Problems With The Teachings Of The Trinity

[Vance]

Isn't it against the rules to link to web sites that have temple content?

It is. Edited to remove quote that includes the link.

[jo1952]

jo,

That's right. That's what 2 Corinthians 4:4 means! You are jumping from "the Bible calls Satan a god" to "Satan is the true God" or "Satan is a true god." This is not a legitimate move.

Whatever, Rob. YOU are the one who made the statement that if the NT supports a concenpt, then it is true. I merely pointed out that this type of thinking could get a person into trouble quickly; and then I gave a demonstration. I think what has happened is you made an off-the-cuff remark before you thought what that remark might look like. I called you on it; that's all.

Which of the several non-Trinitarian beliefs do you have in mind? Your claim here is incredibly naive. Every theological position on the subject was developed by human beings over time. Each of these beliefs "evolved" in that sense, yours included.

So, you are going to ignore that all those people who, upon hearing the Gospel message either in ancient times or throughout the history of the dispensation of the church who "heard" within that message that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost were separate and individual beings, who had not yet heard the Trinity dogma, interpreted what they were hearing incorrectly? IOW, they first needed to be taught man's concept which he took out of the same scriptures that had been read to them or by them, who had already received the witness of the Holy Ghost (Spirit to spirit), were wrong? Good grief, Rob. What is the real reason you think that man's constructed Trinity is even necessary? Do you not think that a person's conversion to Christ wherein they receive a witness from the Holy Ghost needs to be improved upon by mere man? Is man better than God's gift to the world at doing something than God is? You DO realize that the witness of the Holy Ghost is GREATER than man's witness?? Why do you suppose that such a teaching needed to be taught? Is it possible God had revealed this to John the Beloved because He knew what man was going to be doing???

1 John 5:7-12 (emphasis added)

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

BTW, there is no other distinction made above about who "hath life" other than he that "hath the Son hath life". It seems to me that being a Trinitarian or being a non-Trinirian don't even fit into the picture. If it were necessary, then every verse in the Bible which claims we need to accept Christ would have also included the idea that a person additionally MUST understand His "True Nature" (which, I would point out one more time, the Trinity doesn't even accomplish because the Trinity is incomprehensible). In fact, the Bible teaches us we cannot know the mind of God or His thoughts; IOW He is incomprehensible to us. Yet we nevertheless access salvation through believing in His Son, having faith in Jesus Christ. If the Bible teaches this, then why does man feel it's necessary to contradict the Bible? Yet at the end of the day, even the contruct man came up with ALSO admits that that very construct is ALSO incomprehensible.

There was never any need to kill heretics to keep them out of the church. Again, it was not belief in the Trinity that led to persecution of non-Trinitarians; it was false beliefs about the use of state power.

Wow. Your claim to have so much worldly knowledge appears to have been obtained by looking through a very specific filter of Orthodoxy. I suppose if we wanted to, we could see the persecution Saul brought to the early Christians and say that he was doing the same thing. It would be a stretch; just like the stretch you are making. I suppose you would probably tell me that Constantine's position and power in the Roman Empire had absolutely no influence whatsoever on which way the vote went at the First Council of Nicea. Now, I would view THAT as naive.

It is? Do I need the Holy Ghost to see this teaching, which you say fills the NT? How do I know who has the Holy Ghost?

This is not something that I can teach you. You will need to go directly to the source. I am sure that you have already been given the quotes which teach about the Holy Ghost many times through the 35 years you have been studying the Trinity.

Regards,

jo

[altersteve]

Whatever, Rob. YOU are the one who made the statement that if the NT supports a concenpt, then it is true. I merely pointed out that this type of thinking could get a person into trouble quickly; and then I gave a demonstration. I think what has happened is you made an off-the-cuff remark before you thought what that remark might look like. I called you on it; that's all.

His own interpretation of the NT, that is. That way, he can make the Bible say anything he wants it to say, and we silly Mormons are always wrong no matter what.

Edited August 17, 2011 by altersteve

[Ahab]

Rob,

There is a concept of the Trinity that is true, in the sense that 3 persons who are God are all united. The Trinity "creed" as taught by the RCC and accepted by Protestant Christianity goes way beyond that point, however, and it includes some concepts which are not written in the Holy Bible. Why do you accept those concepts, when the writings in the Bible don't make those same statements?

Who came up with the idea that God... either as a "who" or a "what"... is incomprehensible?

The Bible does say that, so why believe it?

Who came up with the idea that God, our Father, doesn't have a physical body just as our Lord does?

The Bible doesn't say that, so why believe it?

I don't see any good reason for why I should.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

That was not the question I posed.

Your claim was that you can tell what's true by comparing it to what's in the Bible: either there would be a direct citation you can apply or the "truth" will conform to the major thrust of scripture.

My assertion is that you may be able to tell that something is true, but you cannot determine if it is not true because the Bible does not contain (as illustrated by the failing of Act 1:3) all truth.

I don't see the relevance of your point to the present discussion, which has to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. Christians have believed in the doctrine of the Trinity on the basis of what they found in the Bible for nearly two millennia. This is an issue of what is in the Bible, not what is not in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't tell us all truth, and I never suggested it did. For example, the Bible doesn't tell us how many angels there are. Someday we may be told the answer to this question. If the answer comes from a reliable source, we can accept it even though it's not in the Bible.

On the other hand, the Bible does tell us some truth, and no future revelations can negate that truth. For example, we already know from the Bible that Jesus was resurrected from the grave. Any alleged future revelation that claims that Jesus was not resurrected from the grave is not additional truth not found in the Bible, but falsehood that departs from the truth we have in the Bible.

You wrote:

I further contend (although not presented in my earlier message) that there is no way to apply biblical teachings anyway because, in spite of the myriad of claims that "the Bible teaches Xxxx" or "the Bible says Yyyy", the Bible doesn't say anything: it is only ink on paper (or parchment/papyrus, etc.); it doesn't "say" anything or "teach" anything until someone reads it and interprets it.

Six times in the NT we find statements introduced by the words "Scripture says" (John 19:37; Rom. 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 1 Tim. 5:18; James 4:5). Are these NT statements in error? Mormon leaders have frequently made statements using the words "the Bible says" or "the Bible teaches" or "the Scripture says" or "the Scriptures teach." Were they all in error as well? Or is this wrong only when an evangelical does it?

Edited August 17, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

This is in response to the following exchange between Vance and a moderator:

Isn't it against the rules to link to web sites that have temple content?

It is. Edited to remove quote that includes the link.

Excuse me, but I have a question. The board guidelines say: "Do not post temple content or links to temple content." I did not post a link to temple content. I posted a link to an article on the Trinity. The board guidelines do not say that a link may not go to a web site that somewhere else has temple content.

Our website has hundreds of pages of material. It has ONE page with temple content, and that page begins with a disclaimer/caution to the reader regarding that content (as the result of a discussion I had with people here). The web pages of my article on the Trinity do not include any link to the one page dealing with the temple ceremony.

Would it not be permissible for me to refer people to something like that article on the Trinity here? I don't think it violates board guidelines.

[Ahab]

Six times in the NT we find statements introduced by the words "Scripture says" (John 19:37; Rom. 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 1 Tim. 5:18; James 4:5).

Notice that each one of those instances is an instance where new scripture is being written. (John 19:37; Rom. 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 1 Tim. 5:18; James 4:5).

Are these NT statements in error?

No.

Mormon leaders have frequently made statements using the words "the Bible says" or "the Bible teaches" or "the Scripture says" or "the Scriptures teach." Were they all in error as well?

Not when they were quoting scripture or writing new scripture.

Or is this wrong only when an evangelical does it?

The problem with evangelicals is they don't accept the idea that new scripture can be written today just as well as it was in the past.

All you need is our Lord's authority and inspiration from the Holy Ghost to write it.

Do you believe the Trinity "creed" is scripture? You do seem to think that it is, but I know better than to believe it.

[altersteve]

Six times in the NT we find statements introduced by the words "Scripture says" (John 19:37; Rom. 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 1 Tim. 5:18; James 4:5). Are these NT statements in error? Mormon leaders have frequently made statements using the words "the Bible says" or "the Bible teaches" or "the Scripture says" or "the Scriptures teach." Were they all in error as well? Or is this wrong only when an evangelical does it?

None of these are in error, nor is it "wrong only when an evangelical does it." LeSellers made no such claim. What he did say was: "[T]he Bible doesn't say anything . . . until someone reads it and interprets it." In other words, scripture certainly says and teaches things, but not until it is interpreted by the reader. Scripture, just like any other literary work, can — and the fact that we are having this discussion is living proof that it does — say something to one person but something else entirely to another, depending on how it is interpreted by those two people. The Bible does not interpret itself or teach things on its own; in order for us to learn from it, we must put forth the effort, which includes having the desire to obtain the knowledge it can give us, and then putting that to good use by reading it and using your best judgment on what the message is. I think that's what LeSellers meant.

However, we Latter-day Saints don't have that problem, since we believe in divine revelation. We allow the Spirit to guide and teach us as we read.

Edited August 17, 2011 by altersteve

[Vance]

Our website has hundreds of pages of material. It has ONE page with temple content, and that page begins with a disclaimer/caution to the reader regarding that content (as the result of a discussion I had with people here).

And THAT is why I asked the question. You freely admit to having temple content on your web site (obtained nefariously) despite numerous requests to remove it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is in response to the following exchange between Vance and a moderator:

Excuse me, but I have a question. The board guidelines say: "Do not post temple content or links to temple content." I did not post a link to temple content. I posted a link to an article on the Trinity. The board guidelines do not say that a link may not go to a web site that somewhere else has temple content.

Our website has hundreds of pages of material. It has ONE page with temple content, and that page begins with a disclaimer/caution to the reader regarding that content (as the result of a discussion I had with people here). The web pages of my article on the Trinity do not include any link to the one page dealing with the temple ceremony.

Would it not be permissible for me to refer people to something like that article on the Trinity here? I don't think it violates board guidelines.

I would PM a mod. I think you might be able to make that case.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

Okay, thanks for the suggestion.

I would PM a mod. I think you might be able to make that case.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

LDS Church leaders frequently say "the Bible/Scripture says/teaches" in contexts where those leaders are not writing new Scripture. Therefore, your distinction does not account for such statements.

You wrote:

The problem with evangelicals is they don't accept the idea that new scripture can be written today just as well as it was in the past.

No, we don't accept the idea that new scripture is being written today. That's different than saying it cannot be.

And last I checked, the LDS Church has not added anything to its scriptures for over forty years.

You wrote:

All you need is our Lord's authority and inspiration from the Holy Ghost to write it.

That's hard to come by. Many claim it, few if any really have it.

You wrote:

Do you believe the Trinity "creed" is scripture? You do seem to think that it is, but I know better than to believe it.

I really don't know why you would say that. I don't believe the creeds are scripture.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And last I checked, the LDS Church has not added anything to its scriptures for over forty years.

I would clarify that nothing has been added to the cannon in 40 years. Many LDS consider the GC talks and the Ensign to be scripture just not canonized. And one minor point of clarification is it was just over 30 years since the cannon was expanded.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[LeSellers]

last I checked, the LDS Church has not added anything to its scriptures for over forty years.

Check again. It's been a few dedades, not four, and that's only for canonized scripture. But, in any case, it's far better than the sad case of not having any new scripture for two millennia.

The new scripture we have, however, are not exclusively canonized scriupture. We also have new scripture outside the canon: e.g., The Family, a Proclamation to the World.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

None of these are in error, nor is it "wrong only when an evangelical does it." LeSellers made no such claim. What he did say was: "[T]he Bible doesn't say anything . . . until someone reads it and interprets it." In other words, scripture certainly says and teaches things, but not until it is interpreted by the reader.

I don't agree with this understanding of texts, but even granting it for the sake of argument, what's the problem? I am a reader; I read something in the Bible; I understand or interpret it to mean something; and then I assert "the Bible says" or "the Bible teaches" what I found there. So the conditions you are laying down are satisfied.

You wrote:

Scripture, just like any other literary work, can — and the fact that we are having this discussion is living proof that it does — say something to one person but something else entirely to another, depending on how it is interpreted by those two people.

This is why I don't accept your premise. Permit me to offer the following reductio ad absurdum. Let us suppose you are correct. If I misunderstood the Book of Mormon to permit me to kill Mormons, it would follow from what you say that the Book of Mormon says to me that I may kill Mormons, but the Book of Mormon says something entirely different to you. The problem with such a statement should be obvious. It is implicating the Book of Mormon in someone's evil belief when the Book of Mormon in no way supports that belief. It would be better to stick with the fact: someone falsely claims that the Book of Mormon permits him to kill Mormons. In no sense does the Book of Mormon say this to one person but not to another; in fact, it says it to no one. Likewise, the Bible does not say one thing to you and another thing to me. It says what it says. Either your understanding of it on a particular issue is right, or mine is right, or we're both wrong, but it simply is not correct to claim that the Bible says one thing to you and another thing to me.

You wrote:

The Bible does not interpret itself or teach things on its own; in order for us to learn from it, we must put forth the effort, which includes having the desire to obtain the knowledge it can give us, and then putting that to good use by reading it and using your best judgment on what the message is. I think that's what LeSellers meant.

I agree with such a statement completely. Do you think I was arguing that one can understand and learn from the Bible without wanting to know what it says or without putting in any effort?

You wrote:

However, we Latter-day Saints don't have that problem, since we believe in divine revelation. We allow the Spirit to guide and teach us as we read.

So, you don't have to put in any effort or use your own best judgment as to what its message is? Why is it then that Mormons disagree on all sorts of interpretive issues even with regard to the Book of Mormon?

Edited August 17, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

Thanks for the correction; you're right, it was 33 years ago.

I'm curious: If "many LDS" consider the GC talks and the Ensign to be scripture, then I take it that some LDS don't. Do you mean to tell me Mormons are not of one mind as to what constitutes scripture?

I would clarify that nothing has been added to the cannon in 40 years. Many LDS consider the GC talks and the Ensign to be scripture just not canonized. And one minor point of clarification is it was just over 30 years since the cannon was expanded.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

Thanks for the correction; you're right, it was 33 years ago.

I'm curious: If "many LDS" consider the GC talks and the Ensign to be scripture, then I take it that some LDS don't. Do you mean to tell me Mormons are not of one mind as to what constitutes scripture?

No group is ever one mind.

You didn't know this? Surely you jest with me Rob.

There are always going to be differing opinions. I think this board is evidence of that.

[Ahab]

Ahab,

LDS Church leaders frequently say "the Bible/Scripture says/teaches" in contexts where those leaders are not writing new Scripture. Therefore, your distinction does not account for such statements.

You don't seem to have understood what I said.

You asked if LDS Church leaders are in error when they say things like "the Bible teaches" this or that, and I said they're not in ERROR when they're either quoting scripture or writing new scripture. LDS Church leaders do expound on the scriptures at times by making some statements in addtion to what is stated verbatim in the Bible, and they have our Lord's authority to do that and there is no error in what they are saying or writing when what they're adding is inspired by the Holy Ghost.

You, and other evangelicals like you, on the other hand, say things like "the Bible teaches" this or that and often you are in error because you're not directly quoting from the Bible when you say things, sometimes, and you're not being guided by the Holy Spirit to say what you say, either, because what you say is contradictory to what our Lord has told us both personally and through his authorized leaders.

No, we don't accept the idea that new scripture is being written today. That's different than saying it cannot be.

Then what makes you think you're correct when you say things like "the Bible teaches" this or that and you're not quoting the Bible verbatim???

And last I checked, the LDS Church has not added anything to its scriptures for over forty years.

Then you've been missing a whole bunch, Rob. They add to the scriptures each and every time they add statements that aren't written in the scriptures, verbatim.

You do realize that scripture is that which is written by holy men as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost, don't you?

What do you guys think you're doing when you write things which aren't written in the scriptures? If it's not scripture, what is it?

That's hard to come by. Many claim it, few if any really have it.

Uh huh. And I suppose you think you know who has it and who doesn't.

I really don't know why you would say that. I don't believe the creeds are scripture.

Not scripture = not what holy men wrote as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost to write what they wrote.

If you acknowledge the fact that it's not scripture, then why the heck do you care so much about what those people wrote???

Edited August 17, 2011 by Ahab

[Bsix]

As one raised in a traditional trinitarian background, I left traditional Christianity prior to ever hearing of Mormonism because I just didn't see traditional trinitarianism in the Bible. True...I was a young adult and no scholar.

I tend to agree that most, if not all 'trinitarian' passage in the Bible are prooftexts that don't actually teach the trinity...they just sound trinitarian.

I think it is fairly argued that the Old Testament doesn't explicity teach creedal trinitarianism. The OT Jews were not trinitarians. (Even the most faithful of OT Jews would not recognize modern trinitarianism). The New Testament doesn't explicitly teach trinitarianism. Jesus was not a trinitarian, and he didn't teach it and NT Christians didn't believe it. (At least as evidenced from the Bible.)

The word Trinity...or any descriptive word or phrase that conceptualizes the Trinity isn't even found in the Bible.

I think that history pretty much supports that creedal trinitarianims is an evolved doctrine...finally settled through a controversial, political council.

Six

[Calm]

I really don't know why you would say that. I don't believe the creeds are scripture.

If the creeds are not scripture, then they are not in the Bible (since the Bible is scripture), correct?

If they are not in the Bible, then they would not be defined as biblical truths and are not relevant to our salvation, correct (since something has to be in the Bible to be biblical and according to typical EV doctrine, all that is needed for salvation is contained within the Bible, correct?

(just trying to clarify your personal position, you may have already done so elsewhere and I missed it).

[jo1952]

As one raised in a traditional trinitarian background, I left traditional Christianity prior to ever hearing of Mormonism because I just didn't see traditional trinitarianism in the Bible. True...I was a young adult and no scholar.

I tend to agree that most, if not all 'trinitarian' passage in the Bible are prooftexts that don't actually teach the trinity...they just sound trinitarian.

I think it is fairly argued that the Old Testament doesn't explicity teach creedal trinitarianism. The OT Jews were not trinitarians. (Even the most faithful of OT Jews would not recognize modern trinitarianism). The New Testament doesn't explicitly teach trinitarianism. Jesus was not a trinitarian, and he didn't teach it and NT Christians didn't believe it. (At least as evidenced from the Bible.)

The word Trinity...or any descriptive word or phrase that conceptualizes the Trinity isn't even found in the Bible.

I think that history pretty much supports that creedal trinitarianims is an evolved doctrine...finally settled through a controversial, political council.

Six

Hey! Just like me!!! As a Lutheran being prepared to take my first communion is the first time I realized WHAT the Trinity was. That is obviously the point in my life I became aware that the doctrine of the Lutheran church did not agree with what the Bible was teaching me; up until that moment, I hadn't really paid attention to "doctrine". Rather, going to church was just one way I could show my love for God. The Sermons weren't focusing on an understanding of the Godhead. That is when I started to understand what is was the Apostle's Creed was actually teaching. These were things that I had just repeated along with everybody else---because that is how they worshipped God. Up to that time, repeating any Creed was merely a mantra which I felt was my personal method of going along with everyone else in the congregation in professing devotion. How naive I used to be; and, I know I am not the only naive believer in Christendom who still worship in this manner without understanding what those beliefs really "look" like! That began my nine years of trying to find a denomination that taught the Godhead the way I saw it being taught in the Bible. I had never even heard of the LDS Church. Once my circumstances got to the point where Missionaries began to teach me what the LDS believed, I was in total amazement when I learned they did NOT hold to the Trinity!

Best regards,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

No group is ever one mind.

You didn't know this? Surely you jest with me Rob.

There are always going to be differing opinions. I think this board is evidence of that.

That simply is not true. For example, I am confident every practicing (or believing) member of the LDS Church would agree with the following statements:

• Jesus rose from the dead.
• Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.
• There are four standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

I could go on and on. Surely there are no differing opinions among believing Mormons on these points. If all believing Mormons can agree on what constitute the standard works, why shouldn't they all agree on what constitutes scripture?

[LeSellers]

If all believing Mormons [sic] can agree on what constitute the standard works, why shouldn't they all agree on what constitutes scripture?

Because the one (the Standard Works) is clearly defined and universal. The second, "scripture", is not clearly defined and subject to personal confirmation by the Holy Ghost. We all do not ask the same questions, and we all do not have the same perspective on what the answer would mean.

2 And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. 4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

The question that we, as Saints (the proper name of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ), must answer is, "Was this servant of the Lord 'speak[ing as] moved upon by the Holy Ghost'?"

When I, individually, get an affirmative answer to this question, then the statement involved is scripture for me. Do I ask about every statement the Brethren make? No. It's not even possible, to be frank, and there are many things about which I am not curious. I'd guess most other Saints are in the same boat, but different cabins.

Lehi

Edited August 18, 2011 by LeSellers

[jo1952]

Lehi,

I don't see the relevance of your point to the present discussion, which has to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. Christians have believed in the doctrine of the Trinity on the basis of what they found in the Bible for nearly two millennia. This is an issue of what is in the Bible, not what is not in the Bible.

This is not an accurate statement. The Trinity was a belief which evolved. Tertullian's version wasn't recorded until circa 200 (I'm not sure of the exact year). The First Council of Nicea version wasn't voted on and passed until 325AD where the first official stake was placed in the ground, and even that version continued to evolve. In 381AD another stake was placed in the ground at the Council of Constantinople. I would also offer that one of the reasons a person might initially be Trinitarian is due to the tradition of beliefs which they have been exposed to before they are old enough to start making any distinctions about their beliefs. IOW, there interpretation that the Bible is teaching the Trinity is based on pre-conceived notions. There are plenty of believers out there who are NOT LDS who also do not believe in the Trinity regardless of what others have tried to teach them about how they should interpret the Bible.

The Bible doesn't tell us all truth, and I never suggested it did. For example, the Bible doesn't tell us how many angels there are. Someday we may be told the answer to this question. If the answer comes from a reliable source, we can accept it even though it's not in the Bible.

What is your definition of a "reliable" source?

On the other hand, the Bible does tell us some truth, and no future revelations can negate that truth. For example, we already know from the Bible that Jesus was resurrected from the grave. Any alleged future revelation that claims that Jesus was not resurrected from the grave is not additional truth not found in the Bible, but falsehood that departs from the truth we have in the Bible.

Yes, the Bible, within its pages of paper and ink has recorded a resurrection of someone named Jesus. However, until a person has faith and believes what those words convey to us, that person will not recognize those words to be true. The ONLY way that we can KNOW those words are true is through the personal witness of the Holy Ghost. This witness is nothing we can "prove" to another person that we have received. Each of us must receive our own personal witness. A man can tie another person up and repeat and preach to that person for an entire lifetime. Until that person chooses to believe, allows the desire within him to grow that the message being shared could be possible, and exercises faith in that message, they will receive no witness. Therefore, until that time, that message will not reveal any "truth" to them; IOW, they do not yet have the ears to hear the message.

The words in the Bible are only words; those words teach stories and messages but are NOT actual "truth" - their message may be "true"; but the words themselves are not the actual thing that is called "truth". Jesus is the Truth and the Light and the Way; He does not live in the Bible. He is NOT paper and ink. Only His record is there as shared through the testimonies of those who have received their own personal witness from the Holy Ghost, or through the inspired Prophets of God. A distinction MUST be made between this difference. You cannot be filled with Truth through either the Bible or through the words and teachings of man's interpretations of what is taught there. ONLY the Holy Ghost can reveal Truth to you; Spirit to spirit.

Once a person begins experiencing the Holy Ghost themselves, their eyes of understanding become opened. They begin to "see" and "hear" EVERYTHING in a different way; not just what is recorded in the Bible....but everything in their world takes on a different meaning. This process all takes place between the Holy Ghost and the spirit that is housed within your body of flesh. It is nothing that can be explained or seen by the rest of the physical world. However, others who have experienced this, will be able to understand with their spirits, and can even recognize that this has taken place in another. The physical world cannot understand this. The physical world can only understand other physical things. It is the spirit that understands the spiritual world; and it is the Holy Ghost who leads us to all Truth.

May Father help us to open our spiritual eyes to the Kingdom of Heaven so that we may all rejoice together; even so much that it does not matter how MUCH each of us understand (which journey we each take at our own pace and ability to understand). Yet we can rejoice in what HAS been revealed to us and edify one another. May we pray for one another that we may indeed at last become "one".

Best regards,

jo

Edited August 18, 2011 by jo1952

[Flyonthewall]

Fly,

You wrote:

I'm really getting tired of these sorts of replies. I am not arguing that any doctrine that CLAIMS to be based on the Bible is ipso facto true. What I have clearly and repeatedly said is that any doctrine that is solidly and well founded on the teachings of the Bible is true. Obviously, if a doctrine is based on misinterpretations of the Bible, it is based on a faulty foundation.

We would not be having this discussion if I were a Mormon and I were asserting, let's say, that a particular doctrine is true because it is clearly taught in D&C. The objections that you and others here are making to my position betray a double standard.

Ah...that is the rub...what is "solidly and well founded on the teachings of the Bible". The part of the Trinity concept that is being taken to task is the very part that is not based on the teachings of the bible...the substance/essence/nature is a man-made philisophical attempt to interpret the meaning of the scriptures.

If you can read the Trinity concept as solidly and well founded in the bible, then recognizing LDS teachings in the Bible should be a breeze.

I can see why the Trinity concept can be derived by things said in the bible, in the same way Nicodemus came up with entering your mother's womb a second time as being born again. I like Jesus' reply to him: "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"