Elder Holland On Trinitarianism

[jerryp48]

Elder Holland taught the basics of the Nicene Creed the way I always understood it before I came to this board.

Now I'm really confused because the EV's on this board had convinced me that I didn't understand it.

So EV's did Elder Holland explain the creed correctly or not?

Looking forward to your response.

[Bsix]

Are you equating "traditional" Christianity with trinitarian beliefs? I don't know a whole lot about Christian sects and their various doctrinal differences, but I thought there were plenty of Protestants who also consider Jesus and his father god to be separate entities. Am I wrong? Is the trinity a major part of what they claim keeps Mormons from being properly labeled as Christians?

Six: If you had to choose the ten most universal and absolute doctrines of traditional Christianity, creedal trinitarianism is close to...if not always at the top of the list.

I have heard some describe the doctrine of the trinity is THE defining doctrine of Christianity.

Regards,

Six

[krose]

After being on this board for awhile I'd say that yes, the fact that we do not accept the trinity doctrine of three in one is a big reason we have been deemed not christian by some faiths.

Do you know of many other christian faiths who believe in three separate beings as we do?

No, as I said, it's just an assumption on my part -- that I thought I'd heard Christians refer to them as separate.

The criticisms I hear most often from the "you can't be in our club" crowd involve grace vs. works, extra-biblical scripture, and the concept of eternal progression / becoming gods.

[katherine the great]

So I say again: We didn't start this fight.

Yes, YOU say that (and you are probably right.) What I said was that Elder Holland was not so petty as to say that.

[consiglieri]

I thought Elder Holland's talk was the best in the Saturday sessions of conference . . . easily.

But then, I have a decided bent toward apologetics.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[solomarineris]

This is Elder Holland:

This is Elder Holland on the Trinity:

Any questions?

Yea....

You are mocking my religion.....

Shame on you

[bjw]

I hope that they publish this talk as a pamphlet like they did the one on the Holy Bible. It was very well done. During my 26 years in protestantism I always did have a problem with the trinity and heard it explained several different ways depending on which ministry I was in at the time. Elder Holland explained it very well using direct references to the New Testament that nobody that believes the New Testament and calls themselves Christian can deny. I'm really happy our church is starting to tackle the difficult issues and I think this is a sign of good things to come.

[MormonMason]

Elder Holland taught the basics of the Nicene Creed the way I always understood it before I came to this board.

Now I'm really confused because the EV's on this board had convinced me that I didn't understand it.

So EV's did Elder Holland explain the creed correctly or not?

Looking forward to your response.

Elder Holland cited the so-called Athanasian Creed. The monk quoted by Elder Holland, named Sarapion, was spoken of by John Cassianus, ca. A.D. 495, who records the events as follows:

IN the country of Egypt this custom is by ancient tradition observed that--when Epiphany is past, which the priests of that province regard as the time, both of our Lord's baptism and also of His birth in the flesh, and so celebrate the commemoration of either mystery not separately as in the Western provinces but on the single festival of this day,--letters are sent from the Bishop of Alexandria through all the Churches of Egypt, by which the beginning of Lent, and the day of Easter are pointed out not only in all the cities but also in all the monasteries. In accordance then with this custom, a very few days after the previous conference had been held with Abbot Isaac, there arrived the festal letters of Theophilus the Bishop of the aforesaid city, in which together with the announcement of Easter he considered as well the foolish heresy of the Anthropomorphites at great length, and abundantly refuted it. And this was received by almost all the body of monks residing in the whole province of Egypt with such bitterness owing to their simplicity and error, that the greater part of the Elders decreed that on the contrary the aforesaid Bishop ought to be abhorred by the whole body of the brethren as tainted with heresy of the worst kind, because he seemed to impugn the teaching of holy Scripture by the denial that Almighty God was formed in the fashion of a human figure, though Scripture teaches with perfect clearness that Adam was created in His image. Lastly this letter was rejected also by those who were living in the desert of Scete and who excelled all who were in the monasteries of Egypt, in perfection and in knowledge, so that except Abbot Paphnutius the presbyter of our congregation, not one of the other presbyters, who presided over the other three churches in the same desert, would suffer it to be even read or repeated at all in their meetings.

AMONG those then who were caught by this mistaken notion was one named Sarapion, a man of long-standing strictness of life, and one who was altogether perfect in actual discipline, whose ignorance with regard to the view of the doctrine first mentioned was so far a stumbling block to all who held the true faith, as he himself outstripped almost all the monks both in the merits of his life and in the length of time (he had been there). And when this man could not be brought back to the way of the right faith by many exhortations of the holy presbyter Paphnutius, because this view seemed to him a novelty, and one that was not ever known to or handed down by his predecessors, it chanced that a certain deacon, a man of very great learning, named Photinus, arrived from the region of Cappadocia with the desire of visiting the brethren living in the same desert: whom the blessed Paphnutius received with the warmest welcome, and in order to confirm the faith which had been stated in the letters of the aforesaid Bishop, placed him in the midst and asked him before all the brethren how the Catholic Churches throughout the East interpreted the passage in Genesis where it says "Let us make man after our image and likeness." And when he explained that the image and likeness of God was taken by all the leaders of the churches not according to the base sound of the letters, but spiritually, and supported this very fully and by many passages of Scripture, and showed that nothing of this sort could happen to that infinite and incomprehensible and invisible glory, so that it could be comprised in a human form and likeness, since its nature is incorporeal and uncompounded and simple, and what can neither be apprehended by the eyes nor conceived by the mind, at length the old man was shaken by the numerous and very weighty assertions of this most learned man, and was drawn to the faith of the Catholic tradition. And when both Abbot Paphnutius and all of us were filled with intense delight at his adhesion, for this reason; viz, that the Lord had not permitted a man of such age and crowned with such virtues, and one who erred only from ignorance and rustic simplicity, to wander from the path of the right faith up to the very last, and when we arose to give thanks, and were all together offering up our prayers to the Lord, the old man was so bewildered in mind during his prayer because he felt that the Anthropomorphic image of the Godhead which he used to set before himself in prayer, was banished from his heart, that on a sudden he burst into a flood of bitter tears and continual sobs, and cast himself down on the ground and exclaimed with strong groanings: "Alas! wretched man that I am! they have taken away my God from me, and I have now none to lay hold of; and whom to worship and address I know not." By which scene we were terribly disturbed, and moreover with the effect of the former Conference still remaining in our hearts, we returned to Abbot Isaac, whom when we saw close at hand, we addressed with these words.

"The Second Conference of Abbot Isaac on Prayer," as cited in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, 11:401-402, bold emphasis mine

[ferguson7]

It is not. It is a quote from a 4th Century monk - quoted by Elder Holland in his talk this afternoon.

Actually, the monk was Serapion who was finally convinced by the many powerful arguments of an extremely learned monk named Photinus. "We stood up to bless the Lord and to pour out our prayers of thanks to Him. And then amid these prayers the old man became confused, for he sensed that the human image of God which he used to draw before him as he prayed was now gone from his heart. Suddenly he gave way to the bitterest, most abundant tears and sobs. He threw himself on the ground and...cried out; 'Ah the misfortune! They've taken my God away from me. I have no one to hold on to, and I don't know whom to adore or address."

[juliann]

Someone--Jeffrey Holland mebbe? I don't know LDS leadership by sight, unfortunately--is currently doing an apologetic on whether Mormons are Christians and specifically addressing the issue of the LDS Godhead. Nice to see an issue confronted head-on from GC pulpit. I do think the discussion has unfairly characterized the Nicene Creed as a '4th-century' doctrine.

It most certainly is a 4th century doctrine . That was the only point of the councils..to make it doctrine. That means that it was not doctrine before...which should be obvious given the contention. There is no way to dance around this. Any other claim is a faith based claim that has little to do with known history. Every religion stands on faith based claims....but they weaken their position when they try to claim something is "historical".

[ed2276]

I suppose my attempt at sarcasm was less than effective.

About as effective as a one-legged kickboxer!

[maklelan]

If I have to choose between Platonic paganism and Ugaritic paganism, I'll take Platonism for a thousand, Alex.

Zing!

[aaronshaf]

Here's a quote from Jeffrey R. â??Taking The Gloves Offâ? Holland:

â??We believe these three divine persons, constituting a single divine Godhead, are united in purpose, in testimony, in manner, in mission. We believe them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think itâ??s accurate to say, we believe them to be one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable, except believing them to be three persons combined in one substance, a trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures, because it is not true. Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harperâ??s Bible Dictionary records that, â??The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.â?? So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, is not a comment about our commitment to Christ, but rather a recognitionâ??accurate, I might addâ??that our view of the Godhead breaks with post-New Testament Christian history, and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus himself.â? (>>)

He definitely spoke this with a feisty, forceful assertiveness.

[flameburns623]

It most certainly is a 4th century doctrine . That was the only point of the councils..to make it doctrine. That means that it was not doctrine before...which should be obvious given the contention. There is no way to dance around this. Any other claim is a faith based claim that has little to do with known history. Every religion stands on faith based claims....but they weaken their position when they try to claim something is "historical".

You miss the point of Church Councils. They were called periodically, usually when the church was being troubled by a particular controversy, in order to come to a consensus about what Christians always and everywhere have believed and taught. During such councils, language was often sharpened and words coined in order to make clear what the Apostolic doctrine was and what it was not. But always the intention of every Church council was NOT to coin new doctrine but to reaffirm established doctrines in a clearer way.

The LDS Church may disagree that this is in fact what the Nicene Council did. They may feel that whatever the intention of the Conciliar Fathers, the result was in fact the concoction of a new doctrine. But Elder Holland's address would have been much more fair-minded had he at least noted that what the Council thought it was doing, what it's delegates intended to do, was expressly NOT to create new doctrines.

[Daniel Peterson]

It was a good talk, and Elder Holland was right on target.

[juliann]

You miss the point of Church Councils.

No I don't. I've sat in quite a few seminars with top scholars who don't miss the point either.

They were called periodically, usually when the church was being troubled by a particular controversy, in order to come to a consensus about what Christians always and everywhere have believed and taught.

That is a statement of faith but it is historical nonsense. If Christians always and everywhere believed there would have been no controversy and no need for councils.

The LDS Church may disagree that this is in fact what the Nicene Council did.

The LDS church is irrelevant...it is mainstream scholarship you are having a problem with.

During such councils, language was often sharpened and words coined in order to make clear what the Apostolic doctrine was and what it was not. But always the intention of every Church council was NOT to coin new doctrine but to reaffirm established doctrines in a clearer way.

New isn't the issue. Councils were intended to supply the political pressure necessary for the winners to enforce their views on everyone else. It was a contentious and manipulative method. There are just too many of those historical records to even argue this.

[Bernard Gui]

Are you equating "traditional" Christianity with trinitarian beliefs? I don't know a whole lot about Christian sects and their various doctrinal differences, but I thought there were plenty of Protestants who also consider Jesus and his father god to be separate entities. Am I wrong? Is the trinity a major part of what they claim keeps Mormons from being properly labeled as Christians?

I'm not aware of any other than the JWs who believe the Father and Son are distinct and

separate beings. I could be wrong....

Bernard

[Zakuska]

YES! Mormon Mason... thats the one!

I'll have to add that to my quotes!

[Zakuska]

Here's a quote from Jeffrey R. â??Taking The Gloves Offâ? Holland:

He definitely spoke this with a feisty, forceful assertiveness.

Wow mark... Im Impressed... You actually listened to Conference!

Of course... not that it will do you any good... Always fishing for bate to make the Anointed of God "Offenders for a word".

[Daniel Peterson]

An excellent book, about politics and intrigue and partisanship:

Ramsay MacMullen, Voting About God in Early Church Councils (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006).

[Chris Smith]

Zing!

What was it Moses said? An eye for an eye and a zing for a zing? Just playing my part in the restitution of all things...

[Hammer]

You miss the point of Church Councils. They were called periodically, usually when the church was being troubled by a particular controversy, in order to come to a consensus about what Christians always and everywhere have believed and taught. During such councils, language was often sharpened and words coined in order to make clear what the Apostolic doctrine was and what it was not. But always the intention of every Church council was NOT to coin new doctrine but to reaffirm established doctrines in a clearer way.

The LDS Church may disagree that this is in fact what the Nicene Council did. They may feel that whatever the intention of the Conciliar Fathers, the result was in fact the concoction of a new doctrine. But Elder Holland's address would have been much more fair-minded had he at least noted that what the Council thought it was doing, what it's delegates intended to do, was expressly NOT to create new doctrines.

I don't think he missed the point of the counsels, on the contrary, he hit the nail on the head. OUCH!

[The Nehor]

You miss the point of Church Councils. They were called periodically, usually when the church was being troubled by a particular controversy, in order to come to a consensus about what Christians always and everywhere have believed and taught. During such councils, language was often sharpened and words coined in order to make clear what the Apostolic doctrine was and what it was not. But always the intention of every Church council was NOT to coin new doctrine but to reaffirm established doctrines in a clearer way.

The LDS Church may disagree that this is in fact what the Nicene Council did. They may feel that whatever the intention of the Conciliar Fathers, the result was in fact the concoction of a new doctrine. But Elder Holland's address would have been much more fair-minded had he at least noted that what the Council thought it was doing, what it's delegates intended to do, was expressly NOT to create new doctrines.

It takes Councils to come to a consensus about what Christians always and everywhere believed and taught? How come Augustine thought Christianity was too simplistic when his Christian mother taught it to him but accepted the version the schools taught him? Two different versions. Was his mother not actually a Christian?

[maklelan]

What was it Moses said? An eye for an eye and a zing for a zing?

Or words to that effect. I believe he followed with, "Eh, hoser."

[flameburns623]

No I don't. I've sat in quite a few seminars with top scholars who don't miss the point either.

That is a statement of faith but it is historical nonsense. If Christians always and everywhere believed there would have been no controversy and no need for councils.

Not everything that enters a garage is a car. Not everyone who enters a church is a Christian. Not even all who may rise to high office within a church. Within my own Episcopalian tradition, within historical memory, James Pike, John Spong, and Gene Robinson each held the title of 'Bishop', yet none deserve to be recognized as Christians: all were or are glaring apostates who should have been ousted for their open refusal to abide by Christian doctrine and/or practice.

The LDS church is irrelevant...it is mainstream scholarship you are having a problem with.

' Mainstream' scholarship? Or liberal 'scholarship'? Herein lies one of the things which greatly puzzles Evangelicals and Christian conservatives generally. The LDS Church is a conservative church. It holds most closely to social and religious values held in common with other Christian conservatives. Indeed, in it's religious teaching, and from it's public pulpits, the LDS Church wields Scripture--the Bible as well as it's own 'latter-day' scriptures--in an Evangelical fashion.

Yet . . .because a respectful, consistent, and careful use of Scriptures favors something much closer to Evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox reading of Christian doctrine, while LDS scriptures steer one into contrary waters . . . Latter-Day Saints are compelled to employ liberal methods of historical and theological revisionism to defend their positions. Yet liberalism is a destructive and poisonous ideology, a cancer or as one political pundit likes to call it, a 'mental disorder'.

Nothing intelligent, constructive, or good comes of liberal 'scholarship' or of treating liberals as if anything they say or do is worthy of anything other than utter contempt and disdain. If Jeffrey Holland thinks as you do that he is referencing 'mainstream scholarship', he is just as much wrong as you--and he is fortifying his position with alien and insidious ideas which will ultimately prove toxic.

New isn't the issue. Councils were intended to supply the political pressure necessary for the winners to enforce their views on everyone else. It was a contentious and manipulative method. There are just too many of those historical records to even argue this.

One council--the council of Nicaea--is noteworthy for the political pressure exerted upon it. Ironically, the Emperor who convened that council was an Arian, and yet his theological views did NOT win the day: the Council of Nicaea roundly rejected Arianism, which is why the Nicene Creed is remembered as a Trinitarian creedal statement.