LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pahoran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Caprica said:
The existence of distinct divine Persons, as the Trinity doctrine posits, shows that each Person has qualities that the others do not (they are one in “substance”, while being “three” in Personhood). For example, Trinitarians believe that the Father is unbegotten (as is the Holy Ghost), while the Son is [eternally] begotten. The Holy Ghost proceeds, while the Father and the Son do not. Etc.

Therefore, your above quote not only applies to LDS theology, but Trinitarian theology as well, since the Trinity by definition involves distinctions between the three divine Persons (to not acknowledge the existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct Persons leads one to Modalism), which means that there are distinctions “in God”.
Click to expand...
There is not a one to one relationship between persons and beings.

A cat is zero persons in one being.

A human is one person in one being.

God is three persons in one being.

God is one being, not three beings. Three beings (gods) is logically impossible. Three persons in one being (God) is not.
 
1holycatholic said:
There is not a one to one relationship between persons and beings.

A cat is zero persons in one being.

A human is one person in one being.

God is three persons in one being.

God is one being, not three beings. Three beings (gods) is logically impossible. Three persons in one being (God) is not.
Click to expand...
You previously stated that “distinctions cannot exist in God”, yet having three distinct Persons (who have some unique qualities as previously mentioned) “in one Being”/God is clearly allowing for distinctions in God. You need to show what the differences are between “persons” and “beings”, and how having distinctions among the divine Persons of God is not having distinctions in God.
 
hosemonkey said:
The Book of Mormon has no basis in fact, it is a fabrication,a falsehood. If anyone told you that it was true, it had to have been some other entity than God. That, or you are extraordinarily gullible. Does the multitude of errors,anomalies, impossibilities and outright lies of the BOM not disturb you?
Click to expand...
What disturbs us is the misrepresentation of the Book of Mormon by anti-Mormons. I assume you are familiar with such a concept, when anti-Catholics misrepresent Catholic beliefs and history.
But then again, we are talking about the God of Christianity, not the “god” of mormonism (one of many). They are not the same, are they?
Click to expand...
The God of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the God of the Bible.
 
Caprica said:
You previously stated that “distinctions cannot exist in God”, yet having three distinct Persons (who have some unique qualities as previously mentioned) “in one Being”/God is clearly allowing for distinctions in God. You need to show what the differences are between “persons” and “beings”, and how having distinctions among the divine Persons of God is not having distinctions in God.
Click to expand...
That’s right, the persons have distinctions, but the being does not. God is three persons in one being.

It’s like you are promoting the old heresy of sabellianism. Haven’t you read the Early Church Fathers?
 
1holycatholic said:
That’s right, the persons have distinctions, but the being does not. God is three persons in one being.

It’s like you are promoting the old heresy of sabellianism. Haven’t you read the Early Church Fathers?
Click to expand...
I’ve already mentioned the issue of modalism. Emphasizing the distinction of Persons has nothing to do with sabellianism (since Mormons are quite obviously not modalists). What I am asking you to do is to define the differences between “persons” and “beings” and how having distinctions among the divine Persons of God is not having distinctions in God. What is the “being” of God?
 
Caprica said:
The God of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the God of the Bible.
Click to expand...
The God of the Bible is three persons in one being. That’s not the god of the LDS.

The Bible proceeds from the Catholic Church. The canon wasn’t infallibly set by the Catholic Church for ~350 years after Christ’s ascension. LDS use the lite version favored by Protestants with some of the books thrown out. So much for the LDS great apostasy conspiracy theory.
 
hosemonkey said:
This is why mormonism is closer to Hinduism than Christianity, a belief in a multiplicity of “gods.” Another reason why mormonism is commonly regarded as “non-christian”.
Click to expand...
Actually, Mormonism would be closer to what the Bible teaches on this subject, as well as what scholarship shows on the subject of pre-exilic Judaism, as well as on the Divine Council in the Bible.

But perhaps you are not familiar with such matters? Perhaps you should read The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith (Skirball Professor of Bible; Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University), or some basic history of the divine council in the Bible.
 
Caprica said:
I’ve already mentioned the issue of modalism. Emphasizing the distinction of Persons has nothing to do with sabellianism (since Mormons are quite obviously not modalists). What I am asking you to do is to define the differences between “persons” and “beings” and how having distinctions among the divine Persons of God is not having distinctions in God. What is the “being” of God?
Click to expand...
God’s essence is existence.
 
1holycatholic said:
The God of the Bible is three persons in one being. That’s not the god of the LDS.

The Bible proceeds from the Catholic Church. The canon wasn’t infallibly set by the Catholic Church for ~350 years after Christ’s ascension. LDS use the lite version favored by Protestants with some of the books thrown out. So much for the LDS great apostasy conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
Please cite the verse(s) that state that God is “three persons in one being”.

Please define what “person” refers to and what “being” refers to, with the relevant Biblical texts.
 
1holycatholic said:
God’s essence is existence.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this does not answer my question(s).

“What I am asking you to do is to define the differences between “persons” and “beings” and how having distinctions among the divine Persons of God is not having distinctions in God. What is the “being” of God?”

This will be helpful so that everyone can see the differences between what Trinitarians say when they use words like “person” and “being”, and what Latter-day Saints believe.
 
Caprica said:
Unfortunately this does not answer my question(s).

“What I am asking you to do is to define the differences between “persons” and “beings” and how having distinctions among the divine Persons of God is not having distinctions in God. What is the “being” of God?”

This will be helpful so that everyone can see the differences between what Trinitarians say when they use words like “person” and “being”, and what Latter-day Saints believe.
Click to expand...
thisand understand then get back to the thread.
 
When the response to what should be a simple question, is a link to a “Doctorial Thesis” type explanation, , ,

I question whether the person understands the answer or is deflecting.😊
I wonder if anyone here can succinctly answer the question :eek:
 
1holycatholic said:
Read and understand this then get back to the thread.
Click to expand...
I’m quite familiar with the Summa, as my minor was in philosophy. The problem here is of course that this distinction between “persons” and “beings” is not based on anything in the Bible (though I am still awaiting your explanation of the Biblical basis for the belief that God is “three persons in one being”). I am well aware of Aquinas and Trinitarians using “person” (hypostasis) to mean something different from “being” (ousia). What I am asking you to do is to define such words for yourself, as well as showing that a distinction of Persons in God is somehow not introducing a distinction in God. Therefore, you need to define what the “being” of God is. Unfortunately though, Aquinas seems to think that you can’t do this, since he relies on apophatic theology.

I await your response to post #141.
 
1holycatholic said:
I’ll skip a proof of the impossibility of the non-existence of God since we agree that at least one god exists.

God is pure act with no potential (potential is a privation of act.)
Click to expand...
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.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a real being who really exists. According to the Scriptures, He has a plan which is unfolding, over time, through His creation. At this moment in time, not all of His plan has been accomplished, but important elements of it are yet future.

You may argue that He lives “outside of time,” whatever that means, but you cannot deny that His purposes are unfolding within the time process.
1holycatholic said:
If there were more than one god there would be distinctions among them (obviously.)

Distinctions entail limitations and limitations mean potentiality.

God is pure actuality, with no limitations. Distinctions cannot exist in God. Therefore the existence of more than one god is impossible.
Click to expand...
Actually, I have to wonder whether the abstract Philosopher’s God is really possible anyway, even before we introduce LDS teachings into the mix. Let me give you just two examples:

  1. *]The Philosopher’s God is said to be a perfectly satisfied being with no needs or wants. Thus, what motivation would He have to do anything at all? How could He be more perfectly satisfied after any act, if He was already perfectly satisfied before?
    *]The Philosopher’s God is also said to be unchangeable. Thus, how could He even decide to do something? A decision is a change in the decider’s mental state; does this mean that the Philosopher’s God was somehow imperfect before the decision, or does it mean that He was required to respond to external factors?

    This is all a very interesting discussion, Unam, and I definitely find it stimulating. However, it seems to be off-topic for this thread. Would it be possible to start a new one?

    Regards,
    Pahoran
 
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.
    hosemonkey said:
    The Book of Mormon has no basis in fact, it is a fabrication,a falsehood. If anyone told you that it was true, it had to have been some other entity than God.
    Click to expand...
    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?
    hosemonkey said:
    That, or you are extraordinarily gullible.
    Click to expand...
    Why, thank you for the compliment.
    hosemonkey said:
    Does the multitude of errors,anomalies, impossibilities and outright lies of the BOM not disturb you?
    Click to expand...
    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?
    hosemonkey said:
    Really?
    Click to expand...
    Really.
    hosemonkey said:
    But then again, we are talking about the God of Christianity, not the “god” of mormonism (one of many). They are not the same, are they?
    Click to expand...
    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. We, and you, rely on the Bible, and on other sources of information about the nature of God. We recognise this fact, and we also use different extrabiblical sources than you do.

    Regards,
    Pahoran
 
Caprica said:
I’m quite familiar with the Summa, as my minor was in philosophy. The problem here is of course that this distinction between “persons” and “beings” is not based on anything in the Bible (though I am still awaiting your explanation of the Biblical basis for the belief that God is “three persons in one being”). I am well aware of Aquinas and Trinitarians using “person” (hypostasis) to mean something different from “being” (ousia). What I am asking you to do is to define such words for yourself, as well as showing that a distinction of Persons in God is somehow not introducing a distinction in God. Therefore, you need to define what the “being” of God is. Unfortunately though, Aquinas seems to think that you can’t do this, since he relies on apophatic theology.

I await your response to post #141.
Click to expand...
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. :cool:

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top