CCCYou and Katzpur in a Compare and Contrast Discussion on our Beliefs (crucifixion, Gospel)

[CCCyou]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

//snip//I suggested to CCCYou that we start by having a discussion on the nature of God. That would include our ideas on who or what God is, the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (I'll refer to Him as the Holy Ghost), and on His/Their relationship to us. I have asked CCCYou to begin by sharing his thoughts.

Hi Katzpur (& all),
sorry for a late start - it's been a busy day. Here we go:


Being neither a theologian, a scholar, nor even a practiced presenter I'll begin by simply sharing who God is to me:

God is Love.
God is Spirit.
God does not change.
God is personal.
God is Family.

I believe that the Holy Spirit is God, Love in action; God's gift of Love to us; giving Himself to us, and all the other gifts emanate from this supreme gift, as from their source.

I believe God makes himself personally known through His son, Jesus Christ, and that Christ makes himself known through others who Love him and do as He says, with all called to do the same.
And that Jesus Christ is One with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one divine nature, yet three distinct persons. And that we are called to be one with Him, as He is one with the Father and the Spirit.
I believe we can know about God thru nature, His Son Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit, His prophets (scripture), the Saints Alive who are One with Him, thru others, and sometimes thru private revelation.

I believe the recognition, reception, and infusion of God's Love flowing to us enables both a growth of capacity to be filled by more,
and a natural response in reaction to this freely given Love is awe, wonder, joy, amazement, and even praise (this response summarized as 'worship', though that word seems to offend some people).

I believe that God gives us a conscience, that when properly formed, equips the individual to make proper moral judgements.

I believe that we are charged with reflecting God's Love by loving our neighbor(s) (as 'family' even), and seeking forgiveness and making amends when we don't.

I believe that there are multiple ways the we can come to intimately know Jesus Christ, including by willfully accepting innocent suffering and offering it up as a sacrifice for unity with Jesus, 'staying awake just 1 hour with Him in His agony in the garden, when neither of the disciples did', leaving an opening for us.

I believe that God is outside of time/space (those are dimensions of His Creation, which He is not constricted by).

I believe that God, as our Father, gives us everything we need, such that we can fulfill His will and plan for us; and that includes 'capacity to act on our own' in cooperation with His plan, to fulfill it.



This is not all inclusive, of course, just a start to get the discussion rolling.

[Katzpur]

Thanks so much CCCyou. As you can see, I've been taking quite a bit of flak from those among us who can't imagine that two people from different religious backgrounds could possibly just want to learn about one another's beliefs, find commonality where it exists, and not have any hidden agendas. I'm excited to be able to prove them wrong. I also appreciate the encouragement from the few individuals who "get it." As I said before, no rules prohibit anyone from posting on this thread, but if it's okay with you, I'd like us to only respond to comments from each other. That will enable us to have the discussion we talked about having. I'm going to respond to each of your paragraphs first, and then go on to elaborate on my beliefs.

Originally Posted by CCCyou

Hi Katzpur (& all),
sorry for a late start - it's been a busy day. Here we go:


Being neither a theologian, a scholar, nor even a practiced presenter I'll begin by simply sharing who God is to me:

God is Love.
God is Spirit.
God does not change.
God is personal.
God is Family.

No problem with the delay. I'm not a theologian or scholar either, and I'm a practiced presenter only to the extent that I've been hanging out on forums like this one for about fifteen years now. I believe that God is, first and foremost, our Father in Heaven. I see Him as being the literal Father of our spirits, and us being His spirit offspring (aka His sons and his daughters). A lot of Christians see themselves as His sons and daughters, but believe this to be a relationship that stems from His having adopted us into His family. In other words, they do not believe all human beings are His children. I believe (and Mormonism teaches) that every human being who has ever existed is a spirit brother or sister to every other human being who has ever existed. To me, this means that Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and even atheists () are our spirit siblings and His children. I see Him as wanting very, very much for each of us to be fit to return to His presence someday. So, in line with what you have said, I can agree with all five of your statements.

I do believe, however, that there is a caveat to one of these statements and that is that God is spirit. I know this is one point of doctrine that we will likely never agree on, so I'll just explain my belief and let it go at that. We Mormons do believe that God is spirit, but we interpret that a little differently than traditional Christians do. In the New Testament (at least in the KJV, which is what I use), the Greek word, "pneuma" is sometimes translated as "spirit" and at other times as "life." We believe that "God is spirit" essentially means that God is life, or the breath that is the source of all other life. We believe that each of us is comprised of both body and spirit, and that God is comprised of both body and spirit. We see His body, however, unlike ours, as being a glorified, celestial, immortal body. In other words, He can never age or be bothered by the injuries and illnesses that we as mortal beings have. We take literally the statement in the Bible that we are created in His image, and that, as His children, we each are born containing a spark of divinity within us.

I believe that the Holy Spirit is God, Love in action; God's gift of Love to us; giving Himself to us, and all the other gifts emanate from this supreme gift, as from their source.

I see the Holy Ghost (same thing, just Mormon nomenclature) as being the third personage in the Godhead. To us, He is the Comforter, the Revelator and in general, the means by which the Father communicates to mankind. We do not believe that He has a physical body -- hence, His title, "the Holy Ghost" or "Holy Spirit." While we believe that God physically resides in Heaven, His power and influence can be felt everywhere at once, specifically because of the Holy Ghost.

I believe God makes himself personally known through His son, Jesus Christ, and that Christ makes himself known through others who Love him and do as He says, with all called to do the same.
And that Jesus Christ is One with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one divine nature, yet three distinct persons. And that we are called to be one with Him, as He is one with the Father and the Spirit.
I believe we can know about God thru nature, His Son Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit, His prophets (scripture), the Saints Alive who are One with Him, thru others, and sometimes thru private revelation.

I can't disagree with any of that, at least not to any significant degree. I would have to say that I believe that we can know God through not just the writings of the ancient prophets, but through a prophet who lives today and stands at the helm of the church I believe to be "His Church." Obviously, this will be another point of doctrine we will disagree on, but it raises a question that I suppose could wait, but which I'll go ahead and ask now: When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, do Catholics believe God has spoken to him in some way and instructed him to speak to the Church on His (i.e., God's) behalf? Do Catholics believe the Pope is, in fact, speaking on behalf of God when He speaks ex cathedra?

Also I found it really interesting that you believe God sometimes speaks to us through personal revelation. Mormons also believe this, and it's a very, very significant doctrine to us.

I believe the recognition, reception, and infusion of God's Love flowing to us enables both a growth of capacity to be filled by more,
and a natural response in reaction to this freely given Love is awe, wonder, joy, amazement, and even praise (this response summarized as 'worship', though that word seems to offend some people).

I believe that God gives us a conscience, that when properly formed, equips the individual to make proper moral judgements.

I agree, and I've got to admit that I'm baffled as to why the idea of "worship" is so offensive to some people. With respect to our conscience, I believe that the conscience is kind of the world's way of saying "the light of Christ." I believe that literally every person is born with it, even those who do their darndest to extinguish it. It's the means by which we know, even without ever being taught, that certain behaviors are simply wrong. This isn't instinct and not learned behavior either. It's just an inborn sense of right and wrong, and as soon as a child is sufficiently mature to understand the difference between right and wrong, their conscience (or the light of Christ that exists in even non-believers from birth) steps in and cautions them to think twice before taking certain actions.

I believe that we are charged with reflecting God's Love by loving our neighbor(s) (as 'family' even), and seeking forgiveness and making amends when we don't.

I believe that there are multiple ways the we can come to intimately know Jesus Christ, including by willfully accepting innocent suffering and offering it up as a sacrifice for unity with Jesus, 'staying awake just 1 hour with Him in His agony in the garden, when neither of the disciples did', leaving an opening for us.

I'm with you 100% on this.

I believe that God is outside of time/space (those are dimensions of His Creation, which He is not constricted by).

I believe that God, as our Father, gives us everything we need, such that we can fulfill His will and plan for us; and that includes 'capacity to act on our own' in cooperation with His plan, to fulfill it.

What do you believe His plan for us actually is?

This is not all inclusive, of course, just a start to get the discussion rolling.

Great start! Thank you.

I'm just going to elaborate a bit on the three personages that we (Mormons) believe constitute the Godhead. Our first "Article of Faith" (the closest thing in Mormonism to a creed) states: "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost." We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. While we believe that God is the Father of the spirits of each and every person who has ever lived, and that we are all His spirit offspring, Jesus Christ is most definitely in a class by Himself. He was with His Father in the beginning. Under His Father's direction, He created worlds without number. He was chosen to be "the Lamb" prior to the foundation of this world. He sits today on the right hand of His Father. Along with the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son make up the Godhead.

We believe that our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ have a true father-son relationship. The words, "Father" and "Son," in other words, mean exactly what they say. They are not metaphorical or symbolic of a vague metaphysical relationship, in which two beings are some how both part of a single essence. We are each the physical sons and daughters of our mortal parents. Jesus Christ is the literal, physical Son of a divine Father and a mortal Mother. He was conceived in a miraculous way, but like all sons, was in the "express image of His Father's person." That is to say, He looked like Him. Dogs beget puppies, and cats beget kittens. God beget a Son who is the same species as He is. They both have bodies of flesh and bone (although, until His birth in Bethlehem, Jesus Christ was a spirit being only).

The Father and the Son are physically distinct from one another, and yet they are also "one." This doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon as well as in the Bible. We just understand the word "one" to mean something other than physical substance or essence. We believe they are "one in will and purpose, one in mind and heart, and one in power and glory." It would be impossible to explain, or even to understand, the degree of their unity. It is perfect; it is absolute. They think, feel and act as "one God." Because of this perfect unity, and because they share the title of "God," we think of them together in this way. It would be impossible for us to worship one of them without also worshipping the other.

Most Christians also use the words "co-equal" and "co-eternal" to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. We do not. We believe that, as is again the case with all fathers and sons, the Father existed prior to His Son. No son's existence precedes his father's, and Jesus Christ is no exception to this rule. We also believe Christ to be subordinate to His Father. He is divine because of His relationship with His Father. It is, however, important to understand what we mean when we use the word "subordinate." We understand that the Son holds a subordinate position in the relationship; we do not believe Him to be an inferior being. As an example, a colonel holds an inferior position to a general, but is not an inferior being. To most people's way of thinking, an ant, however, is an inferior being to a human.

I would love to hear your comments on these last paragraphs, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on what Catholics mean when they say that the Father and the Son are of a single substance. Mike helped me to some extent to understand what he means when he says this, but the Catholic perspective may be slightly different, even though you are both Trinitarians. I guess I'm mostly confused about how two distinct persons can share one essence and on how the Holy Ghost fits into this theology. If neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost have a physical form, what distinguishes the single essence as being the Father or the Holy Ghost?

Again, many thanks for your willingness to participate in this thread!

[Irkle Berserkle]

What possible usefulness to others could there be to a discussion between an "internet Mormon" (and "Not your average Mormon" at that) and an "internet Catholic"" Such a thread would tell one precisely nothing about Mormonism or Catholicism - only about these two posters' personal understandings of their respective religions.

Probably all that needs to be said is set forth in the Vatican's pronouncement in 2001 that Mormon baptisms, unlike those of virtually all Protestant denominations, will not be accepted as valid by the Catholic Church. Unlike an internet discussion, this is an official Church position.

The Vatican's position on Mormon baptism was explained by Luis Ladaria, SJ, then a professor at Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University and later Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as follows in L'Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aria_en.html):

"There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity."

"The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation. This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization. God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal. God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world."

"Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us. Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity."

"The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix."

"Differences so great" that Mormonism cannot even be considered a Christian heresy. A "completely different matrix." This would seem - from an official Vatican perspective - to render an "internet forum comparison" slightly comical.

[CCCyou]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Thanks so much CCCyou. As you can see, I've been taking quite a bit of flak from those among us who can't imagine that two people from different religious backgrounds could possibly just want to learn about one another's beliefs, find commonality where it exists, and not have any hidden agendas. I'm excited to be able to prove them wrong. I also appreciate the encouragement from the few individuals who "get it." As I said before, no rules prohibit anyone from posting on this thread, but if it's okay with you, I'd like us to only respond to comments from each other. That will enable us to have the discussion we talked about having. I'm going to respond to each of your paragraphs first, and then go on to elaborate on my beliefs.

No problem with the delay. I'm not a theologian or scholar either, and I'm a practiced presenter only to the extent that I've been hanging out on forums like this one for about fifteen years now. I believe that God is, first and foremost, our Father in Heaven. I see Him as being the literal Father of our spirits, and us being His spirit offspring (aka His sons and his daughters). A lot of Christians see themselves as His sons and daughters, but believe this to be a relationship that stems from His having adopted us into His family. In other words, they do not believe all human beings are His children. I believe (and Mormonism teaches) that every human being who has ever existed is a spirit brother or sister to every other human being who has ever existed. To me, this means that Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and even atheists () are our spirit siblings and His children. I see Him as wanting very, very much for each of us to be fit to return to His presence someday. So, in line with what you have said, I can agree with all five of your statements.

I do believe, however, that there is a caveat to one of these statements and that is that God is spirit. I know this is one point of doctrine that we will likely never agree on, so I'll just explain my belief and let it go at that. We Mormons do believe that God is spirit, but we interpret that a little differently than traditional Christians do. In the New Testament (at least in the KJV, which is what I use), the Greek word, "pneuma" is sometimes translated as "spirit" and at other times as "life." We believe that "God is spirit" essentially means that God is life, or the breath that is the source of all other life. We believe that each of us is comprised of both body and spirit, and that God is comprised of both body and spirit. We see His body, however, unlike ours, as being a glorified, celestial, immortal body. In other words, He can never age or be bothered by the injuries and illnesses that we as mortal beings have. We take literally the statement in the Bible that we are created in His image, and that, as His children, we each are born containing a spark of divinity within us.

I see the Holy Ghost (same thing, just Mormon nomenclature) as being the third personage in the Godhead. To us, He is the Comforter, the Revelator and in general, the means by which the Father communicates to mankind. We do not believe that He has a physical body -- hence, His title, "the Holy Ghost" or "Holy Spirit." While we believe that God physically resides in Heaven, His power and influence can be felt everywhere at once, specifically because of the Holy Ghost.

I can't disagree with any of that, at least not to any significant degree. I would have to say that I believe that we can know God through not just the writings of the ancient prophets, but through a prophet who lives today and stands at the helm of the church I believe to be "His Church." Obviously, this will be another point of doctrine we will disagree on, but it raises a question that I suppose could wait, but which I'll go ahead and ask now: When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, do Catholics believe God has spoken to him in some way and instructed him to speak to the Church on His (i.e., God's) behalf? Do Catholics believe the Pope is, in fact, speaking on behalf of God when He speaks ex cathedra?

Also I found it really interesting that you believe God sometimes speaks to us through personal revelation. Mormons also believe this, and it's a very, very significant doctrine to us.

I agree, and I've got to admit that I'm baffled as to why the idea of "worship" is so offensive to some people. With respect to our conscience, I believe that the conscience is kind of the world's way of saying "the light of Christ." I believe that literally every person is born with it, even those who do their darndest to extinguish it. It's the means by which we know, even without ever being taught, that certain behaviors are simply wrong. This isn't instinct and not learned behavior either. It's just an inborn sense of right and wrong, and as soon as a child is sufficiently mature to understand the difference between right and wrong, their conscience (or the light of Christ that exists in even non-believers from birth) steps in and cautions them to think twice before taking certain actions.

I'm with you 100% on this.

What do you believe His plan for us actually is?

Great start! Thank you.

I'm just going to elaborate a bit on the three personages that we (Mormons) believe constitute the Godhead. Our first "Article of Faith" (the closest thing in Mormonism to a creed) states: "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost." We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. While we believe that God is the Father of the spirits of each and every person who has ever lived, and that we are all His spirit offspring, Jesus Christ is most definitely in a class by Himself. He was with His Father in the beginning. Under His Father's direction, He created worlds without number. He was chosen to be "the Lamb" prior to the foundation of this world. He sits today on the right hand of His Father. Along with the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son make up the Godhead.

We believe that our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ have a true father-son relationship. The words, "Father" and "Son," in other words, mean exactly what they say. They are not metaphorical or symbolic of a vague metaphysical relationship, in which two beings are some how both part of a single essence. We are each the physical sons and daughters of our mortal parents. Jesus Christ is the literal, physical Son of a divine Father and a mortal Mother. He was conceived in a miraculous way, but like all sons, was in the "express image of His Father's person." That is to say, He looked like Him. Dogs beget puppies, and cats beget kittens. God beget a Son who is the same species as He is. They both have bodies of flesh and bone (although, until His birth in Bethlehem, Jesus Christ was a spirit being only).

The Father and the Son are physically distinct from one another, and yet they are also "one." This doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon as well as in the Bible. We just understand the word "one" to mean something other than physical substance or essence. We believe they are "one in will and purpose, one in mind and heart, and one in power and glory." It would be impossible to explain, or even to understand, the degree of their unity. It is perfect; it is absolute. They think, feel and act as "one God." Because of this perfect unity, and because they share the title of "God," we think of them together in this way. It would be impossible for us to worship one of them without also worshipping the other.

Most Christians also use the words "co-equal" and "co-eternal" to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. We do not. We believe that, as is again the case with all fathers and sons, the Father existed prior to His Son. No son's existence precedes his father's, and Jesus Christ is no exception to this rule. We also believe Christ to be subordinate to His Father. He is divine because of His relationship with His Father. It is, however, important to understand what we mean when we use the word "subordinate." We understand that the Son holds a subordinate position in the relationship; we do not believe Him to be an inferior being. As an example, a colonel holds an inferior position to a general, but is not an inferior being. To most people's way of thinking, an ant, however, is an inferior being to a human.

I would love to hear your comments on these last paragraphs, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on what Catholics mean when they say that the Father and the Son are of a single substance. Mike helped me to some extent to understand what he means when he says this, but the Catholic perspective may be slightly different, even though you are both Trinitarians. I guess I'm mostly confused about how two distinct persons can share one essence and on how the Holy Ghost fits into this theology. If neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost have a physical form, what distinguishes the single essence as being the Father or the Holy Ghost?

Again, many thanks for your willingness to participate in this thread!

I probably should have written 'God is Spirit and Life' - I think I was too concise.
Though perspective different, I too see God plays a role in creation/life-giving/spirit-giving of each and every person. Question for you: at what point does Mormonism teach that the God-given 'spark of divinity' is imparted to the incarnate personage - at birth? Catholicism teaches 'at conception'.

His plan for us?
As early as I can remember as a kid, I noticed that 'I wasn't born into a paradise'; To me it seems that through a fall or separation (Adam/ancestors) that God now allows us to play a role in our return to His presence, affording all the opportunity to attain even to heroic virtue (following Christ's example) in the process.

'conceived in a miraculous way'
In Luke where Gabriel said 'you will conceive' , Do you/Mormonism believe that this was one of Mary's eggs that the Father/Spirit fertilized? That one of Mary's eggs became a portion of the incarnate Jesus?
Do Mormons afford any special regard for Mary?


on the pope:
My perspective is that the pope fulfills a few roles, including steward, shepherd, & teacher.
The pope can change/define rules, or procedures, but he cannot change longstanding moral principles as formulated by Christ himself. Nor can a pope unilaterally invalidate ex-cathedra teaching of any of his predecessors! Any teaching from Church leadership cannot contradict scripture, Gods Word, nor natural law. Sometimes a matter may be re-interpreted in light of new revelation, which can even include scientific discovery (natural law).

Originally Posted by ;

"By His providence, the Holy Spirit sees to it that when the whole body of bishops together, or the pope himself, teaches a point of faith or morals as binding on the whole Church, what they teach is true."
Not a brand new truth, but a reiteration, clarification, or application of what was revealed in Christ.

"The pope teaches ex cathedra 'when serving in the capacity of pastor and Doctor (shepherd and teacher) of all the faithful, he defines a doctrine with regard to faith and morals that must be held by the whole Church.'
Four conditions are required:
1) The Pope must be functioning as Pastor and supreme Doctor. It is not his teaching as a private or particular Doctor that is in question.
2) He must be dealing with matters of faith or morals, and it is only the proposed doctrine - not the adjoining considerations - the 'obiter dicta' that is guaranteed by infallibility.
3) He must intend to define; his teaching must be given with authority and with the intent that it be believed by the entire Church.
4) He must manifest his intention to bind all Catholics."

I'll have to touch on the remaining parts, & 'Trinity', tomorrow.

[CCCyou]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

///////
I'm just going to elaborate a bit on the three personages that we (Mormons) believe constitute the Godhead. Our first "Article of Faith" (the closest thing in Mormonism to a creed) states: "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost." We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. While we believe that God is the Father of the spirits of each and every person who has ever lived, and that we are all His spirit offspring, Jesus Christ is most definitely in a class by Himself. He was with His Father in the beginning. Under His Father's direction, He created worlds without number. He was chosen to be "the Lamb" prior to the foundation of this world. He sits today on the right hand of His Father. Along with the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son make up the Godhead.

We believe that our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ have a true father-son relationship. The words, "Father" and "Son," in other words, mean exactly what they say. They are not metaphorical or symbolic of a vague metaphysical relationship, in which two beings are some how both part of a single essence. We are each the physical sons and daughters of our mortal parents. Jesus Christ is the literal, physical Son of a divine Father and a mortal Mother. He was conceived in a miraculous way, but like all sons, was in the "express image of His Father's person." That is to say, He looked like Him. Dogs beget puppies, and cats beget kittens. God beget a Son who is the same species as He is. They both have bodies of flesh and bone (although, until His birth in Bethlehem, Jesus Christ was a spirit being only).

The Father and the Son are physically distinct from one another, and yet they are also "one." This doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon as well as in the Bible. We just understand the word "one" to mean something other than physical substance or essence. We believe they are "one in will and purpose, one in mind and heart, and one in power and glory." It would be impossible to explain, or even to understand, the degree of their unity. It is perfect; it is absolute. They think, feel and act as "one God." Because of this perfect unity, and because they share the title of "God," we think of them together in this way. It would be impossible for us to worship one of them without also worshipping the other.

Most Christians also use the words "co-equal" and "co-eternal" to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. We do not. We believe that, as is again the case with all fathers and sons, the Father existed prior to His Son. No son's existence precedes his father's, and Jesus Christ is no exception to this rule. We also believe Christ to be subordinate to His Father. He is divine because of His relationship with His Father. It is, however, important to understand what we mean when we use the word "subordinate." We understand that the Son holds a subordinate position in the relationship; we do not believe Him to be an inferior being. As an example, a colonel holds an inferior position to a general, but is not an inferior being. To most people's way of thinking, an ant, however, is an inferior being to a human.

I would love to hear your comments on these last paragraphs, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on what Catholics mean when they say that the Father and the Son are of a single substance. Mike helped me to some extent to understand what he means when he says this, but the Catholic perspective may be slightly different, even though you are both Trinitarians. I guess I'm mostly confused about how two distinct persons can share one essence and on how the Holy Ghost fits into this theology. If neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost have a physical form, what distinguishes the single essence as being the Father or the Holy Ghost?

////

I'll start by quoting here a simplified standard Catholic definition:

What we mean when we say that God is a Trinity is that there is one divine nature, one divine substance. A “substance” or “nature” is what something is.
God, as a Trinity, exists in three Persons. A person is “who” someone is. In our experience, one human person each possesses one human nature.
A husband and wife, no matter how closely united, are still two separate beings.
In God, however, three Persons possess the same divine nature.
If you were to ask each Person in the Trinity, “Who are you?” each person would answer something differently: “I am the Father;” “I am the Son;” “I am the Holy Spirit.”
If you were to ask each Person, “Who are you?” you would get the same answer from each Person: “I am God.” Not, “I am a God,” as a human would say, “I am a human.” Rather, each divine Person, while not identical to the other divine Persons, is one in being with the other two divine Persons and is fully God.
The word we use to describe this in the Nicene Creed is consubstantial.

The family is a great analogy for the Trinity. The family is united in love, and the three Persons of the Trinity live in a relationship of love with one another.
A pregnant mother contains another person within her, which is similar to how the Divine Persons cannot be separated from each other.
The Holy Spirit is sometimes defined as the love between the Father and the Son, and when a husband and wife express their marital love, sometimes a new human person results.
We even use the familial terms Father and Son to describe two Persons of the Trinity.
However, this analogy also has its limits.

Obviously, a human family of three persons contains three separate human natures, not one.
Furthermore, the human child begins to exist after his or her parents exist, whereas the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coeternal (meaning that each Person of the Trinity never began to exist and will never stop existing: God always exists, without beginning or end). We might say that this analogy emphasizes the three-ness of God at the expense of God’s oneness.

-fair-use quote from: https://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/the-trinity/

But for me, diving deeper into the mystery of who God is - 'God is Love' - provides a better understanding: God is not just Love, but Perfect Love:

Richard of St. Victor suggests that if the loving relationship were between just the Father and Son, two persons, that Love could not be 'Perfect' because that Love is not an act of complete self-giving.
In other words, the Love of the Father to the Son can not be returned in kind by the Son to the Father.
If this dual, two-way nature of love were true, the Father would be ‘getting something in return’ and this violates the idea of perfect self-giving Love!
The only solution to this logical dilemma is for the Father to will (for the good of the Son) that the Son have a loving relationship with another.
This of course requires a third person, that we refer to as the Holy Spirit.


-fair-use quote from: http://simplecatholictruth.com/2017/...equires-three/

Also, to be 'Perfect Love' would necessitate that each of the three be equal, as well as eternal, since 'God never changes'.


For me, I can see even an ideal marriage spiritually as a model that resonates and reflects this image of the 'Perfect Love' of God:
A man, who is One with God, unites with a woman, who is One with God; the three become as One;
-the man giving wholly of himself in love to the woman, expecting nothing in return from her so as to be perfect love;
-the woman giving wholly of herself in love to the man, expecting nothing in return from him so as to be perfect love;
-God, willing that the man love another (the woman), and wiling the woman to love another (the man), floods them both with His Love, expecting nothing in return.
-And of course, both the man and the woman loving God, expecting nothing in return, and willing that the other love another (God) .
Perfect Love.

I see this as kinda coming full circle to the 'what's Gods plan for us' and 'what does it mean to be One with Jesus/God' - it's all tied together, in Perfect Love.

[Jerwade]

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

What possible usefulness to others could there be to a discussion between an "internet Mormon" (and "Not your average Mormon" at that) and an "internet Catholic." Such a thread would tell one precisely nothing about Mormonism or Catholicism - only about these two posters' personal understandings of their respective religions.

Probably all that needs to be said is set forth in the Vatican's pronouncement in 2001 that Mormon baptisms, unlike those of virtually all Protestant denominations, will not be accepted as valid by the Catholic Church. Unlike an internet discussion, this is an official Church position.

Diversity is what makes each of us unique and includes our backgrounds, personalities, life experiences and our particular beliefs, all of the things that make us who we are as a person. It is the combination of our differences that shape our view of the world, our perspective and our approach to life. It's the best teacher we could have, and there is nothing wrong with understanding another person perspective.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Jerwade

Diversity is what makes each of us unique and includes our backgrounds, personalities, life experiences and our particular beliefs, all of the things that make us who we are as a person. It is the combination of our differences that shape our view of the world, our perspective and our approach to life. It's the best teacher we could have, and there is nothing wrong with understanding another person perspective.

We are all looking at the same Reality so there is merit in everyone's perspective.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by CCCyou

I probably should have written 'God is Spirit and Life' - I think I was too concise.
Though perspective different, I too see God plays a role in creation/life-giving/spirit-giving of each and every person. Question for you: at what point does Mormonism teach that the God-given 'spark of divinity' is imparted to the incarnate personage - at birth? Catholicism teaches 'at conception'.

I checked and double-checked and managed to determine only what I suspected all along -- that the LDS Church has no official position as to when the spirit enters the body, whether it is at conception, "quickening," or birth.

His plan for us?
As early as I can remember as a kid, I noticed that 'I wasn't born into a paradise'; To me it seems that through a fall or separation (Adam/ancestors) that God now allows us to play a role in our return to His presence, affording all the opportunity to attain even to heroic virtue (following Christ's example) in the process.

I love how you say that we have "a role in our return to His presence." We agree 100% on that.

'conceived in a miraculous way'
In Luke where Gabriel said 'you will conceive' , Do you/Mormonism believe that this was one of Mary's eggs that the Father/Spirit fertilized? That one of Mary's eggs became a portion of the incarnate Jesus?
Do Mormons afford any special regard for Mary?

This is a difficult question, in part because the scriptures really aren't at all clear as to what exactly took place at the Jesus' conception, and in part because there has never been anything more revealed to latter-day prophets on the matter. We do believe that Jesus was quite literally God's "Only Begotten Son." In other words, His relationship to His Father was as real as your relationship to your father. We also believe that Mary was literally Jesus' mother, even though though she was a virgin both at her Son's conception and at His birth. We know from the scriptures that the Holy Ghost, too, was present at Jesus' conception, but beyond that, we really no nothing. Of course, people can speculate to their heart's content but that doesn't really change the facts. With respect to our views on Mary, we believe she was the most blessed women to have ever lived, and must have been chosen for her righteousness and humility. We do not, however, honor her to the extent that Catholics do.

on the pope:
My perspective is that the pope fulfills a few roles, including steward, shepherd, & teacher.
The pope can change/define rules, or procedures, but he cannot change longstanding moral principles as formulated by Christ himself. Nor can a pope unilaterally invalidate ex-cathedra teaching of any of his predecessors! Any teaching from Church leadership cannot contradict scripture, Gods Word, nor natural law. Sometimes a matter may be re-interpreted in light of new revelation, which can even include scientific discovery (natural law).

That's similar to how we view our Prophet. We make a distinction between "doctrine" (which you describe as longstanding moral principles as formulated by Christ himself) and "policy" (which changes as the times change and there is a need for a revision in the way certain doctrines are understood and approached). Unlike you, though, we do believe that God can reveal new "doctrine" to the Prophet/President of the Church. This is, however, extremely rare. I can't recall it ever having happened in my lifetime, whereas changes to church policies change all the time.

Along the lines of the role and authority of the Catholic Pope and the LDS Prophet, I heard a joke once that I thought was pretty funny: "In Catholicism, the Pope is said to be infallible, but nobody believes it. In Mormonism, the Prophet is said to be fallible, but nobody believes it."

What we mean when we say that God is a Trinity is that there is one divine nature, one divine substance. A “substance” or “nature” is what something is.
God, as a Trinity, exists in three Persons. A person is “who” someone is. In our experience, one human person each possesses one human nature.
A husband and wife, no matter how closely united, are still two separate beings.
In God, however, three Persons possess the same divine nature.
If you were to ask each Person in the Trinity, “Who are you?” each person would answer something differently: “I am the Father;” “I am the Son;” “I am the Holy Spirit.”
If you were to ask each Person, “Who are you?” you would get the same answer from each Person: “I am God.” Not, “I am a God,” as a human would say, “I am a human.” Rather, each divine Person, while not identical to the other divine Persons, is one in being with the other two divine Persons and is fully God.
The word we use to describe this in the Nicene Creed is consubstantial.

Okay, I sort of follow you, but not 100%. I am reminded of when I was about twelve years old and had a little eleven-year-old Catholic girlfriend. Oddly enough, even at that age, we used to enjoy comparing our religious beliefs. She said, "We (i.e., Catholics) believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost." (Or maybe she said "Holy Spirit." Do Catholics use both terms?) I said, "Me too!" She then asked me, "Do you believe they are one or three?" I looked at her like, "Well, duh... can't you count" (I didn't say that, though), and replied, "Uh... three." "Oh," she said. "We believe they are one." The main thing I can remember about that conversation is that it didn't end up in a fight or with either of us telling the other one how stupid (or even wrong) we were.

See, I guess it's that we don't use any of the language found in the Creeds, so I'm not really comfortable talking about God as a "substance" or "essence." If we were to use the word, "nature," I'd be more likely to be able to understand your meaning. Would "nature" (as in divine versus human) be an acceptable way for to put it?

For a Mormon, the way each person of the Godhead would answer the question, "Who are you?" would probably be more specific, as if "I am the Father," "I am the Son," and "I am the Holy Ghost." Any of them could, however, answer, "I am God," and that would be 100% accurate. None of them would say, "I am a God," the way we'd say, "I am a human." We Mormons most often use "God" to refer to God the Father. On the other hand, there are scriptures in the LDS canon in which Jesus Christ is clearly spoken of as "God." Thanks for telling me what "co-substantial" means. I had read that word a hundred times, never understood it and never bothered to look it up. I am wondering if you see God the Son as in any way being subordinate to God the Father? If not, what to you make of Jesus' statement that the Father is greater than He (i.e. Jesus)? We believe that they are equally divine, but that the Son holds a subservient position within the Godhead to His Father, always doing the Father's will, for instance, and never the other way around.

The most frustrating thing to me in trying to explain my beliefs to someone who believes in the Trinity is that Mormons don't believe in three different gods as the ancient Romans and Greeks did. The Greeks and the Romans were clearly polytheistic. Each of their Gods was in charge of something here on earth, whether it be the sky, the sea, agriculture, war, etc. They were constantly at odds with each other and continually trying to undermine each other. They seldom worked towards a common goal. There was no unity between them at all. When a Catholic says, "The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Ghost is God -- and yet there is only one God," everybody goes, "Okay. Sure, you're monotheists." A Mormon would say "The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Ghost is God; each one can individually claim to be God, but they can also claim that despite the distinction between them as individual personages, they are a single Godhead and function as a single God." And then everybody is all up in arms and calling us heathens and polytheists. Would you mind explaining how, in addition to seeing them as "one God," you also see them as three distinct persons.

The family is a great analogy for the Trinity. The family is united in love, and the three Persons of the Trinity live in a relationship of love with one another.
A pregnant mother contains another person within her, which is similar to how the Divine Persons cannot be separated from each other.
The Holy Spirit is sometimes defined as the love between the Father and the Son, and when a husband and wife express their marital love, sometimes a new human person results.
We even use the familial terms Father and Son to describe two Persons of the Trinity.
However, this analogy also has its limits.

Obviously, a human family of three persons contains three separate human natures, not one.
Furthermore, the human child begins to exist after his or her parents exist, whereas the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coeternal (meaning that each Person of the Trinity never began to exist and will never stop existing: God always exists, without beginning or end). We might say that this analogy emphasizes the three-ness of God at the expense of God’s oneness.

I like the analogy. I think its limits exist only in the degree to which a family can be united in love. As human beings, we still need to develop the capacity to be fully "one" with someone else, even though we may have the desire to do so.

One thing I've always wondered about is how fully the Son's will has always conformed to the Father's. We Mormons describe them as being one in "will, purpose, mind and heart" and say that their unity in these things is absolute. But think about when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane and prayed to His Father that the cup be removed. He said, "Nevertheless, not my will but thine be done." To me, that indicates that there was at least one brief period of time when the Son willed one thing to happen and knew that His Father willed something different to happen. This would not have been possible had they not had two separate wills. So for me, they don't have a single will, but two wills that (except for those minutes in Gethsemane) where they were temporarily not in sync.

[CCCyou]

Thanks for all the responses thus far.
Yes, it does seem that there is much in common. I'm convinced that there is even more, but just with different perspectives.

I am wondering if you see God the Son as in any way being subordinate to God the Father? If not, what to you make of Jesus' statement that the Father is greater than He (i.e. Jesus)? We believe that they are equally divine, but that the Son holds a subservient position within the Godhead to His Father, always doing the Father's will, for instance, and never the other way around.

Well, yes; the Son proceeds from the Father - everything that the Father has he communicates to the Son, except 'being Father' (paternity). This is more deeply explained/detaily in the next section/links.

Would you mind explaining how, in addition to seeing them as "one God," you also see them as three distinct persons.

In Catholic theology, this is called 'spiration' - that the Son proceeds (comes from) the Father - and the Holy Spirit likewise from the Father and the Son.
Here is a link to a 1-page that concisely describes this better than I ever could, along with 'scripture support': https://icucourses.com/pages/025-06-...-three-persons

The next 'lesson' on that link (7) details why the first two Persons are called 'Father' and 'Son' - because the Fathers 'generates' the Son, and the scriptures and support thereof.
Lesson (8) covers the Spiration of the Holy Spirit, and support thereof.

One thing I've always wondered about is how fully the Son's will has always conformed to the Father's. We Mormons describe them as being one in "will, purpose, mind and heart" and say that their unity in these things is absolute. But think about when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane and prayed to His Father that the cup be removed. He said, "Nevertheless, not my will but thine be done." To me, that indicates that there was at least one brief period of time when the Son willed one thing to happen and knew that His Father willed something different to happen. This would not have been possible had they not had two separate wills. So for me, they don't have a single will, but two wills that (except for those minutes in Gethsemane) where they were temporarily not in sync.

Yes, this circles back to each being a 'distinct person', yet one divine nature; The Father willed (as father) that the Son (as son) act in His personage.
Clear as mud, right? The above links should make it much more clear - if not just let me know.


Earlier we both mentioned 'private revelation'. I'm curious, is there a web link where I could 'read up' on Joseph Smiths visions, something from an 'authoritative Mormon' source?
There is all kind of stuff on the web but I'd rather review a source without outside bias.

[Katzpur]

Hi there, CCCyou. I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you. I am trying to get ready for a week-long out-of-town trip and just haven't had the time to give you the answers that your questions deserve. I won't be back until the 15th, but will try to answer your questions and comment on your last post as soon after that as I can get a chance. I know we didn't end up with six posts apiece, so if there's anything else you'd like to know about the LDS beliefs concerning God, just ask, and I'll include my answers along with my answers to your last post. Meanwhile, why don't you start trying to decide what our next subject should be.