Trinity and Mormon godhead

[Richard_Abanes]

MFB: LDS LINK

RA: This isn’t new. This is old old old old. Been there done that. This is regurgitated stuff from 100 years ago. All been debunked again and again. And, as always, rife with error, propaganda, false history, and anti-Christian rhetoric that started with Joseph Smith. Nothing has changed.
**
Holland:** It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion.

RA: Well, the Mormons have been doing an awfully good job of it since 1830!!! I still love that kind of line, though, tbh.

RA

 

[Richard_Abanes]

MFB: Give me an example of an incomprehensible doctrine.

RA: Okay, I’ll have them posted by tomorrow…



RA

 

[mfbukowski]

MFB: LDS LINK

RA: This isn’t new. This is old old old old. Been there done that. This is regurgitated stuff from 100 years ago. All been debunked again and again. And, as always, rife with error, propaganda, false history, and anti-Christian rhetoric that started with Joseph Smith. Nothing has changed.
**
Holland:** It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion.

RA: Well, the Mormons have been doing an awfully good job of it since 1830!!! I still love that kind of line, though, tbh.

RA

I guess that’s that wonderful evangelical charity coming out

Shall we discuss your reputation for false scholarship?

Do you want to call each other names, or have a dialogue?

 

[nebula]

Give me an example of an incomprehensible doctrine. Quit beating around the bush. I am trained in philosophy and they are not. They are spirtual giants and I am a dwarf. But I understand how language and logic work.

I am a mechanic. They drive the car.

lol for a second I was excited that you were an actual mechanic I wanted to tell you about my cool cars. Ah well, philosophy will have to do.

 

[mfbukowski]

lol for a second I was excited that you were an actual mechanic I wanted to tell you about my cool cars. Ah well, philosophy will have to do.

Being a mechanic would be more useful

Gotta boogie for now

 

[nebula]

Ok you are partially right, and I stand corrected. I would disagree with “the only way you come to the confept of a concept” is due to the a priori. Not sure what that means.

A priori propositions are true independent of experience.

They tend to be good tools, but not very interesting. Mathmatics and symbolic logic – geometry–

They work very well in dealing with the world.

mf,

In the sense that we get our sense of awareness which actively processes our experiences through a priori reflection in the first place. I agree that it is sharpened through actual interaction with the world.

Anyway, to the rest of it, if you grant any a priori knowledge your statement that we only know what we experience is fallacious and endangers the rest of your arguments…

 

[mackbrislawn]

I am not sure of the difference. Can you explain it?

The dictionary is not of much help–it treats the two words pretty much as synonyms.

But in my reading the difference seemed to be that we can apprehend something, can accept it mentally without knowing all about it.

Comprehend would mean a complete understanding of something. For instance we surely don’t have a complete understanding of God. We cannot understand, cannot grasp, cannot comprehend infinity. We cannot know how God can have no beginning nor end. Know how He can be the ultimate cause and be Himself without cause. A finite mind cannot comprehend God–it would take another infinite mind to do so.

I don’t thing anyone would argue with this.

But we do know something about God; we appreciate He exists, and has no beginning, end, etc. That is, we can apprehend God without really comprehending Him. The same with the Trinity.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

MFB: I guess that’s that wonderful evangelical charity coming out

**RA: **Oh, now, MFB, don’t do that to me, bro!

Really, I mean, after everything that has transpired here from you? You seriously somehow consider what I said to be uncharitable?

I deliberately used one of those cute little guys , and said that such claims are actually a bit amusing to me.

But if you want me to be serious, I can pull up dozens of LDS statements that are, shall we say, TRULY less than charitable when it comes to Mormon views of Christianity.

MFB: Shall we discuss your reputation for false scholarship?

RA: Sure. Whatever. Go for it.

MFB: Do you want to call each other names, or have a dialogue?

RA: Wait…what name did I call you??? Are you talking about my reference to the article being “rife with error, propaganda, false history, and anti-Christian rhetoric that started with Joseph Smith. Nothing has changed”? That’s just the truth, bro. Sorry.

No, I’m not interested in name calling – at all.

ra

 

[Richard_Abanes]

LDS DOCTRINES, VIEWS, DOCTRINES, CONCEPTS THAT ARE "INCOMPREHENSIBLE"

The Succession Gods
“(T)here never was a time but what there was a Father and Son. . . . Says on, ‘this is incomprehensible,’ It may be so in some respects” (B.H. Roberts, The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, p. 277).

Christ Taking Our Sins
“In some way that is to our minds **incomprehensible **and beyond the deepest appreciation of our hearts, Jesus Christ took upon himself the burder of men’s sins from Adam to the end of the world” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “Whom Say Ye That I Am”)

God’s Work & Christ’s Suffering
“The Magnitude of God’s work is incomprehensible. . . . Like the vastness of God’s creations, **incomprehensible **to the finite mind, His suffering is equally incomprehensible” (Richard C. Edgley, “The Condescension of God”).

Christ’s Resurrection & Its Effects
(I)n a way **incomprehensible **to us, he (Jesus) took up that body which had not yet seen corruption and arose. . . . His rising from death on the third day crowned the Atonement. Again, in some way **incomprehensible **to us, the effects of his resurrection pass upon all men (Bruce R. McConkie, “The Purifying Power of Gethsemane”).

There are many more examples…I just am tired of typing. But I figure, here’s four that are incomprehensible, but still accepted.

So, just fill in the word Trinity, and you see our view.

The Trinity is fully accepted and understandable and worthy of faith although it might be incomprehensible “in some respects” (B.H. Roberts), “In some way that is to our minds incomprehensible” (Jeffrey R. Holland), not fully understandable to “the finite mind” (Richard Edgely), and “in some way” beyond full comprehension (Bruce R. McConkie).

R.A.

 

[mfbukowski]

LDS DOCTRINES, VIEWS, DOCTRINES, CONCEPTS THAT ARE "INCOMPREHENSIBLE"

The Succession Gods
“(T)here never was a time but what there was a Father and Son. . . . Says on, ‘this is incomprehensible,’ It may be so in some respects” (B.H. Roberts, The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, p. 277).

Christ Taking Our Sins
“In some way that is to our minds **incomprehensible **and beyond the deepest appreciation of our hearts, Jesus Christ took upon himself the burder of men’s sins from Adam to the end of the world” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “Whom Say Ye That I Am”)

God’s Work & Christ’s Suffering
“The Magnitude of God’s work is incomprehensible. . . . Like the vastness of God’s creations, **incomprehensible **to the finite mind, His suffering is equally incomprehensible” (Richard C. Edgley, “The Condescension of God”).

Christ’s Resurrection & Its Effects
(I)n a way **incomprehensible **to us, he (Jesus) took up that body which had not yet seen corruption and arose. . . . His rising from death on the third day crowned the Atonement. Again, in some way **incomprehensible **to us, the effects of his resurrection pass upon all men (Bruce R. McConkie, “The Purifying Power of Gethsemane”).

There are many more examples…I just am tired of typing. But I figure, here’s four that are incomprehensible, but still accepted.

So, just fill in the word Trinity, and you see our view.

The Trinity is fully accepted and understandable and worthy of faith although it might be incomprehensible “in some respects” (B.H. Roberts), “In some way that is to our minds incomprehensible” (Jeffrey R. Holland), not fully understandable to “the finite mind” (Richard Edgely), and “in some way” beyond full comprehension (Bruce R. McConkie).

R.A.

Well in my estimation, you have proven my point nicely.

And it is somewhat lucky, but I don’t believe in luck that this has come up now, exactly when nebula is bringing up the same sorts of points.

I think you probably got these quotes by doing a search on the word “incomprehensible” and just putting them all in, without really looking at how the word was used. We can discuss more examples if you like but I think we will find that in this context these quotes are either talking about

**WHAT GOD DOES VS WHAT WE BELIEVE ABOUT GOD

TWO DIFFERENT THINGS**

Only the first example is about what we believe about God, the others are about what God does.

ALSO NOTICE THAT THREE OUT OF THE FOUR QUOTES ARE QUALIFIED TO SAY “IN SOME WAYS INCOMPREHENSIBLE” AND ALL OF THE QUOTES ABOUT THE TRINITY AT THE END ARE SO QUALIFIED.

That is because the speaker himself knew the distinction I am making now.

Propositions about what God does are of course incomprehensible. How He did the atonement, how He organized worlds is of course incomprehensible.

But so are gravity parallel universes and other things in what we would term the “scientific realm” are “incomprehensible” especially to a guy like me. Heck, radio is incomprehensible to me – I just flip the switch and hope it works.

These questions parallel what nebula is bringing up about what is “out there” vs what we know about what is “out there”

OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED ONLY ONE IS ABOUT WHAT WE KNOW DOCTRINALLY ABOUT GOD, (THE FIRST ONE) AND I HAVE EXPLAINED THAT ONE MANY TIMES ON THESE THREADS and I will be happy to do it again. It is about the lingusitic paradox which happens when we talk about what evangelicals call our “polytheism” which is not really polytheism at all.

My internet cable is due to go out at exactly 9 am pacific for maintainence so I have about 8 minutes.

I will write some quick answers while the internet is down and post them around 4 pm pacific when it is scheduled to be up again.

But the quick answer is that “reality” is unknown and unknowable and “incomprehensible”. I have never said nothing is incomprehensible. I view theology as parallel – in principle-- to science.

Science is a theory about what is out there, which is verifiable by experience

What we beleive about the trinity is in that category. If we cannot be clear about what we believe, we have nothing to communicate and talk about. Sectarian wars will continue forever.

Understanding rational theories about the incomprehensible world around us is very different from saying that the world is incomprehensible.

This is quick and dirty, but I have to get going or I won’t get it posted.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Hey MFB,

You sure you don’t want to bring some of your LDS buddies over from MADB to help you?? Hmmm, maybe not, I guess you’re right, I ain’t to “tough.”

And, just fyi, don’t believe everything you read at MADB, after all, most of them are Mormons. That was meant to make you laugh.

Since you seem so well connected, there’s not much reason to argue too much here. You know about my books now, you know you can read them, and you know where you can get all the pseudo-attempts to refute what they say. So, that’s really all the info you need.

Oh, I forgot, as for “Celestial Sex” – you might not like that term, but my friend, that is what the procreation in the spirit world is since: a) it takes place in the Celestial kingdom (right?); and b) it is indeed the act of procreation just like we procreate on earth, which would be sex (right? – please, if you want quotes to prove that, get them in my book). So in a phrase, that would be “Celestial Sex.”

One of the interesting things about Mormons is that a person can accurately describe what is believed/taught (for example the act of procreation in the celestial realm), but if any word(s) are used that don’t LITERALLY appear somewhere, then it is dismissed as false and a lie – even if the concept and teaching is true. *I think that’s called nit-picking and/or playing semantic word games). Coincidentally, this is usually the case with doctrines/issues that the general public might find difficult to swallow.

R.A.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Hmm, sad, but predictable. You missed the point entirely.

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.

Whether we are RC, or Mormon, or evangelical, when dealing with God and his deeds/actions/ways/self, we are going to run into things that to some level are incomprehensible.

This “WHAT GOD DOES VS WHAT WE BELIEVE ABOUT GOD” qualifier is neither here nor there. First, because the principle of behind accepting that which is in some ways “incomprehensible” is the issue. Second, as ALREADY noted, the Trinity (what it is) is comprehended just fine by many people, whereas the Trinity (how it could be) is what is not fully apprehended.

So, I wish you the best in your journey. And as a final word, my friend, the Trinity is the LEAST of your problems when it comes to Mormonism. The LDS church doctrinally/historically is rife with all kinds of things that clearly show it to be a false religion not at all led by prophets or apostles or God. And that can be (and has been) established with great clarity for those who wish to see it (including many former Mormons).

peace at ya,

R.A.

 

[mackbrislawn]

On the difference between apprehend and comprehend, it seems that apprehend has connotations of to be aware of, to perceive evidence. Of course we can be aware of God and so apprehend Him in that sense.

I believe Paul speaks in this way in Romans 1:18-20: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through that which has been made…”

Paul also speaks of “seeing through a glass darkly” indicating complete understanding will not occur in this life. And obvioulsy we cannot really comprehend God. So God is “incomprensible,” but that does not prevent us from believing in Him.

In the same way, the trinity being incomprehensible should not be an impediment for its belief.

 

[PaulDupre]

I don’t comprehend my wife, but I know her (as well as she’ll permit me) and love her deeply. I think it’s the same with God.

 

[mfbukowski]

Hmm, sad, but predictable. You missed the point entirely.

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.

This is not the point you were making earlier. I already acknowledged several times that we “accept” the “incomprehensible” on faith.

Yes THIS point is so simple, any religious person would agree.

The question is: can the descriptrion of the trinity you have put forth be made comprehensible. Not can it be accepted on faith.

That is the point we were discussing.

 

[mfbukowski]

Hey MFB,

You sure you don’t want to bring some of your LDS buddies over from MADB to help you?? Hmmm, maybe not, I guess you’re right, I ain’t to “tough.”

And, just fyi, don’t believe everything you read at MADB, after all, most of them are Mormons. That was meant to make you laugh.

Since you seem so well connected, there’s not much reason to argue too much here. You know about my books now, you know you can read them, and you know where you can get all the pseudo-attempts to refute what they say. So, that’s really all the info you need.

Oh, I forgot, as for “Celestial Sex” – you might not like that term, but my friend, that is what the procreation in the spirit world is since: a) it takes place in the Celestial kingdom (right?); and b) it is indeed the act of procreation just like we procreate on earth, which would be sex (right? – please, if you want quotes to prove that, get them in my book). So in a phrase, that would be “Celestial Sex.”

One of the interesting things about Mormons is that a person can accurately describe what is believed/taught (for example the act of procreation in the celestial realm), but if any word(s) are used that don’t LITERALLY appear somewhere, then it is dismissed as false and a lie – even if the concept and teaching is true. *I think that’s called nit-picking and/or playing semantic word games). Coincidentally, this is usually the case with doctrines/issues that the general public might find difficult to swallow.

R.A.

I figured you would find that post since the whole thread was about you. You must check your google rankings daily.

I guess you only debate those who are not “well connected”.

Were you looking for some 21 year old returned missionary who was uninformed?

So much for your allegiance to truth. You are only waiting to bag those who cannot defend themselves.

As the scripture says, you “lie in wait to deceive”

“Eph. 4: 14
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;”

I may called many things but a “child” is not one of them.

It’s a pity because I have a lot of questions for evangelicals about doctrines of theirs that I do not understand. I guess that discussion will have to wait for another time and place.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

MFB: Can the descriptrion of the trinity you have put forth be made comprehensible.

RA: If that’s all we’re discussing, fine. The answer is yes. It’s been made comprehensible to many people, myself being one person. Others on this board being more. People I go to church with being even more. And a whole history of multitudes being additional witnesses.

If it’s not comprehensible to YOUR satisfaction, then fine. Reject it.

But, tbh, you’d be better off as an atheist than a Mormon because Mormonism is not only just a pale imitation of something else, but it’s built on some serious deception (historically/theologically), coupled with origins that dip into the occult and the magick musings of Kabbalah.

And, IMHO, going in such a direction is worse than going in no direction at all.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**MFB: **As the scripture says, you “lie in wait to deceive” … etc.

RA: Well, I don’t know where all that came from…

Ah Well,

RA

I explained what I meant about “well-connected” – “You know about my books now, you know you can read them, and you know where you can get all the pseudo-attempts to refute what they say. So, that’s really all the info you need.”

Go do some reading and research. Have a good time. Enjoy the challenge and the study and journey. Use your Free Agency, bro!

 

[mfbukowski]

I don’t comprehend my wife, but I know her (as well as she’ll permit me) and love her deeply. I think it’s the same with God.

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?

I have found that she is always right, and that is something I accept on faith.

I know these principles are true because they have been experientially verified!

 

[mfbukowski]

**MFB: **As the scripture says, you “lie in wait to deceive” … etc.

RA: Well, I don’t know where all that came from…

Ah Well,

RA

I explained what I meant about “well-connected” – “You know about my books now, you know you can read them, and you know where you can get all the pseudo-attempts to refute what they say. So, that’s really all the info you need.”

Go do some reading and research. Have a good time. Enjoy the challenge and the study and journey. Use your Free Agency, bro!

I thought you were outa here.

Can you tell me how you know the bible is the revealed word of God?