J. Whitebread

@BigPussyHole The USS Liberty rule strikes again! Never fails. lol.

@JWhitebread1 Only someone in a cult would give a 1000 word explanation

Okay, I think I need to explain something to any Japanese listeners. In American culture, very close friends often express affection through a practice we call "giving grief" or less delicately, "bustin' balls." We insult each other, make inappropriate comments at the other's expense, often at very inappropriate times, etc. It is frankly, one of the surest signs of trust and closeness between equals. We wouldn't do this with someone who WASN'T a very close friend and confidant. You see this more amongst men, and more in informal situations. Admittedly, you don't see it much in professional settings, and it almost never appears in international diplomacy, BUT, Trump is built different. I have no doubt, that's how Trump meant it. It's too on the nose to be anything else. He's trying to say, we respect you and admire you greatly, and we can banter like this, because we are equals. The correct response is to utterly ROAST or insult your friend back in response. This can even evolve into what is called a "game of dozens" which is a friendly contest to see you can insult their friend with the best, most scathing insult. I think I will stop before I have to explain "Your Momma" jokes, but I think you can get the gist. Please feel free to utterly destroy America with a clever insult in response.

@TrumpGirlGem No, because the joke was coherent. If Biden had done it it would have been a incomprehensible string of syllables followed by a sharting sound.

@JWhitebread1 "Clean up on aisle 4" Trump is turning into the GOP version of Biden.

AD600년에서 900년 사이 유카탄 지역의 건축은 정말 놀라움으로 가득한데, Puuc 양식이라고 불리우는, 벽면을 온갖 상징의 장식들로 가득 채운 건물들이 고대 건축의 경이로움을 전해주고 있다...더욱 놀라운 점은 이들이 석회 가루와 자갈을 섞은 콘크리트를 사용했다는 점...

This is the American South. Heck, sometimes in one dish.

@John_Stone_ Yeah I figured. Sorry. My error. I mostly talk to Catholics and Protestants. IMO the RC/Prot view is frankly, just modalism with more semantics. The Orthodox view is IMO, much more nuanced and careful in this regard.

@JWhitebread1 Yes, and I think that latter point is the source of confusion and disagreement. “Same essence” (category of being) was (mis)translated into “same substance”—and “substance” is akin to material or matter.

Yet another good video on the Trinity, this time from Ward Radio. It brings up several more important points. I repeat this to everyone that listens, but it's important to remember that the Council of Nicaea solved exactly...NOTHING. The Arians didn't disappear, in fact more than half the church remained "Arian" or "Quasi-Arian" (The extent to which they agreed with Arius is unclear but we know they disagreed with how they were categorized) and would remain so for 60 years. There was no univerasl agreement on what "homoousian" or "consubstantial" actually meant and many who thought they were in agreement with the creed were shocked to later see the creed used against them. Many of the bishops who signed on to the creed were probably closer in belief to LDS theology than current creedalists. It wasn't until a new council (and not coincidentally a new dynasty) in Constantinople in 381, that anything was actually settled, and even then, not completely. Don't let anyone tell you that Nicaea settled the matter of the Trinity. The Trinity was an evolving process that emerged over centuries, and there are still profound disagreements between Catholics and Orthodox to this day. youtu.be/kwIpqdMHGXg?si…

@GUATEMAXmations I pray for the day he can serve in his home country.

Our ward recently received a missionary from Israel 😯

@John_Stone_ I agree, The Son has to be fully divine. I think we are talking past each other because we are running into the distinction between Latin and Greek understandings of the Trinity. The Latin Trinity is more focused on the consubstantiality of the Godhead.

@JWhitebread1 I should add: if the Son is of a similar but not the same essence as the Father, how could the Son bridge the gap between God and man, thereby making theosis possible?

Okay, I see what you are saying, but you're making the case for social trinitarianism easier then. I don't have it at my fingertips, but I seem to remember that this is the very divide that separated people at Nicaea and earlier, the distinction between categories and singular entities. Are you saying no patristic source took homoousian, to mean that God was a singular entity? I don't think that's accurate. Or there would be no distinction for your description of homoousian above and homoiousian, for example.

You’re assuming “homoousious” was understood to mean “one being” before 451. I’ve never seen evidence that it was. “Same essence” meant the same *category* of being. As in, trees share the same essence, horses share the same essence, mankind shares the same esssence, and the Father and the Son share the same essence. It would be absurd to think the statement that “mankind shares the same essence” meant “mankind is a single being.” “Same essence” meant same *category* of being. The confusion arose later when “homoousious” was translated into Latin as “consubstantialis.” The original wording, “same essence” was changed via translation to “same substance.” So, the original statement that the Father and the Son were the same *category* of being—i.e., eternal, divine, God—was turned into a statement that the Father and the Son were of the same *substance*.

@John_Stone_ Well if it did, it only did it by 451. Before that?

@JWhitebread1 The Chalcedonian Creed says Christ was of the same essence as us as mankind. That should put to rest the false notions that “homoousious” means same being.

@snuffybodacious @BradRTorgersen That flag planted on the Sea of Tranquility is our Stonehenge, our Pyramids of Giza. It's as much a testament to the faith of America as any of the cathedrals of Europe.

@JWhitebread1 @BradRTorgersen I wasn't alive in 1969, but I still get chills thinking about what America did to accomplish this.

As my friend @BradRTorgersen has often said, we did the moonshot at the far bleeding edge of our technological capabilities. It was like building a steamship to cross the Atlantic with medieval level technology, but we did it.

@plasmarob Sigh. True. Or it may be AI. The internet is full of lies. I mostly share because it is cute.

@JWhitebread1 this may be staged or stolen

They look like they are freeze frames from an epic kung fu fight.

This chart was a “comic book bullpen” staple, tacked up on the wall for reference

@james_IA76 @GoetingGoet My fave calling was financial clerk. It had clear metrics, and if you hit those, you were DONE. Go home, guilt free. There's always something more you could do as an EQ or RS prez.

@GoetingGoet @JWhitebread1 Number four in the difficulty hit parade.

The next step is all male primary presidencies. Brethren, our time is coming. Just wait until we organize the munchkins into legions of stripling warriors. Singing time? Try slinging time. Oh yes. It's all coming together.

@lildcookie This is good.

@JWhitebread1 All I know is our Elder’s Quorum has been going to the shooting range. It’s a new thing that has everyone excited to attend. It has my 22 year old son and my husband all ramped up and happy. I’m all for it.

I miss the future of the past.

Okay, all reasonable comments. I think "many" is clearly justifiable but if you want more data, I will have to dig that out. I think Frend talks about it. I get that people fudge with vagueness, but I don't think I've been especially vague. We've discussed Eusebius and the Council of Constantinople as clear demonstations of the principle, so I don't think we are far off the beam here. We are arguing over definitions which are fine, but those data points alone should suffice, and we are now arguing over terms and scale. Now, on the subject of "God being man." This is annoying tick that always comes up in these conversations. First of all, this is a common misconception of LDS doctrine, so before we proceed on that ground, you have to explain what YOU think we think that means, because a lot of mischief happens here. But it's also irrelevant IMO because I never brought it up, you did. We have been talking about homoousian and how it developed. That's a specific and concrete issue. I am talking about a narrow concept here, the historocity of Homoousianism, and people insist on broadening it out to every LDS theological difference. It's very common and it's very tedious. But why stop there? Why not bring in the Word of Wisdom or anything else. It's silly. I do not have to defend every LDS belief against the history of Nicaea, any more than Orthodox have to defend the tollhouses using Nicaea. I think it is clear the affinity of social Trinitarians is pretty dang strong. Especially since the homoousian view is so ANTI-Social Trinitarianism. I don't have to prove full or complete affinity, especially as we are talking about one thing here, the nature of God's being one in three persons. That's a very narrow aspect. YMMV but I think I've made my case on that grounds. The dynasty in question is the Theodosian dynasty, which not only called the Council of Constantinople but executed the Theodosian purges. So it was definitely an activist imperial perogative that moved on a lot of fronts. By historical and not inevitable, I mean that the idea developed gradually, over time, and was not fully formed or articulated or even conceived in one go. Most defenders of Nicaea will argue that it merely codified what Christians always believed. That's not something that can be argued by the facts. Christians clearly had to debate and counter debate the issue. Had it turned another way, homoousian might not have one the day. Thanks for the informed civil conversation, it's a nice departure from the usual LDS/non LDS conversations online.

You said: “many”. That is a strong claim, yet not definite. I asked why that meant and how you knew. The burden is not on me to establish anything about “many” there. I pressed you because, far too often, claims like “many” are made, and they rarely have foundation. I don’t think you’re being disingenuous, and given your bona fides I’m sure you can appreciate the need for rigor, or to acknowledge when a claim is actually tentative after all. Many a false narrative is spun on smudges like that - and at least some people exploit the imprecision to advance their argument. Of course there wasn’t full unanimity at any general/ecumenical council. No serious theologian or church historian (except maybe you Eusebius of Caesarea!) claims otherwise. I also wouldn’t say there was “such a diversity” (this is a vague “many” again) which suggests some panoply of “homoousioses” - there were in fact a bare few key positions at Nicaea, and as you seem to know the following 56 years were spent deep in refinement by the Cappadocians/Meletians and others. My point isn’t granularity, at all. In fact, it is “granular” to assume an affinity based on “we both reject homoousios”, when the Arians, for example, absolutely would have balked at the idea that God the Father has been a man. Making a negat-ive claim (this is what we don’t believe) doesn’t suggest any affinity on what you do believe. The latter is the much tougher claim to support. On the post-Nicene question, I’m not sure we disagree: When you say “change in dynasty”, to which do you refer? I’m not sure exactly what you mean by a “historical not inevitable” development. Thanks for the discussion, btw. All submitted respectfully, in case tone seems kind of terse.

Well that's not surprising since it was clear there was no universal agreement on what it meant until after Constantinople in 381. Even the literal reading "same essence" can be interpreted in many ways. The reading that came to dominate, that it describes the metaphysical essence of the Trinity, one in being, succeeded because it put the final nail in the coffin to all forms of subordinatism that were not simple economic subordinatism.

@JWhitebread1 I have yet to meet someone who both objects to “homoousia” and understands what it means.

@AlysssaHazel Always wondered if the pilot from Alien was inspired by the Tower of the Elephant

"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split." Today we continued our re-visit of Howard's Conan with The Tower of The Elephant. This seems to be the establishing Conan Tale; introducing the above quote, Crom's aspect, the weird nature to the world and Conan's duality. He is a slayer of men and an adventure, but he is also honorable and not without compassion. I would rate this, but Crom doesn't care. Oh heck, 5/5 Giant Spiders.