Another EV dichotomy problem.

[Vance]

As I noted above-- Books of Genesis and LDS Moses both demonstrate that this God must also include Jehovah/Christ. It is He who performed the creative works and personally commanded Adam as mentioned in D&C 20.

Also other LDS scriptures command the worship of Christ--

as the Book of Mormon says--

2 Nephi 25:

So if there is only one being to be worshiped---and Christ is worshiped, and the Father is worshiped-- then the two persons are thus this one same being.

Oh, please!

As if the worship of the Father is somehow separate or different from the worship of the Son?

What? Do you think they get jealous or something?

[Vance]

Vance,

I find your penchant for "fixing" what others say obnoxious.

Please feel free to refute the corrections if you like.

The fact of the matter is that the Creed is the result of a slim majority of uninspired men.

[Zakuska]

All of us no matter what creed or species of Christian we are have to admit this.

Hebrews 1:6

And again, when he[God the Father] bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him [Jesus, the son].

Psalms 97:7

Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.

God the father tells us to Worship his Son. And jesus the son tells us to Worship God the Father.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

This whole line of criticism you are making really misses the point. I posted in response to the claim that Nicene theology was Gnostic. I explained why it was actually anti-Gnostic. You claim that is irrelevant; it may be irrelevant to you, but it is certainly relevant as a response to the claim that Nicene theology is Gnostic!

Now, in the course of explaining that Nicene theology was not Gnostic, I observed that the Nicene Creed was based on the Bible, not Gnosticism. You come along and make the smartaleck remark that it was based on their uninspired interpretation of the Bible. Never mind that you and I disagree on whether their interpretation was correct. I grant you that the fourth-century Christians did not have a living prophet to dictate to them what to believe. So in your opinion, what were they supposed to do? On what basis should they have determined what the church should teach? It wasn't their fault that they didn't have a living prophet; there had not been one in well over two centuries. They had the Bible; they didn't have living apostles and prophets, and they hadn't had such for the whole two centuries when their faith was under almost constant assault from the Roman Empire and so many of them had died for their faith. Now they finally get to breathe and someone arises whose doctrine threatened to divide the church (Arius). What should Christian leaders have done, since they didn't have a living prophet?

And I'll ask you another question: If you reject the Trinitarianism of the Nicene Creed, what alternative view existing at the time do you think they should have accepted? Should the fourth-century church have accepted Arianism? How about Monarchianism, which taught that Jesus was the Father and the Son? Or maybe you would have preferred for them to revive Gnosticism?

It's all nice and comfy for you, as a Mormon, 17 centuries later to stick your nose up in the air at those uninspired men coming up with their uninspired creeds. But they didn't have a living prophet. Maybe they did the best with what they had. Then again, maybe they were right and you are the one who is following uninspired men. Just because your leaders claim to be inspired doesn't make it so. And even if they are inspired prophets, you are not: therefore, everything you say here is the uninspired opinion of an uninspired man.

[Hick Preacher]

God, the Father presided over this effort.

God, the Father presided over this effort.

God, the Father presided over this effort.

God, the Father presided over this effort.

Sorry, but in context it is God, the Father.

A false conclusion based on a false premise and faulty logic.

A false conclusion based on a false premise and faulty logic.

It is true that The Father delegated to the Son. Yet the person Jehovah is the focus of these verses, referring to Him as

16For the Lord God has spoken it;

1

18And that he created man, ...in his own likeness, created he them;..

19And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.

This is Christ worship- viewing Christ as God

For example--

2 Nephi 11:

7

For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

[Hick Preacher]

Oh, please!

As if the worship of the Father is somehow separate or different from the worship of the Son?

What? Do you think they get jealous or something?

That is just the point-- D&C 20 along with other LDS script are consistent, the Father and the Son in the LDS Standard Works are presented as the same one being. This is evident by the description of who did creative works during creation, commanded Adam, and the use of pronouns identifying Jehovah as the being to be worshiped.

Oddly LDS scripture is consistent with the concepts presented in the Nicene Creed.

But theological commentaries by contemporary LDS scholars and leadership are not consistent with these LDS Standard Works concepts about God.

[Vance]

Vance,

This whole line of criticism you are making really misses the point. I posted in response to the claim that Nicene theology was Gnostic. I explained why it was actually anti-Gnostic. You claim that is irrelevant; it may be irrelevant to you, but it is certainly relevant as a response to the claim that Nicene theology is Gnostic!

Now, in the course of explaining that Nicene theology was not Gnostic, I observed that the Nicene Creed was based on the Bible, not Gnosticism. You come along and make the smartaleck remark that it was based on their uninspired interpretation of the Bible. Never mind that you and I disagree on whether their interpretation was correct. I grant you that the fourth-century Christians did not have a living prophet to dictate to them what to believe. So in your opinion, what were they supposed to do? On what basis should they have determined what the church should teach? It wasn't their fault that they didn't have a living prophet; there had not been one in well over two centuries. They had the Bible; they didn't have living apostles and prophets, and they hadn't had such for the whole two centuries when their faith was under almost constant assault from the Roman Empire and so many of them had died for their faith. Now they finally get to breathe and someone arises whose doctrine threatened to divide the church (Arius). What should Christian leaders have done, since they didn't have a living prophet?

And I'll ask you another question: If you reject the Trinitarianism of the Nicene Creed, what alternative view existing at the time do you think they should have accepted? Should the fourth-century church have accepted Arianism? How about Monarchianism, which taught that Jesus was the Father and the Son? Or maybe you would have preferred for them to revive Gnosticism?

It's all nice and comfy for you, as a Mormon, 17 centuries later to stick your nose up in the air at those uninspired men coming up with their uninspired creeds. But they didn't have a living prophet. Maybe they did the best with what they had. Then again, maybe they were right and you are the one who is following uninspired men. Just because your leaders claim to be inspired doesn't make it so. And even if they are inspired prophets, you are not: therefore, everything you say here is the uninspired opinion of an uninspired man.

The question isn't what I would have had them do, that is irrelevant, (as if I could somehow change the events). Nor is the question what should I do now.

The question Rob, is what are YOU going to do about the fact that these men were uninspired and unauthorized and that components of the creed are without Biblical support?

[Vance]

It is true that The Father delegated to the Son. Yet the person Jehovah is the focus of these verses, referring to Him as

16For the Lord God has spoken it;

1

18And that he created man, ...in his own likeness, created he them;..

19And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.

This is Christ worship- viewing Christ as God

For example--

2 Nephi 11:

I am not the only one here who has explained to you that your interpretation of these verse is in error. Additional context shows this.

[Vance]

It is true that The Father delegated to the Son.

A delegation that would be meaningless if they are the same being.

Yet the person Jehovah is the focus of these verses, referring to Him as

16For the Lord God has spoken it;

1

18And that he created man, ...in his own likeness, created he them;..

19And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.

You have been shown, more than once, that you are in error here.

This is Christ worship- viewing Christ as God

For example--

2 Nephi 11:

Given that They are separate and distinct beings, how would Their worship be different?

Given that They are one in will, purpose and perfection, but not being, how would Their worship be different?

[Hick Preacher]

I am not the only one here who has explained to you that your interpretation of these verse is in error. Additional context shows this.

All anyone provided was a denial saying what I wrote was illogical. There was no delineation or line of reasoning given. In one response all you offered was to say over and over saying that the Father Presided over creation. Yet this 'Presided over' explnation is most insufficient because of the use of pronouns identifying specifically the personage who did the hands on creating and personally commanded Adam.

This Presided over explanation would not work out any more than having Pres. Obama sending forth Hillary Clinton to give a speech where Hillary would say 'I am Obama and I am going to cut a deal with the Republicans" Instead Hillary might say 'I was sent by the President to cut a tax deal' But most likely Obama would just personally come out of his closet and declare it personally-- among other things because it is good PR.

Likewise D&C 20 immediately before saying who is to be worshiped-- brags about the Creative Powers of the Messiah-Christ/God personage. This is a motif seen in scripture--like in Colossians 1:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

The theological orientation of D&C 20 is no light thing in Mormonism.

D&C 20 expresses and idea about transcendent beings with in the Godhead-- two personages, the Father and the Son who are the one same only being to be worshiped.

[Vance]

All anyone provided was a denial saying what I wrote was illogical. There was no delineation or line of reasoning given. In one response all you offered was to say over and over saying that the Father Presided over creation. Yet this 'Presided over' explnation is most insufficient because of the use of pronouns identifying specifically the personage who did the hands on creating and personally commanded Adam.

This Presided over explanation would not work out any more than having Pres. Obama sending forth Hillary Clinton to give a speech where Hillary would say 'I am Obama and I am going to cut a deal with the Republicans" Instead Hillary might say 'I was sent by the President to cut a tax deal' But most likely Obama would just personally come out of his closet and declare it personally-- among other things because it is good PR.

Likewise D&C 20 immediately before saying who is to be worshiped-- brags about the Creative Powers of the Messiah-Christ/God personage. This is a motif seen in scripture--like in Colossians 1:

The theological orientation of D&C 20 is no light thing in Mormonism.

D&C 20 expresses and idea about transcendent beings with in the Godhead-- two personages, the Father and the Son who are the one same only being to be worshiped.

When Donald Trump builds a building, who does the work? And who gets the credit?

[Hick Preacher]

When Donald Trump builds a building, who does the work? And who gets the credit?

Donald Trump as far as I know does not give the glory to God for his works. Trump is in it for selfish gain.

D&C 20 is giving credit to Christ using the motif seen in many other doxologies. He is heralded as creator using keyed phrases and metaphors seen in D&C 20---

We also see this motif in the opening of the Gospel of John-

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

We see Jehovah claiming this glory using the same motif in Isaiah 44:

24 Thus saith the LORD (Jehovah), thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD (Jehovah) that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

[Vance]

Donald Trump as far as I know does not give the glory to God for his works. Trump is in it for selfish gain.

Nothing like TOTALLY missing the point.

[ElfLord]

Nothing like TOTALLY missing the point.

Hick, Vances point was...

DT would be in the Shoes of the Father. And the general contractor would be in the Shoes of the savior Jesus Christ.

God the father built the building (ie provided the building materials) but Jesus did the work.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

The question isn't what I would have had them do, that is irrelevant, (as if I could somehow change the events). Nor is the question what should I do now.

In other words, you have no answer to my question.

You wrote:

The question Rob, is what are YOU going to do about the fact that these men were uninspired and unauthorized and that components of the creed are without Biblical support?

Your question is contrary to fact. There is no component of the creed that is without biblical support. If you think there is such a component, please specify it. And what I am asking for is evidence that any of the theological affirmations of the creed lacks biblical support. I understand that the creed uses words not found in the Bible.

[Vance]

In other words, you have no answer to my question.

In other words, the answer I have is irrelevant to this topic. A real scholar would know that.

Your question is contrary to fact.

Not so. The men were uninspired and unauthorized and components of the creed are without Biblical support.

Real scholars recognize these facts.

There is no component of the creed that is without biblical support.

Even Catholic scholars recognize the Creeds weren't based on the Bible.

If you think there is such a component, please specify it.

The "one being" or "one substance" depending on which translation you use. No where are these concepts found in the Bible, your misinterpretation not withstanding.

Oh, and let's not forget the "immaterial" thingy.

And what I am asking for is evidence that any of the theological affirmations of the creed lacks biblical support.

A real scholar know that it is impossible to prove a negative. So why do you ask?

I understand that the creed uses words not found in the Bible.

As well as the concepts I mentioned.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You are unrelentingly obnoxious. Perhaps a "real scholar" should ignore posts like yours.

In other words, the answer I have is irrelevant to this topic. A real scholar would know that.

Not so. The men were uninspired and unauthorized and components of the creed are without Biblical support.

Real scholars recognize these facts.

Even Catholic scholars recognize the Creeds weren't based on the Bible.

The "one being" or "one substance" depending on which translation you use. No where are these concepts found in the Bible, your misinterpretation not withstanding.

Oh, and let's not forget the "immaterial" thingy.

A real scholar know that it is impossible to prove a negative. So why do you ask?

As well as the concepts I mentioned.

[Vance]

With a little research one can find these gems.

"Economic and essential trinity:- (a) The transition from the Trinity of experience to the Trinity of dogma is describable in other terms as the transition from the economic or dispensational Trinity [Greek] to the essential, immanent or ontological Trinity [Greek]. At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the a strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in apostolic the NT and other early Christian writings. Nor was it so even in the age of the Christian apologists. And even Tertullian, who founded the nomenclature of the orthodox doctrine, knew as little of an ontological Trinity as did the apologists; his still the economic or relative conception of the Johannine and Pauline theology. So Harnack holds, and he says further that the whole history of Christological and Trinitarian dogma from Athanasius to Augustine is the history of the displacement of the Logos-conception by that of the Son, of the substitution of the immanent and absolute Trinity for the economic and relative. In any case the orthodox doctrine in its developed form is a Trinity of essence rather than of manifestation, as having to do in the first instance with the subjective rather than the objective Being of God. And, just because these two meanings of the Trinity-the theoretical and the practical, as they might also be described-are being sharply distinguished in modern Christian thought, it might be well if the term 'Trinity' were employed to designate the Trinity of revelation or the doctrine of the threefold self-manifestation of God), and the term

[Vance]

Vance,

You are unrelentingly obnoxious.

Why thanks. Good thing "obnoxious" isn't classified as a sin.

Perhaps a "real scholar" should ignore posts like yours.

Or perhaps a pseudo scholar might do that too. We shall see.

[Hick Preacher]

Hick, Vances point was...

DT would be in the Shoes of the Father. And the general contractor would be in the Shoes of the savior Jesus Christ.

God the father built the building (ie provided the building materials) but Jesus did the work.

Thanks ElfLord-- and Vance.

The LDS doctrine has a general principle called Divine Investiture related to names of God being Father or Son. Divine Investiture is not unique to Mormonism at all but is part of an old Christian tradition of interpretation. Divine Investiture has it bounds and limits especially when Jehovah says that He specifically did thing and get all the glory for it. In Christianity of the NT writers bragged and boasted about the power of their Messiah as creator-- bragging has it underpinnings in the writings of the Old Testament.

For example--

Isaiah writes this Jehovah says that He made the heavens alone by himself. (ISA 24:44) This Jehovah declares that He will not give his glory to another. (Isa 42: Jehovah made all things for his own glory, and they are His. (Isa 43:7) This Jehovah is called Jehovah alone (Nehemiah 9:6)( Psalm 83:18) He is called God alone (Ps 86:10) This Jehovah is called the Most High God (Gen 14:22)

This Jehovah had to sware to Himself because there was none greater (Heb 6:13 ) This Jehovah is the God whom the Apostle Paul claimed to worship (Acts 24:14)

So that is the basis of my thinking above about D&C 20

Hick-

[Hick Preacher]

With a little research one can find these gems.

"Economic and essential trinity:- (a) The transition from the Trinity of experience to the Trinity of dogma is describable in other terms as the transition from the economic or dispensational Trinity [Greek] to the essential, immanent or ontological Trinity [Greek]. At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the a strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in apostolic the NT and other early Christian writings. Nor was it so even in the age of the Christian apologists. And even Tertullian, who founded the nomenclature of the orthodox doctrine, knew as little of an ontological Trinity as did the apologists; his still the economic or relative conception of the Johannine and Pauline theology. So Harnack holds, and he says further that the whole history of Christological and Trinitarian dogma from Athanasius to Augustine is the history of the displacement of the Logos-conception by that of the Son, of the substitution of the immanent and absolute Trinity for the economic and relative. In any case the orthodox doctrine in its developed form is a Trinity of essence rather than of manifestation, as having to do in the first instance with the subjective rather than the objective Being of God. And, just because these two meanings of the Trinity-the theoretical and the practical, as they might also be described-are being sharply distinguished in modern Christian thought, it might be well if the term 'Trinity' were employed to designate the Trinity of revelation or the doctrine of the threefold self-manifestation of God), and the term

[Vance]

Thanks Vance-

Please show me where the Mormon Standard Works say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are Three Separate Gods-- or Three separate Beings.

John 1:1, the Greek makes it clear that the God (the Father) is separate from the Word (the Son).

En archE en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ho theos kai theos en ho logos

In beginning was the word and the word was toward the god and god was the word.

I am wondering if you understand the conjunction "and" or what it means.

Eph. 1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thes. 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

How many more do I need?

Why should one PRESUME that these verse mean anything OTHER THAN what they are clearly and plainly saying?

My point being that the LDS Standard Works do not carry in them the doctrine of the Mormon Godhead as such.

Oh please stop, your killing me.

You could easier do exegesis for the Trinity from LDS Standard Works than you could do the same for the current LDS doctrine of a Three Being or Three God Godhead.

It is possible to falsely interpret LDS unique scripture.

[Vance]

bump

[ElfLord]

For example--

Isaiah writes this Jehovah says that He made the heavens alone by himself. (ISA 24:44) This Jehovah declares that He will not give his glory to another. (Isa 42: Jehovah made all things for his own glory, and they are His. (Isa 43:7) This Jehovah is called Jehovah alone (Nehemiah 9:6)( Psalm 83:18) He is called God alone (Ps 86:10) This Jehovah is called the Most High God (Gen 14:22)

This Jehovah had to sware to Himself because there was none greater (Heb 6:13 ) This Jehovah is the God whom the Apostle Paul claimed to worship (Acts 24:14)

So I wonder how Isaiah missed the fact that there are 2 YHWHs spoken of in the OT.

Gen 19

4 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Psalms 110

1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine eenemies thy footstool.

I don't know how that can be because even Isaiah makes mention of 2 JHVHs.

Isaiah 44:6 (2 Jehovahs)

6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God

Isaiah 48:16 (3 Lords Spoke of)

16

[Vance]

No responses?

With a little research one can find these gems.

"Economic and essential trinity:- (a) The transition from the Trinity of experience to the Trinity of dogma is describable in other terms as the transition from the economic or dispensational Trinity [Greek] to the essential, immanent or ontological Trinity [Greek]. At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the a strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in apostolic the NT and other early Christian writings. Nor was it so even in the age of the Christian apologists. And even Tertullian, who founded the nomenclature of the orthodox doctrine, knew as little of an ontological Trinity as did the apologists; his still the economic or relative conception of the Johannine and Pauline theology. So Harnack holds, and he says further that the whole history of Christological and Trinitarian dogma from Athanasius to Augustine is the history of the displacement of the Logos-conception by that of the Son, of the substitution of the immanent and absolute Trinity for the economic and relative. In any case the orthodox doctrine in its developed form is a Trinity of essence rather than of manifestation, as having to do in the first instance with the subjective rather than the objective Being of God. And, just because these two meanings of the Trinity-the theoretical and the practical, as they might also be described-are being sharply distinguished in modern Christian thought, it might be well if the term 'Trinity' were employed to designate the Trinity of revelation or the doctrine of the threefold self-manifestation of God), and the term