Need A Little Help

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 14 2005, 01:12 PM

The point is You always come to the Mormon site. If you have found truth and peace elsewhere why do you return "here"?

Why do mormon missionaries knock on the same doors year after year? There are a few here who's beliefs in Mormonism are lessening. Im here to help them (if they want it) find something better for their lives. In the case of Taoist Saint, we can share those teachings from the East that we find mutually inspiring. In the case of sgallan, offering words of encouragement not to dispair at losing his spiritual foundation. In the case of others Im not going to mention, giving them something less tedius to think about than the semi-annual general conference sessions.

In your case, just getting under your skin when your have run out of things to contribute.

-----------------

Mormons are best described as freethinkers.........................on a short leash.

Wow....how magnanimous of you.

And for those spiritually enlightened few, conference was a spiritual feast ~ not tedious! The blind will never see, and the deaf will never hear ~ when God speaks through His prophets and apostles.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 14 2005, 03:43 PM

Ex, one more:

Sharing the gospel, In my view, always coincides with pointing out the flaws of other faiths in comparison. That's why we shared the "great apostasy" in the discussions. To point out the flaws of all other faiths in comparison to Mormonism.

True, but wouldn't you say that singling out one particular group for special criticism is harsher than making a general criticism of a larger group. It's one thing to make a generalized statement about the universal human tendency towards laziness, but single out, say, Mexicans for that criticism and the fertilizer would rightly hit the propeller.

Exactly! :)

[Jason]

PD,

True, but wouldn't you say that singling out one particular group for special criticism is harsher than making a general criticism of a larger group. 

Remember it's not my religion singling out Mormonism, it's just me. B)

As for why I single out Mormonism as opposed to other sects I consider heretical, it has a lot to do with the fact that

#1. I know more about Mormons than, say, the halle-bopp cult.

#2. I used to be Mormon.

[Jason]

And for those spiritually enlightened few, conference was a spiritual feast ~ not tedious! The blind will never see, and the deaf will never hear ~ when God speaks through His prophets and apostles.

Uh-huh. Ever heard the story of the Emperor's New Clothes?

I can see you now, praising his wonderful attire, the fine cloths and silks, the masterful stitching, the brilliant colors....

hahahaha

[Dale]

Hi,

Jason my book entitled on behalf of Christ's Restored Gospel had a wonderful statement by RLDS apologist Robert R. Bobbitt. It said "Have you ever encountered a zealous Fundementalist Christian who thought you were a ccultist and wanted to save you from hell even though you were already a born-again believer in Christ. This kind of irony is a common experience for many RLDS Christians. Have you ever met someone who thought that the best way to convert people was to throw a series of rapid-fire questions in an attempt to overwhelm them? We find this same approach to evangelism in two books by Carol Hanson: The RLDS Church: Christian or Cult? and Reorganized Latter Day Saint Church: Is It Christian?"Pg.1, CARE 2004)

Of corse the RLDS Church went to the shorter name Community of Christ in 2001 I think. Robert Bobbitt attends a restporation branch which split from the RLDS Church in the 1980's.

Eastside Baptist Church in Independence Missouri has Carol Hanson as one of it's members. She is the top critic of Community of Christ beliefs. Another ministry which also devotes itself to dissagreeing with RLDS is Paul Trask & heads up Refiners Fire Ministry. Carol Hanson has her lifeline to RLDS Ministries. Of course both are ex-RLDS & have websites devoted to trying to convert RLDS away from the Community of Christ.

CARE an Restoration branch apologetics group decided since the book was hurting people that it needed a tough response. So after a lot of e-mails back & forth volume 1 was the result. Here's a link to the website that RLDS book.

http://www.angelmessage.org/care For $5.50 you get a resource which answers sixty six issues that Carol Hanson left the RLDS Church over. I understand she's sincere but I believe she left over the wrong reasons. Her book presents basically what all other works critical of the LDS Church does. Her book has been addressed powerfully.

Yesterday I had a conversation with a friend I thought was LDS who left that Church recently. I didn't know he had changed faith. I attend the Community of Christ Church whenever possible. Although obtaining baptism has been difficult for me. I came down with Multiple Sclerosis which effects my ability to travel for baptism. He's a nice guy. He benifits from the groups his new church has to offer. I am sure we will witness to each other. Atleast he hasn't converted over to nothingism

I wish all skeptics well. I love the Community of Christ Jesus. My Jesus is loving & kind. I enjoy using my New Revised Standard Version & my RLDS Book of Mormon & Doctrine & Covenants. My missionary set instead of using the Inspired Version uses that NRSV as part of the set. I loved going through Carol's book because it has tought me that Community Of Christ people are Christian. I know LDS people are Christian. Restoration Churches arn't just another set of Christian Church rather they see themselves as the Restored Gospel Of Jesus Christ. I encourgage people to test the literature they read about Mormonism. http://www.fairlds.org

Sincerely,

Dale

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Have a nice summer!

[Jason]

PD,

Interesting. So you do believe that Catholics and Orthodox worship a different God because of their different perceptions of the attributes of the Holy Spirit? 

No. It cannot be a "perception". One is right, one is wrong. To say otherwise is to distort truth, making it relative.

Wouldn't that make the late Pope an idolator, in the eyes of the Orthodox?

No. An idolator is one who worships idols. As for the Pope specifically, Orthodox view the Pope as a good person. That said, we also view the Dalai Lama as a good person. But neither is Orthodox.

Second point: Whether Mormon doctrine differs radically or slightly from creedal Christianity depends on who you ask and from which source you take Mormon doctrine. Mormonism makes this difficult because it has come to focus so exclusively on orthopraxy (where Mormons and Orthodox would probably not greatly differ, except possibly in the ouzo department) that nobody really knows what the heck the official Mormon teaching on the nature of God is anyway. Is God an exalted man, who was once less than God? "I don't know if we teach that." Or is and was He always God, fully perfect and incapable of change, including further progression, as the Book of Mormon seems to indicate?

Which comes first in Mormonism, the living word, or the written word? It seems that this position changes frequently. I was a living word person until I studied early Mormonism. Then I became a written word person. Then I became a written word based on recent living word prophets.

Then I gave up on the whole mess.

If you take away all the speculative teachings of Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo period, Brigham Young, and Orson Pratt -- and the Church is certainly ambiguous at the very least as to which of these are still binding doctrine -- you're left with the theology of the Book of Mormon and of the First Vision, which compels you to conclude that the Father and Son are one God, but are individual beings within the Godhead or Trinity. We wouldn't even have to discard the "homoousion" entirely -- the Father and Son are of the same divine substance, even if they are not the same substance.

Depends on which version of the first vision you accept. If you take the first recorded version dictated by Smith, then there was only One personage, not Two. Then you could throw away the Book of Abraham as a farce and become a Reorganized LDS!

When you say "I feel most Mormons don't understand [the differences between Mormonism and creedal Christianity]", I would respond that only a few of us theological geeks even really pay much attention to theology at all; few Christians in general know the difference between a monist and a monarchian, or whether they're one of either.

Unfortunately very true. Our Western Culture has become very apathetic towards theology in general, substituting a "feel good" philosophy in it's place.

One day that will get tiring, and they'll have to look deeper.

My general rule is that I will not declare any person outside the Christian faith who declares that Jesus is the Son of God; scripture seems to declare this a bare minimum. I'm still on the fence as to whether I ought to be inclusive of monarchians like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe Jesus was the Son of God but was not divine, but my inclination is to err on the side of generosity towards anyone who is willing to be called a Christian. You want to only consider Christian those who satisfy a tighter doctrinal test, that's your business. Ultimately, everything shadowy will be cleared up.

Technically, as Orthodox we're not to specifically say what Christ will do with one specific individual whose experience is outside the Church. Yet we can (though probably with more humility than I posess) point out gross theological errors and distortions and warn those of the likely consequences of false theology.

[Nottingham]

Originally posted by ThunderFire+Apr 14 2005, 03:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThunderFire @ Apr 14 2005, 03:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 14 2005, 03:21 PM

Semantics.  I still say that all the monotheistic religions believe in the same God, but that they have different understandings of His attributes. 

It is only semantics for those who desire to be seen as "equal" with others. I never saw the LDS as being monotheistic anyway with the belief in exaltation (or becoming gods ourselves and creating a new planet with its own race of people). So then LDS beliefs introduce the concept of multitheism or rather having an exalted being who becomes a new creator God for each planet that is inhabited. LDS and others may apply the same attributes to God as you suggest (creation), but they are light years apart in most other regards.

So again it is not semantics when "our" God (per LDS belief) was at one time a created being who became a god over this planet, when other Christians believe that no other god stands before the one true God who has no beginning or end.

In Christ I Serve,

Thunderfire

And, just to throw a little "quirkiness of thought" into the mix, let's not forget that Brigham Young taught [in Journal of Discourses] that, when one gets to where he is going, after dying, he will meet his God and see that it was/is Adam, of "Adam and Eve" renown:

Hence, the "Adam-God Doctrine"!

So, maybe sectarian Christianity has a slightly better "grip on things" than in "our" religion, eh?

PS: Doctrines come and doctrines go, in "our" LDS faith. It is known that when Elder Bruce R. McConkie was alive, he "rebuked" an earnest "investigator" (a born-in-the-church mormon who was conscientiously re-examining his personal belief system and worldview) for suggesting that the right thing to do was to be true and faithful to that perspective that Brigham taught: or, in other words, that the Adam-God "Theory" was worth looking into, all over again. After all, he reasoned, if "Brother Brigham said it, it has got to be good!"

McConkie told the man that his standing in the Church would become jeopardized if he continued to bring up that now-dead doctrine, all over again!

There must be some truth to that old saying, "Dam(m)ed if you do and dam(m)ed if you don't."

Dam(n)ed if--in modern times--you believe as B.Y. did

Dam(n)ed if--in Brigham's day--you didn't!

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Have a nice summer!

[Jason]

Dale,

Hey, you seem like a very nice guy, and I wish you well in the CoC. I attended the RLDS church in Ogden and it was very nice. I even met your Stake President, and she was nice as well.

However, Im quite through with all versions of the "Restoration" (LDS, CoC, Strangites, FLDS, etc.). So I'll politely decline your offer to continue to investigate for purposes other than to discredit it's ultimate foundations.

Jason

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by ThunderFire+Apr 14 2005, 02:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThunderFire @ Apr 14 2005, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 14 2005, 03:21 PM

Semantics.  I still say that all the monotheistic religions believe in the same God, but that they have different understandings of His attributes. 

It is only semantics for those who desire to be seen as "equal" with others. I never saw the LDS as being monotheistic anyway with the belief in exaltation (or becoming gods ourselves and creating a new planet with its own race of people). So then LDS beliefs introduce the concept of multitheism or rather having an exalted being who becomes a new creator God for each planet that is inhabited. LDS and others may apply the same attributes to God as you suggest (creation), but they are light years apart in most other regards.

So again it is not semantics when "our" God (per LDS belief) was at one time a created being who became a god over this planet, when other Christians believe that no other god stands before the one true God who has no beginning or end.

In Christ I Serve,

Thunderfire

Your problem is that you think you know more about true Mormon doctrine than Mormons do. You are stating that it is a fact that Mormon doctrine is that God "was at one time a created being who became a god over this planet" and is inferior to another divine being. That is one plausible interpretation of the implications of the "as man now is, God once was" couplet. But that would have to be harmonized with canonized Mormon scripture that states that God was always God, and that He is supreme and unchanging. You don't even try to reconcile those points, but jump on the first at the expense of the other and hold it up as official doctrine.

I recognize that it's not exactly helpful that some of the early Mormon leaders were all over the map on certain questions of theology, but it is beyond presumptuous for you to swoop in and declare Mormonism to be "multitheistic" -- in spite of several passages of canonized scripture that make it clear that Mormons worship one God consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who is without beginning or end -- based on your conclusions on what it "must" be that Mormons believe.

As far as touches your line "It is only semantics for those who desire to be seen as "equal" with others," you seem to be under the impression that I would aspire to be "equal" with you or those of your religious persuasion.

The bottom line is that I don't pretend to know exactly how the doctrine of exaltation can be squared with monotheism, any more than I know exactly how the doctrine of the Trinity (which Mormon doctrine does teach, as a distinct version, which might surprise many Mormons) can be squared with monotheism. My thinking is that if God can be both one and three, there's no reason God couldn't be simultaneously one and three billion; once we've stepped away from mathematical precision and into philosophical or semantic concepts of "oneness," whether God contains three Persons or three billion is only a matter of degree.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 14 2005, 03:54 PM

PD,

Interesting. So you do believe that Catholics and Orthodox worship a different God because of their different perceptions of the attributes of the Holy Spirit? 

No. It cannot be a "perception". One is right, one is wrong. To say otherwise is to distort truth, making it relative.

Wouldn't that make the late Pope an idolator, in the eyes of the Orthodox?

No. An idolator is one who worships idols. As for the Pope specifically, Orthodox view the Pope as a good person. That said, we also view the Dalai Lama as a good person. But neither is Orthodox.

Second point: Whether Mormon doctrine differs radically or slightly from creedal Christianity depends on who you ask and from which source you take Mormon doctrine. Mormonism makes this difficult because it has come to focus so exclusively on orthopraxy (where Mormons and Orthodox would probably not greatly differ, except possibly in the ouzo department) that nobody really knows what the heck the official Mormon teaching on the nature of God is anyway. Is God an exalted man, who was once less than God? "I don't know if we teach that." Or is and was He always God, fully perfect and incapable of change, including further progression, as the Book of Mormon seems to indicate?

Which comes first in Mormonism, the living word, or the written word? It seems that this position changes frequently. I was a living word person until I studied early Mormonism. Then I became a written word person. Then I became a written word based on recent living word prophets.

Then I gave up on the whole mess.

If you take away all the speculative teachings of Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo period, Brigham Young, and Orson Pratt -- and the Church is certainly ambiguous at the very least as to which of these are still binding doctrine -- you're left with the theology of the Book of Mormon and of the First Vision, which compels you to conclude that the Father and Son are one God, but are individual beings within the Godhead or Trinity. We wouldn't even have to discard the "homoousion" entirely -- the Father and Son are of the same divine substance, even if they are not the same substance.

Depends on which version of the first vision you accept. If you take the first recorded version dictated by Smith, then there was only One personage, not Two. Then you could throw away the Book of Abraham as a farce and become a Reorganized LDS!

When you say "I feel most Mormons don't understand [the differences between Mormonism and creedal Christianity]", I would respond that only a few of us theological geeks even really pay much attention to theology at all; few Christians in general know the difference between a monist and a monarchian, or whether they're one of either.

Unfortunately very true. Our Western Culture has become very apathetic towards theology in general, substituting a "feel good" philosophy in it's place.

One day that will get tiring, and they'll have to look deeper.

My general rule is that I will not declare any person outside the Christian faith who declares that Jesus is the Son of God; scripture seems to declare this a bare minimum. I'm still on the fence as to whether I ought to be inclusive of monarchians like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe Jesus was the Son of God but was not divine, but my inclination is to err on the side of generosity towards anyone who is willing to be called a Christian. You want to only consider Christian those who satisfy a tighter doctrinal test, that's your business. Ultimately, everything shadowy will be cleared up.

Technically, as Orthodox we're not to specifically say what Christ will do with one specific individual whose experience is outside the Church. Yet we can (though probably with more humility than I posess) point out gross theological errors and distortions and warn those of the likely consequences of false theology.

Ex,

I think we're using different definitions of the word "perception." I mean that both Orthodox and Catholic are viewing the same original sources -- the Bible and the early Fathers -- but drawing different conclusions from them. True, either one or the other or both are wrong, but it's not "relativism" to recognize that even wrong perceptions can have a rational basis. Relativism is when you say that perception is everything, that people create their own "truth" (to the extent relativism admits there is any objective truth) by perceiving things the way they do. The opposite of relativism is the recognition that a person's perception may or may not correspond to the objective truth, but that truth exists independent of that perception.

Regarding the Pope, you're saying that he perceived the nature of the Holy Spirit incorrectly, and that Orthodoxy has it right. Fair enough -- but I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no rational basis for the Catholic interpretation of the original sources, even if they are ultimately wrong.

Thass'all I'm sayin'.

So the Pope wasn't an "idolator" to you because he didn't worship an actual idol of gold or wood or stone. But I'm still intrigued by your logic: You seem to be saying that since Catholics understand the Holy Spirit differently from the Orthodox (i.e. ascribing to the Spirit different attributes), Catholics therefore worship a different God. Is that really what you're saying? If not, does the Mormons' understanding of God, which differs from both the Catholic and Orthodox understandings, mean that they worship a different God? If so, how and where do you draw the line between "believing that God has different attributes" and "believing in a different God"?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Apr 14 2005, 04:00 PM

What we need is two different words for God, and this discussion will be over.

Actually Taoist God has many names:

Overview of the Names of God in Scripture

(1) Elohim: The plural form of EL, meaning “strong one.” It is used of false gods, but when used of the true God, it is a plural of majesty and intimates the trinity. It is especially used of God’s sovereignty, creative work, mighty work for Israel and in relation to His sovereignty (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 32:27; Gen. 1:1; Isa. 45:18; Deut. 5:23; 8:15; Ps. 68:7).

Compounds of El:

El Shaddai: “God Almighty.” The derivation is uncertain. Some think it stresses God’s loving supply and comfort; others His power as the Almighty one standing on a mountain and who corrects and chastens (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:31; Ps. 91:1, 2).

El Elyon: “The Most High God.” Stresses God’s strength, sovereignty, and supremacy (Gen. 14:19; Ps. 9:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 25).

El Olam: “The Everlasting God.” Emphasizes God’s unchangeableness and is connected with His inexhaustibleness (Gen. 16:13).

(2) Yahweh (YHWH): Comes from a verb which means “to exist, be.” This, plus its usage, shows that this name stresses God as the independent and self-existent God of revelation and redemption (Gen. 4:3; Ex. 6:3 (cf. 3:14); 3:12).

Compounds of Yahweh: Strictly speaking, these compounds are designations or titles which reveal additional facts about God’s character.

Yahweh Jireh (Yireh): “The Lord will provide.” Stresses God’s provision for His people (Gen. 22:14).

Yahweh Nissi: “The Lord is my Banner.” Stresses that God is our rallying point and our means of victory; the one who fights for His people (Ex. 17:15).

Yahweh Shalom: “The Lord is Peace.” Points to the Lord as the means of our peace and rest (Jud. 6:24).

Yahweh Sabbaoth: “The Lord of Hosts.” A military figure portraying the Lord as the commander of the armies of heaven (1 Sam. 1:3; 17:45).

Yahweh Maccaddeshcem: “The Lord your Sanctifier.” Portrays the Lord as our means of sanctification or as the one who sets believers apart for His purposes (Ex. 31:13).

Yahweh Ro’i: “The Lord my Shepherd.” Portrays the Lord as the Shepherd who cares for His people as a shepherd cares for the sheep of his pasture (Ps. 23:1).

Yahweh Tsidkenu: “The Lord our Righteousness.” Portrays the Lord as the means of our righteousness (Jer. 23:6).

Yahweh Shammah: “The Lord is there.” Portrays the Lord’s personal presence in the millennial kingdom (Ezek. 48:35).

Yahweh Elohim Israel: “The Lord, the God of Israel.” Identifies Yahweh as the God of Israel in contrast to the false gods of the nations (Jud. 5:3.; Isa. 17:6).

(3) Adonai: Like Elohim, this too is a plural of majesty. The singular form means “master, owner.” Stresses man’s relationship to God as his master, authority, and provider (Gen. 18:2; 40:1; 1 Sam. 1:15; Ex. 21:1-6; Josh. 5:14).

(4) Theos: Greek word translated “God.” Primary name for God used in the New Testament. Its use teaches: (1) He is the only true God (Matt. 23:9; Rom. 3:30); (2) He is unique (1 Tim. 1:17; John 17:3; Rev. 15:4; 16:27); (3) He is transcendent (Acts 17:24; Heb. 3:4; Rev. 10:6); (4) He is the Savior (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10). This name is used of Christ as God in John 1:1, 18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Tit. 2:13; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1.

(5) Kurios: Greek word translated “Lord.” Stresses authority and supremacy. While it can mean sir (John 4:11), owner (Luke 19:33), master (Col. 3:22), or even refer to idols (1 Cor. 8:5) or husbands (1 Pet. 3:6), it is used mostly as the equivalent of Yahweh of the Old Testament. It too is used of Jesus Christ meaning (1) Rabbi or Sir (Matt. 8:6); (2) God or Deity (John 20:28; Acts 2:36; Rom. 10:9; Phil. 2:11).

(6) Despotes: Greek word translated “Master.” Carries the idea of ownership while kurios stressed supreme authority (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10; 2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 4).

(7) Father: A distinctive New Testament revelation is that through faith in Christ, God becomes our personal Father. Father is used of God in the Old Testament only 15 times while it is used of God 245 times in the New Testament. As a name of God, it stresses God’s loving care, provision, discipline, and the way we are to address God in prayer (Matt. 7:11; Jam. 1:17; Heb. 12:5-11; John 15:16; 16:23; Eph. 2:18; 3:15; 1 Thess. 3:11).

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=220

M.

[Jason]

P-Ditty,

I think we're using different definitions of the word "perception." I mean that both Orthodox and Catholic are viewing the same original sources -- the Bible and the early Fathers -- but drawing different conclusions from them.

Not exactly. The Creed read: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified."

The addition: "...who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]..." was not found in any version of the creed, East or West, until after the 11th Century.

Orthodox say that to make such an addition is wrong for two reasons:

#1. It would require an Ecumenical Council to do so...

#2. As I've already said, it makes the Holy Spirit into a "lesser" God than the Father and the Son.

Rome on asserting her ascendancy in the 11th century forward claimed the right to change the "unalterable" creed without a Council based on the supposed throne of St. Peter.

Orthodox view this as heresy, Rome views this as "developing dogma" (which is an oxymoron).

Regarding the Pope, you're saying that he perceived the nature of the Holy Spirit incorrectly, and that Orthodoxy has it right. Fair enough -- but I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no rational basis for the Catholic interpretation of the original sources, even if they are ultimately wrong.

The "Filioque" was first introduced in Spain, and later spread throughout the west as an attempt to thwart a neo-Arianist heresy still flourishing there. While the intent was understandable, the means was incorrect. Besides, they violated the norm in adding the filioque in the first place.

Course, you can justify anything if you've a mind too.

Thass'all I'm sayin'.

OK.

  You seem to be saying that since Catholics understand the Holy Spirit differently from the Orthodox (i.e. ascribing to the Spirit different attributes), Catholics therefore worship a different God. Is that really what you're saying?

Im saying that they've perverted the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and in so doing, have altered the meaning of the Blessed Trinity. Understanding the Trinity as One God, if you corrupt one of the persons, you've corrupted all three. Which means that they've long ago journeyed down the road to worshipping a false divinity.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Have a nice summer!

[Jason]

What I actually was suggesting was that we need two words for (lowercase) god...not different "names", but two different words with different meanings.

One meaning would represent a god's form, and another to represent the god's identity. Maybe there are more words that can be created, and this goes beyond two definitions.

I like what you're getting at, TS.

Technically, within the broad spectrum of Trinitarians, there are variations (like Modalists). Orthodoxy is very specific on this point as to what type of Trinity is strictly orthodox, verse what is not.

Technically, Mormons are polytheists, which is considered unorthodox. Even if Mormons limit their polytheism to a separate Father, Son, & Holy Ghost (Spirit), they are still polytheists by strict definition.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ex,

What do you do with the LDS scriptures, like the bunch in Mosiah 15, that state expressly that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God?

I recognize that the leadership of most of the creedal Christian churches ignores those passages altogether in branding Mormons polytheists, but that doesn't surprise me -- my impression is that they don't bother themselves enough with Mormonism to encounter these complexities, but satisfy themselves with some variation or the other on the "Mormonism is a cult" theme that's dogged the Church since the beginning.

I mean truly: How many non-Mormon Christian theologians really know much more about Mormonism than the basics and some of the sensational stuff? Historically, why should they have bothered to inform themselves? Who cares what a bunch of transplanted Scandinavians and low-life English and Welsh are doing on the dusty west slope of the Rockies?

[Dale]

Hi,

I bought a book called Understanding the Trinity by allister E. McGrath. He explained that when creedal christians said they were persons they didn't mean they were persons. He explained the difference by using the latin word persona which had to do with an actor & his face mask & the roles he takes in a play. So God is a single being, but like an actor he plays different persons.

If the three are however admitted as modern persons then the Bible mixes mono-theism & polytheism. The three look like they are their own person's as much as you or I. According to the modern definition of person Why arn't they three modern person's?

To me the above issue answers all Trinitarian objections to Mormon ideas of God. You might not like certain aspects of LDS ideas of God, but the Trinity would not be Biblical if they are persons. If the three person's arn't modern persons then LDS theology is better.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Amillia]

Good stuff PD and Dale!

[pushka]

Gosh...I think I'll come back to this thread later...so much to read since I looked at it late last night!!! I can't believe it...:)

[Jason]

PD,

What do you do with the LDS scriptures, like the bunch in Mosiah 15, that state expressly that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God?

Two options:

#1. Smith was a Trinitarian when he wrote the BoM, and that explains such passages.

#2. My favorite as taught by my Mission Prez a decade ago: The Son sometimes speaks as though he were the Father. For example, there are sections in the D&C where it begins with "I am the Lamb slain before the world..." and then a dozen verses later or so you'll read "I am the Father, and I sent my only begotton Son into the world...".

Now you're going: "What the fetch!?" But the MP taught that the Son, being one "in purpose", can act on behalf of the Father when necessary.

Course, this doesn't touch on my feelings that Mormonism de facto teaches that the Holy Ghost is a 2nd Class God. But that's another thread.

I recognize that the leadership of most of the creedal Christian churches ignores those passages altogether in branding Mormons polytheists, but that doesn't surprise me -- my impression is that they don't bother themselves enough with Mormonism to encounter these complexities, but satisfy themselves with some variation or the other on the "Mormonism is a cult" theme that's dogged the Church since the beginning.

I mean truly: How many non-Mormon Christian theologians really know much more about Mormonism than the basics and some of the sensational stuff? Historically, why should they have bothered to inform themselves? Who cares what a bunch of transplanted Scandinavians and low-life English and Welsh are doing on the dusty west slope of the Rockies? 

Well....you're probably right.

[Jason]

Dale,

I bought a book called Understanding the Trinity by allister E. McGrath. He explained that when creedal christians said they were persons they didn't mean they were persons. He explained the difference by using the latin word persona which had to do with an actor & his face mask & the roles he takes in a play. So God is a single being, but like an actor he plays different persons.

If the three are however admitted as modern persons then the Bible mixes mono-theism & polytheism. The three look like they are their own person's as much as you or I. According to the modern definition of person Why arn't they three modern person's?

To me the above issue answers all Trinitarian objections to Mormon ideas of God. You might not like certain aspects of LDS ideas of God, but the Trinity would not be Biblical if they are persons. If the three person's arn't modern persons then LDS theology is better.

Dale, the author of that book taught a concept called Modalism. Modalism is a heresy according to the Creeds of early Christianity.

You're author hasn't a clear understanding of Trinitarian thought.

[Dale]

Hi,

Jason Zondervan a leading Christian publishing house publishes the book. Zondervan is pretty big. I doubt they would allow a modalist to publish a book on the Trinity. He understands the three are distinct. He say's a lot more in his book on the Trinity.

I try & affirm Trinitarianism as that's the position of the Community of Christ Church. I do feel the ability of the three to have distinct centers of conciousness makes them look atleast partially like three modern persons.

Sincerely,

Robert

[Jason]

Dale,

Wasn't it Zondervan who published the "new" LDS BoM?

Of course they'll publish stuff on variations of the Trinity, why wouldn't they?

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 14 2005, 04:38 PM

nt as to what type of Trinity is strictly orthodox, verse what is not.

Technically, Mormons are polytheists, which is considered unorthodox. Even if Mormons limit their polytheism to a separate Father, Son, & Holy Ghost (Spirit), they are still polytheists by strict definition.

That's akin to saying that the Orthodox Church is polytheistic because they believe in Saints. That is, I am defining both what the Orthodox worship and what that means while ignoring what the the Orthodox think of themselves. By the way, plenty of theologians or scholars say that it makes more sense to talk in terms of polytheism for the religions that venerate Saints so I am not making that up. Me personally - I don't believe it but regardless, you can't define other religions in ways that defy their own self-understanding. Ask a Mormon, like me for instance, it they are polytheistic. Their answer would probably be no. Mine is.

On the other hand, you define us as polytheistic because we believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are materially or ontologically seperate. Okay, well, who made that rule? -that theism is poly not mono if materiality is seperate? Trinitarians don't even believe that God is material so when they are defining themselves as polytheistic they are not considering ontological unity. So that's defining the word one way for yourself and one way for others. Again, what rule says that it is materiallity and not, say, purpose of some other measure is that which defines oneness?