What's Up With The Trinity

[bluestapleshurt]

Hey guys! I'm a student at Biola University that is part of an on-campus group called EMI (Evangelical-Mormon Interaction). We love talking to Mormons about the Bible and what we believe in! We take trips to Utah frequently and have dialogues with students at universities like BYU - Provo, BYU - Idaho, and Utah State.

 

We get a lot of questions about what we believe as evangelical Christians (not members of the LDS church) and why that makes sense to us. My friend recently wrote a great article about why the trinity makes sense to us and I want to engage with you guys about how you understand Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

 

Check out the article HERE.

 

Hope to be hearing from you guys!!

[Calm]

And you might be interested in this I came across today:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/01/banned-in-utah-my-suppressed-newspaper-column.html

[Gohan]

I was actually one of the students that dialogued with you all at BYU-Idaho. It was a great experience, I enjoyed discussing things with you guys.

[Logan Alexander]

Calmoriah,

 

I just read that post. It was helpful because it reminds me of what I need to talk about in my final post on correcting certain misconceptions LDS have about the doctrine of the trinity. This writer mentions the "nicene trinity," which is misleading because the doctrine of the trinity was not even touched upon at the council of Nicaea. Even Daniel Peterson from the Maxwell Institute article misconceives this! Thanks for posting that, as it was helpful in reminding me what I should discuss. 

 

And Jedi Knight, who did you dialogue with?!

 

Blessings to all.

 

Logan

[halconero]

Welcome blue! We're a pretty diverse group here, and you'll find that Mormons, Exmormons, Orthodox, Catholics, Evangelicals, and even Lucifereans (all of which post here) are welcome to join in respectful dialogue. Sometimes the debates get heated, but generally they're all very respectful.

 

I'm a student at the University of Toronto, and a partial focus of my degree is on Early Christianity, its social context, and writings. It's somewhat of a passion of mine. I'd love to hear your perspective. With regards to the Trinity, I believe it to be a post-biblical development not found at the time of the apostles, nor in the Old Testament. The early Old Testament is filled with a monolatrist view of divinity, with the terms El Elyon (The Highest God), and El Elah (God of gods) being frequently applied to deity. Given the archaeological evidence surrounding the text and given a literal reading of the literature (we have no reason not to read it literally) it is evident that ancient Israel believed in the existence of a multitude of gods, yet only believed that El, or Yahweh, was to be worshiped.

 

Furthermore, the Trinity is not clearly spelled out in any place in the New Testament. The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8 in the KJV) is a much later edition popularized by Erasmus' translation of the Bible. Trinitarian doctrine, which demands a strict monotheism, is contradicted by Paul's belief in two deities, God in Heaven and Lucifer. He refers to the latter as the god of this world, and despite modern explanations explaining this away as hyperbole, the Greco-Roman context of Paul's authorship demands that we recognize that the apostle believed and instructed that Satan was a cosmic, evil deity with great power over the world. This is not to say that Paul preached polytheism, or the worship of multiple gods. He himself held views bordering on monolatry. This is further compounded by his instructions to the Saints to refrain from teaching the existence of multiple gods. He is not concerned with the actual existence of such deities, whether they were on earth or in heaven, his concern was that by preaching such that the weaker of the saints would cease worshiping the God of Israel.

 

Other verses that may be interpreted as Trinitarian have equally non-Trinitarian view points as well. I don't actually think that the notion that the development of Trinitarian doctrine as being post-biblical should be offensive to orthodox (little 'o') Christians. If apostolic succession is valid as is taught in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and other traditions, or even if the Low-church Protestant notion of the "priesthood of believers" is valid, then by all rights the Bishops and early Church fathers had the apostolic authority to develop and formulate the doctrine of the Trinity. It is on this point that I believe the argument should focus, the authority of believers to formulate the doctrine. Then the argument becomes one of universal apostasy, restoration, priesthood, canon, and revelation. As it stands, the Old Testament is clearly monolartist, and the New Testament ambiguous.

[Logan Alexander]

Halconero,

 

I'm glad that this can be a place for civil discussion - sometimes I find that challenging views in the LDS community (no matter how respectful and civil) can be considered persecution and thus rejected.

 

In regards to your statement regarding the Old Testament, I find it hard to support a henotheistic (what you call monalatristic) view of the OT unless you support the JEDP hypothesis and argue that monotheism was the Deuteronomist's interpolation or invention (which is still very difficult to argue). But with the LDS 8th article of faith, the support of the supposed Elohist view of diety/dieties over against the supposed Deuteronomistic monotheism seems untenable: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly . . ." Unfortunately I spoke to the director of the largest institute in the world and he used the JEDP hypothesis as a way to deny Deuteronomistic monotheism. Without the JEDP hypothesis, statements in Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and Jeremiah are very explicit on the non-existence of other gods. This comes up most clearly in the major prophets because part of their polemic against idolatry is that the idols they sacrifice to do not exist. Where I believe you are getting mixed up is when the prophets attack idolatry, they speak of the "gods" that the people are worshipping. In that sense it is language of condescension in order to address a particular situation (much like anthropomorphisms). Yet the ultimate attack on idolatry is when the prophets pull this language out and argue for the existence of only one true god. In order to save space I will quote yet one passage:

 

This is what the Lord says, Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord 

Almighty: "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no 

god [el]. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay 

out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, 

and what is yet to come. Yes, let him foretell what will come. Do not 

tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? 

You are my witnesses. Is there any god [el] besides me? No, there is no other 

Rock; I know not one." (Isa 44:6-

 

This seems to rule out henotheism within the boundaries of the Old Testament. It does not just say "worship one god" but that there is no other god in existence besides YHWH. This is clearly not meant to be subjectively specific to Israel. Although there are indeed titles such as "god of gods" and "the Highest god" they must be not only in their full scriptural context, but also in their semantical context. Unfortunately, where most people stray on this issue is on a misunderstanding of "elohim." "Elohim" is not a name for YHWH, it is a title. "El" can be easily applied to other spiritual beings. We may compare "King of kings" and "Lord of lords" to the use of "god of gods." Given that it is a flexible term, it by no means indicates that there are other gods/lords/kings on par with Adonai at all. 

 

A brief hermeneutical note, saying that you read scripture "literally" sometimes can be a nondescript powerplay that doesn't often move discussion forward. See especially Vern Poythress' critique of dispensational "literal" hermeneutics in his book Understanding Dispensationalists. (Free E-book: http://www.frame-poythress.org/ebooks/understanding-dispensationalists/).

 

In regards to Paul, the articular and semantic nuances of ὁ θεός (ho theos, god) must be understood (much like the OT use of אֶלֹהִים). The greek article is almost like a demonstrative pronoun ("the god" means "that particular god"). Furthermore, ὁ θεός, as the septuagint translation for elohim/el, is used also as a flexible term and not a name. If you click on bluestapleshurt's link, you can see a short exegesis of the most pertinent statement to this in Paul. He writes 

 

"We know that there are no idols in the world and that 'there is no god except one.' For although there may be so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth - as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords' -  yet for us there is one God . . ." (1 Corinthians 8:4-6, my translation).

 

The reason I chose to use my translation is that the same word for "world" in "god of this world" is used in "there are no idols in the world." Again, if we think of a word like "master" that can be equally applied to god and other beings, it makes sense. For example: "there are many so-called masters, but actually there is one master." The problem is, again, that instead of understanding the wide lexical range of ὁ θεός, you collapse Paul's distinct monotheistic - and sometimes theologically polemical - tone in many passages, thereby washing down Paul's ontological category for God. Again, it seems to twist the NT evidence to argue that Paul believed in other gods that could be on the same level as Adonai, but encouraged the worship of one. For Paul, there is the worship of one is because there is only one in a unique ontological category of his own. 

 

On this issue especially se N.T. Wright "Wisdom, Christology, and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8" in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. I'm sure his massive magnum opus Paul and the Faithfulness of God has great stuff in there, but I have yet to get into it.

 

LDS often bring up passages like the Johannine comma, without also acknowledging that this passage was included nowhere in any discussion of the trinity in the early church (especially since it was an extremely late interpolation - way later than any large-scale discussions like the Council of Constantinople). As a side note, although I do believe in the priesthood of all believers (it couldn't get more explicit that 1 Peter 2:9: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession . . .") I don't think this is implying same sort of authority that you are imagining. I still relate the discussion to scripture.

 

To say that "Other verses that may be interpreted as Trinitarian have equally non-Trinitarian view points as well" is a bit of an overstatement. Even the most liberal readers of scripture agree that at least something like a trinitarian doctrine is happening in Paul, the gospel writers, and catholic epistles, even if they don't want to use the word "trinity." See, for example, a couple of explicit statements in 1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:1, Mark 2:7, and Philippians 2:9-11. There are countless more I could name, but I want to make it possible to actually look them all up.

 

 

Grace and Peace

 

Logan

[Gohan]

Logan, I actually was at the table with the same person that started this thread. Not sure if I should say IRL names or not.

[followerofemmanuel]

Just disregard my post... i saw another thread on the Trinity and it sounds like it has come up a lot already.  I'll just read other threads and continue my own research.

Edited July 4, 2014 by followerofemmanuel

[aaron0005]

First, I have read a lot of stuff that makes clear the doctrine of the trinity was a central concern at the council of Nicaea. I can't remember everything but I am sure of this. You had bishops from all over taking a side on this issue. Most initially were for what formed into the widely accepted doctrine of the trinity. Constantine also played a role in pressuring the bishops and in the end only a handful voted against his stance-suspicious.

 

This is more than 200 hundred years after the apostles and we know that even in their day doctrines and wolves were entering into the flock. So it seems disingenuous when Christians act like for one reason or another that doctrine could not have been twisted. It's actually pretty clear it was.

 

Rather than rely to heavily on that and quoting scripture I would like to make some points based largely on logic.

 

No where in the Bible does it make crystal clear that there are no other Gods other than the Godhead. This is the very best Christians can come up with:

 

"Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:

For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me."

"These scriptures in Isaiah clearly are meant to assert the supremacy, authority, and superiority of Yahweh not only over false idols but over all else, including real gods.

The passages in Isaiah cannot be called upon to disprove LDS beliefs in separate divine beings in the Godhead or theosis. Their main point is to encourage Israel to stop worshiping other divine beings or idols but to worship Yahweh alone (see Isaiah 41:29, Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 43:10,12,24, Isaiah 44:8,9,10,17,19, Isaiah 45:9,12,16,20,22.

Any other use of these passages distorts Isaiah's meaning and intent."

 

Courtesy of fair:  http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/%22No_God_beside_me%22

 

Putting that aside one does not have to think hard that ancient Israel lived in a world of paganism and idol worship. A world that some Israelites often became enchanted with. A world that was all to often an obstacle to Israelites and a threat. I think of Moses leading them out of a pagan nation of false gods. This was ingrained in the minds of Israelites. And yet notwithstanding these mighty nations and false Gods, their God had led them out with miracles and power.

 

All the nations surrounding them were worshiping false Gods. Even Abraham's father was lead away much earlier. So it is in this context that the emphasis of one true God came, even though the book of Genesis has plural Gods "in our image." This was the mindset of Gods people. All other Gods was false and only the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob was true. The very same God that worked with Adam, Enoch and lead Noah during the time of the flood.

 

I would also point out that NOWHERE does it say God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ are one entity. It only says they are one.

As His mortal ministry drew to a close, knowing “that his hour was come” (John 13:1), Jesus gathered His Apostles in an upper room in Jerusalem. Following their supper and after He had washed their feet and taught them, Jesus offered a sublime Intercessory Prayer on behalf of these Apostles and all who would believe in Him. He supplicated the Father in these words:

 

 

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

“I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” (John 17:20–23).

How glorious it is to contemplate that we have been invited into that perfect unity that exists with the Father and the Son. How can this happen?

 

 

 

Clearly, He is not saying we are one with Christ and the Father literally. He is saying by aligning our wills and by the power of the Holy Ghost we may be one with them

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that Jesus Christ is NOT the Father. He prayed to the Father. He looked to the Father. He was literally seed of the Father. Jesus Christ is not the Father and the Bible simply does not support this Nicene doctrine. For it was in Nicaea that this doctrine became official and later reaffirmed at Constantinople.

My next point would be if Christ is not the Father (and He is not) than is Jesus Christ a God and what is a God. Of course Mormons believe He is and that the Father is THEE God and the Holy Ghost is a separate personage which is also a God. Therefor on that point alone (we are in good company and have scripture on our side) we believe in more than one God and so should Christians.

 

Its crazy how we are getting caught up on ONE word that could NEVER do the Godhood justice. God is a word. It is a title and we should be careful in how we use these sacred and even powerful words. Yes, to an extent they are greatly descriptive, but can also be used to mislead, intentionally or not.

 

Terms like monotheistic and polytheistic often limit the conversation and throw people off. All they are is words and people hold to them like crazy. Mormons are monotheistic in the same way Israelites were and Jesus and His apostles. We believe in only ONE GOD OF THIS WORLD AND WORSHIP ONLY THAT GODHEAD. ALL OTHER GODS OF THIS WORLD are false, but we are also polytheistic because we believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate Gods and that there are other Gods besides besides them. Its not surprising people lack the ability to honestly and deeply think. It's all perspective, understanding and context.

 

We also believe that we to may become a God in some way. Never to usurp the Father or the Son (nor will the Son usurp the Father) but like Christ, we are to go through this phase, lived before this phase, die, go to a spirit prison as Peter mentions clearly or go a paradise Jesus mentioned to the thief (clearly not the same heaven the Father resides in where after Christ resurrected He said "touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father," later like Jesus and because of Jesus to resurrect and potentially become Gods, like our Father and Elder Brother by whose blood and atonement all mankind will be saved in some degree of heaven, regardless of character or actions, but that the highest salvation (so high I'm aware of no other religion teaching it to this extent, except ancient Christianity, as has been made clear in writings of Christian leaders in the 2nd, 3rd and 4rth century)  is reserved for those who love God.

 

I would also point out that most Christians I talk to do not even seem to know what they believe nor where Christian belief comes from. Catholicism was the order of the day for a long time and Protestantism grew out of that and we know Catholicism was apostate. When I ask what is it, do you believe Jesus was praying to Himself and that the Son was the Father, they hesitate and end up concluding with me that Jesus Christ is not the Father because not only does the Holy Bible not support it but actually overwhelming supports Jesus Christ being the Son of the Father and that they are separate entities.

[followerofemmanuel]

First, I have read a lot of stuff that makes clear the doctrine of the trinity was a central concern at the council of Nicaea. I can't remember everything but I am sure of this. You had bishops from all over taking a side on this issue. Most initially were for what formed into the widely accepted doctrine of the trinity. Constantine also played a role in pressuring the bishops and in the end only a handful voted against his stance-suspicious.

 

This is more than 200 hundred years after the apostles and we know that even in their day doctrines and wolves were entering into the flock. So it seems disingenuous when Christians act like for one reason or another that doctrine could not have been twisted. It's actually pretty clear it was.

 

Rather than rely to heavily on that and quoting scripture I would like to make some points based largely on logic.

 

No where in the Bible does it make crystal clear that there are no other Gods other than the Godhead. This is the very best Christians can come up with:

 

"Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:

For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me."

"These scriptures in Isaiah clearly are meant to assert the supremacy, authority, and superiority of Yahweh not only over false idols but over all else, including real gods.

The passages in Isaiah cannot be called upon to disprove LDS beliefs in separate divine beings in the Godhead or theosis. Their main point is to encourage Israel to stop worshiping other divine beings or idols but to worship Yahweh alone (see Isaiah 41:29, Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 43:10,12,24, Isaiah 44:8,9,10,17,19, Isaiah 45:9,12,16,20,22.

Any other use of these passages distorts Isaiah's meaning and intent."

 

Courtesy of fair:  http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/%22No_God_beside_me%22

 

Putting that aside one does not have to think hard that ancient Israel lived in a world of paganism and idol worship. A world that some Israelites often became enchanted with. A world that was all to often an obstacle to Israelites and a threat. I think of Moses leading them out of a pagan nation of false gods. This was ingrained in the minds of Israelites. And yet notwithstanding these mighty nations and false Gods, their God had led them out with miracles and power.

 

All the nations surrounding them were worshiping false Gods. Even Abraham's father was lead away much earlier. So it is in this context that the emphasis of one true God came, even though the book of Genesis has plural Gods "in our image." This was the mindset of Gods people. All other Gods was false and only the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob was true. The very same God that worked with Adam, Enoch and lead Noah during the time of the flood.

 

I would also point out that NOWHERE does it say God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ are one entity. It only says they are one.

As His mortal ministry drew to a close, knowing “that his hour was come” (John 13:1), Jesus gathered His Apostles in an upper room in Jerusalem. Following their supper and after He had washed their feet and taught them, Jesus offered a sublime Intercessory Prayer on behalf of these Apostles and all who would believe in Him. He supplicated the Father in these words:

 

 

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

“I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” (John 17:20–23).

How glorious it is to contemplate that we have been invited into that perfect unity that exists with the Father and the Son. How can this happen?

 

 

 

Clearly, He is not saying we are one with Christ and the Father literally. He is saying by aligning our wills and by the power of the Holy Ghost we may be one with them

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that Jesus Christ is NOT the Father. He prayed to the Father. He looked to the Father. He was literally seed of the Father. Jesus Christ is not the Father and the Bible simply does not support this Nicene doctrine. For it was in Nicaea that this doctrine became official and later reaffirmed at Constantinople.

My next point would be if Christ is not the Father (and He is not) than is Jesus Christ a God and what is a God. Of course Mormons believe He is and that the Father is THEE God and the Holy Ghost is a separate personage which is also a God. Therefor on that point alone (we are in good company and have scripture on our side) we believe in more than one God and so should Christians.

 

Its crazy how we are getting caught up on ONE word that could NEVER do the Godhood justice. God is a word. It is a title and we should be careful in how we use these sacred and even powerful words. Yes, to an extent they are greatly descriptive, but can also be used to mislead, intentionally or not.

 

Terms like monotheistic and polytheistic often limit the conversation and throw people off. All they are is words and people hold to them like crazy. Mormons are monotheistic in the same way Israelites were and Jesus and His apostles. We believe in only ONE GOD OF THIS WORLD AND WORSHIP ONLY THAT GODHEAD. ALL OTHER GODS OF THIS WORLD are false, but we are also polytheistic because we believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate Gods and that there are other Gods besides besides them. Its not surprising people lack the ability to honestly and deeply think. It's all perspective, understanding and context.

 

We also believe that we to may become a God in some way. Never to usurp the Father or the Son (nor will the Son usurp the Father) but like Christ, we are to go through this phase, lived before this phase, die, go to a spirit prison as Peter mentions clearly or go a paradise Jesus mentioned to the thief (clearly not the same heaven the Father resides in where after Christ resurrected He said "touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father," later like Jesus and because of Jesus to resurrect and potentially become Gods, like our Father and Elder Brother by whose blood and atonement all mankind will be saved in some degree of heaven, regardless of character or actions, but that the highest salvation (so high I'm aware of no other religion teaching it to this extent, except ancient Christianity, as has been made clear in writings of Christian leaders in the 2nd, 3rd and 4rth century)  is reserved for those who love God.

 

I would also point out that most Christians I talk to do not even seem to know what they believe nor where Christian belief comes from. Catholicism was the order of the day for a long time and Protestantism grew out of that and we know Catholicism was apostate. When I ask what is it, do you believe Jesus was praying to Himself and that the Son was the Father, they hesitate and end up concluding with me that Jesus Christ is not the Father because not only does the Holy Bible not support it but actually overwhelming supports Jesus Christ being the Son of the Father and that they are separate entities.

helpful..thanks!

[aaron0005]

I would just add that many doctrines and things changed over time and I'm not talking about true doctrine being twisted. I'm talking about true doctrine being expanded upon or doctrines not very talked about to later be commonly referenced, such as Satan's not existing in the Old Testament.

Though there is vague reference to him as the "serpent" in the Adam and Eve story and Isaiah's commentary on the son of the morning, the fallen angel

 

I must say with all due respect that it is puzzling how people take that verse from Peter and put meaning in it that is clearly not there. It is quite a stretch!

 

“Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”

 

How could anyone possibly think Peter somehow meant anything other than those priesthood holders who had  been ordained by the laying on of hands by those who had this authority.

 

From Christ, (and more keys brought by Elijah and Moses) his apostles, the seventies as mentioned in the book of Acts, the bishops, teachers, etc. He was not talking about southern Baptist, Presbyterians, Methodist, Jehovahs Witness, Catholics Russian Orthodox,  Constantine or the Roman Catholic church, etc.

 

I would just add and I would be glad to go over this later, that the book of Hebrews in so many verses makes clear the priesthood of Melchizedek was restored in Jesus day, some of those keys restored by Elijah and Moses.  

 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

 

The Melchizedek priesthood and the patriarchal order clearly was the higher one and existed before Abraham and before Israel. It was taken when Moses was translated and there God instituted left the lesser (Aaronic) to the bloodline of Aaron. This makes clear the necessity of priesthood authority.

 

 Hebrew 5

 

"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

 

Clearly, just because you believe in Jesus Christ does not mean you hold the priesthood. This with all due respect is quite blasphemous.

[aaron0005]

Yet many doctrines were twisted and lost! CLEARLY!!!!

[Calm]

aaron, please use the quote function so we can understand what you are referring to...

 

And this is social where people are supposed to be able to share their own beliefs without being to they are going to hell, apostate, not Christian, etc. so you might want to rein back on accusations unless this thread gets switched to the main forum, otherwise the thread will be shut down or you will be kicked off the thread at least if the mods are typical in their reaction.  

[aaron0005]

aaron, please use the quote function so we can understand what you are referring to...

 

And this is social where people are supposed to be able to share their own beliefs without being to they are going to hell, apostate, not Christian, etc. so you might want to rein back on accusations unless this thread gets switched to the main forum, otherwise the thread will be shut down or you will be kicked off the thread at least if the mods are typical in their reaction.  

Calmoriah,

 

I surely can try to be more tactful in my comments, but I would hope if ever I come here and follow a good topic and input my own comments I would be allowed to state my beliefs and make a strong case for them. I actually think I have been decent. If you do not think so then I would ask you and anyone else to go read what I had to say carefully.

 

I surely have been straight forward, but has anyone anywheer made any to feel like they are going to hell? I don't know this site very well (though it says Mormon discussions) and I don't know if your Mormon, but what I do know is my own religious are FAR more compassionate than that. I do not believe if your not Mormon, Christian, or even if your an adulterer your gong to hell forever, as some people do.

 

Not to be disrespectful but that is an overreaction if I have ever seen one! If that is indictative of this entire site (I'm not saying it is) than you won't see me on here.

 

I'd also point out that if my very words above were used in person in a respectful debate in my cheery and passionate way, it would not be taken in the way that you did. Just someone who believes strongly and wants clarity and not distortion to rule the day. I don't think I've ever seen an overeaction like that honestly. I'm trying to think of one and I cannot.

 

If this is indictative of this site and I as a Mormon am not allowed to post my views let me know! Perhaps there is a little throwing the Mormon under the bus for the sake of trying to convey something to Non-Mormons?

 

I'd be happy for you to show which of my lines and paragraphs were out of line.

[aaron0005]

aaron, please use the quote function so we can understand what you are referring to...

 

And this is social where people are supposed to be able to share their own beliefs without being to they are going to hell, apostate, not Christian, etc. so you might want to rein back on accusations unless this thread gets switched to the main forum, otherwise the thread will be shut down or you will be kicked off the thread at least if the mods are typical in their reaction.  

I guess you would not have liked my thoughts about everything evolving OW or John Dehlin if being honest and straightforward is not allowed around here.

[aaron0005]

"Clearly, just because you believe in Jesus Christ does not mean you hold the priesthood. This with all due respect is quite blasphemous."

 

This statement by the way was not a Mormon verse Non Mormon kind of thing. I could have been more tactful in my language, but it is based on scripture, history and logic. I believe it is quite a serious error for people to tout this verse from Peter in an attempt to reverse the claims of Mormons. So while that is in my head I would make that point to anyone. To believe you hold priesthood power from heaven based on scripture that does not indicate such is soemthing I think should pointed out.

 

My mentioning other churches was simply the fact that Peter was not talking to them. As a matter of fact I don't think he was talking directly to Mormons, though I believe the apostasy/restoration take care of that. This is solely in relation to the priesthod.

 

I belieev there are many who profess Christ within Mormonism who like David will not enter exaltation and people who are now Baptist and who may remain so who will be exalted. There are many good things that people of other faiths have, that often Mormons do not and they certainly have truth.

 

I know this as my brother is Muslim. Most my family is Catholic! And I've been in the LDS community long enough to know they have no monopoly on goodness or truth and actually are often wrong on interpretaions or traditional beliefs that rise almost to the level of doctrine-all blacks having been fence sitters, priesthood leaders have the gift of discernment (I have rarely seen this), and so many other things, that often many amazing people from other faiths I've known show a much greater understanding on.

 

I feel very strong about many things. One of those is helping Mormons to see when they are being self rightous as we all know they can be or those from other faiths or within Mormonism who distort important doctrines, intentionally or not. Such should be called out. My guess is you don't like Dan Peterson much. I don't think strongly pointing something out is UnChrustlike. I am a very Christlike person and in the end, that is all that matters. If this were the case than Jesus Himself was UnChristlike!

[Calm]

 

I'd be happy for you to show which of my lines and paragraphs were out of line.

Again this is Social Hall and not the main forum of the board, if you want to debate and challenge what others believe rather than only state your own beliefs, you need to do that there.  This forum, this part of the board…not all the board, but only in here, no debate is allowed.  I am just warning you that the mods may either shut down the thread given the blasphemous comment that you yourself were able to pick out as possibly problematic or kick you off of it.  It wouldn't stop you from posting in the main forum and when you reach 25 posts you can start your own thread in there.

[Garden Girl]

I guess you would not have liked my thoughts about everything evolving OW or John Dehlin if being honest and straightforward is not allowed around here.

Hello aaron0005...

I found your post very clear and straightforward... however, you've become defensive for nothing... you simply are posting this expression of your views in the wrong forum... as Calmoriah explained... So actually, IMO Logan's post doesn't belong in this forum either because his views have invited your response... this is the Social Forum and no debate is allowed here.  So when a person expresses their views here in Social that lead others to want to challenge them and/or express differing understanding or interpretation, it becomes debate... 

In fact IMO this whole thread should not be in this forum because the title, "What's Up With The Trinity" invites various opinions and interpretations that would rightly be discussed in the Gen Disc forum...

And make no mistake about it aaron0005, we certainly do welcome and expect honesty and being straightforward "around here."

 

GG 

Edited July 5, 2014 by Garden Girl

[Gohan]

I believe this thread was started in the Social Hall forum because they are new posters and cannot yet start threads in General Discussions. I think that this has the potential to be a good thread, if it doesn't get derailed as many have in recent days. 

 

Would the mods be up for moving this to General Discussions?

[Garden Girl]

I believe this thread was started in the Social Hall forum because they are new posters and cannot yet start threads in General Discussions. I think that this has the potential to be a good thread, if it doesn't get derailed as many have in recent days. 

 

Would the mods be up for moving this to General Discussions?

Hello Gohan...

Yes, I'm sure that's the case... however, they should also avail themselves of the Board Rules/Guidelines and they would know that Social is not for debate, and they should just wait until they have the required number of posts to be able to start topics in Gen Disc.  This is not the  first time this has happened... new posters get impatient... but they can participate in Gen Disc until they are eligible to start a thread.

 

GG

[saemo]

First, I have read a lot of stuff that makes clear the doctrine of the trinity was a central concern at the council of Nicaea. I can't remember everything but I am sure of this. You had bishops from all over taking a side on this issue. Most initially were for what formed into the widely accepted doctrine of the trinity. Constantine also played a role in pressuring the bishops and in the end only a handful voted against his stance-suspicious.

Hello:

"bishops from all over"? Really? They didn't debate the doctrine of the trinity, or formulate it.

What did Constantine pressure the bishops to do?

Constantine was an Arian, and supported Arius.

This is more than 200 hundred years after the apostles and we know that even in their day doctrines and wolves were entering into the flock. So it seems disingenuous when Christians act like for one reason or another that doctrine could not have been twisted. It's actually pretty clear it was.

Considering there are billions of Christians, do you think we see it as pretty clear? I see the opposite, a faith protected from corruption.

Rather than rely to heavily on that and quoting scripture I would like to make some points based largely on logic.

No where in the Bible does it make crystal clear that there are no other Gods other than the Godhead. This is the very best Christians can come up with:

Catholic and Orthodox, are not sola scriptura.

I would also point out that NOWHERE does it say God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ are one entity.

And that isn't Christian doctrine either.

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that Jesus Christ is NOT the Father. He prayed to the Father. He looked to the Father. He was literally seed of the Father. Jesus Christ is not the Father and the Bible simply does not support this Nicene doctrine. For it was in Nicaea that this doctrine became official and later reaffirmed at Constantinople.

Right, Trinitarian doctrine is very specific that Jesus is not the Father. LDS raise this straw man so often I must believe someone is teaching it out of a manual!

My next point would be if Christ is not the Father (and He is not) than is Jesus Christ a God and what is a God. Of course Mormons believe He is and that the Father is THEE God and the Holy Ghost is a separate personage which is also a God. Therefor on that point alone (we are in good company and have scripture on our side) we believe in more than one God and so should Christians.

I don't think so!

Its crazy how we are getting caught up on ONE word that could NEVER do the Godhood justice. God is a word. It is a title and we should be careful in how we use these sacred and even powerful words. Yes, to an extent they are greatly descriptive, but can also be used to mislead, intentionally or not.

Well that is the crux of it, isn't it, this one word. No Christian would ever say or believe that God is a title! So, you have that.

Terms like monotheistic and polytheistic often limit the conversation and throw people off. All they are is words and people hold to them like crazy. Mormons are monotheistic in the same way Israelites were and Jesus and His apostles. We believe in only ONE GOD OF THIS WORLD AND WORSHIP ONLY THAT GODHEAD. ALL OTHER GODS OF THIS WORLD are false, but we are also polytheistic because we believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate Gods and that there are other Gods besides besides them. Its not surprising people lack the ability to honestly and deeply think. It's all perspective, understanding and context.

Sorry, only Mormons thinks this.

I would also point out that most Christians I talk to do not even seem to know what they believe nor where Christian belief comes from. Catholicism was the order of the day for a long time and Protestantism grew out of that and we know Catholicism was apostate.

Do we?

When I ask what is it, do you believe Jesus was praying to Himself and that the Son was the Father, they hesitate and end up concluding with me that Jesus Christ is not the Father because not only does the Holy Bible not support it but actually overwhelming supports Jesus Christ being the Son of the Father and that they are separate entities.

That is because no one believes that Jesus was praying to himself. That is your idea of a false God, which has nothing to do with the God of Christianity. Edited July 5, 2014 by saemo

[Logan Alexander]

First, I have read a lot of stuff that makes clear the doctrine of the trinity was a central concern at the council of Nicaea. I can't remember everything but I am sure of this. You had bishops from all over taking a side on this issue. Most initially were for what formed into the widely accepted doctrine of the trinity. Constantine also played a role in pressuring the bishops and in the end only a handful voted against his stance-suspicious.

 

This is more than 200 hundred years after the apostles and we know that even in their day doctrines and wolves were entering into the flock. So it seems disingenuous when Christians act like for one reason or another that doctrine could not have been twisted. It's actually pretty clear it was.

 

Rather than rely to heavily on that and quoting scripture I would like to make some points based largely on logic.

 

No where in the Bible does it make crystal clear that there are no other Gods other than the Godhead. This is the very best Christians can come up with:

 

"Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:

For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me."

"These scriptures in Isaiah clearly are meant to assert the supremacy, authority, and superiority of Yahweh not only over false idols but over all else, including real gods.

The passages in Isaiah cannot be called upon to disprove LDS beliefs in separate divine beings in the Godhead or theosis. Their main point is to encourage Israel to stop worshiping other divine beings or idols but to worship Yahweh alone (see Isaiah 41:29, Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 43:10,12,24, Isaiah 44:8,9,10,17,19, Isaiah 45:9,12,16,20,22.

Any other use of these passages distorts Isaiah's meaning and intent."

 

Courtesy of fair:  http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/%22No_God_beside_me%22

 

Putting that aside one does not have to think hard that ancient Israel lived in a world of paganism and idol worship. A world that some Israelites often became enchanted with. A world that was all to often an obstacle to Israelites and a threat. I think of Moses leading them out of a pagan nation of false gods. This was ingrained in the minds of Israelites. And yet notwithstanding these mighty nations and false Gods, their God had led them out with miracles and power.

 

All the nations surrounding them were worshiping false Gods. Even Abraham's father was lead away much earlier. So it is in this context that the emphasis of one true God came, even though the book of Genesis has plural Gods "in our image." This was the mindset of Gods people. All other Gods was false and only the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob was true. The very same God that worked with Adam, Enoch and lead Noah during the time of the flood.

 

I would also point out that NOWHERE does it say God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ are one entity. It only says they are one.

As His mortal ministry drew to a close, knowing “that his hour was come” (John 13:1), Jesus gathered His Apostles in an upper room in Jerusalem. Following their supper and after He had washed their feet and taught them, Jesus offered a sublime Intercessory Prayer on behalf of these Apostles and all who would believe in Him. He supplicated the Father in these words:

 

 

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

“I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” (John 17:20–23).

How glorious it is to contemplate that we have been invited into that perfect unity that exists with the Father and the Son. How can this happen?

 

 

 

Clearly, He is not saying we are one with Christ and the Father literally. He is saying by aligning our wills and by the power of the Holy Ghost we may be one with them

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that Jesus Christ is NOT the Father. He prayed to the Father. He looked to the Father. He was literally seed of the Father. Jesus Christ is not the Father and the Bible simply does not support this Nicene doctrine. For it was in Nicaea that this doctrine became official and later reaffirmed at Constantinople.

My next point would be if Christ is not the Father (and He is not) than is Jesus Christ a God and what is a God. Of course Mormons believe He is and that the Father is THEE God and the Holy Ghost is a separate personage which is also a God. Therefor on that point alone (we are in good company and have scripture on our side) we believe in more than one God and so should Christians.

 

Its crazy how we are getting caught up on ONE word that could NEVER do the Godhood justice. God is a word. It is a title and we should be careful in how we use these sacred and even powerful words. Yes, to an extent they are greatly descriptive, but can also be used to mislead, intentionally or not.

 

Terms like monotheistic and polytheistic often limit the conversation and throw people off. All they are is words and people hold to them like crazy. Mormons are monotheistic in the same way Israelites were and Jesus and His apostles. We believe in only ONE GOD OF THIS WORLD AND WORSHIP ONLY THAT GODHEAD. ALL OTHER GODS OF THIS WORLD are false, but we are also polytheistic because we believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate Gods and that there are other Gods besides besides them. Its not surprising people lack the ability to honestly and deeply think. It's all perspective, understanding and context.

 

We also believe that we to may become a God in some way. Never to usurp the Father or the Son (nor will the Son usurp the Father) but like Christ, we are to go through this phase, lived before this phase, die, go to a spirit prison as Peter mentions clearly or go a paradise Jesus mentioned to the thief (clearly not the same heaven the Father resides in where after Christ resurrected He said "touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father," later like Jesus and because of Jesus to resurrect and potentially become Gods, like our Father and Elder Brother by whose blood and atonement all mankind will be saved in some degree of heaven, regardless of character or actions, but that the highest salvation (so high I'm aware of no other religion teaching it to this extent, except ancient Christianity, as has been made clear in writings of Christian leaders in the 2nd, 3rd and 4rth century)  is reserved for those who love God.

 

I would also point out that most Christians I talk to do not even seem to know what they believe nor where Christian belief comes from. Catholicism was the order of the day for a long time and Protestantism grew out of that and we know Catholicism was apostate. When I ask what is it, do you believe Jesus was praying to Himself and that the Son was the Father, they hesitate and end up concluding with me that Jesus Christ is not the Father because not only does the Holy Bible not support it but actually overwhelming supports Jesus Christ being the Son of the Father and that they are separate entities.

 

I would first point out that you haven't done enough research (or listening) on what the doctrine of the trinity is and its history. I hope to clarify some things for you.

 

You may have read somewhere that the Council of Nicaea had to do with the trinity. This is not true. Arius, the heretic that the denied the deity of Christ (he said Jesus was like God, but not fully God), sparked a discussion within christianity on clarifying how it is exactly that Jesus is fully God and fully man. The result was that, by looking at the scriptures, they concluded that Jesus bore the full title of God (again, within a monotheistic framework). They were not looking at verses like the Johannine comma. They were looking at verses like John 1:1, I Corinthians 8:4-6, Philippians 2:9-11, Deuteronomy 6:4, and the like. It was less about political pressure than you think. I see LDS come up with all ridiculous theories about what happened at the council of Nicaea. For the most part they are folklore. If you step out of the LDS rumor circle for a while a read objective scholarship on the council, it would definitely help. All this stuff about "there was no consensus on the doctrine" and "there was political pressure" is mostly nonsense. Constantine was present but actually did not have much influence over the discussion. He gave most authority to the bishops. He merely proctored the assembly. Either way, the council of Nicaea had to do with the deity of Christ, not the trinity. Also, I would like to point out that people did not simply wait for the councils to make the decisions on these issues and then say "oh okay we will just go with that." Trinitarian theology was already becoming more and more articulated in christendom, not least by 150-200 AD. Although this is irrelevant to me, because I still relate my discussions to scripture. I trust scripture more than the early church.  I think trinitarian theology is clearly spelt out in scripture itself.

 

Another brief clarification is that the trinity is definitional doctrine (if you read my first blog that bluestapleshurt linked you can see this). That is, it is a doctrine that makes sense of these five affirmations we find in scripture:

 

1. There is only one God (and no demi-gods. See my article link on the first post). 2. The Father is God. 3. Jesus is God. 4. The Holy Spirit is God. 5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguishable yet somehow go together.

 

All debates about the trinity need to revolve around attacking or supporting those five statements, not the history of the doctrine or whatever. 

 

Given statement #5, I would also like to point out that your statement "JESUS IS NOT THE FATHER" is agreed upon by all trinitarian christians. If I said Jesus was the father, I would be committing the heresy of modalism. Equating the persons of the Godhead is not trinitarian theology. This is where it is evident that your sources (or the depth of research you have done, or lack there of) are simply unreliable. Trinitarian theology affirms the distinction of Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit (See this diagram http://www.orthodoxresource.co.uk/orthodoxy/trinity.gif. I don't know what the website is I just found it on google images). Yet at the same time Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all fully the one God of Jewish monotheism. If this doesn't make sense to you, this is exactly why the trinity was talked about in early Christianity. In being faithful to scripture (not politics, or whatever) they clarified this relationship between monotheism and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by affirming the doctrine of the trinity.

 

That being said, it is extremely unclear (and probably not well-concluded) how FAIR Mormon can take Isaiah 44:6-8 ("I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no god [el] . . . Is there any god [el] besides me? No, there is no other." El is the hebrew word for god) and still end up with a henotheistic (the belief in multiple gods but only following one) understanding of Judaism. Like I said above, scholars that affirm henotheism argue from the JEDP hypoethesis (Elohist source). But they would all agree that the later parts of Isaiah and Deuteronomy are extremely monotheistic, over against LDS scholars. I mentioned above why that position (JEDP hypothesis) is not acceptable in LDS theology because of the 8th article of the LDS faith, thereby making a henotheistic framework almost groundless. Here I would also like to clarify that monotheism is not just the following of one god, but the belief in one god, thereby falsifying the very existence of other gods. Following only one god without the falsifying of the existence of other gods is henotheism. It is extremely untenable to argue that early christians were henotheistic, especially in that enemies of early Christianity called them "atheists" because they falsified the existence of Greek gods and goddesses. It is very odd that given Isaiah 44:6-8 you can still say "nowhere in the bible is it crystal clear that there are no other gods than the godhead," no matter how many quotes you throw in about that verse. 

 

It is also simply contradictory to say that "we are monotheists," "all other gods are false" and then turn around and say "but we are polytheistic" because you include Jesus as separate god than the Father. If Jesus is not within the ontological (not just united in purpose or whatever) category of the one God (which 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 clearly says he is, c.f. Deut. 6:4, and my article above), then this statement is simply nonsense. I found it very ironic that after this (somewhat obviously) contradictory statement, you say, " Its not surprising people lack the ability to honestly and deeply think. It's all perspective, understanding and context."

[Calm]

I reported it to be moved so the topic wouldn't be a problem yesterday but likely mods are on holiday so nothing except the have to stuff will get done....

Looks le it got moved, had linked to the thread from the main page as it was still showing in Social as the newest one...

Edited July 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[Logan Alexander]

Yet many doctrines were twisted and lost! CLEARLY!!!!

Please, Please, cite primary sources. please.

[Logan Alexander]

I would just add that many doctrines and things changed over time and I'm not talking about true doctrine being twisted. I'm talking about true doctrine being expanded upon or doctrines not very talked about to later be commonly referenced, such as Satan's not existing in the Old Testament.

Though there is vague reference to him as the "serpent" in the Adam and Eve story and Isaiah's commentary on the son of the morning, the fallen angel

 

I must say with all due respect that it is puzzling how people take that verse from Peter and put meaning in it that is clearly not there. It is quite a stretch!

 

“Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”

 

How could anyone possibly think Peter somehow meant anything other than those priesthood holders who had  been ordained by the laying on of hands by those who had this authority.

 

From Christ, (and more keys brought by Elijah and Moses) his apostles, the seventies as mentioned in the book of Acts, the bishops, teachers, etc. He was not talking about southern Baptist, Presbyterians, Methodist, Jehovahs Witness, Catholics Russian Orthodox,  Constantine or the Roman Catholic church, etc.

 

I would just add and I would be glad to go over this later, that the book of Hebrews in so many verses makes clear the priesthood of Melchizedek was restored in Jesus day, some of those keys restored by Elijah and Moses.  

 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

 

The Melchizedek priesthood and the patriarchal order clearly was the higher one and existed before Abraham and before Israel. It was taken when Moses was translated and there God instituted left the lesser (Aaronic) to the bloodline of Aaron. This makes clear the necessity of priesthood authority.

 

 Hebrew 5

 

"And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

 

Clearly, just because you believe in Jesus Christ does not mean you hold the priesthood. This with all due respect is quite blasphemous.