The Theological Aesthetics of Hans Urs von Balthasar

La Salle University ^ | Joel Garver

[scottiewottie]

LOL! Who are you going to believe the "lies for Jesus" crowd that digests the Book of Mormon for them, or read it for yourself?!

[drstevej]

You're sharp today, rest.

[scottiewottie]

Nice read there.

[restornu]

Is it right for Latter-day Saints to contend and to have arguments? It is not right; it is not according to the mind and will of God. Whenever two Elders contend and argue, they may know and everyone may know that the Spirit of God is not there to the extent that it should be, because where the Spirit of God reigns there is no contention, no controversy. Men may differ in their views, but after they have expressed these differences then contention should cease; in fact, it should never exist. (Aug. 3, 1890, DW 41:484)

This is what I was trying to say about the LDS Church for I know from experience that the Spirit guides the LDS tongue when we turn our life over to the Lord!

Thank you for this I will read it again later must go out for a while!

[P-Marlowe]

I will not post you again

Then please avoid the temptation to reply to my posts as well. In the past you have responded to my posts by posting your response to everyone else but me. That is a response and I will have to respond in kind. I will not direct any posts to you. Instead I will post to your colleages and then will await their response.

[theAmbassador]

In the LDS understanding you have a better chance to be called out of darkness and learn of him for even in the Spirit World you are still learning:)

I have noticed that the discussion is now fully into Trinitarianism vs. Pluralism (Mormonism). Therefore, to cast my coin into the pot of Mormon darkness...

We know that the true Scriptures do say that the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great God, which would seem to suggest that the Bible itself does support the idea of more than one "God". However, can it be said that the Lord [Y@hovah] is the God of God?

No!

For Mormonism does teach that Elohiym is the Father and Y@hovah is the Son, two distinct and seperate "Gods". In the proper order of things Elohiym will ascend and Y@hovah will sit on the Father's throne and we will sit on Y@hovah's throne.

Yet, this verse does teach us that Y@hovah, the Son, is the God of Elohiym. So the order is reversed. However, if the Father and the Son are the same God, Holy (separate) yet One, then this verse does make perfect sense.

And the Scriptures do also affirm to us that the Lord our God,... is one.... You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him only. So, again I will ask, which one of the "Gods" only are we to serve; Y@hovah or Elohiym. Strictly speaking, it would appear as if, according to Mormoinism's intrepretation of this verse, that it is the Lord Y@hovah alone whom we are to serve. This does throw quite a monstrous monkey wrench into intrepretating the rest of the Bible.

[restornu]

I thank you for your opinion, but it is your opinion and it might be of many but it is stiii an OPINION!

IMHO

[scottiewottie]

We worship God The Eternal Father, through His Son Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Which are One God. Really very basic and makes the Bible, Apocrypha, and Early Christian Fathers, a very pleasant read.

[P-Marlowe]

Before I waste my time reading your links, can you assure me that the material on those links is the "official" LDS position on the subjects mentioned?

[restornu]

Early Christian Fathers that is an interesting site! Thanks

[White Mountain]

Your #539: [1] Arius rejected the term homoousios and used the term homoiousios. You have a typo here, I think.

Anthanasius used the term homoousios (same substance/being) while Arius used homoiousios (similar substance/being), as you said. They had a big debate in Nicea over that "iota of difference", and the homoousios guys won.

[White Mountain]

Your #543: Hey, PM, did any of these guys ever recant their "testimony?"

No, even though they each became personally disaffected with Joseph Smith and left the Church (whereupon you would think they would say what they really thought about everything), they affirmed to their deaths that they heard the voice of God, saw the angel, saw the plates and the engravings, and so forth.

[White Mountain]

Your #545: What is the official position of the LDS Church

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued a doctrinal exposition on the Father and the Son in 1916. It is listed in the bibliography of many of those www.lightplanet.com/mormons pages that Scottie linked to in his #568, but I don't think it is online anywhere. I will put some HTML in it, blockquotes, turn scripture references into links, etc., and post it, probably as the article of a separate thread because it is rather long for a reply post.

[xzins]

No, even though they each became personally disaffected with Joseph Smith and left the Church

Why did they leave? To which church did each of them go after leaving the Mormons?

[White Mountain]

My #571: Anthanasius

should be Athanasius.

[White Mountain]

Your #574: Why did they leave? To which church did each of them go after leaving the Mormons?

As I recall, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris rejoined the Church later, and died in full fellowship. I don't think David Whitmer ever did.

My information comes from a film produced by the Church years ago telling the story of the Three Witnesses, which I am sure was well-researched, but it did not go into detail on why they left. Maybe I can find out more.

Back later.

[drstevej]

Arius believed that 'there was a time when Jesus was not', i.e. that Jesus was not eternal as is the Father.

You believe that Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father gave birth to Jesus, right? If so, do you side with Arius in the quote above? Why or why not?

[scottiewottie]

None of the links are officially authorized websites of the church.

Some of the material on the links come from official church publications.

One of the links sells books that the webmaster has published.

All the links are from lay members using their own time, literary acumen, and money to produce accurate information about the LDS faith.

I trust the information on those links and agree with most of their content. As far as "official position" goes, the church does not review any material by any noncommissioned member of the church and give it a stamp of approval. By that measure what I write on these threads is not the official position of the church.

[scottiewottie]

The LDS church also rejects the Arian position for two reasons. One, Jesus has always been God. Two, while their literal relationship is father and son, the Son Jesus is heir to all that His Father has, so both are co-eternal, one in purpose, power, majesty, and glory.

Even at this early date in history, apostacy had already begun to redefine Christology. The one prominate, and by some historians the most respected Christian writer at the time of the Nicene Council, was Origen. His opinions on the Godhead more accurately reflect the LDS position. Bishops faithful to the teachings of Origen in general declined attending the council, rejecting both the motive and authority by which it was called.

[drstevej]

If, as I believe LDS teaches, Heavenly Father and Mother gave birth to Jesus -- was there a time when Jesus did not exist? Namely prior to the conception of Jesus in Heavenly Mother's womb?

Please explain where Jesus was prior to this conception if He existed. If He did not exist prior to this in your theology then LDS is Arian in it's Christology.