Excepted

[Justice]

Here is a scripture I came across today. I had never viewed it in light of teaching against the Trinity, but I believe it does.

1 Corinthinas 15:

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

He put all things under his feet can be taken different ways. When both verses are read together it seems clear to me that it is speaking of both the Father and the Son.

I am going to write the verses out replacing the pronouns:

27 For [the Father] hath put all things under [the Son's] feet. But when [the Father or the Son] saith all things are put under [the Son], it is manifest that [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under [the Son].

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto [the Son], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto [the Father] that put all things under [the Son], that God (Father and Son and Holy Ghost) may be all in all.

These verses are teaching subordinationism. The Son is subject to the Father, even at the end when all things are put under Him. "All but the Father" is the exception, which would even mean the Holy Ghost is included. The Father is not put under the Son because "...my Father is greater than I." John 14:28

Anyone else care to replace the pronouns with what the verse may have meant specifically? Let's see if it can be taken another way. I have tried it many different ways. What I have found is the word "excepted" is hard to get around.

[pam]

I'm just curious as to to who you are trying to convince with the several threads you have started on this subject? Are you trying to convince those of us who are LDS or trying to convince our Evangelican members?

If it's more the latter than the former, what's wrong with letting them believe how they wish to believe? It goes both ways.

Edited November 6, 2011 by pam

[prisonchaplain]

The question being begged is whether Jesus is a dutiful son, or whether he is something literally less than the Father. Most fathers have sons who are the same as they are. In fact, I know of no other such relationship.

[cwald]

I'm just curious as to to who you are trying to convince with the several threads you have started on this subject? Are you trying to convince those of us who are LDS are trying to convince our Evangelican members?

If it's more the latter than the former, what's wrong with letting them believe how they wish to believe? It goes both ways.

Yes. Thank you. Let all men and women believe and worship what they may - to the dictate of their own conscience.

[cwald]

Pam - thank you again. This is why I decided to visit this site. I really hope this is what my religion is all about. RESPECT. Thank you.

The last few weeks on this board have been a good thing for me, because I want to believe my religion is tolerant and respectful of the 99.7% of those who are not mormon, and I kind of see that here somewhat. Thank you all.

[Justice]

I'm just curious as to to who you are trying to convince with the several threads you have started on this subject? Are you trying to convince those of us who are LDS or trying to convince our Evangelican members?

I learned a long time ago that a successful discussion is not hinged on whether or not one side or the other changes their veiw and agrees with the other person. A discussion is successful when it breeds understanding. Having said that, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't trying to "convince" during my discussions.

As I've mentioned before, a good friend at work comes to my desk for lunch nearly every day and we read and discuss our beliefs about the Bible. He's a Trinitarian. Obviously, that's not the only topic where we interpret the Bible differently, but is the topic that most of our discussions regress to no matter where they start, most of the time at his doing. On nearly every other topic he and I discuss I can understand and relate to his belief, and see how he interprets scripture the way he does. I may not agree, but I come to see how he arrives at his understanding. This particular topic I have not been able to understand.

I have learned many things from him about how he may interpret a scripture and it helps me to understand those who believe that thing. I live in the middle of the Bible belt which is predominantly Trinitarian. We have a private Christian university where I live where you have to answer two questions on your application in order to gain employment:

1. Do you believe the Bible is the only word of God?

2. Do you believe in the Trinity?

I am the Ward Mission Leader and go out with the missionaries at least once a week and try to teach the restored gospel to those in the community. Having the perspectives I gain from my friend and on this forum is valuable to me as I try to teach others our view of the Godhead as restored through Joiseph Smith.

Nearly every first discussion starts out from only the Bible, at their request, as they will not allow outside sources because of their belief that the Bible is the only word of God. Nearly all of those first discussions migrate to the Trinity at their doing, which follows the pattern of the discussions I have with my friend. The missionaries report the same thing in MCM, that they see this as a frequent pattern (even when I am not there). I do appreciate and use this information that I gather from this forum on this topic, from both LDS and non-LDS.

If it's more the latter than the former, what's wrong with letting them believe how they wish to believe? It goes both ways.

It certainly does go both ways, and I encourage anyone with a thought as to why the Bible may teach the Trinity or any other way about the Godhead to bring it up. It may be that next topic that helps me understand.

I guess I've over-stepped my bounds on this topic. I hadn't even considered that as I have started new threads. This is the primary topic that has been on my mind. All of the discussions on the topic I've started, as well as those about this topic others have started, seem to generate a lot of discussion. So, I figured it was something people wanted to discuss. I felt I have been respectful and understanding, or I have tried to be.

I aplogize to anyone I've offended with my several topics. I only seek understanding. I certainly never meant any hard feelings. I may never have the understanding I'm after on this topic, but I don't give up easily. I guess I figured if anyone did not want to read these discussions, all they had to do was not read them.

I'm curious to know if there's a rule I've broken, or if it's just your personal opinion that I should stop discussing this? Do others feel I should stop discussing this also?

[Justice]

Pam - thank you again. This is why I decided to visit this site. I really hope this is what my religion is all about. RESPECT. Thank you.

The last few weeks on this board have been a good thing for me, because I want to believe my religion is tolerant and respectful of the 99.7% of those who are not mormon, and I kind of see that here somewhat. Thank you all.

I aplogize if I have been disrespectful. I have not tried to be. I have only tried to discuss what has been on my mind, and pertinent to me at this time.

Again, I apologize.

[Spartan117]

I aplogize if I have been disrespectful. I have not tried to be. I have only tried to discuss what has been on my mind, and pertinent to me at this time.

Again, I apologize.

I just think this subject has been dragged through many different threads (for which I am just as at fault for as anyone else here) and although I agree with your point of view, it may be at the point of agreeing to disagree. For me personally, this is a real sore subject because the Trinity is used as as justification to classify us Mormons as non-Christians. I get real worked up over that and haven't been shy about saying so. And for that I also have to apologize. But there have been more than a few threads about this already (many of which I started) and I don't think there is anything new to be gained here. That's just me though.

I feel outraged by "true Christianity" and their standards, probably just as outraged as they are when hearing about how "I know the church is true." THE church meaning mine, not theirs. If we share nothing else, we probably share the same perspective on how the word "true" gets tossed around. And this only pertains to me, this isn't a commentary on anyone else. What I personally got out of all this, is that even if I can't reconcile my beliefs with the beliefs of others, I think I may have accidentally stumbled into their shoes and walked a few miles in them.

[Justice]

I don't get worked up or outraged by any part of it. I have always had an "obession" to strive to understand things that I do not, even other's beliefs. The discussions I have had with my friend, and with people in our community, really have me wanting to understand.

In one of the threads, PC mentioned that he seems to finally understand the application of John 17 through my eyes. He said he was looking at it backwards. This was a very precious moment for me because it breeds understanding. I don't see how else to get there other than to discuss it. He disagrees with my interpretation, but we are one step closer to understanding.

All the threads together were worth this one step, in my view. My hope has been that someone will say something along the way that will help me see any part of the Trinity through their eyes.

[james12]

I admittedly only half pay attention to these threads regarding the Trinity and the infallibility of the Bible. However, I feel these posts have proven, by sheer volume of evidence, the truth of Joseph Smith's statement, "...for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."

That being said, my biggest disappointment is not those threads which start with the intent of discussing this issue, but instead the threads that have been hijacked to carry on this Trinity discussion. I've decided not to start at least one thread because I was almost sure the topic would veer into a discussion of the Trinity.

[Spartan117]

All the threads together were worth this one step, in my view. My hope has been that someone will say something along the way that will help me see any part of the Trinity through their eyes.

I had only a vague idea of what the Trinity even was before all the discussions on here. I asked PC if I could pick his brain about the idea and that lead to one of threads we had. I think I can give a solid definition of the Trinity now, but it's one of the "mysteries of faith" that isn't supposed to be fully understood. Or explained. I think that's mighty convenient. But much beyond that, I don't get it.

I at least got some of my facts straightened out. Not just about the Trinity either, I have a much clearer understanding of my own beliefs now.

"God exists as three persons but is one God."

I can't apply my knowledge and belief of the Godhead and come up with that. If you're talking about more than "One God" then no other aspect of the Trinity doctrine matters, IMHO. No other point is relevant if it isn't based around one God alone.

I understand the basic belief, I just can't figure out how they get there.