canard78 Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 There's a tangent on the other thread about Book of Mormon belief that merits its own discussion. In the thread Scott said in response to someone else suggesting the BoM teaches Trinitarian doctrine:The Book of Mormon teaches monotheism in the correct sense that has become corrupted in the Christian sects from before the deaths of all the apostles on through the centuries. That is, the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost are one God: one in purpose and glory but three separate and distinct individuals.This is the concept that is reflected in Jesus's intercessory prayer recorded in John 17.Much of Christendom has misunderstood the concept reflected in this chapter -- just as you obviously have misunderstood the concept of monotheism taught in the Book of Mormon.Is there somewhere that teaches this with absolute clarity the in the Book of Mormon? There may well be, I'm just scratching my head trying to think of where it is. It may be implied in places but I was wondering if it's said explicitly anywhere. If the bible is ambiguous enough about the nature of the Godhead that many millions of Christians are left believing an incorrect description of God, where, in the Book of Mormon, does it offer absolute clarity in a way the Bible does not that:- Father, Son and Holy Ghost are united in purpose by are three distinct individuals. - Father and Son have a body of flesh and bloodImagine a Trinitarian read the Book of Mormon in 1830. What would correct their misunderstanding?
janderich Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 First, just a point of clarity. The Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bone, not blood. All resurrected beings are without blood or they would be earthly. The oneness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are some of the deepest and most profound doctrine. This teaching involves every one of us in ways we do not fully comprehend. We do not understand how they are with us in this world and so misunderstand the at-one-ment and how to approach the Godhead. I believe this is the truth most taught in the BoM. In filters into many sections of the book and forces us to face reality. Does this mean the BoM supports trinitarian theory? No. Does it correct nearly 2000 years of misunderstanding? I don't think so. But then Joseph already clarified it when he saw the Father and the Son as separate and distinct as well as many prophets and apostles. So, I don't see that it needs to. It is a plain and simple truth.
canard78 Posted January 10, 2015 Author Posted January 10, 2015 First, just a point of clarity. The Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bone, not blood. All resurrected beings are without blood or they would be earthly. The oneness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are some of the deepest and most profound doctrine. This teaching involves every one of us in ways we do not fully comprehend. We do not understand how they are with us in this world and so misunderstand the at-one-ment and how to approach the Godhead. I believe this is the truth most taught in the BoM. In filters into many sections of the book and forces us to face reality. Does this mean the BoM supports trinitarian theory? No. Does it correct nearly 2000 years of misunderstanding? I don't think so. But then Joseph already clarified it when he saw the Father and the Son as separate and distinct as well as many prophets and apostles. So, I don't see that it needs to. It is a plain and simple truth. Re. "flesh and blood" - no problem. I won't edit the OP to leave your comment as having context. The first vision wasn't shared until 1838. In 1830, was there anything in the BoM that clarified these "plain and simple" truths? If they were so simple and plain, how was it that both the Bible and Book of Mormon left room for ambiguity? 1
CV75 Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 There's a tangent on the other thread about Book of Mormon belief that merits its own discussion. In the thread Scott said in response to someone else suggesting the BoM teaches Trinitarian doctrine: Is there somewhere that teaches this with absolute clarity the in the Book of Mormon? There may well be, I'm just scratching my head trying to think of where it is. It may be implied in places but I was wondering if it's said explicitly anywhere. If the bible is ambiguous enough about the nature of the Godhead that many millions of Christians are left believing an incorrect description of God, where, in the Book of Mormon, does it offer absolute clarity in a way the Bible does not that: - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are united in purpose by are three distinct individuals. - Father and Son have a body of flesh and blood Imagine a Trinitarian read the Book of Mormon in 1830. What would correct their misunderstanding?I think 2 Nephi 31 and 19 for the most part show their individual roles within one purpose. 3 Nephi 11 is pretty good too. A scripture search of "Holy Ghost" in the Book of Mormon shows many passages of various degrees of clarity on that point.
Bobbieaware Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) There's a tangent on the other thread about Book of Mormon belief that merits its own discussion. In the thread Scott said in response to someone else suggesting the BoM teaches Trinitarian doctrine:Is there somewhere that teaches this with absolute clarity the in the Book of Mormon? There may well be, I'm just scratching my head trying to think of where it is. It may be implied in places but I was wondering if it's said explicitly anywhere. If the bible is ambiguous enough about the nature of the Godhead that many millions of Christians are left believing an incorrect description of God, where, in the Book of Mormon, does it offer absolute clarity in a way the Bible does not that:- Father, Son and Holy Ghost are united in purpose by are three distinct individuals. - Father and Son have a body of flesh and bloodImagine a Trinitarian read the Book of Mormon in 1830. What would correct their misunderstanding?An all too often overlooked portion of the Book of Mormon that helps to illuminate the nature of the Godhead is Lehi's first vision, as described in 1 Nephi 1. There we see God the Father presented as a Man seated on a throne and surrounded by multitudes who worship thie seated Man as God. We also see the Saviour presented as a separate and distinct personage from the Father who presents Lehi with a heavenly book of prophecy that he is commanded to read.So in this first vision of Lehi we learn that God the Father is a Man with a body that enables him to be seated on a throne; this seated holy Man is recognized as God and worshipped as such by the inhabitants of heaven; the Preexistent Saviour's appearance is in the form of a man; it's possible for a man (in this case Lehi) to see God the Fathet and live, so long as the man seeing God is "in the Spirit."This first chapter of the Book of a Mormon sets a doctrinal keynote for the rest of the book, providing a 'lens' that clarifies the rest of what the reader will encounter in its pages with regard to the nature of God. Edited January 10, 2015 by Bobbieaware 2
Popular Post MormonFreeThinker Posted January 10, 2015 Popular Post Posted January 10, 2015 Imagine a Trinitarian read the Book of Mormon in 1830. What would correct their misunderstanding? The Holy Ghost and Jesus are not the same God"But he [Jesus] truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink....Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard" 3 Nephi 20:7-9 One is clarified "And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one." (3 Nephi 28:10)"And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one."(3 Nephi 19:23) Jehovah is a man "Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh" Ether 3:16 God the Father and Jesus are not the same person "8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. 9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day. 10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. 11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read" 1 Ne1:8 -11 5
bluebell Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 I think it is the D&C that really clarifies the nature of the Godhead. 2
carbon dioxide Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 I think it is the D&C that really clarifies the nature of the Godhead. There's a tangent on the other thread about Book of Mormon belief that merits its own discussion.In the thread Scott said in response to someone else suggesting the BoM teaches Trinitarian doctrine:Is there somewhere that teaches this with absolute clarity the in the Book of Mormon? There may well be, I'm just scratching my head trying to think of where it is. It may be implied in places but I was wondering if it's said explicitly anywhere.If the bible is ambiguous enough about the nature of the Godhead that many millions of Christians are left believing an incorrect description of God, where, in the Book of Mormon, does it offer absolute clarity in a way the Bible does not that:- Father, Son and Holy Ghost are united in purpose by are three distinct individuals.- Father and Son have a body of flesh and bloodImagine a Trinitarian read the Book of Mormon in 1830. What would correct their misunderstanding?Not a whole lot. The teachings of the Bible seem pretty clear to me that the Godhead consists of three separate beings and the Father and Son have a body of flesh and bone (not flesh and blood). However if one believes that the Father and Son are the same being even though Jesus is clearly praying to the Father in John 17, there is no reason they would not change their mind in 3 Nephi where Jesus prays to the father again and interpret it the same way. Frankly if the scriptures found in the D&C were found in the Bible, people would believe in the trinity. There is nothing that God can say to these people that they are separate beings. Whatever is said, they will interpret it to be that they are the same being to maintain this strict monotheism they have bound themselves to. 1
Calm Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) The first vision wasn't shared until 1838. In 1830, was there anything in the BoM that clarified these "plain and simple" truths? If they were so simple and plain, how was it that both the Bible and Book of Mormon left room for ambiguity?"James B. Allen, Improvement Era (April 1970):Nevertheless, it can now be demonstrated that the Prophet described his experience to friends and acquaintances at least as early as 1831-32, and that he continued to do so in varying detail until the year of his death, 1844. We presently know of at least eight contemporary documents that were written during his lifetime.[6]" Edited January 10, 2015 by calmoriah 2
CV75 Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Lots of great comments -- I must admit, when I prayed about which Church to join, I did not at all consider the nature and organization of the Godhead yet my prayer was answered to join the LDS Church. The only way I knew to pray at the time was to recite the Lord's Prayer (having been raised generally Christian Protestant) and then ask, "Which Church should I join?" Yet when the answer came, I intuitively identified the instruction as coming from the Holy Ghost. I also had a clear image in my mind's eye that Christ and the Father were separate Beings. After reading the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover (about 3 months later), I prayed to know its truthfulness and received and answer. But by that time, I had developed an understanding of the separateness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, though mu understanding was more intuitive than a conscious acknowledgement of what I had learned from the Book of Mormon, though I had no other source of instruction on the Godhead. I should explain that I was not introduced to the Church in a "normal" way (only by reading a couple of pamphlets; no contact with members or missionaries). Of course as I learned more from Church curriculum, I developed a clearer understanding by the time I contacted the missionaries and was taught and baptized (some 5 years later). 3
Flyonthewall Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 I believe the Bible hints at it in John 10 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
Calm Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) The classical Trinity has three distinct persons, so that is not different. It is the teaching of one substance that 'forms' the One God that needs to be clarified or corrected (in the LDS view), is this substance, this essence, this nature an attribute or some sort of immaterial element or something else. It seems to be this substance is merely defined not by what it is (at least not beyond the substance of God) but by what it is claimed to do---somehow three persons are one being because they are this substance (it does not even seem appropriate to say they "share" the substance because that implies a division between the substance and the individuals that does not exist, they are the substance that is God as much as they are the individuals).If the substance is a nature such as the human nature that all humans share, the Trinity poses no problems for LDS. But most classical Trinitarians seem to reject this concept of nature and teach the One Being is not just a collective noun, like Family, but is somehow an individual being that is also three individual persons (and not like triplets or a hive mind or anything our finite minds can grasp) That this would be nonsense in our finite world is resolved by defining God as an infinite being...which makes sense to others but leaves me unsatisfied.I am not sure the BoM challenges this idea of substance, there would IMO have been no need to directly deal with it given this was an Old World concept development.PS: I think I got this right but there are always nuances an outsider might miss, so as always those who are Trinitarians (classical to avoid those who want to claim the title but not the belief I am speaking of) feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted something. Edited January 10, 2015 by calmoriah
ERayR Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 The classical Trinity has three distinct persons, so that is not different. It is the teaching of one substance that 'forms' the One God that needs to be clarified, is this substance, this essence, this nature an attribute or some sort of immaterial element or something else. It seems to be this substance is merely defined not by what it is (at least not beyond the substance of God) but by what it is claimed to do---somehow three persons are one being because they are this substance (it does not even seem appropriate to say they "share" the substance because that implies a division between the substance and the individuals that does not exist, they are the substance that is God as much as they are the individuals). It is a (to me) a mass of confusion. 1
canard78 Posted January 10, 2015 Author Posted January 10, 2015 "James B. Allen, Improvement Era (April 1970):Nevertheless, it can now be demonstrated that the Prophet described his experience to friends and acquaintances at least as early as 1831-32, and that he continued to do so in varying detail until the year of his death, 1844. We presently know of at least eight contemporary documents that were written during his lifetime.[6]"I'd be interested to see the sources for all those. Obviously aware of the 1832 account in writing. I'm curious to know if "two personages" were mentioned anywhere (as they aren't in the 1832 account). 2
canard78 Posted January 10, 2015 Author Posted January 10, 2015 It is a (to me) a mass of confusion.I agree. I don't get Trinitarian views at all. 2
canard78 Posted January 10, 2015 Author Posted January 10, 2015 By way of clarification, in case some of you had started discussing biblical passages to try to convince me one way or another... I don't believe in a Trinity godhead. This was specifically seeking BoM examples of unambiguous teaching against it.
canard78 Posted January 10, 2015 Author Posted January 10, 2015 The Holy Ghost and Jesus are not the same God"But he [Jesus] truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink....Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard" 3 Nephi 20:7-9One is clarified "And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one." (3 Nephi 28:10)"And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one."(3 Nephi 19:23)Jehovah is a man "Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh" Ether 3:16 God the Father and Jesus are not the same person "8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. 9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day. 10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. 11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read" 1 Ne1:8 -11There are plenty of biblical passages that are similar and yet, for Christendom, there is still ambiguity. E.g.- Voice of the father and the spirit as a dove at Jesus' baptism- Stephen seeing God and Jesus at his right hand in vision- Jesus' resurrected body being seen None of your examples are completely unambiguous.
ERayR Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 There are plenty of biblical passages that are similar and yet, for Christendom, there is still ambiguity.E.g.- Voice of the father and the spirit as a dove at Jesus' baptism- Stephen seeing God and Jesus at his right hand in vision- Jesus' resurrected body being seenNone of your examples are completely unambiguous. I bet he declares them to be.
Darren10 Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Lots of great comments -- I must admit, when I prayed about which Church to join, I did not at all consider the nature and organization of the Godhead yet my prayer was answered to join the LDS Church. The only way I knew to pray at the time was to recite the Lord's Prayer (having been raised generally Christian Protestant) and then ask, "Which Church should I join?" Yet when the answer came, I intuitively identified the instruction as coming from the Holy Ghost. I also had a clear image in my mind's eye that Christ and the Father were separate Beings. After reading the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover (about 3 months later), I prayed to know its truthfulness and received and answer. But by that time, I had developed an understanding of the separateness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, though mu understanding was more intuitive than a conscious acknowledgement of what I had learned from the Book of Mormon, though I had no other source of instruction on the Godhead. I should explain that I was not introduced to the Church in a "normal" way (only by reading a couple of pamphlets; no contact with members or missionaries). Of course as I learned more from Church curriculum, I developed a clearer understanding by the time I contacted the missionaries and was taught and baptized (some 5 years later).That is really neat.
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 The Holy Ghost and Jesus are not the same God"But he [Jesus] truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink....Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard" 3 Nephi 20:7-9 One is clarified "And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one." (3 Nephi 28:10)"And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one."(3 Nephi 19:23) Jehovah is a man "Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh" Ether 3:16 God the Father and Jesus are not the same person "8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. 9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day. 10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. 11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read" 1 Ne1:8 -11I gotta say, these are pretty convincing quotes for the affirmative position in this debate!
canard78 Posted January 11, 2015 Author Posted January 11, 2015 I bet he declares them to be.For those of us who have been raised Mormon and for whom the idea of three distinct beings/father and son having physical bodies then of course they may appear to be unambiguous. But then my reading of the Bible (in a Mormon context) was the same. What do you think? Do you think those examples would be ambiguous to a Trinitarian?
Kevin Christensen Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) I'd be interested to see the sources for all those. Obviously aware of the 1832 account in writing. I'm curious to know if "two personages" were mentioned anywhere (as they aren't in the 1832 account).You ought to read Matthew Brown's work on the topic. He has a book, which I have at home, and presented at FAIR in 2006. This brings us to the most frequent anti-Mormon criticism about JS 1832. God the Father is obviously not mentioned as making an appearance to Joseph Smith in this First Vision account. I would like to suggest, however, that all this time we as Latter-day Saints have not recognized that God the Father’s appearance is, in fact, referred to right in this document. This has occurred, I believe, because we have been looking in the wrong place. In the introductory remarks of JS 1832 Joseph Smith outlined precisely how he was about to proceed in the narration of his history. He mentioned that the very first incident associated with his “marvelous experience” in the Restoration was that he received “the testimony from on high.” Because of the formatting of the introductory paragraph and the structure of the text which follows it, it can be concluded with a marked degree of certainty that this testimony was connected with the First Vision. The question to ask, then, is, What was the “testimony from on high” that Joseph Smith received during the First Vision? This question is easily answered by referring to another First Vision recital given by the Prophet in November 1835. There he states that one of the two personages who appeared unto him testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. In JS 1838 (which is the First Vision narrative now published in the Pearl of Great Price) we learn that one of the personages testified to Joseph using the following words, “This is my beloved Son.” We may comfortably conclude from this documentary evidence that the “testimony from on high” of JS 1832 is equivalent to the phrase spoken by God the Father in JS 1838. Therefore, we may safely say that when Joseph Smith wrote the 1832 account of the First Vision the appearance of God the Father was definitely in his mind—because he obliquely refers to it. It seems that he did not make an explicit mention of this part of the story simply because he had chosen to use the apostle Paul’s experience as the main framework for that portion of his narrative—and Paul only saw Jesus Christ.http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-revised-or-unaltered-joseph-smiths-foundational-storiesElsewhere in his presentation Brown refers to allusions to the vision of Stephn in the 1832 account. Allen's 1970 Ensign article had also pointed to how the First "Lord" in the theophany passage in the 1832 account is an insert above the line. The Lord (Inserted above the line) opened the heavens to me and I saw the Lord. Allen argues that the same title, Lord, was used for both personages. Brown's analysis provides more food for thought. And back on the theme of the thread, I have a section in Paradigms Regained, the Looking Before the Exile chapter, on what happens if we read the Book of Mormon in light of Barker's First Temple Theology.http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=4 FWIW Kevin ChristensenWest Jordan, UT (Visiting Family) Edited January 11, 2015 by Kevin Christensen 2
Robert F. Smith Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 There are plenty of biblical passages that are similar and yet, for Christendom, there is still ambiguity.E.g.- Voice of the father and the spirit as a dove at Jesus' baptism- Stephen seeing God and Jesus at his right hand in vision- Jesus' resurrected body being seenNone of your examples are completely unambiguous.The word Atrinity@ does not occur in the Bible or Book of Mormon, and the concept is a later dogmatic christian theological retrojection upon texts which describe a paradoxically close relationship among God, his Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the NT exhibits no more than Atriadic coordination@ rather than a divine unity of three-in-on, which some take to be tritheism. Egyptologists Jan Assmann and the late Klaus Baer (among others) have, moreover, maintained that the Christian Trinity and the notion of hypostasis were taken from ancient Egyptian religion.* Both God and the Holy Spirit are described anthropomorphically in the Book of Mormon. In that context, it is not possible to formulate a doctrine of hypostatic union among the members of the Gottheit, but rather no more than a full unity of purpose and love among perfect beings, with God the Father at their head B one God (II Nephi 31:21, Jacob 4:5, Alma 11:44, III Nephi 11:32, 35-36, Mormon 7:7, Ether 12:41, Moroni 10:34). Formal language of cross-identification (Mosiah 13:28, 15:1-5) is, therefore, only to be taken as metaphorical, so that Athe will of the Son@ is Aswallowed up in the will of the Father@ (Mosiah 15:7). In fact, David Paulsen and Ari Bruening argue for a social trinity in III Nephi.*** Klaus Baer (then of the Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago) said that Amon-Re-Ptah subsume all gods and that all gods are three, and three are one. According to him, the Christian Trinity was developed at Alexandria (Harry Wolfson agreed on the place, but maintained that the Christians got the idea more immediately from Philo Judaeus [Philo: Foundation of Religious Philosophy in Judaism , Christianity, and Islam]). Moreover, Ptah the Creator God/ Chaos (Memphis), is both male & female. All the gods arose from him, are joined to him, and are him. AThe divine@ is a monophysite substance and could be seen as one god, as in Coptic Christianity. My personal notes of Baer lecture at BYU (Provo, Utah), Aug 20, 1974. However, J. Assmann argues for the expression of the Egyptian trinity or Atriunity@ at least as early as the Middle Kingdom, in his Search for God, 177-180,238-239.** Paulsen & Bruening, AThe Social Model of the Trinity in 3 Nephi,@ in Skinner & Strathearn, eds., Third Nephi, 191-233. 3
Ahab Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 The classical Trinity has three distinct persons, so that is not different. It is the teaching of one substance that 'forms' the One God that needs to be clarified or corrected (in the LDS view), is this substance, this essence, this nature an attribute or some sort of immaterial element or something else. It seems to be this substance is merely defined not by what it is (at least not beyond the substance of God) but by what it is claimed to do---somehow three persons are one being because they are this substance (it does not even seem appropriate to say they "share" the substance because that implies a division between the substance and the individuals that does not exist, they are the substance that is God as much as they are the individuals).If the substance is a nature such as the human nature that all humans share, the Trinity poses no problems for LDS. But most classical Trinitarians seem to reject this concept of nature and teach the One Being is not just a collective noun, like Family, but is somehow an individual being that is also three individual persons (and not like triplets or a hive mind or anything our finite minds can grasp) That this would be nonsense in our finite world is resolved by defining God as an infinite being...which makes sense to others but leaves me unsatisfied.I am not sure the BoM challenges this idea of substance, there would IMO have been no need to directly deal with it given this was an Old World concept development.PS: I think I got this right but there are always nuances an outsider might miss, so as always those who are Trinitarians (classical to avoid those who want to claim the title but not the belief I am speaking of) feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted something.Yes this is the crux of the issue and since there is no mention much less no explanation of such a substance in any scripture there is no good reason to believe such a substance exists.
MormonFreeThinker Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) There are plenty of biblical passages that are similar and yet, for Christendom, there is still ambiguity.E.g.- Voice of the father and the spirit as a dove at Jesus' baptism- Stephen seeing God and Jesus at his right hand in vision- Jesus' resurrected body being seenNone of your examples are completely unambiguous. Not really, it is clear that you do not understand how Trinitarians read the New Testament. The New Testament never says that people were filled with the Holy Ghost when Jesus was on the Earth, that contradicts Trinitarian thinking. Trinitarians believe the Holy ghost was active after Jesus went to heaven. The New Testament never says that the Word had a body before being born, the Word was manifested in the flesh according to Trinitarians. It is clear that in 1 Ne 1:8 that Jesus is another being. None of your examples are completely unambiguous. Almost nothing in the world is completely unambiguous Edited January 14, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker 1
Recommended Posts