The "oneness" Of The Father And Son

[Snow]

Another question:

How important is it to you that one would understand the specific doctrine of the Trinity? In other words, if a man is a humble and devout believer in Christ, but cannot decide whether he believes the Trinity or otherwise, is it necessary that he come to a conclusion before meeting the LORD? Is it OK for him to say: 'Whether they be one or three, I know not, but I intend to be faithful and obedient and when I arrive in His Presence I shall know.'?

If one believes that the Bible and only the Bible constitute the canoical word of God, it couildn't be too important since no where in the Bible is there any explicit reference to the Trinity. If God thought man should know about, He would have said so.

[AnthonyB]

PC: Is the boundary between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals diminishing? TD Jakes seems to be claimed by both sides, I've seen Oneness people claim him and his books certainly appear in staunch trinitarian bookshops.

To the LDS posters: Do you believe in pre-incarnational appearences of Jesus? (eg Is the main figure who talked with Abraham at his tent Jesus? ) Could the Father have manifested (awful word but I can't think of another) in a body as Jesus had before his incarnation? Why does having a "spiritual body" mean that you can't have a ominpresent spirit? (Especially if you think of spirit as being other dimensional, ie not forced to comply with rules of our dimensions.)

[Traveler]

PC: Is the boundary between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals diminishing? TD Jakes seems to be claimed by both sides, I've seen Oneness people claim him and his books certainly appear in staunch trinitarian bookshops.

To the LDS posters: Do you believe in pre-incarnational appearences of Jesus? (eg Is the main figure who talked with Abraham at his tent Jesus? ) Could the Father have manifested (awful word but I can't think of another) in a body as Jesus had before his incarnation? Why does having a "spiritual body" mean that you can't have a ominpresent spirit? (Especially if you think of spirit as being other dimensional, ie not forced to comply with rules of our dimensions.)

The LDS concept is that since the Fall of man (Adam) Jesus (the person regardless of in whose name he acted - including the name of the Father) is the only G-d that in truth mediates the eternal blessings of heaven for all man. There is no other person thing or G-d to mediate for man. If any man since the Fall could deal directly with any other G-d other than Jesus then Jesus (and scripture) was not telling the truth that he, Jesus, is the one and only mediator.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

<div class='quotemain'>

PC: Is the boundary between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals diminishing? TD Jakes seems to be claimed by both sides, I've seen Oneness people claim him and his books certainly appear in staunch trinitarian bookshops.

To the LDS posters: Do you believe in pre-incarnational appearences of Jesus? (eg Is the main figure who talked with Abraham at his tent Jesus? ) Could the Father have manifested (awful word but I can't think of another) in a body as Jesus had before his incarnation? Why does having a "spiritual body" mean that you can't have a ominpresent spirit? (Especially if you think of spirit as being other dimensional, ie not forced to comply with rules of our dimensions.)

The LDS concept is that since the Fall of man (Adam) Jesus (the person regardless of in whose name he acted - including the name of the Father) is the only G-d that in truth mediates the eternal blessings of heaven for all man. There is no other person thing or G-d to mediate for man. If any man since the Fall could deal directly with any other G-d other than Jesus then Jesus (and scripture) was not telling the truth that he, Jesus, is the one and only mediator.

The Traveler

what?

[a-train]

To the LDS posters: Do you believe in pre-incarnational appearences of Jesus? (eg Is the main figure who talked with Abraham at his tent Jesus? ) Could the Father have manifested (awful word but I can't think of another) in a body as Jesus had before his incarnation? Why does having a "spiritual body" mean that you can't have a ominpresent spirit? (Especially if you think of spirit as being other dimensional, ie not forced to comply with rules of our dimensions.)

Mormons believe that Jesus was God and appeared to the ancient patriarchs and spoke to them before his birth in Bethlehem. Precisely, YES, Jesus spoke with Abraham.

If you are asking whether it is possible for the Father to appear with only a spirit body and not a physical, the answer would be yes. But as you should know, the LDS believe the Father DOES possess also a body of flesh and bone.

The LDS position that the Father has a spirit body and a physical body should not limit one's understanding to any idea that He does NOT possess also an omnipresent spirit or influence. In other words, in as simple terms as I can describe, the LDS people perceive the Father to be a physically existant, living, corporeal Being, who possesses all knowledge and can see all things past, present, and future. He can influence and speak to any of us at any time in any place by the power of the spirit without need of the physical appearance of His Person. He likewise can witness all that takes place without need of coming here. In this regard we say He is omniscient, and His Spirit is omnipresent.

I hope I am in the ballpark of what you are asking.

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Another question:

How important is it to you that one would understand the specific doctrine of the Trinity? In other words, if a man is a humble and devout believer in Christ, but cannot decide whether he believes the Trinity or otherwise, is it necessary that he come to a conclusion before meeting the LORD? Is it OK for him to say: 'Whether they be one or three, I know not, but I intend to be faithful and obedient and when I arrive in His Presence I shall know.'?

If you had asked me this question five years ago, my answer would have been cut & dry: Non-Trinitarians are not Christians. If you don't know who God is, then you obviously cannot worship Him.

However, in the past five years I've come across Oneness believers who, in nearly every way mirror my own beliefs. On this one doctrine--granted the doctrine of who God is--we differ. So, we'll discuss such issues as much as our relationship allows, and leave the judgment to God. On the other hand, understanding God is important, and we can't both be right.

I've said as much concerning LDS theology. IMHO the "three working together as one" is not accurate. Since the doctrine is about who God is, it is important. However, how God will judge that is something I gratefully leave into His hands.

Having said that, neither believers in modalism, nor those who believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate in their essence could be members of my church. Likewise, I could not retain my trinitarism and join in good fellowship with the UPC, nor the COJCOLDS.

Also, If it is possible that the Trinity may by Three distinct Persons having distinct consiousnesses, could the Person of the Father possess a body as also the Son? You said this would be nonsensical, but why is it so?

-a-train

The vision of the Father and the Son in bodily proximity to one another is a polytheistic vision, imho. You have 3 in 3 working together in unity? There's no tri-unity in that. Corporate unity, perhaps. But, you seem stuck with three gods.

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you PC for your comments. You state, with much conviction that heretics living among us should not be burned at the stake. You recognize that even the idea of harsh treatment based of religious doctrine is somewhat foreign to Christ. I am glad that you say that publicly - and I agree. But what I am asking is - when in history did this thought seem to take hold in traditional Christian societies - in practice?

When? 0 - 300 AD, and then again throughout history whenever and wherever Christianity has not been an official state religion, or THE dominant religious power.

Jesus turned the world of his day upside down with his concept of the Samaritans. To the Jews there were no worse heretics than the Samaritans and when asked who was a neighbor to the Jews he give the now famous parable of the Good Samaritan or dare I say the kind heretic?

True enough. However, do note that Jesus corrected the woman's heresy during his conversation with her. He was more concerned with offering her that cup of living water. However, when she pressed her heresy on him--he rejected it.

Jesus never suggested that we accept the doctrinal deviations of the Samaritans but that we should allow them to live among us and to even care for them as we do those of our own faith during their hour of need. I really believe that Jesus was trying to teach us that we are closer to the “oneness” of G-d when we behave as did the good Samaritan (heretic) than we may think we are by forcing (even correct) doctrine down the throats of the unbelievers.

Sure. Jesus did not bring up doctrine--the woman did. So, he neither addressed it, nor shyed away from it when the issue arose. And, imho, whenever one ministers to "heretics," if they are hungry for God, eventually there will be that difficult conversation about truth.

I was once told by a Muslim that I could live very happy and comfortable in a truly Islamic society with my religious beliefs. So I asked him if there was such a Islamic society where I could go and live today. He said he knew of none.

I responded that in my travels I had found a few places – and interestingly enough those few places are societies of the very poor. I spoke in another thread of blessings. Of all that I have ever known of wealth only my father I knew to be happy – and he lived as though he was poor.

The Traveler

You repeat my notion that it is when we get full and powerful that our righteousness becomes arrogant, and sometimes even ungodly. "Sometimes we can be so right that we're wrong."

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

Thank you PC for your comments. You state, with much conviction that heretics living among us should not be burned at the stake. You recognize that even the idea of harsh treatment based of religious doctrine is somewhat foreign to Christ. I am glad that you say that publicly - and I agree. But what I am asking is - when in history did this thought seem to take hold in traditional Christian societies - in practice?

When? 0 - 300 AD, and then again throughout history whenever and wherever Christianity has not been an official state religion, or THE dominant religious power.

Jesus turned the world of his day upside down with his concept of the Samaritans. To the Jews there were no worse heretics than the Samaritans and when asked who was a neighbor to the Jews he give the now famous parable of the Good Samaritan or dare I say the kind heretic?

True enough. However, do note that Jesus corrected the woman's heresy during his conversation with her. He was more concerned with offering her that cup of living water. However, when she pressed her heresy on him--he rejected it.

Jesus never suggested that we accept the doctrinal deviations of the Samaritans but that we should allow them to live among us and to even care for them as we do those of our own faith during their hour of need. I really believe that Jesus was trying to teach us that we are closer to the “oneness” of G-d when we behave as did the good Samaritan (heretic) than we may think we are by forcing (even correct) doctrine down the throats of the unbelievers.

Sure. Jesus did not bring up doctrine--the woman did. So, he neither addressed it, nor shyed away from it when the issue arose. And, imho, whenever one ministers to "heretics," if they are hungry for God, eventually there will be that difficult conversation about truth.

I was once told by a Muslim that I could live very happy and comfortable in a truly Islamic society with my religious beliefs. So I asked him if there was such a Islamic society where I could go and live today. He said he knew of none.

I responded that in my travels I had found a few places – and interestingly enough those few places are societies of the very poor. I spoke in another thread of blessings. Of all that I have ever known of wealth only my father I knew to be happy – and he lived as though he was poor.

The Traveler

You repeat my notion that it is when we get full and powerful that our righteousness becomes arrogant, and sometimes even ungodly. "Sometimes we can be so right that we're wrong."

I just thought that you ought to know that during this same time that you speak there were Buddhist in India and China that were sheltering and protecting Christians as well as New Testament Scriptures. Wherever they had power they brought tolerance and peace across the face of many religions. About 300 to 400 AD some Buddhist monks hid Christian scripture among their own sacred writings in a place now called the cave of the thousand Buddha’s. Many gave their lives to this effort.

It is very important to note that throughout history there are a number of religions that have acted with tolerance and peace towards other faiths even when they were in power. For example the Lucayans that opened their society to Christians – but when the Christians were unable to convert them (with no effort to record or preserve the religion of the Lucayans) the Christians unleashed genocide. Nothing is left but pieces and fragments of a lost and destroyed society.

In contrast it was the Trinitarian Christians of that period you speak of, that destroyed the greatest store of human knowledge known to them in the library at Alexandria which contained not only the sacred writings of other faiths but sacred writings of their own.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I could be wrong. Perhaps. But I do not believe so. My guess is that any religion that has: A. A missionary drive (winning souls), and B. Power - will act rather aggressively toward "false religions." To my knowledge, there is no command with Buddhism to win converts. Likewise Lucayan spirituality.

Would LDS have acted similarly? I cannot prove it, but I believe so. Our cultural and philosophical backgrounds are similar, and we share that sense that we have found the ultimate spiritual truth--and that God would have us convert others to it.

The people of faith who succeed in balancing the love of Christ with the missionary drive, and who are able to wield great political and economic power with justice and mercy would indeed do much to further the kingdom of God. So, perhaps our lesson is to learn from the past mistakes of Christians, and to do better.

[Traveler]

I could be wrong. Perhaps. But I do not believe so. My guess is that any religion that has: A. A missionary drive (winning souls), and B. Power - will act rather aggressively toward "false religions." To my knowledge, there is no command with Buddhism to win converts. Likewise Lucayan spirituality.

Would LDS have acted similarly? I cannot prove it, but I believe so. Our cultural and philosophical backgrounds are similar, and we share that sense that we have found the ultimate spiritual truth--and that God would have us convert others to it.

The people of faith who succeed in balancing the love of Christ with the missionary drive, and who are able to wield great political and economic power with justice and mercy would indeed do much to further the kingdom of God. So, perhaps our lesson is to learn from the past mistakes of Christians, and to do better.

I thank you PC for your kindness and efforts. I regret that much of my posting in this thread looks like criticism. It truth it is my lament; as much of myself as it is a history of Christianity.

Over the years I have found that much of my effort to pass on what I thought was my superior understanding of religious things has ended up the rubbing off from others I thought less of at the time. It is not so much that I want to obtain something for my self as it has come to my understanding that G-d loves everyone. Even the heretic and other lost sheep.

During the last night that Jesus spent with his apostles he indicated that one would betray him. And how did his apostles respond? I could imagine that John leaned over to Peter and said, “I’ll bet he is talking about Judas – he sure has had some strange ideas about things lately” But what did happen is that John looked to Christ and in all sincerity asked, “L-rd is it I?”

And how do Christians behave today? When we read scriptures about who will be caught up to meet Christ at his coming and who will miss the call? I see most Christians (myself included) thinking it must be the Jehovah Witnesses or the Catholics or somebody else that will miss the call – I am too fearful to ask as did the apostles, “L-rd is it I”. For fear that he just might answer. But do not we all need to open more to “the more excellent way”?

The Traveler

[Gaia]

Jesus turned the world of his day upside down with his concept of the Samaritans. To the Jews there were no worse heretics than the Samaritans and when asked who was a neighbor to the Jews he give the now famous parable of the Good Samaritan or dare I say the kind heretic?

Jesus never suggested that we accept the doctrinal deviations of the Samaritans but that we should allow them to live among us and to even care for them as we do those of our own faith during their hour of need. I really believe that Jesus was trying to teach us that we are closer to the “oneness” of G-d when we behave as did the good Samaritan (heretic) than we may think we are by forcing (even correct) doctrine down the throats of the unbelievers.

GAIA:

I'm so glad you raised the Samaritans as an example, Traveler.

It strikes me fascinating that Jesus would use as an example of righteousness, a member of a group of people so reviled, and considered so "unclean", that a good Jew was obliged to avoid them completely --

I think since we're told to "Liken the scriptures unto ourselves" (1 Ne. 19:23) -- a good way to (at least begin to) really get the full message that Jesus was trying to communicate, is to imagine the very same parable, but instead of a "Good Samaritan" as the hero of the story, it would be a "Good Homosexual", a "Good Pagan" -- or hey, maybe even a "Good Adam-God believer"

I'm always just a bit uncomfortable whenever someone suggests taking it unto ourselves to consider "punishing" those whom we think are "wrong". It seems to ignore the fact that we "see through a glass darkly" and imperfectly, and our perceptions are completely influenced by our flawed, human mortality, and whatever personal weaknesses, ignorance, or limitations we might have......

I think it much more consistent with the teachings of Jesus -- and much safer -- if we're going to be "on the lookout" for ANYBODY's errors, flaws, failings, etc -- it should be OUR OWN rather than anybody else's.

That is most especially true (not to mention, consistent with LDS principles) if we have no Priesthood stewardship over them. To do anything else seems to lack faith in God's ability to handle things -- even "heretics" -- in His own way and time.

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Snow]

I think it much more consistent with the teachings of Jesus -- and much safer -- if we're going to be "on the lookout" for ANYBODY's errors, flaws, failings, etc -- it should be OUR OWN rather than anybody else's.

That is most especially true (not to mention, consistent with LDS principles) if we have no Priesthood stewardship over them. To do anything else seems to lack faith in God's ability to handle things -- even "heretics" -- in His own way and time.

Blessings --

~Gaia

It would certainly make some people's jobs easier if we all took the position... "hey, if someone is preaching false doctrine and trying to convert others to their misguides views, it's not my business. I'll remain silent... best to keep my head down," but that would be the cowards way out.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

I think it much more consistent with the teachings of Jesus -- and much safer -- if we're going to be "on the lookout" for ANYBODY's errors, flaws, failings, etc -- it should be OUR OWN rather than anybody else's.

That is most especially true (not to mention, consistent with LDS principles) if we have no Priesthood stewardship over them. To do anything else seems to lack faith in God's ability to handle things -- even "heretics" -- in His own way and time.

Blessings --

~Gaia

It would certainly make some people's jobs easier if we all took the position... "hey, if someone is preaching false doctrine and trying to convert others to their misguides views, it's not my business. I'll remain silent... best to keep my head down," but that would be the cowards way out.

Sometimes what a person does is so loud I can't hear a word they say. Before we get off track the parabel of the Good Samaritan is about honoring and giving glory to G-d by our actions and deeds and not by what is identified as our religion.

Come on Snow - We LDS are should at least act like we will "allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

The Traveler

[rupert63]

I guess I've been inactive too long. Back when I was converted to the truth, 1976 Nashville Third Ward, there was God the Creator of Heaven and earth. There was the Lord God Jesus Christ the builder of the physical earth. There was the Holy Spirit the overseer of creation, both spiritual and physical, and in that capacity, is the messenger between the spiritual and physical. It has always kind of flown in the face of "Alpha and Omega", but I still believe in what I was taught back then. As God was, we are, as He is we may become. In other words, as I am with my physical body, God was. Basic principle of progression. But, if the pre-requisite of being God is to be Alpha and Omega, how could I possibly become as He is? Are there three separate beings? Dunno, but Jesus said, "Pray ye after this manner, Our Father", and on other scripture Jesus stated as to how He was sent of His Father. I would think if He were one and the same, He could just as easily said, "Pray to me, or I decided to send myself, or My will be done instead of Thy will be done". So for me and mine, God got a body, Jesus got a body, all (actually two thirds) Gods' children gettin a body. Holy Spirit don't got a body. If it were so, Holy Body would fit better.

[john doe]

<div class='quotemain'>

[

It would certainly make some people's jobs easier if we all took the position... "hey, if someone is preaching false doctrine and trying to convert others to their misguides views, it's not my business. I'll remain silent... best to keep my head down," but that would be the cowards way out.

Sometimes what a person does is so loud I can't hear a word they say. Before we get off track the parabel of the Good Samaritan is about honoring and giving glory to G-d by our actions and deeds and not by what is identified as our religion.

Come on Snow - We LDS are should at least act like we will "allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

The Traveler

Yes, but when someone comes in the guise of being LDS and claims a concept is doctrinal to LDS when it is not, they need to be corrected. And when that same person insists on pushing the issue, and uses cut-and-pastes from anti-LDS sources as backup, it needs to be pointed out even more forcefully that they are teaching falsehood. I agree, all people have the right to their beliefs. I have a few pet beliefs of my own that might possibly be true, but to claim them as doctrinal to the LDS church when they are not would be wrong. If I were to bring them up, I would point out that they are my own personal beliefs, not to be taken as LDS doctrine. Gaia is free to believe what she believes, but she shouldn't be claiming that what she has brought up lately is official LDS doctrine when they are not.

[Snow]

Come on Snow - We LDS are should at least act like we will "allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

The Traveler

Ah - but I do. Let them worship according to the dictates of their own conscious and more power to them.

What I am talking about is preaching false doctrine as if it really were/was doctrine and claiming, wrongly, what we Mormons believe. They can believe anything they want. Bully for them. But they can't tell us untruths about our (we in the Church) beliefs and get a free pass from me.

Yes, but when someone comes in the guise of being LDS and claims a concept is doctrinal to LDS when it is not, they need to be corrected. And when that same person insists on pushing the issue, and uses cut-and-pastes from anti-LDS sources as backup, it needs to be pointed out even more forcefully that they are teaching falsehood. I agree, all people have the right to their beliefs. I have a few pet beliefs of my own that might possibly be true, but to claim them as doctrinal to the LDS church when they are not would be wrong. If I were to bring them up, I would point out that they are my own personal beliefs, not to be taken as LDS doctrine. Gaia is free to believe what she believes, but she shouldn't be claiming that what she has brought up lately is official LDS doctrine when they are not.

So true - that I should take credit for saying it. :)

[snipe123]

I found this great intergrative essay, written circa March 1995, by one known here as PC. In it I rediscovered a Council of Nicea that was indeed influenced politically by Constantine. However, it was also riddled with regional strife, with competition between religious leaders, and, of course, with serious doctrinal and theological debate. I concluded then as I do now that God worked through fallen humanity, and ordained the winners. Romans 13 commands us to obey government authorities, saying they are ordained by God. Paul had in mind, not Bush, not H. Clinton or Romney, but an occupation Roman empire--one with paganism as an official state religion! If God could ordain that, he could use Constantine and contentious bishops, cardinals and theologians.

Hey PC,

I think the problem I have with the notion that God used fallen humanity and ordained the winners at Nicea, is that Nicea was not the final word on this issue...particularly the use of the word Homousius...Succeeding sinods fought over this issue, rejected it, then embraced it, then excused etc...If you read the words of the people involved (particularly Constantine)you will note that none of them claimed any kind of divine inspiration for hammering out these doctrines...They never stated that they inquired diligently at the feet of The Lord for revelation...They basically say we have debated and worked very hard at coming to the same opinions...and Constantine urged them to sign the statements of doctrine (creeds)etc...those who didn't, were banished...nevermind the fact that those decisions "...created a trecherous unity in the false name of peace..." to qoute Arius. They defined the doctrines of the church in commitee and by compromise, as though these doctrines had not already been given to begin with by Christ and the Apostles...Mormons see the synods as a symptom of apostasy...If the doctrine was revealed by Christ and the Apostles themselves, why did they need to make these investigations and introduce such concepts or words(homousius) not previously taught or found in the scripture?...To quote Hugh Nibley: "Did God change his nature so that he needed new terms to describe it?" The answer is no of course...They did it so that they could appeal to, accept, (what was previously accepted on faith) or justfy their beliefs in their Pagan (Greek philisophically trained) minds, and their pagan critics...

Hugh Nibley's book: The World and the Prophets has an entire chapter on this subject, but the whole book in general discusses the influence and change that effected the church as established by Christ and the apostles brought on by Pagan philosophers who had converted to christianity only after they had succeeded in Hellenising it...

[Gaia]

Yes, but when someone comes in the guise of being LDS and claims a concept is doctrinal to LDS when it is not, they need to be corrected. And when that same person insists on pushing the issue, and uses cut-and-pastes from anti-LDS sources as backup, it needs to be pointed out even more forcefully that they are teaching falsehood. I agree, all people have the right to their beliefs. I have a few pet beliefs of my own that might possibly be true, but to claim them as doctrinal to the LDS church when they are not would be wrong. If I were to bring them up, I would point out that they are my own personal beliefs, not to be taken as LDS doctrine. Gaia is free to believe what she believes, but she shouldn't be claiming that what she has brought up lately is official LDS doctrine when they are not.

GAIA:

Hello JohnDoe --

I hope you will be honest and fair enough to actually go back and read what i actually wrote, instead of just accepting a second-hand report.

First of all, i NEVER said that the A-G doctrine "is official LDS doctrine"; rather, i said that Brigham Young certainly taught that it was -- called it "scripture" and "revelation", and for a time -- 0ver twenty-five years -- it was certainly treated that way -- people were called up for High Council trials for DISbeleiving it ---

but i have never implied that it is currently offiicial church doctrine; in fact i stated just the opposiite.

Secondly, i don't use "anti-LDS" sources; I neither beleive in doing so, nor need to -- I have a copy of the GospeLink 2001" program (see http://gospelink.com/ ) which has all the scriptures, periodicals and most LDS books on CD Rom.

Here's where you can read what i actually said, for yourself:

http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10005

Posts #1 and #12.

Blessings --

~Gaia

What I am talking about is preaching false doctrine as if it really were/was doctrine and claiming, wrongly, what we Mormons believe. They can believe anything they want. Bully for them. But they can't tell us untruths about our (we in the Church) beliefs and get a free pass from me.

<div class='quotemain'>

Yes, but when someone comes in the guise of being LDS and claims a concept is doctrinal to LDS when it is not, they need to be corrected. And when that same person insists on pushing the issue, and uses cut-and-pastes from anti-LDS sources as backup, it needs to be pointed out even more forcefully that they are teaching falsehood. I agree, all people have the right to their beliefs. I have a few pet beliefs of my own that might possibly be true, but to claim them as doctrinal to the LDS church when they are not would be wrong. If I were to bring them up, I would point out that they are my own personal beliefs, not to be taken as LDS doctrine. Gaia is free to believe what she believes, but she shouldn't be claiming that what she has brought up lately is official LDS doctrine when they are not.

So true - that I should take credit for saying it. :)

GAIA:

LOL -- That's about the most (unintentionally) funny/ ironic statement i've seen,

in a very long time --

[Snow]

Secondly, i don't use "anti-LDS" sources; I neither beleive in doing so, nor need to -- I have a copy of the GospeLink 2001" program (see http://gospelink.com/ ) which has all the scriptures, periodicals and most LDS books on CD Rom.

Hmmm - I think that if I have a few spare minutes tonight, I will prove that is a dishonest comment.... of course you could always go back and edit your posts before I get to them... fair waring.

[DarthOpto]

The best way that this can be explained is the example of a family.

The mother and father are two distinct individuals, however their purpose that of raising their children in righteousness makes them one.

In the same way the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are three separate individuals. The Father has a body of flesh and bone. The Son has a body of flesh and bone. The Holy Ghost is a spirit so that he can best communicate with our spirits. They are three separate beings yet one in purpose. That purpose is and also their glory is to "...to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39).

This question was answered finally in the Sacred Grove when Joseph Smith Jr. inquired of God which of all the churches was true, and received in response a vision of the Father and the Son.

[prisonchaplain]

Hey PC,

I think the problem I have with the notion that God used fallen humanity and ordained the winners at Nicea, is that Nicea was not the final word on this issue...particularly the use of the word Homousius...Succeeding sinods fought over this issue, rejected it, then embraced it, then excused etc...If you read the words of the people involved (particularly Constantine)you will note that none of them claimed any kind of divine inspiration for hammering out these doctrines...They never stated that they inquired diligently at the feet of The Lord for revelation...They basically say we have debated and worked very hard at coming to the same opinions...and Constantine urged them to sign the statements of doctrine (creeds)etc...those who didn't, were banished...nevermind the fact that those decisions "...created a trecherous unity in the false name of peace..." to qoute Arius. They defined the doctrines of the church in commitee and by compromise, as though these doctrines had not already been given to begin with by Christ and the Apostles...Mormons see the synods as a symptom of apostasy...If the doctrine was revealed by Christ and the Apostles themselves, why did they need to make these investigations and introduce such concepts or words(homousius) not previously taught or found in the scripture?...To quote Hugh Nibley: "Did God change his nature so that he needed new terms to describe it?" The answer is no of course...They did it so that they could appeal to, accept, (what was previously accepted on faith) or justfy their beliefs in their Pagan (Greek philisophically trained) minds, and their pagan critics...

Hugh Nibley's book: The World and the Prophets has an entire chapter on this subject, but the whole book in general discusses the influence and change that effected the church as established by Christ and the apostles brought on by Pagan philosophers who had converted to christianity only after they had succeeded in Hellenising it...

Our difference in view comes from many angles. Was the church apostate in the 300s? If not, what you consider "Hellenization" I would call missional. The Church explicated the faith in terms the people (Greeks) could understand. BTW, using non-biblical words to describe biblical teachings is hardly new, nor wrong.

As an aside, did you really mean to use Arius (the loser, and a heretic, by LDS standards) in defense of your anti-trinitarian perspective?

As for the Council participants not claiming inspiration--I'm not sure people talked in those terms then. Quite often, the prophet is recognized by what he says, not by the authority s/he claims.

Also, the Church always uses pressure to bring heretics in line. Every year our clergy sign off on their allegiance to our Statement of Fundamental Truths. Also, your church has a court system for assisting those proclaiming non-LDS beliefs within the ranks. Such discipline is biblical and necessary.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

Secondly, i don't use "anti-LDS" sources; I neither beleive in doing so, nor need to -- I have a copy of the GospeLink 2001" program (see http://gospelink.com/ ) which has all the scriptures, periodicals and most LDS books on CD Rom.

Hmmm - I think that if I have a few spare minutes tonight, I will prove that is a dishonest comment.... of course you could always go back and edit your posts before I get to them... fair waring.

Whoops. Too late:

http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?ac...t=0#entry162375 (post #5)

[Old Tex]

what?

Since the fall of Adam, only one individual, God the Son/Jehovah/Christ, has delt with fallen man, because He is the only Redeemer that has been designated for this earth, and the only one whereby man may be saved from the fall and receive exaltation. He is the "one God" of the Old Testament and the "Savior" of the new Testament and the figurative "Father" of those who accept His Atonement.

[Traveler]

Our difference in view comes from many angles. Was the church apostate in the 300s? If not, what you consider "Hellenization" I would call missional. The Church explicated the faith in terms the people (Greeks) could understand. BTW, using non-biblical words to describe biblical teachings is hardly new, nor wrong.

As an aside, did you really mean to use Arius (the loser, and a heretic, by LDS standards) in defense of your anti-trinitarian perspective?

As for the Council participants not claiming inspiration--I'm not sure people talked in those terms then. Quite often, the prophet is recognized by what he says, not by the authority s/he claims.

Also, the Church always uses pressure to bring heretics in line. Every year our clergy sign off on their allegiance to our Statement of Fundamental Truths. Also, your church has a court system for assisting those proclaiming non-LDS beliefs within the ranks. Such discipline is biblical and necessary.

As you know, I do not like to post what others believe. However, there is one argument concerning the Trinity that came out in the early history of Christianity long before LDS thought is to be considered. That is what is called the “Nestorian Heresy”. This has to do with the two natures of the Christ. One nature being the G-dly or the divine the other nature, the nature of mortal man. Many EV express this as Jesus being totally G-d and totally man. The heresy comes from this concept and the scriptures and the question and following answers as teachings – How is Mary the mother of our L-rd?

I would challenge any Trinitarian to answer this question. Commit their “inspired” answer as the spirit speaks to them in writing. Then and only then, after they have made witness to what the spirit speaks to them, turn to the ancient records and find out what teachings were considered heresy. This way you will know if the Church during the time of the Trinitarian Creed was teaching heresy or if you are today teaching yourself heresy or if you really in agreement with those that laid the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

I am sorry if this comes across in a manner that looks like criticism but it does concern me.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Same argument would apply to all of us Traveler. Where do you fall on your beliefs and "heresy" using the same standard?