Time Magazine Article

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I have questions for you AK. If you accept God the Father with a tangible body and can't see why he wouldn't have one, why do accept the Holy Spirit without one?

Because I believe it's doctrine taught in the Bible and LDS standard works.

Do you consider the Holy Spirit a person? And if you do how do you explain your acceptance of the HS without a body (how do you visualize him in your mind), but find it difficult to see God the Father without?

I believe the Spirit is a being with a spirit body. Before we were born into mortality, we too had spirit bodies. I believe these spirit bodies were like our physical bodies in that they had two arms, two legs, etc... so I believe the Spirit would appear as a man. The comparison has been used that the spirit is like a hand and our physical bodies are like the gloves around the hand...they both have five fingers but it's the hand that moves the glove (spirit animates the body).

In addition, scriptures like these clarify for me the nature of the Spirit. Here, Nephi is having a discussion with the Holy Ghost concerning a vision:

"And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof—for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another." (1 Nephi 11:11)

And here, a revelation to Joseph Smith explains what the Spirit "is made of" and why he must be that way to fulfill the Father's plan:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).

That one verse teaches me more about the Godhead than all the creeds combined. :) But getting back to my point, the Spirit who testifies to us, confirms truth, guides us, etc... speaks spirit to spirit. As the verse says, if the Holy Ghost had a body as tangible as man's, and tried to dwell in us, there'd be a bit of a collision problem. So each member of the Godhead has a specific role in our salvation, and the Holy Ghost's requires that he be able to dwell in us if we're worthy and in tune.

I don't think it's reasonable that the Father be just a spirit without a tangible body, because Jesus has a resurrected body. Jesus taught:

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

Hang with me here. Jesus taught this before his resurrection. So if the Father was greater than him at that point, it was because the Father already had a glorified body of flesh and bone (which Jesus didn't yet), or because the Father had only a body of spirit (while Jesus had a physical body also). If the Father only had a body of spirit it would be because a spirit body is greater than a physical body. If this is so, why did Jesus resurrect his physical body? Why take a weaker or lesser form than the Father if they are supposedly one in substance/nature? However, if Jesus is like the Father in all respects, then his taking a resurrected body would mean the Father has a similarly glorified body of flesh and bone. Jesus taught the apostles that a spirit hath not flesh and bones as his resurrected body did.

I don't see Jesus having anything the Father doesn't. Besides, even before Jesus died he taught that whoever saw him had seen the Father (a verse sometimes used to support the creeds). I take that to mean, "Hey, I have a body with arms and legs, so does the Father. I have emotions, so does the Father, etc..." Besides the fact that we are created in the image of God (not just intellectually in the image of God as some believe).

I don't expect that to sway anyone to the LDS viewpoint, but it's been said that while argument doesn't create conviction, a lack of it destroys conviction. Hope that is a satisfactory answer to your question Maureen. One last verse to consider:

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God," (Acts 7:55)

How does someone stand on their own right hand? Siamese twins or something, joined at the spiritual hip? The trinity just doesn't stand up to Bible accounts like this. Does anyone dispute it? If so, why? Explain it to me, I invite you.

p.s. I didn't mention the First Vision where Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as separate beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bone (not blood), because I didn't want to get into a debate as to whether he really saw that or not. But I believe he did and that also influences my beliefs.

[Ray]

It is a truth beyond dispute that our Father in heaven has a physical and spiritual body, yet there are people who will dispute that truth and believe it is not the truth.

And in the end, what does it matter? Will it ever change the truth?

Our Father has a physical and spiritual body, and no dispute will ever change that.

But if you choose not to agree with us [LDS], you can believe whatever you want, though the truth is still the truth no matter what you choose to believe…

… and the only way to know the truth is to receive an assurance from God…

… though there are many of us who know this truth and try to share it with others.

Or in other words, having us [LDS] talking back and forth with you will not help you to see the truth, because this truth is now right in front of your face and you still cannot see or believe it…

… though you would be able to see and know this truth after receiving an assurance from God…

… and you would be able to receive that assurance by seeking an answer from Him.

Ask, and you shall Receive. Seek, and ye shall Find. Knock, and the door shall be opened unto you, and you will be able to know the truth and the truth will set you free.

And that, my dear brothers and sisters, is how to play this game.

[Maureen]

Thanks for your reply AK. I guess it comes down to what any person can relate to when it comes to belief and a lot of faith. I personally like the Trinity doctrine, I understand it the best way I can. For me the mystery of it all makes God seem more majestic and awe inspiring. I like the paradox of the Trinity because I want God to be bigger than anything I could imagine - he is indeed supernatural and supreme for me.

M.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Thanks for your reply AK. I guess it comes down to what any person can relate to when it comes to belief and a lot of faith. I personally like the Trinity doctrine, I understand it the best way I can. For me the mystery of it all makes God seem more majestic and awe inspiring. I like the paradox of the Trinity because I want God to be bigger than anything I could imagine - he is indeed supernatural and supreme for me.

M.

I respect that.

[Dr T]

Hello all,

I appreciate the opportunity to critique this LDS article amongst intelligent people from the LDS background. :) Here are some more analytical thoughts about this article. In some of them, you’ll see that I’m having a hard time understanding the difference between what is being spoken against and what I’m learning about the LDS faith. I hope you know that I know religious beliefs are firm. I am not trying to change your beliefs. I am not anti-Mormon. I am merely listing my critical thoughts about this article. I hope to learn from your responses to my questions. Continuing on...

Yet when the Latter-day Saints reject the doctrines of Nicaea and Chalcedon, which are clearly additions to the biblical teaching they are accused of rejecting the scriptural view of God. This is simply a misrepresentation, unless one defines the words of the councils as supplemental scripture.

This appears to present a False dilemma for the reader. I hope, through more reading and through our discussion to either confirm or abandon this thought, but so far, it does not hold based on my knowledge. We have not talked specifically about what the Bible, taken as a whole, says-so that will have to wait. The implication here is that the Councils added to scripture. What separates that assertion from their claim that they “just clarified its meaning”? I’ve heard Christian church members say that the Counsels clarified scripture under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. Many, if not all, reading my ideas about this article will probably reject that, but I want to again highlight my observation that, from what I’m gathering, LDS members reject it while simultaneously claiming that God did superintend Joseph Smith (and others). I bring this up because, if we are talking about the wrongfulness of adding to scripture, what of the clear doctrinal additions to what the Bible teaches? Some examples might include God’s (sexual?) relations with Mary, God once being a human being, believing in many other gods, etc. Is it accurate to say that the LDS church does add to scripture in those instances?

Latter-day Saints do not believe that the words of the councils constitute additional scripture ...

Does anyone, really?

... and therefore they refuse to let the Nicene tail wag the biblical dog.

Using that same train of thought, would it be fair to believe that there seems to be no conflict about the modern leaders of the LDS church “wagging the biblical dog via a new ‘revelation.’" Is that an accurate allegation? That is not intended to exasperate or annoy any of you. I am sincerely asking about your ideas about the similarities and differences of the allegations that this article is putting forth. I guess what I’m seeing is “someone outside the church (outside the Counsels) and someone outside the LDS church, both being on the outside looking in, and both accusing the other of not being Holy Spirit/Ghost led and accusing the other of adding to scripture.

It is absurdly contradictory to say on the one hand, as some critics of the Latter-day Saints do, that the Bible alone is sufficient for salvation (the doctrine of sola scriptura) and then to add that one must also believe the creeds in addition to the Bible in order to even be a Christian.

Which critics of the Latter-day Saints say that one must "also believe the creeds in addition to the Bible in order to even be a Christian"? (again no footnote).

Based on the religious exploration and conversations that I’ve been doing/having amongst various church groups, my guess would be that many Christians are people who see the creeds as biblical clarification on the nature of God. “These creeds are not additions just explanations of what the Bible teaches,” they would say. What do you all see as the point of this sentence? Is it intended to deny the Creeds and to stake the claim of being a true "Christian" one cannot believe in One God in three personages?

As, Dan (an very intelligent Catholic man) said, “The Creeds actually function as a benchmark. They measure claims about doctrine. It isn't so important that you accept the creeds as that you do not contradict them.”

OK, given his advice lets take a look at the first line of the Nicene Creed and look at some concepts that are extra biblical:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

So far, I gathered that the LDS church believes in more than one God. AK (whom I enjoy and respect said it, “one, two, three”) and I have heard this on this forum from others and from the website where we find the article we are discussing we also read,

Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (A of F 1). These three Gods form the Godhead, which holds the keys of power over the universe.

(This and subsequent quotations taken from http://www.lightplanet.com except as otherwise noted.)

This makes me wonder about Heavenly Mother (is she a God too?):

"Latter-day Saints infer from authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy that there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father." Encyclopedia of Mormonism

I’ve also learned that people on this site believe that they may become Gods too:

"Logically and naturally, the ultimate desire of a loving Supreme Being is to help his children enjoy all that he enjoys. For Latter-day Saints, the term "godhood" denotes the attainment of such a state—one of having all divine attributes and doing as God does and being as God is." Encyclopedia of Mormonism

God used to be a man:

"God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says." Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.742)

No ambiguity there.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father." (Come unto Christ, p. 4.)

Therefore, the statements from Church leaders indicating that Jesus was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events should be understood that God works through natural means in everything that he does.

How could Mary have been a virgin at Christ's birth if she had intercourse with God?

Our Lord is the only mortal person born to a virgin because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father.

My question is, if it all “Naturally” that relation between someone that was a human at one point, she still didn’t lose her virginity? I don’t understand that. Any insights that can be shared about that?

Some may respond that the creeds and teachings of the councils are merely useful as historically accepted summaries of the biblical doctrines, but this is not a fair assessment. Anyone who has passed freshman English knows that a true summary cannot introduce concepts or information not found in the material being summarized. And there is no passage of scripture or combination of scriptures for which the doctrine of an abstract, absolute, transcendent, consubstantial, coeternal unity in trinity existing unknowably and incomprehensibly without body, parts, or passions and outside space and time can be called a fair "summary."

That is a response that relates to my understanding of what Trinitarians would say. We still need to explore what the Bible actually says to see if the above issues are present. My fear is that we just accept that comment of dismissal without really looking to see what the Bible says. OK. What of the LDS teachings mentioned above that have no biblical basis whatever? Why are they OK (given this standard)?

Modern scholars know that the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity not only differs from but also introduces new concepts to the biblical view. One such scholar notes, "It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty."

The "one scholar" cited is Maruice Wiles, from his book, "Making of Christian Doctrine." Let us see what else Maruice Wiles has said:

"Scripture, it is true, was sometimes treated as a set of prepositional statements from which the truth could be read off by a process of deductive logic. But Scripture was never the sole court of appeal. The living tradition of the Church included not only the historical facts recorded in Scripture but also the continuing and contemporary experience of Christians." The Making of Christian Doctrine, p. 160

"Theology is a continually changing and essentially temporary task. All religious language is unsatisfactory."

Wiles denied the doctrine of the Trinity, contributing to a book called, "The Myth of God Incarnate." He also rejected miracles.

He claimed that we have just as much capacity today to deduce theology from our own experience as the biblical authors did. There is nothing special about the apostolic writings.

To say that Wiles' views are controversial would be a serious understatement. As an exemplar of "one scholar" with the view that the creeds don't reflect biblical teaching, Wiles is sorely lacking.

Further on this same scholar concludes, "The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas."

So, from what I read here, the "scholars" consist of exactly one man who renounced all of his orthodox views for reasons that are not known.

Thus the Latter-day Saints simply prefer to do without such conciliar "summaries" and to stick to the scriptures themselves.

Where I’m getting stuck is that to justify all of the non-biblical doctrines mentioned above, one could just write another book and call it "scripture” and, ipso facto, you've case is closed. I’m saying this in light of the following quote for an important reason.

The unsummarized Bible is fine just as it is ...

Then why do we need the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, etc?

... bring forward any creed composed entirely of scriptural passages and the Latter-day Saints will heartily affirm every word.

Is that a true statement? I’m asking that because if LDS deny the first line of the Nicene Creed, “which is entirely scriptural” if you look at a plethora of OT and NT referencfes that there is exactly one God, I don’t see how that can be.

That’s enough for today. I’ll post my other initial impressions after you all have a chance to read this piece and give me feedback.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Dr. T, a thorough and far-reaching inquiry to be sure. I feel I need to clarify some things as they are at the root of many of your questions/concerns.

I've heard Christian church members say that the Counsels clarified scripture under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit...I want to again highlight my observation that, from what I'm gathering, LDS members reject it while simultaneously claiming that God did superintend Joseph Smith (and others).

We don't believe God couldn't superintend the councils, just that He didn't. We believe He did guide Joseph Smith. It's not a matter of, "Hey if God didn't guide the councils then He can't have guided anyone who reveals new scripture."

I bring this up because, if we are talking about the wrongfulness of adding to scripture, what of the clear doctrinal additions to what the Bible teaches? Some examples might include God’s (sexual?) relations with Mary, God once being a human being, believing in many other gods, etc. Is it accurate to say that the LDS church does add to scripture in those instances?

Dr. T, this is an important distinction: Prof. Robinson isn't objecting to adding new scriptures to God's revealed words...he's objecting to unauthorized additions. For the record, it is not official LDS doctrine that God had physical relations with Mary. If LDS are so block-headed for not being able to understand the trinity, equally block-headed are those who can't conceive of any manner of conception beyond the mortal one we know. God the Father is the literal Father of Jesus Christ. Seeing as how neither Heavenly Father nor Christ saw fit to explain the chemistry and biology involved, I don't stay up at night worrying about it.

...would it be fair to believe that there seems to be no conflict about the modern leaders of the LDS church “wagging the biblical dog via a new "revelation.'"

The comparison is an unprofitable one. Here's why:

1.) LDS doctrines/revelations beyond the Bible don't pose as clarifications of the Bible. LDS believe the Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price are resotrations of truths lost from the Bible or not originally revealed in the Bible. In that sense it's to be expected that there will be concepts and teachings only hinted at or brushed upon or not mentioned at all. But to say you're summarizing Bible teachings while contradicting them (no one has yet to refute my Nicene/Bible contradictions...interesting) is not the same. Apples and oranges my friend.

2.) The councils never claimed they were restoring truths lost during the years of preserving/translating the original Biblical writings. Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets have claimed that, so our objecting to adding concepts to the Bible through interpretation is different from your objection to adding new doctrines through revelation. In this sense, LDS doctrines/scriptures don't wag the Biblical dog...they wash it's fur, polish its dog tag and get rid of its fleas.

3.) The councils never claimed the Bible was corrupt in some of its translation. LDS do believe the Bible was at times translated incorrectly or simply had an offending piece cut out by a well-meaning scribe or not-so-well-meaning scribe. So from our viewpoint, to clarify a corrupt teaching is to produce a corrupt clarification. While there are Biblical references in the Nicene creed (we don't believe the whole Bible is a mistranslation!), the other parts that aren't are corrupt in our view...inaccurate interpolations mingled with scripture, plain and simple.

Which critics of the Latter-day Saints say that one must "also believe the creeds in addition to the Bible in order to even be a Christian"? (again no footnote).

There's no footnote because most Latter-day Saints' experience in arguing with non-LDS Christians about the trinity results in, "Well if you don't believe in the trinity you don't understand God so you can't be a true Christian." Can I give you names, phone numbers and addresses of people I've had that discussion with? No. But I've had them, and so have others. It is this sort of anecdotal evidence I believe Prof. Robinson is referring to.

What do you all see as the point of this sentence? Is it intended to deny the Creeds and to stake the claim of being a true "Christian" one cannot believe in One God in three personages?

No, and that's the difference. LDS don't teach that, "Hey if you believe in the trinity you're a scamp and in now way can you be called Christian." I think a Christian is anyone who believes that Christ is the Savior of mankind, the Son of God, and who tries to live his teachings as best they know how. LDS don't bar anyone from being Christian who's not a member of our church. How arrogant for anyone to do so.

As, Dan (an very intelligent Catholic man) said, “The Creeds actually function as a benchmark. They measure claims about doctrine. It isn't so important that you accept the creeds as that you do not contradict them.”

Um, you lost me buddy. If you can't contradict something, you must believe it. If I can't disagree that 2+2=4, then I must believe it. What other option is there? With this reasoning I could say, "You don't have to agree that water is wet, you just can't say it's dry." It's the same thing! No offense, but such a contradictory argument is redolent of Nicene philosophy...uselessly mysterious.

"Latter-day Saints infer from authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy that there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father." Encyclopedia of Mormonism

That's what I keep hammering home...we don't claim our scriptures are just clarifications of the Bible, they are additions in every sense of the word, so why is it surprising that we'd have teachings not in the Bible? The issue is not whether we have teachings not in the Bible, but whether they contradict teachings in the Bible. To argue that because something isn't mentioned it doesn't exist is a logical fallacy.

For example, if there were a verse in the Bible stating, "There is positively no heavenly being related to our spirits as our mortal mothers are to our physical bodies," then yeah there'd be a problem. But to argue that because we haven't discovered a monkey in Africa that has green fur, there doesn't exist one, is plain foolish.

My question is, if it all “Naturally” that relation between someone that was a human at one point, she still didn’t lose her virginity? I don’t understand that. Any insights that can be shared about that?

To be clear, official LDS teaching is not that God had sex with Mary in the sense we know it. If you were to tell someone living in New Testament times (or even in 1830) that it was possible for a woman to have a child without ever physically having sex with a man (artificial insemination and other "marvels" of science) they'd probably say you were crazy. But it is possible. As Isaiah 55:8-9 states, God's ways are higher than our ways, so why do we limit Him to the methods we mortals know of for a woman to become pregnant with a father's seed? The details aren't that important to us. What is important is that Jesus inherited from God his literal Father, power over death and the ability to bring to pass our salvation. I personally don't care how it happened, just that it did happen.

We still need to explore what the Bible actually says to see if the above issues are present.

I have, but no one has stepped up and resolved the contradictions between the Bible and the creeds I have presented (and they are but a few).

Then why do we need the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, etc?

This is the issue, the ultimate issue Dr. T, and I'm glad you hit on it because the answer to this one question answers all the others in this post.

1.) Jesus taught in Matthew that a prophet may be discerned by their fruits, or what they believe and teach others to believe for example. A false prophet brings forth bad fruit; a true prophet brings forth good fruit.

2.) The main fruit of Joseph Smith's role as prophet is The Book of Mormon. If it is good fruit, he is a true prophet. Period. It really is that simple. That's why LDS missionaries focus on The Book of Mormon so much...not because it's superior to the Bible, but because it establishes Joseph Smith's claims to being a prophet. The rest is like dominos...if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then what he taught was true, and there was an apostasy, and truths were lost, and so on and so on.

3.) Each person must "taste" the fruit for themselves and see if it is sweet. The issue is not whether LDS have teachings not in the Bible, but whether those teachings came from a prophet with authority to speak for God in every sense of the Old and New Testament prophets.

4.) Instead of debating whether scholars in a musty councilroom (circa 365 A.D.) were justified in their clarifications of scripture, the discussion should be, "What does the Book of Mormon teach about Jesus? Are these teachings "good fruit?" Are they true? Was the prophet who translated it a true prophet or a false one?" Discussing the Book of Mormon doctrines only take one so far...the last step is to ask God if the words are His or a farm boy's.

So I hope you see the foundation for the LDS viewpoint. If Joseph Smith was a prophet, that single belief leads to acceptance of restored truths which rightly contradict pre-restoration creeds. The test, ultimately, is whether a reading of The Book of Mormon's doctrines about Jesus and salvation result in the fruits of the Spirit as mentioned in Galatians 5. Does it enlarge the soul? Does it bring joy, or peace, or love of God, etc...? Belief in the restoration of truths and revelation of new truths affects how LDS view all other teachings. If a teaching contradicts any of our Standard Works (OT, NT, BoM, D&C, PoGP) it is false.

The Nicene Creed contradicts our Standard Works. That's the core issue Dr. T. That's why we view the Nicene Creed as false while accepting other extra-Biblical truths. It all hinges on Joseph Smith's claims, which all hinge on whether he really did translate the Book of Mormon through God's power, which hinges on our reading and praying about it. This is the most basic LDS line of thought, but it cuts to the core of your questions so I thought it worth mentioning.

I'm asking that because if LDS deny the first line of the Nicene Creed, "which is entirely scriptural" if you look at a plethora of OT and NT referencfes that there is exactly one God, I don't see how that can be.

As a "clarification" of your statement, the Bible teaches that there is exactly one God we should worship. From, "I am the LORD thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me," in Exodus to, "I, even I am the LORD, and beside me there is no savior," in Isaiah, the central theme is, "There is only one God to worship--Heavenly Father--and one way back to God--Jesus Christ."

I'll give you a quick way to verify this. Go to http://scriptures.lds.org, and in the "Search" box at the top-left corner of the webpage, enter "gods" into the box and perform a search. This will bring up every reference in LDS scripture dealing with the word "gods." Verse upon verse in the Bible establishes that yeah, there is only one God...one God we should worship.

[prisonchaplain]

We don't believe God couldn't superintend the councils, just that He didn't. We believe He did guide Joseph Smith. It's not a matter of, "Hey if God didn't guide the councils then He can't have guided anyone who reveals new scripture."

This absolutely makes sense, because the the creeds referenced are incompatible with Joseph Smith's revelations. They could not have both been led by the same Holy Spirit.

Dr. T, this is an important distinction: Prof. Robinson isn't objecting to adding new scriptures to God's revealed words...he's objecting to unauthorized additions.

And, if I understand correctly, the bishops and other church leaders gathered at those conferences where the creeds were developed were unauthorized because they were not ordained by God, and were part of a church that had already wandered into apostasy, according the LDS teachings, correct?

Why I mention this is that the bishops were not even claiming to have revelations from God, much less that they were adding to Scripture canon. They were fulfilling their roles as "some called to be teachers, some pastors (leaders/bishops/overseers)..."

In a sense, I suppose the LDS teaching would follow that none of the non-LDS teachers/preachers etc. are authorized.

For the record, it is not official LDS doctrine that God had physical relations with Mary. If LDS are so block-headed for not being able to understand the trinity, equally block-headed are those who can't conceive of any manner of conception beyond the mortal one we know. God the Father is the literal Father of Jesus Christ. Seeing as how neither Heavenly Father nor Christ saw fit to explain the chemistry and biology involved, I don't stay up at night worrying about it.

I believe there is a phrase about "in the manner of men," or some such verbage, that leads many non-LDS readers to the assumption of physical relationship. It's an easy assumption to make, but also an unauthorized one.

But to say you're summarizing Bible teachings while contradicting them (no one has yet to refute my Nicene/Bible contradictions...interesting) is not the same. Apples and oranges my friend.

I guess I was being a bit thick, and missed the contradiction post. Can you either repost, or give me a post # to go back to? I agree with your distinction, but stick with the assertion that the bishops and leaders at Nicea were fulfilling a teaching and pastoral role--activities that require a lower level of confirmation than adding to the canon of Scripture or claiming to be a modern day prophet, imho.

There's no footnote because most Latter-day Saints' experience in arguing with non-LDS Christians about the trinity results in, "Well if you don't believe in the trinity you don't understand God so you can't be a true Christian." Can I give you names, phone numbers and addresses of people I've had that discussion with? No. But I've had them, and so have others. It is this sort of anecdotal evidence I believe Prof. Robinson is referring to.

I'm not sure I would say that anyone who does not fully embrace the creeds is a pretender, but I would argue that any Christian who walks with the Holy Spirit should grow in knowledge and truth. Thus, if the claimant embraces heresy and abandons true teachings, there comes a point at which s/he becomes apostate. Again, if they were walking with the Spirit, they should have sensed the warnings and the "NO--flee from the false teaching" promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Most churches are very reticent about declaring someone damned, based on doctrine. Instead, they generally declare a parting of the ways, and say the offender has left our "like precious faith."

BTW, it would not surprise me if many Christian laypeople, and some clergy, might presumptiously abandon all nuance, and make the dogmatic declaration that such and such a belief is a "damnable heresy."

No, and that's the difference. LDS don't teach that, "Hey if you believe in the trinity you're a scamp and in now way can you be called Christian." I think a Christian is anyone who believes that Christ is the Savior of mankind, the Son of God, and who tries to live his teachings as best they know how. LDS don't bar anyone from being Christian who's not a member of our church. How arrogant for anyone to do so.

A clarification is in order. My understanding is that the LDS do indeed believe that "unrestored Christians" are Christians. However, the belief continues, saying that most unrestored Christians, like Buddhists, Muslims, and others of sincere faith, will enter a lower heavenly kingdom, not the Celestial Kingdom. So, while no "you're not a Christian" statement is ever uttered by LDS, there is an understanding that creedal trinitarians will probably not inherit the highest kingdom, where the Heavenly Father resides.

The main fruit of Joseph Smith's role as prophet is The Book of Mormon. If it is good fruit, he is a true prophet. Period. It really is that simple. That's why LDS missionaries focus on The Book of Mormon so much...not because it's superior to the Bible, but because it establishes Joseph Smith's claims to being a prophet. The rest is like dominos...if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then what he taught was true, and there was an apostasy, and truths were lost, and so on and so on.

This is the bottom line, imho. However, for non-LDS, the other discussions are necessary, because we are not yet convinced of Joseph Smith's claims. The strength of the other discussions also impact how those claims are evaluated.

4.) Instead of debating whether scholars in a musty councilroom (circa 365 A.D.) were justified in their clarifications of scripture, the discussion should be, "What does the Book of Mormon teach about Jesus? Are these teachings "good fruit?" Are they true? Was the prophet who translated it a true prophet or a false one?" Discussing the Book of Mormon doctrines only take one so far...the last step is to ask God if the words are His or a farm boy's.

But here's the flip side. Perhaps it would be good for open-minded folk to examine the claims of the bishops, pastors, teachers of the early Church. Perhaps their fruit is good? One might become convinced that they did indeed have the anointing of God upon them. And, understand, I'm not calling for a review of Catholic church history to see the fruit, but rather to look at the creeds, and to see how they have lasted throughout time, and whether they have added to or confused our ultimate understanding of God.

[Christos]

But here's the flip side. Perhaps it would be good for open-minded folk to examine the claims of the bishops, pastors, teachers of the early Church. Perhaps their fruit is good? One might become convinced that they did indeed have the anointing of God upon them. And, understand, I'm not calling for a review of Catholic church history to see the fruit, but rather to look at the creeds, and to see how they have lasted throughout time, and whether they have added to or confused our ultimate understanding of God.

The teachings of the early Fathers are wonderful and are still given to this day.

They are doctrinally sound and are really very helpful and interesting :)

St John Chrysostom is a famous early teacher.

On Ancient Faith Radio, during meat fare (a week before Great Lent) the radio was broadcasting sermons by one of the early fathers.

St Nikolai Demyrovich (or something like that) called "Prayers by the lake". I would really like to find if there is a book which has them compiled.....I know this isn't the right forum for that

The Creeds are wonderful too and are unchanging to this day (apart from the Roman church adding the Filioque in an attempt to abolish the heretical Ayrian church).

I never learnt the nicene creed off by heart before, I know most of it but couldn't recite it so that is something I'm trying to do at the moment.

not calling for a review of Catholic church history to see the fruit

The Orthodox church is the best church to look at for unchanging history. Since the great Schism of the 12th Century when the Roman Patriarchite (now the Roman Catholic church) excommunicated themselves the church has been unwhole and as a result there have been no councils on doctrine or anything, nothing has changed and nothing will change till the Church is whole again.

Out of curiousity, does the LDS church accept the Apocrypha as scripture?

Plus would the LDS church consider accepting the Gospel according to St Thomas and the controversial Gospel according to Judas Iscariot?

Just wondering.

Plus, what stages do the LDS church go through to settle on whether a text is scripture or not?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

And, if I understand correctly, the bishops and other church leaders gathered at those conferences where the creeds were developed were unauthorized because they were not ordained by God, and were part of a church that had already wandered into apostasy, according the LDS teachings, correct?

Spot on.

In a sense, I suppose the LDS teaching would follow that none of the non-LDS teachers/preachers etc. are authorized.

The focus on authority for me is more on whether someone may perform essential ordinances of salvation (baptism). For example, the clear example of Paul re-baptizing people who apparently had an unauthorized baptism (why else re-baptize them, why not just give them the Holy Ghost if any baptism will do?). See Acts 19:1-6 for this. I don't think the LDS church has a copyright on truth or who may teach it. I feel that Martin Luther certainly taught truths the Catholic church at his time didn't (reading the 95 theses is incredibly interesting). But yes, besides authority to perform ordinances, authority to reveal new doctrine is something I don't feel the councils had, due to the apostasy or loss of truth and authority (not all truth mind you).

I guess I was being a bit thick, and missed the contradiction post. Can you either repost, or give me a post # to go back to?

With pleasure. In fact I'll go you one better, I'll paste excerpts and give you post numbers. Feel free to take each one by one or none if you don't want to.

1.) POST #88:

The main problem I have with the doctrine of the trinity is that it is at odds with a specific statement made by Jesus. Let's take a look, shall we?

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true."

"I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." (John 8:17-18)

So Jesus, in proving his divinity and reality as Son of God and anointed Savior, uses a Jewish Law of Witnesses. He says that if two men testify of something, it is true. Whether that's always true in contemplation of law isn't the point. The point is that he is citing a law that requires two independent witnesses to a fact. Then -- and mark it well -- Jesus says he himself is one witness of his divine mission, and Heavenly Father is a second witness of his divine mission.

So here's the problem. If the doctrine of the trinity is accurate, then Jesus is being dishonest. After all, the point of the Law of Witnesses is to have two separate people testify independent of each other to a truth. But if Jesus is merely one mode or expression of a single Being, then it's deceiving for him to claim that he is separate from his expression as Father for the purpose of having two separate witnesses.

BUT...if Jesus is one with his Father in will, desires, power and glory -- but separate beings -- then it is perfectly logical for him to invoke the testimony of Heavenly Father as a second independent witness to his divinity.

I've yet to see someone satisfactorily harmonize John 8:17-18 with the doctrine of the trinity. Any takers? If so, you'd better bring more than just Nicene phraseology and quotations. Logically explain how one Being can pose as two separate beings and yet be a God of honesty and righteousness.

2.) POST #98:

I concluded that the trinity as explicated in the creeds couldn't be harmonized with the Bible. As <Dr. T> mentioned, contradictions abound, mostly dealing with Jesus's interactions with the Father, such as:

Thy will be done, not mine (talk about multiple personality disorder if trinitarians are right); no one comes to the Father but by me (so once we come to Jesus he turns around and the back of his head is the Father's face?); pray to the Father in my name (why confuse us? why not just say pray to me since I'm all three?); this is my only begotten Son (I can see how us being God's children could be seen as metaphorical--though I think it's literal--but I can't see how someone can be their own father, or why someone would pretend to be for the sake of religion), ad nauseum.

3.) POST #101:

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God," (Acts 7:55)

How does someone stand on their own right hand? Siamese twins or something, joined at the spiritual hip? The trinity just doesn't stand up to Bible accounts like this. Does anyone dispute it? If so, why? Explain it to me, I invite you.

And as a last example, a random example from many more contradictions:

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

Doesn't the Nicene Creed quash subordinationism? Aren't the Father and Son coequal in power, neither subject to the other? Because if the trinitarians are right, how can someone be greater than themselves according to this verse?

These are a few of the problems I see. A cursory reading of the NT provides numerous such examples of contradictions between the Bible and creeds.

So, while no "you're not a Christian" statement is ever uttered by LDS, there is an understanding that creedal trinitarians will probably not inherit the highest kingdom, where the Heavenly Father resides.

Correct. We believe that certain ordinances are required for exaltation in the highest degree of heaven, and that the authority to perform those ordinances is within the LDS church. We also believe that anyone who will, can accept and receive these ordinances (such as baptism).

However, for non-LDS, the other discussions are necessary, because we are not yet convinced of Joseph Smith's claims. The strength of the other discussions also impact how those claims are evaluated.

But even if someone is clumsy of speech, a truth testified of should be confirmed by the Spirit as true regardless of eloquence or logic. The New Testament apostles--without Th.D.'s or seminary degrees--convinced through testimony confirmed by the Spirit. That was my point. Sure discussion is valuable, but only inasmuch as we seek confirmation or condemnation of doctrines through the Spirit.

But here's the flip side. Perhaps it would be good for open-minded folk to examine the claims of the bishops, pastors, teachers of the early Church. Perhaps their fruit is good? One might become convinced that they did indeed have the anointing of God upon them.

But we have examined the claims of the early Church concerning the creeds. And specifically, LDS find the creeds bad fruit to put it plainly, because of contradictions such as those listed above. Perhaps the early bishops, pastors, et al, loved those under their religious authority, I'm not accusing them of being Satan's servants. I'm simply saying that I don't find the creeds to be good fruit.

Some of the ante-Nicene fathers have fascinating teachings that I think are true. I wish I could remember which one I read (I'll really have to hunt it down), but he taught that God intended marriage to be eternal. His reasoning (scriptural and logical) was powerful. He taught that before the Fall all things were immortal and eternal; hence Adam and Eve's marriage was eternal; and that after the Fall things became mortal and temporal, but originally marriage was an eternal covenant; then he asks, "Would God forbid divorce only to dissolve marriages in heaven?" There are lots of early Christian teachings I agree with and respect.

I look forward to your attempts to harmonize the creeds with the contradictions I've provided, honestly.

[prisonchaplain]

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true."

"I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." (John 8:17-18)

So Jesus, in proving his divinity and reality as Son of God and anointed Savior, uses a Jewish Law of Witnesses. He says that if two men testify of something, it is true. Whether that's always true in contemplation of law isn't the point. The point is that he is citing a law that requires two independent witnesses to a fact. Then -- and mark it well -- Jesus says he himself is one witness of his divine mission, and Heavenly Father is a second witness of his divine mission.

So here's the problem. If the doctrine of the trinity is accurate, then Jesus is being dishonest. After all, the point of the Law of Witnesses is to have two separate people testify independent of each other to a truth. But if Jesus is merely one mode or expression of a single Being, then it's deceiving for him to claim that he is separate from his expression as Father for the purpose of having two separate witnesses.

BUT...if Jesus is one with his Father in will, desires, power and glory -- but separate beings -- then it is perfectly logical for him to invoke the testimony of Heavenly Father as a second independent witness to his divinity.

Actually, I'll have to leave it to the monarchial modalists to explain themselves on this one. If I'm understanding your contention quickly, you are refuting refuting the concept of one in three, not three in one. Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, yet one God. So, the Father could bare witness of the Son, as well as the Son baring witness of himself. They would be two persons, yet they remain the one true and living God.

2.) POST #98:

Thy will be done, not mine (talk about multiple personality disorder if trinitarians are right); no one comes to the Father but by me (so once we come to Jesus he turns around and the back of his head is the Father's face?); pray to the Father in my name (why confuse us? why not just say pray to me since I'm all three?); this is my only begotten Son (I can see how us being God's children could be seen as metaphorical--though I think it's literal--but I can't see how someone can be their own father, or why someone would pretend to be for the sake of religion), ad nauseum.

Again, the Son is saying that He seeks the Father's will rather than his own. He also says the one Way to the Father is through the Son. Your struggle is against those monarchial modalists who claim that Jesus is the Father, is the Son, is the Holy Spirit. You make want to check the United Pentecostal Church's website for their explanations. They openly admit that they DENY the Trinity, in favor of the very modalism you speak of.

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60_questions.asp

3.) POST #101:

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God," (Acts 7:55)

How does someone stand on their own right hand? Siamese twins or something, joined at the spiritual hip? The trinity just doesn't stand up to Bible accounts like this. Does anyone dispute it? If so, why? Explain it to me, I invite you.

Once again--three persons, one God. Persons can stand next to each other. It is monarchial modalism you are refuting (one person, three modes), not trinitarian theology.

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

Doesn't the Nicene Creed quash subordinationism? Aren't the Father and Son coequal in power, neither subject to the other? Because if the trinitarians are right, how can someone be greater than themselves according to this verse?

This one does require a bit more explanation--but just a bit. Jesus, as a good son, submits (obeys) his Father. Jesus is not speaking to superiority of essence or being, but of position. The Father is in a position of leadership. But, as is the order of nature, the Son would, of necessity, be of the same, or equal, essence as the Father. Animals beget animals, humans beget humans. So, any essential Son of God, would be truly God.

I look forward to your attempts to harmonize the creeds with the contradictions I've provided, honestly.

Bottom-line: The contradictions you point out seem to be aimed at the monarchial modalist heresy, popularly known as "Jesus Only." It argues that Jesus is the one person of God, and that he reveals himself in three modes (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). This is not trinitarian teaching, and is rejected by Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Mainstream Protestant, and Evangelical churches. This very issue caused a significant rift in the Pentecostal movement. Those who embraced the false teaching are known as Oneness Pentecostals. They enthusiastically reject the Trinity. You can google the United Pentecostal Church to discover their defense of the teaching.

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60_questions.asp

With the simple understanding of Trinity as three persons, one God, it seems that most of the contradictions you perceived are easily (and honestly) explained.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

With the simple understanding of Trinity as three persons, one God, it seems that most of the contradictions you perceived are easily (and honestly) explained.

Thanks for pointing out the monarchial modalism nuance, I thought you believed aspects of their teachings. I stand corrected.

Well then from what I understand of your view of the trinity, we agree. I hope you'll set me straight if I'm wrong, but you saying there are three distinct persons but one God, seems the same as LDS saying there are three distinct persons but one Godhead. Isn't it just a matter of terms? Otherwise, I don't understand where your beliefs differ from LDS beliefs. Is it just because we use the term Godhead? If you saw the Father, Son and Holy Ghost do you think you'd see three separate personages? I'm not understanding where we disagree.

Also, would you please point me to an online definition of the trinity as you view it?

[pushka]

Wow! I'm totally confused as well now...I was raised Roman Catholic and have always understood the Trinity doctrine to be that Jesus, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit were all 1...so it seems that I have been misunderstanding the RCC interpretation of this doctrine for all these years?

[Dr T]

Hey AK,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and for clarifying some things. I’m having so much fun; I smiled the whole way through!

You said that it’s not a:

"Hey if God didn't guide the councils then He can't have guided anyone who reveals new scripture."

I’m sorry if I painted the wrong picture. That’s not what I meant sir. I did not mean to imply that if God didn’t guide the councils then he could not guide anyone. I understand that doesn’t follow from that premise. My point was that a refusal to accept anyone else’s interpretations except their own, the LDS church appears to claim exclusive knowledge of God. I wanted to point out that the both groups are claiming to be guided by God. I wanted to show that they reject others claims of being able to interpret scripture and what God is expressing through revelation. As you can probably guess, I find the implication that “no one can get a ‘true’ understanding of God, without it coming from a church leader,” curious. Reading your response, I saw (some) confirmation of that belief.

My suspicion now, is even in light of added revelation that contradicts any other scripture, the LDS church will easily accept it if the leadership tells them “its new revelation”. That is based on the sense that I’m getting (which I admit, may be incorrect) is that under the auspices of “authority” all statements are immediately solidified as official. What I’m learning is that from there, an LDS believer would pray and ask for the Holy Spirit’s guidance and if they get the confirmation then they believe it. Is that correct? If this is correct, my next question would be, is the Counsels understanding rejected because its in the Bible (which is downgraded in importance) or because it was spoken against by a church leader? Like I said before, “We find what we’re looking for.” What if it is not true but we still get confirmation (through a feeling)? What then? Has there been any contradictions that are explained away by the use of “based on new revelation…”?

I’ll continue with my initial thoughts on the article. Please reply to those posts and then we can flesh them out as time permits.

Thanks again,

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

Wow! I'm totally confused as well now...I was raised Roman Catholic and have always understood the Trinity doctrine to be that Jesus, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit were all 1...so it seems that I have been misunderstanding the RCC interpretation of this doctrine for all these years?

Pushka, you were right. "God in three persons, blessed Trinity." That from the song, Holy Holy Holy.

Maybe this will help.

Trinitarianism: Father X Jesus X Holy Spirit = one God.

Jesus only: Jesus + Jesus + Jesus = One God, who shows up in three different ways (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

LDS: Father + Son + Holy Spirit = one "Godhead family."

[prisonchaplain]

Well then from what I understand of your view of the trinity, we agree. I hope you'll set me straight if I'm wrong, but you saying there are three distinct persons but one God, seems the same as LDS saying there are three distinct persons but one Godhead. Isn't it just a matter of terms? Otherwise, I don't understand where your beliefs differ from LDS beliefs. Is it just because we use the term Godhead? If you saw the Father, Son and Holy Ghost do you think you'd see three separate personages? I'm not understanding where we disagree.

The following is my summary of key differences as taken from How Wide the Divide?, by Craig L. Blomberg (Denver Seminary) and Stephen E. Robinson (BYU), "Christ and the Trinity, Joint Conclusion" (pp. 141-42) Again, these are their conclusions offered in my words:

1. How separate are the three persons of the Trinity? Evangelicals, and indeed nearly all non-LDS Christians hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one ontologically, meaning ESSENTIALLY. LDS believe that they are one "in mind, will and purpose," but that the Father and Son, in particular have separate corporeal essences. Since the Holy Ghost is noncorporeal, my guess is that Spirit is seen as also being a distinct essence.

2. Have they always been essentially and entirely deity? Evangelicals believe that there is a universal difference in kind between human and divine. LDS believe they are one species. They believe Christ reconciles humans to the Father, and make it possible for us to become what he is.

3. Non-LDS Christians believe that the Father and Son, in particular, are co-eternal and co-equal--that the Father's superior authority is based on relationship, not essence (ontology). LDS believe that Christ is subordinate to the Father, though divine. Evangelicals believe this to be a compromise of Christ's deity.

Also, would you please point me to an online definition of the trinity as you view it?

Question two being the easiest. I'm sure you can find many good definitions, but here's the "official" statement from my church. I believe the link takes you to our Statement of Faith. #2 refers to the Godhead.

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fun.../sft_full.cfm#2

[Guest ApostleKnight]

As you can probably guess, I find the implication that “no one can get a ‘true’ understanding of God, without it coming from a church leader,” curious.

Really? Why was it okay for Israel to have to go to Moses for a true understanding of God, but we today can't go to a prophet for such understanding? I'm being rhetorical more than anything, don't worry about answering. I'm just saying that there is precedent for seeking authoritative teaching about God from prophets/apostles/leaders. Ultimately the individual must decide for themselves what they feel is true, though.

That is based on the sense that I’m getting (which I admit, may be incorrect) is that under the auspices of “authority” all statements are immediately solidified as official.

All official statements of LDS belief are in harmony with our canon. Any additions to our canon must be presented to and sustained by the general church membership (over 11 million people). The danger in not accepting anything which contradicts current scripture might be summed up by citing the example of Jesus fulfilling the Law of Moses and delivering a higher law to us, and of Peter extending baptism and confirmation to Gentiles (which Jesus himself forbade during his mortal ministry). God's word is not static; it's dynamic.

What I’m learning is that from there, an LDS believer would pray and ask for the Holy Spirit’s guidance and if they get the confirmation then they believe it. Is that correct? If this is correct, my next question would be, is the Counsels understanding rejected because its in the Bible (which is downgraded in importance) or because it was spoken against by a church leader?

First question: Yes. Second question: It's rejected because no matter how it's sliced or diced, the creeds contradict a vision of Joseph Smith where he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate personages (to cite one vision). That's why I mentioned the centrality of the Book of Mormon. It either proves or disproves Joseph Smith's claims of authority as a prophet of God. In addition, the creeds disagree with the plainest New Testament passages. Period.

Not that I won't accept anything not in the Bible. I just don't accept the creeds because I believe that Joseph saw what he said he saw: Two separate beings. And that he is what he said he was: A prophet.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

1. ...Evangelicals, and indeed nearly all non-LDS Christians hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one ontologically, meaning ESSENTIALLY.

So would they appear as three separate beings or not? I don't get the wordplays and sideways references. What does that mean? How would they appear? Assuming the Spirit's hand could be grasped, could you shake all three sets of hands separately, or would there just be one pair of hands to shake? I need a more basic explanation removed from philosophical terminology.

I ask this because after following the excellent link you provided, I still don't get what you believe. I understand you're not a monarchial modalist, that you don't ride the "one in three" bike. But I'm not getting the "three in one" thing either. Just when I think I understand the trinity, a new definition is offered. And when I think I get THAT one down, words like ontology and essentially muddy the issue again.

I don't think I'm a numbskull, I just want clear statements like, "Yeah, if someone snapped a polaroid of the Godhead there'd be three separate beings in the picture," or not. Describe your view of trinity visually if you would. I'm an artist of sorts, and I see words as pictures, concepts as images. Thanks for bearing with me, I really want to understand what you believe and until I can say it back to you I don't feel I do.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

1. ...Evangelicals, and indeed nearly all non-LDS Christians hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one ontologically, meaning ESSENTIALLY.

So would they appear as three separate beings or not?

How would they appear? Since non-LDS Christians believe the Father is spirit and not corporeal, the question is interesting indeed. Yet, we are told that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. The Holy Ghost also is Spirit. So my best off-the-cuff answer, minus theological terminology, is that we experience the three, yet probably only visibly see Jesus. Jesus did say that when we see him we see the Father.

I ask this because after following the excellent link you provided, I still don't get what you believe. I understand you're not a monarchial modalist, that you don't ride the "one in three" bike. But I'm not getting the "three in one" thing either. Just when I think I understand the trinity, a new definition is offered. And when I think I get THAT one down, words like ontology and essentially muddy the issue again.

Ontology simply means essence, or essential. So, as I said before, the key difference along this line is that the LDS view of God is three very distinct individual personages that are united in purpose and will. The trinitarian view is that the three, while distinct persons, are ESSENTIALLY one God. Where this becomes an important distinction is that trinitarians believe that humans are eternally different in kind--that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are unique, unequaled, and have never been otherwise--not before time, nor afterwards.

I don't think I'm a numbskull, I just want clear statements like, "Yeah, if someone snapped a polaroid of the Godhead there'd be three separate beings in the picture," or not.

There are three persons, but only Jesus would appear in the polaroid. (Next part said in my best Jack Nicholson voice) Are we clear??? (You're supposed to answer in your best Tom Cruise voice, "Crystal.").

Describe your view of trinity visually if you would. I'm an artist of sorts, and I see words as pictures, concepts as images. Thanks for bearing with me, I really want to understand what you believe and until I can say it back to you I don't feel I do.

I'll stick with mathematics, since I scored a 12 percentile on the ASVAB artistic portion.

1 X 1 X 1 = 1

The Father X The Son X The Holy Spirit = The one true and living God.

Their totality is one, and they each represent the godhead, yet each has his individual place in the equation. Maybe this helps.

To draw the distinction, I'd represent the LDS view as follows:

1 + 1 + 1 = one godhead familial deity. While each represents the godhead, the unity is corporate, not essential. These are separate beings, and the Father is of superior essence over the Son and the Spirit.

[Ray]

So are you now telling us that you believe you will never actually see our heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost, because you believe they only exist as spirits, or persons with spirit bodies only, and persons with only spirits bodies can't actually be seen?

If so, what scriptures are giving you those thoughts?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

So my best off-the-cuff answer, minus theological terminology, is that we experience the three, yet probably only visibly see Jesus.

Thank you, that is much easier to grasp. When you referred to Jesus saying if we've seen him we've seen the Father, it reminded me of another scripture that I always took to mean the Father has a body or at the very least appears as a man:

"GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,"

"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" (Hebrews 1:1-3, emphasis mine)

I'm not trying to dissuade or persuade you PC, just understand how such scriptures fit into your view of God.

The trinitarian view is that the three, while distinct persons, are ESSENTIALLY one God. Where this becomes an important distinction is that trinitarians believe that humans are eternally different in kind--that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are unique, unequaled, and have never been otherwise--not before time, nor afterwards.

I understand your belief that mankind are not of the same nature or kind as God. I still don't get the "essentially" one God thing. Near as I can tell, you believe that each member of the Godhead is identical in essence or nature, meaning one did not exist before the other and none rely on the other for existence, each equal in glory, power and knowledge. Is that close? If so, I get where the difference is now between our views.

To draw the distinction, I'd represent the LDS view as follows:

1 + 1 + 1 = one godhead familial deity. While each represents the godhead, the unity is corporate, not essential. These are separate beings, and the Father is of superior essence over the Son and the Spirit.

Here is where I can clarify the LDS viewpoint. We don't believe the Father is of superior essence or nature over the Son. We believe both Father and Son have a spirit body, and a glorified body of flesh and bone. Their essence or nature is the same. This supposes I'm using the word essence in the same way you mean. We believe the Father is in a position of authority over Jesus as his Father and King, but each of them has every quality and attribute of the other. The only distinction is in their role as Father or Son.

[prisonchaplain]

So are you now telling us that you believe you will never actually see our heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost, because you believe they only exist as spirits, or persons with spirit bodies only, and persons with only spirits bodies can't actually be seen?

If so, what scriptures are giving you those thoughts?

Yes, that's right. The latter part is more speculative. It may be that once we are glorified we may be able to see the Father and Holy Spirit. However, it is our understanding that they are spirits, without corporeal essence. Furthermore, it is difficult for non-LDS believers to fathom a God that is limited by a physical body, and yet omnipresent.

You're probably well aware of the most common passage used by non-LDS to explain why we believe the Father to be a spirit being.

John 4:23-24: 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. KJV

Thank you, that is much easier to grasp. When you referred to Jesus saying if we've seen him we've seen the Father, it reminded me of another scripture that I always took to mean the Father has a body or at the very least appears as a man:

"GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,"

"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" (Hebrews 1:1-3, emphasis mine)

I'm not trying to dissuade or persuade you PC, just understand how such scriptures fit into your view of God.

There is actually an excellent discussion on this whole matter of "the image of God,"--one that encompasses the Genesis 1:26-27 passage as well, in the book How Wide the Divide. However, to offer a very short summary:

Non-LDS: The image of God references God's character, power, glory, attributes, not his physical characteristics, since He is spirit.

LDS: I recall several examples Prof. Robinson used to insist that the "image of God" phrase ALWAYS refers to physical characteristics in biblical writings, and so should be understood in the same way when referring to God the Father.

I understand your belief that mankind are not of the same nature or kind as God. I still don't get the "essentially" one God thing. Near as I can tell, you believe that each member of the Godhead is identical in essence or nature, meaning one did not exist before the other and none rely on the other for existence, each equal in glory, power and knowledge. Is that close? If so, I get where the difference is now between our views.

Bottom-line: That Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, to non-LDS believers, does not mean that the Father created the Son. We believe Jesus is co-eternal, co-equal with the Father in essence.

Here is where I can clarify the LDS viewpoint. We don't believe the Father is of superior essence or nature over the Son. We believe both Father and Son have a spirit body, and a glorified body of flesh and bone. Their essence or nature is the same. This supposes I'm using the word essence in the same way you mean. We believe the Father is in a position of authority over Jesus as his Father and King, but each of them has every quality and attribute of the other. The only distinction is in their role as Father or Son.

I believe Prof. Robinson (LDS scholar at BYU) signed on to the summary that LDS embrace subordinationism--that the Son is subordinate to the Father in essence or nature, because the Father created him. I stand ready to be corrected, however.

[Christos]

Good answer PrisonChaplain

I think that considering God as Spirit answers a lot of questions on omnipresence.

God is Spirit.

Only the Son has become incarnate of human flesh.

It is easier and more convenient to teach God as human but he really isn't. It is just easier for people to understand.

Yet God is shrowded in mystery. We cannot expect to understand everything.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

John 4:24

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. KJV

The only problem is that if we carry the definition of God as purely a spirit being from the first part of the verse to the second, one must conclude that only a purely spirit being can worship God, and since we have physical bodies we must either shed them or be prevented from worshiping God in mortality.

Non-LDS: The image of God references God's character, power, glory, attributes, not his physical characteristics, since He is spirit.

Gotcha. So we differ in anthropomorphism vs. symbolic interpretations.

I believe Prof. Robinson (LDS scholar at BYU) signed on to the summary that LDS embrace subordinationism--that the Son is subordinate to the Father in essence or nature, because the Father created him. I stand ready to be corrected, however.

If by subordinate you mean he received his spirit and physical body from God the Father, then yeah, I guess you could call that subordinationism. But their spirit bodies, and glorified physical bodies are composed of the same matter or essence. Do we believe God had his glorified body before Jesus? Sure. Does that mean they can't be made of the same "stuff?" Nope. My dad had his body before me, but we both have the same anatomy/physiology. So it is with the Father and Son. How can one being spawn a different type of being? A mammal never gave birth to a reptile, etc... Just to be clear about LDS views. :)

[Ray]

I believe Prof. Robinson (LDS scholar at BYU) signed on to the summary that LDS embrace subordinationism--that the Son is subordinate to the Father in essence or nature, because the Father created him. I stand ready to be corrected, however.

Well, if that is what he said, it's doesn't sound quite right.

The Son is subordinate to the Father, but not in essence or nature... at least not any more than a mortal son is of a different or subordinate essence or nature than his mortal father on Earth.

Or in other words, the Son and the Father are both totally alike in essence and nature, and although there was a time when the Son had a spirit body only, they were still both alike in essence and nature then because they were both alike in essence and in nature.

Or in other words, our "spirits" define "who and what" we are, and although we are all the children of God, some of us will not grow up to be exactly like our Lord and Father (2 persons) because of some bad choices we have made... which will not be corrected by the Atonement of Jesus Christ because we chose to be "different" than them.

[Dr T]

Hi AK-the MAN (and all),

As always, you got me thinking about this topic. I am familiar with Biblical texts where I feel comfortable in its discussion. I am not an expert however and look to others that are more knowledgable about it than I to get a better understanding of the text. I take their thoughts, use my own undersanding and then walk away with the most appropriate understanding. I was looking over some things that you wrote and when talking to Dan D. about his thoughts on the Trinity, he offered some interesting points.

You said,

They interpret symbolic statements literally. For example, the Bible teaches that Christ and Heavenly Father "are one" (John 10:30), but instead of seeing that as an expression of unity of will it is treated as a scientific quantification of their essential substance/essence/person.

I was looking into that specifically. Since you understand the importance of context, I'll let you know what Dan said.

"What do you think the people who originally heard his remarks, who knew the context perfectly, who spoke the same language, who had the same cultural understandings, think that Jesus meant?

"I and the Father are one."

The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

It’s interesting that he didn’t say something like, "No, no, you've misunderstood me. I only meant that as an expression of unity of will." He is, after all, about to be killed over this "misunderstanding."

No. Instead He strenghtened His claim:

He said,

"Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

Let's first stipulate that taken in isolation, John 10:30 could plausibly be interpreted the way the that you suggest. If we had John 10:30 and nothing by way of context by which we could try to get at what Jesus had in mind, there would be no serious reason to say that the view that Jesus was speaking of a unity of will wasn't at least possible.

However, we do have a context to help us understand what Jesus meant. We know what His audience, the people who were right there, to whom He was addressing His remarks, thought He meant. We then have His explication of what He meant following their reaction.

What did the Jews to whom Jesus was speaking, the people who shared His language, who used the same language every day and who did not need to consult lexicons to figure out what His words meant, who intimately shared His culture and understanding of the Old Testament, who knew the immediate context of His remarks, what did they think He meant?

If they thought He was only saying that He and the Father were one in purpose and He was doing God's work, they would have said:

"Amen to that brother! And so are we!"

Clearly they did not understand Jesus to be saying that. They said, "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God!" Serious stuff. A capital offense in that culture.

They were going to kill Him. Did He try to pacify them? Did He explain that they had interpreted Him overly literally? Not at all. He made it clear that that He was claiming equality with God. He didn't pacify them, He only stirred them up more. He reminded them that He had claimed to be the very Son of God. Nowadays that falls easily on the ear, because we've heard it so often. To them, it was an extraordinary claim.

Clearly Jesus risked His life rather than dilute His remarks into something more palatable. He was most emphatically not saying only that He and the Father were united in will.

Once Jesus did clarify His remarks, what happened? Did they say, "Oh, sure, we misunderstood. You are just saying that you are one with the Father in will and purpose. We get it now. Next time you should be more careful, though."?

No. Instead, they tried to kill Him.

"Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp."

Just some thoughts I wanted to share to get some more thoughts from you on the subject,

Thanks,

Dr. T