Re: [ZION] heck ain't cussin
I was trying to suggest that the doctrine of trinity, with its idea of a universal constant referred to as God and manifest as the three personages, is based on a true LDS doctrine of a manifestation of a constant standard of what is a God in infinite forms of exalted Gods. Not that the defective doctrine is true, but that it comes from a variation on the truth. The problem is that the doctrine of the trinity is so convoluted we cannot if discuss it without being subject to the same requirements of confusion and misunderstanding. Not much simpler is it? George - Original Message - From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 7:21 PM Subject: Re: [ZION] heck ain't cussin George Cobabe favored us with: Marc - would it be true to say that we LDS believe in a universal definition of Godhood, and what is entailed in that high station, and see infinite manifestations of that universal concept? What is God is a universal constant that many, many are exalted to conform with? Would it be possible for you to rephrase this more simply? I am afraid it is above my reading level, and I don't understand. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] heck ain't cussin
George Cobabe favored us with: The problem is that the doctrine of the trinity is so convoluted we cannot if discuss it without being subject to the same requirements of confusion and misunderstanding. Not much simpler is it? I think I got it the second time around. Still, conceptually it is a little above my head, like something that Dennis Potter might write. For me it is enough to know that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which is nonsense, is just a corrupted form of the doctrine we believe in that there is a Godhead comprised of an individual Father, an individual Son, and an individual Holy Ghost. I believe that the doctrine of reincarnation which is believed in many of the eastern religions is just an apostate version of the true doctrine of resurrection. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ...by proving contraries, truth is made manifest --Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Volume 6, p.248 *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] heck ain't cussin
Marc - would it be true to say that we LDS believe in a universal definition of Godhood, and what is entailed in that high station, and see infinite manifestations of that universal concept? What is God is a universal constant that many, many are exalted to conform with? If this is true - then does the false notion of trinitarianism have a basis in truth, but then it is corrupted in its application? George - Original Message - From: Marc A. Schindler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]e Monday, December 16, 2002 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [ZION] heck ain't cussin I'll give it a try (but of course keep in mind that I'm not defending it, just trying to explain it from a creedal Christian point of view). There are a number of variations of trinitarianism, but I'll stick with the basic one set up at the Council of Chalcedon. The creedal statement basically reads that God is three in person and one in substance (not three persons in one, which is how many LDS -- indeed many Catholics and Protestants themselves, misunderstand it). When the Orthodox and Roman churches split in the 11th century or thereabouts, it was over a minor aspect of trinitarianism which I won't get into here, but the eastern churches felt that this was a mystery which transcends rational understanding, and culturally they had no problem with that. This approach dates back to the Cappadocians of the 4th or 5th century. The Roman approach was taken by Augustine and expanded. Augustine felt that there had to be a rational explanation, so he took earlier interpretations by a group of Church fathers known as the Apologists (because they defended early Christianity against Jewish and Greek pagan critics) and expanded on it. The Apologists were the first well-educated members (as a group) but they were trained in the Greek tradition of rationalism, also sometimes called neo-hellenism, or to get technical, Middle Platonism. Plato held that there existed something called a universal. If you have a red chair, then clearly it exists as a chair. But does redness exist independently? Some would say, no it doesn't -- it's merely a characteristic of something which exists, but Plato taught that it has an independent existence. The Middle Platonists took this idea of the universal and said that that's what God is: a universal, which manifests itself in three different persons. When you read the original Greek of John 1:1, known as the Johannine Prologue, part of the verse reads ...and the Word was God. The naive literalist interpretation of this by creedal Christians is that Jesus Christ was a manifestation of God. However, this interpretation has to be read back into the original text, because John wrote in ignorance of Platonism, and the Greek actually indicates what's known as a predicate relationship between the Word and God (the Father). Here's what I mean by a predicate relationship, as opposed to an identity relationship (the naive, everyday Protestant's and Catholic's view, and the caricature that most LDS have of the trinity). When I say The United States is the 50 states, territories, the land and inhabitants thereof, plus the government I am making an identity statement. I am, in effect, defining, in a one-to-one way, what a term *is* (hence identity relationship). But if I say The United States is George Washington, Old Glory, motherhood and apple pie I am saying something else entirely. This is clearly not an identity relationship. It is known as a predicate relationship, something that's hard to show in English, but fairly easy to show in NT Greek (by means of an anarthous proper noun, for those who care). What ...and the Word was God is, is a predicate relationship. It is saying that whatever God was, that, too, was the Word. Trinitarians take this and say that that whatever is a universal which has independent existence. They believe that even though this is not found in John's writing, which predate this philosophical view, that trinitarianism is a later but entirely legitimate clarification of how to resolve the dilemma of monotheism but three Gods. We LDS are actually closer to this view than many might think. The difference is that we reject Middle Platonism, and would say that the universal is an abstract concept only. It's as if there were an office with a brass nameplate on it reading God, which has three persons in it. Does that help, or just muddy the waters more? Chet wrote: Stacy Smith wrote: I think that as a former Protestant I understood much about trinitarian theology and understood what it meant. I had very few vague ideas about the subject. Could you explain it to me, then? In all my years in Southern Baptist, and in all my wife's years in various Protestant churches, neither of us thought it made sense. I thought it sounded like an accident with Scotty's transporter. (Aye, Cap'n -- we've accidently merged two life forms again.) *jeep! --Chet Start by doing what's
Re: [ZION] heck ain't cussin
The problem is there's a trap for the innocent here. I know what you mean, and would agree with it. The problem is that Platonists would ascribe an *independent* existence to a characteristic. Kind of like turning an adjective into a noun. So God became an abstract and separate existence an und für sich (in and of itself, existentially speaking), which laid the ground for later apostate notions such as the God without body, parts or passions. George Cobabe wrote: Marc - would it be true to say that we LDS believe in a universal definition of Godhood, and what is entailed in that high station, and see infinite manifestations of that universal concept? What is God is a universal constant that many, many are exalted to conform with? If this is true - then does the false notion of trinitarianism have a basis in truth, but then it is corrupted in its application? There is another notion found amongst some of the earliest, Greek-speaking Church Fathers (Augustine readily admitted his ignorance of NT Greek, and the latinization influence he had on early Church doctrine was key in the apostasy, imo), called theosis, a version of which is still found in the Orthodox Church today. The Roman Church has lost even the modern eastern notion, which is usually called apotheosis (I think -- I'm going to have to look that up if anyone calls me on it). But first theosis -- that simply means becoming God. It's the LDS concept of exaltation and people like Eusebius used it. However, so did Arius, who was on the losing side of a debate about the nature of the trinity at Nicaea in the early 4th century, so the baby got thrown out with the bathwater. But the eastern church kept a version of the Arian heresy which meant to get admitted into God's presence and sharing in his glory. So godhood exists, and one could say theosis (or in Mormonese, exaltation) is the process of attaining that status, but we wouldn't assign an an und für sich, or universal existence to it. That turns it into a thing which we would reject. This is a very fine distinction, and I'm not sure I'm explaining it very well. It's easy to get bogged down in philosophical niceties here. George -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] heck ain't cussin
I find that to understand an apostate doctrine, at least in my limited manner, it is almost always possible to take the doctrine and see the truth from which it sprang (is sprang a word?). There are, I suspect, very few original doctrines in other religions, just variations and corruptions of the true doctrine. If only we could go back to the origins of each belief. Plato, et al, had to have some basis for their beliefs and I would suspect those beliefs could, if we had the right sources and tools, be traced back to original truth. The same would be true for any systems of beliefs. The trap, as you suggest, is that people interpret this phenomena as developing concepts of God and other claptrap like that. Adam had a complete understanding of the doctrine as did Abraham, Melchizedek, et al. In fact, it is the deterioration of the truth that we view as the changes in the way people interpret God and the doctrine as a whole. It is all going downhill except as we see restorations and the input from Prophets. It is a point not very many people see. George - Original Message - From: Marc A. Schindler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 3:32 PM Subject: Re: [ZION] heck ain't cussin The problem is there's a trap for the innocent here. I know what you mean, and would agree with it. The problem is that Platonists would ascribe an *independent* existence to a characteristic. Kind of like turning an adjective into a noun. So God became an abstract and separate existence an und für sich (in and of itself, existentially speaking), which laid the ground for later apostate notions such as the God without body, parts or passions. George Cobabe wrote: Marc - would it be true to say that we LDS believe in a universal definition of Godhood, and what is entailed in that high station, and see infinite manifestations of that universal concept? What is God is a universal constant that many, many are exalted to conform with? If this is true - then does the false notion of trinitarianism have a basis in truth, but then it is corrupted in its application? There is another notion found amongst some of the earliest, Greek-speaking Church Fathers (Augustine readily admitted his ignorance of NT Greek, and the latinization influence he had on early Church doctrine was key in the apostasy, imo), called theosis, a version of which is still found in the Orthodox Church today. The Roman Church has lost even the modern eastern notion, which is usually called apotheosis (I think -- I'm going to have to look that up if anyone calls me on it). But first theosis -- that simply means becoming God. It's the LDS concept of exaltation and people like Eusebius used it. However, so did Arius, who was on the losing side of a debate about the nature of the trinity at Nicaea in the early 4th century, so the baby got thrown out with the bathwater. But the eastern church kept a version of the Arian heresy which meant to get admitted into God's presence and sharing in his glory. So godhood exists, and one could say theosis (or in Mormonese, exaltation) is the process of attaining that status, but we wouldn't assign an an und für sich, or universal existence to it. That turns it into a thing which we would reject. This is a very fine distinction, and I'm not sure I'm explaining it very well. It's easy to get bogged down in philosophical niceties here. George -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on - Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author's employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] heck ain't cussin
Jon Spencer wrote: I watched a very learned Lutheran schoolar explain this entire subject (the Trinity) on TV once, and I felt inclined to write to the school that gave him his doctor of divinity degree and advise them to retract it. It was pure, illogical gibberish, with many hidden (and unproven) assumptions. As someone who grew up as a Presby and listenned to all that I could to try to understand the mainstream Christian faith, I can attest to the inability of anyone I encountered to adequately explain this mythology or provide any consistent scriptural basis for it. I have searched for a book which intelligently explains it to no avail. I have found, however, a book which traces the source of this concept to of all people our old a2+b2=c2 friend, Pythagoras. The book is called How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God by Richard R. Hopkins, and published by Horizon. I would add a hearty amen to your recommendation of this book. I've just dabbled in it here and there when I needed a reference for something, so far, but I do intend to read it from cover to cover. I believe that it was out of print for a time (Horizon is a rather small LDS publisher, and I think they just ran out of stock) but I believe that it is available again. It's not on our store's website, but I'll check into it if anyone is interested. People in my ward have borrowed the book from me and want their own copy. Jon -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] heck ain't cussin
George Cobabe favored us with: Marc - would it be true to say that we LDS believe in a universal definition of Godhood, and what is entailed in that high station, and see infinite manifestations of that universal concept? What is God is a universal constant that many, many are exalted to conform with? Would it be possible for you to rephrase this more simply? I am afraid it is above my reading level, and I don't understand. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] heck ain't cussin
I watched a very learned Lutheran schoolar explain this entire subject (the Trinity) on TV once, and I felt inclined to write to the school that gave him his doctor of divinity degree and advise them to retract it. It was pure, illogical gibberish, with many hidden (and unproven) assumptions. As someone who grew up as a Presby and listenned to all that I could to try to understand the mainstream Christian faith, I can attest to the inability of anyone I encountered to adequately explain this mythology or provide any consistent scriptural basis for it. I have searched for a book which intelligently explains it to no avail. I have found, however, a book which traces the source of this concept to of all people our old a2+b2=c2 friend, Pythagoras. The book is called How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God by Richard R. Hopkins, and published by Horizon. I believe that it was out of print for a time (Horizon is a rather small LDS publisher, and I think they just ran out of stock) but I believe that it is available again. It's not on our store's website, but I'll check into it if anyone is interested. People in my ward have borrowed the book from me and want their own copy. Jon Chet chipped in with: Stacy Smith wrote: I think that as a former Protestant I understood much about trinitarian theology and understood what it meant. I had very few vague ideas about the subject. Could you explain it to me, then? In all my years in Southern Baptist, and in all my wife's years in various Protestant churches, neither of us thought it made sense. I thought it sounded like an accident with Scotty's transporter. (Aye, Cap'n -- we've accidently merged two life forms again.) // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] heck ain't cussin
At 10:58 12/13/2002 -0500, St Jon wrote: I watched a very learned Lutheran schoolar explain this entire subject (the Trinity) on TV once, and I felt inclined to write to the school that gave him his doctor of divinity degree and advise them to retract it. It was pure, illogical gibberish, with many hidden (and unproven) assumptions. To me it is a mass of confusion. Till the ever helpful // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] heck ain't cussin
Stacy Smith wrote: The way I understood the entire thing is that it would be like splitting water into its various forms but with each being capable of reacting separately, something water can't do. Stacy. So basic'ly, we're back at the malfunctioning transporter again. (See the Captain-Kirk-gets-split-in-two episode.) Rats. That leaves us with God being all beside Himself and Jesus in the garden, asking himself to take his own cup away from himself. It's no wonder that I was told that I wasn't supposed to think about spiritual matters, leave that to the preachers. At 03:46 PM 12/12/2002 +, you wrote: Stacy Smith wrote: I think that as a former Protestant I understood much about trinitarian theology and understood what it meant. I had very few vague ideas about the subject. Could you explain it to me, then? In all my years in Southern Baptist, and in all my wife's years in various Protestant churches, neither of us thought it made sense. I thought it sounded like an accident with Scotty's transporter. (Aye, Cap'n -- we've accidently merged two life forms again.) *jeep! --Chet Start by doing what's necessary, then what's possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/25/2002 *jeep! --Chet Start by doing what's necessary, then what's possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] heck ain't cussin
Stacy Smith wrote: I think that as a former Protestant I understood much about trinitarian theology and understood what it meant. I had very few vague ideas about the subject. Could you explain it to me, then? In all my years in Southern Baptist, and in all my wife's years in various Protestant churches, neither of us thought it made sense. I thought it sounded like an accident with Scotty's transporter. (Aye, Cap'n -- we've accidently merged two life forms again.) *jeep! --Chet Start by doing what's necessary, then what's possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] heck ain't cussin
The way I understood the entire thing is that it would be like splitting water into its various forms but with each being capable of reacting separately, something water can't do. Stacy. At 03:46 PM 12/12/2002 +, you wrote: Stacy Smith wrote: I think that as a former Protestant I understood much about trinitarian theology and understood what it meant. I had very few vague ideas about the subject. Could you explain it to me, then? In all my years in Southern Baptist, and in all my wife's years in various Protestant churches, neither of us thought it made sense. I thought it sounded like an accident with Scotty's transporter. (Aye, Cap'n -- we've accidently merged two life forms again.) *jeep! --Chet Start by doing what's necessary, then what's possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/25/2002 // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] heck ain't cussin
Most people don't understand well the doctrines of their church. That includes LDS members, though the active ones probably understand our basic tenets better than those of other churches. Most Trinitarians do not understand the Trinity well (most believe in modalism, a few even believe in the Godhead of separate beings). Most people float around looking for a church that fits their social and cultural strata, not their spiritual understanding. Of course that doesn't apply to us, as once you buy your house, you are pretty much stuck with one ward. For many who enjoy family here, but are looking forward to playing harps and singing in choirs in the next life, I think they will be totally happy in the Terrestrial Kingdom. It will be far greater than anything they can imagine a heaven being. Will they miss their families? Perhaps. Or maybe they'll be happy seeing others in the same kingdom as friends, brothers and sisters. If progression between kingdoms ends up being a possibility, perhaps it becomes an incentive for those who desire to grow to eventually become celestialized. I dunno. I think that it may be possible, just that it would take them worlds without end (DC 131) to achieve it, meanwhile those already in the kingdom would have advanced in kingdoms and dominions and glory far beyond what any Terrestrial person could ever imagine. K'aya K'ama, Gerald/gary Smithgszion1 @juno.comhttp://www .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe chet: What's especially ironic is that - despite what their churches' doctrines are - almost every member of those churches believe that their marriages (current or otherwise) are meant to last forever. Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
