Question For Evangelicals On The Trinity

[zerinus]

Biblical teaching is consistent as the truth of God and at times people aren’t always consistent with what it teaches.

It is a given for most groups of like-minded people that they have at times differing views about the same topics and use different ways of expressing a common belief (sometimes not the best way of expressing the view held in common with others).

The “bad news” actually is that Joseph Smith has some “bad language” inserted in place of biblical teaching at certain points of Biblical doctrine in his own writings.

Joseph Smith said that God told him which I don’t believe it was God at all (we all can be wrong at times, we’re all corrupted with sinful natures but the creeds express, sometimes “in other words”, Biblical teaching:

Concerning creeds, a comment from Robert Millet at Mariners Church in Newport Beach, Ca. in dialogue with Greg Johnson a few years ago:

From the Gospel of John:

Zerinus, why then does Joseph Smith use this “crazy” “bad language” from the Nicene Creed (the purported abominable creed) in the BofM, using the “very” terminology from one of the “abominable” “creeds” in Mormon 3:21 (also from the KJV above):

* The term “very God” was used to defend the Deity of Christ in the Nicene Creed (against the Arian heresy).

The term “very” is not in the Greek manuscripts of the Bible, from which translations come, but appears in the King James translation alongside the term Christ as quoted from John above.

The biggest bad news for you guys is that Christianity apostatized two millennia ago, and you don't even know it. There is no salvation outside of the one and only true and restored Church of Jesus Christ today.

[LeSellers]

I think that you misunderstood what [Rob] was saying.

While that may be true (an assumption I reject, btw), it is wholly irrelevant because I was not referring, at that point, to his assertions, but to yours. You said that there was no such thing as "technical theology" (Rob's phrase), then you said there was. If you were right in saying there is not, then Rob must have created these "technical theologians" ex nihil, since they did not exist beforehand.

On the other hand, it's either one or the other: they cannot both exist and not exist.

All true prophets are theologians. Theology is the science of knowing God; and if a prophet doesn't know God, he is nothing.

Again, you seem to have ignored my statement that there are two kinds of theology. The first, to which you allude here, is the study of God through direct revelation (Joseph's "five minutes looking into the heavens"). The false one, the one that a prophet is not, is the idle musings of scholars and cheats who mix a dram of scripture with a bath of philosophy. That's "technical theology", which I oppose as apostate. It's this latter one that gave us Roman Catholicism, the Great Schism, and the Protestant Reformation.

Joseph Smith did write the Lectures on Faith. He is the only one who could have written the Lectures on Faith. No one else had the kind of revelation and inspiration required to be able to write the Lectures on Faith.

Based in word studies and writing styles, most LDS scholars believe that Syndey Rigdon wrote most of them, with Joseph's involvement. There were probably many contributors, but Rigdon penned the bulk. The question of origin is not wholly resolved, but it is clear that Joseph was not the principle author.

Moreover, there were many reasons that the Lectures no longer form part of The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were not "true": they were unreliable, and, in fact, contradicted much of the material Joseph had learned and would susequently learn by true theology: revelation. See FARMS/Maxwell Institute on the matter. It's an easy search.

You are wrong about many things. I wish there was a quick and easy way of explaining to you why; but unfortunately there isn't one.

You seem far more sure of yourself than fact warrants. (You probably believe the same of me. Soit!)

Who seeks an "easy way" is less likely to have the truth on his side than who is willing to go the distance, irrespective of the cost.

Lehi

[zerinus]

While that may be true (an assumption I reject, btw), it is wholly irrelevant because I was not referring, at that point, to his assertions, but to yours. You said that there was no such thing as "technical theology" (Rob's phrase), then you said there was. If you were right in saying there is not, then Rob must have created these "technical theologians" ex nihil, since they did not exist beforehand.

Rob did not use the phrase "technical theology," you did.

Again, you seem to have ignored my statement that there are two kinds of theology. The first, to which you allude here, is the study of God through direct revelation (Joseph's "five minutes looking into the heavens"). The false one, the one that a prophet is not, is the idle musings of scholars and cheats who mix a dram of scripture with a bath of philosophy. That's "technical theology", which I oppose as apostate. It's this latter one that gave us Roman Catholicism, the Great Schism, and the Protestant Reformation.

I am talking about theology general as it has been developed within the Christian tradition. I believe it is a worthwhile study, provided it is done in the light of the Spirit.

Based in word studies and writing styles, most LDS scholars believe that Syndey Rigdon wrote most of them, with Joseph's involvement. There were probably many contributors, but Rigdon penned the bulk. The question of origin is not wholly resolved, but it is clear that Joseph was not the principle author.

They are wrong!

Moreover, there were many reasons that the Lectures no longer form part of The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were not "true": they were unreliable, and, in fact, contradicted much of the material Joseph had learned and would susequently learn by true theology: revelation. See FARMS/Maxwell Institute on the matter. It's an easy search.

None of those were the reasons.

Edited August 12, 2011 by zerinus

[LeSellers]

Rob did not use the phrase "technical theology," you did.

Huh?!? Here's what he said (and, btw, it was addressed to you):

Of course--if we assume a general definition of person as an intelligent, volitional being. In that sense, yes, of course, Yahweh is a person, as I have already said. But this fact does not preclude the possibility that Yahweh would reveal himself to exist eternally in a threefold personal way, i.e., as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is why orthodox Christians are justified in using the term person in a more technical theological sense to denote any one of the Three in their mutual relationships.

I added the emphasis here, but he invented the phrase "technical theological sense", from which "technical theology" is a derivative.

I am talking about theology general as it has been developed within the Christian tradition. I believe it is a worthwhile study, provided it is done in the light of the Spirit.

As I said, you're talking about something very different from what I am talking about.

They are wrong!

Eh, sez you!

On what basis do you make that statement? Joseph did not say he wrote the Lectures on Faith. Historical attributions to him are sparse, too.

Authorship

Although authorship of the Lectures is uncertain, studies suggest that the actual wording was largely by Sidney Rigdon, with substantial involvement and approval by Joseph Smith, Jr. and possibly others. (See Dahl & Tate at 7–10, 16 n. 8.) Joseph Smith was substantially involved, both in their authorship in November 1834 and in their later preparation for publication in January 1835.

None of those were the reasons.

Well, then, what were the reasons? I gave you what the historical record shows. Do you have other data we should consider?

According to Joseph Fielding Smith, at the time an Apostle-theologian in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the reasons were:

(a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.

(b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine."© They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.

(d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.’ " (as told to John William Fitzgerald, A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344).

by ... 1921 when the work was decanonized by the major Latter Day Saint denominations, the doctrine concerning the Godhead had changed, and the Lectures were no longer generally consistent accepted doctrines. For instance, in Lecture 5, paragraph 2, it defines the Father as a "personage of spirit, glory and power." Whereas in section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 22 states that "the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's." In addition, the Father and Son are said to possess the same mind, "which mind is the Holy Spirit" (Lecture 5, paragraph 2). The Holy Spirit is not a personage, as defined at the beginning of paragraph 2: "There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things...They are the Father and Son." This could cause confusion when compared with Section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants: "The Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit." Section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants was added in the 1876 edition and hence co-existed with the Lectures on Faith.

If they were truly doctrinal, there was something very odd about their message.

Again I ask, what were the reasons we do not have them in our Triples any more?

Lehi

[zerinus]

Huh?!? Here's what he said (and, btw, it was addressed to you):

I added the emphasis here, but he invented the phrase "technical theological sense", from which "technical theology" is a derivative.

His phrase has a valid meaning. Your “derivative” doesn’t.

As I said, you're talking about something very different from what I am talking about.

I am being consistent with what I have been talking about. I am not sure about you.

Eh, sez you!

Yes!

On what basis do you make that statement? Joseph did not say he wrote the Lectures on Faith. Historical attributions to him are sparse, too.

I don’t have the references right now, but as I recall he does say that he prepared and taught the Lectures on Faith to the school of prophets. In the title page of this edition of the Lectures on Faith, published by Deseret Book, which I believe is a faithful reproduction of the original publication, it says: "Prepared by Joseph Smith". There was no reason to say that if it had been "prepared by Sidney Rigdon".

Well, then, what were the reasons? I gave you what the historical record shows. Do you have other data we should consider?

I don’t really want to go into that right now, but alternative views to that have been expressed by others, such as this from Elder McConkie:

"In my judgment, it (

Lectures on Faith

) is the most comprehensive, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language - that exists in one place defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the spirit of inspiration. It is, in effect, eternal scripture; it is true." (Bruce R. McConkie, lecture at Brigham Young University).

Source

.

If they were truly doctrinal, there was something very odd about their message.

Again I ask, what were the reasons we do not have them in our Triples any more?

No comment!