Mormonism and the Trinity

[mfbukowski]

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

We believe in one God in three persons who are one in purpose. If you have ever read the Book of Mormon, you would know that. The council of the gods is a biblical position. If you ever read the bible you would know that.

Arguing the point with someone who doesn't have enough interest in the church to even get an informed argument out is a waste of time. We have been over these issues so many times on this forum, you really need to read up on it if you are serious, but I think it is clear you are not interested in learning anything.

[Markk]

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

Hi Mola,

Is that all I wrote? Dans statement is so far from the truth (reality), maybe you would like to tell me how the LDS nature of God is close to the Christian understanding of the nature of God?

Dan gets torked because I do not believe LDS doctrine is Christian doctrine, but he belongs to an org. that expects Christians to just roll over and take that the LDS church teaches that what they believe is a abomination and that if they profess it they are corrupt...O'well? At least zerinus is honest and up front in what he believes the church teaches, I can respect that even if I don't believe it.

Take care Mola

Mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

We believe in one God in three persons who are one in purpose. If you have ever read the Book of Mormon, you would know that. The council of the gods is a biblical position. If you ever read the bible you would know that.

Arguing the point with someone who doesn't have enough interest in the church to even get an informed argument out is a waste of time. We have been over these issues so many times on this forum, you really need to read up on it if you are serious, but I think it is clear you are not interested in learning anything.

Hi buk,

I was a member for 34 years, I know what the church teaches, I would disagree with your statements that LDS theology is taught in the Bible and I would love to discuss them with you.

Are you saying that LDS theology teaches that there is one god, three gods, or more? Who created this earth according to LDS theology?

By the way...who is the one God that is in the three persons you claim that LDS members believe in?

Thanks

Mark

John 1:12

[Daniel Peterson]

-1-

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.

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Goodbye.

-2-

I would really appreciate it, on this thread that I started, if people who haven't read my article would restrain their urge to summarize it, refute it, and/or dismiss it.

.

[zerinus]

Hi Dan,

There is no fallacy here Dan, it's really taking a common sense realistic view of the Christian view of Godhead . . .

You mean apostate Christian view of the Godhead. Agreed!

. . . and the LDS view of Godhead, they are 180 at every point.

Agreed!

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.

Agreed!

[zerinus]

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?

I was not commenting on â??Dans bookâ? at all. I was commenting on your post.

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?

Fair!

I also have not read Dans article, but I can comment on his conclusion, as you more or less have.

I havenâ??t actually.

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?

Like I said, I wasnâ??t commenting on his â??bookâ? (article actually) at all. I was commenting on your post.

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 . . .

You just donâ??t get it do you. It is not a â??Christian point of view â?¦â? it is an â??apostate Christian pint of view â?¦â?. LDS point of view is the true Christian one. Got it?

LDS theology is not Christian theology . . .

Correction: You mean apostate Christian theology. Agreed!

. . . so my take is correct from that view, so again we shoul discuss it and test what we believe.

Agreed. Willing to do that.

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 . . .

You mean apostate Christianity. Agreed!

. . . will fall apart overnight so what the heck?

Agreed!

Are you sure?

Positive!

again lets discuss it and I'll show you what I believe and why I believe it just using the Bible.

Okay. But make sure you study that thread I gave you so we donâ??t unnecessarily go over the same ground.

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.

Not interested in Dan or Ed Decker. Only interested in the Bible.

But again, I'll be more than happy to walk you through what I believe and while I believe it.

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

Okay. Your Trinity is false, and your Christianity is apostate. Waiting to hear from you. Did you read that thread I gave you by the way?

[Mudcat]

I would really appreciate it, on this thread that I started, if people who haven't read my article would restrain their urge to summarize it, refute it, and/or dismiss it.

I suppose I am not understanding. Is this a pay-per-view thread.

From what I can gather I will have to pony up 7 skins to read it, or 30 bones to join the SMTP and get it for free. Have I got that right?

[clairc829]

Dan

Sounds like an interesting article would love to read it when its available.

My experience as a missionary was that most people I taught already believed the Godhead was what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches. Three separate beings united in what they taught and did.

I have never been able to quite get a handle on the teaching of the Trinity that other Christian Churches teach. I have read the arguments posted in other posts, just don't get it.

Perhaps the basic problem comes from a fundamental basis of who we think God is, we see him as the father of our spirits, others see him as a totally separate type of being (same species vs different species). I know this is a gross simplification of a complex subject, but I think this may be why we have such a hard time communicating our positions, we come at the topic from such different assumptions.

Any way always appreciate you comments on this forum hope you continue to add to the body of thought.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] 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'm having difficulty finding the link to where you can purchase issues of Element on the website.

[mfbukowski]

Hi buk,

I was a member for 34 years, I know what the church teaches, I would disagree with your statements ....

Good.

Well then obviously you have your opinions that neither of us will change, so it is a pointless waste of time. Define "Christian" as you wish and I reserve the right to do the same. I will not participate in derailing this thread any more than I already have by responding to you.

[Tanyan]

From my Lights [ Understanding of True LDS Doctrine,Teaching,Thought,Practice,Walk, ] We are Anchient Monarch/Eastern/Economic/Social Godheadians/Trinitarians.

In His Debt/Grace,

Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Tanyan]

Indeed, if Mormons have misunderstand modalism to be what classical Trinitarianism really is, I blame all those Catholics and Protestants I asked about the trinity who explained it to me in just those terms.

On the accusation of modalism in the Book of Mormon see here.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=2&id=392

Coolrok, Have you taken the time to read and ponder the above article ?.

Salvation Comes In And Through His Blood and In No Other Way.

In His Debt,Grace Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Calm]

Perhaps the basic problem comes from a fundamental basis of who we think God is, we see him as the father of our spirits, others see him as a totally separate type of being (same species vs different species). I know this is a gross simplification of a complex subject, but I think this may be why we have such a hard time communicating our positions, we come at the topic from such different assumptions.

This has been my experience as well. Many could put aside the physical nature of God, but the separateness aspect---that God is something completely different and beyond what man is and man is solely His creature---is considered a point of blasphemy (our denying it) and I can see their point if they are right.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Good.

Well then obviously you have your opinions that neither of us will change, so it is a pointless waste of time. Define "Christian" as you wish and I reserve the right to do the same. I will not participate in derailing this thread any more than I already have by responding to you.

I am in the same boat as you. I will not debate Markkkkk any more. It is the same old self bloated rhetoric.

[clairc829]

This has been my experience as well. Many could put aside the physical nature of God, but the separateness aspect---that God is something completely different and beyond what man is and man is solely His creature---is considered a point of blasphemy (our denying it) and I can see their point if they are right.

From what I have read of your posts here I really respect your opinion, glad to know I not out in left field.

[Hannah Rebekah]

If my article is guilty of that misunderstanding, please do point it out.

In the meantime, my experience is that Mormons are far from the only people who misunderstand orthodox Nicene Trinitarianism and, when invited to explain it, serve up some form of modalism; mainstream lay Christians have done so, in my hearing, considerably more than half the time.

I hope that you'll resist the temptation to use this thread as a soapbox from which to launch yet another redundant attack upon Mormonism. As the thread-starter, I think I may have some say in whether you're permitted to do so.

Professor Peterson,

I ran across a Christian website that disagrees with the Nicene version and they give a history and explanation for their belief in what they call 'binitarian nature" of God. It was interesting as it seemed to me to be very close to what the LDS view is....I could be wrong. But I was wondering if you have heard of this 'binitarian' belief before and if so how does it compare to the LDS view. I was impressed with their argument. Here's their website:

Binitarianism: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning (interesting their views on the Holy Spirit)

http://www.cogwriter.com/binitarian.htm

Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?

http://www.cogwriter.com/trinity.htm

History of Early Christianity

http://www.cogwriter.com/earlychristianity.htm

[Calm]

From what I have read of your posts here I really respect your opinion, glad to know I not out in left field.

Definitely not. I was just rereading Joseph Campbell's Masks of God and he believed, IIRC, that this is the original/fundamental/core split between Eastern and Westren religion---in the West, God is creator, man is the creature and they are separate, never to be completely one in an ultimate sense; in the East this separation never occurred (he believed this is the original religious view...again IIRC) man is part of the divine, Man is God, etc.

If you are interested, I will see if I can find that quote, I'm pretty sure I folded down a page for it.

[Markk]

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?

I was not commenting on â??Dans bookâ? at all. I was commenting on your post.

Maybe so, but your making a very profound point, how can Dan's conclusion to his paper be correct if the LDS church perceives the doctrine of the trinity as taught by mainstream Christianity as a teaching of an apostate church, a church that Jesus supposedly told JS in the grove that their doctrines are an abomination. Look, LDS teachers have made it very clear that the doctrine of the Trinity is a man made corrupt doctrine, you apparently believe that also, so in that context how can Dan's conclusion stand? Right or wrong can you see my point here?

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?

Like I said, I wasnâ??t commenting on his â??bookâ? (article actually) at all. I was commenting on your post.

But my post is on his conclusion...? Not sure how you separate the two...?

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 . . .

You just donâ??t get it do you. It is not a â??Christian point of view â?¦â? it is an â??apostate Christian pint of view â?¦â?. LDS point of view is the true Christian one. Got it?

I agree with you that the LDS church teaches that, and you apparently believe that, but I do not believe that. My view and belief is that LDS doctrine is false. So lets discuss it.

Okay. Your Trinity is false, and your Christianity is apostate.

Okay that's fair I can respect your opinion if you respect mine...fair, mine is that LDS doctrine is man made and JS is a false prophet...so lets discuss it.

Lets start with how many Gods there are...shoot?

Take care

MG

PS, I am slowley reading through the other thread, I don't have allot of time, I'm to busy bidding jobs we are not going to get...lol.

[Markk]

Good.

Well then obviously you have your opinions that neither of us will change, so it is a pointless waste of time. Define "Christian" as you wish and I reserve the right to do the same. I will not participate in derailing this thread any more than I already have by responding to you.

Hi buk,

Sorry you feel that way, but in context with Dan's conclusion this debate and the hundred or so other "trinity" threads on this site, show very clearly that his conclusion is in error. This is not derailing his thread, it is simply disagreeing with his conclusion. Do you expect everyone to just say gee Dan your right?

It's very easy to make it a personal thing in stead of just discussing the facts. I am still very interested in you view that LDS members believe God is one God in three persons, was that a typo?

Anyway I understand, take care

Mark

John 1:12

[coolrok7]

Coolrok, Have you taken the time to read and ponder the above article ?.

Salvation Comes In And Through His Blood and In No Other Way.

In His Debt,Grace Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

Hi Tanyan. I briefly skimmed through it earlier this evening (more later, perhaps in another thread if Dr. Peterson objects to it). My response and clarification was in the context of Dr. Peterson's last line of his article he provided (as I have not read the article as I don't think it is available to me as of yet).

In light of the subject of "Mormonism and the Trinity" and what I do know about it based on my 30 plus years in learning things "Mormon" from Mormons and their own writings, I would not dispute his right to put forth his arguement. What I do know of Mormonism and it's proselytizing efforts I gave a personal response to what he stated. Am I not allowed to do that without my integrity being challenged right off the bat?

[Daniel Peterson]

The last line of the article will not be accurately understood until the rest of the article has been read.

Those who claim they're disagreeing with my final paragraph, thus far, pretty clearly don't know what they're talking about.

There's no sin or crime in not having read the article. But presuming to discuss it, dismiss it, or refute it without having even read it is simply silly.

[Yirgacheffe]

The last line of the article will not be accurately understood until the rest of the article has been read.

Those who claim they're disagreeing with my final paragraph, thus far, pretty clearly don't know what they're talking about.

There's no sin or crime in not having read the article. But presuming to discuss it, dismiss it, or refute it without having even read it is simply silly.

So is what Mudcat said right one has to pay 7 or 30 dollars in order to read and then discuss the article? And if they don't want to buy the article they just have to concede that LDS and TC are in sync when it comes to the Trinity? Couldn't you at least give a synopsis of the article if you are going to present it in the way you have?

[clairc829]

Definitely not. I was just rereading Joseph Campbell's Masks of God and he believed, IIRC, that this is the original/fundamental/core split between Eastern and Westren religion---in the West, God is creator, man is the creature and they are separate, never to be completely one in an ultimate sense; in the East this separation never occurred (he believed this is the original religious view...again IIRC) man is part of the divine, Man is God, etc.

If you are interested, I will see if I can find that quote, I'm pretty sure I folded down a page for it.

Sorry it took so long to get back, I would be interested if you find it sounds like it would be good to know about. When he speaks of Eastern and Western religion is he speaking of Eastern and Western Christians, or is he including others (Hindu, Chinese etc)

[Daniel Peterson]

So is what Mudcat said right one has to pay 7 or 30 dollars in order to read and then discuss the article? And if they don't want to buy the article they just have to concede that LDS and TC are in sync when it comes to the Trinity? Couldn't you at least give a synopsis of the article if you are going to present it in the way you have?

I simply mentioned the article, in case anybody was interested.

I didn't demand that anybody discuss it here, and I certainly haven't ever demanded that people concede that my argument is correct, sight unseen.

The article is 43 printed pages long, and rather detailed and complex. No, I would really rather not summarize it.

I don't see what the problem is. If I recommend a book that I think some might be interested in, have I somehow offended or wronged them if I don't buy it for them, or if they might have to buy the book in order to read it?

For the record, I will earn not a penny from this article, whether anybody buys it or not. I myself bought a copy for my sister-in-law, because she was interested, and, on top of that, I paid my dues to the Society and made a donation.

If you don't want to buy it, that's entirely your right.

[zerinus]

Hi zerinus,

Maybe so, but your making a very profound point, how can Dan's conclusion to his paper be correct if the LDS church perceives the doctrine of the trinity as taught by mainstream Christianity as a teaching of an apostate church, a church that Jesus supposedly told JS in the grove that their doctrines are an abomination. Look, LDS teachers have made it very clear that the doctrine of the Trinity is a man made corrupt doctrine, you apparently believe that also, so in that context how can Dan's conclusion stand? Right or wrong can you see my point here?

But my post is on his conclusion...? Not sure how you separate the two...?

If you are obsessed with Dan, I am not. If you think that you can have an opinion on his article on the basis of its last line, I canâ??t. But if you want my opinion on the Trinity, I can tell you. I believe that the true doctrine of the Trinity is not inconsistent with LDS doctrine. I distinguish between the biblical doctrine of the Trinity and the apostate one. What you call the Trinity is in fact the apostate doctrine of the Trinity. It is not the Trinity of the Bible. I believe in the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. I have explained that in my Bolg, which you can read here. You are welcome to read that, and if you disagree with it you can come here and tell us why.

I agree with you that the LDS church teaches that, and you apparently believe that, but I do not believe that. My view and belief is that LDS doctrine is false. So lets discuss it.

Okay that's fair I can respect your opinion if you respect mine...fair, mine is that LDS doctrine is man made and JS is a false prophet...so lets discuss it.

Lets start with how many Gods there are...shoot?

I believe that there is â??one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by himâ? (1 Corinthians 8:6).

Moses 1

:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.