Trinity and Mormon godhead

  • Thread starter Thread starter nebula
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mfbukowski said:
I totally understand what you mean.

But do you come up with theories about how she will respond and then see if they are true or false?
Click to expand...
I only know what she tells me and what I experience of her.

Same with God. I know what He has publicly revealed, first through prophets and finally through Jesus. And I know from experience how He operates through His Church by means of the Holy Spirit. Finally I know Him by His private revelations to me through the Holy Spirit and by experiencing the effects that Jesus’ gospel has in my life.

And yes, like God she is always right. 🙂
 
PaulDupre said:
I only know what she tells me and what I experience of her.

Same with God. I know what He has publicly revealed, first through prophets and finally through Jesus. And I know from experience how He operates through His Church by means of the Holy Spirit. Finally I know Him by His private revelations to me through the Holy Spirit and by experiencing the effects that Jesus’ gospel has in my life.

And yes, like God she is always right. 🙂
Click to expand...
Beautifully said! 👍
 
Richard_Abanes said:
MFB: HMMmm are you really sure you have studied what we believe?

**RA: **🤓 er, most definitely. LoL. Oh, yes, most definitely. I have a huge library of LDS materials. My two books on the subject total 1,100 pages, including nearly 300 pages of just endnotes. I would venture to say that I know both LDS doctrine and history extremely well.

R.A.
Click to expand...
Then why have you not joined the church ?
 
40.png
Richard_Abanes:
The issue is: Do we and/or can we accept concepts that to some degree are incomprehensible to our minds? It’s a rather simple point, actually. And the answer to that question is yes. That’s all these statements are showing.
Hello Richard!
Hope all is wonderful in your music business and you are successful and happy. Hope your criticism of Mormonism is going poorly and you long to take back things you have said in the past.
On many of your comments here, I would like to remind you what you should know and state it for many here. LDS do not accept everything taught or said by past prophets and/or general authorities as binding upon us. It is impossible to do so and past prophets and general authorities have claimed that we do not and should not.

On the above comments, I recall discussing this with you in the past. I remember inventing a few terms to make things more clear. As a Social Trinitarian I am usually quite well accepted among non-LDS until they find out that I am a LDS. Then more frequently than not, I am a heretic that is likely hell-bound (or as you said in a worse position salvation wise than an atheist). I however have read enough Protestant theology to know that if they are correct, I am bound for heaven UNLESS Calvinist who deny salvations to Arminianism are correct. And if those Calvinist are correct, I am saved or damned and no choice on my part can have ANY impact upon this truth.

Now, those non-LDS who deny that Social Trinitarians have a sufficient view do in fact adopt views that are incomprehensible. But, while all human attempts to understand God involve that which is incomprehensible, these theologians advocate for positions that are logical contradictions. If reason is not to be applied to these questions (perhaps we should all pray to know the truth), then asserting logical contradictions (or denying the efficacy of dialectic reasoning) is fine. However, there are formulations of the Trinity that involve logical contradictions. My personal view is that these should be rejected. The problem of incomprehensibility does not necessitate that we embrace things that violate reason. God gave us the ability to reason (some seem to assert that this is almost the ONLY way we were “created in His image). Why should LDS be expected to apply reason to our history and theology when you can claim “incomprehensible” and reject reason? The CoJCoLDS is true, it is just incomprehensible to you, but it makes sense to me!!!

Charity, TOm
 
TOM!!! :eek:

HEY!!! Good to see you. I hope all is well with you and your family.

TOM: Why should LDS be expected to apply reason to our history and theology when you can claim “incomprehensible” and reject reason?

RA: ROFL. Well, I see you haven’t changed. But I think it’s cute. 😉

Anyway, 1. Clearly, you don’t apply reason to your history or theology – too bad. Some have, and they’ve left. 2. I defined exactly what I meant by “incomprehensible.” 3. I never rejected reason.

R.A.
 
ronald_g_w said:
one example please
Click to expand...
I cannot comprehend how God knows everything. I believe He is omnipresent and experiences everything, but this is beyond my ability to understand, not being omnipresent.
I cannot comprehend how God can love as He does. Knowing myself and based on what I just said about God knowing everything, how can He love me? And if there is anyone more unlovable than me (understood to the core of my being), then how does He love them. This is incomprehensible to me.

I however would suggest that many folks use “incomprehensible” to explain bald contradictions. While I doubt very seriously I could not walk numerous LDS into a position where they assert a bald contradiction, I personally believe that when we find ourselves at the crossroad we should seek a different path. We may not know the correct path, but we should not dogmatically hold to bald contradictions while claiming to use reason in our understanding of how to follow God. Contradiction and the unknown are fine if you are praying to know the truth and loving God as best as you can, but if you are asserting that your path is better than path xyz, you should use reason!

So, I would suggest that I know of no bald contradictions that I feel compelled to embrace within my view of LDS theology. Some of the toughest things I embrace I share with non-LDS theologians anyway. But, I see within many non-LDS theologians an appeal to “via negativa” or other “concepts” in order to assert mutually contradictory things.

There is a group of EO theologians who basically reject the “law of non-contradictions” when it comes to making assertions about God. These same EO theologians claim that Catholic dialectic reasoning has lead Catholicism to numerous doctrinal errors. I agree with the EOs that dialectic reasoning from 2-4th century non-negotiables has lead to errors, but I assert that dialectic reasoning is important. If it leads to contradictions then it is time to revisit the non-negotiables.

Charity, TOm
 
TOmNossor said:
I cannot comprehend how God knows everything. I believe He is omnipresent and experiences everything, but this is beyond my ability to understand, not being omnipresent.
I cannot comprehend how God can love as He does. Knowing myself and based on what I just said about God knowing everything, how can He love me? And if there is anyone more unlovable than me (understood to the core of my being), then how does He love them. This is incomprehensible to me.

I however would suggest that many folks use “incomprehensible” to explain bald contradictions. While I doubt very seriously I could not walk numerous LDS into a position where they assert a bald contradiction, I personally believe that when we find ourselves at the crossroad we should seek a different path. We may not know the correct path, but we should not dogmatically hold to bald contradictions while claiming to use reason in our understanding of how to follow God. Contradiction and the unknown are fine if you are praying to know the truth and loving God as best as you can, but if you are asserting that your path is better than path xyz, you should use reason!

So, I would suggest that I know of no bald contradictions that I feel compelled to embrace within my view of LDS theology. Some of the toughest things I embrace I share with non-LDS theologians anyway. But, I see within many non-LDS theologians an appeal to “via negativa” or other “concepts” in order to assert mutually contradictory things.

There is a group of EO theologians who basically reject the “law of non-contradictions” when it comes to making assertions about God. These same EO theologians claim that Catholic dialectic reasoning has lead Catholicism to numerous doctrinal errors. I agree with the EOs that dialectic reasoning from 2-4th century non-negotiables has lead to errors, but I assert that dialectic reasoning is important. If it leads to contradictions then it is time to revisit the non-negotiables.

Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
And I think there is a difference between assertions about how what he does and how he does it, and assertions about our beliefs about him.

No one can comprehend his love for us, or the atonement or how he created worlds, but we can comprehend theories and facts about his nature which he has revealed.

There are many things in nature we do not yet comprehend which appear “incomprehesible”. I am no physicist, but let’s say some cutting edge theories about quarks or dark matter may fit into this category today. We don’t know “what’s out there” or how the physics works – right now it’s “incomprehensible”

I see this epistemological problem about God as similar to any scientific epistemological problem.

What we can’t comprehend we theorize about, come up with hypotheses and apply available research. The scientific community debates and a comprehensible theory evolves.

This is essentially what the council of Nicea did when it formulated the doctrine of the trinity. It is odd to think of this as a “scientific” process, but the process was similar, but the theory they formulated, in this case, was essentially incomprehensible.

For what in my view were political reasons and pressure put on the council by Constantine, that is what was adopted.

And then though Protestantism rejected the Catholic church, instead of going back to the bible as one would think they might, they just accepted whole hog the incomprehensible Catholic view of the trinity.

The whole notion of an underlying “substance” or “being” which is essentially indefinable being shared between three persons is incomprehensible, but it was a compromise Nicea reached. How do you make 3 Persons one God? They waved a magic wand and came up with the idea of an underlying unifying force. It was literally a “deus ex machina” with the council being the machina.
(“machinations!”)

And their theory of the trinity has remained “incomprehensible” ever since.
 
Richard_Abanes said:
TOM!!!
Click to expand...
HEY!!! Good to see you. I hope all is well with you and your family.

TOM: Why should LDS be expected to apply reason to our history and theology when you can claim “incomprehensible” and reject reason?

RA: ROFL. Well, I see you haven’t changed. But I think it’s cute.
It is good to be cute! I wonder if cute has a similar etymology as “nice.”
We are doing fine. I looks like I might be going to Portland for a few months without my family. This will be less fun than I might like, but I can go see David and Rory!
Again, I hope all is well with you too!
Richard_Abanes said:
Anyway, 1. Clearly, you don’t apply reason to your history or theology – too bad. Some have, and they’ve left.
So, it is your position that all who apply reason to their LDS history OR theology cease to be LDS?
On this Catholic board, are you willing to answer this question?
“Do all Catholics who become informed and apply reason to their history cease to be Catholic?”
40.png
Richard_Abanes:
  1. I defined exactly what I meant by “incomprehensible.”
    I looked for this.
    I saw where you claimed that God just was “incomprehensible.” For me this did not get to what is meant by “incomprehensible” sufficiently. What is omnipotence? That thing that only God is/has.
    I could have missed your definition of “incomprehensible” though.
    Hopefully some of my other posts might indicate what I consider to be problematic when those who wish to draw lines excluding the LDS view I espouse while claiming their view cannot be further defined because it is incomprehensible. I think there are many “orthodox” contradictions that beg for a 100% “via negativa” OR a bold rejection of “dialectic reasoning and the law of non-contradiction.”
40.png
Richard_Abanes:
  1. I never rejected reason.
    Well, we both think that we never reject reason! Does this mean that you never reject “dialectic reasoning” and you always embrace “the law on non-contradiction?”
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
 
Mfbukowski,
Let me offer some of my thoughts. There is one place the I think our Catholic friends might get quite concerned, so hopefully I can mitigate that a little.
mfbukowski said:
This is essentially what the council of Nicea did when it formulated the doctrine of the trinity. It is odd to think of this as a “scientific” process, but the process was similar, but the theory they formulated, in this case, was essentially incomprehensible.
Click to expand...
The Council of Nicea IMO had a difficult problem. God created ex Nihilo and before this there was only God. Jesus spoke to His Father. So was Jesus created by God out of nothing? Was Jesus really the Father (this was condemned long before and interestingly enough the heretical word condemned with the Sabellian heresy was “homoousian!”)

Well, most of the Bishops at Nicea embraced a view of the Nicene word “homoousian” that would fall out of favor later. Eusebius (the historian Bishop who signed at Nicea not the other one) sent a letter to his church that said that Nicea decided that God the Father and God the Son where homoousian just like a human father and a human son are homoousian. When dialoguing with Richard many years ago, I called this “me-you-one-substance-ness.” I think a LDS can very easily embrace Nicea with this understanding of “homoousian.” We reject some of the underlying ideas that made this such a big deal, but this “homoousian” is quite fine.
Athanasius embraced Eusebius and those who thought like him as his brothers in Christ. Unfortunately as Athanasius and then Augustine more precisely addressed these issues “homoousian” shifted in meaning (though there are remnants of the older meaning in dogmatic Catholic pronouncement much after Nicea too). Today folks here usually insist upon a meaning that I call “me-me-one-substance-ness.” There is much that becomes incomprehensible when attempting to assert this definition of homoousian.

So, IMO, there are non-negotiables in the Catholic faith that produce contradictions. Folks like Richard (who is not Catholic!!!) seem to embrace these non-negotiables when he pursues condemning LDS theology.
mfbukowski said:
For what in my view were political reasons and pressure put on the council by Constantine, that is what was adopted.
Click to expand...
This is what I think our Catholic friends might object to.
Constantine called the Council of Nicea. Constantine is one of a few folks that historians can reasonably claim RULED at the Council of Nicea. Constantine certainly had a part in embracing and promulgating the Nicene definition. However, I do not believe Constantine really cared which definition was produced, only that there was political unity within the church. I believe his motives were far more political than theological. Constantine was not even a Christian (he was unbaptized) during the council.
So, I think Nicea was the best decision a group of Bishops who passionately wanted to do right by God chose.
With the assumptions they all embraced, I do not know if they could have done better.
mfbukowski said:
And then though Protestantism rejected the Catholic church, instead of going back to the bible as one would think they might, they just accepted whole hog the incomprehensible Catholic view of the trinity.
Click to expand...
This is why I so no path to Protestantism for me. They accepted the decision of Catholic authorities who claimed they could decide because they were Catholic authorities while rejecting the authority of said Catholics. They followed Catholics through doctrinal developments that were not MERELY Biblical definitions, while denying that doctrinal development could be validly carried on by Catholic authorities.
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
mfbukowski said:
The whole notion of an underlying “substance” or “being” which is essentially indefinable being shared between three persons is incomprehensible, but it was a compromise Nicea reached. How do you make 3 Persons one God?
Click to expand...
Richard and I achieved some common ground long ago as I took advantage of the inability to define “being” and offered a “me-me-one-substance-ness” aspect of the LDS Godhead. It exists if the word “being” is unmoored from its more normal English connotations. This is perhaps not unwarranted either since clearly three persons in one being is not something that has human connotations.
Charity, TOm
 
ToM: … seem to embrace these non-negotiables when he pursues condemning LDS theology.

RA: Tom, there could be no RC, no Protestantosm, no doctrine of the Trinity to even discuss, and Mormonism would still be a load of … uhm, it would still be flawed. 😃

The problems with Mormonism extend miles and miles and miles beyond just one concept. It’s entire substructure, origins, founders, doctrinal roots (can anyone say “Kabbalah”), dark past (can anyone say “money-digging,” “black magick,” and “peep stones”) render it not God’s church.

And just FYI, I do NOT see RC as I see Mormonism. Nor would I views someone who chose to remain RC the same way I would see someone who chose to remain Mormon. (Oh, now don’t start me defending RC after I’ve made myself such an anti-RC nuisance, LoL).

Tom: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

RA: Well, to be deep in the 1800s is to cease to be Mormon…so…really, you have very little room to talk. 😛 Besides…oh, nevermind. 🤷

RA
 
Richard_Abanes said:
RA: Mormonism would still be a load of … uhm, it would still be flawed. 😃

RA: Well, to be deep in the 1800s is to cease to be Mormon…so…really, you have very little room to talk. 😛 Besides…oh, nevermind. 🤷

RA
Click to expand...
Such wit!!! 😃

I’ll go ahead and say it. He is going to go so far out in developing a consistent and coherent Mormon theology that he will get himself excommunicated. :cool: At which time he will say “Mormonism is a load of…”

He is really a nice guy, just stubborn.
 
Richard_Abanes said:
ToM:
Click to expand...
… seem to embrace these non-negotiables when he pursues condemning LDS theology.

RA: Tom, there could be no RC, no Protestantosm, no doctrine of the Trinity to even discuss, and Mormonism would still be a load of … uhm, it would still be flawed.

The problems with Mormonism extend miles and miles and miles beyond just one concept. It’s entire substructure, origins, founders, doctrinal roots (can anyone say “Kabbalah”), dark past (can anyone say “money-digging,” “black magick,” and “peep stones”) render it not God’s church.

And just FYI, I do NOT see RC as I see Mormonism. Nor would I views someone who chose to remain RC the same way I would see someone who chose to remain Mormon. (Oh, now don’t start me defending RC after I’ve made myself such an anti-RC nuisance, LoL).

Tom: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

RA: Well, to be deep in the 1800s is to cease to be Mormon…so…really, you have very little room to talk. Besides…oh, nevermind.

RA
Richard,
It would seem that being away from good LDS to have discussions with has lead you to be able to say things like “Mormonism would still be a load of …… uhm.”
I am quite sure I know what you are saying and I think it uncharitable to say it with or without ellipses. You are welcome to insult my religion in this way, and I will point out that you have. I am also unlikely to reciprocate in kind, but you are welcome to see if you can elicit such a response.

BTW, are you acknowledging (by changing the subject) that you have no way to define the Trinity against Mormonism that does not involve internal contradictions?

Now, I am well aware of all the problems you believe exist within the origins of Mormonism. Again, I would be shocked if you did not see Paganism within Catholic roots. I noticed you did not answer my question with respect to Catholicism, but that is fine too.

The problem IMO is that you are more than willing to focus a critical eye on the origins of Mormonism and ignore similar problems in your own faith tradition. Denying everything but the Bible makes you a difficult target, but the type of methodology you use to condemn Mormonism can be used to show Ugaritic and other Pagan roots in the Bible. If this methodology deconstructs Mormonism, it will deconstruct the Bible too.

Instead, I embrace what Cardinal Newman and Richard Bushman say about such things. So, while I am aware for these issues you bring up and I can see how one might reason to a position from these issues, I think such reasoning leaves us without any form of Christianity to embrace. It is because I have encountered God that I cannot adopt the methodologies you do. But if I did, I would easily dispense with all of this religion stuff and be an atheist.

It is not the character of Martin Luther or the holocaust or ??? that lead me to claim (with Cardinal Newman), “that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” It is the fact that Protestant theology is developed theology. It is developed theology that developed under the guise of Catholic Bishops. How did these fellows PERFECTLY define Trinity and numerous other Protestant and Catholic doctrines, while so errantly defining (and claiming to define from) their own divine authority. It would seem that dozens of theological decisions were made inerrantly (including compiling the Bible) while ALL authority decisions were totally flawed. Add to this the fact that the Bible lays the framework for components of Catholic authority absent in Protestantism, and there is another hole.

So, no, I do not think the history you highlight in your book proves that God did not have a hand in the BOM. Believing that evidence suggests that God had a hand in the BOM, I must then decide what to do with this. I find it easier to acknowledge the historical issues you bring up (with surely some increased context) and accept the BOM as from God than I would to attempt to explain the BOM through different means.

Richard, I cannot remember, do you adopt “the devil did it” theory of BOM and Mormon origins?

Charity, TOm
 
nebula said:
Whether or not you agree with the above, I hope you realize that it isn’t just silly, impossible nonsense. It’s reasonable enough. Now how does that compare to the Mormon notion of the Godhead? Simple. The Mormon Godhead supposes that there are three beings which compose it, not just three persons in one being. This is made possible because deity in Mormonism is not infinite in the absolute sense. It is infinite only in a relative sense- in the same way that a large sheet might as well be infinite to a speck of dust. Therefore it is not contradiction in terms to assume that there can be multiple relatively infinite beings, it is only a problem if you suppose that there is an absolutely infinite being in existence.
Click to expand...
Hello nebula:)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your viewpoint concerning the trinity. It must have taken an amount of courage to present it in such detail on a forum full off catholics who are ready to stand up and defend their faith.

I want to say, that I did read through your entire post, but the two bolded statements at the end stood out more than anything.

First- The idea that truth need only be 'reasonable enough"
Secondly - the idea that God, and essentially, truth, need only be “relative” and not absolute.

Why would we assume that God and His truth would be relative? This is a dangerous mentality when applied to life and issues of a social or moral nature.

Relativistic and “reasonable enough” simply put,cannot stand their ground. For the evil and deception of the world is as real and non relative as the truth and faith to stand against it must be absolute.
 
AshleyBelle said:
Hello nebula:)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your viewpoint concerning the trinity. It must have taken an amount of courage to present it in such detail on a forum full off catholics who are ready to stand up and defend their faith.

I want to say, that I did read through your entire post, but the two bolded statements at the end stood out more than anything.

First- The idea that truth need only be 'reasonable enough"
Secondly - the idea that God, and essentially, truth, need only be “relative” and not absolute.

Why would we assume that God and His truth would be relative? This is a dangerous mentality when applied to life and issues of a social or moral nature.

Relativistic and “reasonable enough” simply put,cannot stand their ground. For the evil and deception of the world is as real and non relative as the truth and faith to stand against it is and must be absolute.
Click to expand...
You misread my point- I am an ex Mormon and reject the notion that God is relatively infinite. I affirm that God is absolutely infinite. I hope that clears matters up.
 
nebula said:
You misread my point- I am an ex Mormon and reject the notion that God is relatively infinite. I affirm that God is absolutely infinite. I hope that clears matters up.
Click to expand...
Oh thank you for clarifying 🙂 I read only your original post, and was responding to what was written.
 
AshleyBelle said:
Oh thank you for clarifying 🙂 I read only your original post, and was responding to what was written.
Click to expand...
Right, I was meaning to communicate to Mormons that the trinity isn’t nonsense, that it makes sense on many levels and can shown to be reasonable. Many Mormons assume the whole thing is a complete contradiction and total nonsense but that’s only because they haven’t tried to understand what it really says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top