pogi Posted December 29, 2017 Share Posted December 29, 2017 (edited) A Pew Research Poll from August 2017 reports that only "30% of U.S. Protestants believe in both sola fide and sola scriptura." 52% believe that both works and faith are necessary for salvation, and another 52% believe that Christians "need the guidance of church teaching and tradition in conjunction with the Bible". "What were once church-dividing teachings, no longer define the majority of American Protestant belief." What is happening here? Only 30% believe in both sola fide and sola scriptura? That was shocking to me! Was this just a confusing poll for Protestants, or is it a sign that they are less educated and aware of their own doctrines, or are the tides simply shifting? Why are the Protestants becoming more Catholic (or Mormon, depending on your preference )? https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/08/31/poll-most-protestants-and-catholics-believe-faith-and-works-are-necessary Edited December 29, 2017 by pogi 4 Link to comment
Calm Posted December 29, 2017 Share Posted December 29, 2017 "need the guidance of church teaching and tradition in conjunction with the Bible" I wonder if that includes the guidance of the church teachings and traditions of sola fide and sola scriptura? Link to comment
pogi Posted December 29, 2017 Author Share Posted December 29, 2017 23 minutes ago, Calm said: "need the guidance of church teaching and tradition in conjunction with the Bible" I wonder if that includes the guidance of the church teachings and traditions of sola fide and sola scriptura? Right, perhaps the survey was confusing to them. However, any reformist Protestant should recognize that anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative. That was a major point of opposition for Martin Luther, that the church teachings and traditions were not authoritative or necessary. It is just surprising to me that the majority of Protestants would answer that way. Link to comment
smac97 Posted December 29, 2017 Share Posted December 29, 2017 (edited) For me, I have long felt that the concepts of works and faith, of grace (free and unmerited favor), and so on can be be summed up by two points: 1. First, the LDS concept of salvation being essentially universal (everyone receives some measure of glory, except for the Sons of Perdition) addresses the "free and unmerited favor" issue. You have to work really, really hard to avoid God's grace. In fact, you must, with full knowledge, affirmatively reject it. Everyone else, even the worst of us, will be rewarded with a kingdom of glory, even the lowest of which is so wonderful it surpasses our ability to comprehend (see also 1 Cor 15:22). 2. As for the "works v. faith" thing, I think that issue is best resolved through Stephen Robinson's "Parable of the Bicycle": Quote As my wife and I talked that night about feelings of inadequacy, I groped for some way to help. I finally remembered something that had happened a couple of months earlier. In our home it is now called the parable of the bicycle. I was sitting in a chair reading. My daughter, Sarah, who was seven years old at the time, came in and said, “Dad, can I have a bike? I’m the only kid on the block who doesn’t have one.” Well, I didn’t have the money then for a bike, so I stalled her. I said, “Sure, Sarah.” She said, “How? When?” I said, “You save all your pennies, and soon you’ll have enough for a bike.” And she went away. A couple ofs weeks later I was sitting in the same chair when I heard a “clink, clink” in Sarah’s bedroom. I asked, “Sarah, what are you doing?” She came to me with a little jar, a slit cut in the lid, and a bunch of pennies in the bottom. She said, “You promised me that if I saved all my pennies, pretty soon I’d have enough for a bike. And, Daddy, I’ve saved every single one of them.” My heart melted. My daughter was doing everything in her power to follow my instructions. I hadn’t actually lied to her. If she saved all of her pennies, she would eventually have enough for a bike, but by then she would want a car. I said, “Let’s go look at bikes.” We went to every store in town. Finally we found it—the perfect bicycle. She was thrilled. Then she saw the price tag, and her face fell. She started to cry. “Oh, Dad, I’ll never have enough for a bicycle!” So I said, “Sarah, how much do you have?” She answered, “Sixty-one cents.” “I’ll tell you what. You give me everything you’ve got and a hug and a kiss, and the bike is yours.” Then I drove home very slowly because she insisted on riding the bike home. As I drove beside her, I thought of the atonement of Christ. We all desperately want the celestial kingdom. We want to be with our Father in Heaven. But no matter how hard we try, we come up short. At some point all of us must realize, “I can’t do this by myself. I need help.” Then it is that the Savior says, in effect, All right, you’re not perfect. But what can you do? Give me all you have, and I’ll do the rest. That sounds about right. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 29, 2017 by smac97 2 Link to comment
Josh Khinder Posted December 29, 2017 Share Posted December 29, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: Right, perhaps the survey was confusing to them. However, any reformist Protestant should recognize that anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative. That was a major point of opposition for Martin Luther, that the church teachings and traditions were not authoritative or necessary. It is just surprising to me that the majority of Protestants would answer that way. There are 2 Billion Christians in the World at the present so there will be members that know little about Church Doctrine. One of the number 1 core teachings is the Trinity . This doctrine teaches that within the Nature of The ONE True God there are three separate and distinct persons. Jesus didn't pray to himself, he prayed to a separate and distinct person. I find this Lutheran Catechism very helpful in explaining the Trinity . Edited December 29, 2017 by Josh Khinder Link to comment
pogi Posted December 29, 2017 Author Share Posted December 29, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said: There are 2 Billion Christians in the World at the present so there will be members that know little about Church Doctrine. One of the number 1 core teachings is the Trinity . This doctrine teaches that within the Nature of The ONE True God are three separate and distinct persons. Jesus didn't prat to himself, he prayed to a separate and distinct person. I find this Lutheran Catechism very helpful . 150 million Protestants in US. That is interesting though. Perhaps you more active and conservative Protestants should be spending less time trying to convince us Mormons that we are wrong and more time converting your own fold to the doctrines of salvation. Just a thought. Perhaps the sole fide and sola scriptura doctrines are backfiring. If people believe they don't need works to be saved, they stop the work of attending church. If they believe that church teachings are not authoritative and unnecessary, that gives them further incentive to not attend church where they learn about their core doctrines. It is also interesting to me that when people are ignorant of their own church's doctrines, they are more likely to profess Catholic/Mormon leaning beliefs. So, when they rely simply on scripture (true-blue sola scriptura, free of Protestant influenced interpretations), they lean more Catholic/Mormon. Just something to think about. Some Protestants are even non-triniatrian. Edited December 29, 2017 by pogi Link to comment
strappinglad Posted December 29, 2017 Share Posted December 29, 2017 1 hour ago, smac97 said: In fact, you must, with full knowledge, affirmatively reject it. Everyone else, even the worst of us, will be rewarded with a kingdom of glory, I used to think that it was that extremely rare individual to whom the Son of Perdition would apply. Then I read debates on politics, religion, global warming, etc. etc.. , and now I am not so sure. Two people can see the same set of facts/evidence and totally disagree. 2 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted December 29, 2017 Share Posted December 29, 2017 2 hours ago, Calm said: "need the guidance of church teaching and tradition in conjunction with the Bible" I wonder if that includes the guidance of the church teachings and traditions of sola fide and sola scriptura? It suggests that most Protestants realize the value of Church tradition as practiced for example by Roman Catholics as their foremost source of religious truth and understanding. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Josh Khinder said: There are 2 Billion Christians in the World at the present so there will be members that know little about Church Doctrine. One of the number 1 core teachings is the Trinity . This doctrine teaches that within the Nature of The ONE True God there are three separate and distinct persons. Jesus didn't pray to himself, he prayed to a separate and distinct person. I find this Lutheran Catechism very helpful in explaining the Trinity . I can recall when Episcopal Bishop James Pike declared that Christendom was tritheistic (Time, Oct 23, 1964, pp. 87-88), and the Jews have never considered Christians as monotheistic. So it is one thing to make the claim, but quite another to do so convincingly. The various trinitarian creeds are simply absurd at best and heretical at worst. One cannot find any support for them in Holy Writ. Edited December 30, 2017 by Robert F. Smith Link to comment
Josh Khinder Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I can recall when Episcopal Bishop James Pike declared that Christendom was tritheistic (Time, Oct 23, 1964, pp. 87-88), and the Jews have never considered Christians as monotheistic. So it is one thing to make the claim, but quite another to do so convincingly. The various trinitarian creeds are simply absurd at best and heretical at worst. One cannot find any support for them in Holy Writ. The Book of Mormon agrees completely with the Creeds, I can't find one verse in the Creeds that would disagree with the Book of Mormon and section 20 of the Doctrine of Covenants is been lifted from The Nicaea Creed . The Link below compares the two Episcopal Bishop James Pike who cares what he thinks https://beggarsbread.org/2017/08/06/the-abomination-of-doctrine-and-covenants-20/ Link to comment
Josh Khinder Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 7 hours ago, pogi said: 150 million Protestants in US. That is interesting though. Perhaps you more active and conservative Protestants should be spending less time trying to convince us Mormons that we are wrong and more time converting your own fold to the doctrines of salvation. Just a thought. Perhaps the sole fide and sola scriptura doctrines are backfiring. If people believe they don't need works to be saved, they stop the work of attending church. If they believe that church teachings are not authoritative and unnecessary, that gives them further incentive to not attend church where they learn about their core doctrines. It is also interesting to me that when people are ignorant of their own church's doctrines, they are more likely to profess Catholic/Mormon leaning beliefs. So, when they rely simply on scripture (true-blue sola scriptura, free of Protestant influenced interpretations), they lean more Catholic/Mormon. Just something to think about. Some Protestants are even non-triniatrian. If you notice the Athanasion Creed teaches we will be judged by are works and also agrees that when Jesus said The Father was greater than him that it also agrees with the Creed. Check highlighted words, there is nothing in this Creed that disagrees with the Book of Mormon Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord. For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said: The Book of Mormon agrees completely with the Creeds, I can't find one verse in the Creeds that would disagree with the Book of Mormon and section 20 of the Doctrine of Covenants is been lifted from The Nicaea Creed . The Link below compares the two https://beggarsbread.org/2017/08/06/the-abomination-of-doctrine-and-covenants-20/ . Both the NT and BofM have been interpreted by some as carrying the same sort of message on creedal formulation, but that puts the cart before the horse. A straightforward exegesis of the NT and BofM does not fit any creedal trinitarian formula that has not been read back into them from a preconceived creed. It is easy to assume what has to be proved from a retrospective eisegesis, but that does not allow the Holy text to speak for itself. Quote Episcopal Bishop James Pike who cares what he thinks Neither of us probably. I mention him only to make it clear that some knowledgeable non-Mormons agree that the NT is tritheistic, not monotheistic. Quote ". . . the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as such is not found in the Bible . . . ." Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, “Did the Apostles Believe in the Trinity?” Israel Study Center, Oct 9, 2017, online at https://israelstudycenter.com/did-the-apostles-believe-in-the-trinity/ . Indeed, some non-Mormon scholars see the creedal formulation you favor as having originated in Egypt, where it was reflective of ancient pagan Egyptian religion. The late Klaus Baer (then of the Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago) said that Amon-Re-Ptah subsume all gods and that all gods are three, and three are one. According to him, the Christian Trinity was developed at Alexandria (Harry Wolfson agreed on the place, but maintained that the Christians got the idea more immediately from Philo Judaeus [Philo: Foundation of Religious Philosophy in Judaism , Christianity, and Islam]). Moreover, Ptah the Creator God/ Chaos (Memphis), is both male & female. All the gods arose from him, are joined to him, and are him. "The divine" is a monophysite substance and could be seen as one god, as in Coptic Christianity. In fact, Jan Assmann argues for the expression of the Egyptian trinity or "triunity" at least as early as the Middle Kingdom. (Assmann, Search for God, 177-180,238-239). Edited December 30, 2017 by Robert F. Smith 4 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 17 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said: .......................................................He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity................................................... The word "trinity" does not occur in the Bible or Book of Mormon, and the concept is a later dogmatic heretical christian theological retrojection upon texts which describe a paradoxically close relationship among God, his Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. That Gottheit is a social network of three distinct persons. Cf. J. Bassler, "God (NT)," in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, II:1055. 2 Link to comment
Josh Khinder Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: The word "trinity" does not occur in the Bible or Book of Mormon, and the concept is a later dogmatic heretical christian theological retrojection upon texts which describe a paradoxically close relationship among God, his Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. That Gottheit is a social network of three distinct persons. Cf. J. Bassler, "God (NT)," in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, II:1055. President Charles W Penrose seems to disagree with you at the General Conference Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fullness of the gospel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason: General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28. Apparently these are the passages where the Trinity is taught 2 Nephi 31: 21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. Alma 11: 44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. Mormon 7: 7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. The Testimony of Three Witnesses And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen. Oliver Cowdery David Whitmer Martin Harris 1 Nephi 13: 41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth. Doctrine and Covenants 20 : 28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. TRINITY The coexistence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the unity of the Godhead (divine nature or essence). The doctrine of the trinity means that within the being and activity of the one God there are three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Although the word trinity does not appear in the Bible, the "trinitarian formula" is mentioned in the Great Commission (Matt 28:19) and in the benediction of the apostle Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians (2 Cor 13:14). (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright © 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers) Trinity first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person. (from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.) Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 I have no problem with the Scriptural citations which you quote and allude to. However, you do have a problem of pagan misinterpretation of those citations, since in every case you apply the absurd notion of hypostatic union -- just as the pagan ancient Egyptians did, and as Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox believers and theologians do today. The only trinity in the Bible and Book of Mormon is a social trinity, as clearly explained by David Paulsen & Ari Bruening, "The Social Model of the Trinity in 3 Nephi," in Skinner & Strathearn, eds., Third Nephi, 191-233. You quote Pres Charles Penrose, a counselor in the First Presidency back in 1921, without being conscious at all of the context in which his statement is made, and you appear to habitually read out of context (a bad habit of modern pagans parading as "christians"). How do you suppose Penrose (not a theologian) meant his words to be taken in light of Joseph Smith's First Vision, in which both Father & Son stood before him in glorified bodies of flesh and bone? And how do you imagine Jesus meant us to take his declaration of oneness with the Father, in light of his simultaneous claim of oneness with all of us? Or do you deal only in proof texts and apriori creeds? John 17:21-23 "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 they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me." 4 Link to comment
Josh Khinder Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have no problem with the Scriptural citations which you quote and allude to. However, you do have a problem of pagan misinterpretation of those citations, since in every case you apply the absurd notion of hypostatic union -- just as the pagan ancient Egyptians did, and as Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox believers and theologians do today. The only trinity in the Bible and Book of Mormon is a social trinity, as clearly explained by David Paulsen & Ari Bruening, "The Social Model of the Trinity in 3 Nephi," in Skinner & Strathearn, eds., Third Nephi, 191-233. You quote Pres Charles Penrose, a counselor in the First Presidency back in 1921, without being conscious at all of the context in which his statement is made, and you appear to habitually read out of context (a bad habit of modern pagans parading as "christians"). How do you suppose Penrose (not a theologian) meant his words to be taken in light of Joseph Smith's First Vision, in which both Father & Son stood before him in glorified bodies of flesh and bone? And how do you imagine Jesus meant us to take his declaration of oneness with the Father, in light of his simultaneous claim of oneness with all of us? Or do you deal only in proof texts and apriori creeds? John 17:21-23 "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 they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me." Back in 1835 Joseph Smith taught God the Father was a personage of spirit and juxtaposed Jesus with a glorified body of tabernacle with puts to question the first vision account Lectures on Faith Lecture Five 2. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made…. They are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, is a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Lectures_on_Faith Link to comment
boblloyd91 Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 (edited) Has anyone read the various essays being posted on Deseret news regarding the LDS views of grace? If not here's the most intriguing one to me: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865694194/Op-ed-The-Mormon-restoration-and-the-meaning-of-grace.html basically the author argues that the LDS view of grace is much closer to the ancient first century idea of grace (or charis) than that of the reformers, and some quarters in the LDS ironically are starting to go closer to that understanding while biblical scholarship in general is going more towards the LDS view (such as the new perspective on Paul). Edited December 30, 2017 by boblloyd91 1 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said: Back in 1835 Joseph Smith taught God the Father was a personage of spirit and juxtaposed Jesus with a glorified body of tabernacle with puts to question the first vision account Lectures on Faith Lecture Five 2. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made…. They are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, is a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Lectures_on_Faith Bear in mind, Josh, that the Lectures on Faith were authored by a trained Protestant clergyman, Sidney Rigdon, not by Joseph Smith. Naturally, Rigdon's apriori theological understanding appears to be at play. However, this also involves the notion of both-and descriptive elements, instead of either-or. Thus, all of us are personages of spirit and flesh which come together as a living soul. There is no reason at all why God the Father cannot be both spirit and flesh & bone, just like his Son. In LDS theology, only the Holy Spirit lacks a physical body. 1 Link to comment
RevTestament Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 12 hours ago, Josh Khinder said: The Book of Mormon agrees completely with the Creeds, I can't find one verse in the Creeds that would disagree with the Book of Mormon and section 20 of the Doctrine of Covenants is been lifted from The Nicaea Creed . The Link below compares the two Episcopal Bishop James Pike who cares what he thinks https://beggarsbread.org/2017/08/06/the-abomination-of-doctrine-and-covenants-20/ It doesn't really matter what you call the Godhead. If you choose to call it a trinity or triunity that is OK with me. It is how this is defined and interpreted that makes the issue for me. My problem with the doctrine of the trinity is not that three beings are one/echad, but how that is interpreted into the scriptures - with a son who is really not begotten, but was the Son before being begotten as the Son - a son who does not inherit the office of eternal Father, because He is immutable and cannot change, and as the doctrine says, is not the Father. The doctrine of the trinity serves to take away Christ's inheritance. He cannot become our Eternal Father as Isa 9:6 foreshadows, and cannot inherit the holy mountains of the Father per Isa 65 because He is unchanging. I choose to follow scripture, and forsake the man-made doctrine of the trinity which seeks to take away the glory my Savior is to receive - no thanks. I glorify my Savior, and will honor Him as my Father to be our Father in every way El Elyon, the Most High Power is. All your issues about whether three are one God, etc, are superfluous, and meaningless since you don't understand how they are one. What? Are we to go back to debating whether they are "one substance" and whatever that means? Please, I think God has waited long enough for man to get past such banality. 1 Link to comment
Josh Khinder Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Bear in mind, Josh, that the Lectures on Faith were authored by a trained Protestant clergyman, Sidney Rigdon, not by Joseph Smith. Naturally, Rigdon's apriori theological understanding appears to be at play. However, this also involves the notion of both-and descriptive elements, instead of either-or. Thus, all of us are personages of spirit and flesh which come together as a living soul. There is no reason at all why God the Father cannot be both spirit and flesh & bone, just like his Son. In LDS theology, only the Holy Spirit lacks a physical body. Joseph Fielding Smith admitted that Joseph Smith helped prepare these lectures: "Now the Prophet did know something about these Lectures on Faith, because he helped to prepare them, and he helped also to revise these lectures before they were published ..." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p. 195). Link to comment
Josh Khinder Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 23 minutes ago, RevTestament said: It doesn't really matter what you call the Godhead. If you choose to call it a trinity or triunity that is OK with me. It is how this is defined and interpreted that makes the issue for me. My problem with the doctrine of the trinity is not that three beings are one/echad, but how that is interpreted into the scriptures - with a son who is really not begotten, but was the Son before being begotten as the Son - a son who does not inherit the office of eternal Father, because He is immutable and cannot change, and as the doctrine says, is not the Father. The doctrine of the trinity serves to take away Christ's inheritance. He cannot become our Eternal Father as Isa 9:6 foreshadows, and cannot inherit the holy mountains of the Father per Isa 65 because He is unchanging. I choose to follow scripture, and forsake the man-made doctrine of the trinity which seeks to take away the glory my Savior is to receive - no thanks. I glorify my Savior, and will honor Him as my Father to be our Father in every way El Elyon, the Most High Power is. All your issues about whether three are one God, etc, are superfluous, and meaningless since you don't understand how they are one. What? Are we to go back to debating whether they are "one substance" and whatever that means? Please, I think God has waited long enough for man to get past such banality. I would say Isa 65 is a reference to Jehovah "Jesus" and not the Father Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions Taken from the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith Tenth President of Mormonism A course Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums 1972-73 Lesson 6 page 39 It was Jesus who gave commandments to Adam after he was driven out of the Garden of Eden and who directed Enoch and Noah before the flood. It was Christ who named Abraham and made him that through his posterity all nations would be blessed. He, it was who called Moses to lead Isreal out of Egypt and who wrote with his fingers on the tables of stone. He had no body until he was born in Bethlehem and the Creeds teach along with the Book of Mormon Jesus was Fatherless and Motherless since he was the self-existing God since he was God from Eternity Mosiah 3:5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases. Jesus didn't become the Son until 2017 years ago Mosiah 15 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— The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are defined as One Substance thru out the Book of Mormon since substance is a synonym for God and the mouth of 3 witnesses should testify to that in 2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44 and Mormon 7:7 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 23 hours ago, pogi said: A Pew Research Poll from August 2017 reports that only "30% of U.S. Protestants believe in both sola fide and sola scriptura." 52% believe that both works and faith are necessary for salvation, and another 52% believe that Christians "need the guidance of church teaching and tradition in conjunction with the Bible". "What were once church-dividing teachings, no longer define the majority of American Protestant belief." What is happening here? Only 30% believe in both sola fide and sola scriptura? That was shocking to me! Was this just a confusing poll for Protestants, or is it a sign that they are less educated and aware of their own doctrines, or are the tides simply shifting? Why are the Protestants becoming more Catholic (or Mormon, depending on your preference )? https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/08/31/poll-most-protestants-and-catholics-believe-faith-and-works-are-necessary In my opinion because the doctrine was confused and contradictory to start with It was based on Catholic doctrine while it rejected Catholic doctrine. It was based on Plato and Aristotle and a "consubstantial" Trinity during the Renaissance which focused on humanism and giving people freedom to read the bible for themselves and draw their own conclusions. The Trinity is not in the bible and neither is the philosophy of "substance" Now you preach "sola scriptura" and teach doctrines which are not biblical. "Go read it for yourself" and - oops it's not there. Luther himself was very "Catholic" and believed in things like Purgatory etc while picking and choosing which doctrines he wanted in his version of Christianity which were themselves based on Catholic Tradition, while throwing out Catholic Tradition. Slight problem there. 2 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: It doesn't really matter what you call the Godhead. If you choose to call it a trinity or triunity that is OK with me. It is how this is defined and interpreted that makes the issue for me. My problem with the doctrine of the trinity is not that three beings are one/echad, but how that is interpreted into the scriptures - with a son who is really not begotten, but was the Son before being begotten as the Son - a son who does not inherit the office of eternal Father, because He is immutable and cannot change, and as the doctrine says, is not the Father. The doctrine of the trinity serves to take away Christ's inheritance. He cannot become our Eternal Father as Isa 9:6 foreshadows, and cannot inherit the holy mountains of the Father per Isa 65 because He is unchanging. I choose to follow scripture, and forsake the man-made doctrine of the trinity which seeks to take away the glory my Savior is to receive - no thanks. I glorify my Savior, and will honor Him as my Father to be our Father in every way El Elyon, the Most High Power is. All your issues about whether three are one God, etc, are superfluous, and meaningless since you don't understand how they are one. What? Are we to go back to debating whether they are "one substance" and whatever that means? Please, I think God has waited long enough for man to get past such banality. Link to comment
Josh Khinder Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: In my opinion because the doctrine was confused and contradictory to start with It was based on Catholic doctrine while it rejected Catholic doctrine. It was based on Plato and Aristotle and a "consubstantial" Trinity during the Renaissance which focused on humanism and giving people freedom to read the bible for themselves and draw their own conclusions. The Trinity is not in the bible and neither is the philosophy of "substance" Now you preach "sola scriptura" and teach doctrines which are not biblical. "Go read it for yourself" and - oops it's not there. Luther himself was very "Catholic" and believed in things like Purgatory etc while picking and choosing which doctrines he wanted in his version of Christianity which were themselves based on Catholic Tradition, while throwing out Catholic Tradition. Slight problem there. Interesting how many LDS leaders believed the Trinity 1. Discourses of Brigham Young, p.30 The Holy Ghost, we believe, is one of the characters that form the Trinity, or the Godhead. 1. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.61 Now I repeat-the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, he constitutes the third person in the Trinity, the Godhead 1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.312 In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost-in other words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are separate and distinct personages. This is one distinguishing and, to some, disturbing doctrine of the Church. 1. James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.4, p.264 From these statements, and from many others that might be quoted, it is clear that Adam and Christ are two persons-not the same Person. It is erroneous doctrine to consider them one and the same person, for Jesus is the Christ, a member of the Trinity, the God-head, and to whom Adam, the father of the human family upon this earth, is amenable. Adam will have to account for his stewardship to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose blood atones for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam. James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.6, p.236 1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.313 Surely this was not ventriloquism where Christ was speaking to and of himself. It was the Father introducing His Son. In this case, the members of the Holy Trinity manifested themselves, each in a different way, and each was distinct from the others. A similar event occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration when members of the Godhead were distinguished in the presence of Moses and Elias, and Peter, James, and John. J. Reuben Clark Jr. Second Counselor to the LDS First Presidency speaking to diversified audience in the mid 1940s speaks of God in terms of the Trinity-God has revealed to us that he is the Father of all, and that he loves and cares forth righteous everywhere, and seeks ever to bring back the wayward to his ways. He has made known that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father, the Redeemer of the World, the First Fruits of the Resurrection. He has shown to us that as Jesus died, lay in the tomb, and was resurrected, so shall it be with every son and daughter of God. He has manifested to us that he is a person, that Christ is another person, and that the Holy Ghost is a third person, and that these make the Trinity of the Godhead Another explanation is found in Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fullness of the gospel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason: General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28. Link to comment
bluebell Posted December 30, 2017 Share Posted December 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said: Interesting how many LDS leaders believed the Trinity 1. Discourses of Brigham Young, p.30 The Holy Ghost, we believe, is one of the characters that form the Trinity, or the Godhead. 1. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.61 Now I repeat-the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, he constitutes the third person in the Trinity, the Godhead 1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.312 In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost-in other words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are separate and distinct personages. This is one distinguishing and, to some, disturbing doctrine of the Church. 1. James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.4, p.264 From these statements, and from many others that might be quoted, it is clear that Adam and Christ are two persons-not the same Person. It is erroneous doctrine to consider them one and the same person, for Jesus is the Christ, a member of the Trinity, the God-head, and to whom Adam, the father of the human family upon this earth, is amenable. Adam will have to account for his stewardship to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose blood atones for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam. James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.6, p.236 1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.313 Surely this was not ventriloquism where Christ was speaking to and of himself. It was the Father introducing His Son. In this case, the members of the Holy Trinity manifested themselves, each in a different way, and each was distinct from the others. A similar event occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration when members of the Godhead were distinguished in the presence of Moses and Elias, and Peter, James, and John. J. Reuben Clark Jr. Second Counselor to the LDS First Presidency speaking to diversified audience in the mid 1940s speaks of God in terms of the Trinity-God has revealed to us that he is the Father of all, and that he loves and cares forth righteous everywhere, and seeks ever to bring back the wayward to his ways. He has made known that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father, the Redeemer of the World, the First Fruits of the Resurrection. He has shown to us that as Jesus died, lay in the tomb, and was resurrected, so shall it be with every son and daughter of God. He has manifested to us that he is a person, that Christ is another person, and that the Holy Ghost is a third person, and that these make the Trinity of the Godhead Another explanation is found in Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fullness of the gospel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason: General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28. You're very good at quoting things but not so great at understanding what you are quoting. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts