Trinity, Trinity, Trinity.

[specialslc]

A book recommendation with an excellent discussion on The Trinity: "Theology for Beginners" by F J Sheed. This book packs a punch, and don't let the title fool you. Much of the book is written from a distinctively Catholic perspective, and so is of great value to anyone who is Catholic already, wanting to better understand their faith. Also for anyone who might want to know about the Catholic faith. Most of all, it has the best explanation of The Blessed Trinity I've ever seen. Just beautiful.

[Doctor Steuss]

A book recommendation with an excellent discussion on The Trinity: "Theology for Beginners" by F J Sheed. This book packs a punch, and don't let the title fool you. Much of the book is written from a distinctively Catholic perspective, and so is of great value to anyone who is Catholic already, wanting to better understand their faith. Also for anyone who might want to know about the Catholic faith. Most of all, it has the best explanation of The Blessed Trinity I've ever seen. Just beautiful.

I shall add this to my "Wish List" of books.

Thanks!

Stu

[specialslc]

I shall add this to my "Wish List" of books.

Thanks!

Stu

You are very welcome! It is available at Amazon in paperback at a reasonable price. The "view inside" option is available also. Its always nice to see a preview.

special

[Doctor Steuss]

Matt. 12:32

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

I asked Rhino in a PM about this verse, and after his response, he suggested I post it on this thread in hopes to get some other perspectives from my Mainstream brothers and sisters (I was going to post his PM response, but I figured Iâ??d let him do it in case thereâ??s anything he wanted to add). How exactly does this verse work in regards to the Trinity? If they are all the same God (albeit, distinct persons with a united will), how can a sin against one person of the Trinity be forgiven, but the same sin against another person of the Trinity not be forgiven?

Thanks all,

Stu

[Tanyan]

Tanyan,

The Son of God Has A Father And A God.

Jesus said, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. [Jn 20:17]. Jesus came from God [Jn 13:3]. Jesus' prayed to the Father. The Son did as the Father commanded [Jn 10:17; 14:31]. Christ has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christ's human will does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.

Christ Is Not A Second God. God Was Manifest, God Was In Christ.

God was made manifest among us, the Word became flesh. The Son of God was manifested in the flesh [1 Tim 3:16]. In Christ's humanity "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" [Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:19]. The Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man. The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

So GOD THE FATHER IS JEUS CHRIST'S "GOD", YES os NO ? In His DEBT/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Tanyan]

rhinomelon,

Along the same line of thought ... the following link says:

Whether the word "person" should be said of God?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/102903.htm

Although the word "person" is not found applied to God in Scripture, either in the Old or New Testament, nevertheless what the word signifies is found to be affirmed of God in many places of Scripture; as that He is the supreme self-subsisting being, and the most perfectly intelligent being. If we could speak of God only in the very terms themselves of Scripture, it would follow that no one could speak about God in any but the original language of the Old or New Testament.

Person - persona in Latin meaning an actor wearing a mask. So GOD wears 3 masks ?- Modalism/Sabellianism alert !, .

[Tanyan]

Magyar,

What scripture mentions "beings" ... how do you define "beings".

What scripture reveals that "three separate beings forming one Godhead"?

3 seperate GOD entities which form one GODHEAD/GOD - from the anchient Israelite/Hebrew/Early Christian conception from Revelation and scripture, not any greek neo-platonic/gnostis/hellenistic model.

[caesarmoridon]

I must say that this whole discussion with all its nicety and good will makes me want to puke. If you are a Mormon you do not believe in the Holy Trinity and there is good reason for that; it is a ridiculous doctrine. Honestly if you are a thinking person you cannot believe in the Holy Trinity as put forth at the Apostlic or Nicene Creeds. God being a mystery is directly apposed to the 17th chapter of John. In fact the 17th chapter of John clearly destroyes the whole false concept of Jesus Christ and the Father being one in body. The only understanding of the Holy Trinity I want was given to me by Robbie Coltrane in the movie "Nuns on the Run" as explained to Eric Idle. "The Holy Trinty is like a Cloverleaf 1 leaf but 3 leafs in one". No actually I take that back. I prefer Eric Idle's description to the girls in Nun want-to-be class. "The Holy Trinity is like a clover leaf. Small, Green and split three ways". Actually I just really wanted to throught that line in there since I think it is hilarious. That said, that is about how much value I give the Holy Trinity (false) doctrine. This movie is a great theological piece in general (not!) and is a must for all Catholics in my opinion (if you want a good laugh). I will never forget how to pray like a Catholic thanks to Robbie Coltrane's explaination of how to remember: "Specticles, Testicles, Wallet and Watch". True genius! I am sorry I didn't want to start bashing Catholics or any other Christian who believes in this most ridiculous doctrine but I couldn't hold myself back. I hope people will accept the comments made with the jest that was intended and will not take offense. I love the Catholic people for there great faith; I just wish they would stop worshiping the Saints and praying to and worshiping Mary. I will stop before I go any further and offend anyone else.

Caesar - do NOT call the beliefs of others and their faith traditions "ridiculous" or any other negative agjective. We do not allow denigration of other faiths here. ~mods.

[Doctor Steuss]

caesarmoridon,

While I appreciate your zeal for pointing out why you donâ??t believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, I humbly ask that you do not post in this thread again.

Thanks,

Stu

PS.

I must say that this whole discussion with all its nicety and good will makes me want to puke. If you are a Mormon you do not believe in the Holy Trinity and there is good reason for that; it is a ridiculous doctrine.

And I think that if you are a Mormon, you adhere to the 11th Article of Faith.

Edit:

CK, CKS or any others, please ignore the last few posts and see post #229.

Thanks,

The Doc

[caesarmoridon]

caesarmoridon,

While I appreciate your zeal for pointing out why you donâ??t believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, I humbly ask that you do not post in this thread again.

Thanks,

Stu

PS.

And I think that if you are a Mormon, you adhere to the 11th Article of Faith.

Edit:

CK, CKS or any others, please ignore the last few posts and see post #229.

Thanks,

The Doc

I will try to restrain myself and not post after this. I am familiar with the 11th Article of Faith and even supplied its text from LDS.Org along with Articles 12 & 13:

11 We claim the aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our "conscience", and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. (Even if it is wrong)

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13 We believe in being "honest", "true", chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing "good to all men"; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paulâ??We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything "virtuous", "lovely", or of "good report" or "praiseworthy", we seek after these things.

Joseph Smith

I have adhered to the article of faith and I adhere to the 13th as well. There is nothing praiseworthy in the Holy Trinity dogma. Here is what Elder Dalin H Oaks of the Quorum of the twelve Apostles said in the April 1995 General Conference:

"In contrast, many Christians reject the idea of a tangible, personal God and a Godhead of three separate beings. They believe that God is a spirit and that the Godhead is only one God. In our view, these concepts are evidence of the falling away we call the Great Apostasy.

We maintain that the concepts identified by such nonscriptural terms as â??the incomprehensible mystery of Godâ? and â??the mystery of the Holy Trinityâ? are attributable to the ideas of Greek philosophy. These philosophical concepts transformed Christianity in the first few centuries following the deaths of the Apostles. For example, philosophers then maintained that physical matter was evil and that God was a spirit without feelings or passions. Persons of this persuasion, including learned men who became influential converts to Christianity, had a hard time accepting the simple teachings of early Christianity: an Only Begotten Son who said he was in the express image of his Father in Heaven and who taught his followers to be one as he and his Father were one, and a Messiah who died on a cross and later appeared to his followers as a resurrected being with flesh and bones.

The collision between the speculative world of Greek philosophy and the simple, literal faith and practice of the earliest Christians produced sharp contentions that threatened to widen political divisions in the fragmenting Roman empire. This led Emperor Constantine to convene the first churchwide council in a.d. 325. The action of this council of Nicaea remains the most important single event after the death of the Apostles in formulating the modern Christian concept of deity. The Nicene Creed erased the idea of the separate being of Father and Son by defining God the Son as being of â??one substance with the Father.â?

Other councils followed, and from their decisions and the writings of churchmen and philosophers there came a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine in which the orthodox Christians of that day lost the fulness of truth about the nature of God and the Godhead. The consequences persist in the various creeds of Christianity, which declare a Godhead of only one being and which describe that single being or God as â??incomprehensibleâ? and â??without body, parts, or passions.â? One of the distinguishing features of the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is its rejection of all of these postbiblical creeds (see Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991; Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols., New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1992, s.v. â??Apostasy,â? â??doctrine,â? â??God the Father,â? and â??Godheadâ?).

In the process of what we call the Apostasy, the tangible, personal God described in the Old and New Testaments was replaced by the abstract, incomprehensible deity defined by compromise with the speculative principles of Greek philosophy. The received language of the Bible remained, but the so-called â??hidden meaningsâ? of scriptural words were now explained in the vocabulary of a philosophy alien to their origins. In the language of that philosophy, God the Father ceased to be a Father in any but an allegorical sense. He ceased to exist as a comprehensible and compassionate being. And the separate identity of his Only Begotten Son was swallowed up in a philosophical abstraction that attempted to define a common substance and an incomprehensible relationship."

Here is President Hinckley's comments in the last General Conference April 2007 on the creeds that created it:

"When the emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, he became aware of the divisiveness among the clergy concerning the nature of Deity. In an attempt to overcome this he gathered the eminent divines of the day to Nicaea in the year 325. Each participant was given opportunity to state his views. The argument only grew more heated. When a definition could not be reached, a compromise was made. It came to be known as the Nicene Creed, and its basic elements are recited by most of the Christian faithful.

Personally I cannot understand it. To me the creed is confusing.

How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith, who, while yet a boy, spoke with God the Eternal Father and His Beloved Son, the Risen Lord. He knelt in Their presence; he heard Their voices; and he responded. Each was a distinct personality. Small wonder that he told his mother that he had learned that her church was not true. And so, one of the great overarching doctrines of this Church is our belief in God the Eternal Father. He is a being, real and individual. He is the great Governor of the universe, yet He is our Father, and we are His children."

So what is truly offensive to me is to even be discussing this false doctrine on an LDS based website that is designed for the defense of the LDS faith. I recommend that you go to a Catholic website if you want to discuss the Holy Trinity.

[huckelberry]

I think I am capable of taking a step back and thinking what if the Trinity is incorrect. If so what would be a better understanding and what reasons would there be for seeing God differently? I would expect people who seriously believed something different to present their view clearly and say why it is more correct.

Like explaining what is the difference between what is God and what is not quite God. Is Gods power somethng in himself or something he gets from elsewhere.

Insead I hear a suprising amount of comments simply attacking the Trinity. I do not believe it is a result of Greek philosphy nor do I think it results from Manichean distast for matter. (although matter does have some limiting quality and seems locked into space and time in a frustratingly limitiing fashion) Instead I understand the Trinity to be about the personal and loving quality of the most basic principal of existence, God.

Now it does not really suprise me that someone who does not believe in the idea would wonder about Greek influence. The possiblity seems a fair question. What I really do not understand is the appearance of intelligent capable people going through this pretense of being incapble of understanding it. What is accomplished by putting on the appearance mental slowness, when one is simply chooseing not to understand?

Perhaps I shouldnt think it too odd. After all the incetive to understand something you do not believe is perhaps just not there.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]So what is truly offensive to me is to even be discussing this false doctrine on an LDS based website that is designed for the defense of the LDS faith.

Then advert your eyes. I have heard far more false doctrine preached from the pulpit at church and discussed in Gospel Doctrine class than I have run into yet on this board, yet I somehow remain able to not be offended (maybe you need to read a Bednar talk). And whatever you do, please don't go into the Comparative Religion folder. You might find such offensive things as discussions on the RLDS, Southern Baptists, the Talmud Jmmanuel, and *Gasp* the Occult! The nerve of it all. Having polite dialogue with those of other faiths. (Not all of us subscribe to orthodox McConkie-ism).

I recommend that you go to a Catholic website if you want to discuss the Holy Trinity.

Recommendation noted. And I recommend you hide away to Zion if dialogue with other faiths is so offensive to you. As for me, I can't expect anyone not of my faith to actually study it and respect it if I am unwilling to extend the same hand of fellowship to them.

"The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholic or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves."

Documentary History of the Church Vol.5, p. 498

[flavo]

flavo,

As a Trinitarian I believe this also ...

The Trinity is not three persons in one person. The Trinity is one divinity(God) in three distinct persons.

God appeard in the flesh. The Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man. The Son did not pray to himself.

Trinitarians do you not believe God is unapproachable, unaccesable, or confusing.

Did you know that God was manifest in the flesh and that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself ?

2Cor 5

[19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Men are his children and they can have a personal relationship with their heavenly Father.

It appears you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity if you believe that the Son prayed to himself.

The Father wants us know that the mystery of godliness ... that God was manifest in the flesh ... do you know about this mystery .. our Father wants us to know about this mystery because it is mentioned in the Word of God?

1Tim 3

[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Who was this God that was manifest ... was is the Son or the Father ... was it Jehovah or ELohim ... how many Gods are their ... are you confused?

Perhaps I am confused over the Trinity. I have always understood it as

GOD is the Father. GOD the Father came to earth as the SON. GOD the Father is also the HOLY GHOST.

But as I understand you it is

GOD is made up of 3 beings. FATHER different from the SON and different from the HOLY GHOST.

I am relying on an example given me by someone who used a book and said that the book was GOD and that at one time He appeared as this corner of the book at another time He appeared as spine and at yet another time He appeared as another corner yet the whole time He was the same, just visioned as diferent parts of the whole. Manifested in three seperate ways, yet whole. If this is the case then I see a problem that I cannot reconcile. If my interpretation is wrong then the dialogue here hopelfully will bring me to and understanding of your viewpoint.

[rhinomelon]

I just thought I'd post my PM response to Doc's good question posted earlier:

Matt. 12:32

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

I asked Rhino in a PM about this verse, and after his response, he suggested I post it on this thread in hopes to get some other perspectives from my Mainstream brothers and sisters (I was going to post his PM response, but I figured Iâ??d let him do it in case thereâ??s anything he wanted to add). How exactly does this verse work in regards to the Trinity? If they are all the same God (albeit, distinct persons with a united will), how can a sin against one person of the Trinity be forgiven, but the same sin against another person of the Trinity not be forgiven?

And my response.

Hey Doc! Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, but I've been pretty busy as of late. Anyway, I don't see this verse being used as a Trinity bashing verse (at least not a very good one). What is being discussed in this passage is the tasks/roles of one particular member of the Godhead, not that member per se. If I remember right, it's referring to those who attribute the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan. The way I usually look at it is that the role of the Holy Spirit is to lead people to Christ, without whom nobody gets to the Father (see how the roles of the members of the Trinity complement each other!). I think Christ even said to Peter that the Holy Spirit had revealed to him that Christ was the Christ. Someone who rejects this all-important role, and goes as far as attributing this to Satan himself, is obviously rejecting Christ, and by extension, the Father as well.

So I guess that's two ways you could look at it, although both could be true simultaneously (my view). First, it is trashing the task of the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit in and of himself. Second, by blaspheming the Holy Spirit, you are consequently blaspheming the entire Trinity anyway. Make sense?

Good question though. I wouldn't mind you sticking that on the Trinity thread and seeing if some other mainstream Christians had some other ways of looking at it.

Take care, Doc

And it looks as though there is some crazy stuff flying around the thread since I last showed up. I'll have some thoughts in a bit. For the moment, I'll just say that it still seems as though most LDS do not understand the Trinity. However, that fact in and of itself is understandable, and I sympathize. The problem is, many LDS seem content with that ignorance, and then feel comfortable attacking the belief even while saying they don't understand it. I recommend such people read this entire thread, and then pose whatever questions they might still have in a respectful manner, willing to learn. I think Doctor Steuss is doing a wonderful job, and I wish his example would catch on among the majority of LDS.

And flavo also raised some good questions, that I will hopefully get to today or tomorrow (I only have computer access until 2 today).

Until then, take care, everyone

[T-Shirt]

For the moment, I'll just say that it still seems as though most LDS do not understand the Trinity. However, that fact in and of itself is understandable, and I sympathize.

Rhino, from my perspective, I don't think most non-LDS Christians understand it either, at least the many I have conversed with. More often than not, it is described as modelism. My wife was a Lutheran before she was baptised and she will readily admit that she was never able to make any sense of it. I appreciate folks like you who have helped me to see it in another light. I think I can, now, explain your version of the trinity accurately. However, I would say that although I understand how it is viewed, it remains a logical impossibility, which is, in my opinion, why so many Christians understand it so differently.

Regards,

T-Shirt

[William the Conqueror]

Rhino, from my perspective, I don't think most non-LDS Christians understand it either, at least the many I have conversed with. More often than not, it is described as modelism. My wife was a Lutheran before she was baptised and she will readily admit that she was never able to make any sense of it. I appreciate folks like you who have helped me to see it in another light. I think I can, now, explain your version of the trinity accurately. However, I would say that although I understand how it is viewed, it remains a logical impossibility, which is, in my opinion, why so many Christians understand it so differently.

Regards,

T-Shirt

T-Shirt,

For a modern example of true Modalism look at the United Pentecostals or Oneness Pentecostals. (Example: T.D. Jakes of the Potter's House in Dallas, Texas.)

From my viewpoint, the Arianism of Alva G. Huffer author of Systematic Theology (1960, 1987) is much more palatable than the Tritheism of Mormonism. My personal viewpoint is that Alva was a true believer and probably similar in belief to Ufulas who was the Arian missionary to the German tribes in the 4th century.

[Log]

From my viewpoint, the Arianism of Alva G. Huffer author of Systematic Theology (1960, 1987) is much more palatable than the Tritheism of Mormonism.

Why do you think tritheism is distasteful, and what is your opinion on Margaret Barker's "The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God"?

[Argos]

I must say that this whole discussion with all its nicety and good will makes me want to puke. If you are a Mormon you do not believe in the Holy Trinity and there is good reason for that; it is a ridiculous doctrine. Honestly if you are a thinking person you cannot believe in the Holy Trinity as put forth at the Apostlic or Nicene Creeds. God being a mystery is directly apposed to the 17th chapter of John. In fact the 17th chapter of John clearly destroyes the whole false concept of Jesus Christ and the Father being one in body. The only understanding of the Holy Trinity I want was given to me by Robbie Coltrane in the movie "Nuns on the Run" as explained to Eric Idle. "The Holy Trinty is like a Cloverleaf 1 leaf but 3 leafs in one". No actually I take that back. I prefer Eric Idle's description to the girls in Nun want-to-be class. "The Holy Trinity is like a clover leaf. Small, Green and split three ways". Actually I just really wanted to throught that line in there since I think it is hilarious. That said, that is about how much value I give the Holy Trinity (false) doctrine. This movie is a great theological piece in general (not!) and is a must for all Catholics in my opinion (if you want a good laugh). I will never forget how to pray like a Catholic thanks to Robbie Coltrane's explaination of how to remember: "Specticles, Testicles, Wallet and Watch". True genius! I am sorry I didn't want to start bashing Catholics or any other Christian who believes in this most ridiculous doctrine but I couldn't hold myself back. I hope people will accept the comments made with the jest that was intended and will not take offense. I love the Catholic people for there great faith; I just wish they would stop worshiping the Saints and praying to and worshiping Mary. I will stop before I go any further and offend anyone else.

Caesar - do NOT call the beliefs of others and their faith traditions "ridiculous" or any other negative agjective. We do not allow denigration of other faiths here. You may discuss them but do not ridicule or denigrate them. Consider this an offical warning. ~mods.

[Doctor Steuss]

T-Shirt,

For a modern example of true Modalism look at the United Pentecostals or Oneness Pentecostals. (Example: T.D. Jakes of the Potter's House in Dallas, Texas.)

From my viewpoint, the Arianism of Alva G. Huffer author of Systematic Theology (1960, 1987) is much more palatable than the Tritheism of Mormonism. My personal viewpoint is that Alva was a true believer and probably similar in belief to Ufulas who was the Arian missionary to the German tribes in the 4th century.

I always thought Arianism was a Bitheism of sorts(?). G-d the Father was the "One true God", and Jesus was a "lesser" God (and the Holy Spirit was created by Jesus through the direction of G-d the Father). Is it Huffer's view that Jesus isn't even a lesser God, and that the only God is G-d the Father? Or do I have the basics of Arianism all confused (which is a definite possibility).

[Tanyan]

From my lights LDS are Monarch/Eastern/Economic/Social/Godheadians . Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[caesarmoridon]

Then advert your eyes. I have heard far more false doctrine preached from the pulpit at church and discussed in Gospel Doctrine class than I have run into yet on this board, yet I somehow remain able to not be offended (maybe you need to read a Bednar talk). And whatever you do, please don't go into the Comparative Religion folder. You might find such offensive things as discussions on the RLDS, Southern Baptists, the Talmud Jmmanuel, and *Gasp* the Occult! The nerve of it all. Having polite dialogue with those of other faiths. (Not all of us subscribe to orthodox McConkie-ism).

You are truly a wizard of the tongue and you prose has cut me to the quick. Surely with a tongue so forked and a mind so keen you could only be a master of learning and understanding.

Recommendation noted. And I recommend you hide away to Zion if dialogue with other faiths is so offensive to you. As for me, I can't expect anyone not of my faith to actually study it and respect it if I am unwilling to extend the same hand of fellowship to them.

Noted, but with a slight comment. Why here? If I want to go and learn about the trinity I go to a Catholic not a LDS website. If I want to learn about Jehovah's Witnesses the same. I have studied all of the major religions of the world from Hindu to Islam. I have read translations of the Koran, Torah, Book of the Dead, Book of Breathing, 3 different versions of the Bible, The Book of Mormon, and many other books on religion from many different religions. That said. I don't care to read it here unless it is posed as a question of comparison to my religion by someone of another faith. I can tell by your avatar and your style of discussion that you are deeply rooted in the teachings of Buddha and it has had a major impact on how you think and quest. That is fine. Since you started the post you are entitled to monitor it and suggest what comments you would like to see. I have read every post up this page and it feels like I should be in communion. That was my mistake. I just think you should stop judging me based on your bias against apposing views to your own. It might create additional discussion if you throw some variables in the mix. My religion is deeply personal and exceedingly important to me. If you don't have room for my comments, that is one thing; if you do not take into consideration the position of the President of the Church I do not think you should consider yourself a worthy member of the Church.

"The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholic or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves."

Documentary History of the Church Vol.5, p. 498

[Doctor Steuss]

You are truly a wizard of the tongue and you prose has cut me to the quick. Surely with a tongue so forked and a mind so keen you could only be a master of learning and understanding.

If only I were a master of learning and understanding. Unfortunately you have grossly overestimated my abilities. My tongue is more of a spork, and my prose lack the necessary edge needed to cut anything (other than cheese). And my mindâ?¦ well, keen is far from what my psychiatrist calls it.

I can tell by your avatar and your style of discussion that you are deeply rooted in the teachings of Buddha and it has had a major impact on how you think and quest.

Actually, Iâ??m deeply rooted in the teachings of Christ and it has had a major impact on how I think and quest. I haven't read very much of Buddha. The avatar is more of a homage to George Harrison. I do enjoy the teachings of J. Krishnamurti though, but he is but a footnote (as are Rabbi Kushner, Khalil Gibran, Albert Camus, etc.).

I just think you should stop judging me based on your bias against apposing views to your own.

I will stop judging you (if that is indeed what I was doing, you seem to know me better than I do). You can continue to judge me though if you wish, I don't mind. But, why would anyone ever be against an apposing view of their own (Iâ??m assuming you meant opposing)? You are correct though that I have been far from charitable. Itâ??s just having spent a lot of time on non-LDS boards, and seeing my faith maligned by small-minded bigots, I got a little bit defensive for our â??Mainstreamâ? brothers and sisters (Note: I am not calling you a small-minded bigot).

My apologies.

Please do not take this as an accusation, but a warning.

I appreciate your concern for my soul (somewhat).

[rhinomelon]

Bump for tomorrow (hopefully!). By the way, what should I be responding to? I'm kinda lost here...

Take care

[Doctor Steuss]

Bump for tomorrow (hopefully!). By the way, what should I be responding to? I'm kinda lost here...

Take care

If you know anything about William the Conquerorâ??s comment (and my subsequent comment) Iâ??d appreciate clarification (Post #244).

Also, you should probably address the confusion that Johnny has caused Flavo (post #238). I was going to take an amateur crack at it, but Iâ??m sure you could do much better.

Any other Trinitarian believers, if youâ??d like to give your interpretation of post #229, Iâ??d appreciate it (Rhinoâ??s response was in post #239 if you want to see if you agree with his view).

Thanks,

Stu

PS.

Rhino, I just want to say that I really appreciate your taking time for this. It has really helped me out, and I have enjoyed it immensely. Although I donâ??t believe in the orthodox view of the Trinity (as Iâ??m sure you already know), I really think this new knowledge you have imparted me with will help in more meaningful and fruitful dialogue in the future. But, I must warn you that I will probably use this new-found knowledge for the evil purposes of Mormon apologetics. **Cue sinister organ music**

[rhinomelon]

Bumpin' fer later...