Time Magazine Article

[Dr T]

Hello all,

I feel like I've been away from this board for ever! I'm sure I wasn't missed. As I said,

Thanks for the link on the Doctrinal Exclusion: Trinity and the Nature of God, P.C.

I'll read it and get back to you all with my thoughts.

I've read it and began critiquing that document. I've been reading the references (when given) that were given (when possible) and other background literature on the implied errors that the author posits. I would like it if you all read that link so we can discuss our thought about it. It will definitely take more time give it a full critical review but I'm getting closer. So far I see significant issues.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Ray]

I read his message and I understand what he meant and we are basically in agreement about "that", but if you do not agree with us I think you should ask God to help you understand "that".

Or I suppose you could simply ask us and see what we all have to say about "that", but some of us will also agree with him while others of us will not... which really won't do you any real good if you are interested in knowing the Truth.

p.s. I'm posting the link again so it will be easier for others to find:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...stians/ser7.htm

[Guest ApostleKnight]

It will definitely take more time give it a full critical review but I'm getting closer. So far I see significant issues.

Thanks,

Dr. T

Issues as far as the author's accuracy? What sort of issues?

[Dr T]

Hello A.K.,

Yes; in short, accuracy issues. I hope to lay out my (admittedly novice) understanding of what is written there. Through our discussion, I’ll point out where the author of that article does not fully quote the author he is referencing. I think that a more complete reading of the original text completely change the meaning deduced from only reading the quotes that were were in that article. Basically, these statements only show snippets of the quoted authors work and unfortunately this distorts the issue under investigation.

Anyway, that is for us all to figure out as we go.

I understand that the doctrinal implications of the Trinity are huge and that the very limited time I’ve put into it (so far) is not sufficient to address all the issues it raises. Let it be known that I am not claiming any expertise on this topic but merely putting forth ideas and questions that might or might not be viewed as important to the readers on this forum, but they are fun for me to explore. I just want to share my initial thoughts and the questions that came up for me during my research on it. Lets get started.

Since there is a lot to cover, lets just talk about a couple of things in the introductory paragraphs. An important thing to understand here, IMHO, is that there is a change in definitions. This is a big issue for me given the fact that PC said, “We are all Trinitarians here.” For example, we read in the second paragraph:

If by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as simple as that.

In discussing this with an acquaintance of mine, Dan, he said:

“And if you define ‘horse’ as a ‘quadrupedal mammal,’ then a cow is a horse.”

What he was saying is that to claim a belief, then change the characteristics of that belief, you really are talking about something wholly different. We wouldn’t say, “I know this is a horse” when talking about a cow. (except this really is beating a dead cow)

Why then is it important for that author to say LDS believe in the Trinity?

However, if by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils--that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence--then Latter-day Saints do not believe it.

Or in other words (I thought of you when I wrote that Ray :) ), if one means by "Trinity" what orthodox Christians have taught about the Trinity for 2,000 years, the LDS church does not believe it.

OK. If you don’t believe it that way, you don’t believe it. My understanding however was that the Christain church adhere to certain “fundamental” or “essential” beliefs. The Trinity is one (I think). If you didn’t believe one of the fundamentals, you weren’t considered a Christian (or something like that). Yet, I’ve been reading how much the LDS church is pushing the idea that they are Christians. I actually talked to an LDS member in the last couple of days who said, “As a Mormon, I believe in the Trinity. I’m a Christian just like the guy who goes to the Christian Reformed Church down the street." What are your thought on my initial impressions of this article?

Thanks,

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

An important thing to understand here, IMHO, is that there is a change in definitions.

If by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as simple as that.

It's an interesting exercise that is going on here, to be sure. Prof. Robinson is very open about the fact that he is using a different definition than non-LDS Christians when saying that he and LDS believe in the Trinity. What's ironic, is that "Trinity" is a theological word, specially formulated to describe what the creeds teach. So, Dr. T's question is appropriate--why the eagerness to embrace a theological word, even though the beliefs traditional associated with it are unacceptable?

One LDS poster described the Church's view as henotheism. Why not just go with that and say, "We believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but we do not accept the corrupted teachings associated with this doctrinal formulation called Trinity. We believe henotheism better represents what the Scriptures teach."

However, if by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils--that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence--then Latter-day Saints do not believe it.

And again, since the word TRINITY is a theological invention meant to succinctly label the doctrine of God, as explicated by creedal developments, why not just reject it?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

What's ironic, is that "Trinity" is a theological word, specially formulated to describe what the creeds teach.

Really? So the seven ecumenical councils invented the Latin word "trinitas" to express their theological views? I'm being a little sarcastic, forgive me PC. :) If what you meant is that the word trinity applied to religion has normally referred to the concept of the creeds, you're right. But the word trinity is fair game as a word, and it wasn't invented for a religious purpose. It simply means:

"A group consisting of three closely related members." ( The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000)

True, this describes the relationship advanced in the creeds, but Prof. Robinson is committing no strange act by using the word trinity to describe the Godhead of the New Testament (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). He's using it in its literal sense, referring to a quantity of three.

So, Dr. T's question is appropriate--why the eagerness to embrace a theological word, even though the beliefs traditional associated with it are unacceptable?

All Prof. Robinson is doing is using a hypothetical question to illustrate that we LDS don't believe the Nicene Creed. Didn't you guys catch that? He's not "eager" to prove LDS are Christians by virtue of believing in a trinity. He's simply saying, "If you use definition A, then yeah LDS believe in the trinity. But if you use definition B (the one described in the creeds) then LDS don't. And since most Christians use definition B, then no, LDS don't believe in the trinity and if that makes us un-Christian to the rest of the world, so be it."

PC and Dr. T, I think you guys missed the point of the article. Maybe not. I understand we're just diving in to a discussion of it. But on the whole his point was that if one must believe the creeds to be a true Christian, then Jesus, his apostles and the ante-Nicene fathers weren't Christian--a preposterous assertion I'm sure you'd agree.

One LDS poster described the Church's view as henotheism. Why not just go with that and say, "We believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but we do not accept the corrupted teachings associated with this doctrinal formulation called Trinity. We believe henotheism better represents what the Scriptures teach."

One, because the Holy Bible doesn't overtly express a doctrine of henotheism. Two, because we don't believe one must subscribe to a henotheistic view to be qualified as Christian. That's the whole subject of the article under review...to determine if the creeds are appropriate measures of who is and isn't Christian.

However, if by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils--that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence--then Latter-day Saints do not believe it.

And again, since the word TRINITY is a theological invention meant to succinctly label the doctrine of God, as explicated by creedal developments, why not just reject it?

We do. As our first article of faith points out, "We believe in God the eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." It doesn't say, "We believe in the trinity." I don't understand the fanatic need to cling to a term in asserting one's Christianity. If someone believes Jesus is the Son of God, died so that sinners might live again with God and does their best to apply Christ's teachings as they understand them...in my mind that person is Christian, LDS or not. Imagine the backlash if LDS went around saying, "Unless you believe our Articles of Faith, you're not Christian." How arrogant. So why use the creeds (extra-biblical) in such a condescending fashion?

What I'd like PC and Dr. T (and other non-LDS posters) to answer is this:

If it's so wrong for the LDS church to believe in "new scripture," such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants -- if adding to the Bible is heretical and blasphemous...how are the non-Biblical concepts in the creeds so readily accepted as on par with scripture? How does that make sense? By non-Biblical I refer to the distasteful phrases like, "without body, parts or passion," etc...

One last thing to consider. I always enjoy asking this question of classical trinitarians. If the trinity as expressed in the creeds is an accurate portrayal of God's nature, how does this passage make sense?

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

"And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17)

I suppose a trinitarian would assert that God descended on Himself and talked about Himself in the third person and was in three places at once. I don't believe in a schizophrenic God.

[Dr T]

Hello A.Knight,

Thanks for your quick reply. You are the man AK!

I guess my response to the opening paragraphs were based on the "Christian dogma" definition of the Trinity. As defined here http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trinity I was distinguishing between these two definitions:

Trinity

Pronunciation: 'tri-n&-tE

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English trinite, from Old French trinité, from Late Latin trinitat-, trinitas state of being threefold, from Latin trinus threefold

1 : the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or things

As you see, the second definition, which is not capitalized is different from the Christian dogma def. Hence, my difficulty in understanding the claim that one does believe something (“It’s as simple as that” and then not believing it. The whole horse/cow issue above. It, in my opinion is redefining it yet being put forth as believing the Trinity with a capital T.

Well, I have to run. I'll post my other thoughts when I can.

Thank you all,

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

But the word trinity is fair game as a word, and it wasn't invented for a religious purpose. It simply means:

"A group consisting of three closely related members." ( The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000)

Fair game? It's an odd way to describe word usage. Without getting into semantics or word origins, most people understand that the word Trinity is primarily used in theological discussions, and that it is a description of God. I would further argue that the word was formulated, originally, as a description of the creedal explications for God. So, wrapped up in the term are such understandings as the ontological unity of the godhead. IMHO straightforward disagreement and explanation would prove more informative than "fair game" word usage.

True, this describes the relationship advanced in the creeds, but Prof. Robinson is committing no strange act by using the word trinity to describe the Godhead of the New Testament (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). He's using it in its literal sense, referring to a quantity of three.

If I'm understanding you correctly, Prof. Robinson is interjecting the secular understanding of trinity into a theological discussion, in spite of the fact that there is a far more prevelant theological definition already available. Perhaps he just prefers to agree rather than disagree, but me thinks what he's doing qualifies as "a strange act." (strange meaning unusual, unnatural).

All Prof. Robinson is doing is using a hypothetical question to illustrate that we LDS don't believe the Nicene Creed. Didn't you guys catch that? He's not "eager" to prove LDS are Christians by virtue of believing in a trinity. He's simply saying, "If you use definition A, then yeah LDS believe in the trinity. But if you use definition B (the one described in the creeds) then LDS don't. And since most Christians use definition B, then no, LDS don't believe in the trinity and if that makes us un-Christian to the rest of the world, so be it."

I guess I get it, and there is a cleverness to his approach. On the other hand, it's also a method of discussion than could lead to misunderstanding. Why? Because your definition A (his first usage) is an unusual forumulation based on a secular understanding of trinity. Definition B (his second, and implicitly lesser definition--he rejects it ultimately) is by far the more common definition, especially in theological conversations.

It just would have been simpler for Robinson to say: We (LDS) disagree with the Trinity doctrine as developed from Nicea onward. We do however, believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

PC and Dr. T, I think you guys missed the point of the article. Maybe not. I understand we're just diving in to a discussion of it. But on the whole his point was that if one must believe the creeds to be a true Christian, then Jesus, his apostles and the ante-Nicene fathers weren't Christian--a preposterous assertion I'm sure you'd agree.

Let me ask the question back at you, but with a different take: If the Trinity doctrine, as developed through the creeds, and as currently taught throughout most of Christianity, is true--if it is the correct understanding of God, then would it be unreasonable to at least question the faith of those who reject the teaching?

One, because the Holy Bible doesn't overtly express a doctrine of henotheism. Two, because we don't believe one must subscribe to a henotheistic view to be qualified as Christian. That's the whole subject of the article under review...to determine if the creeds are appropriate measures of who is and isn't Christian.

Let me clarify: Are you saying that it is not necessary to believe that there is one God to be worshipped (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), but that there are many gods, and that we too may become such, in order to be a knowledgeable, mainstream LDS member? Furthermore, that the safest and surest way to prepare oneself for entry into the Celestial Kingdom is through sincere development as a knowledgeable mainstream LDS member? (I'm leaving fudge room, but not much).

We do. As our first article of faith points out, "We believe in God the eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." It doesn't say, "We believe in the trinity."

No it doesn't. On the other hand, a prominent LDS theologian implies acceptance (with alternative definitions), and, I'm guessing that many LDS members would answer, "Yes, of course we believe in the Trinity. We believe....then they'd recite that first article of faith.

I don't understand the fanatic need to cling to a term in asserting one's Christianity.

Without getting into whether the issue is truly vital, essential, "make or break" "heaven or hell," surely you can understand the importance of correctly understanding who God is? We are discussion the doctrine of God here. We all we say believe in one true living God, whom we worship. Ought we not have a right understanding of who He is?

If someone believes Jesus is the Son of God, died so that sinners might live again with God and does their best to apply Christ's teachings as they understand them...in my mind that person is Christian, LDS or not. Imagine the backlash if LDS went around saying, "Unless you believe our Articles of Faith, you're not Christian." How arrogant. So why use the creeds (extra-biblical) in such a condescending fashion?

Here's a suggestion I posted on another string, related to this issue of differing doctrine. A person is saved much as you described, through repentence and faith in Christ. The thief on the cross likely knew little more than that. However, once "saved," the believer should grow in deeds, faith and knowledge. If, however, s/he strays towards heresy--and ignores the Holy Spirit's warnings, wooings, drawings--and ultimately totally embraces the heresy: is that person still "saved." Is s/he still a Christian? Even the LDS has a procedure for declaring that someone has become apostate. Perhaps embracing heresy is a qualifier.

It's an open question as to what type or degree of heresy would lead one to apostasy, but these are not unreasonable or fanatic inquiries.

If it's so wrong for the LDS church to believe in "new scripture," such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants -- if adding to the Bible is heretical and blasphemous...

It's only wrong if they are wrong. So, here's the question rephrased: If the Triad is not Scripture--if it is not of God--then is it heresy or blasphemy to embrace and promote it as such?

how are the non-Biblical concepts in the creeds so readily accepted as on par with scripture? How does that make sense? By non-Biblical I refer to the distasteful phrases like, "without body, parts or passion," etc...

Two thoughts: They are not taken as on a par with Scripture. On the other hand, God has given some to be teachers. If the Church has accurately discerned that those who formulated these creeds were anointed of God, and given to us as teachers, than the fruit of the labor would be good fruit for us. Secondly, the fact that the creeds, while highly regarded, are not on a par with Scripture means it would be far easier for us to discard or revise them, if they did prove unworthy.

One last thing to consider. I always enjoy asking this question of classical trinitarians. If the trinity as expressed in the creeds is an accurate portrayal of God's nature, how does this passage make sense?

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

"And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17)

I suppose a trinitarian would assert that God descended on Himself and talked about Himself in the third person and was in three places at once. I don't believe in a schizophrenic God.

Three persons--distinct persons--one God. Not scizophrenic, just Tri-Une.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I would further argue that the word was formulated, originally, as a description of the creedal explications for God.

Not worth beating to death, I guess I just don't get what you mean by "formulated." To me that connotes creating something, but the word trinity--as pointed out--was already a latin word referring to a quantity, not personality. If you mean that the word trinity was employed as a summary of the creedal implications, sure, but it wasn't invented to serve in defining the creeds. That's what I meant by "fair game" use of trinity by Prof. Robinson. The word trinity existed before it was assigned religious meaning specific to the creeds, therefore it follows that anyone can with equal facility assign their own meaning to it without robbing the quorum of creedology.

If I'm understanding you correctly, Prof. Robinson is interjecting the secular understanding of trinity into a theological discussion, in spite of the fact that there is a far more prevelant theological definition already available.

If by secular you mean trinity's original meaning--a quantity of three or something related thereto--then yep, that's how Prof. Robinson's using it. As above stated, trinity's original definition wasn't religious, but numeric. As for the last half of your statement above, does prevalence equal exclusivity? Prof. Robinson isn't proposing a new universal definition for trinity...he's showing that there is more than one way to interpret the word doctrinally.

Perhaps he just prefers to agree rather than disagree...

Not at all, in fact he's quite clear that LDS doctrine doesn't accomodate a Nicean definition of trinity.

On the other hand, it's also a method of discussion than could lead to misunderstanding.

I think the misunderstanding is about why Prof. Robinson wrote the article. His intent was not to re-define trinity. It was to show that belief in creedal trinity isn't an accurate measure of whether someone's Christian or not. Finito.

It just would have been simpler for Robinson to say: We (LDS) disagree with the Trinity doctrine as developed from Nicea onward. We do however, believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Ummm, he does say that. :)

Let me ask the question back at you, but with a different take: If the Trinity doctrine, as developed through the creeds, and as currently taught throughout most of Christianity, is true--if it is the correct understanding of God, then would it be unreasonable to at least question the faith of those who reject the teaching?

Yes, I think it would be unreasonable. It might be reasonable to question their understanding of God, but their faith in His ability to save is predicated on their understanding that he lived, died and rose again for their sakes. I defy anyone to find a passage in the Bible that states, "Confess with your mouth that Christ is Lord, believe that God is a triune being without form or pathos, and you shall be saved." Revealingly, here are the requirements for salvation as handed down by the great apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost:

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)

Of course Christ himself taught that unless a man is born of water and the spirit (same process described by Peter) he cannot be saved in the Kingdom of God. Strangely absent is any mention of Nicea or Chalcedon or trinity...

Are you saying that it is not necessary to believe that there is one God to be worshipped (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), but that there are many gods, and that we too may become such, in order to be a knowledgeable, mainstream LDS member?

If by mainstream you mean an LDS member in good standing, no. The questions asked of a member before they receive an ecclesiastical recommend to enter an LDS temple define what "mainstream" LDS beliefs are. Not one of those questions deals with henotheism, belief in other gods or belief in becoming gods. The do deal with belief in Jesus as Savior.

On the other hand, a prominent LDS theologian implies acceptance (with alternative definitions)

Prof. Robinson wasn't saying, "LDS believe the trinity so we're Christian." What he was saying (forgive me for being a broken record) was, "The creedal trinity is nowhere found in the Bible, so it's inaccurate to deny LDS are Christians based on our rejection of that definition." His entire point was that LDS don't believe the trinity but we still are very much Christian.

Without getting into whether the issue is truly vital, essential, "make or break" "heaven or hell," surely you can understand the importance of correctly understanding who God is?

Of course, but the subject of the article was what qualified someone as Christian, and Jesus never said, "Unless ye believe a trinitarian interpretation of my divine nature, ye are not my disciple." I'm all about understanding God, since that is what eternal life consists of according to Jesus:

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

But Prof. Robinson's intent wasn't to establish an end-all concept of God's nature, it was to show that someone can be Christian yet still disagree about His nature (since the trinitarian view is nowhere in the Bible).

If, however, s/he strays towards heresy--and ignores the Holy Spirit's warnings, wooings, drawings--and ultimately totally embraces the heresy: is that person still "saved." Is s/he still a Christian?

Nope, but I find it interesting that the LDS claim of living prophets is violently rejected, yet bishops injecting greek philosophy not found in the Bible at the behest of a pagan emperor attempting to unite a fractious kingdom are seen as anointed and oracles of God. To say, "Believe Christ as taught in the Bible and you'll be a Christian...but if you want to stay Christian, you have to then believe the creeds," is more blasphemous to me than to affirm that Bible passages describing God anthropomorphically are to be taken literally.

It's only wrong if they are wrong. So, here's the question rephrased: If the Triad is not Scripture--if it is not of God--then is it heresy or blasphemy to embrace and promote it as such?

If an LDS promoted it, yeah it'd be heretical within the doctrinal framework unique to our church. But if a non-LDS embraces and promotes the trinity, do I think that makes them un-Christian or heretics, nope. Heresy must be defined by approved doctrine, and as there is no universally accepted doctrine of God, not everyone can be equally heretical.

If the Church has accurately discerned that those who formulated these creeds were anointed of God, and given to us as teachers, than the fruit of the labor would be good fruit for us.

What Church discerned that? Are you saying there is only one Church that can judge of God's nature, and decree who is Christian? If so, which is it? As noted, the issue of filioque splintered "the Church" into Roman and Greek flavors, so who's to say which is right or wrong about trinity? Where did authority to settle the dispute come from?

Three persons--distinct persons--one God. Not scizophrenic, just Tri-Une.

But the trinity doesn't teach distinct persons does it? Aren't they of the same substance, just different expressions? Distinct to me means separate beings of separate substance united in will but not in body. That isn't trinitarian, is it?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Hence, my difficulty in understanding the claim that one does believe something (It's as simple as that) and then not believing it. The whole horse/cow issue above.

The whole horse/cow issue above is fallacious in my view. :) Prof. Robinson didn't say, "Anyone who says LDS don't believe the Trinity, is wrong because we believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and hey, that's three and trinity means three so abracadabra, we believe the trinity just like everyone else!"

He explicity states that LDS reject all Nicene variations/interpretations of the Godhead. Again, he wasn't trying to prove LDS belief in a trinity makes us Christian. He was showing that Christians don't have to accept Nicene doctrine.

[Dr T]

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

Thanks

[Maureen]

Three persons--distinct persons--one God. Not scizophrenic, just Tri-Une.

But the trinity doesn't teach distinct persons does it? Aren't they of the same substance, just different expressions? Distinct to me means separate beings of separate substance united in will but not in body. That isn't trinitarian, is it?

Hi AK,

Here's some Trinity information:

Definition of the Trinity (Triunity) of God

Trinity: Webster’s dictionary gives the following definition of trinity: “The union of three divine persons (or hypostases), the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one divinity, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three Persons (or hypostases as to individuality).” Synonyms sometimes used are triunity, trine, triality. The term “trinity” is formed from “tri,” three, and “nity,” unity. Triunity is a better term than “trinity” because it better expresses the idea of three in one. God is three in one. Hypostases is the plural of hypostasis which means “the substance, the underlying reality, or essence.”

Ryrie writes:

A definition of the Trinity is not easy to construct. Some are done by stating several propositions. Others err on the side either of oneness or threeness. One of the best is Warfield’s: “There is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence.”13

Person: In speaking of the Triunity, the term “person” is not used in same way it is in ordinary usage in which it means an identity completely distinct from other persons. Actually the word persons tends to detract from the unity of the Trinity. According to the teaching of Scripture, the three Persons are inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one Divine Being.

It is evident that the word “person” is not ideal for the purpose. Orthodox writers have struggled over this term. Some have opted for the term subsistence (the mode or quality of existence), hence, “God has three substances.” Most have continued to use persons because we have not been able to find a better term. “The word substance speaks of God’s essential nature or being and subsistence describes His mode or quality of existence.”14

Essence: In its theological usage, essence refers to “the intrinsic or indispensable, permanent, and inseparable qualities that characterize or identify the being of God.” The words triunity and trinity are used to refer to the fact that the Bible speaks of one God, but attributes the characteristics of God to three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in essence or substance, but three in personality. This does not mean three independent Gods existing as one, but three Persons who are co-equal, co-eternal, inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one absolute Divine Essence and Being.

Typically, the words triunity and trinity are used to help us express a doctrine that is scriptural, though replete with difficulties for the human mind. Again, it needs to be emphasized that this is a doctrine that is not explicitly stated either in the Old or New Testaments, but it is implicit in both. Note the following points:

(1) Evangelical Christianity has believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, Triunity, or the Triune Godhead because of the teaching of the Bible as a whole (Old and New Testaments) and not because of one or two particular passages. As will be shown below, the whole of Scripture gives testimony to this doctrine.

(2) There are many specific passages which teach us there are three distinct Persons who possess deity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, but the Bible also teaches us with equal emphasis that there is but one true God or one Divine Essence or Substance and Being.

(3) Taking the whole of Scripture, one can see that there is stress on: a. the unity of God, one Divine Being and Essence, and b. on the diversity of God in this unity, three Persons identified as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It speaks of these Persons in such a way that it ascribes absolute undiminished deity and personality to each while stressing that there is but one God in divine substance. It is the doctrine of the trinity that harmonizes and explains these two thrusts of Scripture—oneness in three personalities.

When we see that the Bible teaches these three things: a. there is but one God, b. that the Father, Son, and Spirit are each God, and c. that each is set forth as distinct Persons, we have enunciated the doctrine of the Triunity of God. In a chart, it can be expressed as follows:

The three Persons are the same in substance, i.e., in essence or in their essential nature, but distinct in subsistence which describes God’s mode or quality of existence in three Persons. By mode of existence we do not mean one God acting in three different ways, but one Divine Being existing in three distinct Persons within one Divine Substance or Essence. Again, this is not exactly three individuals as we think of three personal individuals, but one Divine Being who acts and thinks as one within a three-fold personality. This is incomprehensible to our finite and limited minds, but it is the teaching of the Scripture. “In the Being of God there are not three individuals, but only three personal self distinctions within the one Divine Essence.”15

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=215

M.

(Note: I had to tweek my "copy and paste" from the link because it was showing smilies instead of a. b. & c.)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Thanks for the info Maureen. It is identical to other literature on the subject I've read (such as the creeds themselves).

Typically, the words triunity and trinity are (...) replete with difficulties for the human mind.

Understatement of the century.

The three Persons are the same in substance, i.e., in essence or in their essential nature, but distinct in subsistence which describes God’s mode or quality of existence in three Persons.

So the three are one that are three who are really one in three that are one... WHAT?!!! How does that make sense? And where in the heck does the Bible teach that? Oh, it doesn't, we see here why the doctrine evolved:

The words triunity and trinity are used to refer to the fact that the Bible speaks of one God, but attributes the characteristics of God to three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So because some bishops at Nicea couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that there are three Gods united in will in the Godhead who are three separate personages in substance and personality working together for the salvation of man--we have this wonderful little fairy tale of greek philosophy and illogicality.

Oh I know, I've heard the apple example (the skin, the apple, the seeds within are three parts of one whole) or the egg example (shell, whites and yolk are three parts of one whole), but the problem is that in those examples the three items being compared really are of different substances, are divisible, and can exist apart from each other. But the trinity cannot, allegedly. I think the Emperor's naked and no one wants to admit it.

Again, this is not exactly three individuals as we think of three personal individuals, but one Divine Being who acts and thinks as one within a three-fold personality.

So multiple personality. How else does one read that? Honestly, how does that even make sense? <he asked rhetorically> Hey, if it makes sense to others, more power to them. But I'm not content to have someone tell me this about understanding God:

<The Trinity> is incomprehensible to our finite and limited minds, but it is the teaching of the Scripture.

Oooooh, well why didn't you just say so? God gave me scripture to teach me the gospel but I'm not supposed to understand the God who grants salvation through the gospel. That makes perfect sense...er, ahem...I mean...um...man the Emperor's new clothes look fine, don't you agree?

HERE IS THE HEART OF THE MATTER:

I've thought alot about what I see to be misinterpretations of Biblical teachings. I've reduced the confusion to two errors on the part of those whom I consider to be mistaken.

1.) They interpret literal statements symbolically. For example, the Bible teaches that God is the Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9; Matt. 23:9), but much of Christianity treats this teaching as a metaphor, seeing God as our father only inasmuch as an inventor is the "father" of the robot he creates.

2.) 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.

That's all there is to it, at the end of the day. I know there'll be lots of disagreement, but that's what I think.

If only we'd get the literal and symbolic sorted out, creeds wouldn't be necessary. 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.

[prisonchaplain]

If you mean that the word trinity was employed as a summary of the creedal implications, sure, but it wasn't invented to serve in defining the creeds. That's what I meant by "fair game" use of trinity by Prof. Robinson. The word trinity existed before it was assigned religious meaning specific to the creeds, therefore it follows that anyone can with equal facility assign their own meaning to it without robbing the quorum of creedology.

Okay, first, I'll tip my hat to Prof. Robinson. He does a rather clever turn of the word to make his point. Yes, I even see some humor in it. On the other hand, IF LDS members take his cue, and, when asked, "Do you believe in the Trinity?" simply respond, "Sure, we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," well...that could certainly lead to misunderstanding. Most Christians, indeed, most westerners (America and Europe) believe that the Trinity means that God is three persons, one God, and that their unity is more than just familial. They truly do make the one God. So, as the professor does, straightforward LDS, who want to employ this method, should always say, "Yes, we believe in the Trinity--but not the way you've been taught." Such an approach would lower my eyebrows.

Not at all, in fact he's quite clear that LDS doctrine doesn't accomodate a Nicean definition of trinity.

Ultimately he is. But, he begins with, "Sure we believe in the Trinity." Actually, I'm okay with this, because he does explain himself. My one caution would be that whenever you say to a non-LDS Christian, "We believe in the Trinity..." an explanation should be immediate.

It just would have been simpler for Robinson to say: We (LDS) disagree with the Trinity doctrine as developed from Nicea onward. We do however, believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I think it would be unreasonable. It might be reasonable to question their understanding of God, but their faith in His ability to save is predicated on their understanding that he lived, died and rose again for their sakes. I defy anyone to find a passage in the Bible that states, "Confess with your mouth that Christ is Lord, believe that God is a triune being without form or pathos, and you shall be saved." Revealingly, here are the requirements for salvation as handed down by the great apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost:

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)

Of course Christ himself taught that unless a man is born of water and the spirit (same process described by Peter) he cannot be saved in the Kingdom of God. Strangely absent is any mention of Nicea or Chalcedon or trinity...

It dawns on me that there is an incredible irony here. Evangelicals often criticize LDS for an overemphasis on works leading to salvation. In reality, LDS basically believe that good works will be the necessary fruit of true salvation--enduring salvation.

On the other hand, LDS criticize evangelicals for being so focused on sound doctrine, arguing that there is no biblical requirement for believing certain teachings or creeds. My response is that someone who is truly saved, truly born again, someone in whom the Spirit of God dwells, will gravitate towards true doctrine, and will sense when heresy (false teachings) threatens.

So, no perfect doctrine is not a requirement of conversion. On the other hand, yes, the believer is expected to grow in truth, to be able to give an answer for beliefs, and to contend for the truth.

Bottom-line: We all want to get the "Who is God?" and "What does He say?" parts right, don't we?

If by mainstream you mean an LDS member in good standing, no. The questions asked of a member before they receive an ecclesiastical recommend to enter an LDS temple define what "mainstream" LDS beliefs are. Not one of those questions deals with henotheism, belief in other gods or belief in becoming gods. The do deal with belief in Jesus as Savior.

By mainstream I mean that the member holds to the core teachings of the church, and askews those doctrines that the Church finds suspect. Also, rather than inquiring about entry into the Temple, I'm more interested in the presumably higher standard of being admitted into the Celestial Kingdom.

Of course, but the subject of the article was what qualified someone as Christian, and Jesus never said, "Unless ye believe a trinitarian interpretation of my divine nature, ye are not my disciple." I'm all about understanding God, since that is what eternal life consists of according to Jesus:

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

But Prof. Robinson's intent wasn't to establish an end-all concept of God's nature, it was to show that someone can be Christian yet still disagree about His nature (since the trinitarian view is nowhere in the Bible).

On the other hand, the point of my referencing the article (originally) was to show that there is a means by which prominent LDS apologists embrace the Trinity. The issues of what constitutes true salvation, as well as what constitutes a salvation that endures are ones that we may wish to persue--hey Heather's paying for the bandwith, right?

I find it interesting that the LDS claim of living prophets is violently rejected, yet bishops injecting greek philosophy not found in the Bible at the behest of a pagan emperor attempting to unite a fractious kingdom are seen as anointed and oracles of God. To say, "Believe Christ as taught in the Bible and you'll be a Christian...but if you want to stay Christian, you have to then believe the creeds," is more blasphemous to me than to affirm that Bible passages describing God anthropomorphically are to be taken literally.

The whole "injection of Greek philosophy" accusation assumes very political and secular motives on the part of those bishops. Another, obviously more generous, interpretation is that the leaders and great teachers of the church began to encounter heresies, and thus were required to put together explicit faith statements that clearly explicated who God is, and what He's like. That the creeds take on a Greek flavor is not surprising, since that was the culture of the time.

I offer this, because my own fellowship ran into the same problem. When the Pentecostal Revival start spreading in 1906 (our 100th year anniversary this year ) none of them wanted creeds. Creeds had been used to drive them out of their churches. Yet, when the Oneness heresy began to spread, the faithful realized that some kind of Statement of Faith was necessary, or the movement would be tossed this way and that by every individual who claimed to have a prophetic word.

So, bottom-line: If the bishops were compromising the truth by forcing a politically correct corruption of the gospel, then yes, you are rightly scandalized. On the other hand, if the church did not enter an 1800 year era of apostasy, and if JS' offerings were not from God, well then the non-LDS churches are also rightly scandalized.

I'm guessing here we're casting aside such "scandals," and simply doing our best to explain the reasonableness of what we believe, while trying to gain a more authentic understanding of beliefs not our own.

If an LDS promoted it, yeah it'd be heretical within the doctrinal framework unique to our church. But if a non-LDS embraces and promotes the trinity, do I think that makes them un-Christian or heretics, nope. Heresy must be defined by approved doctrine, and as there is no universally accepted doctrine of God, not everyone can be equally heretical.

Interesting. I've always thought heresy was false teaching--meaning somebody is right, and the other person is wrong. Not all heresy leads to apostosy, but some does. John mentions Docetism (not by name, but by explanation).

What Church discerned that? Are you saying there is only one Church that can judge of God's nature, and decree who is Christian? If so, which is it? As noted, the issue of filioque splintered "the Church" into Roman and Greek flavors, so who's to say which is right or wrong about trinity? Where did authority to settle the dispute come from?

That is the $64000 question. Snow has asked the same. Not so much about the specific example you offer, but rather the more general, what constitutes a doctrinal error that is so heretical that the adherent would be damned? Most Christian churches don't try to answer that question. Instead they say, "This is what we believe. If you agree, unite with us in Kingdom work." I don't have a clear answer either, other than to say that it is certainly possible that one who knew God, but who ignored the warnings and promptings of the Holy Spirit, embraced heresy.

But the trinity doesn't teach distinct persons does it? Aren't they of the same substance, just different expressions? Distinct to me means separate beings of separate substance united in will but not in body. That isn't trinitarian, is it?

The doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but of one nature. They are the one God.

What you describe is monarchial modalism (one in three, versus three in one). Ironically, it is the Oneness Pentecostal heresy: Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son, Jesus is the Holy Spirit--he just appears in different modalities or expressions.

[Dr T]

Hello all,

Continuing on with the article, in the next paragraph we read:

Words central to the orthodox understanding of the Trinity --words like coequal, consubstantial, and circumincession, or the word trinity itself, for that matter--are not found in scripture.

True statement. That does not necessarily warrant a dismissal of the concept. What if we hold the same standard to other words? How about the word "Mormon", “theogony” (a fun new term to me), "Celestial Kingdom," "Eternal Progression," and "Gnolom"? The answer, of course, is no. Do you still believe in those concepts? I’m sure each of those will take threads (perhaps volumes). My point? “Just because the word is not there does not mean the concept is not.”

Another issue that comes up for me during this dialogue is the disparity between the acceptance of added material to the Bible with Latter Day revelation, The Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, etc. and the disregard and dismissal of a concept such as the Trinity because of the idea that it is “adding to scripture.” If I’m wrong please correct me. That is how I will learn. What I’m starting to recognize is, and I’m only guessing, LDS believers feel that "these are supernatural documents and revelations” and as such, justify this difference. Perhaps, one would say, “Joseph Smith was acting under the guidance of God." OK. The part that stands out to me here though, is that the councils that are being dismissed feel they were acting under the guidance of God too. I guess what I’m asking, I guess, is, “God could guide Joseph Smith but not the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon?” Why?

The Nicene and Chalcedonian Fathers tried to find scriptural terms for their new formulae but were unable to do so.

My ability to confirm this is hindered because I don’t know where he got that. Note there is not footnote.

The scriptures themselves do not offer any explanation of how the threeness and the oneness of God are related. The biblical writers were singularly uninterested in that problem or in questions dealing with God's essence, his substance, or the philosophical definition of his nature.

I’m sure many people would disagree with this claim. I’m sure he has read the verses and the explanation and the philosophical definitions of the nature of God yet reads them in different ways. This does not mean that the writers of the Bible were uninterested in the essence of God. To the contrary, they write verses about the unity/oneness/and divinity of the Father, Son and H.S.

There are a lot of Biblical references for this. I would love to explore those when we finish our initial thoughts on this article.

These later concerns are elaborations upon the biblical doctrine of God, elaborations formulated to answer in philosophically respectable terms the questions and objections of Hellenistic thinking concerning the primitive Christian doctrine.

This statement, appears to me to be true to some degree but also not completely correct. My understanding is that it was not necessary to specifically define the Trinity until people began to misdefine it.

Christian intellectuals of the fourth and fifth centuries felt that the biblical language was too unsophisticated and inadequate for this purpose, and so they attempted to supplement and improve it with their own best efforts.

No, from what I understand about this, they were trying to sort it out in response to other people who were founding cults with un-biblical understandings of the Trinity and other doctrines. Hopefully I'll have some time to elaborate on this later.

That’s enough for tonight. I’ll continue when I get some more time.

Looking forward to your thoughts,

Dr. T

[Guest ApostleKnight]

On the other hand, IF LDS members take his cue, and, when asked, "Do you believe in the Trinity?" simply respond, "Sure, we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," well...that could certainly lead to misunderstanding.

Fair enough. Agreed.

My response is that someone who is truly saved, truly born again, someone in whom the Spirit of God dwells, will gravitate towards true doctrine, and will sense when heresy (false teachings) threatens.

Hopefully. Paul does prophesy in the NT of grievous wolves entering into the church, drawing away disciples after them.

Also, rather than inquiring about entry into the Temple, I'm more interested in the presumably higher standard of being admitted into the Celestial Kingdom.

If an LDS member qualifies for entry into the Temple, he would qualify for entry into the Celestial Kingdom (assuming necessary ordinances had been performed/would be performed, i.e. endowment, temple marriage, etc...).

The whole "injection of Greek philosophy" accusation assumes very political and secular motives on the part of those bishops.

Yes it does, and yes I do. The language of the creeds is not to be found in the Bible. Not that I dislike all Greek philosophy. :) It simply doesn't satisfy me doctrinally when it contradicts scripture.

So, bottom-line: If the bishops were compromising the truth by forcing a politically correct corruption of the gospel, then yes, you are rightly scandalized. On the other hand, if the church did not enter an 1800 year era of apostasy, and if JS' offerings were not from God, well then the non-LDS churches are also rightly scandalized.

I couldn't agree more.

The doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but of one nature. They are the one God.

I notice you didn't attempt to harmonize John 8:17-18 and the Nicene Creed. You don't have to. But I'd be curious for sure to know if you think it's possible.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

My point? "Just because the word is not there does not mean the concept is not."

True, but it CAN mean that. Besides Jesus' forthright declaration that he and his Father are one, where in the Bible do we read about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost sharing the same essence or being the same Being?

I guess what I'm asking, I guess, is, "God could guide Joseph Smith but not the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon?" Why?

Of course God could guide the councils; I just don't believe He did. Of course God could guide a boy-prophet named Joseph Smith; I believe He did. It boils down to testimony, I don't think anyone's said that God somehow was prevented from speaking to the councils, just that He didn't.

This does not mean that the writers of the Bible were uninterested in the essence of God. To the contrary, they write verses about the unity/oneness/and divinity of the Father, Son and H.S.

Yes, but they don't get into discussions about what sort of substance they are made of, and whether they are all expressions of one Being, and whether they are coequal or stuff like that. You are right, though, they certainly do focus on the unity/oneness/divinity of the Godhead, because they are united in will/power but not in body. That's the difference. No NT author ever implied that Jesus shared his resurrected body of flesh and bones with the formless/bodiless/apathetic Father God (forgive the extra sarcasm).

This statement, appears to me to be true to some degree but also not completely correct. My understanding is that it was not necessary to specifically define the Trinity until people began to misdefine it.

That's one side of the coin. The other is that Emperor Constantine wanted harmony in his empire and saw a universal doctrinal understanding as a way to please Christians and pagans alike. Jewish-Christian theology + Greek philosophy = happy empire = stability = power for Constantine.

No, from what I understand about this, they were trying to sort it out in response to other people who were founding cults with un-biblical understandings of the Trinity and other doctrines. Hopefully I'll have some time to elaborate on this later.

I'm sure I know what you're referring to (subordinationists, marcionites, nestorians, et al), but the only reason this caused alarm was from a political standpoint, because c'mon, Constantine was no Christian, nor did he have his vision of a cross and whispered words, "By this sign conquer" and if he did I'd question the source of the vision. He didn't care about feeding the flock, but keeping them from trampling his pasture as it were. What else but a jumble of concepts and self-contradictory statements can we expect from someone who wanted to marry Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish-Christian theology?

I'll tell you: A monster God with one head but three faces, one body with three modes but actually there is no body we're speaking metaphorically and by special definition and if that doesn't make sense then we're not supposed to understand with our finite minds and God is one Being without form or feelings yet He loves us and when Jesus cried in agony on the cross, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" he was putting on a show for the apostles to emphasize his suffering which really only his mortal part experienced while his separate but equal divine part avoided as an incorruptible essence shared by the Father and Spirit aspects of his triune personality, and he was in reality talking to himself because he was in heaven and on the cross at the same time but sweating blood (luke 22:44), being scourged and also crucified really didn't hurt because pain is a feeling and God has no feelings and so this whole divine act was meant to stir our feelings which, if we are ever to be one with God, will have to be jettisoned and we too will be resurrected yet have no body or parts, praise God in eternal joy but not really because then we'd have feelings and not be like God and...well, you get the idea. :)

[Dr T]

Good post AK (as usual). Great systemic thinking about the political climate of the time. I have to admit, I have not factored in that piece. Thanks. Following that premise, the establishment of the doctrine was a unifying appeal (no pun intended), what about today? People who believe in the Trinity report, "It's verified by reading the whole of scripture and the only way to harmonize all the verses." If we keep talking about this doctrine, we will eventually get into an examination of the verses. I am no Bible scholar but we can find some resources to analyse.

AK, there is no question in my mind, that the historical concept of the Trinity is a tough concept to digest. I do have questions about Jesus' "Not my will but Yours be done" type of things that you are pointing out. Because of my own cynicism, I've talked to other Trinitarians about those same issues. What of your response to my question of the LDS terms not found in the Bible? And holding different standards for belief than the belief in the concept of the Trinity? Any thoughts?

Thanks

[prisonchaplain]

Note: I'm going to take a crack at a couple of issues Dr. T brings up, while awaiting others' responses as well.

I guess what I’m asking, I guess, is, “God could guide Joseph Smith but not the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon?” Why?

Perhaps another question worth answering is, "Could God have given revelations to both, or are the products of these two different sources incompatible?" If the latter, it may come down to which one was anointed by God? This may be where a discussion about the doctrine of the restoration of the Church and the general apostasy of Christianity arises.

My understanding is that it was not necessary to specifically define the Trinity until people began to misdefine it. . . . from what I understand about this, they were trying to sort it out in response to other people who were founding cults with un-biblical understandings of the Trinity and other doctrines. Hopefully I'll have some time to elaborate on this later.

This is an important concept. Many of the doctrines we now consider creedal were formed out of a defense against heresies that had arisen.

[Dr T]

Hello all,

I don't mean to rush us through the fun ideas that are coming up but I had a few minutes to post my other thoughts. Here they are.

Did the Councils Write Scripture?

No.

The Latter-day Saints accept both the oneness and the threeness of God--both are biblical.

OK. Here is an assertion of belief. Is the idea of “oneness” and “threeness” the same or re-defined like the “trinity”? By "threeness," does the LDS believer take that to mean there are three Gods? The whole “3 Gods with whom we have anything to do” type idea? Technically, I don’t think I’ve heard it that way. I have heard “One god with whom we have anything to do.” Following my (amateur) train of thought, does the first quote represent the LDS belief? Is that really what is meant when talking about the Trinity? We have already established that LDS believe that there are an infinite number of Gods in the LDS pantheon (a group of illustrious persons).

They reject, however, the attempts of the postbiblical church to define, for the sake and in the language of the philosophers, how the oneness and the threeness of God are related- attempts which amounted to putting words in God's mouth.

No disrespect (I promise)-when I read that, I chuckled. From my understanding, Mormonism is a "postbiblical church," it has/does put words in God's mouth, and it has invented many new doctrines. This, from my novice comparative readings, seems to be the case. I wanted to tell the author, “Psst, the trees are the forest.”

I think this next quote is very important and relates directly to PC's keen eye of the need to discuss the restoration of the church

Quote:

If a proposition is not already found in the Bible, by what authority--in the absence of Apostles and prophets--can it be imposed on the church as the word of God?

Sticky. Many people of the Christian persuasion would probably say, Sola Scriptura for biblical concepts-not extra biblical such as all the “added concepts” of eternal progression, etc. Do you all feel like this is also talking about “reading/understanding” of what the Bible says too? One of my, perhaps, arrogant and “sinful” biases is that the average, run of the mill, person can come to an understanding of God and salvation without an apostle/priest, etc. by reading special revelation (the Bible). My suspicion is that the above quote is so ingrained in the LDS belief system that they become biased by the fact that the prophet gave their interpretation of scripture (or added something new to it) and all followers begin to read scripture from that perspective. Basically, my point is, as humans we tend to find what we are looking for.

How can mere theologians expand upon or correct the doctrine of the Apostles?

My bias is, “they can clarify it.” Based upon all that I’m learning on this site, it is the LDS church who appears, to expand upon and "correct" the doctrines of the Apostles. Is that correct?

Can theologians add to the scriptures?

My bias would be to say “No.” But, as I said, Joseph Smith did. Brigham Young did. I’m speaking of the, “Now I will remove the veil” type of discourses that I’ve read. I've written all this with apprehension. I fear it will me misinterpreted and derail our conversation and begin to anger you all. That is not my intent. I was setting the stage for asking this, If you as an LDS member, who knows the LDS literature, would look at the origins of the doctrine of the Trinity in your own church, “From where did it come?” Was it directly from the Bible or from Mormon writers? Basically, what started you on the road to disconfirming and abandoning the historical doctrine of the Trinity? Was it the Bible? What is someone adding to the post biblical church? etc...

Having fun,

Dr. T

[Ray]

First of all, I’d like to say that I am “one” with ApostleKnight in his understanding of these issues and his desire to help other people understand “our” beliefs … but instead of letting him have all the fun in this context I am now going to use my own words.

Is the idea of “oneness” and “threeness” the same or re-defined like the “trinity”?

I think I know what you’re saying, and I will try to explain it like this.

When we refer to the “oneness” of God, we are referring to how all the persons who are God are united as one in will and purpose, as a man and woman should be united as one when they are married as husband and wife.

When we refer to the “threeness” of God, we are referring to how there are 3 separate persons who preside over this part of God’s kingdom, as the President of the Church has 2 other persons who preside with him over us [LDS].

By "threeness," does the LDS believer take that to mean there are three Gods?

Yes, there are 3 Gods who work with those of this Earth, and each of them is a separate and distinct person.

The whole “3 Gods with whom we have anything to do” type idea? Technically, I don’t think I’ve heard it that way. I have heard “One god with whom we have anything to do.” Following my (amateur) train of thought, does the first quote represent the LDS belief? Is that really what is meant when talking about the Trinity?

I think you are trying to combine two ideas which would be better to keep apart, but I’ll try to explain the ideas you are questioning while sharing the understanding we [LDS] have.

First of all, there really is “only one God with whom we have to do”, and He is known by the names of Jehovah and Jesus Christ. Or in other words, He is same person and He is the only God with whom all of us have to do.

The way and reason He is the “only one with whom we have to do” comes from the fact that all of us [Mankind] were separated from our Father in heaven by the Fall of Adam and Eve, and since that time our Lord has been the “only one with whom we have to do” in His role as:

1) our Mediator between Mankind and our Father in heaven, with Him doing the will of our Father in heaven,

2) our Advocate for us with our Father in heaven, as He does and has done His work to reconcile and redeem us from our fallen condition to become “one” with our Father

3) the one who sends the Holy Ghost to us, to do the will of the “only one with whom we have to do.”

We have already established that LDS believe that there are an infinite number of Gods in the LDS pantheon (a group of illustrious persons).

Yes, but our Lord Jesus Christ is the “only God with whom we have to do” until and unless we become “one” with all of them.

From my understanding, Mormonism is a "postbiblical church," it has/does put words in God's mouth, and it has invented many new doctrines.

First of all, “Mormonism” is not a “postbiblical church” because “Mormonism” includes all of the gospel and all of the true “churches” of Christ that have been around on Earth since the Fall of Adam and Eve, so your attempt to make “Mormonism” sound as if it started in 1830 shows a lack of true understanding of our beliefs.

Secondly, we [LDS] have not put any words in God mouth, because all the words you see and hear from prophets of God are His words that He put in their mouths.

And thirdly, none of our [LDS or “Mormon”] doctrines were “invented”, because they have all been “revealed” by God.

I think this next quote is very important and relates directly to PC's keen eye of the need to discuss the restoration of the church

Quote:

If a proposition is not already found in the Bible, by what authority--in the absence of Apostles and prophets--can it be imposed on the church as the word of God?

Sticky. Many people of the Christian persuasion would probably say, Sola Scriptura for biblical concepts-not extra biblical such as all the “added concepts” of eternal progression, etc. Do you all feel like this is also talking about “reading/understanding” of what the Bible says too? One of my, perhaps, arrogant and “sinful” biases is that the average, run of the mill, person can come to an understanding of God and salvation without an apostle/priest, etc. by reading special revelation (the Bible). My suspicion is that the above quote is so ingrained in the LDS belief system that they become biased by the fact that the prophet gave their interpretation of scripture (or added something new to it) and all followers begin to read scripture from that perspective. Basically, my point is, as humans we tend to find what we are looking for.

Only God and His servants have authority from God, and I suggest we rely only on Faith from God.

How can mere theologians expand upon or correct the doctrine of the Apostles?

My bias is, “they can clarify it.” Based upon all that I’m learning on this site, it is the LDS church who appears, to expand upon and "correct" the doctrines of the Apostles. Is that correct?

Yes, and this is done by apostles and prophets of God [Jesus Christ].

Can theologians add to the scriptures?

My bias would be to say “No.” But, as I said, Joseph Smith did. Brigham Young did.

People who merely study the words God reveals do not reveal more scriptures from God, but Joseph and Brigham both truly did, because they were prophets of God.

If you as an LDS member, who knows the LDS literature, would look at the origins of the doctrine of the Trinity in your own church, “From where did it come?” Was it directly from the Bible or from Mormon writers? Basically, what started you on the road to disconfirming and abandoning the historical doctrine of the Trinity? Was it the Bible? What is someone adding to the post biblical church? etc...

The origin of the doctrine taught in our Church was and is God [Jesus Christ] through personal revelation, and not merely from people who have studied some revelations that God first revealed to other people.

And the way that I know the things I know are true is also by personal revelation, as I receive my own assurances from God [Faith].

And btw, you will never get to personally know God by studying and believing some information that other people claim to have received from God, because the only way to personally know Him and that He truly revealed some truths to other people is by Him personally revealing revelations to you too.

Having fun,

I’m all for trying to have fun, but there are also times when we should be very serious about our beliefs.

[Dr T]

Ray,

Very well done! I appreciate your comments and the tone in which you expressed them.

Thank you,

Dr. T

[Guest ApostleKnight]

By "threeness," does the LDS believer take that to mean there are three Gods?

God the Father, God the Son, God the Testator. One, two, three. :)

My suspicion is that the above quote is so ingrained in the LDS belief system that they become biased by the fact that the prophet gave their interpretation of scripture (or added something new to it) and all followers begin to read scripture from that perspective.

This is precisely what I see Trinitarians doing (beliefs defined by the creeds, so read the scriptures to support the creeds). As you said, we find what we are looking for. But then again, there are those rare individuals who aren't looking for anything specific but who accept truth from whatever quarter it comes from.

The difference between an idealogue and a truth seeker is an inversion of method. The idealogue draws a conclusion and then gathers evidence supporting their conclusion. The truth seeker gathers evidence and then draws a conclusion based on the evidence. A simple reading of the Bible, to me, provides no evidence of creedal concepts. (see my John 8:17-18 challenge)

Based upon all that I’m learning on this site, it is the LDS church who appears, to expand upon and "correct" the doctrines of the Apostles. Is that correct?

We don't so much correct doctrines as correct translations of their doctrines. And as Ray pointed out, when done by apostles themselves approved of God, such is entirely proper.

But, as I said, Joseph Smith did <add to scripture>. Brigham Young did <add to scripture>. I’m speaking of the, “Now I will remove the veil” type of discourses that I’ve read.

The key difference, Dr. T, is that the theologians at the councils never claimed to be prophets restoring lost truths. The LDS prophets from day one never claimed to be theologians (at the time of Joseph's First Vision, he had about a third grade education...hardly a theologian). It's comparing apples and oranges. Again, the objection isn't adding to the scriptures, it's whether someone has authority to do so.

Basically, what started you on the road to disconfirming and abandoning the historical doctrine of the Trinity? Was it the Bible? What is someone adding to the post biblical church? etc...

Good question. For me it started from what I was taught as a child, obviously. My parents didn't teach me, "The creeds are confabulations." They taught me that Joseph Smith saw the Father and Son as separate personages in a vision. But then as I acquired my own testimony and ability to understand and pray about scripture independently, I concluded that the trinity as explicated in the creeds couldn't be harmonized with the Bible. As you 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.

Please, anyone, feel free to harmonize these and other examples for me. I honestly don't think it can be done while remaining intellectually honest. But I'd love to hear your reasoning if you think it can be done.

One more thing...Ray, your last post was the best I've read from you. It was a breath of fresh air, clear, fair and to the point. Well said, amen, and bring on more of that stuff! :)

[Maureen]

I'll tell you: A monster God with one head but three faces, one body with three modes but actually there is no body we're speaking metaphorically and by special definition and if that doesn't make sense then we're not supposed to understand with our finite minds and God is one Being without form or feelings yet He loves us and when Jesus cried in agony on the cross, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" he was putting on a show for the apostles to emphasize his suffering which really only his mortal part experienced while his separate but equal divine part avoided as an incorruptible essence shared by the Father and Spirit aspects of his triune personality, and he was in reality talking to himself because he was in heaven and on the cross at the same time but sweating blood (luke 22:44), being scourged and also crucified really didn't hurt because pain is a feeling and God has no feelings and so this whole divine act was meant to stir our feelings which, if we are ever to be one with God, will have to be jettisoned and we too will be resurrected yet have no body or parts, praise God in eternal joy but not really because then we'd have feelings and not be like God and...well, you get the idea. :)

AK - I understand a little how you could perceive the Trinity in such a way since you disagree with it. But mainstream Christianity and non-LDS Christians do not see the Trinity as a monster. I guess it might be similar to you accepting the LDS progression/exaltation doctrine with joy while non-LDS might cringe at the thought, not quite grasping why anyone would believe such a doctrine.

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? 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?

M.

[Ray]

One more thing...Ray, your last post was the best I've read from you. It was a breath of fresh air, clear, fair and to the point. Well said, amen, and bring on more of that stuff! :)

Heh, I think it is simply that you now better know ME, which helps you to hear what I say... but there are still people who really don't know me and still can't understand what I say.

And btw, to share a thought I once had, I picture our Father in heaven seeing us solve all this "stuff" as if we were playing a game, which we were prepared to solve and wanted to play before we ever came here, and not only are all the "clues" out there for us but we can also know "who" to believe.

Or in other words, those who don't know Him are those who aren't trying to know Him and really understand Him and His works, and once we are really trying it all falls in place and the search is a really fun game. :)

Three cheers for our Father! Hurray! Hurray! Hurray! :)