Who is God: LDS and NAE versions

[Grunt]

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Sorry, this is my non-religious historian thoughts coming through here...but not an analysis...just a thought in the moment...

This is the very similar (or the same thing depending on the sect) the Hindu religion believes in their dominant Deity.  It was a popular idea taken from Eastern Religions Westward (towards Constantinople and other regions) in the Early years AD.

Or rather, that their dominant deity known also as the Trinity, or Triumverate or the Trimurti of the Hindi religions.  Brahma is the Creator, which is probably directly correlated to that of the Christian Trinity of the Father.  Shiva on the otherhand is the destroyer, so no real parallel in the Christian trinity.  Vishnu is the intermediary, and is very much in many ways similar to the Christian trinity of the Son.  Vishnu comes to restore the balance, coming in incarnations and leaving.

A way to view Christianity is the incursion of pagan ideas into the Christian religion as it progressed.  One way to view the struggles of the 2nd through 6th centuries in regards to the role of Deity and definitions of it is that between those who felt that the three individuals of the Christian theology were separate individuals (and some Evangelical historians have sought to DESTROY history by implying that it was as struggle between divine and non-divine when that was not necessarily the case in all instances of Arianism vs. Athanasius, rather it was a difference between seeing it in a HINDU Deity deferential, verses that of seeing them as NON-consubstantial).

Prior to Constantine, the prevalent Christian thought was actually more along the line of Arianism, which is NOT how many have tried to describe it, but more the idea that The Father, and The Son were different beings.  Some sects were more like how Islam came to portray them, in that the Father was of divine substance, while the Son was NOT of this same substance, but of a different substance, that being a mortal as you and I.

HOWEVER, something that is constantly ignored by many who try to make their point is that this was NOT the only viewpoint in Arianism, and in fact, NOT the one that troubled those who followed the ideas of Athanasius.  This was more of the idea that BOTH were of a DIFFERENT DIVINITY, but NOT of the same substance.  Hence, that the Father was Divine, but the Son was also co-equal.

Some have accused Mormonism of being Arianism revived in our day (though I'd say Islam is more akin to the Arianism of that time period).  Ironically, Mormons may actually have been seen as being party to Athanasius's creed, but in a varied and smaller sect.

In this, we can say that Mormons believe that all power comes from the Father, and that the Father and the Son are one.  That all the power of the Son comes from the Father, and that the Son is literally the Son of the Father.  In this, one could even argue that Mormons believe that the Son is of the same substance of the Father in the same way that a babe is the same substance as it's mother, or created of the same stuff.

It is not as Arianism would posit, of completely DIFFERENT fiber, of completely different stuff.  For example, if we take a more Islamic approach, you have clothes made of wool, and clothes made of cotton.  These are two entirely different substances.  In this, the Father is of one, and divine, while the Son, or the Prophet rather, is made of another, or Mortal like all other men.

On the otherhand, Mormons believe that the Son is of the creation and substance of the father in creation, aka...as You have one shirt of wool made from a sheep, you can also have another entirely different shirt made from the same wool of that same sheep.  In this, the substance is not Consubstantial as many current Trinitarians believe, but it IS of the same substance, or the same make and composed of the same type of matter.  They are the Same substance, but very much individual Shirts.

In this, Mormons do not entirely believe in the Arianism that some believe they do, but it is NOT exactly the same as current Trinitarians believe either.  Trinitarians must take a similar view as the Hindu's in that their deity is comprehensible, and yet, because of the very nature, incomprehensible.  The reason is such...

We take this shirt again, but this shirt is made from the Wool of a Sheep.  This shirt is only ONE shirt, but at the same time is manifest by THREE DIFFERENT shirts.  They are three separate shirts, and yet, they are also the SAME shirt.  Hence, we can comprehend that they are one, we can comprehend that they are three, but for our limited minds, it is very hard to comprehend that all three are simply just that one shirt.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------break

I bring in the Hindu religion because we see many aspects of it in our Current Christian eschatology.  Ironically, many religious professors (as opposed to some Historians) do not study these similarities (though they will try to make arguments of WHY their religion is not similar while misunderstanding some very basic concepts in Hinduism or other pagan religions) and do not realize how much they have added to the Christian religions beyond that which is written or described in the bible.

For example, you will NOT find the trinity found anywhere in the bible.  The strongest verse in support of it, ironically is also used by the Mormons to show why the trinity must also be separate individuals (which, is actually supported by the trinity as well) which is the Baptism of our Lord.  More ironically, the strongest verses in support of the Trinity were actually spoken by Abinadi in the Book of Mosiah found in the Book of Mormon (in a way which I'd even say is almost distinctly Baptist in how it describes it, though from an LDS viewpoint it is seen to say something entirely different). 

However, it is interesting to see how this idea of the trinity eventually came forth.  Arianism was actually the more popular idea at the time of the councils, and it was only through a great deal of strife and hardship (some would say, only by a miracle held up by the hand of the Lord that the trinity was eventually upheld by the main church of the time and has now been accepted throughout the world) that the current ideas of the trinity gained prevalence in what became the Catholic/Orthodox churches. 

We can see OTHER influences of paganism on Christianity through the years, such that of Female/Mother worship, that of a Fall Festival being celebrated at the same time (aka the solstice celebrations) as that of Christian celebrations and other things.  In fact, we can see a very huge turn of Christianity to that of paganism in regards to religious practice and belief.

In this, perhaps the Baptists ideas that the only true document for authority lies in the Bible could be correct for them, and thus do away with centuries of added on ideas.  Yet, even then, many ideas that are not found in the Bible (for example, another that most of us Americans love is the holiday of Christmas.  There IS the birth of our Lord found in the New Testament, but no where is a celebration of it around Winter's Solstice to be found in the Bible) are still utilized in their belief systems.

The same could be seen in ALL Christian religions, including Mormonism.  In all of them, from a secular point of view, they mix tradition, culture, and other rituals from other sources (religions, ancestry, etc.) into their religious beliefs.  It's the grand intermixing of culture, tradition, and various tribal beliefs from the past to the present.

Of course, the question here is regarding the belief in Deity and how it is defined, rather than all these other assimilations from other religions into Christianity.

In that idea, from anyone who is NOT part of Christianity, there is actually VERY LITTLE difference between what a Trinitarian believes, and what Mormons believe.

In fact, it is probably as great as many of the Hindu sects various believes in their own Triumverate or Trimurti.  The similarties of the differences are striking.  To Christians, most couldn't or wouldn't recognize the differences between various sects of Hinduism.  To them, they all believe in the basic same principles.

In that light, whether one believes in the Trinity, in modality, or in Mormon's unique take, there is actually not much difference and from the outside looking in, it is almost literally the same belief to everyone else.  That they would make such a big deal of such a small thing difference is, in some ways, rather hilarious...

Which brings us to the point that a Hindu would probably conclude...

If the Christians are correct and the Hindu religion is not...

The Deity of the Christian religion must have a sense of humor...

(sorry, just some LOOONG thoughts from my more historical ideas rather than my religions ones in this post...might be seen as sort of irreligious from any Christian without a sense of humor though...and yes, that includes Mormons in that...).

 

Some day I’d like to have a talk with you in person.  I’d love to learn more, but you talk over my head.  

[Guest]

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

If we accept @Carborendum distinction (body vs. no body--pun not intended,)

As for the meaning of "person,"

@prisonchaplain, I'll have to apologize for my earlier wording.  It appears that my definitons do not match the quotes / paraphrasings you offered.  I don't know what distinctions/definitions were being used by the originator of those statements.  Perhaps they didn't mean any distinctions.  Yes, we all agree that the Holy Spirit is non-corporeal.

[prisonchaplain]

9 hours ago, warnerfranklin said:

I think there is a misunderstanding on your part (an observation not a criticism).  The LDS church teaches salvation and the need for it.  As well as the need for atonement.  Do we teach in hell - yes, a different sort maybe, but hell none the less.  Perhaps because my view of Hell aligns up w/ CS Lewis' view, "In the end their will only be two types of people, those who say to God thy will be done and to whom others God says thy will be done."  The Great Divorce.  I feel the LDS doctrine is similar.

I've been led to believe that LDS teaching about heaven/hell is:  "Jesus saves" all who end up in any of the three heavenly kingdoms--by his blood--his sacrifice. However, the highest kingdom is reserved for those who most openly and faithfully embraced the full revelation of the gospel, including fulfilling covenants that are part of latter-day revelation. Hell is much smaller than we traditionalists have believed--but yes there will be some who are truly wicked--especially those who have knowingly opposed God's truths. So, if some of my understanding is inaccurate or incomplete, I'm more than open to correction/fine-tuning.

 

Many churches, the Catholic Church is a good example, also expect one to be baptized when you join their denomination.  How is that any different? 

Perhaps it is not. Churches that require "denominational" baptism are usually indicating that something is deficient in the baptisms of others. Sometimes the errors are less serious, other times more, but when "re-baptism" or "true baptism" is required, it does indicate an important disagreement.

 

But PC, I think you are missing the bigger point (or perhaps I didn't make it well enough), is that as Christians, regardless of what flavor, we are all trying to serve Christ the best we can in what way we think will draw us closer to our Father.  I did not become LDS because I woke up one morning and decided that everything I believed in and cherished for four decades was wrong, because I didn't and and I don't (ask the guys I teach to in EQ about how evangelical I still tend to be and they could tell you).  CS Lewis tells us in his book Mere Christianity that disagreements between Christians of various denominations typically involve matters of church history and high theology and should only be discussed by those who are experts (which, arguably you are), and never in the presence of those outside our faith.  That such disagreements have the tendency of dissuading people outside our faith from joining any church to begin with....  

And that is my point about getting hung up on who has the "most correct" doctrine.  As an evangelical I spent more time arguing with friends who were catholic and baptist and Mormon and what have you about points of doctrine.  And you know what?  Never once did I hear from any of them that they were going to leave their church and come join me over at the assemblies of god.  What I did hear an awful lot of was our non-christian friends and associates say, "You people can't even agree amoungst yourselves what is true and what is right.  Why in the world would I listen to any of you in the first place?"  Which interestingly enough is a slight variation of an observation made by a young Joseph Smith....

Do I believe the LDS doctrine is most correct?  Mostly, from what I understand of it (which is, admittedly, limited).  But the point is, we have to get someone in the kingdom of God first before we can worry about whether or not they wound up in the "correct" place.  And if we get them into the Kingdom of God the "correct place" is sort of moot.  One of my favorite LDS scripture verses is from 2 Nephi 33:10 and it states in part:  "If you believe not in these words then believe in Christ.... "  As a Christian it is not my job to convince anyone else to join my church.  It is my job to point you to Christ.  Not to the Prophet, not to the 12 or the 70, but to Christ, the savior of our souls.  If I can do that then I feel that I have done what I was commanded to do.

Sir, I always enjoy talking with you.  I love your sense of humor and respect your perspective.  Thank you for giving me something to ponder....

God bless you and keep you!

Now it comes out. Bro. Warnerfranklin was one of me. :-)  

In any case, you've had much more theological debate than I have, apparently. I agree that it does little good to argue/contest with other denominations, and I generally find no need to do so. My best friend is a Southern Baptist minister, most of the Korean Christians I worked with during my missionary years were Presbyterian, and my first full-time job was with the Salvation Army. The Catholic priest I work with is one I agree on doctrine with more than I do many of our younger post-modern-influenced A/G ministers. Concerning morals/chastity, etc. I agree more with LDS than the vast majority of traditional Christians.  All that said, and we've discussed this here in the past, there is not one complete agreement between the 16 Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God and the 13 Articles of Faith (LDS). There is a lot of similarity, and almost-agreement, but none that is total. LDS.net is a great site because so many of the posters are well-versed in doctrine, and I want to believe C.S. Lewis would smile at most of our conversations here.

 

[zil]

4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

LDS.net

Dude, you're age is showing.

[prisonchaplain]

21 minutes ago, zil said:

Dude, you're age is showing.

At least I didn't say LDSTalk.com 

[JohnsonJones]

11 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm no expert, but a couple of different sources (one Protestant, the other Catholic) indicated that the Hindu triumverate developed AFTER the Trinity doctrine began to be formulated, and that there is little evidence that the Hindu teaching informed the Christian one.

Hinduism outdates Christiniaty by a LOOOOONG mark.  Their belief in a Trimurti also started a fair ways prior...

Though this and many other aspects that seem adopted from Hinduism into Christianity has not always sat well with many Western Religious studies (and their professors in the realm of that specific religious history...Mormons included at times with this).

[zil]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Hinduism outdates Christiniaty by a LOOOOONG mark. 

Well, ya know, unless you count Adam as a Christian (which I do).

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm going to push back at this a bit. We judge the sin, not the sinner. But, does that mean we judge the heresy and not the heretic? I'm not so sure. The Apostle Paul seemed to contend quite a bit with "the Judaizers" (who tried to force Gentiles to undergo circumcision). Further, LDS do not accept Protestant/Catholic baptism. This is proper, as our doctrines and understandings are different. However, if we take Jesus' admonition against "judging" too far, even that logical decision could be called "judging."

Personally, I'm loathe to tell anyone they are going to hell. On the other hand, when our differences in understanding who God, Jesus, and even humans are is so dramatically different, it's pretty fair to say that we don't share like precious faith. On the other hand, we all worship Father, Son, Holy Spirit--one Godhead. We all believe the Bible, and most of our spiritual heroes and heroines are the same. So...hey, we always hurt the ones we love, right? 

When you talk about the Hindu religion, how many sects do you know of?  When you talk about Islam, how many sects do you know of?   There are probably MORE sects of those religions than there are of Christianity, and yet, MOST Christians lump almost all of them together as having the same beliefs.

What may seem like major doctrinal differences to those who nitpick, in all honesty, are seen as almost hilarious nonsensical arguing due to pride and arrogance to everyone else...most typically.

When we see different sects of Muslims in their various nations fighting it out, normally we may not even understand the things they consider deep theological rifts, but to us, they believe in basically the same thing, and it is different than ours.

We like to differentiate ourselves over many minor things, but when the rest of the universe looks at us (Christianity as a whole), all they see are some very minor differences between groups of people that want to feel special and elite, rather than welcoming to all men.

We get so caught up in trying to fight over our special turf, to say that we are the only ones that are going to heaven, that we actually stop being Christian and start being heathens.  Remember that good old adage that we tell children to think about when they do their actions...What would Jesus do?

Our Lord normally condemned those that would understand his deep doctrines (that study of who he was, what his connection to the Father was, his substance and origins), all the while praising those who simply listened to his words and accepted his teachings.  He never specified that one had to believe this about him, or that about him to be saved, but rather to follow him. 

I am one of those that do NOT believe the man on the cross who the Lord said would be with him in paradise was baptized.  I think he was one of those who was a criminal and had NOT followed the Lord up to that point.  Because of this, it shapes my idea of who is saved and who is not.  In essence, the LORD is the one who judges.  He is the one who makes the final decisions.

At that point on the cross, not another soul stood up for the Lord.  This thief was the only one to rebuke the punishment being dealt to the Lord, and in essence, the Lord granted him his salvation by promise right then and there. 

I think the lesson is that we do not have to have this deep philosophical understanding that the Pharisees and Sadducees had of religion.  We must be willing to defend the Lord and take up our own cross to follow him, but we do not have to be one of those that understand every single thing about him. 

We, ourselves, need to follow his commandments, which means that we need to follow his example and be baptized and other things he did and stated.  However, when it comes to who will be saved, he has said many who called upon him will not be saved, and many who we may not expect to be saved (such as thieves who were being crucified) will be saved.

Our goal is to save ourselves, and to help as many others to be saved as possible.

In that light, do you think the Lord said...only the .01% of the world's population who are those who are part of the Evangelical Pentacostal religion will be saved...because I am only sent to them?

Or that only the .001% of the world's population that are LDS religion are those who will be saved because I am only sent to them?

I do not believe this, I believe the Lord was sent to ALL men, to atone for ALL of us, and his salvation is available to all who accept it.  We know that narrow is the way, but he already stated that HE was the way. 

You could say that in some measure, though LDS, I have that Baptist doctrine (as I'm a biblical literalist, it probably would be more the Far Right conservative Evangelical Baptist) heavily influencing my opinions on this.  The biggest obstacle to men is their own pride.  Salvation is like the staff which Moses posted when the Children of Israel were dying and all they had to do was look at it to be healed.  It is a type and shadow of the Lord's plan.  I think it can be THAT easy to go to heaven.  If we merely seek to accept the Lord, and follow him, we can go to heaven.

Why is this possible?  Because the Lord is merciful.  He is the ONLY judge, and the final judge, and he is no respecter of persons.  He loves the thief who ends up in prison just as much as the fervent church goer.  IF the thief turns their heart to the Lord and follows him...why should he not be saved?

The Lord never said one had to have a doctorate to be saved...in fact, many times he condemned those who had the equivalent of that in his time (which, as someone who is a professor of history...probably does NOT speak well of me, I probably should spend more time repenting than anything else and humbling myself).  Do we think the thief on the cross really had a deep understanding of the Lord's gospel.  If we see what most of those in that type of element at that time knew and experienced...most likely he did NOT have that knowledge.  It was probably a basic knowledge of the Lord and what he had been doing.

In regards to our different sects then, the Jews were not Christians.  For the Jews who had converted to Christianity, if memory serves right, Paul did not cast them out of the church, or say that they were going to Hell, but instead tried to correct their ideas, or at least their practices.  It may be that he did not successfully change their thoughts, but he DID change the acceptance of those.  Instead of narrowing the doctrine, he broadened it to be MORE accepting of others.  In fact, much of Paul's arguments were to broaden Christianity in it's beleifs and appeal to the Gentiles. 

When he did rebuke others and threaten to cast them out, it was not over such trivial matters as cultural differences of food, or different beliefs in what the substance of our Lord was, in fact, if anything, he broadened the narrow beliefs of the time of the Jewish Converts and adapted cultural ideas of the Gentiles into their ideology so that the Gentiles could be converted and follow the Lord.  What he DID focus his rebukes of doctrine (clarification: when he was saying  to cast someone out or condemn them on occasion) on were the commandments of the Lord in matters of morality, chastity, and honesty.  His basis of these were the commandments, and many of them dated not just from our Lord's teachings, but from the Old Testament. 

If we follow the example of the Lord, and that of Paul, we are not to discriminate between ourselves due to minor doctrinal differences that really have no effect upon our salvation, but if we do have something to help someone overcome, it is the sins that are spelled out in the bible by the Lord.  WE cannot allow ourselves to participate in these sins, and those that do suffer from them, we are to try to help them understand what these sins are and to help them overcome them.

However, when it comes to things that we consider doctrinal differences, most of these are not big enough to warrant the disagreements that we have between Mormons and Pentecostals, between Catholics and Baptists, and between any other sect of Christianity that believes in Christ and the Lord.

Do we really think that Christ wants us arguing and fighting over this stuff?  Or do you think he would rather us to be one in faith and hope?

Sorry, this went long, but I find it a terrible thing that we, who should be united as a people (Christians) spend so much time trying to prove we are the right ones and others are wrong instead of loving our neighbor as ourselves, and the Lord above all.  I think the Lord is FAR more loving than most give him credit, and he will save MANY that we may not think will be saved, and many who we may think will be saved, will not be.  The Lord looks upon the heart (and so, I guess I'm one who actually thinks that good intentions MIGHT matter), he is the judge and he loves all of us enough to have sacrificed and atoned for all of our sins.

Sometimes, rather than thinking he was sent for all men, and how exactly he will make it so that as many people as possible can be saved through his actions, we get caught up in trying to say this group will not get to heaven, or this group will, and to justify our actions rather than to love our fellowman and try to understand where they are coming from.

The Jews, the Muslims, the Hindi, the Buddhist, these all have definitive differences of belief in deity and thought than a Christian.  Instead of squabbling amongst ourselves over our meager piece of pie, perhaps we would do better uniting as all Christians to bring the gospel to them and to their nations (and having been to many of them where Christianity is NOT recognized as an official religion that can be practiced openly, I think it should be far more pressing to realize the REAL differences of religions between them and Christians and how much the Lord loves them as well, and yet they are lacking many of the fundamental beliefs that we have).

Once again, sorry, I am longwinded at times.  This is something that at times I feel passionate about, and probably am even more long winded in this than I should be.

Edited February 13, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

33 minutes ago, zil said:

Well, ya know, unless you count Adam as a Christian (which I do).

This is true.

I was talking from a historical viewpoint rather than a religious one.  From a religious one, Christianity is the original religion.

[zil]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is true.

I was talking from a historical viewpoint rather than a religious one.  From a religious one, Christianity is the original religion.

It is from a historical viewpoint too, it's just that modern historians don't yet have sufficient evidence to make a case for that.

[JohnsonJones]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

It is from a historical viewpoint too, it's just that modern historians don't yet have sufficient evidence to make a case for that.

More like...zero evidence currently...but you have a good point.

[Fether]

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

It's a great point that the issue of who God is (LDS vs. Traditional Christianity) gains urgency when it is discussed in conjunction with who we are.  Tradition says God is God and we are not and never shall be. Further, that God is eternal and nothing else is. Thus, God and Jesus having separate bodies greatly complicates things for us! If we are all of eternal substance, and have all been spiritually connected with the Godhead throughout eternity, then an LDS Godhead vs. Trinity probably becomes close to meaningless.

I think that last bit hits it on the nose. The root of the identity(s) of the god head/trinity comes back to our relationship as man with them. Are we created from nothing and a completely different species than God? Or are we of the same species and same potential? Is our purpose to God, to love and worship him? or is his purpose to us, to help us grow and become like him one day. Do we need God? Does God need us? Are we created for God, or are we created for us?

Both ideologies have answers, many of them different from other ideologies. 

Also, I find this scripture on the Book of Mormon interesting to bring up in these discussions.

Mosiah 15:1-5

”1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son--
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.”

Kind of like how in our church we have our President (President Russel M Nelson), we also have President Oaks and President Eyring in the PRESIDENCY. MAll three we refer to as “president”, though President Nelson is THE president. So we have ONE president... but also 3.

Heavenly Father is our God. Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are also God. They are a part of the GOD HEAD. We have one God... but also 3...

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Hinduism outdates Christiniaty by a LOOOOONG mark.  Their belief in a Trimurti also started a fair ways prior...

Though this and many other aspects that seem adopted from Hinduism into Christianity has not always sat well with many Western Religious studies (and their professors in the realm of that specific religious history...Mormons included at times with this).

Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, if I am not mistaken. So, two sources seemed to indicate that the Holy Trinity doctrine developed before the Hindu trinity. Given that the Hindu version of Jesus predated him by 1400 years (yes, I've done a bit more digging), I'm not sure why they said that. Rather than dig into the reasonings of those two sources, I've gone to a site that is quite nuetral and mostly fair:  http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr.htm

The article on Hinduism's similarities to Christianity, especially concerning Jesus, ultimately concludes that the two are not the same. Further, they say it is progressive (liberal) Christianity that is the most excited about the idea that Jesus may have been a myth created out of Hinduism, and other competing hero-myths of the time. Still, I would argue, largely as a matter of faith, and with some historical backing, that the Trinity doctrine has scriptural foundings, and that the process of it, like the canonization of the Bible, was guided by the Spirit. I am skeptical of arguments that the doctrine carries heavy Pagan INFLUENCE (no denying some similarities--I'm questioning sourcing).

Edited February 13, 2018 by prisonchaplain

[JohnsonJones]

11 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, if I am not mistaken. So, two sources seemed to indicate that the Holy Trinity doctrine developed before the Hindu trinity. Given that the Hindu version of Jesus predated him by 1400 years (yes, I've done a bit more digging), I'm not sure why they said that. Rather than dig into the reasonings of those two sources, I've gone to a site that is quite nuetral and mostly fair:  http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr.htm

The article on Hinduism's similarities to Christianity, especially concerning Jesus, ultimately concludes that the two are not the same. Further, they say it is progressive (liberal) Christianity that is the most excited about the idea that Jesus may have been a myth created out of Hinduism, and other competing hero-myths of the time. Still, I would argue, largely as a matter of faith, and with some historical backing, that the Trinity doctrine has scriptural foundings, and that the process of it, like the canonization of the Bible, was guided by the Spirit. I am skeptical of arguments that the doctrine carries heavy Pagan INFLUENCE (no denying some similarities--I'm questioning sourcing).

In secular matters (rather than worldly) seek secular sources.  Obviously Christian sources will typically indicate favoritism towards Christianity, and the historical origins of Christianity trouble MANY a religious professor.  Historical evidence would indicate that MANY things have entered into Christianity from pagan origins (and as historians could point out, Judaism, from which Christianity grows out of, is seen to have come from Babylonian religions as per many Historians [vs. Christian religious professors], and in some ways, one can see Christianity at first the outcome of Judeo romantic mythology in the culmination of a messiah figure, but then as it drifts farther away from it's Judaic roots, grows and adapts more of the Paganistic rituals and ideologies of the outside world. 

History pretty firmly can show that the Hindu trinity predates Christianity by quite a bit.  Something of interest is that some sects of Hinduism allow their members to also believe in other religious ideas, such as Christianity.  One of these outgrowths of Hinduism firmly follows Christianity, but with the twist of the their trinity also being the same as the Christian trinity.  The trick is, there is NO LIMIT to how many times their version can be incarnated, thus there have been multiple occasions that they have an incarnation.  In fact, in regards to Hinduism, at times there are different sects based upon different beliefs regarding what or who were incarnations and how many incarnations there may have been, are, or will be.  The similarities of the Hindu belief and Christian Trinitarian beliefs are rather obvious, and a historian would conclude that there has been a distinct influence from the Hindu religion on European religious belief and practice.

Of course, this can trouble many of those who try to correlate their own religious views with secular history, as it doesn't match what they believe.  (for example, see our discussions about Adam right above this in the thread).  In this instance, a hardcore Trinitarian would probably state that the original doctrine was Christianity, and that it was the trinity that was originally understood.  As religions and men fell into other beliefs, some strands of the true religion were kept, and hence, the idea of the trinity was still reflected in the Hindu religions, but inaccurately and incorrectly.  In their minds, then, this would justify that obviously the Christian trinity would predate the Hindu trinity, despite what the Historical record and Historical evidence presents.

My original post on this topic was NOT born from my religious mind (that was the second one I entered) but from my secular thoughts in regards to history (in some instances, I have to keep these two separate as there can be quite a bit of conflict between what I would say as a historian vs. what I would say as my own religious beliefs...most of my religious beliefs cannot be backed up by history either and at many instances directly conflict with what history shows or indicates).

Hence, it is as the world shows it, which normally takes the slant of a more what we can see and read and verify rather than what requires faith or belief in the unknown.  in regards to belief, some may feel Krishna was a predecessor or parallel to our Lord, but other Hindu ideas have it that the Lord himself was an incarnation.  Others do not believe in Christianity at all.  What we can see is that there was a direct influence of Hinduism upon the Eastern Roman Empire at the time of Constantine, and though it was not as prevalent as other ideas, it appears to be something that is written about at times in direct correlation with the rising ideas we see in relation to the idea of a Christian Trinity as well.  From a Historian's point of view (secular, rather than religious) the movement points quite pointedly, that therefore, the ideas of the Christian trinity were most likely born out of the ideas coming out of the East regarding another trinity, and that this was yet another pagan assimilation into Christianity that had been ongoing for a little while (and would continue in the future as more and more paganistic rituals and ideas came into Christianity) in the world already. 

There ARE other sources of thoughts in relation to this, as we can see that the first impact of the Hindu ideas comes not during this time period, but prior to even the coming of the Messiah to the Jews.  Some would source the ideology behind the trinity, and even the Messiah to Eastern origins predating Caesar, and in some cases, even to the Greek influence during the time of the Maccabees or beyond.

The thing to remember about secular history though, is that history does NOT have a deific view, or in otherwords, there is no Creator or Creation that is factual in secular history and such ideas are relegated more to myth than fact.  Hence, even Christianity cannot be seen as factual by secular history (though there have been many that have tried to do so, as the same with Islam and other religions).  Thus, when looking for religious origins, secular historians do NOT seek evidence that it comes from heaven or otherworldly means, but rather worldly origins.  AS secular history dates Christianity and even Judaism, when it seeks origins, it seeks it from worldly sources, rather than divine revelation.

Just something to keep in mind when I talk about the secular histories of religions vs. that of our belief or faith.  As I said, this is more a passing thought of mine, and based on secular history rather than religious faith. 

There are MANY conflicts between religious faith (and Christianity being one of them) and secular history, and many areas where what religion or religious historians may point out that secular history does not agree with.

Thus, I would say it is very possible for someone to get an answer that the Hindu Trimurti precedes that of the Christian Trinity if coming from secular history, where as getting a conflicting statement that the idea of the Holy Trinity predates the Hindu Trinity if coming from one who is stating it specifically from a Christian religious historian (which tends to be limited specifically to the West in acceptance, where as secular history is normally more broadly accepted academically).

 

[Traveler]

My opinion is that doctrine is of secondary importance.  What is important to believers is expressed by Isaiah in the three terms of Law, Ordinances and Covenants.  I assume that part of the Great Apostasy was to make “doctrine” the primary importance to the “believer” – even to the point that doctrine is the authority to “Transgress the law”, “Change the Ordinances” and “Break the Covenants”.  Doctrine and belief in “correct” doctrine, becomes the excuse to define salvation outside of the Law, Ordinances and Covenants.  Anciently, what we now define as doctrine, was used to explain the Law, Ordinances and Covenants in language and terms that could be understood in the context of culture and language. 

In addition, sacred references to divine understanding has never been intended to be “specific” and in terms that can be mitigated.  Rather, divine understanding come from “spiritual” enlightenment that by design will not be understood by the “uninitiated”.   But then; who is initiated, becomes a mitigation of doctrine rather than the fulfilment of Law, Ordinances and Covenants of G-d.

In LDS theology as expressed in the first Article of Faith – “We believe in G-d the Eternal Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”   The discussions and arguments over various terms to doctrinally define G-d, such as, persons, substance and even the meaning of “one”; is a distraction removed from salvation through divine Law, Ordinances and Covenants.

I make my living (successfully) by logically traversing the use of automation, robotics and artificial intelligence in the industrial workplace.  I work in a very empirical workplace environment.  If my logic is flawed my customers will be less competitive in their industry to those that better utilize empirical parameters at their facilities.   I have proven that I am very good at what I do – I do not say this as a statement of pride but as a matter of empirical fact.  Because I am good and making a living with logic I have come to trust my logical abilities – as has my customers.  I am capable of employing actual logic and realize that traditional religious doctrine is insufficient in resolving differences and questions that arise – especially concerning the evolution of Judo Christian doctrine from pre-historic time to our modern era.

My input to this thread is that those that think salvation is determined by belief in rhetorical doctrine – including the G-dhead will find themselves, at some point, trying to define palpably illogical notions.  In the mist of such illogical conundrums they will finally come to the conclusion that divine “things” are incomprehensible – which is the result of being spiritually uninitiated according to divine law, ordinances and covenants.  Doctrine that is incomprehensible is an abomination and a distraction leaving possible would be saints def, dumb and blind to divine law, ordinances and covenants.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

46 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world

Just one last aside...IN MY OPINION...Hinduism is not actually the OLDEST religion in the world, but it is considered the oldest one that is still currently being practiced and followed by many who study such things.

This is ANOTHER PASSING THOUGHT (secular, not religious) in relation to secular history...I suppose one could make an argument that Judeo-Christianity is the oldest religion in the world, if basing it off the idea that Judaism was born of Babylonian religion which in turn was born out of the original religions of the Indus Valley people.  In that right, it is the lineage that Judeo-Christians (and also in that light, though a different branch, Muslims) follow the original Babylonian religion leading back to the Indus Valley religions.  As it is just a thought, I don't think this idea would actually be looked upon favorably by the historians to be honest, but it is a thought I had.

[prisonchaplain]

If we only knew whether @JohnsonJones predates John Wayne. 

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

If we only knew whether @JohnsonJones predates John Wayne. 

Or the Babylonians.

[CV75]

23 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Our LDS volunteer handed me a paper that neatly summarizes some major doctrinal differences between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Christian churches. The first 13 are lifted from the Articles of Faith. I figured that I would simply put an LDS teaching down directly, then quote from the Statement of Faith at the National Association of Evangelicals official site, and let us engage in a discussion of comparisons, contrasts, thoughts about the importance of the similarities and differences, and see what mutual understanding we can re-affirm, or even build.

I'm told that that this is a paraphrase. If so, it's not mine, but comes from the paper the LDS volunteer gave me:

1. LDS:  A belief in the Godhead of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.  And that they are separate personages. We are devout Christians.

NAE:  We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Initial questions for discussion (feel free to raise more)

What is the difference between "personage" and "person"?

Why might the phrase "we are devout Christians" have been added here?

Is the discussion about Trinity vs. LDS Godhead really just semantics and straining at gnats, or is it a vitally important one related to the very doctrine of who God is, or perhaps something in between (in other words, the two teachings are more similar than different, but not the same)?

From the dictionary, a personage is "a person (often used to express their significance, importance, or elevated status)."

Synonyms: important person, VIP, luminary, celebrity, personality, name, famous name, household name, public figure, star, leading light, dignitary, notable, notability, worthy, panjandrum; person. That is how it is used in our canon.

I suggest you ask your volunteer why he used the phrase "we are devout Christians."

I understand we use the term "Godhead" differently (to mean a governing council) than other Christian denominations (to mean the divine nature possessed and by God). 

I think the difference represents a vital testament to the plan of salvation/happiness. We cannot understand God, at least as LDS, without understanding the plan, and we cannot understand the plan as taught by the LDS without this understanding of God. Just to mention a couple: the literal Father-Son relationship; the literal bodily nature of the Father and the Son (they have an immortal spirit and an eternal, elemental body); the estate of spirit held by the Holy Spirit.

I think the similarity represents a vital testament of the Spirit  of Christ that is given to every man (Moroni 7:16-17), and is vital to coming to a fuller and correct understanding of God and how to worship Him.

[prisonchaplain]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I suggest you ask your volunteer why he used the phrase "we are devout Christians."

Simple--straight forward--great idea. He said the document was paraphrased, but I was pretty certain that part about being devout Christians was not in the original Articles of Faith, at all.  So, yeah...I'll ask him and report back. 

[Traveler]

I want to emphases again a point I made in my previous post on this thread.  There is a human tendency to overemphasize doctrine.  I believe this is the core of contention between Jesus and the Pharisees.   That the Pharisees just could not get it in their skull that “Doctrine” and belief in “Correct Doctrine” is not the divine purpose and destiny of mankind.  Perhaps I can emphasize this doctrine that doctrine is not so important with a life experience.

I have stated before that my work and profession has taken me to many distant places in this world.  I try to learn from those imbedded in different cultures.  In my travels I worked with a most interesting engineer from a faraway place (one parent was from Germany and the other from India).  I encountered him in Asia.  He was an accomplished and honored engineer but he was also a devout Buddhist and a lay monk – He was also fluent in many languages – I would guess at least 12 – he spoke better English than most English-speaking individual I know even though he had a slight “British” accent.   I am convinced that devout Buddhist are more open to new ideas (both religious and scientific) than any other religion.

I spent a great deal of time with this engineer both in work and personally learning about Buddhism.  I spent time learning the art of meditating – I also met with his Zen master.  I must say that as a High Priest of Melchizedek I have never encountered more open and delightful clergy of other religions than these Buddhists.  We spent many hours discussing varied topics in politics, science and religion.  Of course, we discussed the divine Plan of Salvation and the divine destiny of mankind.  I pointed out my understanding of the importance of Christ, overcoming sin and the resurrection.  A side note here – my Buddhist friends are very open (prepared) to the idea of a pre-existence – more so than any other religion or philosophy I have ever encountered.   The had difficulty with the idea (doctrine) of a Messiah that pays for our sins.  Other than that, they are in complete agreement with the teachings of Jesus.

As I discussed the doctrine of the Messiah with him he was concerned that our Christian G-d would reject Buddhists from heaven.  Buddhism is not an exclusive religion of similar stripe – especially compared to most all “Christian” sects.  I am aware that there are factions of Buddhism just as there are sects of Christianity.  But as a whole I find Buddhists more open to opposing sects of any religion.  I also find Buddhists more charitable.  Unlike any other religion in history as Buddhism spread to new cultures, peoples and languages they brought peace rather than war.  For example, when Buddhism came to China – China was in a period of devastating war – both internally and externally.  Buddhism brought peace and unity.  I have my personal theories and opinions as to why but that is another discussion.

Jesus taught that his disciples are distinguished by their love of one another.  He said, “By this shall you know my disciples, if they have loved one another”.   I told my Buddhist friend that he is more the disciple of Christ than the vast majority; especially of those I have encountered that claim to be devout Christian by doctrine.  Very few Christians believe that loving others is the great single most important evidence someone is a disciple of Christ – like the Pharisees, they demand that their doctrine and their understanding of doctrine be the actual measure.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 12:52 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, if I am not mistaken.   .....

 

I believe Zoroastrianism is older – at least (according to my research and understanding) there are archeological artifacts related to Zoroastrianism that are older than there are artifacts specific to Hinduism.  I have met a follower of Zoroaster but I would point out that Zoroaster is an ancient prophet not unlike Jesus.  I personally believe that the wise men (Maji) that came in search of Christ were directly connected to the religion we now identify as Zoroastrianism.   Maji is the Zoroastrianism term for Priest.

 

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

From the many conversations on Trinity vs. Godhead on this board, I'm of the opinion that the principle difference between Mormons and Creedal Christians is not to be found in defining the relationship of the Persons among each other, but in the relationship of God to man. 

[wenglund]

10 hours ago, mordorbund said:

From the many conversations on Trinity vs. Godhead on this board, I'm of the opinion that the principle difference between Mormons and Creedal Christians is not to be found in defining the relationship of the Persons among each other, but in the relationship of God to man. 

Without disagreeing, I think another principle difference, which I hinted at in my previous post,  is in the respective beliefs about the material form/formlessness of the three persons or personages, which difference also informs the way each respectively define the relationship of God to man, particularity as it relates to the creation of man "in their image and likeness," if not also the ultimate destiny of man as God may desire it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 16, 2018 by wenglund

[e v e]

On 2/12/2018 at 6:57 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Our LDS volunteer handed me a paper that neatly summarizes some major doctrinal differences between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Christian churches. The first 13 are lifted from the Articles of Faith. I figured that I would simply put an LDS teaching down directly, then quote from the Statement of Faith at the National Association of Evangelicals official site, and let us engage in a discussion of comparisons, contrasts, thoughts about the importance of the similarities and differences, and see what mutual understanding we can re-affirm, or even build.

I'm told that that this is a paraphrase. If so, it's not mine, but comes from the paper the LDS volunteer gave me:

1. LDS:  A belief in the Godhead of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.  And that they are separate personages. We are devout Christians.

NAE:  We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Initial questions for discussion (feel free to raise more)

What is the difference between "personage" and "person"?

Why might the phrase "we are devout Christians" have been added here?

Is the discussion about Trinity vs. LDS Godhead really just semantics and straining at gnats, or is it a vitally important one related to the very doctrine of who God is, or perhaps something in between (in other words, the two teachings are more similar than different, but not the same)?

 

I don’t care for the obsession since centuries ago of fighting to insist on the roman version of trinity, which was based on an already platonic view. He and His Spirit and the Son are separate persons. They share the same nature. That nature is eden nature. They are of one house. 

Adam (representing all of us, was elohim in eden. Of the nature of His father. Just as each 144k sons will be. And adam restored to. 

It’s a non point, (since medieval times) to fight over trinity versus not... all a created concocted war by medievals to insist we are creatures. His souls were not created as creatures, but are His gorgeous sons and daughters, who are elohim and to be deities in eden again. Actually. Does this mean God is not God? No, not even slightly. 

The creature situation is related to this fallen earth and these bodies = sin nature. Flesh. This physical cosmos = the flesh realm of the fallen angels ruled by the prince of the air. 

Yes, because of the fall His souls are in a miserable condition of being in an ape body instead of the true eden body . Yes, being here is helplessness. But that is not His desire and He will bring to Him all His sons and daughters. 

Edited February 23, 2020 by e v e