Anglican (Episcopal)/Latter-day Saint Dialogue

Katzpur · Oct 14, 2006

Lunamoth started a thread a couple of days ago in which she introduced some of her Church's beliefs. I said I thought it would be interesting for just members of her church (Episcopal) and mine (LDS) to compare and contract some of our beliefs. I would prefer that only Episcopalians and Latter-day Saints contribute to this thread, except to ask questions.

I'd like to start by quoting from that thread and commenting on a few points she made. Her original post was in a question/answer type format, but this is essentially what a post on "God the Son" stated:

Lunamoth said:
[When we say that Jesus is the only Son of God], we mean that Jesus is the only perfect image of the Father, and shows us the nature of God.

We see all of humanity as the sons and daughters of God, as His literal spirit offspring. But we see Jesus Christ as the "only begotten Son of God -- in the flesh," meaning that God the Father is literally Jesus' Father, just as Mary is literally Jesus' mother. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the actual parent-child relationship between Jesus and His Father. In other words, is it merely figurative or is it literal?

In Job 38, it is stated that at some time in the past, "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." Can you comment on who you believe the sons of God who shouted for joy were?

[When we say that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and became incarnate from the Virgin Mary], we mean that by God's own act, his divine Son received our human nature from the Virgin Mary, his mother.

That would closely approximate our belief, although we don't claim that Jesus was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit" per se, but only that the Holy Spirit did play a role of some sort in Jesus' conception. In Luke, we read, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Would you describe Jesus as the Son of the Holy Ghost or as the Son of the Father? Also, do you believe Mary was a virgin throughout her life?

The divine Son became human, so that in him human beings might be adopted as children of God, and be made heirs of God's kingdom. By his obedience, even to suffering and death, Jesus made the offering which we could not make; in him we are freed from the power of sin and reconciled to God. By his resurrection, Jesus overcame death and opened for us the way of eternal life.

I've got to say that this is almost identical to LDS doctrine. I have just one question: Do you believe in salvation by grace through faith alone or by a combination of faith and works? And what, specifically, do you understand "salvation" to mean?

[When we say that he descended to the dead], we mean that he went to the departed and offered them also the benefits of redemption.

Why do you believe this was necessary? Do you believe He actually visited them and, if so, what do you believe His offer entailed?

[When we say that he he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father], we mean that Jesus took our human nature into heaven where he now reigns with the Father and intercedes for us. [We can share in his victory over sin, suffering, and death] when we are baptized into the New Covenant and become living members of Christ.

I'm really having problems with this -- not because I disagree, but because I feel as if I must be misunderstanding you on this. This sounds so much like you believe that the Father and the Son are physically distinct from one another, as we do. I am wrong about that, aren't I? I mean, this statement sounds so LDS!

lunamoth · Oct 14, 2006

Hi Kat, Thank you for starting the thread. In this post I just want to let you know that I see the thread and am thinking about it. I have a bad head cold that started yesterday, so if you don't mind I'm not going to tackle this, or at least not all of it, tonight.

Also, I want to reiterate that what I say will be my own understanding. The words are what they are and for the most part I am free to pray about these, reflect upon them myself, and understand for myself what they mean. What I say may differ from what other Episcopalians and Anglicans say, but that won't mean that I am wrong or they are wrong. But the basic belief of the Anglican Church is stated in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

Also you will find that the 'official' doctrinal understanding of the creeds is basicially the same as for the Catholic Church. Incarnation, physical resurrection, Trinity (God is One in Three Persons). Officially the way LDS views the Trinity would be considered heretical. Frankly I have a hard time understanding how they are different, in spite of all the explanations I've read here and elsewhere. But perhaps through this conversation I'll learn more about that.

Laurie

Katzpur · Oct 14, 2006

lunamoth said:
Hi Kat, Thank you for starting the thread. In this post I just want to let you know that I see the thread and am thinking about it. I have a bad head cold that started yesterday, so if you don't mind I'm not going to tackle this, or at least not all of it, tonight.

Also, I want to reiterate that what I say will be my own understanding. The words are what they are and for the most part I am free to pray about these, reflect upon them myself, and understand for myself what they mean. What I say may differ from what other Episcopalians and Anglicans say, but that won't mean that I am wrong or they are wrong. But the basic belief of the Anglican Church is stated in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

Also you will find that the 'official' doctrinal understanding of the creeds is basicially the same as for the Catholic Church. Incarnation, physical resurrection, Trinity (God is One in Three Persons). Officially the way LDS views the Trinity would be considered heretical. Frankly I have a hard time understanding how they are different, in spite of all the explanations I've read here and elsewhere. But perhaps through this conversation I'll learn more about that.

Laurie

Thanks, Laurie. Take your time, and get feeling better.

lunamoth · Oct 14, 2006

BCP paraphrased said:
[When we say that Jesus is the only Son of God], we mean that Jesus is the only perfect image of the Father, and shows us the nature of God.

kat said:
We see all of humanity as the sons and daughters of God,

I agree with this idea.

kat said:
as His literal spirit offspring.

I don't know what this means. God is my Creator. I accept the ToE as the best explanation of how humans came into existence.

kat said:
But we see Jesus Christ as the "only begotten Son of God -- in the flesh," meaning that God the Father is literally Jesus' Father,

I know of nothing in Anglican or Catholic doctrine to suggest that the Father is or was enfleshed.

Kat said:
just as Mary is literally Jesus' mother.

We believe Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and became incarnate from the Virgin Mary. This is further explain in the catechism that Jesus was conceived by God's own act. I don't think this means that God/the Holy Spirit took on human flesh and provided human sperm to conceive Jesus. To ask what literally happened is, in my opinion, an unnecessary question. It is no more difficult for me to accept the idea that somehow a Virgin conceived without human sperm than it would be for me to believe that the Holy Ghost took on flesh to complete God's act (I'm not sure that this is an LDS belief, I'm just using it as example). And I think the whole story of Jesus' conception is more importantly about purity, faith, and the power, mercy, and majesty of God. What it means is much more important than how did it happen.'

kat said:
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the actual parent-child relationship between Jesus and His Father. In other words, is it merely figurative or is it literal?

Jesus is the Son of God, the Father is His Father, Abba. Their relationship is Love.

luna

lunamoth · Oct 14, 2006

Katz said:
In Job 38, it is stated that at some time in the past, "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." Can you comment on who you believe the sons of God who shouted for joy were?

My NIV Study Bible says angels rather than the sons of God. Have to admit I have not read Job except in little bits

. My quick reading of it seems to be God making the point that He is the Almighty Creator, and Job is not much in contrast. I would say that the author of Job is using poetry here, which is a great way to convey truth. To say that the angels shouted for joy is very much the same as saying that the stars sang. The creation of the universe was a glorious act of God.

BCP paraphrased said:
When we say that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and became incarnate from the Virgin Mary], we mean that by God's own act, his divine Son received our human nature from the Virgin Mary, his mother.

kat said:
That would closely approximate our belief, although we don't claim that Jesus was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit" per se, but only that the Holy Spirit did play a role of some sort in Jesus' conception. In Luke, we read, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Would you describe Jesus as the Son of the Holy Ghost or as the Son of the Father?

The Son of the Father.

Also, do you believe Mary was a virgin throughout her life?

???If this is about the Immaculate Conception, that is not a basic doctrine of the Anglican Church. I'm sure that there are Anglicans who believe this but like many other teachings this is something left to the individual. I think that for those outside of the Catholic religion this is a doctrine that is widely misunderstood.

If it's not about the Immaculate Conception then I have to say I have no idea! I thought that Jesus had brothers at least. Veneration of Mary is an important part of the faith of (some? many?) Anglicans and we have a Holy Day in which we as a church adore Her, but I've never heard anyone talk about her perpetual virginity as something significant to them.

luna

Katzpur · Oct 14, 2006

lunamoth said:
I don't know what this means. God is my Creator. I accept the ToE as the best explanation of how humans came into existence.

The ToE? Sorry, what is that? The concept that we are God's spirit offspring comes from the following scriptures:

Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

From these two verses, we understand that God is the Father of our spirits and that we are His offspring. To us, this means that we are not merely His creations, but more than that. We see Jesus Christ as being unique in that He is also the Father's "Only Begotten Son." We, unlike Jesus, are physically the children of our own earthly parents, but spirtually the sons and daughters of God. Jesus, on the other hand, is both physically and spiritually the Son of God.

To ask what literally happened is, in my opinion, an unnecessary question. It is no more difficult for me to accept the idea that somehow a Virgin conceived without human sperm than it would be for me to believe that the Holy Ghost took on flesh to complete God's act (I'm not sure that this is an LDS belief, I'm just using it as example). And I think the whole story of Jesus' conception is more importantly about purity, faith, and the power, mercy, and majesty of God. What it means is much more important than how did it happen.'

I totally agree. And, for what it's worth, we don't claim to know how it happened any more than anybody else does. I guess what I'm saying is that the LDS believe that Jesus Christ was conceived as the Son of God the Father -- not as the Son of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost obviously played a role, at least according to the scriptures, but is not the Father of Jesus Christ, according to LDS doctrine.

Jesus is the Son of God, the Father is His Father, Abba. Their relationship is Love.

But is it a true Father-Son relationship? Or is that question just not something that is addressed by your beliefs? (I know that there are some questions you might ask me that I just wouldn't be able to express, because LDS terminology just doesn't "go there." For you, this might be one of those kinds of questions.)

Katzpur · Oct 14, 2006

lunamoth said:
My NIV Study Bible says angels rather than the sons of God.

Interesting. I use the KJV and it says "sons of God." I wonder what the original text says.

It wouldn't matter a great deal from my perspective, though, since we believe the sons of God would have been the same thing as angels.

The Son of the Father.

Thanks. I guess I just needed to be more patient! This answers my question.

???If this is about the Immaculate Conception, that is not a basic doctrine of the Anglican Church. I'm sure that there are Anglicans who believe this but like many other teachings this is something left to the individual. I think that for those outside of the Catholic religion this is a doctrine that is widely misunderstood.

If it's not about the Immaculate Conception then I have to say I have no idea! I thought that Jesus had brothers at least. Veneration of Mary is an important part of the faith of (some? many?) Anglicans and we have a Holy Day in which we as a church adore Her, but I've never heard anyone talk about her perpetual virginity as something significant to them.

I was talking about her perpetual virginity, which is something we don't believe.

lunamoth · Oct 14, 2006

Katzpur said:
The ToE? Sorry, what is that?

Sorry, Theory of Evolution.

kat said:
The concept that we are God's spirit offspring comes from the following scriptures:[/color][/color]

Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

I guess I still don't understand exactly what you are getting at. The Father is Spirit, this seems to be making a parallel between our earthly fathers and God. I accept that we get our spirits from God, and that it is our spirit that is the first part of us to recognize God, our father.

kat said:
Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

OK. But I still don't understand what you are getting at. We are God's children: we relate to God as his children. We love Him and He loves us.

kat said:
From these two verses, we understand that God is the Father of our spirits and that we are His offspring. To us, this means that we are not merely His creations, but more than that.

OK. I think I understand that now. We are His creations and we have a special place as his children. Is that it?

kat said:
We see Jesus Christ as being unique in that He is also the Father's "Only Begotten Son." We, unlike Jesus, are physically the children of our own earthly parents, but spirtually the sons and daughters of God. Jesus, on the other hand, is both physically and spiritually the Son of God.

Well, I guess this is what I don't understand. I don't understand what you mean that Jesus was physically the Son of God. The Anglican catechism says that Jesus received our human nature from the Virgin Mary. Why is the distinction you make here important to you?

kat said:
I totally agree. And, for what it's worth, we don't claim to know how it happened any more than anybody else does. I guess what I'm saying is that the LDS believe that Jesus Christ was conceived as the Son of God the Father -- not as the Son of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost obviously played a role, at least according to the scriptures, but is not the Father of Jesus Christ, according to LDS doctrine.

OK.

kat said:
But is it a true Father-Son relationship? Or is that question just not something that is addressed by your beliefs? (I know that there are some questions you might ask me that I just wouldn't be able to express, because LDS terminology just doesn't "go there." For you, this might be one of those kinds of questions.)

It is a true Father-Son relationship. I just don't understand the distinction you are making here. Not just this question, but many that you ask. It's not these are not important questions, but I don't know how we'll ever know what the other means by these words, which are symbols of Something More, something that is beyond our human language to experess.

Since I've had the experience of learning in depth another Abrahamic religion, I know how these different symbols can mean very different things even if the words remain the same.

I'm starting to think this is going to be kind of hopeless Katz. Maybe it's just my head cold.

Katzpur · Oct 15, 2006

lunamoth said:
OK. I think I understand that now. We are His creations and we have a special place as his children. Is that it?

Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying, that we have a special place within His creation that no other life form has. But if we are His children, what does that say about our potential?

Well, I guess this is what I don't understand. I don't understand what you mean that Jesus was physically the Son of God. The Anglican catechism says that Jesus received our human nature from the Virgin Mary. Why is the distinction you make here important to you?

I guess what I'm saying is that Jesus is the only man who ever lived who had a mortal mother and a divine Father. He wasn't just called the Son of God. He literally was the Son of God. And maybe that's what you believe, too.

It is a true Father-Son relationship. I just don't understand the distinction you are making here. Not just this question, but many that you ask. It's not these are not important questions, but I don't know how we'll ever know what the other means by these words, which are symbols of Something More, something that is beyond our human language to experess.

Since I've had the experience of learning in depth another Abrahamic religion, I know how these different symbols can mean very different things even if the words remain the same.

I'm starting to think this is going to be kind of hopeless Katz. Maybe it's just my head cold.

I'm sorry. Maybe you're right. I think the problem is that I'm just trying really hard not to turn this into a debate, so I'm beating around the bush a lot. I have some real difficulties understanding the concept of the Trinity and I'm trying to make sense of it. But in doing so, I am struggling to word my questions in such a way that they won't offend or come across as critical. That's probably why I've managed to so thoroughly confuse you.

I guess what I'm really asking is how can two persons who have an actual father-son relationship be a single substance. How can a single substance be a resurrected being and a spirit at the same time? I just don't know how to ask those questions without it appearing that I'm trying to back you into a corner. I'd be more than happy to hear from another Episcopalian, though. Or, if you feel it would be best, we can just drop the subject. As another option, we could go on to another topic, such as the relationship between faith and works, because I don't know your beliefs on that subject.

lunamoth · Oct 15, 2006

Hi Kat, thank you for your replies.

Katzpur said:
Yes, that is essentially what I'm saying, that we have a special place within His creation that no other life form has. But if we are His children, what does that say about our potential?

Our potential and our calling is to love each other as God loves us. There are various ways that this is expressed in the NT. One is the new commandment in John 15:12 (12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. ). It is expressed in our dying and rising to life in Christ. It is being reborn. It is putting on Christ (Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature. Romans 13:14).

I guess what I'm saying is that Jesus is the only man who ever lived who had a mortal mother and a divine Father. He wasn't just called the Son of God. He literally was the Son of God. And maybe that's what you believe, too.

I don't know how much more literal one can get that to say that Jesus was the Son of God, God was His Father (Abba), and that their relationship was one of love. But it is not Trinitarian (as you know) to consider the Father to be an enfleshed person who was the physical father of Jesus.

As the Expression of God that I know I love the Trinity. I'm not a theologian. I don't rationalize the Trinity: I accept in on faith and by living in this faith I also experience it and find meaning in it. God is One, God is Love. The Expression of Love is found in the Trinity, Love eternally present in the Three Persons. A cycle of Love flowing, interpenetrating. And I find the image of a triangle helpful, but like all ideas it falls short. But being a visual person it's easy for me to think of a triangle as one, but consisting of three sides. Or we can focus on the three corners. What is a corner but the intersection of two lines: it is dependent upon the others. Take it apart and you have no corners, no triangle, no sides, just three lines. The Trinity is the river, our experience of the river, and the work the river can do in the world. I'm not expecting any of this to ring your bells: just trying to express what it means to me.

There is one thing I do not like about the Trinity and that is arguing about it. I accept that other people view the Persons of the Trinity differently yet retain them as symbols of their religion. I think it is not love, it is breaking the love commandment, for us to hurt each other over this idea.

But having said that, I am interested in trying to understand what other people believe and what these things mean to them. Which is really the main reason I was interested in this discussion. So, I would be pleased if you could explain to me how you view the Persons of the Trinity, what this means to you, and why it is important to you.

I'm sorry. Maybe you're right. I think the problem is that I'm just trying really hard not to turn this into a debate, so I'm beating around the bush a lot. I have some real difficulties understanding the concept of the Trinity and I'm trying to make sense of it.

As I said above, I don't think the point is to make sense of the Trinity as much as it is to accept it and enter into the relationship of Love that it expresses. I don't think you can take it literally. The closest I can get to the historical-factual when it comes to the Trinity is that people have experienced the One God and they way they have experienced God is as Three Persons. In the OT people walked and talked with the Father. The Holy Spirit has spoken to us through the Prophets and was experienced at Pentacost. And of course Jesus was God among us. By looking to Jesus we can see God's love for us manifest to the fullest of human experience and understanding. Yet we believe that God is One. Not rational: Mystery.

But in doing so, I am struggling to word my questions in such a way that they won't offend or come across as critical. That's probably why I've managed to so thoroughly confuse you.

I kind of figured that was what was going on. I think you could just state how you see it without trying to lead me to certain conclusions.

I guess what I'm really asking is how can two persons who have an actual father-son relationship be a single substance. How can a single substance be a resurrected being and a spirit at the same time?

I don't think this is something that you rationally explain. I don't know if Catholicism gives further answers than this, simply stating that this is how we believe it is, but a hallmark of Anglican belief is accepting that we don't have all the answers or the full understanding. We are encouraged to pray about the Trinity and ask God for our answers, and some of my answers I've given above.

Lets look at this passage from John:

9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

If we're going to get all physical-literal I have no idea how to understand this passage. Yet it seems to be describing two Persons who are One. The Baha'i explanation is that Christ is a mirror reflecting the perfect image of the Father, but that still does not explain how Christ here is in the Father and the Father is in Him. To me anything other than accepting the paradox and the Mystery is going to fall short of what Jesus is revealing here. Again, I'm no scholar and there are probably other Christians out there cringing in their seats, but this is my understanding and approach.

I just don't know how to ask those questions without it appearing that I'm trying to back you into a corner. I'd be more than happy to hear from another Episcopalian, though.

I don't feel like you are trying to back me in a corner. It would be great if others want to give their understandings as well.

Or, if you feel it would be best, we can just drop the subject. As another option, we could go on to another topic, such as the relationship between faith and works, because I don't know your beliefs on that subject.

Before we move on I'd like to learn what your understanding is of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, why any distinctions you make are important to you.

cheers,
luna

Katzpur · Oct 15, 2006

lunamoth said:
Hi Kat, thank you for your replies.

And thank you, luna. When I didn't see a reply before now, I was starting to think I had offended you. Ultimately, I just decided you maybe weren't feeling up to posting. I do hope you're feeling better.

There is one thing I do not like about the Trinity and that is arguing about it. I accept that other people view the Persons of the Trinity differently yet retain them as symbols of their religion. I think it is not love, it is breaking the love commandment, for us to hurt each other over this idea.

That is very much how I feel. In fact, we believe that the following (from the Book of Mormon) are Jesus' own words: "For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another."

I will readily admit that of all the doctrines taught by mainstream Christianity, the one I simply cannot accept is the Trinity, at least as defined in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. I'd have to say that it is the LDS doctrine concerning the nature of God that, more than anything else, draws me to Mormonism. This is one of my favorite topics to discuss, but it seems as if anything more than a very superficial discussion always ends up evolving into a debate.

But having said that, I am interested in trying to understand what other people believe and what these things mean to them. Which is really the main reason I was interested in this discussion. So, I would be pleased if you could explain to me how you view the Persons of the Trinity, what this means to you, and why it is important to you.

Well, let's see how well I can do here. The first "Article of Faith" of my Church states: "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." So far, so good. Sounds much like your own belief, I suspect. We do not, however, like most other Christian denominations, believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are a single substance. We believe that they are three physically distinct beings, each of whom shares the title of "God" with the other two.

We believe that the Father and the Son are both glorified, immortal beings of flesh and bones. We believe that we were literally created in their image, after their likeness. We believe that our physical form resembles their physical form, and that we have been endowed with the same divine attributes as they have. We understand the Biblical verses stating that they are "one" to mean that they are perfectly and completely united in will and purpose, that they exist in absolute spiritual harmony with one another. They are equal to one another in their perfect love for us, in their divine qualities of mercy, forgiveness and grace. We believe they are "one" in every conceivable way except physical.

Acts 4:32 states, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul..."

In Exodus 24:3, we read that "...and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do."

In similar manner, we see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as being "one God."

Incidentally, we do see the Holy Ghost much as you see God the Father, in terms of Him being a spirit existing apart from a physical body. It is because He is spirit that He is able to be all places at all times. God the Father, on the other hand, is consistently, throughout the scriptures, referred to as being "in Heaven" (though His power extends everywhere simultaneously).

Finally, I still believe that in spite of our differences, our beliefs are still quite similar. As a matter of fact, here's what the Book of Mormon says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost:

"And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end."

I kind of figured that was what was going on. I think you could just state how you see it without trying to lead me to certain conclusions.

I plead guilty. :sorry1: It's just really hard for me, but I promise to try!

Before we move on I'd like to learn what your understanding is of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, why any distinctions you make are important to you.

Well, that would be it in a nutshell. I could expound on what I've already said, but it would come across as a debate, and would, I'm afraid, ultimately be counter-productive. But if, after reading my explanation, you still have questions about my beliefs, just ask and I'll try to clear them up.

Katz

lunamoth · Oct 15, 2006

Katzpur said:
And thank you, luna. When I didn't see a reply before now, I was starting to think I had offended you. Ultimately, I just decided you maybe weren't feeling up to posting. I do hope you're feeling better.

Oh dear! Sorry. I should have PM'd you so you'd know it was just my cold slowing me down. It's still hanging on, unfortuantely.

That is very much how I feel. In fact, we believe that the following (from the Book of Mormon) are Jesus' own words: "For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another."

I am sure that in most things that matter we are in close agreement.

I will readily admit that of all the doctrines taught by mainstream Christianity, the one I simply cannot accept is the Trinity, at least as defined in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. I'd have to say that it is the LDS doctrine concerning the nature of God that, more than anything else, draws me to Mormonism. This is one of my favorite topics to discuss, but it seems as if anything more than a very superficial discussion always ends up evolving into a debate.

I know it's one of your favorite topics to discuss, and I like it too but generally avoid in depth discussion for this very reason.

Well, let's see how well I can do here. The first "Article of Faith" of my Church states: "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." So far, so good. Sounds much like your own belief, I suspect. We do not, however, like most other Christian denominations, believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are a single substance. We believe that they are three physically distinct beings, each of whom shares the title of "God" with the other two.

Thank you for making that clear. I thought it went something like that.

We believe that the Father and the Son are both glorified, immortal beings of flesh and bones. We believe that we were literally created in their image, after their likeness. We believe that our physical form resembles their physical form, and that we have been endowed with the same divine attributes as they have. We understand the Biblical verses stating that they are "one" to mean that they are perfectly and completely united in will and purpose, that they exist in absolute spiritual harmony with one another. They are equal to one another in their perfect love for us, in their divine qualities of mercy, forgiveness and grace. We believe they are "one" in every conceivable way except physical.

OK, that makes sense with other things you've written. Just curious, can you envision God as Something More than the sum of the Three Persons? This is not meant to be a leading question, nor does it address any traditional Christian theology as I am familiar with it. It's just that part of my reflection upon the nature of God allows that God is greater than anything I can comprehend, and since I can comprehend a Triangle and a Trinity of Three Persons, then God must be bigger than that yet. First I think of the Triangle, then I think of a pyramid, only one face of which I can see. Then I think of that pyramid opening up to infinity, or another dimension, or something...

Acts 4:32 states, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul..."

In Exodus 24:3, we read that "...and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do."

I would see these instances as metaphors, but...

the idea that we are all really one in some way is part of my beliefs. In a way that's what love is: the realization that you and I are one.

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me.

To me this passage states that not only are the Son and the Father One, but we are all (meant to see each other as) one, in God and in each other.

Incidentally, we do see the Holy Ghost much as you see God the Father, in terms of Him being a spirit existing apart from a physical body. It is because He is spirit that He is able to be all places at all times. God the Father, on the other hand, is consistently, throughout the scriptures, referred to as being "in Heaven" (though His power extends everywhere simultaneously).

Thank you for the clarification. I would guess then that you believe heaven to be a physical place apart from the earth?

Finally, I still believe that in spite of our differences, our beliefs are still quite similar. As a matter of fact, here's what the Book of Mormon says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost:

"And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end."

OK, there's nothing there for me to disagree with!

I plead guilty. :sorry1: It's just really hard for me, but I promise to try!

No worries. I'll try too. I have a natural tendency to debate as well (just ask Sharon).

Well, that would be it in a nutshell. I could expound on what I've already said, but it would come across as a debate, and would, I'm afraid, ultimately be counter-productive. But if, after reading my explanation, you still have questions about my beliefs, just ask and I'll try to clear them up.

Katz

Thank you. I've posed a couple of questions above so if you want to address them great. Otherwise I'll go back up to the OP and go on to the next section.

luna

Katzpur · Oct 16, 2006

lunamoth said:
Just curious, can you envision God as Something More than the sum of the Three Persons? This is not meant to be a leading question, nor does it address any traditional Christian theology as I am familiar with it. It's just that part of my reflection upon the nature of God allows that God is greater than anything I can comprehend, and since I can comprehend a Triangle and a Trinity of Three Persons, then God must be bigger than that yet. First I think of the Triangle, then I think of a pyramid, only one face of which I can see. Then I think of that pyramid opening up to infinity, or another dimension, or something...

Now its my turn to be confused. Im trying to understand exactly what you mean by Something More than the sum of the Three Persons. Let me know if Im missing the mark entirely (i.e. totally misunderstanding your question), okay? I believe that God is infinity greater than we can even begin to imagine. I know (from many past experiences) that many people see our belief in a corporeal God as in some way limiting Him. Please know that we believe Him to be every bit as powerful, knowledgeable and infinite as the God of mainstream Christianity.

I would see these instances as metaphors

Yes, but they are metaphors illustrating perfect or absolute unity or "oneness."

but... the idea that we are all really one in some way is part of my beliefs. In a way that's what love is: the realization that you and I are one.

Yes! That is our belief! We believe that we really can be one in some way. In John 17:20-23 (which you quoted), Christ prays to His Father, and asks that those who would believe in Him might be one as He and His Father are one. The KJV states, that they may be made perfect in one. Now unless you believe that He was expressing a desire that we all physically become part of the Trinity, you should be able to understand the LDS perspective on this subject. You said that we are all really one in some way. And that would be an absolutely perfect way of stating our belief. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all really one in some way. And love is probably the biggest part of that way. Understanding, compassion, and all of the other traits we see them as having are also a part of it. To us, in some way means in every way except physically. Likewise, we believe that it is entirely possible for us to become one with God, while retaining our physical identities.

Thank you for the clarification. I would guess then that you believe heaven to be a physical place apart from the earth?

Yes, we believe that God created Heaven and Earth and that God really is in Heaven. There are enough references in the Bible to this being the case, that it makes no sense to us to believe otherwise.

So Shall we move on?

lunamoth · Oct 16, 2006

Katzpur said:
Now its my turn to be confused. Im trying to understand exactly what you mean by Something More than the sum of the Three Persons. Let me know if Im missing the mark entirely (i.e. totally misunderstanding your question), okay? I believe that God is infinity greater than we can even begin to imagine. I know (from many past experiences) that many people see our belief in a corporeal God as in some way limiting Him. Please know that we believe Him to be every bit as powerful, knowledgeable and infinite as the God of mainstream Christianity.

I think you understood my question and yes, I was thinking that believing that God is a Being is limiting. But I must say it's not real evident to me that the three Persons of the Trinity is much different in this respect, except that I don't think of the Trinity as corporeal, so for me there is less of a tendency to limit God to my anthropomorphic ideas of God.

Yes, but they are metaphors illustrating perfect or absolute unity or "oneness."

Yes! That is our belief! We believe that we really can be one in some way. In John 17:20-23 (which you quoted), Christ prays to His Father, and asks that those who would believe in Him might be one as He and His Father are one. The KJV states, that they may be made perfect in one. Now unless you believe that He was expressing a desire that we all physically become part of the Trinity, you should be able to understand the LDS perspective on this subject. You said that we are all really one in some way. And that would be an absolutely perfect way of stating our belief. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all really one in some way. And love is probably the biggest part of that way. Understanding, compassion, and all of the other traits we see them as having are also a part of it. To us, in some way means in every way except physically. Likewise, we believe that it is entirely possible for us to become one with God, while retaining our physical identities.

Frankly I believe that all models fall short, although it is an article of faith that what we glean from scripture and tradition is sufficient.

Yes, we believe that God created Heaven and Earth and that God really is in Heaven. There are enough references in the Bible to this being the case, that it makes no sense to us to believe otherwise.

OK. I would say that heaven is a state of being, and the 'place' where heaven can be found is here.

So Shall we move on?

Sure, as I said I will probably only work on this thread in the evenings. I think I am also going to have to introduce you to the concept of 'broad church.'

luna

Katzpur · Oct 16, 2006

lunamoth said:
I think you understood my question and yes, I was thinking that believing that God is a Being is limiting. But I must say it's not real evident to me that the three Persons of the Trinity is much different in this respect, except that I don't think of the Trinity as corporeal, so for me there is less of a tendency to limit God to my anthropomorphic ideas of God.

Just one more quick comment, luna...

When Jesus was here on Earth, He was clearly anthropomorphic and yet this in no way limited His power. He had control over the Sea of Galilee simply by saying, "Peace. Be still." I believe that He had that same control over the Pacific Ocean while He was here. He would not have needed to be in a boat on the Pacific in order to have complete power over it, over all of the elements, and over our lives. That's just a quick explanation of why we don't believe that God having a form limits him.

Let's start our new topic...

Anglican (Episcopal)/Latter-day Saint Dialogue

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon

lunamoth

Will to love

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon

lunamoth

Will to love

lunamoth

Will to love

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon

lunamoth

Will to love

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon

lunamoth

Will to love

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon

lunamoth

Will to love

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon

lunamoth

Will to love

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon