Trinity and Mormon godhead

[mfbukowski]

Not so fast. Regarding Being and Person. . .

Definition of terms: A being is anything that actually exists distinctly. There are non living beings that exist distinctly, ie a rock. There are living beings that have a principle of life (life-form) called a soul, which is material;

There are human beings whose principle of life or soul is** immaterial and immortal**, transcends matter and will exist forever. Every distinct living being is an individual by virtue of its particular organized matter; each human being having particular organized matter is thus an individual by reason of its particular organized matter (but so is a cow or insect).

What distinguishes human individuals from all other living material individual beings is the immortal Soul or life principle that is immaterial in each human individual from the start (fertilization).

The subject of that body-soul individual organism is a person, created as an end in him/herself, actually related to other human persons by nature as a value in him/her self andordered to the One God as the end or purpose of existence. (All other living individual beings with a material soul are ordered to the whole of their species, which themselves are ordered to the whole of the material creation and are ultimately created for the benefit of the human species by the One God. Human beings are body-persons individualized according to irreducible organic males or females.

There are also created Persons who are completely immaterial and are Spirit-Persons.These are called the Angels. They are not individuals at all, because they do not have for their existing natures any matter at all; they can use matter, but are not matter in their natures (in what they are). Thus they have no number in their species, but each one is his own complete species which is entirely spiritual, purely immaterial.

The nature of all Persons is to know and will and to will freely (especially to love) and to be essentially meant for relating to other Persons.

The nature of the Spirit Person or Angel is to Relate to God through themselves perceiving God sustaining their being created for Him. Since they have no matter to their natures they are without sex. Thus We can not call them by a pronoun that indicates sex, namely the female (the male pronoun can abstract from sexual meaning; the female pronoun cannotnot connote sex - females aremore sexual beings in their individualized nature than males).

The nature of a Spirit Person can use matter but cannot be a Body Person or Human Being, i.e., cannot be the matter it uses. The reason for this:

1. The Body Person’s nature is a substantial unity of the immaterial and immortal Soul in such a way that the immaterial or Spiritual Soul is created for the SP (all other living individual beings with a material soul are ordered to the whole of their species, which themselves are ordered to the whole of the material creation and are ultimately created for the benefit of the human species by the One God.

The organized matter of the Body is unique to that Person; thus **an Angel cannot incarnate his Person into a Human Being such that a substantial unity of nature results in Angel-man **(or woman).

1. The specific spiritual nature of the Angel is distinguished from his act of existence but inseparable from it, thus neither from the side of human nature nor from the side of angelic nature is it possible for an angel to be a man (neither a man nor woman)

And from the above, neither can another angel subsist in the completely different species of another angel, as each angel is a totally different species from the next but inseparable from his own species as a Person who is nevertheless different from his own species.

Thus, only an infinite (without qualitative limitation) Being can subsist with more than one Person.

It can only be a direct Divine Revelation to us beyond what is knowable from Creation that indicates there are different Persons witin the One Infinite Being called God.

Holy Cow-- I don’t know where to start with this one.

This one post could be good for a few hundred years of discussion just trying to figure out the definitions here… That is my point with all this.

Let’s just take your first line.

"Definition of terms: A being is anything that actually exists distinctly. "

So rocks are beings, lamps are beings, people are beings, desks are beings? Maybe it would be easier to discuss what is NOT a being?

Next lines:
“There are non living beings that exist distinctly, ie a rock. There are living beings that have a principle of life (life-form) called a soul, which is material;”

So viruses have a soul? Snails have a soul? And souls are material? Please explain a “material soul”? How do I know these are true assertions? How would one discover their truth?

Can you see where this will lead?

You weren’t kidding when you said “Not so fast!”

I don’t think there is enough time in eternity to get through this.

 

[mfbukowski]

Ok I’ll bite, but it’s not going to be easy.

This is where it getes tricky and the doctrine of the trinity loses many well meaning people. How can you possibly assert that two separate persons are the same Being? Because recall, it was already established that there is only One God. The notion of personhood is a tricky enough one to begin with. What does it mean that youare a person when you are not made up of the same ’stuff’ one year to the next as your cells are created and destroyed? Is there a difference between a person and a being? Usually when we talk about personhood we mean a rational agent, and when we talk about being we describe qualities.

.

Incidentally, you did not “establish” there was One God, you assumed it.

But OK so far we are talking about persons, and beings.

Beings have qualities. Like what? How do you abstract a “quality” from a person? Can you give me an example?

Is a bundle of qualities a “being?” Like tall dark and handsome?

Do these qualities on their own constitute a “being?”

I am trying to understand what the concept of a “being” **in itself **is about, because without that, I cannot agree that there are three persons with one “being”.

Specifically, I want to make sure we are **not **talking about three persons with one set of “qualities” – because if that is all we are talking about, I am ready to concede that the Mormon Godhead and your trinity are the same. Three persons united in purpose and “qualities” I will accept right now, and the discussion is over.

Now “persons”

Persons can only be rational agents? So does that include animals or not? What about irrational humans? (babies, fetuses, people born without brains etc.?) How bright do you have to be to be “rational”?

I am sorry I am having so much trouble getting through this, but it seems like each term depends on the others, and I am not sure what you are talking about.

 

[nebula]

Ok I’ll bite, but it’s not going to be easy.

Incidentally, you did not “establish” there was One God, you assumed it.

But OK so far we are talking about persons, and beings.

Beings have qualities. Like what? How do you abstract a “quality” from a person? Can you give me an example?

Is a bundle of qualities a “being?” Like tall dark and handsome?

Do these qualities on their own constitute a “being?”

I am trying to understand what the concept of a “being” **in itself **is about, because without that, I cannot agree that there are three persons with one “being”.

Specifically, I want to make sure we are **not **talking about three persons with one set of “qualities” – because if that is all we are talking about, I am ready to concede that the Mormon Godhead and your trinity are the same. Three persons united in purpose and “qualities” I will accept right now, and the discussion is over.

Now “persons”

Persons can only be rational agents? So does that include animals or not? What about irrational humans? (babies, fetuses, people born without brains etc.?) How bright do you have to be to be “rational”?

I am sorry I am having so much trouble getting through this, but it seems like each term depends on the others, and I am not sure what you are talking about.

mf,

I’m not a trinitarian. I haven’t made the decision whether or not I ought to be a trinitarian yet- hence hte post. I’m exploring the issue. There is a difference between understanding and believing.

A person is a rational agent, a self-aware consciousness. Yup, it’s a difficult concept and I"m not about to pretend that I have all of hte answers when this is a concept that is continually debated in philosophy halls. But what I would say is that since we all experience personhood, even thouhg it is still a ‘mystery’, we know it is real. Therefore just because something is a ‘mystery’ doesn’t mean it isn’t real or a cop out. It means that there is a lot to say on the subject and the door isn’t closed. Being a person is a bizarre experience, and I can’t explain it. One thing I would define is the essence of personhood is in the rational agency of a person- the ability to identify the environment around it as a n object and itself as a subject, and so on. Whether or not animals are rational agents can be attacked in either a purely naturalistic sense or from a religious angle which assumes that the essence personhood, the ability to have this rational agency, stems from having a soul. Therefore animals would not be persons, and all human beings would be persons even before they are fully self aware (newborns) because they have souls whose rational agency is in the process of ‘awakening’. Is the soul the answer then? Seems pretty reasonable to me, but I am not certain.

Persons are one with a certain being which is intimately linked to physical characteristics among other things. As finite creatures we are subject to change, and those physical characteristics which are a part of our being also change. Part of being a human being is finitude, mortality, and the thing which makes us really unique: our personhood. So it is that finite human beings each have one person and vice versa. There are plenty of other beings out there, amoebas, viruses, etc which are not persons- i.e. they are not rational agents.

Now if you believe that GOd is only relatively infinite, not absolutely infinite, it follows that God’s being will have/be a person, but if there is another being with similar qualities, that being will also have/be a person- hence the Mormon godhead. Hence you can have 2 or more Gods. However if you believe that GOd is absolutely infinite, then any person who also shares that quality of absolute infinitidue must share only one being, because there can only be one being who is absolutely infinite (otherwise they would impinge on each other’s infinitude and not be absolutely infinite). So it is with the trinity. So it is personhood- agency, will, ability to cause aciton and so forth, and being- qualities.

If anyone knows better, speak up.

 

[mfbukowski]

mf,

One thing I would define is the essence of personhood is in the rational agency of a person- the ability to identify the environment around it as a n object and itself as a subject, and so on. Whether or not animals are rational agents can be attacked in either a purely naturalistic sense or from a religious angle which assumes that the essence personhood, the ability to have this rational agency, stems from having a soul. Therefore animals would not be persons, and all human beings would be persons even before they are fully self aware (newborns) because they have souls whose rational agency is in the process of ‘awakening’. Is the soul the answer then? Seems pretty reasonable to me, but I am not certain.

If anyone knows better, speak up.

OO OO ME ME! I know better!

May I make a suggestion? You know what it is already!

If you are not a trinitarian, pull out Occam’s razor and just “fegatabaoutit”

Why go through all this? Three persons, one purpose, one set of qualities, one God, and you’re done! God really is infinite and absolute, and it is speculation to think otherwise. So Mormons speculate-- what’s wrong with that? John Chapter 17 says we will be like him. Let’s leave it at that and go home!

It just doesn’t make sense to go through all this brain damage to come up with a theory that no one has been able to figure out in 2000 years!

I really am trying to be respectful, but being a person is not a “bizarre experience” unless you forgot to take your meds. I am only saying that because it seems that you are determined to build castles that defy common sense.

I think you are a very intelligent person who wants to make this very complicated. I have great respect for you or frankly, I wouldn’t be here at all.

With that said, I will attempt to blunder on.

So let’s just start with the above portion, as I would diagram your argument, without using symbolic logic.

**personhood= rational agency = ability to distinguish self from environment.

some say: animals are not rational agents because no soul, therefore not persons

But all humans are persons because have(at least) potential to be rational agents, because they have souls

There fore “the soul is the answer”**

Somehow we got from rational agency and separating the self from the environment to souls as being the defining characteristic
of personhood.

And not mysteriously, the soul won.

Who said that animals did not have souls? (to me, “spirits”)

And how did we get to including those with “potential” or “awakening” rational agency to personhood, because they have souls?

I think we should fix this first, before we go on to the hard one, “being”.

 

[mfbukowski]

mf,

Persons are one with a certain being which is intimately linked to physical characteristics among other things. As finite creatures we are subject to change, and those physical characteristics which are a part of our being also change. Part of being a human being is finitude, mortality, and the thing which makes us really unique: our personhood. So it is that finite human beings each have one person and vice versa. There are plenty of other beings out there, amoebas, viruses, etc which are not persons- i.e. they are not rational agents.

Ok I lied- Let me mention “being” too–

Let me start with this last sentence – remember persons were persons because they had a soul. We lost the thread somewhere , but now personhood appears to have changed to distinguishing self from the environment.

By your previous definition, amoebas and viruses WOULD be “rational agents” and therefore persons because they do in fact distinguish between “self” and the environment. Amoebas surround food, and assimilate it, distinguishing very nicely between themselves and food. Viruses “know” when to release their RNA within a host. “Know” is pushing it, I will admit, but you get the idea. Certainly animals can distingush themselves from the environment.

Saying that “persons are one with a certain being” linked to characteristics- sounds to me like you are already begging the question of two entities, one a “being” and the other a “person” with “links” That is why I wanted to know what “being” meant before we got this far.

That is really neo-platonic stuff. I am a person linked to the quality of being handsome.

I think your neoplatonism is in your assumptions, or at least your language.

“As finite creatures we are subject to change” Are we finite? I believe we are eternal spirits hanging out in definitely finite bodies. Does that make our “personhood” finite? I don’t think so!

What exactly is an “infinite creature”? It must be distinguishable from a finite one. Is God a creature?

And who is to say that infinite creatures(beings, whatever) do not change? If we take a Heraclitian view of God (not that he had one) as one who is always changing, but always the same-- like some infinite River always existing always growing and changing as his children change, this doesn’t work.

So that was good for two lines of the above quote- you get my drift- shall we continue?

 

[BDawg]

However if you believe that GOd is absolutely infinite, then any person who also shares that quality of absolute infinitidue must share only one being, because there can only be one being who is absolutely infinite (otherwise they would impinge on each other’s infinitude and not be absolutely infinite). So it is with the trinity. So it is personhood- agency, will, ability to cause aciton and so forth, and being- qualities.

Hi nebula,

It seems like this came up before, but I can’t remember your answer. Why do two infinite beings impinge on each other’s infinitude, but a finite being does not impinge on an infinite being’s infinitude? I just can’t get my head around that.

 

[nebula]

Ok I lied- Let me mention “being” too–

Let me start with this last sentence – remember persons were persons because they had a soul. We lost the thread somewhere , but now personhood appears to have changed to distinguishing self from the environment.

By your previous definition, amoebas and viruses WOULD be “rational agents” and therefore persons because they do in fact distinguish between “self” and the environment. Amoebas surround food, and assimilate it, distinguishing very nicely between themselves and food. Viruses “know” when to release their RNA within a host. “Know” is pushing it, I will admit, but you get the idea. Certainly animals can distingush themselves from the environment.

Saying that “persons are one with a certain being” linked to characteristics- sounds to me like you are already begging the question of two entities, one a “being” and the other a “person” with “links” That is why I wanted to know what “being” meant before we got this far.

That is really neo-platonic stuff. I am a person linked to the quality of being handsome.

I think your neoplatonism is in your assumptions, or at least your language.

“As finite creatures we are subject to change” Are we finite? I believe we are eternal spirits hanging out in definitely finite bodies. Does that make our “personhood” finite? I don’t think so!

What exactly is an “infinite creature”? It must be distinguishable from a finite one. Is God a creature?

And who is to say that infinite creatures(beings, whatever) do not change? If we take a Heraclitian view of God (not that he had one) as one who is always changing, but always the same-- like some infinite River always existing always growing and changing as his children change, this doesn’t work.

So that was good for two lines of the above quote- you get my drift- shall we continue?

Amoebas aren’t the subjects of their own sentences.

Part of the definition of God, as an assumption, is that he is immutable.

A discussion of the assumptions that underlie my argument is for another post… actually one I"ve already done.

 

[nebula]

Hi nebula,

It seems like this came up before, but I can’t remember your answer. Why do two infinite beings impinge on each other’s infinitude, but a finite being does not impinge on an infinite being’s infinitude? I just can’t get my head around that.

bdawg,

Yup, we’ve been there. In fact I had a feeling you’d bring this up again because you weren’t satisfied wiht my answer but it si the same. Two absolutely infinite, eternal, immutable Beings would actually just be the exact same being, they would completely encompass one another. You can think of it spatially (though any thought experiment will be deceiving, it’s hard to know what else to rely on) and imagine and infinite field being occupied by an infinite being and another infinite being simultaneously. They’d actually be the exact same being. Or you can think of it another way, if there were two infinite beings hanging around, if one in theory could impinge upon the other’s will, the one isn’t truly omnipotent and therefore not truly infinite, but if the other couldn’t in theory impinge on the other’s will then that one isn’t truly omnipotent. That is, they would impinge upon each other’s omnipotence. Actually I thinkt he first thought experiment is more helpful in this case when trying to envision the trinity… somehow.

 

[ronald_g_w]

Help me out -
person = body distinct from the mind or soul ?
= bodily appearance
If so how is Heb 1:3 understood …“express image of his person”…

 

[mfbukowski]

Help me out -
person = body distinct from the mind or soul ?
= bodily appearance
If so how is Heb 1:3 understood …“express image of his person”…

Good question, makes sense to me. A person includes characteristics like appearance. Jesus being the "express image of his father is right on the money. This is an example of the anthropomorphic, biblical interpretation as given so well by BDawg, which is the classical LDS position

Nebula is coming from a different tradition however, so we are trying to establish communication without much success so far I think.

 

[nebula]

Help me out -
person = body distinct from the mind or soul ?
= bodily appearance
If so how is Heb 1:3 understood …“express image of his person”…

ronald,

Yup, the trinity teaches that Christ is the express image of God by being the incarnated Son of God. I don’t see any reasont o take the word ‘image’ there to mean image of bodily form.

 

[BDawg]

bdawg,

Yup, we’ve been there. In fact I had a feeling you’d bring this up again because you weren’t satisfied wiht my answer but it si the same. Two absolutely infinite, eternal, immutable Beings would actually just be the exact same being, they would completely encompass one another. You can think of it spatially (though any thought experiment will be deceiving, it’s hard to know what else to rely on) and imagine and infinite field being occupied by an infinite being and another infinite being simultaneously. They’d actually be the exact same being. Or you can think of it another way, if there were two infinite beings hanging around, if one in theory could impinge upon the other’s will, the one isn’t truly omnipotent and therefore not truly infinite, but if the other couldn’t in theory impinge on the other’s will then that one isn’t truly omnipotent. That is, they would impinge upon each other’s omnipotence. Actually I thinkt he first thought experiment is more helpful in this case when trying to envision the trinity… somehow.

Hi nebula,

But if two infinite beings would “encompass” one another, and be the exact same being, wouldn’t any finite beings be encompassed by a single infinite being? They would have to be some kind of “part” of said infinite being. But then the infinite being couldn’t be “simple.” Or (supposing there is such a thing as an infinite and eternal being) maybe you are interpreting those terms incorrectly?

I can grant most of your conclusions, given the assumptions you make, but I honestly, truly cannot get my head around this one. It sounds to me like you are arguing for some kind of Hindu monism, not classical monotheism.

 

[ronald_g_w]

ronald,

Yup, the trinity teaches that Christ is the express image of God by being the incarnated Son of God. I don’t see any reasont o take the word ‘image’ there to mean image of bodily form.

Its not the son’s image I’ve made reference to but the Father’s “person”

 

[PaulDupre]

Its not the son’s image I’ve made reference to but the Father’s “person”

Don’t let yourself be biased by an archaic translation (the KJV). It says that Jesus is “the express image of His [the Father’s] person”.

But other translations render it very differently. For instance, the American Standard Bible translates it as “…the exact representation of His nature” which Jesus, as God, certainly is.

The fact that the KJV translators chose one translation does not make it so.

 

[nebula]

Don’t let yourself be biased by an archaic translation (the KJV). It says that Jesus is “the express image of His [the Father’s] person”.

But other translations render it very differently. For instance, the American Standard Bible translates it as “…the exact representation of His nature” which Jesus, as God, certainly is.

The fact that the KJV translators chose one translation does not make it so.

Great point Paul. I was considering getting into the translation issue but couldn’t think about a way to make it simple enough. Your response is very helpful

 

[nebula]

Hi nebula,

But if two infinite beings would “encompass” one another, and be the exact same being, wouldn’t any finite beings be encompassed by a single infinite being? They would have to be some kind of “part” of said infinite being. But then the infinite being couldn’t be “simple.” Or (supposing there is such a thing as an infinite and eternal being) maybe you are interpreting those terms incorrectly?

I can grant most of your conclusions, given the assumptions you make, but I honestly, truly cannot get my head around this one. It sounds to me like you are arguing for some kind of Hindu monism, not classical monotheism.

No, because their natures are different.

Second paragraph, nope. What I said holds true ONLY for absolutely infinite beings, not finite ones like us.

 

[mfbukowski]

No, because their natures are different.

Second paragraph, nope. What I said holds true ONLY for absolutely infinite beings, not finite ones like us.

How would you define the words “being”, and “nature”?

I think we already decided that “being” is a summary of qualities?

So what is “nature”?

And how do these relate to “person”?

Important if your religion insists on “three persons, one being”

I know the Catholic position is that Christ has 2 natures – God and Man.

But what exactly is a “nature”?

I really cannot get my head around all this either.

Did Jesus’ human nature have a tendency to sin, and was he born with original sin or not?

If yes, why was Mary born without original sin, but her son who was God, was born with original sin?

If not, did that mean he wasn’t really tempted like we are because he didn’t have the tendency to sin?

We know he could be tempted, since it says he was. Could he have actually sinned?

A lot of questions I guess— sorry---- take your pick!

 

[nebula]

How would you define the words “being”, and “nature”?

I think we already decided that “being” is a summary of qualities?

So what is “nature”?

And how do these relate to “person”?

Important if your religion insists on “three persons, one being”

I know the Catholic position is that Christ has 2 natures – God and Man.

But what exactly is a “nature”?

I really cannot get my head around all this either.

Did Jesus’ human nature have a tendency to sin, and was he born with original sin or not?

If yes, why was Mary born without original sin, but her son who was God, was born with original sin?

If not, did that mean he wasn’t really tempted like we are because he didn’t have the tendency to sin?

We know he could be tempted, since it says he was. Could he have actually sinned?

A lot of questions I guess— sorry---- take your pick!

Most of those questions have to do with the Incarnation, not the Trinity per se.

 

[ralphinal]

I really cannot get my head around all this either.

Did Jesus’ human nature have a tendency to sin, and was he born with original sin or not?

Original sin is as much as state as it is a sin. It manifests itself with a drifting away from God unless his Grace keeps us close to him. Jesus did not have original sin and would never drift from God

If yes, why was Mary born without original sin, but her son who was God, was born with original sin?

Not an issue, neither had it.

If not, did that mean he wasn’t really tempted like we are because he didn’t have the tendency to sin?

He was not tempted as we are. His temptations were external, not in his heart and mind. The Devil himself appeared and tempted him. WIthout original sin, his will was focused on God so that ONLY external forces would tempt him

We know he could be tempted, since it says he was. Could he have actually sinned?

A lot of questions I guess— sorry---- take your pick!

No, he could not have sinned as to do so would have been contrary to his nature as God.

 

[mfbukowski]

Most of those questions have to do with the Incarnation, not the Trinity per se.

All I am looking for are some definitions.