Why Is There an Upset about Polytheism?

[Larry Cotrell]

I just want to take a second to say that this thread has been successful in helping me (and probably @MaryJehanne as well) to better understand the LDS belief on this, so thank you all for taking the time to explain and articulate your thoughts. Much appreciated! 

There are (at least) two things standing in the way of me fully understanding the LDS belief on this issue:

1) LDS people disagree on some points of belief, just as any faith does, so understanding Person A's belief doesn't necessarily mean that you understand Person B's belief

2) Because we are from different faith backgrounds (LDS, Catholic, Protestant, etc.) most of the "theology" words mean different things from different perspectives. So, often when we think we are talking about the same thing, we really aren't. Learning each other's terminology goes a long way!

[MaryJehanne]

5 hours ago, Fether said:

@MaryJehanne you have created quite a stir in this portion of the internet x)

is it enough for us to say “yes, aspects of religion fit the definition of polytheism quite nicely, but we do not identify as a polytheistic religion. God is our father, Jesus is his son, and the Holy Ghost gives us that testimony.”

Yes. Some parts have been more... hateful than I'm used to getting from this forum. I was kind of getting ready to delete my account. But thankfully some have been kinder.

Thank you!

Edited September 25, 2018 by MaryJehanne

[MaryJehanne]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Except that wasn't what you were doing:

"plurality of gods" is not the same as "polytheism".

Words matter.

😰😰 That's not a thing in Catholicism... plurality of gods means gods, plural, to us. To me, your second line looks like (just to explain my perspective) "kindness is not the same as kindness." We must be working off of some different definitions... So, I'm not sure what you mean...

[MaryJehanne]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

There are many Hindu sects that ONLY believe in ONE GOD.  What you are misunderstanding is the WHY Catholicism is NOT a Monotheistic religion (despite the idea that many WANT to claim it is so).  It is the exact same reason a Catholic labels a Hindu who only believes in the three but one principle of their deity as Polytheistic rather than Monotheistic. 

I'm speaking not as a Mormon in this viewpoint, but from a secular historical viewpoint. 

I understand the Catholic theology and it is a very essential part that though of the same substance that they are also THREE separate and distinct entities. 

There has been a misunderstanding and a push towards the ideas of Sebellius in recent years, in a way that I've referenced as Modalism.  In this, rather than see the trinity as three distinct individuals but also consubstantial, they see it rather as three different faces of aspects of the same being (also another idea straight from some Hindu sects).  Some would see it as part of the push to accommodate the world to try to impress upon it that they are actually Monotheistic in the face where the trinity has been rejected as a Monotheistic idea.  In this, they say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one being.  Instead of saying they are also three distinct entities or beings as well, the claim is that each is simply a different aspect of the same being.  For example, one could say that the same person could be a Father, a Husband, a Boss at work, and a Deacon at church.  These would be different roles that they do, but they are still the same person.

However, Modalism has been rejected by most Traditional Trinitarians (and Catholicism as I understand it) in recent years.  The idea is that the three in one are not just alternate aspects of the same being, but literally three different and individual beings.  They are NOT the same individual.  At the same time, they ARE the same being, coming or being of the same substance, thus being consubstantial.  

Modalist (and others) try to understand the entirety of the Trinity and reject the idea that there are things that are incomprehensible to the modern man.  Thus, instead of accepting that we can comprehend and yet not comprehend, they try to comprehend it all.  Yet, being comprehensible and yet incomprehensible is KEY to the trinity itself.

The parts one can understand is that there is ONE God.  We can comprehend that there is ONE supreme being.  It is upon this facet that many Trinitarians argue that they are in fact, Monotheistic.  However, the second part we can understand makes it so that they, by default cannot be categorized with the other Monotheistic religions of the world.

One can also understand that there is a Father in Heaven who is the Father of all things and created all things.  He has a Son who is separate and unique.  This son died for all of us and if we accept this sacrifice and follow him we can go to heaven.  There is also the Holy Spirit which is able to be with all of us if we let it.  These are three separate things and three separate beings.  They act accordingly as three separate individuals.  They are their own individuals in this understanding.

We can comprehend the above, but we cannot forget the incomprehensible.  This is where it gets difficult for most and where they lose it. This is why Modalism has taken an increased focus for some.  While we can understand how a being is one supreme being, and we can understand how there can be three separate and completely different beings, we cannot comprehend how there can be three beings just as separate as you and I, and yet they are also the SAME being at the very same time. Many have tried to explain it, and many try to follow them, but invariably it typically leads to heresy from the Catholic Teachings and the Catholic Church if they travel to far down that path (and from many of the other Trune churches that believe in the trinity).

They are separate and distinct (just like you and I to a degree at least) but at the same time, they are one and the same, the SAME being.  They are, as some would put it, Triune.  They are three persons, ONE GOD.  The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and yet infinite and complete together.  They are Triune.

However, it is this essential element which transcends the idea of the simple Modality that some currently adhere to (and how we even some some of the Saints explain it in the past),  and creates one as a true Trinitarian rather than someone who is strictly Polytheistic or strictly Monotheistic. 

Overall, a Christian Trinitarian probably shouldn't care, as in truth the teaching would be that Christianity ascends above the worldly labels that we try to give to each other and various religions.  Monotheistic or Polytheistic are very closed in how they are labeled.  They are worldly labels which try to group various religions with each other. 

Jews would see themselves as Monotheistic (at least the majority, they have some sects which differ).  Islam sees itself as Monotheistic (once again, among the majority, there are some sects at odds with the major beliefs).  They do NOT view Christianity as such (and a lot of that deals directly with the belief in the trinity).  Buddist normally don't care about the label, and it really differs from sect to sect among Hindus on what they feel (I think most would feel the idea of Monotheism and Polytheistic as too restrictive as they have a lot more categories of religious grouping among themselves).

The trinity is an interesting blend of Eastern and Western philosophy during the time it started it's formation.  I think too often though, that we try to hard to ascribe to what the world explains a religion to be, rather than what the religion itself explains itself to be.  As such, a Catholic may view themselves as Monotheistic, even if, from a worldly viewpoint, they don't actually fall into that categorization.  The same probably applies to Mormons and many other religions that have the idea of three Deities or deific types which they at the same time refer to as ONE Deity.

Thank you, JohnsonJones. Again, monotheism consists in there being one God or oneness of God, and so a Trinity of persons is not ruled out, since there are not three beings, but one being. If a Church believes in one God, even if they believe that God is complex, it's monotheism. And if the LDS faith proclaimed that kind of idea, I wouldn't have made this thread. If you said there were five persons in one God-being, I wouldn't think that's polytheism. It's just because I see multiple beings, one in purpose, but not actually all living in one being, that I was saying that seems to be many gods.

Thank you.

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

Thank you for continuing to be kind, Jane_Doe. That's a wonderful compliment, but I am not near to being Christ-like.

Of course you're far from there.  But in this thread you have exhibited a portion of His patience, charity, and dedication to Truth.

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

. It's just because I see multiple beings, one in purpose, but not actually all living in one being, that I was saying that seems to be many gods.

Can you explain in layman terms what you see as being the difference between a person and a being?  Not quoting the CCC or anything like that-- sorry, such makes my small brain hurt.  Just layman words.  

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

I know it's hard to switch perspectives, but in talking, especially about the nature of God, "person" has a specific meaning in Catholicism. Like I mentioned in another post, for Catholics, a rock is a being, a human is a being, and God is a being. A rock has no persons, a human has one person, and God (as we believe) has three persons. So, for the sake of my understanding (even though I know it isn't quite LDS lingo), do you mean three persons in one being making up God, or three persons in three beings (for instance, with three separate bodies) making him up?

LDS don't do the special definitions of "person" and "being" Catholics do here, so you're question unfortunately does't make a lot of sense from the LDS veiwpoint.  LDS just use... regular definitions?  (that's probably not the best phrase for it, but it's the best I can think of right now).  You're a person.  I'm a person.  Sam is a person.  Etc.  If I invite you, me, and Sam to dinner, I've invited three persons to dinner.Christ is a person.  

The Father is a person.  The Holy Spirit is a person.  If I invite the Father, the Son, and the Spirit to dinner, I've invited three persons to dinner.   Now, unlike me/you/Sam, the Father/Son/Spirit are ONE--- they are 100% united in their will, goodness, mercy, love, justice, knowledge, etc.  They are ONE God, 100% united.   Us petty sinners... we don't remotely understand that.  The closet we come is the unity between a married couple, whom are indeed commanded to be one, but even the best couples are still a looooooooooooooooong way off from that right now. 

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said:

I just want to take a second to say that this thread has been successful in helping me (and probably @MaryJehanne as well) to better understand the LDS belief on this, so thank you all for taking the time to explain and articulate your thoughts. Much appreciated! 

There are (at least) two things standing in the way of me fully understanding the LDS belief on this issue:

1) LDS people disagree on some points of belief, just as any faith does, so understanding Person A's belief doesn't necessarily mean that you understand Person B's belief

Have you ever had a bunch of Trintarians try to explain that concept to you?

I find I very quickly run into the same describing different part of the elephant situation as you have here.  Human language just really fails at capturing God.  

 

1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said:

2) Because we are from different faith backgrounds (LDS, Catholic, Protestant, etc.) most of the "theology" words mean different things from different perspectives. So, often when we think we are talking about the same thing, we really aren't. Learning each other's terminology goes a long way!

I would 100% agree that we need to look beyond just surface words and spend the time/energy to really understand the full concept of what people mean.  

[estradling75]

7 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

Estradling75, I'm sorry if I upset you, but I was only answering a question you posed. There are several other LDS members here who are saying the LDS religion does teach that there are multiple gods... it's not just me who's saying that.

It may not silence my critics, but do I really need to silence them? I don't expect to silence them all. Some will continue to twist it and get around it to believe what they want to, but some will understand. In the end, persecution only lends to an opportunity for greater holiness. And I would expect Christ's Church to be persecuted, as He was one earth.

I didn't directly address that point, but I did say that it may look like the same action, while having different intent, which did kind of answer that indirectly. I never said it didn't look like that to some people. I'm not against any kind of acknowledgement of it; I was just never asked to.

May God bless you.

You did not upset me...  You asked a question about why LDS respond the way we do.  I offered an answer in the attempt of empathic understanding. (aka a way for you to feel the way we feel).  Even after calling this shot... even after telling you this, my comments still worked.  You still instantly and reflexively went on the defensive and tried to justify your churches actions to someone that was not trying to attack you or your faith.  (and you still kind of are)

From where I am sitting it worked perfectly.  Now all you need to do is take the way you felt when you got 'triggered' by me and say... 'You know I am probably going to "trigger" an LDS person if I say this and so they will probably respond defensively like I do when "triggered."'  Thus it is empathic answer to your question

[zil]

7 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

1) LDS people disagree on some points of belief, just as any faith does, so understanding Person A's belief doesn't necessarily mean that you understand Person B's belief

I doubt we actually disagree.  We are emphasizing different points and perspectives coming at the same thing from different angles trying to explain something which appears (from this thread) incomprehensible to those not of our faith.  I can't say I technically disagree with what other members (of the Church) have said in this thread, I just sometimes think there's another way to explain what they said that might work better.

[zil]

7 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

Some will continue to twist it and get around it to believe what they want to

And some will think that you are the one doing the twisting.  The simple fact is that our beliefs don't fit into the overall concept of polytheism as understood by the average person (and the average understanding is more important than a sterile dictionary definition - those tend to be a starting point, and usage takes it from there to expand into real understanding).  In other words, it appears that you are bound and determined (as a non-believer looking at it from the outside, and therefore not fully understanding it any more than a non-Catholic fully understands Catholicism) to force The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into a polytheism cubby-hole, rather than acknowledging that perhaps it fits elsewhere better (and none of the existing -theisms entirely, though @Scott's "monolarty" seems most accurate).

(Not saying that's your intent, just that it sure appears that way.)

7 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

That's not a thing in Catholicism...

Wow, seriously?  So if Catholicism doesn't recognize an -ism, it cannot exist?  It cannot be understood or discussed?  Catholicism defines the cubby-holes and you must go into one of them and there can be no others?  In that case, why discuss at all?  Why ask us anything when our answer isn't "allowed"?  Just cram us in the cubby-hole you prefer, call us nitwits for not recognizing the cubby-hole's correctness and call it a day.

(No, none of that was hateful or offended, just blunt - and seriously, I don't get it - why ask the question if the only options are "things in Catholicism"?)

7 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

Yes. Some parts have been more... hateful than I'm used to getting from this forum.

Really?  Which?  I've seen passionate and closely-held beliefs expressed, but not hate.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

I'm sorry, CV75, but I'm not really motivated to try to speculate on that, especially since I'm worn down from some of the aggression I've been getting from some members. What do you mean what list would God approve of?

In consideration of your OP, I invite you to come up with 5 ways Catholicism could be portrayed as polytheistic. Do you think God would find that to be a fair representation of Catholicism? Then come up with what you think are the 5 most important things the Catholic Church has in common with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do you think God would find that to be a fair representation of Christianity?

[estradling75]

18 minutes ago, zil said:

And some will think that you are the one doing the twisting.  The simple fact is that our beliefs don't fit into the overall concept of polytheism as understood by the average person (and the average understanding is more important than a sterile dictionary definition - those tend to be a starting point, and usage takes it from there to expand into real understanding).  In other words, it appears that you are bound and determined (as a non-believer looking at it from the outside, and therefore not fully understanding it any more than a non-Catholic fully understands Catholicism) to force The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into a polytheism cubby-hole, rather than acknowledging that perhaps it fits elsewhere better (and none of the existing -theisms entirely, though @Scott's "monolarty" seems most accurate).

 

Indeed lets expand on this.  The dictionary definition of Polytheism is indeed about many Gods and this is correct.  Most people when they hear about Polytheism thinks something along the lines of the Greek Gods.  Like Zeus, Ares, Apollo, etc.  The Greeks did worship many Gods and these Gods were often in conflict, and the worshippers also prayed to different Gods depending on what they needed at the time.  This is the average persons understanding of polytheism.  To most people it is this conflict between Gods is the defining point of Polytheism (no matter what the dictionary says). And it has serious flaws and limits when one tries to apply it to any Christan

Any Christian who claims to believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, starts brushing up against the technical definition of being Polytheistic.  But there is no conflict between these three, there is no divided worship, (and depending on your flavor of Christianity sometimes not even a division of physical forms).  They are One in a way that makes them profoundly different then any other set up out there.  It is so different that we have been trying to come up with new terms and creeds trying to explain it for the last two thousand years.

The simple fact is that Christianity has been fighting its way out of the box labeled polytheism for two thousand years.  No Christian (even LDS ones) are going to take kindly to anyone trying to shove us back in.

 

[goor_de]

6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

 

Can you explain in layman terms what you see as being the difference between a person and a being?  Not quoting the CCC or anything like that-- sorry, such makes my small brain hurt.  Just layman words.  

 

The dogma of the Most Holy Trinity

 

253 The Trinity is one. We do not confess three gods, but a single God in three persons: the "consubstantial Trinity." (2 Kings of Constantinople 553: DS 421) The divine persons do not share the only divinity with each other, but each of them is full and the whole of God: "The Father is the same as the Son, the Son the same as the Father, the Father and the Son the same as the Holy Ghost, and by nature a God" (11th Syn. v. Toledo 675: DS 530) ). "Each of the three persons is that reality, that is, divine substance, essence or nature" (4C in Lateran 1215: DS 804).

 

254 The three divine persons are really different from each other. The one God is not "as it were alone" (Fides Damasi: DS 71). "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names that signify modes of being of the Divine Being, for they are real different from each other:

 

"The Father is not the same as the Son, nor is the Son the same as the Father, nor is the Holy Ghost the same as the Father or the Son." (11th Syn. V. Toledo 675: DS 530) it is "the Father who begot, and the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who comes forth" (4C, in the Lateran 1215: DS 804). The divine unity is triune.

 

255 The three divine persons relate to each other. Because the real diversity of persons does not divide divine unity, it is unique in their mutual relations: "With the names of the persons expressing a relationship, the Father becomes the Son, the Son the Father, and the Holy Spirit both are related: Although they are called three persons in relation to their relationship, they are, according to our faith, nevertheless a nature or substance "(11th Syn. of Toledo 675: DS 528). One in which there is no opposition to the relationship "(K. v. Florence 1442: DS 1330). "Because of this unity, the Father is wholly in the Son, wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father, wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father, wholly in the Son "(Ibid .: DS 1331)

 

actually quite simple

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

Ha ha... I thought that would be mentioned.

And, everyone, this is just me expressing my beliefs because I was asked... This is not trying to start a debate on my religion as opposed to LDS beliefs. I was just asked... So I'm trying to clarify.

On a more specific scale, my soul, at conception, was created ex-nihilo. My parents cannot create souls. And in the soul lies what separates man, a rational animal, from the irrational animals. It is what is made in the image and likeness of God.

My body is not created by my parents in the same sense as God creates. Human beings use already existing matter. They do not create new matter. So, although my body is organized from God's creation, all of creation came from nothing, and is currently held in existence by God, who could cause it to cease if He so wished (and He doesn't ).

 

Just so you can understand - I am an engineer and scientist and work in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  The problem I have with the thought that G-d creates each soul ex-nihilo is that would make G-d responsible for the "will" of that soul - because he created that as well.  This would also include the will of Satan and his proclivity towards and love of sin.  So for the record I find such a concept unacceptable, illogical and an affront of the nature of G-d as the only possible source of evil and sin.  Also as a scientist there is a great deal of misunderstanding of nothingness.  What was thought to be an empty void is itself actually something.  

In another thread we have discussed the subject of Dark Energy and Dark Matter - stuff we are learning more about but 100 years ago would have thought to have been an empty void of nothing - but we are learning that for things to be very complex and ordered requires something (not nothing) - some have even summarized nothing to be intelligent.  In fact intelligence for all practical purposes can be classified as nothing - except for the effect it has to create order and learn.   Sort of the idea of a difference between a computer loaded and running software and a newly created computer without any program.  A computer is comprised of states of Zero or One that can be ordered to create what we now call artificial intelligence.

Most everyone understand intelligence as the ghost within a machine.  It is the intelligence of man that separates humanity from beasts.  It is intelligence of humanity that defines or comprehends religion and religious belief (including a relationship to G-d) as well as a proclivity towards sin (to assume the characteristics and nature of Satan) or charity (to assume the characteristics and nature of G-d).  It is very problematic to blame G-d for individual human intelligence - making the claim of sinners that oppose the nature of G-d claiming, "G-d made me this way - and everyone the way they are".  I prefer the doctrine, idea and reality - that there is something intelligent that G-d did not create called individual intelligence - that he is not responsible for nor the one to blame.  

 

The Traveler

[Zaccheus]

Hello all.  I’ve been a lurker for a number of years.  I know I’m late to this conversation but thought I’d pitch in my 2 cents.  A warning – it’s kind of long.

I’m a Roman Catholic and, by way of full disclosure, formerly LDS – born and raised in the church, seminary grad, mission, temple marriage, the works.  The topic of the Holy Trinity is dear to my heart; the Holy Trinity is the God I worship.  There is a lot of confusion about what we Trinitarians mean by God, including among some under-catechized Catholics.  To understand Catholic teaching and specialized terms like being, Being (note the capitalization), person, essence, nature and existence (and the Greek and Latin terminology which these English words are used to translate, especially ousia, prosopon, hypostasis, ens, and esse), understanding them in the Catholic sense requires thinking about them in reference to the most fundamental of all Catholic ideas about God – that God is not a being among beings, but is Being itself. 

What on earth does it mean to say that God is Being and not a being?  Beings with a lowercase ‘b’ are created things like individual human beings, trees, rocks, dogs, dolphins, all of them entities that exist and move within the matrix of being, time, space, matter, everything, the cosmos created by God out of nothing.  Let’s call it ‘the world.’ All of these entities are beings among other beings and can only be understood when compared and contrasted with each other.  A dog is not a cat, is not a tree, is not a human being.  God is not that kind of thing.  God is not a kind of thing that can dwell as God as a type of thing within the world.  God exists outside of it and created it.  He exists independently of it in an absolute sense.  If God had not created, He would still be God in undiminished goodness and greatness.  God would still be God, even if nothing else except God existed.  This is what Catholic philosopher and priest, Robert Sokolowski refers to as the ‘Christian Distinction.’  As Sokolowski put it:

“The Christian distinction is appreciated as a distinction that did not have to be, even though it in fact is.    The most fundamental thing we come to in Christianity, the distinction between the world and God, is appreciated as not being the most fundamental thing after all, because one of the terms of the distinction, God, is more fundamental than the distinction itself...God is understood not only to have created the world, but to have permitted the distinction between himself and the world to occur.  He is not established as God by the distinction…The Christian distinction between God and the world is therefore a distinction that is, in principle, both most primary and yet capable of being obliterated, because one of the terms of the distinction, the world, does not have to be.  To be God, God does not need to be distinguished from the world, because there does not need to be anything other than God alone. “

So what ‘kind’ of ‘being’ is God?  God is God.  God exists.  God is.  God cannot be classified or categorized.  Or, as St. Thomas Aquinas put it, God’s essence is existence.  His essence or nature is to exist.  God is existence itself.  God is Being.  Nothing else but God exists in that mode, hence God is incomparable. Created beings are essences that need not have existed.  An essence is defined as what a thing is; existence is defined as that it is.  Existence is added to essence by God and something new, e.g. a human being, is brought forth into the matrix of being.  Because God does not belong to the matrix of being, He made it, God is the only ‘being’ where his essence just is existence full stop.  God is Being.

This is radically different from what is posed in LDS thought, where matter and intelligence is eternal and Heavenly Father, along with all of the other exalted heavenly fathers in existence, exists within the same eternally-existent material cosmos where the laws of physics hold, the same as all of us. Theoretically, I could use the Millenium Falcon and travel to wherever it is in the universe or multiverse where God dwells (somewhere near a star named Kolob) and visit him (assuming God lets me and I’m able to travel between universes or dimensions, if that’s what’s required to get to him).  This is unthinkable from a Catholic standpoint.  There’s no ‘where’ or ‘there’ where God can be found. God as He is is not localized. He is everywhere present and fills all things. Try to think of God existing alone, with nothing else existing but Him. Are you imagining something floating around in endless darkness? If so, you’re still not thinking like a Catholic. The darkness and the space it fills are creatures, God made them. Get rid of them and now try to think of God alone. It can’t be done. It’s literally unthinkable, which is why Catholics say God as He is is incomprehensible.

I think a lot of the confusion about what Catholicism teaches derives from thinking of the Catholic God from within a materialist context, forgetting or not understanding that, for Catholics, God created matter, time, space, the universe and all multiverses, everything that exists apart from God, out of nothing. 

It’s not possible to properly understand what Catholicism teaches about the Trinity, about one God in three persons, without grasping this fundamental “distinction between the world understood as possibly not having existed and God understood as possibly being all that there is, with no diminution of goodness or greatness.” 

I hope this helps.  I tried to keep it layman-friendly.

May the peace of Christ be with all of you.

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Zaccheus

[MrShorty]

Quote

253 The Trinity is one. We do not confess three gods, but a single God in three persons:

I would note that, if such a statement is sufficient to make a claim to monotheism, this sounds a lot to me like D&C 20:28

Quote

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

JohnsonJones apparently understands the arguments for and against Trinitarianism as monotheism better than I do. It seems to me that, the same kinds of arguments towards Mormonism accepting a polytheistic label can apply to Trinitarianism as well. The same kinds of arguments that are used to defend Trinitarianism as monotheistic can also apply to Mormonism.

Edited September 25, 2018 by MrShorty

[goor_de]

30 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Just so you can understand - I am an engineer and scientist and work in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  The problem I have with the thought that G-d creates each soul ex-nihilo is that would make G-d responsible for the "will" of that soul - because he created that as well.  This would also include the will of Satan and his proclivity towards and love of sin.  So for the record I find such a concept unacceptable, illogical and an affront of the nature of G-d as the only possible source of evil and sin.  Also as a scientist there is a great deal of misunderstanding of nothingness.  What was thought to be an empty void is itself actually something.  

 

 

The Traveler

she did not say that.
Man can sin or not sin ex nihilo.
ex niholo does not mean that you will create good or evil

[Traveler]

40 minutes ago, goor_de said:

she did not say that.
Man can sin or not sin ex nihilo.
ex niholo does not mean that you will create good or evil

The question is - why does one person sin and another does not.  The ex-hihilo answer is that G-d creates one person to sin and the other not to sin.  The reason is that G-d and G-d alone controls all the parameters - there is nothing other than what G-d alone creates that makes one person different than another.  I am saying that such thinking does not support the notion of a merciful or just G-d.   I have never heard any logic from anyone that believes in ex-hihilo creation of man that something other than G-d determines who will sin and who will not.  It is the very doctrine of ex-hihilo that demands G-d alone is responsible for what a person becomes.  I am open to other logic but the idea that G-d creates from nothing the ability of will is nonsense.  If one of my artificial intelligence endeavors fails - it is my fault - not the computers.

There is a little poem about this and computers:

Oh, how I hate the dumb machine

I think that I will sell it

It never does what I want

Only what I tell it.

 

So my question is - If G-d did not program man to sin (and every human does) - then what else did - who or what? But ex-hihilo demands that G-d alone creates (programs) humans to do what they do.  What creates the desire to sin or the desire to repent?  Some answer - What sin or repentance is in the heart of each man.  Okay who created the heart and what is in the heart of each man.  According to ex-hihilo the only answer is G-d.  by the very definition of ex-hihilo.  Justice would demand that G-d alone is responsible for what he creates - not that which has no input into what was created.  

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

@MaryJehanne

I did not read past page 1.  The thread moved so fast and I don't have much time.  So what I'm saying here has probably been discussed already.  I'm LDS converted from Catholic.  So, I completely understand where you're coming from about the monotheistic/polytheistic nuance.

Calling LDS Polytheists is an insult.  There is ONE GOD.  It is very clear in scripture that there is one God and that those who believe in other Gods but the God of Israel need conversion.  So to say we should just accept the label is, well, calling as sinners.

As @Jane_Doe has explained, the only difference between Trinitarian and LDS is "what makes them ONE".  Trinitarians believe what makes God a God is because he is God Substance (substance is not quite the right word and there is no English word that encompasses the meaning... what I'm actually calling substance is the latin word Ousia so I'm going to use that word from here on).  What exactly that ousia is, is a mystery because there is no other entity in the universe like it and therefore it is beyond human experience or understanding.  Trinitarians posit that there is this ousia that is God, there is only one entity with that ousia and that is God, and this ousia has the ability to manifest itself into certain personages, is eternal, all-knowing, ever-present, etc. etc.  The LDS, on the other hand believe that there is One God and what makes it ONE and what makes it God is not their ousia but their WILL exercised freely in perfect knowledge.  Therefore, God is God because he Wills as God does.  One who Wills differently is not God.  Beelzebub, Zeus, etc are not God because they do not have the Will of God.  Polytheists do not have any belief in the Will of God.  With that Will comes that perfect knowledge of certain physical characteristics/substances of the God ousia and the elements of the universe - such as the substance of the body to which the spirit of God resides, the substance of the body to which our spirit resided and will reside post mortality, etc.  A spirit achieving this Godly Will in Perfect Knowledge becomes a Person in that Godhead.  The Father is a person in One God because he has the will of God.  The Son is a person in One God because he has the will of God.  The Holy Spirit is the same.

So, you posit that the LDS God cannot possibly be God because he is not the originator of creation.  The ex nihilo understanding has a lot more problems than the God of the elements.  The ex nihilo understanding makes the God ousia the only eternal entity of the universe - this makes it so that only God is not created, everything else is, and that his eternal quality is another reason He is God and nobody/nothing else is (i.e. Who created God? can only be answered by, He is God).  This becomes problematic because for God to be God he creates something into existence with Purpose and Perfect Knowledge (LOVE).  So, problems such as - God would have to know that certain people are going to end up in the fires of hell, so why create them?  Isn't never having existed better than Eternal Damnation? Etc. etc.  The LDS understanding is that matter and energy is eternal and God is matter and energy, so therefore, eternal.  Our spirits are matter and energy and also eternal.  We exist eternally.  The question of why God would create something out of nothing into existence to end up in eternal agony does not apply because God did not create us out of nothing - rather, He saw our existence and we were barren.  He chose to Love us, and therefore, He put us on a path of transformation to be like Him (pure joy) - this involves creating bodies for us - spiritual bodies and mortal bodies and eventually perfected bodies - to which we progress line upon line, precept upon precept, so that we may know what He knows and will as He Wills.  His greatest gift to us, therefore, is our Free Will, as it is the only way we can attain the Will of God.  We either succeed or we fail to which the worst of failure leads us to eternal darkness which is better than the barren existence that has never been touched by the love of God.

So, regardless of where our logic ends up in our meager understanding of God, the fact remains... LDS believe in ONE GOD.

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by anatess2

[MaryJehanne]

10 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Of course you're far from there.  But in this thread you have exhibited a portion of His patience, charity, and dedication to Truth.

Thank you, Jane_Doe. I try to, at least, even if sometimes I come up short.

 

10 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Can you explain in layman terms what you see as being the difference between a person and a being?  Not quoting the CCC or anything like that-- sorry, such makes my small brain hurt.  Just layman words. 

Okay! For 'being':

"...anything that exists is a being. You, dear awesome person reading this book, are a being. The stone you pick up at the beach is a being, and so is the rainbow you see in the sky. Even the dream you had last night can be called a being, because it existed in your mind. But humans, stones, rainbows, and dreams are different kindsof beings, which leads us to anotherimportant philosophical term, 'essence.'" (http://pintswithaquinas.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/you-can-understand-aquinas-added-we.pdf)

For 'person':

This is more difficult, so I'm probably going to mess it up.

But, the classical definition is, "an individual substance of a rational nature". "Rational," I believe, means the ability, basically, to think and reason. Human beings are defined as a rational animal. An elephant would be a non-rational animal. "For the constitution of a person [in other words: for it to be called a person] it is required that a reality be subsistent and absolutely distinct, i.e. incommunicable." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm)

I hope that was decently layman language, but some of this philosophy gets hard, especially when you're not (meaning me - I'm not :P) officially trained in it.

10 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

LDS don't do the special definitions of "person" and "being" Catholics do here, so you're question unfortunately does't make a lot of sense from the LDS veiwpoint.  LDS just use... regular definitions?  (that's probably not the best phrase for it, but it's the best I can think of right now).  You're a person.  I'm a person.  Sam is a person.  Etc.  If I invite you, me, and Sam to dinner, I've invited three persons to dinner.Christ is a person.  

The Father is a person.  The Holy Spirit is a person.  If I invite the Father, the Son, and the Spirit to dinner, I've invited three persons to dinner.   Now, unlike me/you/Sam, the Father/Son/Spirit are ONE--- they are 100% united in their will, goodness, mercy, love, justice, knowledge, etc.  They are ONE God, 100% united.   Us petty sinners... we don't remotely understand that.  The closet we come is the unity between a married couple, whom are indeed commanded to be one, but even the best couples are still a looooooooooooooooong way off from that right now. 

I mean, in day-to-day conversation, we'd use "person" like anyone else pretty much, but in different disciplines, like philosophy, terms get specific, precise definitions to assist in explaining difficult-to-grasp ideas.

Okay, that helped me to understand the LDS viewpoint a little better! Is it a little bit closer for me to say the LDS view Heavenly Father and Jesus as one in a similar way that an (ideal) married couple is called one?
 

Edited September 25, 2018 by MaryJehanne

[goor_de]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The question is - why does one person sin and another does not.  The ex-hihilo answer is that G-d creates one person to sin and the other not to sin.  The reason is that G-d and G-d alone controls all the parameters - there is nothing other than what G-d alone creates that makes one person different than another.  I am saying that such thinking does not support the notion of a merciful or just G-d.   I have never heard any logic from anyone that believes in ex-hihilo creation of man that something other than G-d determines who will sin and who will not.  It is the very doctrine of ex-hihilo that demands G-d alone is responsible for what a person becomes.  I am open to other logic but the idea that G-d creates from nothing the ability of will is nonsense.  If one of my artificial intelligence endeavors fails - it is my fault - not the computers.

There is a little poem about this and computers:

Oh, how I hate the dumb machine

I think that I will sell it

It never does what I want

Only what I tell it.

 

So my question is - If G-d did not program man to sin (and every human does) - then what else did - who or what? But ex-hihilo demands that G-d alone creates (programs) humans to do what they do.  What creates the desire to sin or the desire to repent?  Some answer - What sin or repentance is in the heart of each man.  Okay who created the heart and what is in the heart of each man.  According to ex-hihilo the only answer is G-d.  by the very definition of ex-hihilo.  Justice would demand that G-d alone is responsible for what he creates - not that which has no input into what was created.  

 

The Traveler

Do you have a Catholic reference that confirms that?

[prisonchaplain]

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The question is - why does one person sin and another does not.  The ex-hihilo answer is that G-d creates one person to sin and the other not to sin.  . . . So my question is - If G-d did not program man to sin (and every human does) - then what else did - who or what? But ex-hihilo demands that G-d alone creates (programs) humans to do what they do.  What creates the desire to sin or the desire to repent?  Some answer - What sin or repentance is in the heart of each man.  Okay who created the heart and what is in the heart of each man.  According to ex-hihilo the only answer is G-d.  by the very definition of ex-hihilo.  Justice would demand that G-d alone is responsible for what he creates - not that which has no input into what was created.  

 

The Traveler

It's interesting that you post this. I just gave a teaching about the wide road vs. the narrow road. I argued that the narrow road is such because there is only one way--Jesus. As we turned to the topic of why people reject God's forgiveness and salvation, through repentance, I suggested that the attack on God today is not that He does not exist, but that He is mean--even immoral. One such tact argues just what you said above:  If I was born this way, then why does God declare it sinful?

So I asked, "Does God create people to lie? To steal? To cheat on their spouses? The response was repeatedly no. Yet, due to Adam & Eve's rebellion, choosing to take the fruit, so they could determine right from wrong, and be like God, nature became corrupt. There are natural disasters, and personal ones. People are now born addicted to crack. Many have a predisposition to alcoholism. Some have unrighteous attractions.

That God created us with free will does not make him liable for our sin. Despite his innocence, He did make the way for our redemption, though.

[prisonchaplain]

29 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Calling LDS Polytheists is an insult.  There is ONE GOD.  It is very clear in scripture that there is one God and that those who believe in other Gods but the God of Israel need conversion.  So to say we should just accept the label is, well, calling as sinners. ... So, regardless of where our logic ends up in our meager understanding of God, the fact remains... LDS believe in ONE GOD.

I struggle with the idea that the three persons having one purpose makes them one God. Yet, I understand that LDS believe this, and can accept that it is yet another step away from strict monotheism, but that even Trinitarian teaching seems such to Jews and Muslims. What I find difficult is the doctrine of exaltation. If faithful, covenant-keeping LDS can become as God is then it stills seems more like henotheism. Is it because no LDS member will ever be a god to him/herself, and will never look to fellow exalted members as such? 

Edited September 25, 2018 by prisonchaplain

[goor_de]

30 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The question is - why does one person sin and another does not.  The ex-hihilo answer is that G-d creates one person to sin and the other not to sin.  The reason is that G-d and G-d alone controls all the parameters - there is nothing other than what G-d alone creates that makes one person different than another.  I am saying that such thinking does not support the notion of a merciful or just G-d.   I have never heard any logic from anyone that believes in ex-hihilo creation of man that something other than G-d determines who will sin and who will not.  It is the very doctrine of ex-hihilo that demands G-d alone is responsible for what a person becomes.  I am open to other logic but the idea that G-d creates from nothing the ability of will is nonsense.  If one of my artificial intelligence endeavors fails - it is my fault - not the computers.

There is a little poem about this and computers:

Oh, how I hate the dumb machine

I think that I will sell it

It never does what I want

Only what I tell it.

 

So my question is - If G-d did not program man to sin (and every human does) - then what else did - who or what? But ex-hihilo demands that G-d alone creates (programs) humans to do what they do.  What creates the desire to sin or the desire to repent?  Some answer - What sin or repentance is in the heart of each man.  Okay who created the heart and what is in the heart of each man.  According to ex-hihilo the only answer is G-d.  by the very definition of ex-hihilo.  Justice would demand that G-d alone is responsible for what he creates - not that which has no input into what was created.  

 

The Traveler

 

41 All creatures have a certain resemblance to God, especially the man who, in the image of God, is made similar to him. Therefore, the multiple perfections of the creatures (their truth, their goodness, their beauty) reflect the infinite perfection of God. Therefore, we can make statements about God from the perfections of His creatures, "for of the greatness and beauty of the creatures, it is possible to infer their Creator" (Wis 13,5).

31 Since man is created in the image of God and called to know and love God, in the search for God he discovers certain "ways" to reach the knowledge of God, which is also called "proof of God". not in the sense of scientific evidence, but in the sense of consistent and convincing arguments that can lead to real certainty.

 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/DEU0035/_PG.HTM

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

I struggle with the idea that the three persons having one purpose makes them one God. Yet, I understand that LDS believe this, and can accept that it is yet another step away from strict monotheism, but that even Trinitarian teaching seems such to Jews and Muslims. What I find difficult is the doctrine of exaltation. If faithful, covenant-keeping LDS can become as God is then it stills seems more like henotheism. Is it because no LDS member will ever be a god to him/herself, and will never look to fellow exalted members as such? 

It is not henotheism unless you call yourself henotheists in believing there are 3 persons in the Trinitarian God.  Any person achieving Godhood becomes another person in that One God.

[MaryJehanne]

4 hours ago, estradling75 said:

You did not upset me...  You asked a question about why LDS respond the way we do.  I offered an answer in the attempt of empathic understanding. (aka a way for you to feel the way we feel).  Even after calling this shot... even after telling you this, my comments still worked.  You still instantly and reflexively went on the defensive and tried to justify your churches actions to someone that was not trying to attack you or your faith.  (and you still kind of are)

From where I am sitting it worked perfectly.  Now all you need to do is take the way you felt when you got 'triggered' by me and say... 'You know I am probably going to "trigger" an LDS person if I say this and so they will probably respond defensively like I do when "triggered."'  Thus it is empathic answer to your question

Oh... I thought you wanted me to lay out a path of logical thinking. Your goal was to incite emotion? I didn't take it that way; I'm sorry.

You may have thought your example was effective, but if I wasn't able to understand it or see the logic in it, that's not my fault.

I wasn't triggered at all when you asked me to present how I'd respond to an objection. I thought you were honestly trying to make a comparison, not contriving to upset me. The only part where I began to be "triggered" is when you said: "That will not matter to you because you disagree and you are more then happy to twist our teachings and practices to suit your preconceived ideas."

And I'd expect you to be triggered by that too, which is why I have never said something like that to you. Would you be pleased if I accused you of malice, lying, and bigotry as well? What if I accused you of twisting things to fit your preconceived ideas? Why would you accuse me of these things, when I have been patient and kind with you and not uttered a single angry word?

I am hurt and disappointed.

Edited September 25, 2018 by MaryJehanne