Mormonism and the Trinity

[The_Monk]

I said nothing concerning your article in the sense of being guilty of anything. I quoted from Mormonism's own writings. SNIP

Do you think most Christians accurately grasp the distinction between classical Trinitarianism and modalism? Such is not my experience.

[coolrok7]

Do you think most Christians accurately grasp the distinction between classical Trinitarianism and modalism? Such is not my experience.

I've seen "Christians" argue it both ways so I understand it boils down to who you ask (each organizaton in the sense of Church bodies have a similar definition of what It means by the Trinity. By definition the Trinitarian view (three persons, one God) is not Modalism (all three the same person).

What I did do was demonstrate from both official writings of Mormons and Witnesses in which they express the modalistic view, not the Trinitarian.

[Markk]

Hi Dan

You wrote:

" Latter-day Saints and other Christians will continue to disagree on many things. But, if I'm correct, the doctrine of the Trinity need not loom quite so large among them."

The understanding of the nature of God has been, and always will be, one of the largest divides between the Christian faith and the LDS faith. Once the LDS understanding of the nature of God is broken down for a Christian that is not knowagable of the core LDS teaching/s of the nature of God, it is not even debatable. One has to factor in the LDS eternal law of progression and that there are countless gods in LDS thought and that these Gods, including Elohim, are not all knowing and are forever progressing.

Not sure where you going with this one Dan.

Thanks

Mark

John 1:12

[Daniel Peterson]

The understanding of the nature of God has been, and always will be, one of the largest divides between the Christian faith and the LDS faith.

Your statement makes no sense. Mormonism is a Christian faith.

However, it's definitely true -- and perhaps this is what you were trying to say -- that the nature of God has always been a point of contention between the Latter-day Saints and members of various other Christian denominations.

Not sure where you going with this one Dan.

If, without having read my article, you already knew where I was going with this one, there would have been little point in my writing the article.

[mfbukowski]

You've pretty much nailed it.

[mfbukowski]

Prof Peterson

That is really exciting. There is tremendous potential in that view for christian unity. It is an extremely strong position which I think is virtually impossible to argue against scripturally. But of course you know that better than I do

So how do we get the word out and change the world? I am trying to remember if such a position has been espoused by a General Authority?

[Daniel Peterson]

Prof Peterson

That is really exciting. There is tremendous potential in that view for christian unity. It is an extremely strong position which I think is virtually impossible to argue against scripturally. But of course you know that better than I do

So how do we get the word out and change the world? I am trying to remember if such a position has been espoused by a General Authority?

Well, Blake Ostler and I are talking about it in the Mormon community, as, in a sense, is David Paulsen. But our audience is tiny.

And the social Trinitarians out there in the broader Christian world are doing their best. I think they have a very strong and extremely attractive position, and I wish them all the best.

Read my article when you get a chance. I welcome any comments or suggestions, because I intend to expand it (and to publish a longer treatment somewhere, sometime).

[mrmendoza]

A Restoration implies a significant degree of differences.

Obviously, informed Latter day Saints like our good professor are not threatened by the truth whether any individual issue points in favor of or against an apostasy. But for the record, I think we still have those siginificant differences which make a Great Apostasy plausible, but I heartily welcome the possibility that our view on the Trinity is no longer one of them. I don't relate to the Protestant or Catholic who should hope otherwise.

While I agree that we as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, quite often imphasize all the differences in our doctrines (as do our detractors) to show why there needs to be a restoration, IMO a restoration does NOT need to have a significant degree of differences to be justified. To restore is to bring back something that was lost, or taken away.While, it is true, we use all these differences as evidence for the Great Apostasy, they only became truly important after the real restoration - that of the Priesthood - had taken place!

All the arguements over the Trinity, baptisim, modelism, etc. has been and will continue to be threshed out, not just between the LDS and those who are not LDS, but among almost all of Christianity. These things were being argued and fought over almost as long as Christianity it self!

If it were not for the restoration of the Priesthood, we would be no different then any one of the different sects of the day! We would just be another group of scripture thumping hacks trying to prove the unprovable view that our opinion is better then everyone elses!

Was doctrine restored?

Of course it was!

Was knowledge restored?

Of course it was!

Were ordinences restored ?

Absolutly!

But what good would any of them be, if we didn't have the authority to use them?

The reality is, no matter how much we might agree with others, without the restoration of the Priesthood, the authority to act in the name of G-d, we would be no better then the blind leading the blind!

Mike

[mfbukowski]

Well, Blake Ostler and I are talking about it in the Mormon community, as, in a sense, is David Paulsen. But our audience is tiny.

And the social Trinitarians out there in the broader Christian world are doing their best. I think they have a very strong and extremely attractive position, and I wish them all the best.

Read my article when you get a chance. I welcome any comments or suggestions, because I intend to expand it (and to publish a longer treatment somewhere, sometime).

Absolutely!

[Markk]

Your statement makes no sense. Mormonism is a Christian faith.

However, it's definitely true -- and perhaps this is what you were trying to say -- that the nature of God has always been a point of contention between the Latter-day Saints and members of various other Christian denominations.

If, without having read my article, you already knew where I was going with this one, there would have been little point in my writing the article.

Hi Dan,

Your making my point, LDS theology is not Christian theology and the nature of God is the main reason for this. Most Christians hold this view and the nature of God is again the main reason that the vast majority of Christians do not view LDS theology as Christian theology. Your thought speaks well to the choir, out side of that it holds no weight.

Thanks

MG

[coolrok7]

No, he's just looking for a stage to perform on - as usual.

The same could be said for everyone here.

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players.

They have their exits and their entrances;

And one man in his time plays many parts...

William Shakespeare, "As You Like It"

[Daniel Peterson]

Your making my point, LDS theology is not Christian theology and the nature of God is the main reason for this.

I'm unlikely to be making your point when I expressly repudiate it.

Try to make some sense.

Most Christians hold this view and the nature of God is again the main reason that the vast majority of Christians do not view LDS theology as Christian theology.

I've never seen a poll of the entire Christian population of the world, on this or any other topic. Could you please supply the source that you're using for your assertion about what "most Christians" think about this subject?

But you realize, of course, that the truth is not established by opinion polls anyway. (No opinion poll is needed, for instance, to know that the majority of the world's population rejects Christianity altogether, yet somehow I don't think you would grant that that fact, by itself, is enough to refute the claims of the Christian faith.)

Your thought speaks well to the choir, out side of that it holds no weight.

I've written a book on the question of whether Mormons are Christian, entitled Offenders for a Word. You're welcome to attempt to refute its arguments with solid evidence and logic. Until then, your dogmatic summary assertion that Mormons aren't Christians is worth somewhat less than the electrons you use to post it.

[jwhitlock]

The same could be said for everyone here.

You, in particular, look for every opportunity to denigrate the Church and its members.

That's your stage. You do it even when it derails threads. You make lengthy cut and paste posts from anti-Mormon sites in the mistaken notion that you're making some kind of point.

It gets quite tiresome, especially with the self-righteous sniffing you do about being some unbiased expert on Mormonism.

In reality, you're not particularly credible. The bumper-sticker type of "witnessing" you're trying to do to Mormons is also not particularly effective. We keep telling you this, and you keep blindly beating the same drum, as if doing more of those offensive, negative approaches will one day cure some Mormon of his delusion - a delusion which only exists in your head.

Perhaps one day you'll try to post for understanding, instead of tearing us down.

Until then, you're really only like the little, annoying child who is constantly trying to make a public scene in order to get some kind of attention. That's the stage you're looking for. Korihor did the same kind of thing; you might learn something from his experience.

[DonBradley]

If, without having read my article, you already knew where I was going with this one, there would have been little point in my writing the article.

[Markk]

I'm unlikely to be making your point when I expressly repudiate it.

Try to make some sense.

I've never seen a poll of the entire Christian population of the world, on this or any other topic. Could you please supply the source that you're using for your assertion about what "most Christians" think about this subject?

But you realize, of course, that the truth is not established by opinion polls anyway. (No opinion poll is needed, for instance, to know that the majority of the world's population rejects Christianity altogether, yet somehow I don't think you would grant that that fact, by itself, is enough to refute the claims of the Christian faith.)

I've written a book on the question of whether Mormons are Christian, entitled Offenders for a Word. You're welcome to attempt to refute its arguments with solid evidence and logic. Until then, your dogmatic summary assertion that Mormons aren't Christians is worth somewhat less than the electrons you use to post it.

Hi Dan,

"Try to make some sense."

It's really not that difficult Dan, you wrote ..."" Latter-day Saints and other Christians will continue to disagree on many things. But, if I'm correct, the doctrine of the Trinity need not loom quite so large among them."

I'll try again, the nature of God according to LDS theology is not accepted by any Christian org. that I am aware of. Christian theology teaches that God is one in nature and within this nature are three persons, and that beyond this there are no other gods. LDS theology teaches that a council of gods made a plan and these gods created this world and that those on this world are subject to three of the council gods as "their" trinity, but beyond that there are un-countable gods and every worthy man here on this earth can become a god just as the gods of the LDS trinity did...etc...etc.

So to say that the differences in the doctrine of the Trinity (nature of God) between LDS and Christians is not much of a difference is really a stretch Dan.

I've never seen a poll of the entire Christian population of the world, on this or any other topic. Could you please supply the source that you're using for your assertion about what "most Christians" think about this subject?

What ever, ask the Pope, that will give you half the answer. If you really believe that the Christian world as you call it can relate to LDS doctrine concearning the nature of God then good luck.

But you realize, of course, that the truth is not established by opinion polls anyway. (No opinion poll is needed, for instance, to know that the majority of the world's population rejects Christianity altogether, yet somehow I don't think you would grant that that fact, by itself, is enough to refute the claims of the Christian faith.)

HuH....? What does that have to do with the LDS concept of the nature of God and the Christian understanding?

I've written a book on the question of whether Mormons are Christian, entitled Offenders for a Word. You're welcome to attempt to refute its arguments with solid evidence and logic. Until then, your dogmatic summary assertion that Mormons aren't Christians is worth somewhat less than the electrons you use to post it.

We all know that books written by men mean nothing, if that were true then Ed Decker would be signing his books Deseret Books, I will debate this with you, as we have in the past, but thats your call. I still remember when you told me the Children of God cult were Christians.

Anyway, take care

Mark

John 1:12

[coolrok7]

Do you do anything other than posting large segments of anti-Mormon material to this site? Can you not use your own observations and your own arguments to make a point?

Many LDS do misunderstand the Trinity because of the way it's been worded in various creeds in the past. And some Christians misunderstand the doctrine themselves. . . .

Perhaps you can engage in these discussions using your own words and ideas rather than just cutting and pasting long segments from anti-Mormon publications and then asking for explanations.

Outside of the Bible verse and my words, the rest are quotes from the literature of Mormonism and a snippet of a Jehovah's Witness publication in agreement with the Mormon statement. I had already complied with your stated request before you even wrote it.

When individuals state things incorrectly or are confused themselves, they do not speak for those who are not confused or might even be deceived by false religious belief of which I'm not responsible for. I've tried to unconfuse those who are willing to listen. Not many here are willing or seem to care to understand but just repeat what they're told. I've been building a bridge that Mormons don't seem to want to come over to understand me better. I've tried and won't give up.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'll try again, the nature of God according to LDS theology is not accepted by any Christian org. that I am aware of.

It's accepted by the LDS Church, which is a Christian organization.

You're committing the elementary logical fallacy known as "begging the question."

Christian theology teaches that God is one in nature and within this nature are three persons, and that beyond this there are no other gods.

That's true of most Christian theologies, but not of all. It's not true, for example, of LDS theology.

ISo to say that the differences in the doctrine of the Trinity (nature of God) between LDS and [non-LDS] Christians is not much of a difference is really a stretch Dan.

What's really a stretch is presuming to comment upon a long and complex article that you haven't so much as seen.

Unless and until you've read it carefully, you'll have nothing useful and relevant to say about it.

We all know that books written by men mean nothing

I don't know that.

I think books and libraries are good things.

I will debate this with you, as we have in the past, but thats your call.

Thanks.

I'm not interested.

[zerinus]

I'll try again, the nature of God according to LDS theology is not accepted by any Christian org. that I am aware of.

You mean â??apostate Christian org.â? Agreed!

Christian theology teaches that God is one in nature and within this nature are three persons, and that beyond this there are no other gods.

That is what apostate Christian theology teaches. Agreed!

So to say that the differences in the doctrine of the Trinity (nature of God) between LDS and Christians is not much of a difference is really a stretch Dan.

I am sure it would be. I would say there is a BIG difference between the Mormon doctrine of the Trinity which is true and revealed from heaven, and the Trinitarian theology of apostate Christendom. Unfortunately I havenâ??t read Danielâ??s article, so I canâ??t comment.

What ever, ask the Pope, that will give you half the answer. If you really believe that the Christian world as you call it can relate to LDS doctrine concearning the nature of God then good luck.

I am sure the apostate Christian world does not relate very well with the LDS doctrine of the nature of God.

We all know that books written by men mean nothing, if that were true then Ed Decker would be signing his books Deseret Books, . . .

Now that is a strange remark, because your theology of the Trinity is the product of the minds of men, not based on the revelations of God. In short, your Trinitarian theology is not biblical. I wish you would take your own advice and believe in the Trinity of the Bible, as the Mormons do, instead of the false Trinity of post-apostate Christendom.

. . . I will debate this with you, as we have in the past, but thats your call.

Donâ??t worry Mark, I will debate it with you if want! But I suggest you have a look at this thread first, so that we donâ??t go over the same ground twice. As you can see, the subject has already been discussed before, at considerable length.

[mfbukowski]

I'll try again, the nature of God according to LDS theology is not accepted by any Christian org. that I am aware of. Christian theology teaches that God is one in nature and within this nature are three persons, and that beyond this there are no other gods. LDS theology teaches that a council of gods made a plan and these gods created this world and that those on this world are subject to three of the council gods as "their" trinity, but beyond that there are un-countable gods and every worthy man here on this earth can become a god just as the gods of the LDS trinity did...etc...etc.

This really shows a major misunderstanding of even what the Godhead is from a Mormon pov. It's pretty silly to attack a position nobody holds. Have you ever heard of a "strawman?" Study up a little, come back, and maybe there will be something to discuss. Maybe not.

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

There is no fallacy here Dan, it's really taking a common sense realistic view of the Christian view of Godhead and the LDS view of Godhead, they are 180 at every point. If a book, paper, or article comes to a conclusion that there is the remotest similarities between the two respective views of the Godhead, then it's not dealing with the simple facts.

Take Care

Mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Hi zerinus,

You mean â??apostate Christian org.â? Agreed!

Classic... so what your saying is that Dans book is saying that the LDS view of the Godhead and that of apostate christianity are really similar to their understanding of the nature?

I am sure it would be. I would say there is a BIG difference between the Mormon doctrine of the Trinity which is true and revealed from heaven, and the Trinitarian theology of apostate Christendom. Unfortunately I havenâ??t read Danielâ??s article, so I canâ??t comment.

I agree that there is a big difference, we can agree on that, and that's a good thing. I would disagree on your view of the apostasy and we can discuss that and test our respective views...fair? I also have not read Dans article, but I can comment on his conclusion, as you more or less have.

I am sure the apostate Christian world does not relate very well with the LDS doctrine of the nature of God.

Again, fair enough, but we should discuss the apostate part, but we seem to be in agreement that Dans conclusion is a stretch...fair, please comment? From a LDS point of view all churches are is apostasy and have no authority, so from a LDS point your correct, but from a Christian point of view LDS theology is not Christian theology so my take is correct from that view, so again we shoul ddiscuss it and test what we believe. We can both be wrong but we both can't be right, and by discussing the facts of our two views neither Mormonism or Christianity will fall apart overnight so what the heck?

Now that is a strange remark, because your theology of the Trinity is the product of the minds of men, not based on the revelations of God. In short, your Trinitarian theology is not biblical. I wish you would take your own advice and believe in the Trinity of the Bible, as the Mormons do, instead of the false Trinity of post-apostate Christendom.

Are you sure? again lets discuss it and I'll show you what I believe and why I believe it just using the Bible. Take what I wrote in context, it was in context with Dan implying he wrote it, so it must be true. I used Ed Decker as a example in that he's written allot, yet not many LDS believe what he said just because he wrote it, again context, context, context. But again, I'll be more than happy to walk you through what I believe and while I believe it.

Donâ??t worry Mark, I will debate it with you if want! But I suggest you have a look at this thread first, so that we donâ??t go over the same ground twice. As you can see, the subject has already been discussed before, at considerable length.

From your understanding or assumption that I rely on some sort "post-apostate" theology, I believe we have allot to discuss, but your call?

Take Care

MG

[Markk]

This really shows a major misunderstanding of even what the Godhead is from a Mormon pov. It's pretty silly to attack a position nobody holds. Have you ever heard of a "strawman?" Study up a little, come back, and maybe there will be something to discuss. Maybe not.

Hi mfbukowski, ( sounds like a great football name)

Read what I wrote, I never addressed what "positions people hold", LDS members are all over the board there, what I discussed is what LDS "theology" teaches and demands. Please tell me what I wrote that is not LDS theology and I'll either back up what I said or stand corrected and apologize...fair?

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Daniel Peterson]

There is no fallacy here Dan,

You're wrong. You've committed the fallacy of "begging the question."

Try to find it. It will be good exercise.

it's really taking a common sense realistic view of the Christian view of Godhead and the LDS view of Godhead, they are 180 at every point.

You just committed it again.

If a book, paper, or article comes to a conclusion that there is the remotest similarities between the two respective views of the Godhead, then it's not dealing with the simple facts.

And you're a dogmatist, too.

As I said, I have no interest in discussing this or any other topic with you.

Best wishes,

Dan Peterson

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi zerinus,

Classic... so what your saying is that Dans book is saying that the LDS view of the Godhead and that of apostate christianity are really similar to their understanding of the nature?

Take Care

MG

Classic?? Is that the best you got? Dude your whole approach is a classic bloated evangelical tear down.

[Markk]

You're wrong. You've committed the fallacy of "begging the question."

Try to find it. It will be good exercise.

You just committed it again.

And you're a dogmatist, too.

As I said, I have no interest in discussing this or any other topic with you.

Best wishes,

Dan Peterson

Hi Dan,

You know whats ironic, your very good at making silly arguments or statements then make it personal to the person who dared question you, yet never defend your position with any substance sticking to the context. But hey...got to love it Dan, I certainly get a kick out of it.

Always a pleasure

Markkk