LDS 2 Peter 1 Divine Nature

[BigDaddy4]

We've explained the situation in the past.

The first edition of the work was a private effort without oversight, and so contained much of his own personal beliefs instead of church doctrine.

Later, more revised editions are in keeping with church doctrine, but the incident with the first edition means the book will likely never get 100% official backing.

No matter how much "explain"ing you do, you cannot get away from the fact that the lds uses his quotes in its official teachings and posts his work on its official site. Therefore, he and his works are officially endorsed by your church. Unless, of course, your church is promoting false doctrine.

 

[Ironhold]

No matter how much "explain"ing you do, you cannot get away from the fact that the lds uses his quotes in its official teachings and posts his work on its official site. Therefore, he and his works are officially endorsed by your church. Unless, of course, your church is promoting false doctrine.

Check the citation information, and you'll see that the citations are from the newest editions available to the author. The first edition gets quoted more times by critics of the church than anyone in the church.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Check the citation information, and you'll see that the citations are from the newest editions available to the author. The first edition gets quoted more times by critics of the church than anyone in the church.

lds revisionist history? Just like the BoM and it's many errors in the original? Sweeping his original comments under the rug does not make them go away.

 

[Ironhold]

lds revisionist history?

Nope.

Later editions were edited by McConkie himself to fix his own mistakes, and so are legitimately more doctrinally accurate.

It's that simple.

 

[Rescued One]

No matter how much "explain"ing you do, you cannot get away from the fact that the lds uses his quotes in its official teachings and posts his work on its official site. Therefore, he and his works are officially endorsed by your church. Unless, of course, your church is promoting false doctrine.

I've never seen the first edition. I own the 1966 edition, printed in 1969, and the 34th printing from 1990. I can't quote from a book I've never seen.

 

[Ironhold]

I've never seen the first edition. I own the 1966 edition, printed in 1969, and the 34th printing from 1990. I can't quote from a book I've never seen.

...And why did it take you so long to tell us what editions you were quoting from?

 

[Jane_Doe]

(Finally have time for this)

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.

Again, a person's actions is how we may know them, but are they the essence of a person? No.

Admittedly I'm confused here. Why not just see a person as a whole person? Why have any complicated talk of this vs that in the first place?

You do not change into a different person as you perform various actions. Neither does God.

We've already disqualified any two-facedness here, so I'm not sure why you are mentioning this.

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.

Again, why this artificial division? Why not take the whole person?

I did read through rest of your post, but my confusion on this foundational issue causes problems understanding your latter points so I'll hold off replying for now.

 

[dzheremi]

Jane, please recall that the point of bringing up this distinction in the first place is to try to get you to understand what historical churches which use this terminology mean when they talk about 'essence' (ousia). The theology which developed around this concept via the already-mentioned Cappadocian fathers and others is as it is precisely because there were such early discussions regarding the nature of God and what we can and cannot say about Him and why.

In the main, there are two traditions which developed in the context of Christian theology: the negative (or apophatic) tradition, and the positive (or cataphatic) tradition. Apophatic theology says that God can be described chiefly by what He is not/what may not be said about Him. An example of this from 9th century Irish theologian John Scotus Eriugena (via Wiki): "We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything [i.e., "not any created thing"]. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."

Cataphatic theology, on the other hand, states things positively about God, as when the scriptures tell us "God is love" (1 John 4:8). Most Christian traditions (including my own) contain some aspects of both in their theology, though it is often said that the East more generally tends to favor apophatic theology (as the Cappadocians were native to what is today Turkey, in the Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire), and the West cataphatic.

Note that both are means of talking about God, just as John of Damascus said in the quote presented earlier. That's what theology is: human beings' attempt to talk about God. It does not approach God in His essence (who He is in Himself), as that is not definable using human language.

Knowing this, what is highlighted by the essence-energies distinction is not a division in God, but an affirmation that God exists in Himself (in His essence) in a manner that is beyond and other than the sum of His actions as we experience them (His energies). This is no more a division of God than it would be a division of a person to say that any given person is more than the actions they perform, which I doubt would be a controversial assertion in any sense (particularly in the context of theology, which only exists as an aspect of religion in the first place due to the fundamental belief of those who engage in it that there is more to existence than its normal, everyday sense in which a person wakes up, goes to work comes home, cooks dinner, etc).

So I guess the best way to answer your question would be to say that this distinction is about embracing the person as he is, not just as he does, while recognizing that at the same time what he does is how we are able to describe him. In that way, it is most definitely about embracing the whole person, and also recognizing the philosophical and literal limits involved in talking about 'who he is'.

 

[Jane_Doe]

So I guess the best way to answer your question would be to say that this distinction is about embracing the person as he is, not just as he does

But why not both of those and every other aspect of being? Why only take part of the person and disregard the other parts? That's where I'm getting confused.

In that way, it is most definitely about embracing the whole person, and also recognizing the philosophical and literal limits involved in talking about 'who he is'.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[dzheremi]

But why not both of those and every other aspect of being? Why only take part of the person and disregard the other parts? That's where I'm getting confused.

While this is absolutely not talking about 'parts', what is it that you feel is being disregarded by making this distinction?

It is absolutely saying both -- it is saying God is as He is (His essence), and we interact with Him via how He acts in the world (His energies). It is not saying that He is only one or the other depending on which we're talking about. The point is that we can only really talk about Him (following a kind of apophatic argument, as again the East is characterized as doing; this distinction being made most often by the Eastern Orthodox Church, after all), not know His essence based on how we describe Him. Yet it is important to emphasize here that interacting with His energies (as He acts in the world) is very much interacting with Him directly, as they are how He is made manifest to us. (This is a point made in Eastern Orthodox apologetics against the idea of 'created grace' or different taxonomies of grace as advanced in, e.g., the Roman Catholic Church; check out a bit of writing on it from Vladimir Lossky, an influential Eastern Orthodox writer, who says "In the energies, He is, He exists, He eternally manifests Himself": The Uncreated Grace and Energy of God)

That doesn't make any sense.

Can you explain why it doesn't? I'm not sure how to respond without any specifics.

 

[Jane_Doe]

While this is absolutely not talking about 'parts', what is it that you feel is being disregarded by making this distinction?

Actions for one.

It is absolutely saying both -- it is saying God is as He is (His essence), and we interact with Him via how He acts in the world (His energies).

Again, splitting Him up.

It is not saying that He is only one or the other depending on which we're talking about. The point is that we can only really talk about Him (following a kind of apophatic argument, as again the East is characterized as doing; this distinction being made most often by the Eastern Orthodox Church, after all), not know His essence based on how we describe Him. Yet it is important to emphasize here that interacting with His energies (as He acts in the world) is very much interacting with Him directly, as they are how He is made manifest to us. (This is a point made in Eastern Orthodox apologetics against the idea of 'created grace' or different taxonomies of grace as advanced in, e.g., the Roman Catholic Church; check out a bit of writing on it from Vladimir Lossky, an influential Eastern Orthodox writer, who says "In the energies, He is, He exists, He eternally manifests Himself": The Uncreated Grace and Energy of God)

Again, why the division? It's not like God is two-faced & inconsistent.

Can you explain why it doesn't? I'm not sure how to respond without any specifics.

Why go through all this work of energies vs essence, created vs uncreated grace? Rather than splitting Him up, why not just acknowledge God as whole person? Particularly in relationship to ousia and the Trinity? I just don't understand the base motivation behind this entire branch of theology.

 

[outlawState]

I just don't understand the base motivation behind this entire branch of theology.

Trinitarianism is "now" an end in itself. I concur that the purpose of it originally was to rebut various heresies such as monarchianism (God can only ever be one person), gnosticism (multiple gods / names of God), and docetism (Christ had no human flesh), but the remedy was always unsound because "no one has ever seen God." Trinitarianism posited something about God that is unknowable.

Trinitarianism has stopped being a means to an end, and is now an end in itself i.e. salvation through superior knowledge of the "Trinity." Yet the bestowing of worldly and / or human attributes on God (essence, energy etc) linked to the concept of God as a person is unscriptural. One has to remember that Jesus taught only that God is spirit, which defies anthropomorphic conceptions of God.

 

[KevinSim]

One has to remember that Jesus taught only that God is spirit, which defies anthropomorphic conceptions of God.

We start with the statement that God the Father is spirit. Then He is a holy spirit, because He's God the Father. Then He is the Holy Spirit, because He's God the Father. Oops, were we talking about the first member of the Godhead/Trinity, or the third? And if the first, then does that mean that it's a Binity, not a Trinity at all?

 

[robert skynner]

I've never seen the first edition. I own the 1966 edition, printed in 1969, and the 34th printing from 1990. I can't quote from a book I've never seen.

The Tanners in Salt Lake City sell a photocopy of the 1980 Book of Mormon with the 3,000+ changes highlighted.

 

[Rescued One]

The Tanners in Salt Lake City sell a photocopy of the 1980 Book of Mormon with the 3,000+ changes highlighted.

Thanks. I was talking about Mormon Doctrine by McConkie. I have a few copies (pre-1980) of the Book of Mormon.

 

[Rescued One]

Trinitarianism is "now" an end in itself. I concur that the purpose of it originally was to rebut various heresies such as monarchianism (God can only ever be one person), gnosticism (multiple gods / names of God), and docetism (Christ had no human flesh), but the remedy was always unsound because "no one has ever seen God." Trinitarianism posited something about God that is unknowable.

Trinitarianism has stopped being a means to an end, and is now an end in itself i.e. salvation through superior knowledge of the "Trinity." Yet the bestowing of worldly and / or human attributes on God (essence, energy etc) linked to the concept of God as a person is unscriptural. One has to remember that Jesus taught only that God is spirit, which defies anthropomorphic conceptions of God.

I think you're posting this in the wrong thread.

 

[robert skynner]

Thanks. I was talking about Mormon Doctrine by McConkie. I have a few copies (pre-1980) of the Book of Mormon.

I once had a 1909 edition of the bOm BUT i FOOLISHLY TRADED IT!

 

[Rescued One]

I once had a 1909 edition of the bOm BUT i FOOLISHLY TRADED IT!

I have an 1888 edition, but I'd rather have the FIRST edition.

 

[Jane_Doe]

The Tanners in Salt Lake City sell a photocopy of the 1980 Book of Mormon with the 3,000+ changes highlighted.

So they also sell a Bible (KJV) showing all those changes, including the removal of entire books?

 

[fatboys]

The Tanners in Salt Lake City sell a photocopy of the 1980 Book of Mormon with the 3,000+ changes highlighted.

They only made a few changes. Every edition makes changes. Most are grammatical errors so to allow for ease in reading. There about 4000 changes.