Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Fantastic! I myself am always striving in that direction- though I confess to many many backslides.
Regarding substance, the only way it makes sense to me is in using the phrase some trinitarians (often Evangelicals) use:
God is one what in three who's.
The substance is the What of God, the persons are the Who's.
spockrates says:
If this is suppose to explain something, I am not following it.
Let's break this up into 2 parts:
God is one what? You then say that the substance is the What of God. That does not seem to make sense, nor does it articulate what the substance is.
in three who's? You then say the persons are the Who's. This makes a little sense to me. There are 3 Persons in the Trinity. Not sure why anyone would use the word 'who's'. It is quite confusing.
I do not mean to be rude, but the statement "God is one what in three who's" is a very confusing statement that to me does not explain anything, and only confuses the matter more.
Please help me out. I am a Mormon.
Sounds like you are not familiar with your own church.
Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with Him. All mankind are His brethren and sisters, He being the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim. (Bible Dictionary)
If Jesus is the "eldest of the spirit children of Elohim," then he was created just like us.
The word 'what' seems out of place. The word 'who's' seems out of place.Hi Peter1000. Great question. Not rude at all, and yes, I'll help you out.
So if a trinitarian were to say God is a person, then the doctrine of the Trinity would result in a logical contradiction.
The problem:
There is only one God in three persons.would equate to
There is only one [person] in three persons.and
There is only one God who is three persons.would equate to
God is one [person] who is three persons.The resulting conclusion would be illogical:
God is only one person and is not only one person.
* * *
The solution:
By saying God is one what in three persons (or three who's) the doctrine avoids a logicical contradiction. For a what isn't a who. So
God is one [what] in three [who's].and
God is one [what] that is three [who's].are two ideas that although unusual, are still logical.
That is one question. What is the what of God? Go ahead and try to answer that for me, I would be interested. Thanks.Peter1000:
So the question a trinitarian has to answer is this: What is the what of God?
I have an idea what the answer might be if you care to consider it and tell my why you think it's lacking.
(I won't be offended if you hear me out and tell me why my opinion isn't correct. In fact, I'd thank you for doing so!)
The word 'what' seems out of place. The word 'who's' seems out of place.
If you are saying that a 'what' is not a 'who', and that solves the problem. It may solve it in you mind, but not mine. And even if it did solve the problem that you are describing, it opens up lots of unanswered questions about the 'what' and the 'who' and are they even biblical expressions. So I am not sure where to go with this reasoning. Sorry.
What a silly thought. I think you know better.I believe the issue with Mormons
Is they put Joseph Smith on an equal level with Jesus as he wrote a separate bible
Book of mormon
Sure it can. Like ideas are also nouns. And "thing" is a very open definition that can fit... well about anythingSince the word God is a noun, can it denote anything other than a person, place or thing?
EDIT: It seems to me every attribite of trinitarian concept of God can be categorized as:That is one question. What is the what of God? Go ahead and try to answer that for me, I would be interested. Thanks.
Wait...what?Sure it can. Like ideas are also nouns. And "thing" is a very open definition that can fit... well about anything
I was the Mormon that accepted the idea that we are poytheistic. But you did not mention that I stipulated that although I can view our belief in a polytheistic way, it is not the same as the pagan Greek and Roman polytheistic mumbo jumbo.Thanks for the thoughts. I'm not sure that "feuding" is included in the definition of "polytheism". Either way, the point was, in another thread, one Mormon rejected polytheism, while another embraced polytheism.
So are you saying that 'what' = a thing of a different kind?
It is strange to me to say 'God can be what'?
No. But to think of God as anything other than a Person would be strange. He is not a place and although He is also technically a thing, we know what kind of a thing He is, and so we refer to Him in his proper designation as a Person, so it would eliminate the designation of 'thing'.Since the word God is a noun, can it denote anything other than a person, place or thing?
Understood. But I was thinking of something different, perhaps. Isn't it true that sometimes it's acceptable for a LDS to say the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are together one God?No. But to think of God as anything other than a Person would be strange. He is not a place and although He is also technically a thing, we know what kind of a thing He is, and so we refer to Him in his proper designation as a Person, so it would eliminate the designation of 'thing'.
Again, since we know what He is, it would be inappropriate to refer to him as a thing or a place, or an it, or a 'what'. He is a God/Person.Yes, a what is another way of saying a thing, or an it. That is, something that isn't a person nor a place.
EDIT: So yes, I was asking if you know of an instance where the noun God can sometimes be used in LDS doctrine to refer to a thing, rather than a person.
Yes. But the underlying doctrine is always understood. They are only one in purpose, not in essence/substance.Understood. But I was thinking of something different, perhaps. Isn't it true that sometimes it's acceptable for a LDS to say the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are together one God?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?