Another EV dichotomy problem.

[mfbukowski]

I sincerely thank you for your thoughtful reply, and officially acknowledge that you are not avoiding my direct inquiries. I know you are busy, and you have stated your position and there is no need to reply except as you see fit. My purpose in this response is not to debate with you because I think it is clear we have "irreconcilable differences" on this point and debate with probably serve no purpose.

My purpose however IS to illustrate to my LDS friends the strength of the Social Trinitarian view for LDS theology.

It's important to understand, first of all, that social trinitarianism is a modern philosophical approach to explaining the doctrine of the Trinity. It would therefore be inconsistent to criticize, say, the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, or the explanations of Athanasius and Augustine, for utilizing Hellenistic philosophical concepts or language, while at the same time commending the social trinitarian project, which is really doing the same thing but utilizing contemporary Anglo-American philosophical concepts and language. Social trinitarianism also tries to find support in ancient Greek patristic concepts, notably perichoresis. This background and the interest of many Mormons in social trinitarianism nicely illustrate a major contention of mine with regard to LDS rejection of the creedal doctrine of the Trinity, which is that allegations of it using "philosophy" are actually irrelevant. All theology in one way or another engages or overlaps with issues in philosophy; it is inevitable, whether one is Catholic, evangelical, Mormon, or something else.

Perhaps some LDS have problems with "philosophy" per se, but certainly many do not. The problem as I see it is Neoplatonic philosophy as opposed to contemporary Anglo-American philosophy, one branch in particular and that would be the sort of Pragmatism as espoused by William James which many have acknowledged as being compatible with LDS thought in many particulars. In short the problem is not philosophy, but the wrong kind of philosophy.

Now, let me try to explain what the issue here really is. Basically, social trinitarianism views the distinctness of the three persons as nonproblematic and views their "unity" as the problematic notion that must be explained. That is, social trinitarians begin philosophically with a strong, seemingly clear view of the three as three really distinct, different persons, with distinct identities, and then asks how and in what sense these three can be "one." This approach differs from an approach which begins philosophically with a strong, seemingly clear view of the one God as really one, undivided, perfectly whole Being, and then asks how and in what sense this one Divine Being can be "three." Both approaches affirm that God is both "one" in some way and "three" in some other way, but for those who take a "psychological analogy" approach the threeness is what is difficult to explain while for those who take a "social analogy" approach the oneness is what is difficult to explain.

Agreed.

To understand the social trinitarian view, imagine three incorporeal persons or beings (since this is reasoning by analogy, it doesn't matter which term we use here). It's important to make them incorporeal because social trinitarians view God as incorporeal by nature; they accept the orthodox view that only the Son is corporeal and only by virtue of his becoming a human being in the Incarnation. That is, social trinitarianism accepts the classic Incarnation doctrine that Christ is one person possessing, since his conception in the womb of Mary, two natures--divine nature (which he has had eternally) and human nature (which he "assumed" or took on himself in the Incarnation). This is the first obvious difference between social trinitarianism and LDS theology, and it makes a real difference in the way both theologies conceptualize the nature and unity of God. If the Three do not have individualized, different bodies, then they are not bodily separate from one another. There are no physical or locative differences among them. It is never literally correct to say something like "the Father is over here and the Son is over there."

I agree actually. I think you are correct that this presents a problem for Creedal Christians who embrace Social Trinitarianism, but as you point out, the problem exists because they view the God as being incorporeal in nature. But we do not. For us the "problem" does not exist.

Okay, so we have three incorporeal persons or beings. Now, imagine that these Three have always existed, eternally transcending time and space. Moreover, each of the Three has always been fully and absolutely divine in nature. None was ever anything but divine; none ever "became" God or was "exalted" to Godhood. None was God "before" the other two. The Father was never God without the Son or without the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost in common LDS parlance). It has always been the Three, co-existing in all ages and in all eternity as equally and absolutely divine. Here's big difference #2, since in LDS theology (usually) it is understood that the Father was (or became) God before Christ and the Holy Ghost. In LDS doctrine, all three in some sense may have always existed (an "intelligences"), but they have not always existed as God.

Agreed.

The next step is to imagine that these Three love one another so much that their whole life is consumed eternally with enjoying one another and loving one another. Being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, the Three express their absolute, infinite love for one another by seeing, knowing, feeling, and willing everything together. One always sees, knows, feels, and wills what the other two see, know, feel, and will. Again, this is the eternal state of affairs; for all time in all ages and in all eternity, the Three have always seen, known, felt, and willed exactly the same things.

So far, so good! The question remains for the LDS view as to what "eternal" means in this context, but that is it's own "problem" for us anyway. That alleged "problem" is always one we have in relating "eternal" to the fact that God progresses.

The idea here is not that they became "one" in this way, but that they simply are one in this way -- always have been and always will be. According to social trinitarianism, it cannot be otherwise. It is impossible, by nature, for the Holy Spirit to know, see, feel, or will anything other than what the Father knows, sees, feels, and wills. And it has always been impossible for such to happen. The Three, by metaphysical necessity, must always be one in this way, and have always been one in this way. Here's bid difference #3: in LDS doctrine, Christ and the Holy Ghost must at some point have exercised their independent freedom of choice and merited inclusion in the Godhead along with Heavenly Father. In social trinitarianism, on the other hand, no divine person ever has independent volition in relation to the other two persons. Their "unity of mind" is not something attained, achieved, or arrived at, but simply what eternally and necessarily is.

Yes, this would be true for a Creedal understanding of the Trinity, but we are not Creedal Christians. We have no problem with God "becoming" God in much similar way as a Father has children who grow up to be "equal" with the father. The entire LDS understanding of the family is based on the idea that we are gods in embryo and that we will "grow up" to be like our Father should we prove worthy to do so.

So though this is a problem for Creedals, it is not a problem for the LDS.

At this point, the social trinitarian thought experiment leads to the obvious conclusion that if all Three eternally think, feel, choose, and act in perfect, metaphysically necessary lock-step with one another, then the reality is that they are not merely functionally but essentially (ontologically) one divine Reality. There is no physical or locative separation or differentiation of the Three; there is no mental, spiritual, moral, emotional, or volitional separation or differentiation of the Three. What is left is a relational distinction or differentiation among the Three: the Father relates to the Son in a personal way, the Holy Spirit relates to the Father in a personal way, and so forth. For example, the Father and the Son have an "I-Thou" relationship in which one knows the other, loves the other, seeks to glorify the other, and so forth.

Again not a problem for LDS because the persons of the LDS Godhead are corporeal, or at least are locational with distinct physical or spiritual bodies. They are distinct because they are totally separate entities which grew into their positions and have previous histories.

This is where the weakness of Neoplatonism is clearly demonstrated as opposed to an organic, growing, changing view of God comprised of individuals who grow. Clearly this is the reason that Neoplatonism is not compatible with the LDS view, but we already knew that. That is what created the great Apostasy from our point of view- the incorporation of Greek philosophy into true Christianity.

Social trinitarians especially emphasize the mutual love of the Three. So the personal distinctions of the Three are true distinctions, but metaphysically or ontologically the Three think, know, and act as One -- and they always have done so and cannot ever do otherwise. Here is big difference #4: the social Trinity is genuinely, metaphysically one in Being, whereas this is not so in the LDS Godhead. This is why it is never proper in social Trinitarianism to speak of "three Gods," whereas this is quite proper in LDS theology (as Joseph Smith himself insisted in 1844).

Agreed, but again, not a problem for us. Neoplatonism demands that they be co-eternal, but other philosophical positions do not demand that at all. They are three persons united in purpose and love.

Finally, all that has been said implicitly entails that divinity or deity in social Trinitarianism is the permanent and immutable property of the Three and only of the Three. That is to say, the Three have always been God, eternally and necessarily existing in all ages and all eternity as God, and this is simply not true of anyone else--nor can it be. As I have explained elsewhere in this forum, if to be God means that one has always been God, then anyone who isn't God already can never be God. Godhood, in social Trinitarianism, is a closed circle or exclusive, nontransferable property or status of the Three. And here is big difference #5, since in LDS theology all human beings are potentially Gods of the same nature or kind as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Repeats the above non-problem.

I hope this helps you understand why I don't view social trinitarianism as in any way compatible with or even somewhat supportive of LDS doctrine. For an excellent introduction to and defense of social trinitarianism by an evangelical theologian, see J. Scott Horrell, "Toward a Biblical Model of the Social Trinity: Avoiding Equivocation of Nature and Order," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47 (2004): 399-421, available online free as a PDF document.

Again, thanks for the reference. As I see it what you have actually shown is that Social Trinitarianism is incompatible with Neoplatonic philosophy, but not with LDS doctrine. In fact, I see it as a possible source of dialogue with our Christian brethren who are less locked into a Neoplatonic view, a view which the original Christians never had.

In fact, I think you have demonstrated nicely that in fact the entire Creedal view of the Trinity is in fact nothing more nor less than Neoplatonism.

[jmordecai]

How do you reconcile that with the fact that Joseph saw two personages.

fact?

1. What supportive evidence can you provide that establishes this event as a fact? All we have is Joseph's word. Kinderhook, Book of Abraham, covering up polygamy, multiple vision accounts, etc. doesn't make him a credible character in my mind.

2. The earlier accounts of Joseph's vision, including the earliest written by his own hand six years earlier neglect to mention he saw two personages.

3. Seeing a manifestation of two personages doesn't constitute separate and distinct gods to redefine the Shema, so there is nothing to reconcile.

[jmordecai]

I believe in a God who is smart enough to teach us about him in ways we can understand, tailored for our puny understanding, just as we would teach children.

You think he can't do that? Why not?

I agree that he doesn't teach that Three Gods comprise "the Godhead".

[Vance]

I agree that he doesn't teach that Three Gods comprise "the Godhead".

You need to study the New Testament more. It clearly and simply teaches the separation of the members of the Godhead. And clearly and simply teaches the divinity of two of the members of the Godhead. The divinity of the third can be implied.

Pay particular attention to how Jesus describes who and where God, the Father is. He doesn't teach Him to be omnipresent.

[jmordecai]

Yup, just like the council at Nicea did.

The Nicea counsel is neither here nor there.

So? Neither do they claim other wise.

Neither did they claim they were orangutans. Again, you keep inserting your own definition on the fallacy that we can't prove a negative. I'll stick with what is taught: One God.

Well, you do seem to forget D&C 130:22

I do forget it because it's not scripture, and it reflects Joseph's evolving polytheism that is absent in his earlier works: the Book of Mormon, JST, Lectures on Faith and early revelations in the D&C.

And what of the numerous verses that separate Jesus from God?

Like these,

Rom 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Tim. 5:21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

2 Tim. 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

For example.

Nowhere in these verses does it say there is more than One God.

One God, One Throne, Two Names

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb... The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.

Revelations 22:1, 3-4

1. Who sits on the throne?

2. Who do the servants serve?

3. Who's face do they see?

4. Who's name will be on their foreheads?

[Vance]

The Nicea counsel is neither here nor there.

What?

That is where you understanding of God comes from, not the Bible.

I'll stick with what is taught: One God.

One God consisting of a group of three divine individual beings.

I do forget it because it's not scripture, . . .

Sure you did. It clearly separate the Father from the Son, just like numerous Bible verses do.

Nowhere in these verses does it say there is more than One God.

If you can understand the plain English meaning of those few verses, it won't do any good to provide you with more.

One God, One Throne, Two Names

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb... The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.

Revelations 22:1, 3-4

1. Who sits on the throne?

It looks like a lot of people will.

Rev. 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

2. Who do the servants serve?

It doesn't clearly specify. But I suppose whoever of the more than two individuals that may be sitting on the throne.

3. Who's face do they see?

Peter's?

4. Who's name will be on their foreheads?

Does it matter?

[Hick Preacher]

Yes, I know. I twisted nothing because you didn't really say enough to twist. The last 2 of your sentences above are your opinion. Your point? I agree with the apologists. And they are wrong because.....?

This all goes back to the central question you tend to avoid: How do you know the Bible is "true"?

<<<Yes, I know. I twisted nothing because you didn't really say enough to twist.>>>>

You injected into my comment the mistaken notion that I necessarily reject the historical belief by ancient Hebrews in a Divine Council calling it Canaanite.

If you read my initial response, I had explained that there is a difference between the Canaanite conception Divine Council and the Hebrew notions Divine Council.

The last 2 of your sentences above are your opinion. Your point? I agree with the apologists. And they are wrong because.....?

It seems that you agree with the methods of trying to correct the LXX interpretations recorded to be the Old Testament interpretation voiced by The Apostles of Christ on matters of theology.

I find it odd to think that the Apostles of Christ wrongfully understood the Old Testament. It is a wild and radical notion to think that the Apostles where wrong and in great error thinking the Old Testament to teach of only One True Almighty God.

It is even more drastic to assert that then today Mormon Apologists have the gall to say the Apostles of Christ were mistaken and in the next breath claim that the Old Testament actually intends to teach of a succession of many like Creator Gods who are ontologically of the same race of beings as YHWH.

<

<<This all goes back to the central question you tend to avoid: How do you know the Bible is "true"? >>>

To ask how the Bible is true is to ask how a library is true. A library is not true unto itself just because it is a library. Instead the Library's books must be studied to determine what each of its books says and how it contributes to the whole.

Next what in this collection of books serves to collate the books, and what theme is suggested by the gathering of these books or within one or more of these books. The Theme of this library of books called 'The Bible" gives an account of the Salvation-History of Israel toward the coming of and fulfillment of the Messiah.

This theme and Salvation-History and fulfillment, is recounted in the Book of Acts of the Apostles by Stephen, in Chapter 7.

There in the text Stephen tell of the events that lead to the coming of the Messiah, back from the times of the patriarch Abraham, (the progenitor of that Nation). This account of Stephen in the Book of Acts Ch. 7 is a fractal or summary of the whole theme found expanded in the collection called "the Bible"

The Christians of old saw the founding of the Nation to have its fulfillment in the coming of that Messiah.

The records in the 66 books of the Bible canon contain details of the events that lead to the founding and development of this Nation, the coming of the Messiah in the Gospels, and the founding and mission of the Church of Christ.

This enlarged account by way of the Biblical collection of the canon is consistent with Stephen

[mfbukowski]

I agree that he doesn't teach that Three Gods comprise "the Godhead".

The Rain in Spain falls mainly on the plane.

What does that have to do with anything? What a random comment! We were discussing what you said was a "mystery"- God's attributes. We weren't even discussing the Godhead.

If you want to do that, please respond to the recent post in which I was discussing that with Rob. You are just making random pot shots at this point.

[Hick Preacher]

The Rain in Spain falls mainly on the plane.

What does that have to do with anything? What a random comment! We were discussing what you said was a "mystery"- God's attributes. We weren't even discussing the Godhead.

If you want to do that, please respond to the recent post in which I was discussing that with Rob. You are just making random pot shots at this point.

Its plain to me- this OP is related to the Godhead-

Neither is there any LDS Scripture that explicitly says that the Godhead is composed of three separate Gods, or three beings. So even from the LDS position there is no such revelation of Three Beings or Gods in One Godhead in scripture.

In other words:

The idea of the Trinity is no further removed from Biblical Scripture than the LDS doctrine is from the Godhead being composed of three separate God-beings.

The LDS assertion that we always hear that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate beings in one Godhead is not in LDS scripture-- but rather is an extra-scriptural construct based on interpretation, just like the Trinity is said to be of orthodoxy.

[mfbukowski]

The LDS assertion that we always hear that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate beings in one Godhead is not in LDS scripture-- but rather is an extra-scriptural construct based on interpretation, just like the Trinity is said to be of orthodoxy.

Ah, perhaps. Now that you mention it, I am not sure where the LDS view came from other than the first vision. Clearly that is sufficient for me. It doesn't much matter -the question is which makes sense.

Of course your objection here only makes sense if you are acknowledging that the Trinity is indeed extra-scriptural.

I know you will cite conflicting stories about the first vision- which don't disturb me in the slightest.

The point is not the source of the doctrine- the point is that the LDS doctrine, when viewed in terms of the social trinity and perichoresis makes perfect sense when viewed in terms of contemporary philosophy and social constructivism.

The classic Trinity relies on Neoplatonism which has been philosophically discredited in my opinion.

The bottom line is that the LDS view makes sense where the Creedal view does not.

In my opinion it is only a matter of time until people realize this dichotomy and see how ridiculous the Creedal view is compared to the LDS view.

The LDS view has time on its side, and the Creedal view is a dying dinosaur.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the tone and attitude with which you responded.

I have some thoughts about what you wrote, but I've been busy the past few hours and I'll probably be tied up for the rest of the night.

Again, thanks.

I sincerely thank you for your thoughtful reply, and officially acknowledge that you are not avoiding my direct inquiries. I know you are busy, and you have stated your position and there is no need to reply except as you see fit. My purpose in this response is not to debate with you because I think it is clear we have "irreconcilable differences" on this point and debate with probably serve no purpose.

[jmordecai]

What?

That is where you understanding of God comes from, not the Bible.

My understanding of God comes from the Bible. I don't appreciate you telling me otherwise. Regardless, the creeds have no bearing on whether or not your doctrine of Three Gods is accurate.

Sure you did. It clearly separate the Father from the Son, just like numerous Bible verses do.

If you can understand the plain English meaning of those few verses, it won't do any good to provide you with more.

Nuh uh isn't an argument.

While I've provided dozens of verses that plainly state there is "One God". You have not provided a single verse that states God is Three Gods. Your only argument is that the texts allude to Three Gods because they reveal different manifestations, and thus you argue from human experience that these manifestations each require a separate distinct source. I've argued that applying such a criteria to God is not only arbitrary, but we also find exceptions from our own human experience.

It doesn't clearly specify. But I suppose whoever of the more than two individuals that may be sitting on the throne.

So I understand, in response to v.3:

The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and His servants will serve Him.

You don't know who the singular Him is in this verse?

Peter's?

Peter's name will be on their forehead? Seriously? You clearly have no coherent response to these verses.

[jmordecai]

What does that have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with what we are talking about.

Let's backup. You stated I had no business in this discussion as I admitted I don't fully comprehend the complexities of God, of which includes the various manifestations (pillar of fire, burning bush, cloud by day, as an angel, talking through a donkey, etc).

In response, I stated that I don't need to fully comprehend God to recognize false doctrine, in the same manner that I don't need to knowledge the DNA level to recognize that an apple is not an orange.

You responded that you believe God is smart enough to teach us that what we can understand.

I agreed with your comment, coming full circle, that He doesn't teach that Three Gods comprise "the Godhead".

[Vance]

My understanding of God comes from the Bible. I don't appreciate you telling me otherwise. Regardless, the creeds have no bearing on whether or not your doctrine of Three Gods is accurate.

Ok, who is the "only" God in these verse and who isn't?

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Who is God and who is Lord in these verses.

Rom. 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 8:6 But to us there is but 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 him.

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

Gal. 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

While I've provided dozens of verses that plainly state there is "One God". You have not provided a single verse that states God is Three Gods.

But there are many verse that tell us of multiple god.

Deut. 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Josh. 22:22 The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,)

Ps. 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Dan. 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Dan. 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

1 Cor 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but 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 him.

How many divine beings did Stephen see?

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

You don't know who the singular Him is in this verse?

It doesn't say.

Peter's name will be on their forehead? Seriously? You clearly have no coherent response to these verses.

He is one of several that are sitting on the throne. What evidence do you have that it isn't his name? You clearly have no coherent refutation to my guess.

[Vance]

In fact, I think you have demonstrated nicely that in fact the entire Creedal view of the Trinity is in fact nothing more nor less than Neoplatonism.

Bowman's response will be interesting.

[mfbukowski]

Bowman's response will be interesting.

Not likely he will give one.

[Vance]

Not likely he will give one.

Well, in a way, even that would be interesting. An implicit admission, so to speak, that he has no coherant response/counter argument.

[Gervin]

Well, in a way, even that would be interesting. An implicit admission, so to speak, that he has no coherant response/counter argument.

Vance, you've become my favorite representative of the LDS church on this board; mean-spirited, judgemental, and vacuous. By the way, it's spelled coherent - so you've shown the world your utter lack of coherency.

[Vance]

Vance, you've become my favorite representative of the LDS church on this board; mean-spirited, judgemental, and vacuous.

In other words, like you.

By the way, it's spelled coherent - so you've shown the world your utter lack of coherency.

Speaking of incoherency.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

Perhaps some LDS have problems with "philosophy" per se, but certainly many do not. The problem as I see it is Neoplatonic philosophy as opposed to contemporary Anglo-American philosophy, one branch in particular and that would be the sort of Pragmatism as espoused by William James which many have acknowledged as being compatible with LDS thought in many particulars. In short the problem is not philosophy, but the wrong kind of philosophy.

Neoplatonism is too late to explain the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity. At most it can shed some light on the philosophical cultural context of the formal development of the doctrine in the fourth century. Neoplatonism originated in the middle of the third century. By that time, Christians were already using the term

[Nemesis]

Vance stop cluttering up threads. You are out of this one.

Nemesis

[mfbukowski]

Neoplatonism is too late to explain the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity. At most it can shed some light on the philosophical cultural context of the formal development of the doctrine in the fourth century. Neoplatonism originated in the middle of the third century. By that time, Christians were already using the term