Trinitarians Do Not View God As An Abstraction!

[zerinus]

Could you paint him as Michelangelo did?

Yes, you can. Here are some nice ones for you to consider:

But there is one serious problem with those depictions. They all miss out the fourth "person" in the Trinity doctrine, because the traditional Trinity doctrine actually has four "persons" in it; which they turn a blind eye to. They pretend that they don't see the forth one.

But the depiction that I think fits the bill best is the following:

That is because the Trinity doctrine is in reality an absurdity. It doesn't and cannot exist, because truth by definition is meaningful and comprehensible. If something is absurd, incomprehensible, and doesn't make sense, then it cannot have an existence in reality; it is an illusion like the depiction above.

Edited September 6, 2011 by zerinus

[volgadon]

If something is absurd, incomprehensible, and doesn't make sense, then it cannot have an existence in reality; it is an illusion like the depiction above.

For being an illusion red tape sure makes life difficult.

[Storm Rider]

That is because the Trinity doctrine is in reality an absurdity. It doesn't and cannot exist, because truth by definition is meaningful and comprehensible. If something is absurd, incomprehensible, and doesn't make sense, then it cannot have an existence in reality; it is an illusion like the depiction above.

Zerinus, I apologize but simply because something is incomprehensible does not make it untrue. Our Father in Heaven is quite incomprehensible to us mortals. The is so far above us that we cannot begin to comprehend the Godhead, the Atonement, and many other gospel principles.

The Bible Answer Man, Mr. Hank H., used to always say that we cannot comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity, but that we can apprehend it. This inability to comprehend is a reflection of its...incomprehensibility. I don't agree with the concept, but I would not attack it as untrue simply because it is incomprehensible. For me, it is untrue because it is a glue job to traverse the gap between monotheism and the divinity of Jesus. There was no way for the ECF to address the divinity of Jesus and not come up with two Gods; to compensate they developed this concept of substance. It is a philosophical construct and nothing more. It does not exist anywhere except in their own minds.

I do find it strange that so many of them demand that reason be the bedrock of belief...except when talking about the Trinity and then it is a mystery and must be accepted on faith alone. Cheers

[Ahab]

Ahab and calmoriah: We are not Trinitarians of any sort, classical or no -

Yes we are, because we believe there are 3 persons who are God and who are also in unity with each other. Realize the word "trinity" simply refers to 3 who are in unity.

part of the definition of "Trinitarian" is for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to exist in a mystery of consubstantiality.

It's not a mystery if you understand how they are one, and they truly are one and the same being or "kind" of being.

This "Trinity" simply does not appear implicitly in any of our scriptures, and is indeed explicitly refuted.

Why do you think God goes to some effort to teach the fact that those who are God are one and that there is only one God with God consisting of distinct persons who are each and collectively God?

The concept is taught in the scriptures and the "classical Trinitarians", as calmoriah calls them, have simply picked up on that fact, so try to understand that when you see them go to some effort to maintain the belief that there is only one God.

We simply need to put that in context to understand what those who are God mean when they say there is only one God, like when they say that beside them there is no other, and I take it to mean there is only one being or "kind" of being in all of existence which transcends... or that is more supreme... than all other beings.

You do accept the fact that there are 3 persons who are God and that each of them are in unity, don't you? I don't really need to ask because I already know that you do, even though you don't agree in every particular with some appendages of some of the Trinitarian creeds.

All you need to do is distinguish the concept of the Trinity from some other facets or appendages of some Trinitarian creeds, keeping the part that is true and trying to correct those who have some false concepts.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Ahab

[Ahab]

I would say we are not classical Trinitarians, but Social Trinitarians.

Still Trinitarians, though, huh.

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

However, it has become the deining creed for a supposed calim to being Christian. the Bible Answer Man, Mr. Hank uses this without ceasing to claim LDS are not Christians.

Hank Hanegraaff is a popularist, not a scholar or theologian. However, since Mormons generally do not accept the Nicene Creed, his criticism on this point seems to have some legitimate basis. It would be more technically precise to say that Mormons are not orthodox Christians.

Regarding the statement of the Nicene Creed that the Son is homoousios with the Father, you commented:

I agree that LDS and all that believe in this teaching will have a disagreement. Is this disagreement so significant that it negates the saving power of Jesus Christ?

That's a different issue than the issue of whether your doctrine is compatible with the creed. It isn't, as you are here acknowledging.

The issue with regard to correct, sound doctrine is not that heresy "negates the saving power of Jesus Christ." The problem is that false doctrine potentially can negate or obstruct genuine faith in Jesus Christ. To take an extreme example, if someone denies that Christ rose from the grave, that denial does not negate Christ's saving power, but it does obstruct that person's having saving faith in Christ. Thankfully, Mormons believe in Christ's death and resurrection. Rejecting homoousios is a more subtle theological error, and it is my position that correctly believing and affirming the creeds per se is not necessary for salvation. However, holding to a radically different system of doctrine can be a symptom of a serious, even fatal disconnect between a person's profession of faith and the reality of Christ's saving work.

You wrote:

Are you saying that everything you write on your site is exact LDS theology without any misrepresentation? Further, that you have never been corrected on the information in the past? Careful, God is watching you at this moment. Now tell me truthfully.

Good grief. You made the accusation; are you prepared to back it up, or not? To the best of my knowledge, our website does not misrepresent LDS theology. Have we had corrections presented to us in the past? Of course, and we revised our articles accordingly as legitimate corrections were presented to us. I don't claim that our website is inerrant in its explanations of LDS theology (or in any other respect). I can freely acknowledge that there is no doubt room for improvement and can welcome constructive criticism to that end without admitting that we have knowingly misrepresented LDS theology, which is what you are trying to claim--without bothering to give even one example! God is watching you too, bud. He doesn't take kindly to false accusations or to deliberate misrepresentations of others' beliefs.

You wrote:

If holy catholic church means those who belong to the body of Christ, then you would be incorrect. If it means the Catholic Church, you would be correct. If it means a body of believers in the Christ, you would be incorrect. If you are speaking of a universal church, the Church of Jesus Christ, then you would also be incorrect. For that matter, do you belong to the holy catholic church?

Yes, I do. The holy catholic church is the universal body of Christ, given visible form in the community of baptized individuals who profess faith in Jesus Christ as he is known through the witness of the apostles, a community that has existed since Christ's resurrection and ascension and continues to exist until the Second Coming of Christ. LDS doctrine denies the existence of such a church on earth for most of the period of time since Christ's first coming.

[Vance]

Good grief. You made the accusation; are you prepared to back it up, or not? To the best of my knowledge, our website does not misrepresent LDS theology.

Well, if you continually ignore the complaints against it, can you honestly say such a thing?

It (the Mormon church) also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).

I have been a member more than 40 years and I have never seen or heard that being taught.

1) There isn't a p.302 in Gospel Principles,

2) I couldn't find anything that teaches "who will worship and pray to them". (Perhaps, more of your flawed logic at work.)

Perhaps you have me on ignore. Very convenient don't you think.

[zerinus]

Zerinus, I apologize but simply because something is incomprehensible does not make it untrue. Our Father in Heaven is quite incomprehensible to us mortals. The is so far above us that we cannot begin to comprehend the Godhead, the Atonement, and many other gospel principles.

“Incomprehensible” was probably not the best choice of vocabulary. I meant unintelligible, meaningless, incongruous, nonsensical. I was looking for synonyms for “absurd”. There is a difference between something being “incomprehensible” and being “absurd”. “Incomprehensible” may mean, “I don’t understand it, but maybe it is my fault that I don’t”. “Absurd” means that no intelligent person can or should understand it. That is what the traditional Trinity doctrine is. It is absurd. It is not just “incomprehensible,” in the sense of, “maybe it is my fault that I don’t understand it”. The optical illusion I had given depicts it best!

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Well, if you continually ignore the complaints against it, can you honestly say such a thing?

But I don't ignore such complaints, when they come with specifics.

You quoted the following from IRR's website:

"It (the Mormon church) also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302)."

You then commented:

I have been a member more than 40 years and I have never seen or heard that being taught.

1) There isn't a p.302 in Gospel Principles,

2) I couldn't find anything that teaches "who will worship and pray to them". (Perhaps, more of your flawed logic at work.)

Here are my replies:

1) There is a page 302 in the 1997 edition of Gospel Principles, which was the one used by the article you are quoting. (The article specifically states that it is using the 1997 edition, so if you were reading carefully you would have or should have picked up on this fact.) This edition is still available at LDS.org, an official website of the LDS Church. You can also view it at LDS.org in PDF format, which retains the exact pagination of the 1997 edition.

2) What the 1997 edition of Gospel Principles says is this: "These are some of the blessings given to exalted people.... They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father" (302). If they "will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father," presumably this means they will be expected to honor us in the same way we are expected to honor our Heavenly Father. (To say otherwise would be clearly ad hoc.) So the statement in the article you quoted appears to rest on solid ground as far as what the source states.

You wrote:

Perhaps you have me on ignore. Very convenient don't you think.

When I have ignored you in the past, it was not for my convenience. And please notice that I have not ignored your objection here but have addressed it directly.

By the way, I find it interesting that you feel it is justified in preventing me from providing links to IRR's website, but you also feel it is justified in quoting from that website for the purposes of finding fault with it (and with me).

Edited September 6, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Storm Rider]

Hank Hanegraaff is a popularist, not a scholar or theologian. However, since Mormons generally do not accept the Nicene Creed, his criticism on this point seems to have some legitimate basis. It would be more technically precise to say that Mormons are not orthodox Christians. I would not argue that point about Hank, but would he?

The issue with regard to correct, sound doctrine is not that heresy "negates the saving power of Jesus Christ." The problem is that false doctrine potentially can negate or obstruct genuine faith in Jesus Christ. To take an extreme example, if someone denies that Christ rose from the grave, that denial does not negate Christ's saving power, but it does obstruct that person's having saving faith in Christ. Thankfully, Mormons believe in Christ's death and resurrection. Rejecting homoousios is a more subtle theological error, and it is my position that correctly believing and affirming the creeds per se is not necessary for salvation. However, holding to a radically different system of doctrine can be a symptom of a serious, even fatal disconnect between a person's profession of faith and the reality of Christ's saving work. This distinction that you are making is not in scripture to my knowledge. What scripture do you use to support it?

Yes, I do. The holy catholic church is the universal body of Christ, given visible form in the community of baptized individuals who profess faith in Jesus Christ as he is known through the witness of the apostles, a community that has existed since Christ's resurrection and ascension and continues to exist until the Second Coming of Christ. LDS doctrine denies the existence of such a church on earth for most of the period of time since Christ's first coming.

I guess that we would agree that LDS believe in "a" universal church and that church would have the authority to act in the name of Jesus, i.e. baptize and perform other ordinances or sacraments and that we would also agree that LDS have a much narrower understanding of that entity than orthodoxy at large.

Rob, I don't think it is benefical to discuss your site. Suffice it to say that LDS reading your site and you reading your site reach far different conclusions. If you say you make your best efforts, then I accept that you have made your best efforts. If you have found anything where I have delibertely misrepresented Evangelcial beliefs, please show me. I have never consciously done so to the best of my knowledge.

Sorry I answered in your quote and then at the bottom; I shouldn't mix like this, but I know all will understand.

[Vance]

Here are my replies:

1) There is a page 302 in the 1997 edition of Gospel Principles, which was the one used by the article you are quoting. (The article specifically states that it is using the 1997 edition, so if you were reading carefully you would have or should have picked up on this fact.) This edition is still available at LDS.org, an official website of the LDS Church. You can also view it at LDS.org in PDF format, which retains the exact pagination of the 1997 edition.

Do you notify your sycophants that there is a newer editions that your are ignoring?

2) What the 1997 edition of Gospel Principles says is this: "These are some of the blessings given to exalted people.... They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father" (302). If they "will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father," presumably this means they will be expected to honor us in the same way we are expected to honor our Heavenly Father. (To say otherwise would be clearly ad hoc.) So the statement in the article you quoted appears to rest on solid ground as far as what the source states.

"Presumably"?

So, there is no direct statement of it, YET you declare that "the Mormon Church TEACHES" it? And you don't think this is dishonest?

By the way, I find it interesting that you feel it is justified in preventing me from providing links to IRR's website, but you also feel it is justified in quoting from that website for the purposes of finding fault with it (and with me).

As you may recall, several months ago you had a link to your web site in your sig line. When it became known that you had temple content on your site, the link in your sig line had to be removed.

This should have been a clue to you that your web site is offensive and links to it are not allowed here. If you want to blame it on me, I have broad shoulders and can handle it, but you really should put the blame where it belongs.

You are free to complain all you want. BUT we both know how easy it would be for YOU to correct YOUR problem.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Do you notify your sycophants that there is a newer editions that your are ignoring?

This statement illustrates why I generally ignore your posts.

You wrote:

"Presumably"? So, there is no direct statement of it, YET you declare that "the Mormon Church TEACHES" it? And you don't think this is dishonest?

Feel free to explain how our children can have the same relationship with us when we become heavenly fathers that we have with our heavenly Father without those children honoring us in the same way that we are to honor our Heavenly Father.

[Vance]

Feel free to explain how our children can have the same relationship with us when we become heavenly fathers that we have with our heavenly Father without those children honoring us in the same way that we are to honor our Heavenly Father.

Irrelevant!

To declare that "the Mormon Church (actively) TEACHES" something that Bowman MUST PRESUME is blatant dishonesty.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Now who is avoiding answering simple, direct questions?

Irrelevant!

To declare that "the Mormon Church (actively) TEACHES" something that Bowman MUST PRESUME is blatant dishonesty.

[ebeddoulos]

The trinity has been a calculated mystery since first conceived by the lawyer Tertulian. The theory was then assembled by priests of an unknowable god. The current proponents still “ignorantly worship” the same deity. All they lack is an alter on Mar’s Hill.

It doesn’t matter which creed or confession they profess to follow, be it the Nicene, Chalcedon, Athenasian, etc. or one of the supposedly non-creedal Baptist confessions, they are all incomprehensible. If you do not believe me, try and get them to define terms such as “substance” (as in “same substance with the Father”) from the Nicene Creed. Substance is the English translation of the Greek “ὁμοούσιος” or "homoousios". The heretical Gnostics were the first to use the word "homoousios" but the so-called Christian Orthodox adopted it. Ask a trinitarian what they mean by "homoousios". Better yet, have them provide anything from anywhere written by anyone that truly defines it in an understandable manner. It is easier to convince a herd of cats to march in lockstep around a tree to which you are trying to nail jello than to get an understandable definition of "homoousios" from an "Orthodox Christian". Any trinitarian up for the challenge? Rob Bowman? Holmes? Anyone?

If the trinity is the best theory of God that mainline Christianity can come up with, then color me unimpressed. The trinity theory is more in line with what a surly writer for Monty Python would come up with than a main-stream Christian doctrine.

[Vance]

This statement illustrates why I generally ignore your posts.

So, you avoided answering the question. SLICK!

LOL!!!

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Look at the date of the article: it was written in 1999. That's just two years after the 1997 edition and ten years before the 2009 edition of Gospel Principles. That is, the article was quoting the then-current edition.

Should we revise the article? Yes. It is on the list of projects to do. Is the article dishonest? No.

Now, will you be honest and retract your false accusation that the article was dishonest? I'm not holding my breath....

[Calm]

Feel free to explain how our children can have the same relationship with us when we become heavenly fathers that we have with our heavenly Father without those children honoring us in the same way that we are to honor our Heavenly Father.

Now who is avoiding answering simple, direct questions?

So does this mean that if non-evangelicals believe something is clearly implied by certain evangelical doctrines, that non-evangelicals can claim that evangelicals teach something even if they can't find anything that states it?

I think Vance actually answered your question with the "irrelevant".

Edited September 6, 2011 by calmoriah

[Vance]

To declare that "the Mormon Church (actively) TEACHES" something that Bowman MUST PRESUME is blatant dishonesty.

This statement is still accurate.

[Vance]

So does this mean that if non-evangelicals believe something is clearly implied by certain evangelical doctrines, that non-evangelicals can claim that evangelicals teach something even if they can't find anything that states it?

Using Bowman logic we could say "Evangelicals teach that God is impotent", because the way they define God, He OBVIOUSLY can NOT reproduce thus making Him IMPOTENT!! (We don't even need to "presume" anything).

But I am guessing that Bowman wouldn't agree with the statement "Evangelicals teach that God is impotent".

[Calm]

Vance,

Look at the date of the article: it was written in 1999. That's just two years after the 1997 edition and ten years before the 2009 edition of Gospel Principles. That is, the article was quoting the then-current edition.

Should we revise the article? Yes. It is on the list of projects to do. Is the article dishonest? No.

Now, will you be honest and retract your false accusation that the article was dishonest? I'm not holding my breath....

I would suggest making a note that there is an updated manual and provide a link to it if you have not done so already so that there is no confusion if people go to lds.org to read the manual and find it doesn't match yours.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

So does this mean that if non-evangelicals believe something is clearly implied by certain evangelical doctrines, that non-evangelicals can claim that evangelicals teach something even if they can't find anything that states it?

There's some equivocation going on here.

If non-evangelicals claim that evangelical doctrine implies something that evangelical theologians have frequently and explicitly denied, then those non-evangelicals would be wrong to persist in claiming that the idea is taught or implied in evangelical doctrine. If what the non-evangelical claims is implied is actually a speculative notion that goes beyond simply understanding what the evangelical doctrine means, then the non-evangelical critique is without solid foundation. If, on the other hand, evangelicals were to respond to the criticism by saying that the criticism is dishonest, without providing any reason for thinking it to be even mistaken, the non-evangelical would be justified in concluding that he was on to something!

In the present case, we are talking about what a specific statement in Gospel Principles means. What does it mean for group X to have "the same relationship" with person E that E has with his Heavenly Father? Keep in mind that this statement is made in the context of affirming that the exalted persons will be "gods" and that "they will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have--all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge." Gospel Principles quotes with approval Joseph Fielding Smith, who says in the same context as the quoted material that the exalted persons will "become creators" (Doctrines of Salvation 2:36). So the exalted will be gods, creators, having everything that Heavenly Father has, and having the same relationship with their children that our Heavenly Father has with his children (us). If this does not entail that an exalted being's children will relate to their heavenly father as their creator and god, and therefore give him (if they are faithful) worship as such, I don't know what it could mean.

Do you?

[Senator]

.... I don't know what it could mean.

Do you?

Hi Rob,

It seems that "what it could mean", is of no concern now; as the teaching, from which your presumption sprang, is apparently no longer being taught.

[Rob Bowman]

Senator,

You wrote:

It seems that "what it could mean", is of no concern now; as the teaching, from which your presumption sprang, is apparently no longer being taught.

First let's establish whether this was taught, and then we can discuss whether there has been any significant change. Does that seem fair?

[Senator]

Senator,

You wrote:

First let's establish whether this was taught, and then we can discuss whether there has been any significant change. Does that seem fair?

Sure