Dr T

Hi Lindy, Psalm 103:8-17 The LORD [is] merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. He will not always chide: neither will he keep [his anger] for ever. He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as the heaven is high above the earth, [so] great is his mercy toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, [so] far hath he removed our transgressions from us. Like as a father pitieth [his] children, [so] the LORD pitieth them that fear him. For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we [are] dust. [As for] man, his days [are] as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more. But the mercy of the LORD [is] from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; You raise a very good question. That's all I'm going to say. Dr. T

Hi all/Ray, You said Do you actually see it as a cycle that never began? How, if it is actually a cycle, can it not have a beginning? Thanks, Dr. T

Hi AK-the MAN (and all), As always, you got me thinking about this topic. I am familiar with Biblical texts where I feel comfortable in its discussion. I am not an expert however and look to others that are more knowledgable about it than I to get a better understanding of the text. I take their thoughts, use my own undersanding and then walk away with the most appropriate understanding. I was looking over some things that you wrote and when talking to Dan D. about his thoughts on the Trinity, he offered some interesting points. You said, I was looking into that specifically. Since you understand the importance of context, I'll let you know what Dan said. "What do you think the people who originally heard his remarks, who knew the context perfectly, who spoke the same language, who had the same cultural understandings, think that Jesus meant? It’s interesting that he didn’t say something like, "No, no, you've misunderstood me. I only meant that as an expression of unity of will." He is, after all, about to be killed over this "misunderstanding." No. Instead He strenghtened His claim: He said,

Hey AK, Thank you for sharing your thoughts and for clarifying some things. I’m having so much fun; I smiled the whole way through! You said that it’s not a: I’m sorry if I painted the wrong picture. That’s not what I meant sir. I did not mean to imply that if God didn’t guide the councils then he could not guide anyone. I understand that doesn’t follow from that premise. My point was that a refusal to accept anyone else’s interpretations except their own, the LDS church appears to claim exclusive knowledge of God. I wanted to point out that the both groups are claiming to be guided by God. I wanted to show that they reject others claims of being able to interpret scripture and what God is expressing through revelation. As you can probably guess, I find the implication that “no one can get a ‘true’ understanding of God, without it coming from a church leader,” curious. Reading your response, I saw (some) confirmation of that belief. My suspicion now, is even in light of added revelation that contradicts any other scripture, the LDS church will easily accept it if the leadership tells them “its new revelation”. That is based on the sense that I’m getting (which I admit, may be incorrect) is that under the auspices of “authority” all statements are immediately solidified as official. What I’m learning is that from there, an LDS believer would pray and ask for the Holy Spirit’s guidance and if they get the confirmation then they believe it. Is that correct? If this is correct, my next question would be, is the Counsels understanding rejected because its in the Bible (which is downgraded in importance) or because it was spoken against by a church leader? Like I said before, “We find what we’re looking for.” What if it is not true but we still get confirmation (through a feeling)? What then? Has there been any contradictions that are explained away by the use of “based on new revelation…”? I’ll continue with my initial thoughts on the article. Please reply to those posts and then we can flesh them out as time permits. Thanks again, Dr. T

Do you have any samples you can post online? THanks

Hi WinnieG, You said, What are you trying to say?

Hi Ray, Can you give an example of what you mean? Thanks

The way I read it was, "The earth is perched on the back of a giant turtle." Says the other, "But what is the giant turtle perched on?" And the reply was, "How about we change the subject." Dr. T

Hello all, I appreciate the opportunity to critique this LDS article amongst intelligent people from the LDS background. :) Here are some more analytical thoughts about this article. In some of them, you’ll see that I’m having a hard time understanding the difference between what is being spoken against and what I’m learning about the LDS faith. I hope you know that I know religious beliefs are firm. I am not trying to change your beliefs. I am not anti-Mormon. I am merely listing my critical thoughts about this article. I hope to learn from your responses to my questions. Continuing on... This appears to present a False dilemma for the reader. I hope, through more reading and through our discussion to either confirm or abandon this thought, but so far, it does not hold based on my knowledge. We have not talked specifically about what the Bible, taken as a whole, says-so that will have to wait. The implication here is that the Councils added to scripture. What separates that assertion from their claim that they “just clarified its meaning”? I’ve heard Christian church members say that the Counsels clarified scripture under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. Many, if not all, reading my ideas about this article will probably reject that, but I want to again highlight my observation that, from what I’m gathering, LDS members reject it while simultaneously claiming that God did superintend Joseph Smith (and others). I bring this up because, if we are talking about the wrongfulness of adding to scripture, what of the clear doctrinal additions to what the Bible teaches? Some examples might include God’s (sexual?) relations with Mary, God once being a human being, believing in many other gods, etc. Is it accurate to say that the LDS church does add to scripture in those instances? Does anyone, really? Using that same train of thought, would it be fair to believe that there seems to be no conflict about the modern leaders of the LDS church “wagging the biblical dog via a new ‘revelation.’" Is that an accurate allegation? That is not intended to exasperate or annoy any of you. I am sincerely asking about your ideas about the similarities and differences of the allegations that this article is putting forth. I guess what I’m seeing is “someone outside the church (outside the Counsels) and someone outside the LDS church, both being on the outside looking in, and both accusing the other of not being Holy Spirit/Ghost led and accusing the other of adding to scripture. Which critics of the Latter-day Saints say that one must "also believe the creeds in addition to the Bible in order to even be a Christian"? (again no footnote). Based on the religious exploration and conversations that I’ve been doing/having amongst various church groups, my guess would be that many Christians are people who see the creeds as biblical clarification on the nature of God. “These creeds are not additions just explanations of what the Bible teaches,” they would say. What do you all see as the point of this sentence? Is it intended to deny the Creeds and to stake the claim of being a true "Christian" one cannot believe in One God in three personages? As, Dan (an very intelligent Catholic man) said, “The Creeds actually function as a benchmark. They measure claims about doctrine. It isn't so important that you accept the creeds as that you do not contradict them.” OK, given his advice lets take a look at the first line of the Nicene Creed and look at some concepts that are extra biblical: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. So far, I gathered that the LDS church believes in more than one God. AK (whom I enjoy and respect said it, “one, two, three”) and I have heard this on this forum from others and from the website where we find the article we are discussing we also read, Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (A of F 1). These three Gods form the Godhead, which holds the keys of power over the universe. (This and subsequent quotations taken from http://www.lightplanet.com except as otherwise noted.) This makes me wonder about Heavenly Mother (is she a God too?): I’ve also learned that people on this site believe that they may become Gods too: God used to be a man: No ambiguity there. How could Mary have been a virgin at Christ's birth if she had intercourse with God? My question is, if it all “Naturally” that relation between someone that was a human at one point, she still didn’t lose her virginity? I don’t understand that. Any insights that can be shared about that? That is a response that relates to my understanding of what Trinitarians would say. We still need to explore what the Bible actually says to see if the above issues are present. My fear is that we just accept that comment of dismissal without really looking to see what the Bible says. OK. What of the LDS teachings mentioned above that have no biblical basis whatever? Why are they OK (given this standard)? The "one scholar" cited is Maruice Wiles, from his book, "Making of Christian Doctrine." Let us see what else Maruice Wiles has said: "Scripture, it is true, was sometimes treated as a set of prepositional statements from which the truth could be read off by a process of deductive logic. But Scripture was never the sole court of appeal. The living tradition of the Church included not only the historical facts recorded in Scripture but also the continuing and contemporary experience of Christians." The Making of Christian Doctrine, p. 160 "Theology is a continually changing and essentially temporary task. All religious language is unsatisfactory." Wiles denied the doctrine of the Trinity, contributing to a book called, "The Myth of God Incarnate." He also rejected miracles. He claimed that we have just as much capacity today to deduce theology from our own experience as the biblical authors did. There is nothing special about the apostolic writings. To say that Wiles' views are controversial would be a serious understatement. As an exemplar of "one scholar" with the view that the creeds don't reflect biblical teaching, Wiles is sorely lacking. So, from what I read here, the "scholars" consist of exactly one man who renounced all of his orthodox views for reasons that are not known. Where I’m getting stuck is that to justify all of the non-biblical doctrines mentioned above, one could just write another book and call it "scripture” and, ipso facto, you've case is closed. I’m saying this in light of the following quote for an important reason. Then why do we need the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, etc? Is that a true statement? I’m asking that because if LDS deny the first line of the Nicene Creed, “which is entirely scriptural” if you look at a plethora of OT and NT referencfes that there is exactly one God, I don’t see how that can be. That’s enough for today. I’ll post my other initial impressions after you all have a chance to read this piece and give me feedback. Thanks, Dr. T

Ray, Very well done! I appreciate your comments and the tone in which you expressed them. Thank you, Dr. T

Hello all, I don't mean to rush us through the fun ideas that are coming up but I had a few minutes to post my other thoughts. Here they are. No. OK. Here is an assertion of belief. Is the idea of “oneness” and “threeness” the same or re-defined like the “trinity”? By "threeness," does the LDS believer take that to mean there are three Gods? The whole “3 Gods with whom we have anything to do” type idea? Technically, I don’t think I’ve heard it that way. I have heard “One god with whom we have anything to do.” Following my (amateur) train of thought, does the first quote represent the LDS belief? Is that really what is meant when talking about the Trinity? We have already established that LDS believe that there are an infinite number of Gods in the LDS pantheon (a group of illustrious persons). No disrespect (I promise)-when I read that, I chuckled. From my understanding, Mormonism is a "postbiblical church," it has/does put words in God's mouth, and it has invented many new doctrines. This, from my novice comparative readings, seems to be the case. I wanted to tell the author, “Psst, the trees are the forest.” I think this next quote is very important and relates directly to PC's keen eye of the need to discuss the restoration of the church Quote: If a proposition is not already found in the Bible, by what authority--in the absence of Apostles and prophets--can it be imposed on the church as the word of God? Sticky. Many people of the Christian persuasion would probably say, Sola Scriptura for biblical concepts-not extra biblical such as all the “added concepts” of eternal progression, etc. Do you all feel like this is also talking about “reading/understanding” of what the Bible says too? One of my, perhaps, arrogant and “sinful” biases is that the average, run of the mill, person can come to an understanding of God and salvation without an apostle/priest, etc. by reading special revelation (the Bible). My suspicion is that the above quote is so ingrained in the LDS belief system that they become biased by the fact that the prophet gave their interpretation of scripture (or added something new to it) and all followers begin to read scripture from that perspective. Basically, my point is, as humans we tend to find what we are looking for. My bias is, “they can clarify it.” Based upon all that I’m learning on this site, it is the LDS church who appears, to expand upon and "correct" the doctrines of the Apostles. Is that correct? My bias would be to say “No.” But, as I said, Joseph Smith did. Brigham Young did. I’m speaking of the, “Now I will remove the veil” type of discourses that I’ve read. I've written all this with apprehension. I fear it will me misinterpreted and derail our conversation and begin to anger you all. That is not my intent. I was setting the stage for asking this, If you as an LDS member, who knows the LDS literature, would look at the origins of the doctrine of the Trinity in your own church, “From where did it come?” Was it directly from the Bible or from Mormon writers? Basically, what started you on the road to disconfirming and abandoning the historical doctrine of the Trinity? Was it the Bible? What is someone adding to the post biblical church? etc... Having fun, Dr. T

Good post AK (as usual). Great systemic thinking about the political climate of the time. I have to admit, I have not factored in that piece. Thanks. Following that premise, the establishment of the doctrine was a unifying appeal (no pun intended), what about today? People who believe in the Trinity report, "It's verified by reading the whole of scripture and the only way to harmonize all the verses." If we keep talking about this doctrine, we will eventually get into an examination of the verses. I am no Bible scholar but we can find some resources to analyse. AK, there is no question in my mind, that the historical concept of the Trinity is a tough concept to digest. I do have questions about Jesus' "Not my will but Yours be done" type of things that you are pointing out. Because of my own cynicism, I've talked to other Trinitarians about those same issues. What of your response to my question of the LDS terms not found in the Bible? And holding different standards for belief than the belief in the concept of the Trinity? Any thoughts? Thanks

Hello all, Continuing on with the article, in the next paragraph we read: True statement. That does not necessarily warrant a dismissal of the concept. What if we hold the same standard to other words? How about the word "Mormon", “theogony” (a fun new term to me), "Celestial Kingdom," "Eternal Progression," and "Gnolom"? The answer, of course, is no. Do you still believe in those concepts? I’m sure each of those will take threads (perhaps volumes). My point? “Just because the word is not there does not mean the concept is not.” Another issue that comes up for me during this dialogue is the disparity between the acceptance of added material to the Bible with Latter Day revelation, The Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, etc. and the disregard and dismissal of a concept such as the Trinity because of the idea that it is “adding to scripture.” If I’m wrong please correct me. That is how I will learn. What I’m starting to recognize is, and I’m only guessing, LDS believers feel that "these are supernatural documents and revelations” and as such, justify this difference. Perhaps, one would say, “Joseph Smith was acting under the guidance of God." OK. The part that stands out to me here though, is that the councils that are being dismissed feel they were acting under the guidance of God too. I guess what I’m asking, I guess, is, “God could guide Joseph Smith but not the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon?” Why? My ability to confirm this is hindered because I don’t know where he got that. Note there is not footnote. I’m sure many people would disagree with this claim. I’m sure he has read the verses and the explanation and the philosophical definitions of the nature of God yet reads them in different ways. This does not mean that the writers of the Bible were uninterested in the essence of God. To the contrary, they write verses about the unity/oneness/and divinity of the Father, Son and H.S. There are a lot of Biblical references for this. I would love to explore those when we finish our initial thoughts on this article. This statement, appears to me to be true to some degree but also not completely correct. My understanding is that it was not necessary to specifically define the Trinity until people began to misdefine it. No, from what I understand about this, they were trying to sort it out in response to other people who were founding cults with un-biblical understandings of the Trinity and other doctrines. Hopefully I'll have some time to elaborate on this later. That’s enough for tonight. I’ll continue when I get some more time. Looking forward to your thoughts, Dr. T

Thanks for your thoughts A.K. Sorry, I meant to put the "It's as simple as that" in quotes not in parenthesis. I also should have written "forever" instead of "for ever" in the above post. Anyway, I'm glad this is a forgiving board. Thanks

Hello A.Knight, Thanks for your quick reply. You are the man AK! I guess my response to the opening paragraphs were based on the "Christian dogma" definition of the Trinity. As defined here http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trinity I was distinguishing between these two definitions: Trinity Pronunciation: 'tri-n&-tE Function: noun Etymology: Middle English trinite, from Old French trinité, from Late Latin trinitat-, trinitas state of being threefold, from Latin trinus threefold 1 : the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma 2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or things As you see, the second definition, which is not capitalized is different from the Christian dogma def. Hence, my difficulty in understanding the claim that one does believe something (“It’s as simple as that” and then not believing it. The whole horse/cow issue above. It, in my opinion is redefining it yet being put forth as believing the Trinity with a capital T. Well, I have to run. I'll post my other thoughts when I can. Thank you all, Dr. T

Hello A.K., Yes; in short, accuracy issues. I hope to lay out my (admittedly novice) understanding of what is written there. Through our discussion, I’ll point out where the author of that article does not fully quote the author he is referencing. I think that a more complete reading of the original text completely change the meaning deduced from only reading the quotes that were were in that article. Basically, these statements only show snippets of the quoted authors work and unfortunately this distorts the issue under investigation. Anyway, that is for us all to figure out as we go. I understand that the doctrinal implications of the Trinity are huge and that the very limited time I’ve put into it (so far) is not sufficient to address all the issues it raises. Let it be known that I am not claiming any expertise on this topic but merely putting forth ideas and questions that might or might not be viewed as important to the readers on this forum, but they are fun for me to explore. I just want to share my initial thoughts and the questions that came up for me during my research on it. Lets get started. Since there is a lot to cover, lets just talk about a couple of things in the introductory paragraphs. An important thing to understand here, IMHO, is that there is a change in definitions. This is a big issue for me given the fact that PC said, “We are all Trinitarians here.” For example, we read in the second paragraph: In discussing this with an acquaintance of mine, Dan, he said: “And if you define ‘horse’ as a ‘quadrupedal mammal,’ then a cow is a horse.” What he was saying is that to claim a belief, then change the characteristics of that belief, you really are talking about something wholly different. We wouldn’t say, “I know this is a horse” when talking about a cow. (except this really is beating a dead cow) Why then is it important for that author to say LDS believe in the Trinity? Or in other words (I thought of you when I wrote that Ray :) ), if one means by "Trinity" what orthodox Christians have taught about the Trinity for 2,000 years, the LDS church does not believe it. OK. If you don’t believe it that way, you don’t believe it. My understanding however was that the Christain church adhere to certain “fundamental” or “essential” beliefs. The Trinity is one (I think). If you didn’t believe one of the fundamentals, you weren’t considered a Christian (or something like that). Yet, I’ve been reading how much the LDS church is pushing the idea that they are Christians. I actually talked to an LDS member in the last couple of days who said, “As a Mormon, I believe in the Trinity. I’m a Christian just like the guy who goes to the Christian Reformed Church down the street." What are your thought on my initial impressions of this article? Thanks, Dr. T

Hello all, I feel like I've been away from this board for ever! I'm sure I wasn't missed. As I said, I've read it and began critiquing that document. I've been reading the references (when given) that were given (when possible) and other background literature on the implied errors that the author posits. I would like it if you all read that link so we can discuss our thought about it. It will definitely take more time give it a full critical review but I'm getting closer. So far I see significant issues. Thanks, Dr. T

Welcome Oz, Thanks for your contribution. Dr. T

I've never heard that before, Ray. Is that yours or common? I might be more out of it than I thought...

Respect to you for that post Ray. Thanks

Thanks for the link on the Doctrinal Exclusion: Trinity and the Nature of God, P.C. I'll read it and get back to you all with my thoughts.

Ray, I agree. You are trying. I still read others frustrations, so things aren't great (yet). I'm learning to put up with your remarks. I just didn't want you to take it as being OK with people. That's all. Thank you for taking the higher ground and being a bigger man than me. I really look forward to what I can learn from you. I just hope I can learn without being beaten up… With reverence, Dr. T

Hello Ray, I know you will not appreciate this but I will not feel comfortable letting it continue without another attempt. I addressed you publicly (the first time) about my impression of your posts. You dismissed my feedback out of hand. AK basically told you the same things that I took issue with. You apparently have heard this over and over, yet you continue. I have tried multiple times to PM messages like this to you but you must have turned off the PM option from me. So that option is out. I fear that if I don’t tell you this, you’ll continue making conversations unpleasant. So I had to bring it to this thread. I fear that you misunderstand my initial apology. I was apologizing for addressing you that way in public (which I’m doing again). This is not to be confused with an acceptance of your rude conduct. I was hopeful that AK's feedback would be effective in altering your approach, but it wasn’t. I fear that you will also take AK's last post as another “acceptance” of how you treat others in you posts. That idea is just not true. It’s not acceptable to many people (I’ve heard multiple people give this type of feedback about you). Of course, you are free to say what you want. I'm just asking, for the good of this board, that you raise your level of social graces when you post. Thanks, Dr. T

Hello Pushka, Where you at one time "ultra-religious"? If so, what does that mean? Why is your daughter reacting to that? What do you mean by "afraid of being afraid to live my life freely?" That's all the questions I have for this "Group meeting of WBPA (Wed Board Posters Anonymous)." :)

Hey Strawberry, I was trying to think of an on-line board where we can hold our meetings. (lol) I typed in "webaholic.com" and there is a site with that name! (it's for sale $2,300) Let it be known that our first meeting was called to order at 9:06 am (Pacific Standard Time). The first step: We admitted we were powerless over message board posting--that our lives had become unmanageable.