What's so hard to understand about the Trinity vs. the LDS Godhead?

[a-train]

if God and Man is the same species, where did that species originate?

The species is eternal: a notion incomprehensible to those whose faith is based on the primum movens, or prime mover, philosophy. The logical end of this philosophy is creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing). By this Aristotelian logic, we linearly consider the cause of each movement, looking back through time until we arrive at an uncaused cause, a prime mover. This mover is believed to be God.

While this is faith promoting philosophy to some, it is nonscriptural and simply loaded with trouble. Joseph Smith plainly taught that there is no time where God resides: "the past, the present, and the future were and are, with Him, one eternal "now;"" (TPJS p220). Figure 1 on facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham is said by Joseph Smith to signify "the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time." When we take away the linear confines of time, the whole primum movens philosophy falls apart.

Joseph Smith explained plainly: "The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth.

I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.

I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man--on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man--the immortal part, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself." (TPJS p353-354)

This is faith shattering blasphemy to those who cling doggedly to philosophy for their faith.

What the philosophers for Christianity fail to understand is that if philosophy is worthy to prove God, it must also be worthy to disprove Him.

If indeed God is eternally passing through the linear confines of time and He alone is eternal: the First Mover, then he must therefore have traversed an infinite period to arrive at His first creation, his first movement. Otherwise, He would have always been moving and therefore movement would have been co-eternal with Him. Either way, the linear First Mover philosophy is exploded by philosophy itself. No wonder so many doubt this form of faith.

What Joseph Smith pointed out is that time is only a perception associated with mortality. We will some day pass back through the veil (our "rings" will be "joined again") and there possess our eternal mental faculties. We will ultimately go back to our state outside of time. We are eternal beings and eternal children of our Eternal Father.

The pain of eternal damnation and the happiness of eternal life becomes extremely poignant when considering the eternal nature of man and his relation to God.

-a-train

[Maureen]

Although I cannot see how Trinitarianism explicitly indicates that God is not human, the notion is believed for the most part by Trinitarians as far as I can tell. Still, Trinitarians would doubtfully argue that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are of distinct species. Indeed they are of the same species. Thus even Trinitarians acknowledge that there does exist a sense in which three distinct persons are of the species of God, and thus a plurality of that species exists. However, they maintain that this plurality cannot be so stated that it would in some way depart from a strict monotheist view. Many Muslims argue that Trinitarianism is not Monotheist enough for this reason.

In terms of species, I would define Humanity and Divinity as different species. Many exist in the Humanity species category but only God exists in the Divinity species category. Trinitarians would say that there exists three distinct persons in the Godhead but these three persons are of this singular species. There exists only one being that is of the Divinity species, therefore there is only one God. But you are correct a-train, Trinitarians see God as plural because God is three persons and singular because God is one.

BTW, I loved your post.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

Monotheist is belief in one God, correct?

Well, we believe that the Holy Father is God, the Son is not God, and the Holy Spirit is not God. So, to us, there's only one God there.

Do you believe that Jesus is, in his essence, subordinate (less than) the Father? By this, I do not speak to rank or title or authority, but to being. If so, I've never heard another LDS person say so...such would be similar to the Jehovah's Witness view that Jesus is "a god," but not Jehovah God.

Also, if the Holy Spirit is not God, what is He?

[Faded]

I think the single most disastrous result from the perspective of both Trinitarians and members of the LDS faith is that so much focus is thrown at, "What we are not" that both parties do not properly realize what they themselves believe.

The majority of people who belong to Trinitarian denominations do not comprehend even the most basic part of what they themselves supposedly believe about God. They just know that, "Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and others are wrong, belief in a 'false god' and are going to hell for it." Introduce the Trinity to them at the most basic level and they'll look at you like you're from another planet or something.

Latter Day Saints are likewise distracted. Most at least have the basic concept of the Godhead, but in the process of refuting the ideology of "one substance" many of us fail to fully appreciate how One and how United the Father, Son and Holy Spirit really are. We pray to the Father but we receive answers to those prayers through the Holy Spirit and forgiveness from our sins through Jesus Christ. Essentially, praying to the Father in a large way praying to all three, yet it is also an acknowledgment of His position among them and that everything starts with Him.

A lot of confusion enters into everyone's vocabulary with the word "God". Sure it has a lot of meanings. But God has two meanings from the LDS perspective. 1.) God = God the Father. 2.) God = any other being who is Infinite, Omnipotent, Omniscient and whose power is also infinite -- which would include Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Verbiage can get confusing here. Within the context of this definition, one could say that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God -- because of the usage of the word to refer specifically to God the Father. But they are both Gods by the second definition.

All three are all-powerful but God the Father is first and foremost among them. While there is a lot of debate over the matter on other concepts between the Trinitarians and ourselves, it has always been my understanding that God the Father is understood to be the highest and most prominent in the Trinity (by rank for lack of a better word.) If true, then we have a basic level of common ground on this matter.

Edited January 31, 2009 by Faded

[omega0401]

Worship is not exclusive to the Father according to Nephi or Bruce R. McConkie.

You are right but the following question and definition begs to be asked, “In what WAY then do we worship God the Father and God the Son?” I hope you don’t say we worship them the same. They each have their own purpose, after all, they are in a Godhead for a reason. God the Father is the Father of our spirits and we worship Him as such. You can’t worship the Savior that same way or that would be blasphemous.

Regarding the reporter. I wished he had followed up his question with President Hinckley with, “If you worship Christ then do you pray to Christ?” I bet his answer would be NO because we worship them differently.

LDS worship God the Son, but as I said in my last post, we worship Him as the Savior. We can’t do that with God the Father because He gave that responsibility to His Son. It was His Son that came down to earth to teach us and to atone and suffer for our sins and was crucified and resurrected that we also may overcome death and be resurrected. It wasn’t God the Father that did that. We worship the Savior in that respect.

When I said we worship God the Father it was because we worship him as the Father of us all because He and He alone is the creator of our Spirits and that makes Him our Father. That was the definition of worship that I was thinking of but I did not make that distinction clear.

To be frank, I am somewhat befuddled by the confusion among members. Conversely, it only makes sense that non-members question our beliefs about Jesus when members are confused about whether Jesus is God or whether we worship Him.

Well hopefully these posts will help enlighten non members and a few LDS. I feel that it is good to discuss even the basic teachings of our faith.

Now look, I'm not trying to get into your bonnet, but this is a serious issue.

You’re not in my bonnet at all and it is a serious issue. In fact this has been a good discussion and I’m glad PC brought this question up. I think it will help and it has been an interesting thread.

Let me throw out another question. Do Mormons believe in the Trinity? I would say almost. We do believe there are three separate physical persons and they are one God in the sense that they are a Godhead. But we worship each in a different way and we pray only to ONE God that is God the Father.

There is a previous post of mine that I wanted to correct. When I wrote about the Trinity I was thinking about the teachings from the Nicene Creed that teaches that there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, three personalities that are in one substance or being. Later I realized that is not what the Trinity is about. The Trinity believes they are three separate physical persons but worshipped as one God.

Edited January 31, 2009 by omega0401

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

My question is... Why Christians think their view is any more valid and would use it as a tool to condemn LDS as non-Christian heretics heading to the very bowels of hell?

If you believe God is some incomprehensible being then it should not bother you that LDS folks comprehend Him differently.

Should not our focus be on helping people come to a relationship with the crucified and risen Savior Jesus Christ instead of arguing over something everybody agrees is incomprehensible on some level or the other?

[a-train]

The trouble arises when a Mormon says "Jesus is not God" or "we don't worship Jesus, we worship the Father". Finer details about how we worship are a moot point once such mistakes have been made. It matters not whether we address the Father in the name of the Son to those who think we believe Jesus is not God and/or that we do not deem Him worthy of our worship.

Also, to Mormons interacting with fellow Christians who pray to Jesus, it is a terrbile error on the part of Mormons to seem disturbed. I served my mission in the South and virtually every house I entered contained families that often prayed "Dear Jesus" all the while repeating "thankyou Jesus!" I witnessed missionaries who thought this a great error. That said, nothing in my directions from any Church leadership counseled me as a missionary to address that issue directly or to correct individuals who do it.

These are people who love Christ our LORD and who are seeking to come unto Him, we should not feel compelled to hamper them with some point as insignificant as this. If our faith is so small that we believe that God does not hear their prayers, it is we who need counsel, it is we who need correction.

Take a good hard look at the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple offered by the Prophet Joseph Smith (D&C 109). While He addressed the Father in the name of the Son, he also addressed Jehovah.

Also, it was a common occurance in the Gospels for the Saviour during His ministry to accept worship. In 3 Nephi 11:17, the Nephites "did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him." He did not refuse them as did the angel which appeared to John at Patmos in Rev. 19:10. What did the Nephites do at Jesus' feet? As a modern Mormon, should I feel these were in error?

The Jews for centuries worshipped the Great Jehovah and we know well this was Jesus, were they in error? Paul said: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phill 2:9-11)

Every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue shall confess His Lordship. We have nothing to fear from those who are ready and willing to offer such worship even at this moment.

-a-train

Edited January 31, 2009 by a-train

[ninjormon]

For me it's easy,

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent.

1. Christ never said I am God, he said I am the Son of God, so to say otherwisewould be to call Christ a liar or crazy person.

2. He prayed; either he was talking to someone else or he was crazy (talking to himself)

3. When he was baptized the scriptures show him, the HG, and Heavenly Father in three different places

Matt 3:16+17, Mark 1:10+11, Luke 3:22, John 1:32

4. He always spoke of his Father.

5. He had to learn

6. He didn't fully understand the atonement, the angel strengthened him and helped him understand

Luke 22:42+43

7. The scriptures say he was beside himself, he didn't know what to do

8. Many others

Monothiesm explained in our religion, Heavenly Father is the creator of this earth, therefore the only God for it.

It is what God (a god) does that makes him who he is, He is perfect beyond description, this is what it means the word was God and the word was with God, the word is the Gospel and Heavenly Father/Christ/Holy Ghost follow the law so closely/perfectly that he/they are the gospel. Therefore it is understoood that someone can become like them in the sense that they follow the law so closely they too can become gods.

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

For me it's easy,

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent.

1. Christ never said I am God, he said I am the Son of God, so to say otherwisewould be to call Christ a liar or crazy person.

2. He prayed; either he was talking to someone else or he was crazy (talking to himself)

3. When he was baptized the scriptures show him, the HG, and Heavenly Father in three different places

Matt 3:16+17, Mark 1:10+11, Luke 3:22, John 1:32

4. He always spoke of his Father.

5. He had to learn

6. He didn't fully understand the atonement, the angel strengthened him and helped him understand

Luke 22:42+43

7. The scriptures say he was beside himself, he didn't know what to do

8. Many others

Monothiesm explained in our religion, Heavenly Father is the creator of this earth, therefore the only God for it.

It is what God (a god) does that makes him who he is, He is perfect beyond description, this is what it means the word was God and the word was with God, the word is the Gospel and Heavenly Father/Christ/Holy Ghost follow the law so closely/perfectly that he/they are the gospel. Therefore it is understoood that someone can become like them in the sense that they follow the law so closely they too can become gods.

The Father is not the creator of this earth. Jesus created ALL things both in heaven and earth. And Jesus did claim to be God, "Before Abraham was, I AM."

[ninjormon]

Also I am not aruing the fact that Jesus is a God, I am simply stating my understanding of the difference between him and Heavenly Father, and that during Christ time on earth he was still within the veil though it was probably very very thin for him

[ninjormon]

They created it together,the way I understood it is that Heavenly Father said the word and Christ did the work, like a construction engineer or foreman and then the crew does the work

[omega0401]

The trouble arises when a Mormon says "Jesus is not God" or "we don't worship Jesus, we worship the Father". Finer details about how we worship are a moot point once such mistakes have been made. It matters not whether we address the Father in the name of the Son to those who think we believe Jesus is not God and/or that we do not deem Him worthy of our worship.

I think we agree that Jesus is God the Savior and redeemer of mankind.

Also, to Mormons interacting with fellow Christians who pray to Jesus, it is a terrbile error on the part of Mormons to seem disturbed. I served my mission in the South and virtually every house I entered contained families that often prayed "Dear Jesus" all the while repeating "thankyou Jesus!" I witnessed missionaries who thought this a great error. That said, nothing in my directions from any Church leadership counseled me as a missionary to address that issue directly or to correct individuals who do it.

At some point, your investigator will notice from the missionaries and church members at church that we pray to our Heavenly Father. So at some point they will bring the question up of who we should really pray to so I understand your leadership's counsel. Investigators will learn from example or they may question the missionaries about it.

I do want to make it clear to whoever reads this thread that Mormons pray to our Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ. We have never been taught to pray to Jesus, to the Holy Ghost, to a Saint or to anyone else for that matter.

These are people who love Christ our LORD and who are seeking to come unto Him, we should not feel compelled to hamper them with some point as insignificant as this. If our faith is so small that we believe that God does not hear their prayers, it is we who need counsel, it is we who need correction.

Take a good hard look at the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple offered by the Prophet Joseph Smith (D&C 109). While He addressed the Father in the name of the Son, he also addressed Jehovah.

I agree with what you said. Did I miss the point?

Also, it was a common occurance in the Gospels for the Saviour during His ministry to accept worship. In 3 Nephi 11:17, the Nephites "did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him." He did not refuse them as did the angel which appeared to John at Patmos in Rev. 19:10. What did the Nephites do at Jesus' feet? As a modern Mormon, should I feel these were in error?

I think we’ve agreed that we do worship Christ as our Savior and redeemer.

The Jews for centuries worshipped the Great Jehovah and we know well this was Jesus, were they in error? Paul said: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phill 2:9-11)

But remember the Jews were under the Mosaic law. In the Old Testament they were to worship Jehovah. When Christ came, he taught the Jews how to address their prayers when he said, “Our Father which art in heaven...: I believe this is significant or he would not have to correct or I should say to "change" the way they used to pray.

Every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue shall confess His Lordship. We have nothing to fear from those who are ready and willing to offer such worship even at this moment.

I totally agree.

Edited February 1, 2009 by omega0401

[Traveler]

This string is not so much about proving which doctrine is correct, but rather how easy or difficult each is. I will attempt to explain the Trinity.

1. The Father is God.

2. The Son is God.

3. The Holy Spirit is God.

4. There is only one God.

5. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described in terms of distinct and sovereign personality, these three persons are the one true God.

That's it. IMHO, it is not complicated. What becomes rapidly complex is trying to explain how it is possible to have three persons be of one essence. But, since the Scriptures do not explain it, I don't see why we have to. Since when does God have to explain himself to us? He reveals much, but his ways are not our ways, and He is our Creator, we are not his.

I have posted many times that I believe the Trinity breaks down with trying to understand and teach the fall of man. If man deals directly with the same G-d befor and after the fall then the doctrine of the fall and the need for a savior is just not true. Because we still have access to the same G-d before and after the fall we do not need a savior or mediator to bring us to G-d. Even the prophesy of the tree of life and a "keeper" of the way become senseless as does the symbolism of a flaiming sword. All of which are not lost in scripture but have real meaning and are spoken of in another place.

The Traveler

The Traveler

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

I have posted many times that I believe the Trinity breaks down with trying to understand and teach the fall of man. If man deals directly with the same G-d befor and after the fall then the doctrine of the fall and the need for a savior is just not true. Because we still have access to the same G-d before and after the fall we do not need a savior or mediator to bring us to G-d. Even the prophesy of the tree of life and a "keeper" of the way become senseless as does the symbolism of a flaiming sword. All of which are not lost in scripture but have real meaning and are spoken of in another place.

The Traveler

The Traveler

I don't agree with the Trinity but... huh?

[Moksha]

Trinity?

http://community.beliefnet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57&d=1192837095

[prisonchaplain]

5. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described in terms of distinct and sovereign personality, these three persons are the one true God.

That statement does not make any sense?:)

There's a fine line between non-sense and perfect sense.

[prisonchaplain]

My question is... Why Christians think their view is any more valid and would use it as a tool to condemn LDS as non-Christian heretics heading to the very bowels of hell?

If you believe God is some incomprehensible being then it should not bother you that LDS folks comprehend Him differently.

Should not our focus be on helping people come to a relationship with the crucified and risen Savior Jesus Christ instead of arguing over something everybody agrees is incomprehensible on some level or the other?

It remains for me an open question as to just how wrong God will allow us to be about his nature. After all, he has revealed much, and we claim to love and worship him. Yet, if we do not understand that which he has revealed to us about himself, then we're not paying attention. How deep is our love if we hold to our preconceived notions, and refuse to hear the wooing of the Spirit.

Now, to be fair--the above could be directed to trinitarians and non-trinitarians. At least one side is much more wrong than the other. Since it is important, we take it seriously.

And...be honest, if an LDS member got up during testimony meeting and said, "I've gained a testimony of the Holy Trinity! It's true. They got it right at Nicea! The Holy Spirit has revealed this to me dramatically." . . . there would surely be many very serious and somber religious counseling sessions to follow. The statement would not be allowed to stand without correction. Right?

[Maxel]

I've made my voice heard on the bulk of this subject; I just wanted to weigh in on this one gem of a statement.

And...be honest, if an LDS member got up during testimony meeting and said, "I've gained a testimony of the Holy Trinity! It's true. They got it right at Nicea! The Holy Spirit has revealed this to me dramatically." . . . there would surely be many very serious and somber religious counseling sessions to follow. The statement would not be allowed to stand without correction. Right?

First of all-

ROFL LOL!!

I am imagining that happening, and it's a funny sight to see (for the people out in the audience, who are fighting between astonished disbelief and stifling hysteria). I can see the bishop going bug-eyed.

Now that that's out of the way...

I think you're fair in your posing of this question, prisonchaplain. I believe we Mormons see the same thing, that understanding the nature of God is vital to us as His children. I think the difference is (or rather, 'might be') that we believe following the principles of the teachings of Christ- i.e., expressing and feeling charity for one's fellow man, acknowledging Christ as the Lord and savior, learning of our own nothingness and the need for Christ's atonement, etc.- is the first and foremost lesson to be learned on the earth. Adherence to doctrinal correctness is nice and facilitates in the former, but because of work for the dead and the nature of the spirit world/prison, if one doesn't ever hear the name of Christ in this life it doesn't bar them from inheriting the kingdom of heaven.

Hhhmm... That doesn't seem quite right after writing it out. It makes it seem like Protestants are condemning all those who never heard of Christ to hell (which I don't believe is the case), and overemphasize doctrinal correctness above Christian living. That isn't the case in my experience... Can you clarify a bit, prisonchaplain?

[a-train]

And...be honest, if an LDS member got up during testimony meeting and said, "I've gained a testimony of the Holy Trinity! It's true. They got it right at Nicea! The Holy Spirit has revealed this to me dramatically." . . . there would surely be many very serious and somber religious counseling sessions to follow. The statement would not be allowed to stand without correction. Right?

No kidding PC, it happened in my ward about a year ago. Dead serious. No lie. It was a youth. He goes to school at a private catholic school. He gave an in-depth description complete with a tri-pod analogy.

I don't think a single word was said, no disclaimer was made.

In fact, it is a common occurance that false doctrine is testified of in sacrament meeting. I've heard it all.

Sheesh, just two weeks ago, our Gospel Doctrine teacher told the class that children steal the Spirit in Sacrament Meeting. A member of the class raised his hand and firmly said firmly: "Children do not steal the Spirit, of such is the kingdom of God." The tension was major.

I, in classic form, drove it all home and mentioned how the Book of Mormon says that Lehi and Teancum felt the Spirit in battle, so if they can feel the Spirit in the midst of a bloody war, we can certainly feel it in Sacrament Meeting regardless of a noisy child.

Anyways, usually its only in a recurring case would leadership step in.

-a-train

[Faded]

It remains for me an open question as to just how wrong God will allow us to be about his nature. After all, he has revealed much, and we claim to love and worship him. Yet, if we do not understand that which he has revealed to us about himself, then we're not paying attention. How deep is our love if we hold to our preconceived notions, and refuse to hear the wooing of the Spirit.

Now, to be fair--the above could be directed to trinitarians and non-trinitarians. At least one side is much more wrong than the other. Since it is important, we take it seriously.

For one thing, I think that the two views are a lot closer than either side cares to admit. Drop the premise of "one substance" and the Trinity Doctrine would exactly describe the Latter-Day Saint view of things, at least at the basic level. I have my own personal experiences with God and the Holy Spirit and I can say with certainty that I have tested the Trinity Doctrine and my experience says that it is not true, and that it does not correctly describe the three beings that LDS verbiage would call the Godhead. I have given the Trinity Doctrine every opportunity to be right and have received the opposite from the Holy Spirit.

Yet God works with people on both sides of this issue. The Holy Spirit moves and reveals his will to both -- to the extent that they let him. Having the right answer to this and all other questions of doctrine is extremely important, however I do not think that God is pleased with all the terrible things that have been done in the name of "defending and upholding the true doctrines."

One thing that I think we can take from the behavior of the Holy Spirit in this case: We can conclude that whichever side is wrong is at least close enough to the truth that God, in his mercy, works among them anyways. Sins are cleansed through the power of Christ on both sides. Spiritual power and revelation occur on both sides. One side is right and the other is wrong, but apparently God is not making it a condition for his mercy and guidance in our lives. Each of us can and should seek to know God, Christ and the Holy Spirit as they truly are, but how well can the mortal mind comprehend the infinite?

And...be honest, if an LDS member got up during testimony meeting and said, "I've gained a testimony of the Holy Trinity! It's true. They got it right at Nicea! The Holy Spirit has revealed this to me dramatically." . . . there would surely be many very serious and somber religious counseling sessions to follow. The statement would not be allowed to stand without correction. Right?

I know of a firsthand account of a Catholic who was studying at one of their Seminaries who had his own experience of personal revelation. It happened while reading Matthew 3:16-17 --

16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

He says that at that point, the Spirit powerfully revealed to him that the three were separate beings and that the doctrine of 3 beings 1 substance he had been taught all his life was a false doctrine. What do you suppose happened to him? Well, they kicked him out of the Seminary and did everything they could to separate him from the Catholic Church. I'm not 100% sure if it ended in excommunication, but it very well may have. The long and short of it -- he was driven from the Catholic faith for refusing to recant what the Spirit had revealed to him.

Now to answer your question PC, the LDS faith would maintain a significant degree of tolerance. I have never encountered such a case. Typically, the persons who have the "truthfulness of the Trinity revealed to them" never really managed to seek and find God while in the LDS faith. When they find God through the teachings of other denominations, they don't tend to stick around. I've never known one to stand up in Testimony Meeting. They typically will remain on the records of the Church until they ask to be removed. If they undertake to wage an ideological war of words at the LDS faith, then excommunication is a likely result, but it was their choice go on the attack and force a response.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Faded

[Islander]

It remains for me an open question as to just how wrong God will allow us to be about his nature. After all, he has revealed much, and we claim to love and worship him. Yet, if we do not understand that which he has revealed to us about himself, then we're not paying attention. How deep is our love if we hold to our preconceived notions, and refuse to hear the wooing of the Spirit.

Now, to be fair--the above could be directed to trinitarians and non-trinitarians. At least one side is much more wrong than the other. Since it is important, we take it seriously.

And...be honest, if an LDS member got up during testimony meeting and said, "I've gained a testimony of the Holy Trinity! It's true. They got it right at Nicea! The Holy Spirit has revealed this to me dramatically." . . . there would surely be many very serious and somber religious counseling sessions to follow. The statement would not be allowed to stand without correction. Right?

Well, PC:

It is our nature to disbelief and to deny the reality of the word of God (revelation), His nature and presence in favor of our own construct. The bible is full of examples of how the prophets (OT) and the Apostles were rejected by the people. By the 3rd-4th century AD congregations were "voting" and "electing" their bishops. Of course, the lawyers and prominent orators began to displace those ordained by the Apostles.

In 70 AD the Jerusalem temple was destroyed. The Hebrews convinced themselves it was no longer necessary. The Christians equally convinced themselves that revelation and priesthood authority was not necessary giving way to 1000 years of political appointments in the church.

The message of the prophets is sharp as a sword, it baffles and confuses the learned and the scholars, it denies long standing assumptions and lovingly but boldly declares the truth. As usual, we are free to accept it or reject it. What they outcome of that choice (deny it) may be is anybody's guess.

[prisonchaplain]

I've made my voice heard on the bulk of this subject; I just wanted to weigh in on this one gem of a statement.

First of all-

ROFL LOL!!

I am imagining that happening, and it's a funny sight to see (for the people out in the audience, who are fighting between astonished disbelief and stifling hysteria). I can see the bishop going bug-eyed.

Thank you for receiving my offering in the spirit with which it was intended.

I think the difference is (or rather, 'might be') that we believe following the principles of the teachings of Christ- i.e., expressing and feeling charity for one's fellow man, acknowledging Christ as the Lord and savior, learning of our own nothingness and the need for Christ's atonement, etc.- is the first and foremost lesson to be learned on the earth. Adherence to doctrinal correctness is nice and facilitates in the former, but because of work for the dead and the nature of the spirit world/prison, if one doesn't ever hear the name of Christ in this life it doesn't bar them from inheriting the kingdom of heaven.

Hhhmm... That doesn't seem quite right after writing it out. It makes it seem like Protestants are condemning all those who never heard of Christ to hell (which I don't believe is the case), and overemphasize doctrinal correctness above Christian living. That isn't the case in my experience... Can you clarify a bit, prisonchaplain?

Perhaps the largest part of the difference in tone is that evangelicals, in particular, have a great sense of urgency about "winning souls" quickly. We do not believe there is opportunity after death to convert. Neither do we believe there is any heavenly kingdom for those who do not submit to God.

Sometimes haste does make waste. We sometimes neglect the important work of discipleship. Willow Creek Church (Pastor Bill Hybels, "father" of the seeker-sensitive movement) finished an extensive study of many churches that have adopted his model of making seekers welcome and making church accessible to the unchurched, and it found that they were great at getting folk converted and started into Christian faith, but poor at helping Christians be able to sense and even measure their maturity.

Additionally, sometimes, especially during interfaith conversation, we get so focused on believing (i.e. content, dare I say curriculum), that we forget that their is suppose to be a product: Spirit-filled, loving, "salt and light" type Christians.

IMHO the whole "doctrine vs. behavior" discussion is an unnecessary and false dichotamy. We need to teach right and do right.

I think I got everything I wanted to say in that...forgive the somewhat rambling nature of it.

Edited February 2, 2009 by prisonchaplain
formatting

[Traveler]

I don't agree with the Trinity but... huh?

Please explain why we need a savior and mediator if there is only "one" and the same G-d? What savior and mediator do we need before we can "come unto Christ?"

The Traveler

Edited February 3, 2009 by Traveler

[Faded]

To preface this, I do not want any part of this thread devolving into a "mine is better than yours" contest. I think it is of the utmost importance to focus more on what we have in common and learn to get along first. Only after mutual respect is established is it possible to discuss our differences in a civil and respectful manner. I have every intention of deleting this post if it results in anything less than a respectful and civil discussion.

I don't want anyone to get the impression that we Latter-Day Saints are intent on sticking our head in the sand and refusing to respond or discuss the nature of God. But the anger, fury and rage that the discussion tends to inspire has led to a lot of terrible things in the past. Joseph Smith was assassinated, the Latter Day Saints were driven from place to place and a tremendous amount of ill-will has built up on both sides. Terrible things have happened. Our differences over the nature of God have been central excuse for both sides to continually wage a war of words against one another.

The purpose of this thread is to understand the differences between the Trinity and what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints refers to as the Godhead. There is a great deal of value in understanding both the commonalities and differences between the two beliefs. It is very clear that many LDS posters here do not understand the Trinity at all.

There is a long list of things doctrinal understandings and concepts that directly result from how Trinitarians and Latter Day Saints view God. I can only cover a tiny handful of the important points. Because I cannot format it to my satisfaction with the tools on this or any forum, I'm having to get creative. I am not an expert on the Trinity, so I fully expect that my analysis of it will have some holes in it. I would appreciate it if PC and others can fill in the blanks.

** I CAN EDIT THE POWERPOINT, JUST TELL ME WHERE AND WHAT **

Edited February 3, 2009 by Faded

[prisonchaplain]

Please explain why we need a savior and mediator if there is only "one" and the same G-d? What savior and mediator do we need before we can "come unto Christ?"

The Traveler

One God, three persons. The Son mediates between us and the Father. Jesus is Savior and Mediator. Though, it's the Holy Spirit that woos and convicts us.