LDS Faith Monotheistic?

[pam]

So then can you show scriptures as Ben suggested that show that the Bible teaches three in one?

[Justice]

Lattelady, I'd like to hear your interpretation of John 17: 20-22 (I posted it above).

[Snow]

The trinity is taught throughout the Bible, and amazingly, LDS scripture seems to back it up as well! (Anatess, if loving the Bible and studying it makes me a theologian, I guess...

So untrue.

I notice that you merely claim it, rather than show it. I defy anyone (by the way I do this all the time on Catholic and Evangelical message boards so I know the outcome) to post proof that the "trinity" is biblical.

Know what? No one ever has been able to. Ever.

Let me remind you of what the Trinity means:

Three hypostases in one ousia, co-eternal and co-equal.

While you try and find that in the Bible, I;ll repost this:

On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine... (Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.)

In order to argue successfully for the unconditionally and permanence of the ancient Trinitarian Creeds, it is necessary to make a distinction between doctrines, on the one hand, and on the terminology and conceptuality in which they were formulated on the other... Some of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as "substance", "person", and "in two natures" are post-biblical novelties. If these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly conditional, dependent on the late Hellenistic milieu.[George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), 92.]

The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.[P Achtemeier, editor, Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.]

here is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there...The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.)

...there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts...nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head...These passages [i.e. the Pauline epistles] give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine...[Paul] has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem…in John there is no trinitarian formula. ( Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 14,16, 22-23, 29.)

The God whom we experience as triune is, in fact, triune. But we cannot read back into the New Testament, much less the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries. (Richard P. McBrian, Catholicism (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980), 347.)

What you posted: "Trinity brother, being One God in three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost..." is not what the Trinity means. Your description is perfectly compatible with LDS beliefs. The "Trinity" however means not just three in once, but three co-equal, co-eternal gods, of the same consubstantial, ontological substance... and that is found nowhere in the Bible, and in fact is contradicted by the Bible; for example: "My Father is greater than I." In Trinitarism, the Father and the Son are co-equal, one is not greater.

[bmy-]

yes it's true that I'm a non-member; if the word "investigator" is used negatively, then I'm probably not that. If it's okay to have a discussion, then that's what I'm up for. I don't enjoy discussions peppered with anger/mockery/rudeness. But I suppose that's what I have to put up with now and then if I choose to hang out here! I do my best to be kind and considerate!

The word 'investigator' is not negative at all. If someone hears someone call you an investigator.. you pretty much receive the red carpet

[Snow]

Okay, now I have a question about the KFD...

I have always believed that any sermon by any prophet is gospel truth. Now, a prophet making a speech at a public event that is not specifically addressed to the saints is different. I don't call that a sermon.

So, for me KFD is gospel truth. Just like anything on the Ensign is gospel truth.

So, like, if Pres. Monson would speak on Conference and say that we have a Heavenly Mother and her name is Anatess - wouldn't you then take it as gospel truth?

Am I missing something?

I going to disagree.

We have a standard - the standard of gospel truth. It is our canon, the Standard Works. All else is measured against that canon. To that you can add official statements and letters released by the First Presidency.

All else, more or less, may be true, but is not the source of the gospel truth. It is interpretation of or explanation of truth and true, just to the extent that it matches up with the standard, the canon of scripture. When the Church chooses to make something official, it does by canonizing it and submitting it to the saints for a sustaining vote in a general session.

... and what constitutes currently viewed correct interpretation of doctrinal truth, are official writings, and talks of General Authorities and the prophet.

One of our message board posters here a couple years ago wrote to the Church about the topic and got back a letter from the Secretary that said essentially that - not exactly that ( I am more conservative in my views of such) but something similar to that.

By the way, it's not that hard to find errors in Church magazines like the ensign or errors in old GA conference talks - errors in that they do not match doctrine.

[Snow]

Here's an quick update on what I learned today from my brief research on the matter whether God worships His God...

Mormons seem to be divided into 3 or 4 camps.

1. Those like me who have no opinion on the matter.

2. Those that believe that He does.

3. Those that believe that He does not.

There is no Church teaching specifically on the matter - that I or anyone I know has been able to turn up. Such beliefs come from personal speculation or the speculation of some who influences others.

Originally the source of the speculation seems to have from The King Follett Discourse and The Sermon in the Grove given by JS shortly before his death - neither of which address it clearly and specifically and also from the anti-Mormon newspaper The Nauvoo Expositor, which does mention it more explicitly: " "Among the many items of false doctrine that are taught the Church, is the doctrine of many Gods, one of the most direful in its effects that has characterized the world for many centuries....It is contended that there are innumerable gods as much above the God that presides over this universe, as he is above us..."

I have also heard/read that Brigham Young may have believed it as part of his Adam-God theory which the Church rejects.

For those that believe option 2, I suggest that they are making an unsupportable leap based on Joseph Smith's two talks - both of which were jotted down by others listening and were not published until after his death. No word-for-word account of the talks exist.

Joseph's unexplained or unclarified remarks that God was once a man need not mean that he went through a mortality like we do. It seems more reasonable that he went through a mortality by choice like Christ did, Christ being deity BEFORE being mortal.

The most insighful theological philosopher I know of in the Church is Blake Ostler, he said

"It seems fairly clear to me that Joseph Smith had [the Father being born as a mortal] in mind and not [the Father being spiritually begotten by another Father above him]. First, immediately after discussing the fact that generation of a son necessarily requires a father, he states: "I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He [Jesus] laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before." Thus, Joseph returns to the same explanatory principle that he had in the King Follett discourse. The Son as a mortal does "precisely" what the Father did before him."

and

That God may have played a role in bring salvation to mortals in the same manner that Christ did:

"God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible...What did Jesus say?...The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again."

[ Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought Vol. 2: The Problems With Theism And the Love of God (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2006), 451, footnote 28, and 444-445]

Plus - for those that do NOT believe that God worships another god, that position is in harmony with the scriptures that say God is the most high God over all gods - something that Joseph Smith also believed: [Abraham 3:19, D&C 121:32] (there is a fair wiki article on the matter that explains the extent of the beliefs)

Edited August 25, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

... and I'd like to thank all the posters that have "thanked" me on my last couple of posts. Soon I will be able to redeem my thanks for small appliances and furnishings - every little bit helps.

[ruthiechan]

ruthie - You must be lying. You were never taught such a thing in seminary, unless you can provide hard evidence. No, it is not true. It was never taught. You are foolish to think so. *rolls eyes*

Sorry ruthie, but, you just made my point again. Snow has been mistaken to say this was not taught. I have never argued that it was taught as doctrine. I have clearly stated, as you just did, that it was taught in Sunday school for me, as you got it in seminary. But, Snow does not seem to understand that just because we can not provide hard proof that it was taught, does not mean that it never was. I believe you, for one. It seems like this is not an uncommon thing to be taught or discussed.

No, I didn't. I pointed out that my seminary teacher taught that God worships his God, but it doesn't make sense for reasons I pointed out above, and it doesn't mean that it's true. It just means that a few people followed your same logic train to come to that conclusion even though it is not official doctrine. So, no, I was not lying, because I did not make a claim that God worshiping his God was official doctrine when there is nothing from an LDS source that supports such a claim. I was merely attempting to reiterate that people are perpetuating an idea as though it were doctrine.

I once had a Sunday School teacher say that when Christ returns he'll be bringing food with him. I said that didn't make sense because why have the need for such a large food storage if that were going to be the case? She admitted that it wasn't doctrine just her opinion. However, she had spoken of it in Sunday School as though it *were* doctrine and would have continued on if I hadn't said anything.

Maybe I did a bad job of conveying my support of Snow in this. Can I blame the lousy school laptop I was using this afternoon? It was terribly frustrating to use.

[john doe]

Keep it up Snow, there's a virtual toaster given out when you reach 10,000 posts.

[Guest]

I going to disagree.

We have a standard - the standard of gospel truth. It is our canon, the Standard Works. All else is measured against that canon. To that you can add official statements and letters released by the First Presidency.

All else, more or less, may be true, but is not the source of the gospel truth. It is interpretation of or explanation of truth and true, just to the extent that it matches up with the standard, the canon of scripture. When the Church chooses to make something official, it does by canonizing it and submitting it to the saints for a sustaining vote in a general session.

... and what constitutes currently viewed correct interpretation of doctrinal truth, are official writings, and talks of General Authorities and the prophet.

One of our message board posters here a couple years ago wrote to the Church about the topic and got back a letter from the Secretary that said essentially that - not exactly that ( I am more conservative in my views of such) but something similar to that.

By the way, it's not that hard to find errors in Church magazines like the ensign or errors in old GA conference talks - errors in that they do not match doctrine.

And that's why I love you Snow. As always, you completely got me thinking and chewing on some meaty stuff (I'm not vegatarian) and now I can adjust my thinking and have a clearer understanding of what constitutes as LDS doctrine.

And, I have to say, this is one of your "gentler" posts. You could've said - You idiot... LOL!

Sorry, I can't seem to get my computer to give you a toaster.

[Snow]

Keep it up Snow, there's a virtual toaster given out when you reach 10,000 posts.

Either that or on your (my) death bed, I'll have the gift of total consciousness...

[pam]

... and I'd like to thank all the posters that have "thanked" me on my last couple of posts. Soon I will be able to redeem my thanks for small appliances and furnishings - every little bit helps.

Snow when you are done with the "thanked posts redemption catalog" could you pass it my way? I could use a new microwave.

[Snow]

Snow when you are done with the "thanked posts redemption catalog" could you pass it my way? I could use a new microwave.

Gee - isn't this nice and cozy. It's almost like you guys can actually tolerate me. :)

[john doe]

Now where is that silly Laugh Button?

[Guest]

Gee - isn't this nice and cozy. It's almost like you guys can actually tolerate me. :)

Uhm... ah... not really... we just realize that God gave you to us so we can always practice charity...

[pam]

Uhm... ah... not really... we just realize that God gave you to us so we can always practice charity...

Now I need that silly laugh button.

[Gatorman]

anatess - My apologies, I was being facetious in that post. Snow's theory at one point is that no one had ever taught that Heavenly Father worshiped a Heavenly Father. He said to a number of us that we were wrong, that we had never been taught that.

And, for the record, I have never stated whether I believe it or not. Neither had I ever heard of the KFD. So, to suggest that my ability to see the possibility lies in a belief in the KFD is an unsupported supposition on the part of a certain poster.

For the record, again...I have been taught that Heavenly Father had and worshiped a Heavenly Father. I can see how the conclusion can be made from the material in the Gospel Principles lesson. I have seen the evidence provided that the church has no official stance either way. Also, that it was suggested that such a thing is possibly beyond our mortal knowing. And, you know what, I am perfectly okay with such an ambigous answer. I don't require proof either way to continue. The fact of the matter is, this is not one of the points of redemption. In the same lesson, the 'requirement' for exaltation are laid out. Knowing this answer is not one of them. I believe it was one of Joseph's quotes that stated that we would find out all true knowledge sometime later, well after we have crossed back through the veil. That works for me. All possibilities are still open.

[Kawazu]

Hi,

Has the thread reached the end of its purpose, yet? It looks like we've all hugged it out?

:)

[Dr T]

Think about what you are saying Dr. T.

You reject the idea of theosis because, you say, it is unbiblical, but in the same post you say that you accept the Trinity.

The "Trinity" is hardly biblical.

On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine... (Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.)

In order to argue successfully for the unconditionally and permanence of the ancient Trinitarian Creeds, it is necessary to make a distinction between doctrines, on the one hand, and on the terminology and conceptuality in which they were formulated on the other... Some of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as "substance", "person", and "in two natures" are post-biblical novelties. If these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly conditional, dependent on the late Hellenistic milieu.[George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), 92.]

The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.[P Achtemeier, editor, Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.]

here is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there...The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.)

...there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts...nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head...These passages [i.e. the Pauline epistles] give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine...[Paul] has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem…in John there is no trinitarian formula. ( Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 14,16, 22-23, 29.)

The God whom we experience as triune is, in fact, triune. But we cannot read back into the New Testament, much less the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries. (Richard P. McBrian, Catholicism (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980), 347.)

What you posted: "Trinity brother, being One God in three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost..." is not what the Trinity means. Your description is perfectly compatible with LDS beliefs. The "Trinity" however means not just three in once, but three co-equal, co-eternal gods, of the same consubstantial, ontological substance... and that is found nowhere in the Bible, and in fact is contradicted by the Bible; for example: "My Father is greater than I." In Trinitarism, the Father and the Son are co-equal, one is not greater.

If you want to believe things that are non, or extra-biblical, that's okay, but you can't reject LDS doctrine on the same basis - at least not and remain consistent.

This was a great post Snow. See, that's what I like about you. You are intelligent, a good writer and have a lot of knowledge. I have a hard time seperating the concept from scripture as it all fits together and is unified in those three yet there only being One God. For me, I can apprehend it. It's there. The development and understanding as you pointed out did come together over some time. I've never seen the 15 centuries number that you gave but have read some of the history and it was there MUCH sooner than that. The concept of them being coequal and coeternal, you're right again, they are those things. The part you are missing is the concept of kenosis. I do not see Jesus giving up His deity at all during that time (so far as I'm still new to Christianity) and the idea of Jesus taking on Humanity (human nature). I see that as an addition not a subtraction to His nature. I do see the submissiveness of Jesus but I do not see it as less than or less God than the Father and therefore see the two are equal in essence. I have a book called One God or Three? Exploring the Tri-Unity of God in the Old Testament authored by Stanley Rosenthal. I don't know if it's any good but I look forward to reading it. I just can't find it anywhere. I'll keep looking and read it and see how it is. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts Snow. :)

[lattelady]

As for some supportive verses on the Trinity, I'll give just an example of the way the Trinity works its way into scripture. When you look at Jesus being raised from the dead, who do you believe raised Him from the dead? I believe God raised Him from the dead. God (one) has three persons (Father, son, and Holy Spirit. He is ONE God in three persons. Three persons in ONE. And there is scripture to support this.

1) God raised Jesus from the dead: Acts 4:10 " be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom GOD RAISED FROM THE DEAD--even by him doth this man stand here before you whole."

2) Jesus raised Jesus from the dead (because He is God)--John 2:19-21 "Jesus answered and said unto them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I WILL RAISE IT UP.' Then said the Jews, 'Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?' But He spake of the temple of His body."

3) The Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead, because He is God--Romans 8:11 "But if the SPIRIT OF HIM THAT RAISED UP JESUS FROM THE DEAD dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."

[CAPS mine]

There are examples like this woven through the scriptures that speak to the doctrine of the Trinity.

[lattelady]

Justice, the scripture you noted in John 17 I believe Jesus is talking about His desire for people who believe to be one with Him in unity, just as He and the Father are unified. It was a prayer for those who would believe in Him. He wanted them to be united like He and the Father are united. The Holy Spirit dwelled in Him while he was on earth and He had perfect fellowship with His Father. He wanted that for believers too, and we can have that! There's nothing in that passage, though, about Jesus and the Father being two separate personages or Gods that are only united in purpose. Jesus wanted us to be with Him where He is and to see the glory of Heaven (the glory He had before the foundation of the world)v.5. I can't know if, when He said "be with me where I am" He was referring to what He could see as an all-knowing God. He could see the glories of Heaven from where he was on earth! He is GOD, while man! But He said 'be with me where I am and see my glory.' He seems to be referring to His desire for them to be with Him in the glory of Heaven--to see eternal life. But again, I don't see how this applies to your point about being one in purpose, and them being separate personages.

[lattelady]

Does anyone know of a passage in the Book of Mormon or the Bible where it says the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate Gods that are perfectly united only in purpose? (I know there are verses like the ones in John that talk about the Father and the Son being united in purpose, but they never say they're separate Gods).

[rameumptom]

Snow, I can easily prove that God worships his God.

Jesus = God.

God the Father = God.

Jesus worships his Father.

Therefore God worships His God.

The pattern is there. I don't see why you are being so intent on annoying everyone with your incessant rant.

[bytebear]

Does anyone know of a passage in the Book of Mormon or the Bible where it says the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate Gods that are perfectly united only in purpose? (I know there are verses like the ones in John that talk about the Father and the Son being united in purpose, but they never say they're separate Gods).

They aren't separate Gods. They are one God. but the father has a body of flesh and bone, as does the son, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. So, are you arguing the substance of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or the title?

[lattelady]

I said earlier that there are verses in the Book of Mormon that would seem to support a Trinitarian view--without someone inserting words into it such as: "one in purpose". Verses like:

Alma 11:44 "...every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil."

2 Nephi 31:21 "...And now, behold, this is hte doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen."

Bytebear, you said "They aren't separate Gods. They are one God." I found this quote from Joseph Smith and wanted to know what you thought of it.

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three gods." (Teachings of The Prophet Joseph Smith p.370)