I’m not too familiar with Aristotelian philosophy, so I can’t say if that’s what I’m saying.
I think your description is good. The issue I think that comes up is that we believe that each Person, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is fully God. Therefore, that “substance” isn’t given 1/3 to each Person, but they are all fully that substance.
That marches with the idea of Form…
I guess there is difficulty in explaining what that means.
yep.
It also isn’t that the Three have something that makes them God, they are that thing, the Divine substance. It is what they are ontologically. But yes, they are one God because they are all of that one substance (what some call “consubstantial”).
In a way, that also marches; the way all tables are ‘fully table’ but distinct from one another. Where the similarity breaks down is that Aristotle figured that while all tables are ‘fully table,’ none of them can quite achieve the perfection of “Table,” since becoming physical and (perhaps) touchable by mere human minds, they are ‘lesser.’ Mankind can only appreciate the table in front of him, not “Table.”
Of course, this gets really fun when you start talking about whether words have any intrinsic meaning, or if they can only be assigned meaning, but now I’m getting off track.
As far as your Aristotelian argument, I’m honestly not too sure, however it sounds good, but don’t take my word as scripture
. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alone are that divine substance. Nothing/No one else is. The Catholic/Orthodox concept of theosis (deification) is related to this, as we believe that we can partake of the divine nature, but we are not ontologically that divine nature. Therefore we are all not sons of God, but we become sons of God through adoption.
And we believe that we are the one–and must also become the other.
And I agree with you that when we actually think about it, there are many similarities between the LDS Godhead and the Traditional Trinity, however there are of course real differences.
Yes. The interesting thing I have found, though, is that the differences aren’t what most of the people who criticize my beliefs THINK they are.
However I like to emphasize that we both believe in the separateness of the Persons, that Jesus wasn’t praying to Himself in the Bible, etc.
So, there is one God, in three Persons. The three Persons are of the same Divine substance, the “stuff” that makes them God and us not God (Aristotelian?).
I think that a Jesuit would probably wince at both of us, but…we are getting closer, perhaps…
Each one is fully that substance. They are one God because they are one in purpose, intent, etc., and because they are also of the same substance.
Yes…the hitch is in that concept “substance.” We believe that They are, as you say, One in purpose, intent, etc…and are also one in that idea 'God." Whatever that is. What we need to do is define ‘substance’ in a way that satisfies us both. Language is limiting.
What happens with Mormons is that the modalists (and Trinitarians who argue like modalists) are so insistant that the Three share one substance that they sacrifice the idea of seperateness for it. Yet the classic notion of Trinity emphasizes one equally with the other. The Athanasian creed puts it :" And the catholic faith is this: That we worship on God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance…"
Those who argue the Trinity forget that the very creed they espouse puts “neither confounding the persons” FIRST,
before “dividing the substance.” The two concepts are equally important. So they argue the substance, and in doing so, make the mistake of ‘confounding the persons.’
And we Mormons, in reaction to that, go the other way. In arguing the separateness of the persons, we “divide the substance.” Or rather, we don’t…but everybody thinks we do. What we actually do is try to make that ‘substance’ more understandable. We try to nail it down. It is "purpose, intent,’ and “godhead.” In this, they are one.
We also have a hierarchical view that classic trinitarians do not have, in the way we see the Persons, and frankly, that confuses me. Not MY view, but theirs. We are criticized because we don’t pray to Jesus…but why should anybody worry about which member of the Godhead you pray to, especially if ‘substance’ is more than our version of unity of thought, purpose or 'godhead?" If you pray to one, aren’t you praying to the whole of God?
I have never seen any Catholic or Protestant pray to the Holy Ghost, for instance, and isn’t He fully God, too?
As well, if you pray to Jesus, aren’t you then ignoring His Father…and the Holy Ghost as well? If not in thought, certainly in words?
So if we pray to God the Father (or "Heavenly Father’) in the Name of Jesus Christ, and expect an answer by way of the Holy Ghost, aren’t we covering all the bases?
(shrug)
Language. It’s wonderfully confusing, isn’t it?
diana
)