Trinity and Mormon godhead

[Richard_Abanes]

MFB: Obviously it depends on what you mean by “incomprehensible” and I stand by my quote.

RA: I mean “incomprehensible” the way you mean “incomprehensible” when you said:* “I am just tired of having my religion criticized by people holding positions that are incomprehensible.” *

This SEEMS to indicate that you stand against any doctrines/views that are admittedly “incomprehensible.” Is this an accurate assessment?

You also state: “I cannot conceive of anything which is both incomprehensible and ‘true’ How could it be?”

Again, this SEEMS to indicate that you stand against any doctrines/views that are admittedly “incomprehensible.” Is this an accurate assessment?

If these are accurate assessments, then would you agree – as a card-carrying Mormon – that none of the doctrines you embrace, as taught by the LDS Church are incomprehensible? And if any such doctrines – i.e., admittedly incomprehensible ones – existed in the LDS church, then those doctrines as well as the LDS church would be as false as the Trinity since you “cannot conceive of anything which is both incomprehensible and ‘true.’”?

MFB: “How the trinity is?” What does that mean?

RA: I mean the logistics of “HOW” such a being exists. “How” it is possible for such a being to function – i.e., that is something beyond our finite minds and finite knowledge.

In other words, THAT the Trinity exists is certainly taught in the Bible – HOW it exists is not discussed. And one does not need to know HOW something exists to have faith THAT exists.

And, just fyi, is this just your personality coming through your posts, or are you actually trying to be mocking and kind of sarcastic – because I’m not sure that your demeanor is conducive to a civil, calm, thoughtful dialog. But I am certainly willing to admit that a great deal can be lost in such a forum.

R.A.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

And by the way MFB, I am not interested in “demolishing” anything. I’m interested in talking about the most important issues you and I could ever discuss – Who is God? How can we know God? Why did Jesus come to earth? What awaits is in the afterlife?

peace,

RA

 

[nebula]

mfbukowski:
Wow, this just grows richer and richer. Propositions… propositions taken on faith are neither true nor false based on definition you say. Why? If I take it on faith that it is raining outside, that is a proposition, and it is either true or false. If I take it on faith that my chair will support me when I sit on it, that proposition is either true or false.

Care to restate that?

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Yes, I have to agree, this was an odd remark to me: “Propositions taken on faith are neither true nor false by definition.”

The definition of a proposition is merely a statement of either the falsity or truth of something. And, indeed, that something can be either true or false. Now, the added element of “faith” doesn’t in any way re-model the proposition. It is now merely a proposition – that can be either true or false – based on faith, rather than verifiable or testable science or fact.

Love springs to mind. I tell my wife, it is true that I love her. And indeed, I certainly demonstrate that love in a variety of ways, but still, it must be accepted by faith by her. It can either be true, or it can be false. She cannot see into my heart. I could be lying (as some men, said to say, do…until they get caught ). So, your statement would render my love “neither true nor false” or at the very least my proposition that it is true I love my wife as “neither true nor false.”

R.A.

 

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I have to agree, this was an odd remark to me: “Propositions taken on faith are neither true nor false by definition.”

The definition of a proposition is merely a statement of either the falsity or truth of something. And, indeed, that something can be either true or false. Now, the added element of “faith” doesn’t in any way re-model the proposition. It is now merely a proposition – that can be either true or false – based on faith, rather than verifiable or testable science or fact.

Love springs to mind. I tell my wife, it is true that I love her. And indeed, I certainly demonstrate that love in a variety of ways, but still, it must be accepted by faith by her. It can either be true, or it can be false. She cannot see into my heart. I could be lying (as some men, said to say, do…until they get caught ). So, your statement would render my love “neither true nor false” or at the very least my proposition that it is true I love my wife as “neither true nor false.”

R.A.

Not at all. She can know that she loves you. I would also argue that she can know that you love her.

Surely you would not dispute that your wife can know that you love her.

But when you first met, or after you have had a huge fight, she may not know or have known this at all. She had to take it on faith that you loved her perhaps. She would not know that the proposition “Richard loves me” is true or false.

Only propositions which are verfiable by experience can be said to be true or false.

If their truth or falsity is unknown or unknowable, we take their truth “on faith”.

Yet I know that God exists. I have experienced him as a being of infinite love. I know there is someone “out there” who looks out for me and has a plan for me. There is much I cannot “know” about Him, but there is also much that I can “know”

I do not mean to be sarcastic, but it appears that your tactic Richard is to try to intimidate. That will not work with me. Books do not impress me. If you have good arguments, I will be impressed. I have relatives who have written lots of books who were total jerks. We will see.

 

[mfbukowski]

Wow, this just grows richer and richer. Propositions… propositions taken on faith are neither true nor false based on definition you say. Why? If I take it on faith that it is raining outside, that is a proposition, and it is either true or false. If I take it on faith that my chair will support me when I sit on it, that proposition is either true or false.

Care to restate that?

nebula
You know we did a whole thread on that.

What is your point? When you exercise faith that your chair will support you, you don’t know for sure that it will, right? You are taking the proposition “the chair will support me” on faith.

When you sit down and it does, suddenly the proposition “the chair will support me” becomes true.

The truth changes according to its context.

 

[mfbukowski]

To RA

This forum is not known for calm civil thoughtful dialogue about truly important matters.

But I am game for such a discussion if you are.

Pax tibi

 

[mfbukowski]

MFB,

MFB: For all my protestations against “being” I strive to transform myself into a Christ- being through total surrender of my will and self. But then you guys get me all worked up and the ego comes out again.

RA: I think you’ve been reading too much Eckhart Tolle.

Nah, just John 17.

 

[nebula]

nebula
You know we did a whole thread on that.

What is your point? When you exercise faith that your chair will support you, you don’t know for sure that it will, right? You are taking the proposition “the chair will support me” on faith.

When you sit down and it does, suddenly the proposition “the chair will support me” becomes true.

The truth changes according to its context.

The point is that the proposition is true or false. It’s not in some untouchable realm. Suppose the chair only appeared to be stable and as soon as I sat on it broke, my faith would be misplaced. The proposition “this chair will hold me” is false, and was false, even as I had faith in it.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

MFB: Only propositions which are verfiable by experience can be said to be true or false. If their truth or falsity is unknown or unknowable, we take their truth “on faith”.

RA: Okay. Now, hold on. That is a different assertion altogether. Now, I understand that you are bringing verification by experience into it. Fine. But that leaves us with another problem. How do we verify whose experiences are true and whose experiences are false? What puts YOUR experience of a faith-based proposition over MY experience of a faith-based proposition?

MFB: Yet I know that God exists.

RA: Fine. I also know God exists. And I also know that the Mormon God is not the true God.

I bear you my testimony that Joseph Smith was not God’s Latter-day prophet, that the Book of Mormon is not true, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the restored Church, and that God is not a man in form, nor does he have a wife known as Heavenly Mother. I also bear you my testimony that the Trinity is a true doctrine about God’s nature and that we are all his children by adoption, through faith in his unique Son, Jesus Christ, who was not our elder brother, nor the brother of Lucifer, the Devil.

There. That’s an experience. And I would say it probably conflicts with yours. Now, let’s try to figure out which experience of various faith-based propositions are true.

And, I had asked these questions:

I mean “incomprehensible” the way you mean “incomprehensible” when you said: “I am just tired of having my religion criticized by people holding positions that are incomprehensible.”

This SEEMS to indicate that you stand against any doctrines/views that are admittedly “incomprehensible.” Is this an accurate assessment?

You also state: “I cannot conceive of anything which is both incomprehensible and ‘true’ How could it be?”

Again, this SEEMS to indicate that you stand against any doctrines/views that are admittedly “incomprehensible.” Is this an accurate assessment?

If these are accurate assessments, then would you agree – as a card-carrying Mormon – that none of the doctrines you embrace, as taught by the LDS Church are incomprehensible? And if any such doctrines – i.e., admittedly incomprehensible ones – existed in the LDS church, then those doctrines as well as the LDS church would be as false as the Trinity since you “cannot conceive of anything which is both incomprehensible and ‘true.’”?

Please answer…

MFB: I do not mean to be sarcastic, but it appears that your tactic Richard is to try to intimidate.

RA: If you can show me where I tried to do that, I will apologize. I intended no such thing, and in all honesty, I don’t see where I did anything like that. But I’ll look at any comments you can show where you felt that from me, and will readily apologize.

R.A.

 

[RebeccaJ]

MFB,
RA: I think you’ve been reading too much Eckhart Tolle.

ha, new age-iness can creep in. It is one of the reasons I chose to not follow that path…it did not feel “authentic”. In other words, I believed that if I were going to follow someone, be a disciple, that it should be in a “orthodox” manner. Not new age feel good omg I am in touch with my inner self and I have the crystals to prove it.

That, and I am a Christian at heart. Just took me a while to find Him.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I have a real problem with “what” or “who” being used as nouns. They are not.

I will now retreat to my where. See you when! But my how might get in the way.

 

[mfbukowski]

The point is that the proposition is true or false. It’s not in some untouchable realm. Suppose the chair only appeared to be stable and as soon as I sat on it broke, my faith would be misplaced. The proposition “this chair will hold me” is false, and was false, even as I had faith in it.

Your point? So you had misplaced faith. You accuse me of it all the time!

 

[nebula]

Your point? So you had misplaced faith. You accuse me of it all the time!

That is the point! You said propositions that you accept by faith are by definition neither true or false. That’s a false statement right there, and now we’ve come full circle.

 

[mfbukowski]

MFB: Only propositions which are verfiable by experience can be said to be true or false. If their truth or falsity is unknown or unknowable, we take their truth “on faith”.

RA: Okay. Now, hold on. That is a different assertion altogether. Now, I understand that you are bringing verification by experience into it. Fine. But that leaves us with another problem. How do we verify whose experiences are true and whose experiences are false? What puts YOUR experience of a faith-based proposition over MY experience of a faith-based proposition?

MFB: Yet I know that God exists.

RA: Fine. I also know God exists. And I also know that the Mormon God is not the true God.

I bear you my testimony that Joseph Smith was not God’s Latter-day prophet, that the Book of Mormon is not true, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the restored Church, and that God is not a man in form, nor does he have a wife known as Heavenly Mother. I also bear you my testimony that the Trinity is a true doctrine about God’s nature and that we are all his children by adoption, through faith in his unique Son, Jesus Christ, who was not our elder brother, nor the brother of Lucifer, the Devil.

There. That’s an experience. And I would say it probably conflicts with yours. Now, let’s try to figure out which experience of various faith-based propositions are true.

And, I had asked these questions:

I mean “incomprehensible” the way you mean “incomprehensible” when you said: “I am just tired of having my religion criticized by people holding positions that are incomprehensible.”

This SEEMS to indicate that you stand against any doctrines/views that are admittedly “incomprehensible.” Is this an accurate assessment?

You also state: “I cannot conceive of anything which is both incomprehensible and ‘true’ How could it be?”

Again, this SEEMS to indicate that you stand against any doctrines/views that are admittedly “incomprehensible.” Is this an accurate assessment?

If these are accurate assessments, then would you agree – as a card-carrying Mormon – that none of the doctrines you embrace, as taught by the LDS Church are incomprehensible? And if any such doctrines – i.e., admittedly incomprehensible ones – existed in the LDS church, then those doctrines as well as the LDS church would be as false as the Trinity since you “cannot conceive of anything which is both incomprehensible and ‘true.’”?

Please answer…

MFB: I do not mean to be sarcastic, but it appears that your tactic Richard is to try to intimidate.

RA: If you can show me where I tried to do that, I will apologize. I intended no such thing, and in all honesty, I don’t see where I did anything like that. But I’ll look at any comments you can show where you felt that from me, and will readily apologize.

R.A.

I will not agree to any hypothetical statements about what may or may not be incomprehensible.

If your experience disagrees with mine so be it. Incidentally what you quoted to me was a " testimony". It was your assertion of what is true. You called it an “experience”. It was not an “experience”. Reading your testimony was an experience.

I am not saying there cannot be contradictory experiences which are true which verify to different people that their churches are true. I believe God takes us where we are and leads us to where we should be.

An example I gave before, was that if you were in Africa trying to figure out which church to join, and you had just heard about Jesus Christ, and the only church which preached about Jesus was 20 miles away and was Baptist, I have no doubt in my mind that God could give you a spiritual witness experience that the Baptist church was “true”.

Similarly, if you lived in Southern California, there would be no difference. If you went to a Billy Graham rally because your life was a total disaster, and you felt a testimony of Jesus Christ, and joined whatever church you received a testimony of, I am certain that God would direct you to whatever you needed in your personal life to advance spiritually. God teaches each of us what we need.

Our missionaries are out there looking for those we term “the elect”, no one else.

All churches have truth, and those which preach Jesus Christ have more than those which do not.

It is my opinion and testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints has more truth than any other and has all we need to return to our Father, and become like him. It is my opinion that the Catholic Church is #2 if my Catholic friends don’t mind me putting it that way, because we have similar doctrines of priesthood authority, which you as an evangelical do not.

I do not dispute your testimony experience, though I disagree that you know that the Mormon God is false. I think He is the same God you worship, and you are free to believe what you want.

So to answer your question, NOTHING puts my experience AHEAD of your experience in a logical sense. You knew your wife was right for you. I know my wife is right for me. Your wife is not right for me and vice versa.

There are about 13 million other people who agree with me. And you probably have millions who agree with you. We will see who is right when we get to the other side.

You say I will be in hell. I say my father would not do that to me.

We will see. I know what I know.

In regard to the incomprehensibility trap you are trying to design, I will not bite. You are acting like a Pharisee, setting up the question to trap me. It is painfully obvious and no reasonable person would answer the way you have set it up.

If you believe in the trinity as you have stated it, that is incomprehensible.

If you are attacking my religion, then you are among those who attack my religion with incomprehensible doctrine. My original statement stands.

 

[mfbukowski]

That is the point! You said propositions that you accept by faith are by definition neither true or false. That’s a false statement right there, and now we’ve come full circle.

I don’t know what you are talking about, and unfortunately this is a usual experience for us lately.

You took on faith that the chair was solid. The true proposition would have been: “I take on faith that the chair is solid”

At that time, the proposition “the chair is solid” was neither true nor false, but subject to verification. It was a hypothesis to be tested.

You sat down, it broke. Your faith was misplaced.

I think the confusion is that you appear to believe that there is a “Truth” which exists out there some how waiting to be discovered.

That is not the case. Truth or falsity is a property of particular statments.

“I am blue” is not true right now. I put on make up, now it is true that “I am blue”

So it is not really that some cosmic Truth has changed, just that I put on some make up.

 

[mfbukowski]

 

[nebula]

I don’t know what you are talking about, and unfortunately this is a usual experience for us lately.

You took on faith that the chair was solid. The true proposition would have been: “I take on faith that the chair is solid”

At that time, the proposition “the chair is solid” was neither true nor false, but subject to verification. It was a hypothesis to be tested.

You sat down, it broke. Your faith was misplaced.

I think the confusion is that you appear to believe that there is a “Truth” which exists out there some how waiting to be discovered.

That is not the case. Truth or falsity is a property of particular statments.

“I am blue” is not true right now. I put on make up, now it is true that “I am blue”

So it is not really that some cosmic Truth has changed, just that I put on some make up.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of obfuscation (and deceitfully so too since you also accuse me of not understanding my own statements) when talking about the trinity, but when it comes to understanding in what way propositions are true or false you take the route that veers far from the ‘common sense’ position. That’s for the record.

I think it’s obvious to most people that there is a reality out there to be discovered whether or not we are looking. If our species was decimated today the universe would continue to exist. Therefore if I say that it is raining outside, it is true or false, regardless of whether I bother to verify it or not. It is meaningless to say that the rain outside depends on me.

If you put on blue make up, you as a human being make change through time and change your state. It is true that at one time you were not blue, but at time x you put on make up and now you are blue. There is no mystery there.

Hence, propositions are true or false depending on whether or not they correlate to reality. (did I just give myself away? bring it on)

 

[RebeccaJ]

That is not the case. Truth or falsity is a property of particular statments.

“I am blue” is not true right now. I put on make up, now it is true that “I am blue”

So it is not really that some cosmic Truth has changed, just that I put on some make up.

You know this is false.

You may paint your face blue or scrub it clean, you can burn it off or have plastic surgery to change features.

The truth of who you are does not change. I don’t mean, your likes and dislikes.

The Truth is, you are a Creation of God.

This is the sort of Truth that Nebula is talking about. You keep trying to make it about statements of fact.

Not all facts are truths.

All truths are facts.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

MFB: I will not agree to any hypothetical statements about what may or may not be incomprehensible.

RA: Okay, let’s try it this way, in a question forms…

If you were presented with any doctrines/teachings that were admittedly “incomprehensible,” then would you say, based on your previous statements, that such a doctrine would be false if it was faith-based?

If you are willing to accept certain faith-based doctrines as true (or believable/acceptable) even though they are admittedly incomprehensible, how would those doctrines be any different than the Trinity, which you seem to criticize because it is “incomprehensible”?

MFB: Incidentally what you quoted to me was a " testimony".

RA: My testimony is based on experience. Your testimony is based on your experiences. How do we determine which testimony is true, which would also indicate which experience is true. We cannot have both testimony’s/experiences true – A cannot equal Non-A.

MFB: I am not saying there cannot be contradictory experiences which are true which verify to different people that their churches are true.

**RA: **Well, that’s what you SHOULD be saying or else you have just contradicted logic.

Your "experience, which excludes my “experience,” tells you the Mormon God is true, and my God is false.

My “experience,” which excludes your “experience,” says my God is true, and your Mormon God is false.

Which is it? It can’t be both.

MFB: All churches have truth, and those which preach Jesus Christ have more than those which do not.

RA: I never said you church didn’t have some truth. Most religions have some truths in them. But we are talking specifics here and you are being confronted with a choice. The Mormon God vs. The Evangelical/RC God. They are two different Gods by nature.

MFB: I think He is the same God you worship, and you are free to believe what you want.

**RA: **Friend, my God is not a man in form. My God has always been God (he has not progressed). My God is not married to a Heavenly Mother. My God does not procreate eternally. My God was not organized out of cosmic intelligence by his Father and Mother God. My God exists as One Being who is Triune in nature. Friend, we have a different God. Don’t tell me what i believe. My God is NOT your God.

MFB: You say I will be in hell. I say my father would not do that to me.

**RA: **You are assuming that you are talking about your real Father. My very contention is, painful as it is to say, you have the wrong Father to whom you are looking.

MFB: If you believe in the trinity as you have stated it, that is incomprehensible.

**RA: **First, it is not incomprehensible to me. I comprhend it just fine, thank you very much.

Now, you can’t answer a simple question?

If you were presented with any doctrines/teachings that were admittedly “incomprehensible,” then would you say, based on your previous statements, that such a doctrine would be false if it was faith-based?

RA