I don’t want to re-open the issues Michael has summarized so well. But I would just leave a couple thoughts:

You are never going to get most Mormons to relinquish their claims to a monotheistic worship paradigm on what most of us view as a mere philosophical technicality. We will always consider ourselves monotheists for the simple reason that we worship one entity and we only believe in one controlling entity in the universe.

Yet we take very seriously Jesus’ call for all of us to become one in the same way he and the Father are “one.”

Also, I would suggest that Protestants, as a whole, have not taken the fully Biblical doctrine of theosis seriously enough. I’m not talking about the Mormon version. I’m talking about the sort taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Bible is packed with this doctrine. It’s a shame Protestantism hasn’t made better use of this “talent” left to it by the Master.

Anyway, it’s been nice debating here. I’m glad the conversation turned out better than the first portion of the thread I read. This blog has more than redeemed itself as far as I’m concerned. Thanks to those willing to have a respectful dialogue.

regards,
John

First off, it’s been hectic, so my humble apologies for the delays. And the next two-three weeks don’t look any better unfortunately.

I also took the time to read most of this blog again this afternoon and consequently this will probably be my last post on this topic. However I do think I will start another thread, here or somewhere else, because there were some really good topics that came up. They were a little on the periphery of what we’re discussing here, but merit some attention nonetheless.

Seth,
I do appreciate the difference in what we are trying to understand in what the unity between the Father, the Son and the Spirit really is like or what it should be. It’s a great discussion on the Nature of the Trinity (and let’s accept that term to indicate their union, whatever it may be). That being said, I think it would merit a separate thread.

Concerning the original topic on whether “ The Mormon Faith is a true representation of Christianity” I think we are somewhat running in circles. Jared pointed that out in #185 already.

I think that “our”, with which I mean most Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and which I will call “traditional”, interpretation of the Trinity is quite different from the one adhered to by the Mormon doctrine. This is not necessarily a debate on who has the right interpretation, but one has to admit it is different. I will grant that the “traditional” view can lead to quite a lot of misinterpretations, modalism not in the least. On the other hand, the Mormon interpretation can lead to another danger in that it seems awfully close to a poly-theistic view. Three distinct phyiscal personae, even though united in purpose, would still make for three different gods, unless they were indeed one and the same in entire being aka essence. I have no problem using a word from Greek philosophy to describe this. Just like I have no trouble using genetics or physics to describe my belief that there is one God and creator. It’s not because something grew or is used outside Christianity that we can’t use it.

And I really cannot rhyme a view that is dangerously close to poly-theism to my understanding on who God is. There’s too much in the Bible indicating there is only one God. Deut 6:4 not in the least, but in my daily reading earlier this week I hit Psalm 81. Verses 9 and 10a struck me so clear. There is only ONE God. And if we need to resort to “essence” to clarify or try and understand in our finite human minds to understand why Christ was also that one God while yet fully human, I can accept that.

If you go back and read posts 154, 161, 168, 170 and 181, you can read back as to what my arguments are. Jared did ask some good questions as to what does this mean for the nature of salvation, which is why I think this merits a new post.

Unless you can proclaim that Jahweh and Elohim are one and the same. That there is but ONE God, who is the eternal God, creator of all and that we are not eternal and his physical creation, that we have no prior existence before being born, etc… I think we have to come to the conclusion that we agree to disagree on the matter of whether The Mormon faith is a true representation of Christianity

Other questions remains such as:
* What are the differences in interpretation of the Trinity amongst the faiths that call themselves “Christian”
* What does it take for someone to be “Saved” (even though I don’t like that term personally)
* What does it really mean to be a “Follower of Christ”

Perhaps some ideas for CMP to post. If not I’ll see if I can write an article over on my blog in a couple of weeks.

Until then, God Bless, take care and I look forward to continued discussions. Perhaps even one day, God willing, a face to face conversation.

In Him
Mick

I appreciate the discussion from all parties. I’m too much of a neophyte at philosophy to feel like I have much to add, but it’s been interesting to lurk and read.

I picked up on Open Theism formally when Jack suggested that some of my statements sounded compatible with it and linked me to other resources on the movement. Upon reading them, I found it meshed very closely with a lot of things I already believe and had believed for some time.

But I came to these beliefs by reading the scriptures and thinking about it. Not by engaging in philosophical analysis and argument. A lot of it started when I was dealing with the common Evangelical criticism of Joseph Smith and some alleged “failed prophecies” he made. I think a key example used was how in one of our books of scripture – the Doctrine and Covenants – some guy is called to go on a mission to preach the word in a revelation from God. Then he died before he ever went anywhere.

We got into a big debate about what constitutes a failed prophecy and the Mormons in the argument inevitably tossed the biblical example of Jonah back at our critics. Once I got thinking about the story of Jonah in detail, I gradually ended up with conclusions that were pretty decidedly Open Theist.

It’s not a completely happy union with Mormonism however.

The biggest problem is that Open Theism generally posits a rather linear and time-constrained universe – including a God that operates within time.

But a multitude of uniquely Mormon scriptures make it quite plain that God is, at least in some sense, timeless. So anyone who wants to wed Open Theism with Mormonism (as some modern Mormon scholars are doing) is going to have to deal with that problem.

I’ve got a couple half-baked theories, but I can’t claim to have found the silver bullet on that one.

Let me outline what I think the philosophical concept of “essence” means. To me the word/concept means that you share in every attribute fully. The Wikipedia entry puts it:

“essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity.”

It originates the idea with Aristotle, who linked it to the notion of “ousía” or substance. From which we get Nicea’s use of the term “homoousios” (hope I’m spelling these right). Basically “one substance.” The Nicean Creed shoehorned this extra-biblical Greek innovation into the Bible to combat the Arian notion that Jesus didn’t always exist, but was rather created ex nihilo by God.

Since Mormons don’t believe in ex nihilo at all, the same concerns don’t apply to our debate in the same way.

Here’s the thing Michael, the idea of homoousis takes this notion of unity to an utterly unwarranted degree. You added to my list of mind, will and purpose the ideas of love, wisdom, power, and feeling. I imagine there are others.

But here’s the thing, you can posit a Father and Son united in ALL of those respects without positing a union of “substance.” You can get there without homoousis.

Homoousis, in fact, requires you to unify Father and Son in EVERY respect. So you are essentially saying that Father and Son are the same in every conceivable respect, and yet still different. Which is incoherent. Which Mormons reject.

Here’s the key, I think, to the Mormon concept of Father and Son:

It’s a voluntary relationship. It is not required by some essential nature. The Son voluntarily loves and unites with the Father. It is not something he is forced to do like a metal filing is forced to stick to a magnet. Jesus Christ could choose to not unite with God (as can we all). There’s nothing in Jesus essential nature that forces him to be “God.” Jesus gains that status by his union with the Father – as he has always had it from the beginning (at least from the beginning we know of – before which, all is speculation). And it’s all voluntary (and thus more admirable I would argue).

By the way John, I do appreciate the tone that you, mbaker and Michael have been working to maintain in this debate. Thanks for that.
DITTO.. and you’re more than welcome. It’s been quite educational.

Most Christians revert to some modalist understanding of the Trinity (paraphrased from your comments)

AMEN on that ! Read any T.D.Jakes lately Dangerously close.

that Father and Son are one in mind, will and purpose. How about love ? Or feeling ? Or strength ? Or wisdom ? Or …..

My understanding of “essence” is the whole. I don’t think you can limit it to those 3 attributes. Hence the word “Essence” to describe the whole.

Still leaves the challenge of how something physical can be eternal ? Which it can’t.. so who created it ?

Besides that.. I’ll have to respond more at length tomorrow. Consider this a small courtesy post to let you know I’m still very much engaged and interested.

In Him
Mick

regards,
John

Seth: “But it doesn’t get rid of the problem of infinite regress of causes. ” Yes it does, because the issue of an infinite regress of causes only applies to those things that have causes, are material, and are located in time. All material things that we can observe have causes, are material, and are located in time. God, however, is not material, is located outside of time (or at least was before he created time), and has no cause.

regards,
John

Seth: “If God was perfect, then why change the state of affairs by creating us? After all, any change from perfection would be “not perfection,” wouldn’t it?”

Actually, not true. A Greek, platonic view of perfection requires no change, but a Christian view does not. First off, if we understand that all of our thinking about God must be centered on Jesus, who alone is the perfect revelation of God’s very being (Heb 1:3), it’s not clear how anyone could conclude that God is timeless. Jesus is God incarnated in time. He is the Word made flesh in time. Second, the Bible says “the Word became flesh” (Jn 1:14), for example. This was an action God took. But to say the Word became flesh entails the Word wasn’t always flesh. Before Jesus appeared on the scene, the Word was not flesh. Third, the hellenistic assumption that all change implies imperfection was misguided from the start. While change that implies improvement or decay certainly signifies imperfection, not all change occurs for this reason. A perfect being may change in response to changing circumstances simply because it’s appropriate to change in this way, not as a way of improving or worsening. So, for example, we (and God) experience emotion. It’s not imperfect to change from rejoicing to grief to righteous anger in appropriate response to the circumstances and other people. In fact, it would be imperfect if one (including God) could not respond appropriately.

Seth: “I’ve heard Christian arguments that creation was a natural outpouring of God’s love, but this is no answer. Why didn’t God do it sooner, if it was so great? Why did he wait an eternity before the “Big Bang?”” Ah, that would simply be because before the creation of the universe (with its four dimensions, including time), there was not time. Without time there was/is no “before”. There was no “sooner”.

As to what God was doing? Sharing love between the three. As to what that means, God doesn’t tell us. However, asking what God was doing is a trivial question, because it presumes that God existed, which is the main point. If God chooses not to tell us what he was doing, or how, that’s up to him. Not telling us what He was doing is irrelevant to his invitation to us in the here and now to experience his abundant life and salvation.

regards,
John