Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Mormonism and the Trinity


Daniel Peterson

Recommended Posts

It will eventually be posted on the website of the SMPT:

http://www.smpt.org/

At first, it will be accessible only to members of the SMPT, via a password. After roughly a year, though, it will be opened to the general public.

In the meantime, those interested in purchasing a copy of the journal can do so via SMPT, either by joining the Society (a very good thing to do) or by shelling out US $7.00. Other articles in this issue are Carl Mosser, "Exaltation and Gods Who Can Fall: Some Problems for Mormon Theodicies"; Loyd Ericson, "The Challenges of Defining Mormon Doctrine"; and Stephen T. Davis, "Philosophical Theology for Mormons: Some Suggestions From an Outsider.

I checked out the site and came across this free article by Paul Owen: "The Doctrine of The Trinity in LDS and 'Catholic' Contexts" (Free Access). I have a problem with his use of the term "modes" as this is where the idea of modalism comes from which is not the Trinitarian point of view):

BEING AND PERSONS

20. A further step which may help to increase understanding in religious discourse between traditional Christians and Latter-day Saints, is to explore more carefully what is meant by the sorts of distinctions which are drawn between terms such as "Being" and "person." The doctrine of the Trinity insists that God is three with respect to personal distinction, but one with respect to Divine Nature. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are essentially the same, but personally differentiated. What is the purpose of drawing such distinctions?

Defining the Boundaries

21. It first of all must be kept in mind that there are two viewpoints which most Christians perceive to be unscriptural theological frameworks: modalism and polytheism. Polytheism can simply be defined as offering religious devotion to more than one God.27 Since Christians from the earliest stages of church history have offered prayer, worship and religious devotion to Jesus Christ alongside God the Father, to separate the Son and the Father as two Gods rather than one would seem to fall into the error of polytheism, and hence idolatry. The only other solution would be to withhold prayer and worship for the Father alone, which would seem to contradict the pattern of religious devotion attested in the New Testament witness.28

22. The other error which most Christians believe it necessary to avoid is modalism. Modalism arises from the failure to maintain a proper theological continuity between the economic Trinity and the ontological Trinity. The three persons are explained as three "roles" which God plays for our sake; but these manifestations are not believed to reflect who God actually is within himself. In other words, the problem with modalism is that Godessentially remains unknown. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are simply names which God assumes within history, but they do not correspond to the Reality of who God actually is. God in his essence remains veiled and hidden, and we are left with no objective referential ground by which to define or describe the God we claim to be in relationship with.29 It is these two perceived errors which orthodox trinitarianism attempts to avoid.

Defining the Terms

23. At this point it may be helpful to define some terms which many Christians use as they explain their understanding of God:30 1) "Substance" (Latin substantia) or "being" (Greek ousia) is that of which an objectively real person or thing consists. All real objects (whether spiritual or material) have "substance," otherwise they are mere figments of the imagination.31 2) "Essence" (Latin essentia) or "nature"(Latin natura) refers to what someone or something is like; or what qualities, powers or characteristics are by definition possessed by a person or thing. 3) "Subsistent" (Latin subsistentia) or "person," (Latin persona) are words which are used to refer to a given instance of a particular substance. Orthodox Christians believe that God is one eternal, personal and spiritual divine substance,32 who exists in three modes of subsistence, or three self-distinctions.

Defining the Starting Point

24. Now when we come to the biblical evidence a decision has to be made. Does one start with the assumption that God is one, and then attempt to explain how God can be three; or does one begin with the knowledge that God is three, and then attempt to explain in what way God can be one? This decision is an important one, and as we will see, it is the basis of important differences of understanding among Christians of different traditions. Protestants and Roman Catholics, who tend to be under greater influence from the heritage of the Western tradition, generally start with the assumption of God's oneness. The Eastern Orthodox Church on the other hand follows the heritage of the East, and hence tends to begin with the knowledge of God's threeness. Whether consciously or not, the LDS Church appears to side with the Eastern tradition in this matter.33

25. In the opinion of the present writer, the Western tradition is correct to begin with the assumption of God's oneness, and move from there to an explanation of God's threeness. Revelation begins with the Old Testament, not the New; and hence it seems fundamentally misguided to begin building a portrait of God based upon later stages of revelation. One must first come to grips with what the Hebrew Bible teaches us about the nature of God; and then upon that foundation we can establish a clearer understanding of God as derived from the New Testament witness. Perhaps no truth is more fundamental to the religion of the Old Testament than the revelation of Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" When the Lord Jesus was asked by a Jewish scribe what was the most important commandment of all, he replied: "The foremost is, â??Hear, O Israel! The LORD our God is one LORD" (Mark 12:29). Hence there is good reason to take Deuteronomy 6:4 as the capstone of true biblical religion. St. James took the shema to be such a fundamental truth that even the demons recognized it (James 2:19).

The Mormon view of God is far different from the Trinitarian view.

Link to comment
Oh darth vader Tanyan, what does being restricted several times from the board have to do with my understanding of the way the Trinitarian view of God is not accurately represented by Mormonism? (not banned, the one time I explained as being ignorant of a particular board rule, the other times I disagreed with but it is the board monitors job to do as they see fit)

I responded to the thread topic not my response to a hug from you that is not relevant to the topic at hand (I remember a greeting, not a hug, as there were several meetings we attended seperately and exchanged greetings).

I certainly have the right to respond to Dr. Peterson asI see fit and not be told how to respond. It is within common courtesy to hear ones's argument for or against something before making a judgment about the argument. I withheld a judment of his article (as I haven't read it yet although I attended one of his talks at a local Mormon ward back in 1998 and read a lot of his postings both here and over at ZLMB so it wasn't a shot in the dark).

I disagree big time with Mormonism so Dr. Peterson's personal views are not a required reading to understand the Mormon view of God.

Pray tell I am an Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT, not Darth Vader.Your restrictions are due to your behavior by way of your polemical posts. And yes there was a hug in which you stood rigged as a board staring at me like I was gay. I watched your behavior those evenings [ I have been trained to observe and document behavior from a previous job I had where it was a requirement to observe and document]. I understand the remainder of your posts. From my talking with Lutherans - 1 - a local Lutheran Priest, and a # of Lutherans the concensis is LDS are Christian but Hetrodox [ Christian but with Theological baggage that needs to be jettisoned]. I also had a friend who was a Lutheran Priest who became LDS [ He has since past away] who was a friend in which we had conversation.

There are [along with being anti LDS] Church religious groups that are called to show the supposed unchristian/unbiblical evils of Martin Luther/Lutheranism/Lutherans/Lutheran Doctrines/ Teachings and expose them to the world so as to see there true identity. They use the same techniques both visual/verbal to show the Dark side of anything Luther/Luthanism. I am not saying I believe and support there polemic with there use of "Official" Lutheran material.

So I would suggest that while you are at our front/back door [window as well] you should check your own doors/windows as the same is happening to you.

#1 Ask us what we Believe.

#2 Don't compare your best to our worst.

#3 leave room for Holy Envy.

Have a Blessed Day.In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

Link to comment
I checked out the site and came across this free article by Paul Owen: "The Doctrine of The Trinity in LDS and 'Catholic' Contexts" (Free Access). I have a problem with his use of the term "modes" as this is where the idea of modalism comes from which is not the Trinitarian point of view):

The Mormon view of God is far different from the Trinitarian view.

From my Lights LDS Doctrine is an Anchient Monarch Eastern Economic Social Godhead/Trinity.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

Link to comment
I checked out the site and came across this free article by Paul Owen: "The Doctrine of The Trinity in LDS and 'Catholic' Contexts" (Free Access). I have a problem with his use of the term "modes" as this is where the idea of modalism comes from which is not the Trinitarian point of view):

The Mormon view of God is far different from the Trinitarian view.

Which Trinity , Western, Eastern, Economic, Essential, Social, ?.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

Link to comment
Hey Pahoran,

How ya doing.

Fair enough, seeing how you have read the book, start a new thread and put the top three arguments in Dan's book and I'll respond, after we get through those we can do three more. Good Idea. If Dan wants to jump in he can.

Look forward to your new thread.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

PS. If you have paid the 7 bucks for Dan's paper on the Trinity we can do the same with that?

So in other words, Markk is unwilling to read the book himself first. Awsome.

Link to comment

Dr. Peterson wrote:

>>I make no attempt to reconcile Nicene ontological Trinitarianism with LDS doctrine and have utterly no interest in ecumenism.>>

And:

>>I'm more interested in the social model of Trinitarianism.>>

Me: The Nicene Creed does not, in and of itself, delineate â??ontological Trinitarianismâ?; it can be, and has been, read in an â??economicâ?? and/or â??socialâ?? sense.

I suspect my musings in the following thread will be of interest to some here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=13798

Grace and peace,

David

Link to comment
Hi Z,

I'm not sure how to answer you on this one. Try looking at this LDS http http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/g/62 make sure to read the attributes listed under the heading eternal nature of God, these are attributes that define God's Nature. When I speak of the trinity it is specifically defining God's triune nature One God by nature, manifest in three persons, yet again one God in Nature.

That is a verbal trick. It is a play on words. The link refers to an article in the Topical Guide with the heading â??God, Eternal Nature ofâ?. That is simply another way of saying â??the eternity of God,â? or â??how God is eternalâ?. It is not attempting to define the Godâ??s â??natureâ?. There is a subtle distinction between the two.
Go to pro LDS sites and search "nature of God " and do some research, start here http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Evidence_for_t..._the_Bible.html

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11037

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/g...lett_nature.htm

I hope this helps, I haven't read your last posts, I will read and respond tonight.

The same here. The way the authors of these articles use the term â??natureâ? is different from what you are trying to do. You have read my Blog article on the Trinity, and you realize that you have no argument against it; so you are trying to find a way of getting round it by shifting the focus of the argument away from the Trinity to the elusive concept of the â??natureâ? of God, which nobody can define or explain with any exactness. Well, good luck with that! But I donâ??t think that will work.

Okay, letâ??s talk about â??natureâ? then. You say, â??When I speak of the trinity it is specifically defining God's triune nature One God by nature, manifest in three persons, yet again one God in Natureâ?. Great! So how is that biblical? Where is the scriptural evidence to prove that?

Link to comment
How on earth do you arrive at that?

What Dan has been trying to say -- and in increasingly simple language -- and that you completely fail to grasp, is that an informed opinion requires, well, information.

For all you know, Dan's article may be simply the last word on the subject, and the finest such article ever written. OTOH, for all I know, it may be a tissue of worthless nonsense. I don't know; and neither do you. Because, you see, I haven't read it; and neither have you.

Therefore, your opinion on it is utterly and completely uninformed, and your blatherings on the subject are worse than useless.

In order to have an informed opinion about Dan's paper you would have to read it.

And having read it, you would have to understand it.

But in order to do that, you'd have to be willing to reconsider your knee-jerk assumptions about the Church of Jesus Christ. It may be possible that, after such reading and reconsideration, an informed person might decide that your position is substantially correct after all; but without such reading and reconsideration, you've got nothing at all to say.

And, as the thread originator has several times politely requested, you should therefore refrain from saying anything. At all.

Frankly, I expect that if you ever do manage to find the attention span to read Dan's article, you will not substantively engage it. In any way. Rather, you will simply continue to recite your mindless mantra as if Dan's article had never been written.

On what do I base my prediction?

Simply this: a number of years ago, Dan and Stephen D. Ricks wrote a fine little book called Offenders for a Word. In that, they addressed all the major arguments used by anti-Mormons to support the accusation that Mormonism is not Christian. The book is well-researched and well-argued. IM(v)HO, it simply nails the issue.

In the years since I read it, I waited for a substantive rebuttal to come from the various anti-Mormon presses that blight the face of North America.

And I'm still waiting.

The book, and its arguments, have simply not been substantively addressed.

But has that stopped, or even softened, the continuing chorus of those who would deny the Christianity of the Latter-day Saints?

Not for a second!

Daily we are treated to dumb rednecks saying things like "Marmuns ain't Chrisjun cuz they ain't like us'n."

Perhaps, Markk, you regard yourself as uniquely qualified to address this question. If so, then I have a challenge for you: you can read Dan's book here and it won't cost you a red cent. Then you can come back and lay out your substantive arguments as to why he is wrong.

Because then you'll have something to say on this subject. Unlike the article under discussion.

But let me make this absolutely clear to you: if you fail to deal with Dan's argument, then the next time you trot out your tired and discredited "Mormons ain't Christian" claim, knowing that it has been refuted, and knowing that you have entirely failed to address it, you will be telling a lie.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thanks for the link. I havenâ??t read that particular book; but I have read the one written by Professor Robinson. These books, though they make a useful contribution, nevertheless they fail to recognize and tackle the underlying cause of the phenomenon they are dealing with, and therefore do not have the desired impact that their authors or other Church members expect of them.

There is a specific reason why the enemies of the Church resort to this tactic of calling the Church â??not Christianâ?. It is a retaliation against the LDS doctrine of the Apostasy. The LDS doctrine of the Apostasy and Restoration is extremely hard on other Christian churches. It pulls the rug from under their feet. It puts them in a dilemma. They either have to concede defeat, and give Mormonism the credit it claims; or else they have to fight against it. And they have chosen the latter. It is a hostile act. It is a declaration of war against Latter-day Saints. And you cannot prevail against that kind of hostility by nice academic arguments; because those are not the weapons that it uses to fight its battles with.

Some years ago I went inside an Anglican church just to look around. It had a nice ornate old style architecture, and I like churches, so I decided to go inside to have a look. No one else was there except the minister. He evidently had a very outgoing type of personality, and when he saw me wondering around his church he strolled up to me full of smiles and good humor, and started a conversation. He said, â??What is your story?â? I said, â??I am a Mormon!â? when I said that, he jumped three feet in the air as if a snake had bitten him. His smile turned into a frown, and his good humor into fear, apprehension, and hostility. But he was perfectly honest in expressing his feelings. He said words to the effect that â??You say that the whole of Christianity is gone wrong . . . it has apostatized . . . you are a threat!â? Well he was right about that. In a way we are a threat to them. This is even acknowledged by the Lord in modern revelation:

D&C 10
:

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devilâ??yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.

Did anybody here watch the TV show where Lawrence O'Donnell raved and ranted against the LDS Church? You can watch it here if you hadnâ??t. You cannot prevail against that kind of hostility by nice academic arguments, because that is not the turf it uses to fight its battles on. The only effective answer to the â??Mormons are not Christiansâ? charge is the â??Apostasyâ? doctrine! That is the only answer that wins against that accusation. Daniel, Ricks, Robinson, and anybody else who wants to write books of this kind will not go anywhere near winning that debate unless they are willing to incorporate a very strong element of the Apostasy into all of their writings. It needs to be woven into the very fabric of their books for it to have the desired impact. That is how it works. :P

Link to comment
Hi Z

Allot to cover I'll get as far as I can, if I don't finish I will later, if I miss something important make sure and tell me. These things get long and out of

I dont get it? This is a prayer of unity. Jesus is saying all, including the 12, can be one. If your going to take this that it reflect worship then the 12 should be included in worship.

Do you ultimately worship Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and Moses?

I worship the Father in the name of Jesus. I also worship Jesus. The scripture I had cited shows you how it is possible to do both.
I did not say they were co-equal, I said the BoA reads they were "co-equal in creation" the BoA says "...And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth." So what if Elohim was the leader, I know he was the head God according to LDS theology, but the BoA says the gods created the earth. The BOA says the "Gods" said "let there be light", not me, so your issue is with LDS theology not me. One of the first principles in heminutics is letting scripture interpret scripture, if two scriptures give two account s of the same doctrine or story, the one with more data is the way you interpret the scripture. The BOA adds more to the creation account than the BoMoses and the Biblical accounts.
I fail to see the logic of that argument. It is incoherent and doesnâ??t make a lot of sense. The scripture says the â??Godsâ? made the earth; but it doesnâ??t say who they were or how many they were. But it does make clear that they had someone in their ranks that took the lead. Your arguments does not hold water.
Your saying it is OK to call Jehovah "Gods"? Remember you said JS said Elohim meant gods. And your other option makes no sense, the word for father is "Ab", not Elohim.
You are now being disingenuous. You are throwing bogus arguments at me just for the sake of having said something. Well, there comes a point where continuing with the discussion no longer becomes a worthwhile exercise.
This is the way I was taught it by my parents as a child and what was expounded on by my study of LDS scripture. There are certain eternal laws that all people must follow, including God. As man progresses he can not progress outside these laws. The laws of progression are as follows, intelligence with is not created but has always been, even before God existed, from intelligence a God and Goddess ( they are flesh and bone) gives birth to a person from intelligence to the 1st estate, and you are spirit children in the pre-existence with a heavenly father and mother of flesh and bone. Then one progresses for pre existence to earth and get a human body. From here it is up to you, but where you go is determined on following the laws of the gospel in order to progress to your final estate. If you look at the chart here http://www.mormonwiki.org/Eternal_progression you will see that the eternal laws are set to the charts parameters, you can not break this cycle, nor could God, he became God just like you can become god by following the laws of the gospel one can progress according to the eternal laws of progression. This is core LDS theology. So when I say that the LDS view of the nature of God is very different from the mainstream Christian view, this is part of that equation that Dan may or may not have included in is article that add the the division of our respective views of the nature of God?
Thanks for the link. That was interesting. But it doesnâ??t really address the point I was making. I didnâ??t deny that the doctrine of â??eternal progressionâ? has been taught in the Church; but I question its theological usefulness, especially in the conversation that we are having.

As an aside, in that article you linked to, it starts with this assertion: â??The principle of eternal progression cannot be precisely defined or comprehended, . . .â? That sounds too much like â??Trinitarianismâ? of Apostate Christianity! I always become suspicious of a doctrine that is thrown at me claiming to be mysterious and beyond my comprehension. What is â??incomprehensibleâ? is darkness and not light. God gives â??light to the understanding,â? as Nephi explained: â??For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understandingâ? (Nephi 31:3). In the early days of the Church the Lord chided the early saints for allowing themselves to be influenced by things that they â??could not understandâ? (D&C 50:10â??24). This appears to be a case in point.

Maybe I wasn't clear, sorry. LDS theology teaches that if you obey the eternal laws of the Gospel, you can progress up the ladder of the law of eternal progression (LoEP). . . .
Not at all! That is not the LDS theology that I recognize. The LDS theology that I recognize says that if I live the eternal laws of the gospel, I shall obtain eternal life. I shall obtain exaltation in the celestial kingdom where the Father and the Son dwell. The condition of that state is described in the scriptures in these words:

D&C 76
:

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all thingsâ??

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of Godâ??

59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ's, and Christ is God's.

60 And they shall overcome all things.

61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.

62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.

63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.

64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.

65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.

66 These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.

67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.

68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.

69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.

70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

It says nothing about â??climbing the ladder of eternal progressionâ?. That is a totally alien concept to me.

Link to comment
Hey Pahoran,

How ya doing.

Fair enough, seeing how you have read the book, start a new thread and put the top three arguments in Dan's book and I'll respond, after we get through those we can do three more. Good Idea. If Dan wants to jump in he can.

Bad idea.

Here's a better one:

Tell me when you've read it. Then I'll start the thread, and we'll all be talking about the same thing.

You really need to do your own homework, Markk.

Look forward to your new thread.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

PS. If you have paid the 7 bucks for Dan's paper on the Trinity we can do the same with that?

There's already such a thread; it's here.

And the thread originator has pointedly requested that the discussion be based upon having actually read the paper, and not upon summaries thereof.

So, startling thought that it is, why don't we actually show some respect for the thread originator's request?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
And the thread originator has pointedly requested that the discussion be based upon having actually read the paper, and not upon summaries thereof.

So, startling thought that it is, why don't we actually show some respect for the thread originator's request?

Regards,

Pahoran

Seven pages later, no one has actually honored that request! I'm still working on it!

Link to comment
Bad idea.

Here's a better one:

Tell me when you've read it. Then I'll start the thread, and we'll all be talking about the same thing.

You really need to do your own homework, Markk.

There's already such a thread; it's here.

And the thread originator has pointedly requested that the discussion be based upon having actually read the paper, and not upon summaries thereof.

So, startling thought that it is, why don't we actually show some respect for the thread originator's request?

Regards,

Pahoran

Hi Pahron,

I read through the book, so what, I disagree with almost all of it, and I could care less about debating Dans book, I will debate though why I believe LDS theology is not Christian theology?

I have studied LDS and Christian theology for 20 years, right or wrong I know what I believe and why I believe it. If you want to discuss why I believe that LDS theology is not Christian theology then get Dans book, or even better yet, discuss it based on your own understandings. We can do it publicly or privately I don't care. If you want to discuss it get it going, if you just want to call me names and attack me personally then that all right too?

I''ll start it by stating that LDS ideology demands that the term "Christian" is more or less a generic term. Paste it on a new thread if you want and I''l reply.

Take care

mark

John 1:12

Link to comment

Hi Z

Hi Z,

I'm not sure how to answer you on this one. Try looking at this LDS http http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/g/62 make sure to read the attributes listed under the heading eternal nature of God, these are attributes that define God's Nature. When I speak of the trinity it is specifically defining God's triune nature One God by nature, manifest in three persons, yet again one God in Nature.

That is a verbal trick. It is a play on words. The link refers to an article in the Topical Guide with the heading â??God, Eternal Nature ofâ?. That is simply another way of saying â??the eternity of God,â? or â??how God is eternalâ?. It is not attempting to define the Godâ??s â??natureâ?. There is a subtle distinction between the two.

It is not a trick Z, give me a little more credit that that. Maybe some LDS here can give you some help on this one. I really don't now how to respond to this.

The same here. The way the authors of these articles use the term â??natureâ? is different from what you are trying to do. You have read my Blog article on the Trinity, and you realize that you have no argument against it; so you are trying to find a way of getting round it by shifting the focus of the argument away from the Trinity to the elusive concept of the â??natureâ? of God, which nobody can define or explain with any exactness. Well, good luck with that! But I donâ??t think that will work.

Again I don't know how to answer this. I haven't read your blog, I'm sorry if I missed a link, give it to me and I'll check it out though.

The word "Trinity", is a term used to describe the triune nature of God, One God, manifest in three persons yet still One God by nature. Attributes of God define His nature. I fully understand we will NEVER understand or comprehend Gods nature, nor can we understand our nature as a matter of fact. We are not commanded to fully understand God's true nature, but I believe we are commanded to search, study and ponder on the insights God has given us about His nature. This is helps to Know God, to draw closer to Him and helps us in our faith. Read Is. 55, around verses 8 or 9 it say something along the lines of "as the heavens are higher than the earth, Gods ways are higher than mans" But again God has revealed insights of His nature to us for us to grow and know Him the best we can.

Okay, letâ??s talk about â??natureâ? then. You say, â??When I speak of the trinity it is specifically defining God's triune nature One God by nature, manifest in three persons, yet again one God in Natureâ?. Great! So how is that biblical? Where is the scriptural evidence to prove that?

Good question, the Bible is clear there is One God, yet it teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the HS is God, All three have attributes that only God can have, yet the Bible is clear that there is only one God. I don't understand this, and again I do not believe I can understand this, but I can trust that it is so.

Isaiah in chapter 43 say that man can Know, Believe, and Understand that there is but one God, nore will there ever be another God. James says clearly that there is but One God and that the demons tremble at this fact, Yet again the bible is clear that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the HS is God. In Phil. 2 Jesus was in the form of God and equal with God and surrendered His reputation of being God and took on flesh and bone and became a man so He could take away our sins. In Act Ananias and Saphira lied to God The HS, and there is no debate that the Father is God. All three share the same attributes, yet again the Bible is clear that there is but One God.

Go ahead and ask me questions on by take and I'll give you cf.

Take Care

Mark

John 1:12

Link to comment
I worship the Father in the name of Jesus. I also worship Jesus. The scripture I had cited shows you how it is possible to do both.

I fail to see the logic of that argument. It is incoherent and doesnâ??t make a lot of sense. The scripture says the â??Godsâ? made the earth; but it doesnâ??t say who they were or how many they were. But it does make clear that they had someone in their ranks that took the lead. Your arguments does not hold water.

You are now being disingenuous. You are throwing bogus arguments at me just for the sake of having said something. Well, there comes a point where continuing with the discussion no longer becomes a worthwhile exercise.

Thanks for the link. That was interesting. But it doesnâ??t really address the point I was making. I didnâ??t deny that the doctrine of â??eternal progressionâ? has been taught in the Church; but I question its theological usefulness, especially in the conversation that we are having.

As an aside, in that article you linked to, it starts with this assertion: â??The principle of eternal progression cannot be precisely defined or comprehended, . . .â? That sounds too much like â??Trinitarianismâ? of Apostate Christianity! I always become suspicious of a doctrine that is thrown at me claiming to be mysterious and beyond my comprehension. What is â??incomprehensibleâ? is darkness and not light. God gives â??light to the understanding,â? as Nephi explained: â??For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understandingâ? (Nephi 31:3). In the early days of the Church the Lord chided the early saints for allowing themselves to be influenced by things that they â??could not understandâ? (D&C 50:10â??24). This appears to be a case in point.

Not at all! That is not the LDS theology that I recognize. The LDS theology that I recognize says that if I live the eternal laws of the gospel, I shall obtain eternal life. I shall obtain exaltation in the celestial kingdom where the Father and the Son dwell. The condition of that state is described in the scriptures in these words:

D&C 76
:

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all thingsâ??

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of Godâ??

59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ's, and Christ is God's.

60 And they shall overcome all things.

61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.

62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.

63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.

64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.

65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.

66 These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.

67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.

68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.

69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.

70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

It says nothing about â??climbing the ladder of eternal progressionâ?. That is a totally alien concept to me.

Hi Z,

It's a tough thing when one examines their faith. I really don't know how to answer some of your responses without offending. One thing I have determined in the years of posting on sites like this is that some people are just to tightly wound. I'll leave it at that.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

Link to comment
Hi Pahron,

I read through the book, so what, I disagree with almost all of it, and I could care less about debating Dans book, I will debate though why I believe LDS theology is not Christian theology?

I have studied LDS and Christian theology for 20 years, right or wrong I know what I believe and why I believe it. If you want to discuss why I believe that LDS theology is not Christian theology then get Dans book, or even better yet, discuss it based on your own understandings. We can do it publicly or privately I don't care. If you want to discuss it get it going, if you just want to call me names and attack me personally then that all right too?

You got that dichotomy wrong I am afraid. The dichotomy is not â??Mormonismâ? vs. â??Christian theologyâ?; it is â??True Christianity (Mormonism)â? vs. â??Apostate Christianityâ?. Once you have managed to wrap your head round that idea, you will begin to see the the thing in its proper perspective.
I''ll start it by stating that LDS ideology demands that the term "Christian" is more or less a generic term. Paste it on a new thread if you want and I''l reply.
Not really. LDS theology demands that the word â??Christianâ? be defined biblically. I have already done that in one of my Blog posts, which you can read here if you are interested.
Link to comment
Hi Z

It is not a trick Z, give me a little more credit that that. Maybe some LDS here can give you some help on this one. I really don't now how to respond to this.

Again I don't know how to answer this. I haven't read your blog, I'm sorry if I missed a link, give it to me and I'll check it out though. . . .

When you donâ??t have good answers to give, keeping quiet is the wisest course of action, I agree.
Good question, the Bible is clear there is One God, yet it teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the HS is God, All three have attributes that only God can have, yet the Bible is clear that there is only one God. I don't understand this, and again I do not believe I can understand this, but I can trust that it is so.
Which defines the Trinity as three Gods in one God, right?
Isaiah in chapter 43 say that man can Know, Believe, and Understand that there is but one God, nore will there ever be another God. James says clearly that there is but One God and that the demons tremble at this fact, . . .
It looks like you need to read more of my Blog. If you would care to read this article, it will put you straight on that one.
. . . Yet again the bible is clear that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the HS is God. . . .
Which makes them three Gods in one God, no?
. . . In Phil. 2 Jesus was in the form of God and equal with God and surrendered His reputation of being God and took on flesh and bone and became a man so He could take away our sins. In Act Ananias and Saphira lied to God The HS, and there is no debate that the Father is God. All three share the same attributes, yet again the Bible is clear that there is but One God.
True; except that you miss out those verses that explain how they are one. Check out John 17:11, 20â??23, and tell me what it says.
Go ahead and ask me questions on by take and I'll give you cf.
Thank you. I donâ??t have any questions to ask; but I have some good answers to give.
Link to comment
Hi Z,

It's a tough thing when one examines their faith.

I thought you had figured by now that I am good at examining my own faith, as well as other faiths; and I have come to the conclusion that Mormonism is true.
I really don't know how to answer some of your responses without offending.
Donâ??t bother replying then.
One thing I have determined in the years of posting on sites like this is that some people are just to tightly wound. I'll leave it at that.
Thank you. I thought you would beat a retreat in the end. If you have nothing better to say, saying nothing is the wisest course of action, I am sure.
Link to comment
I thought you had figured by now that I am good at examining my own faith, as well as other faiths; and I have come to the conclusion that Mormonism is true.

Donâ??t bother replying then.

Thank you. I thought you would beat a retreat in the end. If you have nothing better to say, saying nothing is the wisest course of action, I am sure.

Hi Z,

I was kind of hoping that a LDS member would help you out with some of your "understandings". I can't answer questions or comment if you can't even understand the simplest LDS doctrines ( i.e. eternal progression) let alone what I believe. We can't discuss the Nature of God according to our two beliefs if you deny the nature of God is a topic of discussion, or that LDS actually teach their view of the nature of God. We can't discuss the Trinity as Hundreds of Millions of Christians believe, in that the word Trinity is a word to describe Gods nature. I have discussed this topic with many, many people, but you are the first to tell me that there is no scriptural evidence that tells of the nature of God. I showed you where on LDS.org, under the heading of "The Eternal Nature of God" , the LDS church lists the many attributes they believe define the Nature of God...Z, I just don't know how to deal with your kind of....logic?

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

Link to comment
Hi Z,

I was kind of hoping that a LDS member would help you out with some of your "understandings". I can't answer questions or comment if you can't even understand the simplest LDS doctrines ( i.e. eternal progression) let alone what I believe. We can't discuss the Nature of God according to our two beliefs if you deny the nature of God is a topic of discussion, or that LDS actually teach their view of the nature of God. We can't discuss the Trinity as Hundreds of Millions of Christians believe, in that the word Trinity is a word to describe Gods nature. I have discussed this topic with many, many people, but you are the first to tell me that there is no scriptural evidence that tells of the nature of God. I showed you where on LDS.org, under the heading of "The Eternal Nature of God" , the LDS church lists the many attributes they believe define the Nature of God...Z, I just don't know how to deal with your kind of....logic?

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

LOL! :P No comment. That was quite amusing. Have a nice day.
Link to comment
Thanks for the link. I havenâ??t read that particular book; but I have read the one written by Professor Robinson. These books, though they make a useful contribution, nevertheless they fail to recognize and tackle the underlying cause of the phenomenon they are dealing with, and therefore do not have the desired impact that their authors or other Church members expect of them.

There is a specific reason why the enemies of the Church resort to this tactic of calling the Church â??not Christianâ?. It is a retaliation against the LDS doctrine of the Apostasy. The LDS doctrine of the Apostasy and Restoration is extremely hard on other Christian churches. It pulls the rug from under their feet. It puts them in a dilemma. They either have to concede defeat, and give Mormonism the credit it claims; or else they have to fight against it. And they have chosen the latter. It is a hostile act. It is a declaration of war against Latter-day Saints. And you cannot prevail against that kind of hostility by nice academic arguments; because those are not the weapons that it uses to fight its battles with.

Some years ago I went inside an Anglican church just to look around. It had a nice ornate old style architecture, and I like churches, so I decided to go inside to have a look. No one else was there except the minister. He evidently had a very outgoing type of personality, and when he saw me wondering around his church he strolled up to me full of smiles and good humor, and started a conversation. He said, â??What is your story?â? I said, â??I am a Mormon!â? when I said that, he jumped three feet in the air as if a snake had bitten him. His smile turned into a frown, and his good humor into fear, apprehension, and hostility. But he was perfectly honest in expressing his feelings. He said words to the effect that â??You say that the whole of Christianity is gone wrong . . . it has apostatized . . . you are a threat!â? Well he was right about that. In a way we are a threat to them. This is even acknowledged by the Lord in modern revelation:

D&C 10
:

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devilâ??yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.

Did anybody here watch the TV show where Lawrence O'Donnell raved and ranted against the LDS Church? You can watch it here if you hadnâ??t. You cannot prevail against that kind of hostility by nice academic arguments, because that is not the turf it uses to fight its battles on. The only effective answer to the â??Mormons are not Christiansâ? charge is the â??Apostasyâ? doctrine! That is the only answer that wins against that accusation. Daniel, Ricks, Robinson, and anybody else who wants to write books of this kind will not go anywhere near winning that debate unless they are willing to incorporate a very strong element of the Apostasy into all of their writings. It needs to be woven into the very fabric of their books for it to have the desired impact. That is how it works. :P

One additional comment relating to the above post: It is the combination of Apostasy and Restoration doctrines that together provide the potent force necessary to defeat the â??Mormons are not Christiansâ? charge; Apostasy by itself is not sufficient. Both the ingredients are required to create the explosive charge that defeats them. The Protestants also had the Apostasy doctrine to start with. That is how they broke away from the Catholic Church. But they lacked the other vital ingredient, the Restoration. Without that they could never succeed. It is a combination of the Apostasy doctrine and a powerful witness of the Restoration that creates the explosive mix that knocks the living daylight out of their lives!

I had addressed that post primarily to academics like Dan, Robinson, or Ricks who would like to write academic books of that kind in defense of the Christianity of Mormonism. That fight is not a purely academic one. There are other factors involved. You canâ??t win a war by just fighting a defensive battle. You have to take offensive action. You have to take the fight to the enemy territory and defeat him there. And the most potent weapon for that is Apostasy and Restoration. But the principles discussed above are equally applicable to other Church members who are challenged by the â??Mormons are not Christiansâ? accusation, such as during a private conversation or an online discussion. The same weapon works in every case. Without it you will not succeed; with it you cannot fail! ;)

Link to comment
I worship the Father in the name of Jesus. I also worship Jesus. The scripture I had cited shows you how it is possible to do both.

I fail to see the logic of that argument. It is incoherent and doesnâ??t make a lot of sense. The scripture says the â??Godsâ? made the earth; but it doesnâ??t say who they were or how many they were. But it does make clear that they had someone in their ranks that took the lead. Your arguments does not hold water.

You are now being disingenuous. You are throwing bogus arguments at me just for the sake of having said something. Well, there comes a point where continuing with the discussion no longer becomes a worthwhile exercise.

Thanks for the link. That was interesting. But it doesnâ??t really address the point I was making. I didnâ??t deny that the doctrine of â??eternal progressionâ? has been taught in the Church; but I question its theological usefulness, especially in the conversation that we are having.

As an aside, in that article you linked to, it starts with this assertion: â??The principle of eternal progression cannot be precisely defined or comprehended, . . .â? That sounds too much like â??Trinitarianismâ? of Apostate Christianity! I always become suspicious of a doctrine that is thrown at me claiming to be mysterious and beyond my comprehension. What is â??incomprehensibleâ? is darkness and not light. God gives â??light to the understanding,â? as Nephi explained: â??For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understandingâ? (Nephi 31:3). In the early days of the Church the Lord chided the early saints for allowing themselves to be influenced by things that they â??could not understandâ? (D&C 50:10â??24). This appears to be a case in point.

Not at all! That is not the LDS theology that I recognize. The LDS theology that I recognize says that if I live the eternal laws of the gospel, I shall obtain eternal life. I shall obtain exaltation in the celestial kingdom where the Father and the Son dwell. The condition of that state is described in the scriptures in these words:

D&C 76
:

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all thingsâ??

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of Godâ??

59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ's, and Christ is God's.

60 And they shall overcome all things.

61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.

62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.

63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.

64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.

65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.

66 These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.

67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.

68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.

69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.

70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

It says nothing about â??climbing the ladder of eternal progressionâ?. That is a totally alien concept to me.

On additional comment to this post too :P: When I first read that article in Mormon Wiki about Eternal Progression, I didnâ??t examine it too carefully. But I had a look at it again, and noticed the multimedia video and gave it a try. It is one of the dumbest things I have seen for a long time! My advice to Latter-day Saints (for what it is worth) is to do themselves a favor and throw â??Eternal Progressionâ? to the wind. It is not an inspired concept. Stick close to the word of God, and your eyes will be opened to understand the truth as it was meant to be understood.
Link to comment

Hi Z,

Thank you. I thought you would beat a retreat in the end. If you have nothing better to say, saying nothing is the wisest course of action, I am sure.

I'm not retreating Z, I just don't know how to discuss certain issues with you. If you deny LDS doctrines and teachings then how can we discuss them?

Are you LDS or are you a fundamentalist or another LDS off shoot?

It says nothing about â??climbing the ladder of eternal progressionâ?. That is a totally alien concept to me.

Joesph Smith taught this, are you saying that he was teaching falsely here?

[b]The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospelâ??you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 348).

D&C 93

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

Read this carefully and tell me where progression or exaltation fits in. Is eternal progress a truth? Can man be exalted to become a god?

What I am getting at is that this LDS scripture says that here are "truths" beyond God, beyond His creation. These truths are then eternal according to LDS theology. These truth are eternal laws.

So, if progression and exaltation are truths, beyond the creation of God, can you see that this is the scripture in which LDS GA's have taught the Law of eternal Progression?

So is that a fair statement, why or why not?

take care

Mark

John 1;12

Link to comment
so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them"

This does not support the point of "eternal progression" as far as you are interpreting it as it indicates there is an end to the learning---the top of the ladder so to speak when "all" (finite number note) has been learnt. It seems to indicate that such is done prior to judgment and actual exaltation to the CK as well in my reading.

All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it
This scripture also does not serve your purpose since these truths spoken of here are not beyond God, but under his control/his placement.
Link to comment

Markk, are you a Fundamentalist Independant Baptist ?, for some reason I am under the impression that you are, I may be wrong however. If not FIB what Church do you attend ?. Thanks.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

Link to comment
Hi Z,

I'm not retreating Z, I just don't know how to discuss certain issues with you. If you deny LDS doctrines and teachings then how can we discuss them?

Are you LDS or are you a fundamentalist or another LDS off shoot?

LOL! :fool: Thanks for the good laugh.
Joesph Smith taught this, are you saying that he was teaching falsely here?

[b]The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospelâ??you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 348).

That is not about â??eternal progressionâ?.

D&C 93

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

Read this carefully and tell me where progression or exaltation fits in.

Exaltation is not the same as progression.
Is eternal progress a truth? Can man be exalted to become a god?
Men can be exalted and can become gods; that is not â??eternal progressionâ?.
What I am getting at is that this LDS scripture says that here are "truths" beyond God, beyond His creation.
I havenâ??t a clue what you are talking about.
These truths are then eternal according to LDS theology. These truth are eternal laws.
Ditto.
So, if progression and exaltation are truths, . . .
Exaltation is truth; don't know what â??progressionâ? is.
. . . beyond the creation of God, . . .
:P
. . . can you see that this is the scripture in which LDS GA's have taught the Law of eternal Progression?
No!
So is that a fair statement, why or why not?
;):crazy:
Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...