Trinity Revisited

[prisonchaplain]

As do we.

But, we also recognize that Jesus gave certain of His disciples power, that whatsoever they "bound" on earth would be "bound" in heaven.

We take that passage to simply mean that what we agree to on earth will be agreed to (i.e. approved) by heaven. In other words, the promise has little do do with our future heavenly existence, but everything to do with God supporting the work of his people on earth, and bringing the forces of heaven to support it.

[LDSChristian]

LDSChristian... GIVE IT UP!

It's just starting to really make you look bad.

I am LDS now and you are making LDS look bad. WE don't tell OTHERS what THEY believe just like WE EXPECT others not tell us what WE believe.

Do not tell me you know more about the Trinity than the Trinitarians - you will lose that battle and just enhance the gulf that separates you from your fellow Christians!

Give what up? I'm just telling you the truth. The creed does not give any implication of a triune god. Where do you get the triune god concept from anyway? Don't say the Nicene Creed because it doesn't come from there. If you're a Trinitarian that believes in the triune god idea because you think it comes from the Nicene Creed then yes, I do have a better understanding of the Trinity.

[prisonchaplain]

Especially aware and loving towards our family members? Don't you believe family relationships will be severed?

This seems to contradict your previous comment. I mean, I get what you're saying, but when you get down to brass tax, how can you not love your family members more unless earth's relationships are severed and forgotten?

I'm not sure where this logic comes from. No, we will not forget. We will see as Jesus sees. Heaven will be a great expansion of what we are not--not a diminishment.

I suppose I would compare what will happen with what happens when non-LDS Christians convert. Most here seem to retain a fondness and appreciation for their former churches--and the people they knew in them. They would even say that with the restored gospel, they love them more. And yet, now they find that they have a greater community, and plenty of love for their new spiritual family.

Love is not a zero-sum paradigm. The more we give, the more we have.

How can I love anyone as much as I love my wife? How can I love the big burly guy I work with (whom I do love by the way--he doesn't need to be a member of my family for me to love him even now) as much as I love my wife?

Now we see through a glass that is cloudy, then we shall see clearly...

I know what you're saying, PC. But, unless I am caused to forget these relationships (I suppose like we forget our pre-earth life them coming here) then I will love my wife more than all.

And, another attempt at logic, is gender eternal? Will we be male and female when we are resurrected? It seems eerie that that part of us will be removed. If removed, I can begin to understand what you're saying. If not, I can't even fathom the thought.

Again, I would simply say, we will be more than we are--not less. Some of that change is unfathomable to us now. But it will surely be better.

[prisonchaplain]

And since I'm on a roll with LDSChristian, I am going to give you a warning as well...

You don't have to agree with the Non-LDS folks. But don't tell them they are illogical. There is logic to it just like I presented to you. You just don't agree with it.

Hey, I get you. I don't agree with it either. But, that doesn't make it illogical. Firstborn to you may mean LITERALLY firstborn. That's not what firstborn to PC means. That's NOT ILLOGICAL either.

It makes it sound demeaning when you call PC a person who can't grasp logic to support his beliefs.

I didn't quite take it that way...but it's still nice having you in our court.

[LDSChristian]

And since I'm on a roll with LDSChristian

lol Not quite.

Yep... I got upset at LDSChristian. And yep, I'm the only one getting upset - or expressed it. I don't take kindly to LDS people attacking Trinitarians in that manner. I hold LDS to a higher standard by benefit of our Articles of Faith.

I wasn't upset at you, though. I was on a roll...

Yes, you came across as I described because you are challenging doctrine and calling it illogical. You can't apply the same logic you apply to LDS to non-LDS doctrine. Because, you have to FIRST AND FOREMOST acknowledge that they come from only "half" the set of scriptures than you do and with a different interpretation of it to boot.

What I see here is, instead of trying to understand why they believe that way, you instead challenge why they don't believe your way.

So, to truly understand what we are trying to say, you have first to shed everything that is LDS that is not found in anything outside of it.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

You're not on a role with anyone. I don't care if you're upset with me. That's your problem. I'm not attacking anyone. The only thing I have an issue with is where this triune god concept came from. The Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, nor the Nicene Creed teaches of the triune god idea. The prophets, apostles, & Jesus himself didn't teach it.

Edited January 28, 2011 by LDSChristian

[prisonchaplain]

LDSChristian, it's rather ironic, but the style in which you engage in this topic is old-school debate. I find it refreshing, even if it's out of vogue these days. Most people are simply too sensitive and thin-skinned to accept argumentation. I'm not referring so much to folk here, as society in general.

I do see that people are reacting, and finding your cyber-tone rather aggressive. You do not have to change who you are, but do keep in mind that often sugar makes ideas go down better than vinegar.

As to why there is no mention of the Trinity by the Bible or the earliest creeds...it was not a formal concern or issue. The Church accepted that there was absolutely one God, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were God. By the end of the first century, it was simply left at that. No need to describe the difference between a "being" a "person," or have any talk of "species."

Then two particular heresies arose. Subordinationism said that Jesus is not God. He is perhaps "a god," or a demagod, or an angel. Arius proffered this as a means of re-affirming monotheism--one absolute God.

The second heresy was modalism. It suggested that Jesus was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That he simply performed in these "modes," but that it was all just Jesus. Again, the purpose of the teaching was to re-affirm monotheism--God is absolutely one.

The Church at large rejected both teachings, and set out a formal, and rather complex creed to dilineate how it was that God was three persons, but one Deity. Such an effort is bound to lead to criticism, because the vocabularly and philosophies of men are employed to explain the nature of God.

So there it is...the formal Trinity doctrine was a reaction to heresies. Jehovah's Witnesses picked up subordinationism, while the Oneness Pentecostals (especially the United Pentecostal Church) picked up modalism.

Ironically, LDS took the Trinity idea and pushed it further--saying the three persons are also three beings, and that purpose was enough of a unifying force to say they are one Godhead.

[Guest]

lol Not quite.

You're not on a role with anyone. I don't care if you're upset with me. That's your problem. I'm not attacking anyone. The only thing I have an issue with is where this triune god concept came from. The Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, nor the Nicene Creed teaches of the triune god idea. The prophets, apostles, & Jesus himself didn't teach it.

That's your interpretation of it. Millions of people disagree with you.

As far as non-LDS Christians are concerned, the prophets, apostles, and Jesus himself didn't teach that they are what you describe the Godhead to be. As a matter of fact - that Godhead distinction started in 1820. When Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son at the grove. Before that, he was just as Trinitarian as PC. It required THAT REVELATION to put the matter to rest. So that, if the First Vision is not true - then the Godhead is not true.

And Maureen has already posted the Nicene Creed describe God as one specifically. Of course, it does. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COUNCIL! To establish how there are 3 persons yet only one God!

Edited January 28, 2011 by anatess

[Jason_J]

Give what up? I'm just telling you the truth. The creed does not give any implication of a triune god. Where do you get the triune god concept from anyway? Don't say the Nicene Creed because it doesn't come from there. If you're a Trinitarian that believes in the triune god idea because you think it comes from the Nicene Creed then yes, I do have a better understanding of the Trinity.

This post sufficiently addresses your argument.

As already mentioned, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed implicitly addresses the Trinity when it states that Jesus is "one in Being" with the Father. The Trinity is explicitly addressed in the Athanasian Creed. No Trinitarian would claim that the doctrine of the Trinity comes from Nicaea alone. If they have, please cite a source. Instead, Trinitarians would say that the Trinity is found in the Bible (generally by referring to multiple verses and coming to a conclusion based on all of them), and was formally defined through various Ecumenical Councils, with the Council of Nicaea, and the Nicene Creed, addressing the issue of the relationship between the Father and the Son, concluding that the Son is "consubstantial" or "one in Being" with the Father, which is of course part of the definition of the Trinity doctrine.

[Jason_J]

Ironically, LDS took the Trinity idea and pushed it further--saying the three persons are also three beings, and that purpose was enough of a unifying force to say they are one Godhead.

But I don't think that LDS use the word "being" as it is used by Trinitarians, so I don't necessarily think that one could compare the Trinity definition of "one being, three persons" to the Godhead definition of "three persons/beings", since LDS are using "person" and "being" interchangeably, while Trinitarians are not (so that these words refer to two different things).

[LDSChristian]

LDSChristian, it's rather ironic, but the style in which you engage in this topic is old-school debate. I find it refreshing, even if it's out of vogue these days. Most people are simply too sensitive and thin-skinned to accept argumentation. I'm not referring so much to folk here, as society in general.

I do see that people are reacting, and finding your cyber-tone rather aggressive. You do not have to change who you are, but do keep in mind that often sugar makes ideas go down better than vinegar.

As to why there is no mention of the Trinity by the Bible or the earliest creeds...it was not a formal concern or issue. The Church accepted that there was absolutely one God, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were God. By the end of the first century, it was simply left at that. No need to describe the difference between a "being" a "person," or have any talk of "species."

Then two particular heresies arose. Subordinationism said that Jesus is not God. He is perhaps "a god," or a demagod, or an angel. Arius proffered this as a means of re-affirming monotheism--one absolute God.

The second heresy was modalism. It suggested that Jesus was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That he simply performed in these "modes," but that it was all just Jesus. Again, the purpose of the teaching was to re-affirm monotheism--God is absolutely one.

The Church at large rejected both teachings, and set out a formal, and rather complex creed to dilineate how it was that God was three persons, but one Deity. Such an effort is bound to lead to criticism, because the vocabularly and philosophies of men are employed to explain the nature of God.

So there it is...the formal Trinity doctrine was a reaction to heresies. Jehovah's Witnesses picked up subordinationism, while the Oneness Pentecostals (especially the United Pentecostal Church) picked up modalism.

Ironically, LDS took the Trinity idea and pushed it further--saying the three persons are also three beings, and that purpose was enough of a unifying force to say they are one Godhead.

I hardly see typing as a certain tone lol. They are 3 beings.

Being synonyms:

animal, beast, body, conscious thing, creature, entity, human, human being, individual, living thing, mortal, organism, person, personage, soul, thing

They are 3 personages so they are 3 beings because a being is another word for person/personage. They are of one purpose.

[LDSChristian]

But I don't think that LDS use the word "being" as it is used by Trinitarians, so I don't necessarily think that one could compare the Trinity definition of "one being, three persons" to the Godhead definition of "three persons/beings", since LDS are using "person" and "being" interchangeably, while Trinitarians are not (so that these words refer to two different things).

Agreed. That's the main difference I think. The fact that Trinitarians use person and being while we use them as meaning the same thing.

[Guest]

I didn't quite take it that way...but it's still nice having you in our court.

Weeelll.... I'm technically not in your court.

I'm just the lady in the front of the church doing sign language... trying to explain both sides in a language that I'm thinking both sides understand...

Edited January 28, 2011 by anatess

[LDSChristian]

That's your interpretation of it. Millions of people disagree with you.

As far as non-LDS Christians are concerned, the prophets, apostles, and Jesus himself didn't teach that they are what you describe the Godhead to be. As a matter of fact - that Godhead distinction started in 1820. When Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son at the grove. Before that, he was just as Trinitarian as PC. It required THAT REVELATION to put the matter to rest. So that, if the First Vision is not true - then the Godhead is not true.

And Maureen has already posted the Nicene Creed describe God as one specifically. Of course, it does. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COUNCIL! To establish how there are 3 persons yet only one God!

Yes, I do believe in the Godhead as the church teaches which is why I do not believe in the traditional belief of the trinity since it's not taught. Including not in the scriptures.

"THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COUNCIL!"

Which is another issue. A council to determine how to believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

"It required THAT REVELATION to put the matter to rest. So that, if the First Vision is not true - then the Godhead is not true."

Which was revelation of the truth. The First Vision is true and the Godhead is true.

Look at what you put:

"As a matter of fact - that Godhead distinction started in 1820. When Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son at the grove. Before that, he was just as Trinitarian as PC. It required THAT REVELATION to put the matter to rest. So that, if the First Vision is not true - then the Godhead is not true."

"Of course, it does. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COUNCIL! To establish how there are 3 persons yet only one God!"

Do you see the problem with those two statements and your own theory? Yes, Joseph Smith was a Trinitarian BEFORE 1820. After he was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ he wasn't. Instead, he taught of the Godhead the very way we teach it today, not the trinity.

[prisonchaplain]

But I don't think that LDS use the word "being" as it is used by Trinitarians, so I don't necessarily think that one could compare the Trinity definition of "one being, three persons" to the Godhead definition of "three persons/beings", since LDS are using "person" and "being" interchangeably, while Trinitarians are not (so that these words refer to two different things).

Point taken. The LDS I have read either insist that the Godhead is monotheism, or, as one has done here, would say it is henotheism. None suggest that the Godhead is three Gods--at least not explicitly.

[prisonchaplain]

Weeelll.... I'm technically not in your court.

I'm just the lady in the front of the church doing sign language... trying to explain both sides in a language that I'm thinking both sides understand...

I'd go a bit further and suggest that you are an expert witness that is offering explanation for the defense, even while cheering for the prosecution.

[Justice]

What I see here is, instead of trying to understand why they believe that way, you instead challenge why they don't believe your way.

I gathered that, but it's really not what is going on. I really am trying to understand these questions in my mind that I've had for over 30 years about the Trinity.

Yes, the questions get tough. If I don't see the logic I'm not going to say that I do just to make everyone feel better. That wouldn't help me understand.

So, to truly understand what we are trying to say, you have first to shed everything that is LDS that is not found in anything outside of it.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

I am actually very good at doing thats. I had a Catholic friend for over 20 years who was very devout and very knowledgable. We spent many hours discussing religion and the Trinity specifically. He admitted after 10 years that he couldn't explain it, that in fact he didn't understand it himself. Over time, we found ourselves reading scriptures and interpreting the scriptures in two ways, one way for each other. We reached a very good understanding about many things. The Trinity was not one of them. I very much wouldl ike to.

I dated a Catholic girl for a year and I had discussions with her, her priest, and her father who all told me the same thing (it only took the priest about 3 hours to admit the same).

But, I'm not giving up. I still belive there must be someone out there who can explain it to me so that it makes sense to me.

I am honestly trying to do just that.

The problem is so many Trinitarian beliefs are connected. Like marriage relationships being severed at death. All I ask is for someone to explain why God gave woman to man to begin with, in an immortal state (insinuating forever), and I get accused of telling them they are illogical.

Yes, I think more than the average person. I spend hours every day just pondering. It's where most of my logic comes from. I ask questions most people don't even consider. It's nothing personal, it's just me. The questions I'm asking aren't even the hard ones I have, just the ones that seem easier to express and discuss.

I have always felt that the wording in scripture is given more weight than the events in scripture. I have never understood this. For instance, God gave woman to man and commanded that they love and cleave to each other (an event), but for some reason, some words (albeit misunderstood) said in answer to a question about who's wife a certain girl would be in the resurrection seems to take presedence over what God did.

The best way to interpret scripture is to marry together what God does and what God says. I don't believe the two should conflict.

So, not only am I having a hard time getting answers to my questions, I'm being accused of the very thing I am trying to avoid... criticizing others. And now I find myself defending my motives, which have always been to simply understand.

I'm with PC, I don't have a hard time talking about the weightier matters, and I certainly am not offended when someone doesn't understand what I'm trying to say, or when someone else has a hard time understanding me. I'd rather they ask the right questions, even if it doesn't agree with what I believe. Obviously they disagree or they wouldn't ask the question.

[Justice]

Well, after that, I'll just agree to move on and hope that I will find these answers in the future. I certainly don't want to offend anyone.

A sincere thanks to all who responded and tried to help me understand. I can be very difficult sometimes. Sometimes it's very hard for me to understand the simplest of things.

It took me longer than most to learn to tie my shoes. I'm not good at memorizing a bunch of steps and getting results. I had to study what effect each move had on the string and why each step was important. Once I understood how the steps were connected and how the results were achieved, I could see the strings being tied in my mind and then I understood and could tie my shoes with the best of them, and could teach anyone about it. I even invented different ways of tying shoes, one of which is faster, easier to teach, and makes a perfect bow everytime. It's my method of choice.

It's just my personality. I do not think it's going to change, neither do I want it to change.

[prisonchaplain]

Justice...fwiw, I'll bet I was older than you when I finally learned to tie my shoes.

[Traveler]

No, I'm neither a scientist nor a geek. So, I'm just your plain old human. Well, I'm a programmer, so in that sense, I understand logic.

I agree with you on this one...

I posit that ALL RELIGION is illogical - including the LDS (like you stated).

Therefore, when I said, Trinitarians find the Trinity logical - I only meant they found it as the one that makes the most sense when put in the entire body of the scriptures.

Remember, they don't believe Pearl of Great Price nor the D&C are of God and they don't look for answers in scientific experimentation. The Godhead only logically makes better sense than the Trinity if you accept those as biblical. The only reason why you're not an atheist is because you accept those as truth. Because, if you rely on logic to decide the truth of God, then you're going to end up atheist.

That's why I said - that it may not make the best logical sense to (you to) accept the Trinity - but without a spiritual manifestation of the truth of the restored gospel - it's the best one available. And you can't just embrace the restored gospel because it "makes sense", unfortunately.

For me logic is an important principle. If I am trying to understand something, it helps me greatly if there is logic. However, it appears to me that many people define logic by what they want to believe. If they want to believe something then it must be logical - thus it become the meaning of logical. Often this is how I view much in religion. Because someone wants so badly for something to be a certain way then it must be logical. However, that is not how logic works.

I learned to love mathematics because it is logical and everything can be logically determined. I could go to a math class and the teacher could give a test about something I had never considered or been taught but by logic I could determine the correct answer. That would never happen in English, history or any other class - those things are not logic based. I do remember often students would argue in math class for what they wanted to be the answer - they would say it was logical. Let me give a mathematical example:

Question - If a hen and a half will lay an egg and a half in a day and a half; how many days will it take one chicken to lay a dozen eggs. Many will say the “logical” answer is 12 days. But that is not the logical answer - that is the false logic answer. They fell for a very old illogical trick (confusion over provided information) - like fools gold there is fools logic and the problem is wanting the wrong answer. I believe this does happen often with religion and politics.

If something is logical we can begin with some basic agreed principle and identify rhetorical steps. And the rhetorical steps must be universal. The same principles must apply to other relationships - in fact the scriptures even testify that the oneness of the Father and the Son does apply to us as well. It is like the isotropic assumption of the universe. That is the laws of physics apply to our solar system and the same laws will apply to every solar system in the universe. G-d wants us to know him, and learn of him and from him. The one point of logic is that G-d tells us things for our benefit; not our detriment - To enlighten us; not to damn us - To give us understanding; not to confuse us.

I believe the problem with the Trinity is in arguing what we want to believe to be true and not actual principles of what is true. And even if a person is arguing a true principle of logic - many that want to believe something else will not accept the truth of the logic - not because it is not true but because it harms what they want or think to believe is true. This is a very dangerous slippery slope and in essence can be used to ether justify or oppose anything.

The Traveler

Edited January 29, 2011 by Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

For me logic is an important principle. If I am trying to understand something, it helps me greatly if there is logic. However, it appears to me that many people define logic by what they want to believe. If they want to believe something then it must be logical - thus it become the meaning of logical. Often this is how I view much in religion. Because someone wants so badly for something to be a certain way then it must be logical. However, that is not how logic works.

I learned to love mathematics because it is logical and everything can be logically determined. I could go to a math class and the teacher could give a test about something I had never considered or been taught but by logic I could determine the correct answer. That would never happen in English, history or any other class - those things are not logic based. I do remember often students would argue in math class for what they wanted to be the answer - they would say it was logical. Let me give a mathematical example:

Question - If a hen and a half will lay an egg and a half in a day and a half; how many days will it take one chicken to lay a dozen eggs. Many will say the “logical” answer is 12 days. But that is not the logical answer - that is the false logic answer. They fell for a very old illogical trick (confusion over provided information) - like fools gold there is fools logic and the problem is wanting the wrong answer. I believe this does happen often with religion and politics.

If something is logical we can begin with some basic agreed principle and identify rhetorical steps. And the rhetorical steps must be universal. The same principles must apply to other relationships - in fact the scriptures even testify that the oneness of the Father and the Son does apply to us as well. It is like the isotropic assumption of the universe. That is the laws of physics apply to our solar system and the same laws will apply to every solar system in the universe. G-d wants us to know him, and learn of him and from him. The one point of logic is that G-d tells us things for our benefit; not our detriment - To enlighten us; not to damn us - To give us understanding; not to confuse us.

I believe the problem with the Trinity is in arguing what we want to believe to be true and not actual principles of what is true. And even if a person is arguing a true principle of logic - many that want to believe something else will not accept the truth of the logic - not because it is not true but because it harms what they want or think to believe is true. This is a very dangerous slippery slope and in essence can be used to ether justify or oppose anything.

The Traveler

Logic is good until it demands proof. Demanding proof is the opposite of faith and we are supposed to live by faith here. I think so long as logic does not create a hunger for proof it is good, as far as one's religious beliefs goes.

[Traveler]

I am not sure what you are trying to get at. Logic only states that if you accept certain things in a premise you must conclude a specific result.

For example if we assume the laws of integer numbers it is possible to logically derive different results than if we assume the laws and logic of rational numbers.

Often in religion the logic of G-d is considered a mystery or beyond the understanding of man. The point here is if this is the premise of someone religious concerning G-d then they disprove their belief by trying to explain G-d logically. But if we are to point out to someone that their discussion of G-d is illogical to their belief they will often get angry and farther demonstrate their failures in claiming to be Christina in association to their behavior.

Logic is in itself proof. We need to understand the difference between a problem that lacks enough in the premises to draw a conclusion and a rhetorical failure to apply actual principles over personal preferences.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

We need to understand the difference between a problem that lacks enough in the premises to draw a conclusion and a rhetorical failure to apply actual principles over personal preferences.

The Traveler

I disagree with that. There is no "need" to understand all of that. Faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient. I don't "need" to know the limits of my understanding in this life to come to a conclusion on every subject of whether it is logical or not. The problem with that is that there may be many subjects that are illogical to the human mind but "logical" to God. And, there is no way to know which topics fit that description. So, we might come to a conclusion that a certain topic has no answer, then we stop searching for truth in that regard and when God is ready to reveal it to us we are not open minded enough to receive the truth because we have already convinced ourselves that there is no answer.

There are many people who do not believe in God simply because they come to a conclusion that everyone has different ideas about God and nobody can prove that one concept is more true than another and so therefore I won't even believe in any of it.

To me, this is similar to the second temptation of Christ. Throwing himself off the pillar was not only appealing to the possibility of instant fame but also an attempt to prove His power. Christ' response was that we should not tempt God. To not tempt God is the same as having faith without proof or wanting proof. There is danger is seeking after proof for that reason, whether it could be had or not. This is one of the passions of our physical mind just like hunger and thirst. Our physical mind wants to make sense of the things around us. This is counterbalanced by our spirits desire to have faith. If 'proof' becomes ones driving force than, to me, the carnal nature of that individual wins out over the spiritual nature of that person.

It is important to understand as much as we can but not at the price of discounting the value of faith, that was my point.

[Seminarysnoozer]

To add to what I said above, Joseph Wirthlin said in a past conference, Oct. 2004; "our intellect can feed our spirit and our spirit can feed our intellect...[but] we must be careful not to set aside our faith in the process, because faith actually enhances our ability to learn." This was in reference to the Parable of the Sower, the seed that fell on the road.

[Traveler]

I disagree with that. There is no "need" to understand all of that. Faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient. I don't "need" to know the limits of my understanding in this life to come to a conclusion on every subject of whether it is logical or not. The problem with that is that there may be many subjects that are illogical to the human mind but "logical" to God. And, there is no way to know which topics fit that description. So, we might come to a conclusion that a certain topic has no answer, then we stop searching for truth in that regard and when God is ready to reveal it to us we are not open minded enough to receive the truth because we have already convinced ourselves that there is no answer.

There are many people who do not believe in God simply because they come to a conclusion that everyone has different ideas about God and nobody can prove that one concept is more true than another and so therefore I won't even believe in any of it.

To me, this is similar to the second temptation of Christ. Throwing himself off the pillar was not only appealing to the possibility of instant fame but also an attempt to prove His power. Christ' response was that we should not tempt God. To not tempt God is the same as having faith without proof or wanting proof. There is danger is seeking after proof for that reason, whether it could be had or not. This is one of the passions of our physical mind just like hunger and thirst. Our physical mind wants to make sense of the things around us. This is counterbalanced by our spirits desire to have faith. If 'proof' becomes ones driving force than, to me, the carnal nature of that individual wins out over the spiritual nature of that person.

It is important to understand as much as we can but not at the price of discounting the value of faith, that was my point.

There is a principle of faith that if one does not seek and ask they cannot obtain or find. We are also warned in scripture then when we will not recieve then light will be taken away. Those that refuse to look for and understand something better will never find the next level of truth.

I personally like the idea and faith that G-d will yet make know many more important things that we need to know about his kingdom. I love the LDS theology but I would put it aside in a heart beat if I could find something better. And to be honest about my seeking - in over 40 years I have found nothing better than LDS theology - But there are some that at first brush have appeared to come close.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

There is a principle of faith that if one does not seek and ask they cannot obtain or find. We are also warned in scripture then when we will not recieve then light will be taken away. Those that refuse to look for and understand something better will never find the next level of truth.

I personally like the idea and faith that G-d will yet make know many more important things that we need to know about his kingdom. I love the LDS theology but I would put it aside in a heart beat if I could find something better. And to be honest about my seeking - in over 40 years I have found nothing better than LDS theology - But there are some that at first brush have appeared to come close.

The Traveler

I didn't say anything about "refusing" or 'not seeking'. I am talking about the desire for proof which is different. It is kind of like the 'love of money'. Money itself is necessary in our society and needed and important but the love of money is not good. Food, sex, etc. are similar. Being learned and the pride that goes along with proof and the desire to prove is the same thing. This is a carnal feature of our body. There are circuits in the brain devoted to logical thinking that suppress the 'what if' parts of the brain and push those thoughts aside. Just like any addiction, the more one feeds it the stronger it becomes. The more one pushes the "prove it" thought the more it becomes praised and desired at the expense of faith. Once there is proof there is no faith in the matter. That is the danger of praising the idea of "proof" to the point of saying that it is "needed." We don't need proof or logic for that matter, all we need is faith. Is it good to have proof, sometimes. Is it good to depend on logic, sometimes. But not if it extinguishes faith or the desire to live by faith. That was my point.