LDS 2 Peter 1 Divine Nature

[Jane_Doe]

For my own clarification: in the LDS faith, the Bible is taken as something separate from tradition, then? What about the BOM, D&C, POGP? Are they considered likewise?

All scripture is ratified by the Prophet and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and then brought for sustaining vote of the general church body. If a person has a question of is something is from God, then they are to ask Him in prayer.

I understand. Again, I recognize that LDS and Christians have different understandings of what 'substance' means, with the LDS taking it to mean physical matter (according to you and Peter1000 in the other thread, that is). This is not what we mean at all when we say that the Persons of the Holy Trinity are homoousios, because ousia does not have anything to do with physical matter. I must've written that 50 times to Peter1000 in the older thread, but maybe that was too long ago to be remembered clearly, or maybe it has been missed in all the times I've said the same thing here (i.e, the 'ousia' that they share is the divinity).

This is not what we mean at all when we say that the Persons of the Holy Trinity are homoousios, because ousia does not have anything to do with physical matter.

I hear you there. I was just clarifying that the entire extended subject (essence/substance/ousia/homoousios/coessential/etc) is simply not part of LDS theology.

So while other words can be used, I'm afraid they don't make talking about this any easier. I think it is better -- given what we've hashed out regarding why the Mormon religion insists that they are of the same divinity and yet not homoousios (read: the Mormon equation of substance with physical matter), despite this being literally impossible in Christianity -- to probably restrict my English usage to coessential rather than anything more broad, despite the possible range of meanings of 'ousia' in English. Because, again, in Christianity in particular, coessential and consubstantial mean the same thing, thus to use one is to affirm both.

So if it will make my posts easier to read and understand, that's what I'll use.

If you would care to define such term in basic language, perhaps it can be a useful language bridge.

Have I not written that over and over? That ousia does not have anything to do with physical matter? I thought I had, but maybe I was not clear enough somehow.

The language gap is makes understanding difficult both ways.

Anyway, yes, to say that the Persons of the Holy Trinity are homoousios is not at all a comment about physical matter. It has nothing to do with physical matter. It is an affirmation of their sharing of the divinity -- the divine essence, not some kind of divine physical matter

Note: the word "essence" is not of much use here, because it has some many wide definitions. Would you care to define the one you are using?

In all of this, have I said anything about John's essence -- that is to say, who he is in himself? No. I can talk about how he acts in the world. I can show you these things as a demonstration of how kind John is, but I cannot look at another person, no matter how well I know them, and say "this is John's essence". It's not possible to put into words. John's essence is within him as himself and is unique to him by virtue of who he is, not to the exclusion of what he does, but not as the sum of it either.

Assuming John is being true to himself (not lying/two-faced etc), would his kind deeds not be the outpouring of a kind nature and essence-- generally *who* he is?

So it is not a matter of the magnitude of ones unity or purity of action that might begin to speak of their essence as being something unique to them, because while it is true that it is unique to them, it is also something that we can not define by such externalities, even though they're literally all that we can know by looking at the physical world and their actions within it.

Note: I'm not concerned with how we (humans) detect anything, so that's not one of my questions.

This is precisely why ousia does not have anything to do with physical matter. It is purely internal, because everyone's essence is something that they possess of themselves internally, and in that sense (and only that sense, to the exclusion of any talk about physical matter) is 'what they are made of'.

I have more questions on this, but feel it best to get the previous ones answered first.

And it is in this way that we say that the Persons of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are homoousios: they share in the one divinity that is common to all of them by virtue of who they are, and not because of a unity of action or thought or 'desire' (whatever this means in reference to God).

Again, don't actions flow from the heart?

Why do you think no one else can have this heart?

And how about all those super flawed Trinity analogy (eggs, clovers, etc)

 

[Ironhold]

It is also curious how a Mormon, who I assume believes in the idea of continuing revelation, and that further light and knowledge is given down the ages, seems to want to limit further light and knowledge when arguing against you, with this whole "the Apostles didn't teach it" or "it's not in the Bible" line of argumentation. Very curious.

Secular analogy -

Fans of long-running franchises often have to separate out what is "canon" - that is, what has appeared in official material - and what is "fanon" - that is, what is not official but which is widely accepted by the fandom.

Suppose, for example, that a series makes a running gag out of Private Podunk having consistently poor aim. His lack of marksmanship is canon, as it's been a part of several episodes. Fanon, in this case, would be any attempt at explaining this that isn't given by the episodes or anyone associated with the actual production.

 

[fatboys]

Thanks. No need to apologize. I'm not offended in the slightest. It's just a matter that I must argue in accordance with my faith, whether or not the aim is to convert someone (which it isn't; I don't have any illusions of being some great apologist or missionary; I really am just some guy). And because I must argue in accordance with my faith, I try to take the time to explain why I use this or that term and not another, why a certain analogy can only be taken so far, and so on. Especially as an Oriental Orthodox person, I see it as a duty to try to do so as clearly and exhaustively as I can in this format, since I know there are not many of us, and basically all the rest of Christianity disagrees with us in matters of Christology. (This is again why I would never appeal to some kind of majority rule, as I recognize that I am not in the majority. There are some 90 million or so Oriental Orthodox, in comparison to maybe 300 million Eastern Orthodox, 800 million Protestants, and 1.3 billion Catholics. The argument concerning the Creed is one of content, as always.)



For my own clarification: in the LDS faith, the Bible is taken as something separate from tradition, then? What about the BOM, D&C, POGP? Are they considered likewise?



I understand. Again, I recognize that LDS and Christians have different understandings of what 'substance' means, with the LDS taking it to mean physical matter (according to you and Peter1000 in the other thread, that is). This is not what we mean at all when we say that the Persons of the Holy Trinity are homoousios, because ousia does not have anything to do with physical matter. I must've written that 50 times to Peter1000 in the older thread, but maybe that was too long ago to be remembered clearly, or maybe it has been missed in all the times I've said the same thing here (i.e, the 'ousia' that they share is the divinity).



Well, no, actually. That's part of the issue, as I wrote in my reply to NYCGuy: when you stop using the words that are traditional to your faith to describe your theology, you end up with things that are less accurate and more prone to misunderstanding than they should be. So rather than say something less accurate than it should be, I would rather continue to use ousia, as that is what is traditional to my own Church and its faith. In fact, in Coptic, we did not translate this word at all -- it remains in our hymns as 'homoousios', as in the hymn "Khen efran", which simply says "In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the holy coequal Trinity [Coptic: ti-Trias ethowab en-omoousios]: worthy, worthy, worthy (is) the Holy Virgin Mary; worthy, worthy, worthy (are) Thy servants, the Christians." (That's the entire thing.)

The problem is, of course, that Christians who are not of a Greek or Coptic background probably will not know what that means, since again, in Latin the same term (homoousios) got translated as consubstantial, which is not transparently/phonetically related to homoousios, so you'd have to know something of the Greek language to know how they relate to each other and why.

So while other words can be used, I'm afraid they don't make talking about this any easier. I think it is better -- given what we've hashed out regarding why the Mormon religion insists that they are of the same divinity and yet not homoousios (read: the Mormon equation of substance with physical matter), despite this being literally impossible in Christianity -- to probably restrict my English usage to coessential rather than anything more broad, despite the possible range of meanings of 'ousia' in English. Because, again, in Christianity in particular, coessential and consubstantial mean the same thing, thus to use one is to affirm both. So if it will make my posts easier to read and understand, that's what I'll use. (NB: I'm in no sense dropping the defense of both, only seeking to limit the amount of time we'll have to spend talking about what it doesn't mean, as well as the potential for confusion among LDS posters given the Mormon-specific meaning of 'substance', which is not what we are talking about.)



I understand. I didn't mean to imply that you were accusing Christians of being modalists. I only wrote that to make clear that the people who would confuse the Persons are the various modalist groups who claim that all three Persons are but 'modes' of the same Person (e.g., the Sabellians of the past, or the Unitarians of today like Oneness Pentecostals). That's modalism. As homoousios has nothing to do with their individuation as Persons, this is not what it addresses.



Have I not written that over and over? That ousia does not have anything to do with physical matter? I thought I had, but maybe I was not clear enough somehow. Anyway, yes, to say that the Persons of the Holy Trinity are homoousios is not at all a comment about physical matter. It has nothing to do with physical matter. It is an affirmation of their sharing of the divinity -- the divine essence, not some kind of divine physical matter (we don't have any such doctrine, though from what I know about Mormon cosmology and the rejection of creation ex nihilo, it seems that you guys do; this probably adds to our talking past each other).

Hopefully a purposely not-God example will make it clear what is meant and not meant, because the same thing that stops us from talking with absolute precision regarding God's essence also applies to talking about regular people's essences, too:

Say I want to talk about a random person, let's call him 'John'.

If I want to talk about John, what kinds of things can I say, and on what basis might I say them?

If John is my friend, I might say "John is kind", and if pressed for what exactly I mean, I'd probably list examples of John demonstrating the virtue of kindness: he volunteers at a soup kitchen; he helps old ladies across the street; he lent me $50 once, and still hasn't asked for it back despite the fact that this was five years ago (NB: John is a fictional person and I am not a mooch), etc.

In all of this, have I said anything about John's essence -- that is to say, who he is in himself? No. I can talk about how he acts in the world. I can show you these things as a demonstration of how kind John is, but I cannot look at another person, no matter how well I know them, and say "this is John's essence". It's not possible to put into words. John's essence is within him as himself and is unique to him by virtue of who he is, not to the exclusion of what he does, but not as the sum of it either.

So it is not a matter of the magnitude of ones unity or purity of action that might begin to speak of their essence as being something unique to them, because while it is true that it is unique to them, it is also something that we can not define by such externalities, even though they're literally all that we can know by looking at the physical world and their actions within it. This is precisely why ousia does not have anything to do with physical matter. It is purely internal, because everyone's essence is something that they possess of themselves internally, and in that sense (and only that sense, to the exclusion of any talk about physical matter) is 'what they are made of'.

And it is in this way that we say that the Persons of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are homoousios: they share in the one divinity that is common to all of them by virtue of who they are, and not because of a unity of action or thought or 'desire' (whatever this means in reference to God).

I have really enjoyed the dialogue between you two. I will add that the matter we are talking about is not like the matter we can see but matter that is more fine and pure than what we can see in our crude state of mortality.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Our acknowledgment of the Bible is not because Creed writers or any other men said so-- I don't acknowledge these men as authoritative. Rather because God said so through His prophet.

I'm sorry, but I'm not understand what you are trying to say here.

Rewind: so you do believe God continues to give revelation? Whom was His prophet then?
If you view the Creeds as ultimately being His words, why do you not bind them with the rest of God's scriptures?

Are you not trying to convince me of the Truthfulness of homoousios? If so, the validity of your sources (including whether or not they are scriptures) comes directly into play.

I'm not trying to convince you of any LDS doctrines...

This is an appeal to popular vote....

The standard is scripture (and more broadly the words of God). Different denominations have different scripture, especially LDS (everyone at least including the 66 books). If I were to try to convince you of the Truthfulness of an LDS doctrine, I would not being doing so from a scripture source you don't acknowledge (I'm not trying to do this).



A related thought: it seems that you believe that the "a person must acknowledge Tradition" is very important, and predecessor (and therefore more important) than acknowledging the substance of God. Would you there for consider Sola Scriptura believers to not be Christian, since they reject this?

Your basing your arguments on the faulty premise that God needs a prophet to communicate with his people. That is so OT. The NT is that God came down to earth as Jesus Christ, lived as a human, died for our sins, and was resurrected. As part of that resurrection, he sent his promised Councilor, the Holy Spirit to guide mankind (John 14:15-17). The Holy Spirit's mission is in verse 26 " But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." No more need for prophets.

 

[dzheremi]

All scripture is ratified by the Prophet and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and then brought for sustaining vote of the general church body. If a person has a question of is something is from God, then they are to ask Him in prayer.

Okay. Can you answer my original question, though (the first of the two)? What I want to know is: in the LDS faith, is the Bible considered something separate from tradition? I'm asking this because your reply suggested that the LDS do not consider the Bible to be part of tradition, but something separate from it.

If you would care to define such term in basic language, perhaps it can be a useful language bridge.

I sort of tried to elsewhere in the post with the analogy and writing "who he is in himself", since that's what essence/ousia is. I guess that's still pretty confusing, but that's the distinction we are to make.

Let me put this way: There is a concept in Eastern Orthodox theology known as the essence-energies distinction. This concept says that God's essence is unknowable, but that we know Him through His energies, which are His activities in the world. Hence there is God as He is in Himself (His essence/ousia), and there are His energies (actions) which we interact with in this world. Quoting from wikipedia's page on the subject, apparently John of Damascus (an Eastern Orthodox saint) puts it in the following terms: "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature." So, according to this principle, what can be said about God are things about Him, but those things are not Him in Himself.

This concept in exactly these terms never really developed in the Oriental Orthodox Church, since the chief expositor of this theology is way later than our division from the Chalcedonians (Gregory Palamas, 14th century), so we were out of the picture by that time. However, it is still useful in a more general sense to show the difference between the ousia/essence and the energies/actions, and why we do not say "Christ is God because He did/does XYZ", but instead "Christ is God because He shares the same divinity [divine essence/ousia] as the Father and the Holy Spirit". The latter is an argument from who Christ is in Himself, not to the exclusion of what He does in any sense, but without confusing one for the other (NB the quote above, where John of Damascus does say that what we can say from our interaction with God as He acts in the world are still things about Him; they just aren't Him in Himself).

Note: the word "essence" is not of much use here, because it has some many wide definitions. Would you care to define the one you are using?

The intrinsic nature of whatever is under discussion.

We cannot say that God is God because He does XYZ. Rather God is God in Himself (Exodus 3:14), and He does XYZ.

Assuming John is being true to himself (not lying/two-faced etc), would his kind deeds not be the outpouring of a kind nature and essence-- generally *who* he is?

Kindness would be something about him, but it would not be His essence. (cf. John of Damascus, above)

Again, don't actions flow from the heart?

Yes, but that does not make actions and essence the same thing. If they were, then your essence would change according to how you act. That's not the case with human beings (you're not Jane one day but someone else another day according to your mood; you're always you), and it's certainly not the case with God, who declared to Moses not "I am because look at what I'm doing", but rather just "I AM". He is and He does.

Why do you think no one else can have this heart?

What do you mean? Why can no one else 'have' God's divinity? God's essence is unknowable and cannot be possessed. Again, just the same as ours. Would you ask "Why can't you be me?" No, right? You're already you, and only you will ever be you.

And how about all those super flawed Trinity analogy (eggs, clovers, etc)

What about them? I have not used any of them. I stick to repeating that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are homoousios...as you can see, regardless of how much trouble it brings.

 

[outlawState]

Mormons are still misinterpreting the early church fathers who spoke of becoming one with God. They never taught that there will be multiple Gods.

I prefer to rely on scripture:
2 Peter 1
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

I agree that Mormons are absolutely wrong to represent multiple gods, because the idea of God contains the notion of spiritual hierarchy and enthronement. Whatever thrones / crowns are given to the elect, it is clear that they will all be subordinate to those of the Father (who is greater than the Son) and the Son (who is himself Lord of Lords).

Rev 17;14 "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful."

Moreover Jesus said that those who will inherit eternal life will be like angels in heaven.Mat 22:30, Mar 12:25 whereas Christ himself is above the angels, Heb 1;5-14.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Clarifying actual LDS beliefs--

I agree that Mormons are absolutely wrong to represent multiple gods

LDS only believe in ONE God. This ONE God consists of multiple persons, just like Trinitarian beliefs.

, because the idea of God contains the notion of spiritual hierarchy and enthronement. Whatever thrones / crowns are given to the elect, it is clear that they will all be subordinate to those of the Father (who is greater than the Son) and the Son (who is himself Lord of Lords).

LDS very much believe that our God the Father will never stop being thus, likewise our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will never stop being thus.

Moreover Jesus said that those who will inherit eternal life will be like angels in heaven.Mat 22:30, Mar 12:25 whereas Christ himself is above the angels, Heb 1;5-14.

Actually Christ's follows will be like Him: having the same glory, joint heirs, share His throne. See Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 3:18, 1 Jn. 3:2, Rev. 3:21. This is all made possible through Christ's incredible sacrifice, and He will always be our Lord.

 

[NYCGuy]

Clarifying actual LDS beliefs--


LDS only believe in ONE God. This ONE God consists of multiple persons, just like Trinitarian beliefs.

So Mormons don't believe in multiple Gods? Are your scriptures incorrect when they refer to "the Gods" creating?

 

[KevinSim]

What about them? I have not used any of them. I stick to repeating that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are homoousios...as you can see, regardless of how much trouble it brings.

Dzheremi, over in the "Fantasy was Never Truth" thread, I expressed my doubt that traditional Christians have defined the Triune God well enough that we can even know that he's something different from the God Latter-day Saints believe in. BigDaddy4 suggested I take a look at your posts, that he said did an adequate job of defining who the Triune God is. Can you point to some of your posts in this thread that define that God? Or, alternately, can you tell me who the Triune God is in a way that I can tell the difference between him and the LDS version of God? Thanks!

 

[Jane_Doe]

Okay. Can you answer my original question, though (the first of the two)? What I want to know is: in the LDS faith, is the Bible considered something separate from tradition? I'm asking this because your reply suggested that the LDS do not consider the Bible to be part of tradition, but something separate from it.

LDS don't really do "tradition" like Orthodox do. The closest thing would be non-formally-ratified teaching of the prophets. These writings of men can be cited and talked about, but are not held as highly as scripture and are not the source of doctrines (as we talked about in the other thread). Scripture of course is from God.

Does that make sense?

I sort of tried to elsewhere in the post with the analogy and writing "who he is in himself", since that's what essence/ousia is. I guess that's still pretty confusing, but that's the distinction we are to make.

Let me put this way: There is a concept in Eastern Orthodox theology known as the essence-energies distinction. This concept says that God's essence is unknowable, but that we know Him through His energies, which are His activities in the world. Hence there is God as He is in Himself (His essence/ousia), and there are His energies (actions) which we interact with in this world. Quoting from wikipedia's page on the subject, apparently John of Damascus (an Eastern Orthodox saint) puts it in the following terms: "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature." So, according to this principle, what can be said about God are things about Him, but those things are not Him in Himself.

This concept in exactly these terms never really developed in the Oriental Orthodox Church, since the chief expositor of this theology is way later than our division from the Chalcedonians (Gregory Palamas, 14th century), so we were out of the picture by that time. However, it is still useful in a more general sense to show the difference between the ousia/essence and the energies/actions, and why we do not say "Christ is God because He did/does XYZ", but instead "Christ is God because He shares the same divinity [divine essence/ousia] as the Father and the Holy Spirit". The latter is an argument from who Christ is in Himself, not to the exclusion of what He does in any sense, but without confusing one for the other (NB the quote above, where John of Damascus does say that what we can say from our interaction with God as He acts in the world are still things about Him; they just aren't Him in Himself).

I'm admittedly lost.

The intrinsic nature of whatever is under discussion.

We cannot say that God is God because He does XYZ. Rather God is God in Himself (Exodus 3:14), and He does XYZ.

Kindness would be something about him, but it would not be His essence. (cf. John of Damascus, above)

Yes, but that does not make actions and essence the same thing. If they were, then your essence would change according to how you act. That's not the case with human beings (you're not Jane one day but someone else another day according to your mood; you're always you), and it's certainly not the case with God, who declared to Moses not "I am because look at what I'm doing", but rather just "I AM". He is and He does.

I think I may be misunderstanding you? This strikes me as artificially trying to divide a person. A person's actions are part of who they are, just like their words, thoughts, desires, etc. These are all in harmony and part of who a person is. (We already ruled out two-faced liars from this discussion).

What about them? I have not used any of them. I stick to repeating that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are homoousios...as you can see, regardless of how much trouble it brings.

I was just wondering what you thought of them and how they meshed (if at all) with your views your expressing here.

 

[outlawState]

Clarifying actual LDS beliefs--
LDS only believe in ONE God. This ONE God consists of multiple persons, just like Trinitarian beliefs.

I don't agree with denoting God as a person or multiple persons. The Father is God, and the Son is God by virtue of his relation to the Father and sharing his Father's throne. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that humans will share the throne of the Father.

Actually Christ's follows will be like Him: having the same glory, joint heirs, share His throne. See Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 3:18, 1 Jn. 3:2, Rev. 3:21. This is all made possible through Christ's incredible sacrifice, and He will always be our Lord.

Sharing "Christ's throne", but not the Father's throne. Moreover sharing his throne does not imply equality with the Son, by any stretch. Jesus said the Father is greater than himself, and likewise Christ is greater than the saints. He will always be elevated higher than they in the divine order.

 

[dzheremi]

Dzheremi, over in the "Fantasy was Never Truth" thread, I expressed my doubt that traditional Christians have defined the Triune God well enough that we can even know that he's something different from the God Latter-day Saints believe in. BigDaddy4 suggested I take a look at your posts, that he said did an adequate job of defining who the Triune God is. Can you point to some of your posts in this thread that define that God? Or, alternately, can you tell me who the Triune God is in a way that I can tell the difference between him and the LDS version of God? Thanks!

Well, that was nice of him. Thanks, BigDaddy4! I would not evaluate my own posts so highly, but it's nice to know that someone is getting something out of them.

The essence of orthodox Christian theology is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. The earliest extant works to use the word 'Trinity' are the letters of Theophilos of Anitoch, written in the 170s or so, but the theology predates this usage, as the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (the second bishop of Antioch who was martyred c. 108, who was a disciple of John the Apostle, writer of the Apocalypse/book of Revelation), the Didache (early church manual dating to the late first century), and other materials show. These all long predate the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which is where we get the language we still use to describe how the three Persons are one God. (Hence, you will find some unitarian types who will argue that the Council 'invented' the Trinity or whatever, which is a bit like arguing that St. Athanasius 'invented' the Bible by giving the NT canon its definitive 27-book form in his 39th festal letter of 367; I don't know anyone who actually argues that, because it would be plainly ridiculous to do so, but for some reason these anti-Trinitarian people argue in this fashion concerning matters of theology.)

That theology is that the Persons are homoousios, a Greek word which as I already described means 'the same essence/substance' (homo- 'the same' + ousia 'essence/substance'). This is to clarify, in the face of the Arians (who denied that the Father and the Son were of the same substance/essence) and semi-Arians (those who taught that the Father and the Son were of 'similar' substances/essences) whose doctrines were the impetus for the calling of the council in the first place, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same God, as they all share the same divinity (ousia). One is not more or less divine than any other, or differently divine than any other. One of the possible translations of homoousios which I already shared from the ancient Coptic hymn "Khen Efran" ("In the name of..."), which we still chant in our churches to this day, is therefore 'coequal', because the point of describing them this way is again to refute the doctrine of the Arians that would deny divinity of the Son by painting Him as being not equally God of the same essence/substance/ousia as the Father.

Other possible translations of the word homoousios, found mainly in English-speaking churches, are consubstantial (ultimately from the Latin translation of the Creed into English) and coessential. All of these words are synonyms: homoousios = consubstantial = coessential = coequal = same divinity.

From what I understand of the Mormon theological tradition from corresponding at length with Jane Doe, Peter1000, Ironhold, and other Mormon posters on this website, Mormons reject the statement that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousios, because the Mormon definition of 'substance' is entirely physical and apparently somehow related back to their own unique doctrine that both the Father and the Son have physical bodies (whereas in Christianity only the Son is incarnate). Thus Jane Doe and I have been recently discussing how it is that she can claim that the Father and the Son share the same divinity and yet are not homoousios, as that is not possible and does a great deal of violence to what homoousios actually means in the context of traditional Christian theology (this is why my replies have largely consisted of reminding her what the word homoousos literally means). NB: In Christian theology, ousia does not refer to physical anything, but to the internal, intrinsic, and unknowable nature of something (God, in this case), following the Cappadocian fathers St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzus, and St. Gregory of Nyssa, who wrote much on this topic (and others, too, but the Cappadocian fathers are especially known for their writings on this).

 

[Jane_Doe]

I don't agree with denoting God as a person or multiple persons. The Father is God, and the Son is God by virtue of his relation to the Father and sharing his Father's throne.

The Father and the Son are different persons, both in LDS beliefs and Trinitarian. For a Trinitarian reference on this, I refer you to the Athanasian Creed: "For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost."

There is nothing in the bible to suggest that humans will share the throne of the Father.

Christ's words are: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Rev 3:21)

 

[KevinSim]

The essence of orthodox Christian theology is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God.

Now, see, I have no problem with the idea that those three are in fact one God.

One is not more or less divine than any other, or differently divine than any other. One of the possible translations of homoousios which I already shared from the ancient Coptic hymn "Khen Efran" ("In the name of..."), which we still chant in our churches to this day, is therefore 'coequal', because the point of describing them this way is again to refute the doctrine of the Arians that would deny divinity of the Son by painting Him as being not equally God of the same essence/substance/ousia as the Father.

I also don't have any problem with the idea that Jesus is as fully divine as His Father is.

Other possible translations of the word homoousios, found mainly in English-speaking churches, are consubstantial (ultimately from the Latin translation of the Creed into English) and coessential. All of these words are synonyms: homoousios = consubstantial = coessential = coequal = same divinity.

From what I understand of the Mormon theological tradition from corresponding at length with Jane Doe, Peter1000, Ironhold, and other Mormon posters on this website, Mormons reject the statement that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousios, because the Mormon definition of 'substance' is entirely physical and apparently somehow related back to their own unique doctrine that both the Father and the Son have physical bodies (whereas in Christianity only the Son is incarnate).

So Latter-day Saints believe that God the Father and Jesus both have the same type of body, traditional Christians believe they do not, and it is the Latter-day Saints that don't believe they are consubstantial? I don't understand that at all.

I'm quite aware that Joseph Smith and past leaders of the LDS Church have said that the idea of the Trinity is an error, but I'm at a loss to understand why they say that. At least I can't think of any reason why we couldn't say that God and Jesus have the same essence. Part of the problem may be that we haven't really determined yet what essence means. Is it what makes the two of them divine? Then fine, I believe they have the same essence. Jane_Doe, and the other LDS posters on this thread, can you explain to me why you believe that God and Jesus don't have the same essence?

 

[Rescued One]

Dzheremi, over in the "Fantasy was Never Truth" thread, I expressed my doubt that traditional Christians have defined the Triune God well enough that we can even know that he's something different from the God Latter-day Saints believe in.

Sometimes we have the discernment to know that a person doesn't even want to believe what we do. A person can have his mind made up that those who are in apostacy (non-Mormons) believe the teachings of men. All explanations and testimonies fall on the deaf ears of Mormons.

Mormons know the difference but just want endless explanations.

"And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit."
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.269

Doctrine and Covenants 1
30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

1 Nephi 14
10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the harlot of all the earth.

 

[Rescued One]

Now, see, I have no problem with the idea that those three are in fact one God.


I also don't have any problem with the idea that Jesus is as fully divine as His Father is.

What makes them different from another god? How divine is the Holy Spirit?

So Latter-day Saints believe that God the Father and Jesus both have the same type of body, traditional Christians believe they do not, and it is the Latter-day Saints that don't believe they are consubstantial? I don't understand that at all.

I'm quite aware that Joseph Smith and past leaders of the LDS Church have said that the idea of the Trinity is an error, but I'm at a loss to understand why they say that.

Joseph Smith was in error about who Mormons worship?

At least I can't think of any reason why we couldn't say that God and Jesus have the same essence. Part of the problem may be that we haven't really determined yet what essence means. Is it what makes the two of them divine? Then fine, I believe they have the same essence. Jane_Doe, and the other LDS posters on this thread, can you explain to me why you believe that God and Jesus don't have the same essence?

Why do you ignore the Holy Spirit? Is He a different essence or just not important?

Is there a heirarchy of gods?

 

[dzheremi]

LDS don't really do "tradition" like Orthodox do. The closest thing would be non-formally-ratified teaching of the prophets. These writings of men can be cited and talked about, but are not held as highly as scripture and are not the source of doctrines (as we talked about in the other thread). Scripture of course is from God.

Does that make sense?

Hmm. I'm not sure. I mean, I guess it makes sense in the sense of being internally consistent (i.e., if you don't 'do' tradition in the first place, then obviously a question asking if you separate the Bible from tradition isn't really answerable as asked), but I don't really understand it, no. It would seem to me that you guys do tradition but simply don't call it that, in a manner akin to the majority of Protestant sects which claim to follow the Bible only but either consciously or unconsciously do so within the boundary of their own religious tradition, e.g., Methodist tradition, Baptist tradition, Calvinist tradition, etc. There is most definitely something that could be called 'Mormon tradition' that is fairly distinctive, which may then be subdivided into different branches according to which particular Mormon sect a person follows. In addition, Mormonism itself may be placed within the wider Restorationist movement of the 19th century that occurred in the context of what historians call the "Second Great Awakening" (1790-1840), which also gave birth to other groups such as the (Stone-)Campbellites, various kinds of Baptists, and the incredibly sociologically-interesting but sadly irrevocably doomed Shakers (whose insistence on a celibate life and official closing of membership in 1957 have left them with two -- that's right, two -- active members in 2017).

I think I may be misunderstanding you? This strikes me as artificially trying to divide a person.

It's funny you should say that, as that is exactly the traditional and in some sense current response of Western Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, etc.) to this distinction: that it "introduces a division" into God. Please note, however, that what this is ultimately doing is saying that there is God as He is in Himself (His internal, self-sustaining, unknowable nature; what makes Him "I AM"), and then there is how we experience God: through His activities and interactions with us in the world. It is not saying "this is one part of God, and that is another part of God"; it is saying "God is Who He is, and we know Him through His acts, which are not the sum of Who He is." In other words: it's saying one thing about God, and one thing about us; it's not saying God 'is' two things.

I don't want to go too far out on a limb to talk about a concept which, as I have already mentioned, is not really even developed in my own Church (again, we were way out of the picture by the time of Gregory Palamas and the hesychast controversy), but it does occur to me that basically all Christianity at least tacitly accepts this as a real thing, since it is ultimately rooted in the experience of the Old Testament prophets, who are indisputably accepted in all Christianity since the rejection of the heretic and mutilator of God and scripture Marcion.

Consider, for instance, the first verses of Psalm 150: "Praise God in His sanctuary; Praise Him in His mighty firmament! Praise Him for His mighty acts; Praise Him according to His excellent greatness!" You will note that it says that our way of praising God is in His mighty firmament, which is something He has created. We are also to praise Him His mighty acts, what according to the Eastern Orthodox essence-energies distinction would mean His energies (how He acts in the world).

Even more to the point, here is the text of a Coptic hymn, the first canticle of the Midnight praises, which is based around the exodus of Moses and the Israelites from bondage:

Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord and spoke saying, "I will sing to the Lord for He has triumphed gloriously."


+ The horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea. The Lord is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation.


He is my God and I will glorify Him, my father´s God and I will exalt Him.


+ The Lord is a Man of war, the Lord is His name. Pharaoh's chariots and his army He has cast into the sea.


His chosen captains also are drowned in the Red Sea.


+ The depths have covered them; they sank to the bottom as a stone.


Your right hand O Lord has become glorious in power. Your right hand O Lord has dashed the enemy in pieces.


+ And in the greatness of Your excellence, You have overthrown those who rose up against You, You sent forth Your wrath, it consumed them like stubble.


And with the blast of Your nostrils the waters were gathered together, the flood stood upright like a wall, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.


+ The enemy said, "I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil, my lust shall be satisfied upon them, I will draw my sword and my hand shall destroy them."


You blew with Your wind, the sea covered them, they sank like lead in the mighty waters.


+ Who is like You O Lord among the gods? Who is like You, glorified in His saints, amazing in glory, performing wonders.


You stretched out Your right hand, the earth swallowed them. You in Your mercy have led forth the people whom You have redeemed, You have guided them in Your strength, to Your holy habitation.


+ The people will hear and be afraid, sorrow will take hold of the inhabitants of Palestine.


Then the dukes of Edom will be amazed, the mighty men of Moab trembling will take hold of them.


+ All the inhabitants of Canaan will melt away, fear and dread will fall on them.


By the greatness of Your arm they will be as still as stone, till Your people pass over O Lord, till Your people pass over whom You have purchased.


+ You will bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, in the place O Lord, which You have made for You to dwell in.


In Your sanctuary O Lord which Your hands have established, the Lord shall reign forever and ever.


+ For the horses of pharaoh went with his chariots and his horsemen into the sea.


And the Lord brought back the waters of the sea upon them, but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea.


+ And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with praises.


And Miriam answered them saying, "Sing to the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously."


+ The horse and its rider, He has thrown into the sea. "Let us sing to the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously."

+++

In all the above, we have this pattern: Let's praise the Lord, because He did this, and therefore this happened, or by His strength, such and such a thing will happen. In no way is this 'dividing' God -- it's simply saying that God is doing this, or will cause this to happen. And these are therefore the things that the people comment on in praising Him, because it is by these manifestations of His presence in guiding them that they have been saved from danger and left bondage in Egypt.

So, again, they don't say anything about God's essence, but they do say that this is what He does, so this is how we know Him.

And, as we say (in the Coptic Orthodox tradition, though I don't doubt that all Christians agree, by virtue of being Christians) that He was incarnate "without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration" (this is a direct quote from the priest's confession before the Eucharist in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy of St. Basil), obviously the incarnation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in no way changed the essence of God, but rather is nothing less than the full, complete, and indivisible union of divinity (the ousia that is common to all three Persons of the Holy Trinity) and humanity in the person of the Incarnate Word, the God-man Jesus Christ.

A person's actions are part of who they are, just like their words, thoughts, desires, etc. These are all in harmony and part of who a person is. (We already ruled out two-faced liars from this discussion).

Again, a person's actions is how we may know them, but are they the essence of a person? No. You do not change into a different person as you perform various actions. Neither does God.

Nobody is saying that they are unrelated. Remember the quote from John of Damascus, that what we may say about God does say things about Him, but does not describe His nature (essence). That is not possible to do, just as nobody may say "Jane's essence is _____". They can say "Jane is kind", or "Jane is a hard worker", or "Jane is thoughtful", or any other number of things, but these are qualities based on the way that you manifest yourself in the world through your actions. They aren't you in yourself, such that if you do not act according to them you become something or someone other the same person you are when you act according to them. "You are what you repeatedly do" is not a cornerstone of Christian theology or anthropology. (In fact, this is something of a joke among secular and atheistic people to needle Christians, as when the comedian Louis Black says of the seeming 'difference' between God in the OT and the NT "maybe having a son calmed him down" -- a funny joke, maybe, but with theological implications behind it vis-a-vis people like the heretic Marcion and people of that mindset which are not funny at all; God did not and does not change).

I was just wondering what you thought of them and how they meshed (if at all) with your views your expressing here.

I don't really have any opinion on them. Sorry. Analogies are important and good to use, but I don't spend a lot of time thinking about them in the abstract.

 

[dzheremi]

Now, see, I have no problem with the idea that those three are in fact one God.

I also don't have any problem with the idea that Jesus is as fully divine as His Father is.

This is good to read.

So Latter-day Saints believe that God the Father and Jesus both have the same type of body, traditional Christians believe they do not, and it is the Latter-day Saints that don't believe they are consubstantial? I don't understand that at all.

Well, again, this is as I understand it from talking to Mormon posters on this website (you'd do better to ask them directly to clarify their views). From what they have told me, the Mormon idea of 'substance' is purely physical/material, and hence since they have this theology that says the Father and the Son both have physical bodies, they cannot be consubstantial, since they don't share the same physical body. This is quite simply an imposition of Mormon theological error onto Christian theology (since ousia has nothing to do with physical matter in Christian theology), but nevertheless it is why they have told me that they reject the idea that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are homoousios.

I'm quite aware that Joseph Smith and past leaders of the LDS Church have said that the idea of the Trinity is an error, but I'm at a loss to understand why they say that. At least I can't think of any reason why we couldn't say that God and Jesus have the same essence. Part of the problem may be that we haven't really determined yet what essence means. Is it what makes the two of them divine?

Yes, all three Persons of the Holy Trinity share one and the same divinity. (The Holy Spirit is also God, also homoousios with the Father and the Son.)

 

[KevinSim]

What makes them different from another god? How divine is the Holy Spirit?

There is no difference between how divine Jesus is and how divine His Father and the Holy Spirit is. They are in a very real sense one God.

Joseph Smith was in error about who Mormons worship?

I don't think I would ever say that. Joseph Smith understood perfectly well who Latter-day Saints worship. What I don't understand is how he concluded that the Trinity could not be that God. I still have not had the Trinity defined for me well enough that I can be sure the Trinity doesn't fit God as I understand Him.

Why do you ignore the Holy Spirit? Is He a different essence or just not important?

My bad. I should not have left out the Holy Spirit. I see no reason to believe he has a different essence.

Is there a heirarchy of gods?

You can't read the things that Jesus said and escape an implied hierarchy there. He clearly made it sound like He deferred to His Father in some areas, and it seemed to be implied that the Holy Spirit deferred to His Father too, or at least that has been my impression. Still, I believe that each of the three are completely divine.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Hmm. I'm not sure. I mean, I guess it makes sense in the sense of being internally consistent (i.e., if you don't 'do' tradition in the first place, then obviously a question asking if you separate the Bible from tradition isn't really answerable as asked), but I don't really understand it, no. It would seem to me that you guys do tradition but simply don't call it that, in a manner akin to the majority of Protestant sects which claim to follow the Bible only but either consciously or unconsciously do so within the boundary of their own religious tradition, e.g., Methodist tradition, Baptist tradition, Calvinist tradition, etc. There is most definitely something that could be called 'Mormon tradition' that is fairly distinctive

Clarifying here--
There is Mormon tradition (both religious and cultural), but it is different than Orthodox big-T Tradition. The lower-t traditions include things like the not-formally-ratified teaching of the prophets (uncreatively called "teachings of the prophets"). These are held lower than scripture, in contrast to your Orthodox Tradition which scripture is viewed to be just one branch of (please correct me if I'm wrong).

(I will respond to rest of this thoughtful post later tonight)