

where???

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

It’s revealed truth that you are supposed to know natural theology, you have “no excuse” yet you choose to ignore it.

Mormons don’t understand what Catholics mean by natural and supernatural revelation. Pahoran believes in natural revelation, even though he would never express it that way. If I understand him, as a latecomer to the thread, he merely wants to focus for now on what as a Latter-day Saint he is obliged to defend. He affirms that some materials which we see as damaging are unauthoritative and may be viewed as speculative and non-binding. Do we Catholics want to defend every speculative word of every Church Father or even pope? No. So it follows that we should give them the benefit, especially when they don’t even believe in infallibility, of setting aside teachings not found in what they sometimes call, the Standard Works.

In my opinion his plan eventually denudes the LDS theology from being as distinctively LDS as they tend to assume. To narrow the binding and authoritative teachings could be potentially a greater difficulty (albeit in a different way) than to expand the official teaching corpus. Either way, the Catholic Church is true and that is the best argument against the claims of Joseph Smith. But I think we must approach LDS questions while accepting Pahoran’s perameters as valid and reasonable. If they don’t want to defend the Journal of Discourses, who are we to claim that they must?

 

[Caprica]

I gave an example of three different beings: one being of no persons, one being of one person, and one being of three persons. I didn’t equivocate person and being. That’s your tired shtick.

You are relying on your definitions of “person” and “being”, which may not be the same as the definitions of others (again, anyone familiar with the development of “ousia” and “hypostasis”, and even today’s modern English use of “person” and “being”, would know this). Your examples are modeled after your own definitions, which are simply not universal. Sheed refers to “being” as “nature”, therefore my supposed equating of “person” with “being” as an example of modalism wouldn’t work (and Mormonism wouldn’t be teaching “three beings”=“three natures”, since we clearly believe that there is only one divine nature, and we are all of that nature). That is the issue that you cannot see, and why the premise of your argument fails.

Here are your topic shifting The Holy Trinity: Biblical Proofs. But they’re irrelevant. Multiple gods are logically impossible, you don’t need to look in a Catholic book like the Bible for proof of that fact.

It seems as if you are unfamiliar with the divine council within the Bible (and Israelite religion), as discussed by historians and other scholars. Perhaps you should do more reading on that issue, as I directed hosemonkey to do.

The funny thing about that list of verses is that not a single one shows that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are “one Being” (what is “being” referring to? nature? they are one nature, according to Sheed? Mormons would agree with such a definition, as mentioned above). The section on the Unity of God does not address how God is one. Latter-day Saints believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in purpose, and are referred to as “one God” in our latter-day scriptures. Such a statement does not necessitate a oneness of “being” (whatever that refers to, depending on the theologian, time period, etc), which is the question at hand. Interestingly, he quotes 1 Cor 8:6, which I have already mentioned. It states that the “one God” is the Father, and Jesus is the “one Lord”.

Sorry, not a single verse in that list address “three persons in one being”.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

where???

Romans 1. Ps. 18 (19 in your Bibles)

The heavens declare…the firmament “sheweth forth”…

The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands. Day to day uttereth speech, and night to night sheweth knowledge. There are no speeches nor languages, where their voices are not heard. Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth: and their words unto the ends of the world

.

God reveals Himself in nature, through His observable Creation. This is what we mean by natural theology. We can learn about God by way of reason (philosophical truth) based on natural revelation.

God reveals Himself to the Church, through Scripture, and this is revelation that could never be discovered by reason contemplating nature alone. It is therefore “supernnatural”. Above reason and requires not reason to believe, but faith.

This was why I said above that Pahoran believes in natural theology and so do you and so soes everybody. They just don’t draw the distinctions as clearly as Catholics tend to do. And in any case, this thread is about supernatural sources of revelation.

 

[Caprica]

Romans 1. Ps. 18 (19 in your Bibles)

The heavens declare…the firmament “sheweth forth”…

God reveals Himself in nature, through His observable Creation. This is what we mean by natural theology. We can learn about God by way of reason (philosophical truth) based on natural revelation.

God reveals Himself to the Church, through Scripture, and this is revelation that could never be discovered by reason contemplating nature alone. It is therefore “supernnatural”. Above reason and requires not reason to believe, but faith.

This was why I said above that Pahoran believes in natural theology and so do you and so soes everybody. They just don’t draw the distinctions as clearly as Catholics tend to do. And in any case, this thread is about supernatural sources of revelation.

The problem with this (not what the Bible says) is that there simply is no agreement on what is contained in this “natural theology”. 1holy’s statements on it began with various philosophical ideas that are not agreed upon, and therefore his premise was flawed. Latter-day Saints most certainly believe that the nature of the Divine and the Heavens is reflected on this earth, in God’s creations (I assume you are familiar with our views on the family, for instance). “Philosophical truth” is not agreed upon, evidenced in the variety of philosophical truths.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The problem with this (not what the Bible says) is that there simply is no agreement on what is contained in this “natural theology”.

On the contrary, of all the different theologies there are, natural theology is easily the area that people who follow God do agree.

What believer doesn’t look at a stunning part of nature and marvel at what God has done? Even if there is not agreement on Who God IS?

 

[Caprica]

On the contrary, of all the different theologies there are, natural theology is easily the area that people who follow God do agree.

What believer doesn’t look at a stunning part of nature and marvel at what God has done? Even if there is not agreement on Who God IS?

Oh yes, of course we marvel. The issue here is whether who God is is reflected in natural theology (which was 1holy’s assertion).