Does The Book Of Mormon Clarify The Nature Of The Godhead

[3DOP]

In reply against Tacenda's affirmation of my integrity, bukowski writes:

Well that is not what I said, so whatever. Notice those are all his understanding of what I said, not what I said. I was trying to avoid that kind of reaction from him, so I deleted the post, but now we have the reaction without the post. He seems to take it all personally and then makes me the bad guy.

Oh well. He does not understand Mormonism but he thinks he does, and when he tells someone what we believe he gets it wrong.

That is what my objection was.

I don't care what Rory believes, God bless him.

 

 

Oh but we do have the post you wrote to me to which I responded. I deleted my reply to save you some embarrassment. I guess I need not have been concerned for you.

mfbukowski, on 16 Jan 2015 - 11:33 PM, said:

    If you persist in posting. you know I am likely to respond, and past history will be repeated.

     

    And then you will be offended and it will all go on all over again.  I feel it is my responsibility to respond to distortions of our doctrine.

 

 

This was completely out of left field. I had deliberately avoided getting involved with your tangent because it had little to do with the thread. I wasn't giving any attention to anything you said. As it turns out, my reply to Mormon Free Thinker and canard seems satisfactory to canard. We will have to wait to see Free Thinker's thoughts. All I did was provide evidence that I thought demonstrates that the New Testament says the same things as the Book of Mormon with regards to the proof passages put forth. It isn't an attack on your faith Mark. It is an attempt to answer canard and Free Thinker and the question raised about further clarity. Good grief you are sensitive. What is the matter with you? I delete my post so as to give you a way to exit gracefully and then you repeat the charges?

 

Okay here is my only reply to anything you had said in the thread, and only then because it was directed at me alone.

 

3DOP, on 17 Jan 2015 - 12:28 AM, said:

Persist in posting? I never agreed to stay out of threads that you are involved with, although I had decided in this thread not to get involved with your usual hobbyhorses. You aren't even replying to what the original post was about. Canard complained about it once. I reply to his question, and you think I should leave? You are welcome to try to find another participant here who thinks I have distorted your faith, and I will exit the thread. I am bewildered.

Mark...I don't know how you could be thinking this way about me. I don't think anyone has ever sent me a post that seems crazier than what you have just sent me. I am in principle against negatively discussing your faith, and one of the reasons is that I find it to consistent. That doesn't mean I believe it. But I don't know of any absurdities to point out if I were so inclined. I think I learned something about Jesus as Jehovah from Mormon Free Thinker. Fine. It works for you guys. I wouldn't know how to begin to distort one of your beliefs so as to make it seem wrong. I would have to lie, right? Even if I was inclined to lie and I am not, I am totally convinced that distortions get exposed. I am sorry that you could think I would behave like that. I am sorry that you have that opinion of me. But it just shows me how out of touch you are with reality. You are confused, Mark.

Anyway...If you can find any damage I have done to your faith by means of distortion, by all means fix it.

Yours Truly,

Rory

 

So go ahead Mark...respond to my distortions against your faith.

 

If you look like a bad guy it isn't my fault. I went to bed chortling at how silly you looked. I woke up at 4 AM and started feeling bad about it. I don't want to embarrass anybody unnecessarily. I have always liked you Mark, in spite of our differences. I don't know what to think now. So I deleted my post in response to your charges that I was distorting your faith. I wanted to spare you from being exposed in an irrational moment. Unfortunately, it would seem you are not even ashamed of your foolish charges against me. Your judgment is skewed. You are messed up. I will not be offended at you making a further fool of yourself if you want to try to point out where I distorted your faith. I know I didn't. The public record is open. Go for it.

 

You will lose Mark. The Mormon will lose to the Catholic if you try in the court of the opinion of the Mormons here if you should engage in such folly. Start a new thread though. This one is about something else.

 

As bewildered about an outburst of lunacy as I have ever been. I am yours very truly,

 

3DOP

Edited January 17, 2015 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Just a final word on our disagreement and I'm out too: Now, just because both the Father and the Son possess an infinite and eternal fullness of an actual material/spiritual substance that LDS theology calls intelligence, or the Spirit of Truth, does not mean that by acknowledging this incontrovertible fact that there is a veering off into the so-called "substance theology." of the traditional Trinitarians.

Imagine I said:

"Just because both Mormonism and Communism believe that all should be held in common in a fair manner does not mean that calling Mormonism "Communism" shows that there is a veering off into the so-called "Marxist Ideology" of traditional Marxists."

I think this does not work. You take a word out of context, and the context goes with it. Why would you want to do that and confuse everyone?

Paradoxically, according to the perspective of LDS theology, the so-called "substance theology" of the Trinitarians isn't really a theology of substance at all.

Huh? Substance is not substance? Perhaps you mean that what YOU mean by "substance" is not what THEY mean by substance. That's why you should not switch the meanings of contexts of words because you confuse people.

Isn't it true that whatever the Trinitarian theologian's might imagine the unifying "substance" of Trinity might be, they surely wouldn't imagine the "substance" that unifies the personages go the Godhead is actually something MATERIAL? Rathet, they must surely theorize that their unifying "substance" is "something" immaterial.

Don't ask me- ask a Catholic.  The whole idea of an "immaterial substance" makes absolutely no sense to me.  Yet Catholics seem to like the term.  Clearly though, they are using it in a way we do not use it.  It's like Communism and the Law of Consecration- similar, but totally different contexts.  Switching the context causes confusion.

 

Therefore, there's no actual similarity to an LDS theology that declares intelligence, light, spirit and truth are all material substances, in the same sense that carbon is a substance, and a theology that denies God and spirit have materiality. These two opposing theological positions are so far away from each other that the traditional "substance theology" of Trinitarianism and the LDS theology of the material substance of all things (including all things spiritual) are so far apart that one need not fear the LDS position can even begin to be subsumed by the Trinitarian position, The two positions are multi-verses apart, and never the twain shall meet. So there should be now worry if a Latter-day Saint declares the Father and the Son are both in full possession of an uncreated spiritual SUBSTANCE called the Spirit of Truth.

 

Yes, at last we agree.  But then why even bother calling two different ways of seeing the universe as even similar?

 

Are you trying to sound Catholic or make Catholics happy by saying we also believe in "one substance"?   Why the heck would you want to do that?  As you say, the two positions are multiverses apart!  Why pretend they are the same?

 

Edited to add:

Just as the name God the Father means two very different things to Trinitarians than it does to we Mormons, so, too, the word substance means something very different to the Trinitarians than it does to us.

Yep I agree.  If that is your point, we are on the same wavelength.  Maybe I missed something earlier in the thread where we have agreed all along- if that is the case I apologize.

Edited January 17, 2015 by mfbukowski

[MormonFreeThinker]

Thanks for your excellent reply.

 

Wishful thinking 

 

 Thanks for your consideration of the reasons I offer for why I remain unpersuaded that the Book of Mormon clarifies truths that are obscure in the New Testament. 

 

Obscure? Mormons and Trinitarians agree that the Father and the Son are distinct persons. The Book of Mormon is older than the doctrine of the Trinity, that is why it doesn't talk about it.  

The 1838 account is not completely unambiguous, no written text is 100% unambiguous, it is pointless to look for a text that is completely clear. 

 

It is true that I cannot prove that the Book of Mormon does not teach the Trinity, but I cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof falls on the critics. 

 

Mormon Free Thinker

The Holy Ghost and Jesus are not the same being, trinitarians believe the Holy Ghost was not active when Jesus was on the Earth 

"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

 

3DOP

On the contrary. I have never heard a Trinitarian say that "the Holy Ghost was inactive when Jesus was on the Earth." If someone does so think, it is not because they are Trinitarian. It is an error that has nothing to do with Traditional Trinitarianism.  We think like Mormons presumably, that there was a greater manifestation of the activity of the Holy Ghost after He was sent at Pentecost. But we do not deny His presence and activity beginning with Creation, through the times covered in the Old Testament, and through the lifetime of Jesus Christ.

 

Trinitarians believe the Holy Ghost was inactive as a comforter during the ministry of Jesus. 

 

 

3DOP

This passage seems reminiscent of John's Gospel in ch. 17:21-23:  "And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me."

 

Look what anti-mormons say about John 17: 21 - 23 

 

"Once again, though, this shows the lack of understanding Mormons have of what Christians actually believe. We do believe that the Father and Jesus are two distinct Persons. Therefore, the Mormon notion of people or gods being crushed together is fallacious. Still. it must be asked, What is the Lord talking about in those verses...The oneness Christ prayed for is the oneness of the body of Christ. Christians are baptized by one Spirit into one body- Christ's body." The Saints Alive website 

 

3 Nephi 28:10 talks about "sitting in the Kingdom" and 3 Nephi 19 says "that we may be one" 

So 3 Nephi 28:10 and 3 nephi 19 make John 17:21 more clear. 

 

 

 

Jehovah is a man and a person, Jehovah is not three persons

"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

 

3DOP

It would seem that you hold that Jesus is specifically Jehovah? Neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost can be identified as Jehovah? I would say that if I understand Ether correctly, that this would make us modify our view of the Old Testament, where we believe the voice and activity of Jehovah signifies the Godhead comprised of the Three. But I do not see why it would undo our beliefs about New Testament revelation. If someone were persuaded of Traditional Trinitarianism and the truth of the Book of Mormon, I think they could merely say that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is Jehovah in the Old Testament. Why would that be problematic?

 

 Trinitarians believe in Jehovah the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 

The Book of Mormon makes it clear that Jesus had a body before being born, that contradicts the traditional Trinity. 

Edited January 18, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[Bobbieaware]

Imagine I said:

"Just because both Mormonism and Communism believe that all should be held in common in a fair manner does not mean that calling Mormonism "Communism" shows that there is a veering off into the so-called "Marxist Ideology" of traditional Marxists."

I think this does not work. You take a word out of context, and the context goes with it. Why would you want to do that and confuse everyone?

Huh? Substance is not substance? Perhaps you mean that what YOU mean by "substance" is not what THEY mean by substance. That's why you should not switch the meanings of contexts of words because you confuse people.

Don't ask me- ask a Catholic. The whole idea of an "immaterial substance" makes absolutely no sense to me. Yet Catholics seem to like the term. Clearly though, they are using it in a way we do not use it. It's like Communism and the Law of Consecration- similar, but totally different contexts. Switching the context causes confusion.

Yes, at last we agree. But then why even bother calling two different ways of seeing the universe as even similar?

Are you trying to sound Catholic or make Catholics happy by saying we also believe in "one substance"? Why the heck would you want to do that? As you say, the two positions are multiverses apart! Why pretend they are the same?

Yep I agree. If that is your point, we are on the same wavelength. Maybe I missed something earlier in the thread where we have agreed all along- if that is the case I apologize.

I always knew we were much closer in thought than it may have seemed. The "tyranny of language" all too often can create strife where none needs to exist.

I'm wondering: As clearly as you are able to describe it (if indeed you think you can describe it), how do you believe the Spirit of God works upon the earthly disciples of Christ so as to enable them to be one with God and one with each other?

And another question: Do you believe when the Spirit of God works upon an earthly disciple of Christ to spiritually enlighten and strengthen him, that it is precisely the same spiritual substance when another disciple is being spiritually enlightened and strengthened at the same time?

Edited January 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

I always knew we were much closer in thought than it may have seemed. The "tyranny of language" all too often can create strife where none needs to exist.

I'm wondering: As clearly as you are able to describe it (if indeed you think you can describe it), how do you believe the Spirit of God works upon the earthly disciples of Christ so as to enable them to be one with God and one with each other?

And another question: Do you believe when the Spirit of God works upon an earthly disciple of Christ to spiritually enlighten and strengthen him, that it is precisely the same spiritual substance when another disciple is being spiritually enlightened and strengthened at the same time?

Yep I am glad we resolved that and am glad you did not take it personally.

 

Well there is another step to these questions which I am not sure I can summarize briefly.  Your question requires me to "step outside" of language to tell you what I think is "really happening" in some mythic non-linguistic reality and then jump back into language and tell you what I saw there, using language.  By "mythic" I do not mean it is not real- just that we cannot talk about it

 

The problem is of course that one cannot do that.  We cannot escape the flaws of language.  If you can explain the color blue to a blind man or describe the sound of a trumpet to a deaf person, you could probably answer that.

 

In short, I haven't a clue how to describe it much less conclude it is or is not the "same spiritual substance".  The trick to all this is knowing that when language breaks down so does rational thought because we reason in language.  Raw experience- seeing a blue car- does not require rationality, neither does feeling the spirit or loving your spouse.  We get in trouble when we start theorizing about these topics.  The best we can do is come up with a description that "makes sense" and works to communicate the idea.

 

"The detective found an oily substance on the murder weapon, and the suspect had the same substance on his hands, which later proved to be baby oil."

 

It's a little different talking about the "same immaterial substance" which cannot be seen or analyzed, so the answer is I don't have a clue and I don't think anyone else could possibly know the answer, though they may pretend they do, or actually think they do.

Edited January 18, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Bobbieaware]

Yep I am glad we resolved that and am glad you did not take it personally.

Well there is another step to these questions which I am not sure I can summarize briefly. Your question requires me to "step outside" of language to tell you what I think is "really happening" in some mythic non-linguistic reality and then jump back into language and tell you what I saw there, using language. By "mythic" I do not mean it is not real- just that we cannot talk about it

The problem is of course that one cannot do that. We cannot escape the flaws of language. If you can explain the color blue to a blind man or describe the sound of a trumpet to a deaf person, you could probably answer that.

In short, I haven't a clue how to describe it much less conclude it is or is not the "same spiritual substance". The trick to all this is knowing that when language breaks down so does rational thought because we reason in language. Raw experience- seeing a blue car- does not require rationality, neither does feeling the spirit or loving your spouse. We get in trouble when we start theorizing about these topics. The best we can do is come up with a description that "makes sense" and works to communicate the idea.

"The detective found an oily substance on the murder weapon, and the suspect had the same substance on his hands, which later proved to be baby oil."

It's a little different talking about the "same immaterial substance" which cannot be seen or analyzed, so the answer is I don't have a clue and I don't think anyone else could possibly know the answer, though they may pretend they do, or actually think they do.

Interesting. But I wonder if you're not overcomplicating and even unnecessarily mystifying (heaven forbid) something that is really quite simple and easy enough for even a child to understand? We know that the spirits that animate our bodies here on earth are, in an elemental sense, made of light because the 84th section of the D&C tells us that "whatsoever is light is spirit," which for all intents and purposes makes light and spirit interchangeable in nature. Then D&C 88: 40 tells us "intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; (and) light cleaveth unto light...

So then, it seems to me all there is to it is that the Spirit of God -- a powerful and active holy substance composed of light and truth, that conveys it's greater light and truth to individual intelligences -- simply comes into direct substance to substance contact with our spirit (like a current of electricity passing from one circuit to another) and then the light within our spirit responds to and cleaves or fuses with a portion of this more powerful source of light, truth and power we call the Spirit of God.

I don't see what we have to gain by making the process of the ever increasing spiritual enlightenment and empowerment of intelligences any more complicated than this simple explanation. If it all boils down to light cleaving unto light (like substances attract), then, for our purposes here earth, there's no need to make the dynamics of the process of spiritual growth anymore complicated or mystifying. I thought it was our Catholic friends who tend to rejoice in and dwell on mystification.

But for the Latter-day Saints, the principle of light cleaving unto light is a simple and easy concept to understand, even easy enough for a young child to grasp. And, as you know, it's only when we understand something that we can be edified by it. Conjuring perplexities where none need exist is unwarranted, The K.I.S.S. principle is just as useful in religion as it is in any other field, especially when the word of God gives us the green light to keep it simple.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

Ham Clam glad you read my blog

[3DOP]

Hi again Mormon Free Thinker. I hope you have had a blessed Lord's Day.

 

Free Thinker

Obscure? Mormons and Trinitarians agree that the Father and the Son are distinct persons. The Book of Mormon is older than the doctrine of the Trinity, that is why it doesn't talk about it.  

The 1838 account is not completely unambiguous, no written text is 100% unambiguous, it is pointless to look for a text that is completely clear.

 

3DOP

If the Book of Mormon lends clarity that is lacking in the New Testament, it seems that what is not clarified, what is not as clear, could be characterized as obscure. Maybe you think the New Testament is clear enough? Fine. If the New Testament is NOT obscure in relation to the Book of Mormon, the question asked by canard is answered. I am fine if you think the New Testament is clear. I would add that to the chronology for the Book of Mormon, the geography would limit how we would expect any interaction with Old World issues and events. I am not looking for some silver bullet here.

 

I do not know the significance of 1838. 

 

I don't say that the Book of Mormon NEEDS to clarify anything. I am just trying to help answer canard's question. I concur with what you say about written texts, and that is another reason why, without thinking that it is a silver bullet against Mormonism, that based on what has been presented, it seems like there are many parallels in the New Testament.

 

Mormon Free Thinker

It is true that I cannot prove that the Book of Mormon does not teach the Trinity, but I cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof falls on the critics. 

 

3DOP

I am content with that. The Book of Mormon is your book. I do not say that the New Testament teaches or does not teach the Trinity, by itself. I believe it is compatible with what I believe. I think it is compatible with what I do not believe. As you said differently, the written word alone is ordinarily subject to multiple interpretations. This is why, and you may have sensed as much, that I tend to doubt that the Book of Mormon clarifies what hadn't been clear before. 

 

Mormon Free Thinker

Trinitarians believe the Holy Ghost was inactive as a comforter during the ministry of Jesus.

 

3DOP

There is nothing in the creeds about this. Trinitarians might believe that, but it is not because they get it from any of the creeds dealing with the Trinity. As it happens, I would hold that the Holy Spirit's activity increased after the Ascension of Christ and Pentecost. But I gave biblical citations for why I believe in His activity beginning with when the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. When the Holy Spirit filled Elizabeth at the voice of the Mother of Jesus, He was the Paraclete, He was the same Comforter Who was promised to the Apostles by the Son. In any event, however any Trinitarian might answer that question differently, it is not as a Trinitarian that makes them answer one way or the other. That subject was never debated or decided at Nicea. I am confident it can't be found in any Catholic creed or conciliar document, and I would agree with you if you insist that the Comforter was active during the ministry of Jesus.

 

Mormon Free Thinker

Look what anti-mormons say about John 17: 21 - 23 

 

"Once again, though, this shows the lack of understanding Mormons have of what Christians actually believe. We do believe that the Father and Jesus are two distinct Persons. Therefore, the Mormon notion of people or gods being crushed together is fallacious. Still. it must be asked, What is the Lord talking about in those verses...The oneness Christ prayed for is the oneness of the body of Christ. Christians are baptized by one Spirit into one body- Christ's body." The Saints Alive website 

 

3 Nephi 28:10 talks about "sitting in the Kingdom" and 3 Nephi 19 says "that we may be one" 

So 3 Nephi 28:10 and 3 nephi 19 make John 17:21 more clear.

 

3DOP

I have never heard of Saints Alive website and it doesn't trouble me if it is wrong. I don't care to make you into a Protestant and I don't care to let them speak for Catholic Christianity. I doubt you believe in "people or gods being crushed together". I have never heard of such a phenomenon.

 

As for what follows, I don't get how sitting in the Kingdom makes the oneness Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian. But that just might be my ignorance of your position or yours of mine. "The Kingdom" needs definition at this point it seems to me, and it seems probable that we are not thinking the same things.

 

Anyway, thanks for your help. I was glad to learn that you guys believe that Jesus is always Jehovah in the Old Testament. That was new to me. I don't. I had never thought about it really. But I think I have the liberty as a Catholic to entertain the possibility. To my knowledge, the Catholic Church has never met with a need to define whether Jehovah referred to One of the Persons, Three of the Persons, or all of them at various times. That is the reason why I don't think that is an issue. You may have come across "Trinitarians", and especially Protestants or Protestant influenced Catholics who think everything is clear in their Bibles. I do not believe the Trinity because I learned it from reading the Scriptures alone. I accept the Trinity on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, which I believe is the promulgator and guardian of interpretation of the Scriptures. The Roman Catholic Church has not to my knowledge said one word about how to identify Jehovah. I could believe that Jesus is Jehovah, with a body, and retain what you consider to be, the errors of the Council of Nicea.

 

Rory

Edited January 18, 2015 by 3DOP

[canard78]

Hi again Mormon Free Thinker. I hope you have had a blessed Lord's Day.

 

Free Thinker

Obscure? Mormons and Trinitarians agree that the Father and the Son are distinct persons. The Book of Mormon is older than the doctrine of the Trinity, that is why it doesn't talk about it.  

The 1838 account is not completely unambiguous, no written text is 100% unambiguous, it is pointless to look for a text that is completely clear.

 

3DOP

If the Book of Mormon lends clarity that is lacking in the New Testament, it seems that what is not clarified, what is not as clear, could be characterized as obscure. Maybe you think the New Testament is clear enough? Fine. If the New Testament is NOT obscure in relation to the Book of Mormon, the question asked by canard is answered. I am fine if you think the New Testament is clear. I would add that to the chronology for the Book of Mormon, the geography would limit how we would expect any interaction with Old World issues and events. I am not looking for some silver bullet here.

 

I do not know the significance of 1838. 

 

I don't say that the Book of Mormon NEEDS to clarify anything. I am just trying to help answer canard's question. I concur with what you say about written texts, and that is another reason why, without thinking that it is a silver bullet against Mormonism, that based on what has been presented, it seems like there are many parallels in the New Testament.

 

-SNIP-

 

Again, thanks for your reply. 

 

You're making the point I also started out with. A lot of people have gone out their way to spend time showing how the Bible and Book of Mormon both teach against the trinity. That's not my question, as you seem to have understood, my question was whether the text of the Book of Mormon offers less ambiguity than the Bible.

 

1838 was the year the official version of the first vision was published. Earlier accounts had been written but the 1838 version is far more specific about two personages.

https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

[mfbukowski]

Interesting. But I wonder if you're not overcomplicating and even unnecessarily mystifying (heaven forbid) something that is really quite simple and easy enough for even a child to understand? We know that the spirits that animate our bodies here on earth are, in an elemental sense, made of light because the 84th section of the D&C tells us that "whatsoever is light is spirit," which for all intents and purposes makes light and spirit interchangeable in nature. Then D&C 88: 40 tells us "intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; (and) light cleaveth unto light...

So then, it seems to me all there is to it is that the Spirit of God -- a powerful and active holy substance composed of light and truth, that conveys it's greater light and truth to individual intelligences -- simply comes into direct substance to substance contact with our spirit (like a current of electricity passing from one circuit to another) and then the light within our spirit responds to and cleaves or fuses with a portion of this more powerful source of light, truth and power we call the Spirit of God.

I don't see what we have to gain by making the process of the ever increasing spiritual enlightenment and empowerment of intelligences any more complicated than this simple explanation. If it all boils down to light cleaving unto light (like substances attract), then, for our purposes here earth, there's no need to make the dynamics of the process of spiritual growth anymore complicated or mystifying. I thought it was our Catholic friends who tend to rejoice in and dwell on mystification.

But for the Latter-day Saints, the principle of light cleaving unto light is a simple and easy concept to understand, even easy enough for a young child to grasp. And, as you know, it's only when we understand something that we can be edified by it. Conjuring perplexities where none need exist is unwarranted, The K.I.S.S. principle is just as useful in religion as it is in any other field, especially when the word of God gives us the green light to keep it simple.

Yeah, but it's not simple.

 

If it works for you, I have no objection to it, it's just that for me, I must have an explanation which makes sense philosophically and what you are proposing is a whole metaphysical realm which cannot be proven to exist, is not scientific and relies on a view of truth which I do not accept.

 

Sorry- it is kind of a beautiful poem or maybe a made-up world like Star Wars that is fun to speculate on and kick around but to me, it ultimately does not make philosophical sense.

 

And yes, my poor wife and kids hate to go to movies with me. 

 

If you are seriously interested in discussing it further to talk about the philosophy behind my views, I will be happy to discuss them, but it might get a little complicated.  I have a view of the nature of truth that is held by many philosophers but if you have not gotten used to thinking that way, it will sound a little obtuse.

 

But the bottom line for me is that I don't see a way that I can call your view "true" and in fact I think it is kind of misleading, as I said before, like calling the Law of Consecration "Communism".

 

Some of us are afflicted with this philosophical point of view, and yes I do see it as a kind of disease which does not allow us to just take things as others see them, but we have to dissect and doubt and be skeptical and analytic to the point where we are kind of nerdy social outcasts, quite honestly.   We go to parties and smile pleasantly and hope no one asks any serious questions that they really don't want to hear our opinions on anyway. 

 

But here is a discussion of the theory of truth I adhere to, and if you want to discuss why I think it's "right" we can go into it as much as you can tolerate- but if you are normal, that will not be too far. 

 

Sorry, it really is a disease.    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

[MormonFreeThinker]

1838 was the year the official version of the first vision was published. Earlier accounts had been written but the 1838 version is far more specific about two personages.

https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

 

The 1838 account says "When the light rested upon me I saw two personages (whose brightness and glory defy all description) standing above me in the air. One of <them> spake unto me calling me by name and said (pointing to the other) “This is my beloved Son, Hear him."

 

Personage is a person. The 1838 account is no different than Acts 7:56 "And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

The 1838 account does not say both of them have bodies, two Gods, or two beings. 

 

The 1838 account is not different than Moroni 9:26 "And may the grace of God the Father, whose throne is high in the heavens, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who sitteth on the right hand of his power"

 

 

You're making the point I also started out with. A lot of people have gone out their way to spend time showing how the Bible and Book of Mormon both teach against the trinity. That's not my question, as you seem to have understood, my question was whether the text of the Book of Mormon offers less ambiguity than the Bible.

 

and you are missing my point too, the book of Mormon is less ambiguous than the Bible, but it is still ambiguous because I cannot prove with 100% clarity that the book of Mormon contradicts the Trinity. 

It is very hard to prove a negative because the Trinity is Three distinct and separate persons, but one at the same time. 

Edited January 19, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[Flyonthewall]

I am not sure the BofM Clarifies the nature of the Godhead as Trinitarians will see the trinity in it.

I believe the process of bringing forth the BofM is what clarified the nature of the Godhead. The things Joseph Smith learned along the way are just as important as what is in the book.

It seems that Joseph came from a trinitarian background, and had to un-learn that to come to understand the true nature of the Godhead.

[teddyaware]

I am not sure the BofM Clarifies the nature of the Godhead as Trinitarians will see the trinity in it.

I believe the process of bringing forth the BofM is what clarified the nature of the Godhead. The things Joseph Smith learned along the way are just as important as what is in the book.

It seems that Joseph came from a trinitarian background, and had to un-learn that to come to understand the true nature of the Godhead.

 

Lehi's "first vision," not coincidently, I believe, is found in the very first chapter of the Book of Mormon. In his first vision, Lehi sees God the Father as a Man seated upon a throne, being worshipped and honored as the supreme God by multitudes of angels. Then Lehi sees the preexistent Christ, in the company of twelve disciples, who hands Lehi a heavenly book of scripture that He commands Lehi to read. So in the first chapter of the Book of Mormon, Lehi has a vision that shares critical similarities with the Pearl of Great Price account of Joseph Smith's first vision. Here are at least some of the similarities between the two theophanic visions:

 

1) Lehi sees both God the Father and Christ, thus reinforcing the LDS doctrine that a man can see God, as long as he is "in the Spirit."

2) Lehi learns God the Father is in the form of a MAN with a body (a body that enables Him to be seated on a throne).

3) Lehi learns the preexistent Christ, like His Father, is also unmistakably in the form of a Man.

4) Lehi has a conversation with the preexistent Saviour who gives Lehi important information pertaining to the kingdom of God that he didn't know (the same as happened to Joseph Smith).

5) In his encounter with the Saviour, Lehi learns about his earthly calling as a prophet on of God on earth (the same as Joseph Smith).

6) Lehi learns God and Christ are two separate and distinct "human" personages, thus overthrowing any Judaic notions of Modalism. 

7) Lehi learns God the Father is not an immaterial spiritual essence, but is embodied and in the form of a Man.

Eight) Lehi learns Christ is the Father's spokesman (the living Word of God).

9) Lehi's vision comes in answer to heartfelt prayer.

10) Lehi is hated and reviled as a consequence of informing his neighbors of his vision, and life becomes dangerous for him and his family.

 

Edited to add:

 

11) Lehi learned from the Lord that the "orthodox" establishment religion of the his day was apostate and that he should no longer continue to affiliate with these fallen former fellow religionists.

12) Lehi, by his use of the personal pronoun "his," lets us know the Being in human form he saw sitting on the heavenly throne was male in gender (Joseph Smith said the same).

13) Lehi testified the Saviour appeared very bright in glory by declaring that His "luster was above that of the sun at noon-day," almost exactly as Joseph Smith described in his first vision.

Edited January 20, 2015 by teddyaware

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

What difference would it be if Joseph Smith came from a Trinitarian back ground since the Book Of Mormon teaches the Trinity , if the Book of Mormon came from the omniscient God ? 

[teddyaware]

What difference would it be if Joseph Smith came from a Trinitarian back ground since the Book Of Mormon teaches the Trinity , if the Book of Mormon came from the omniscient God ? 

 

Are you another non-LDS critic who thinks they know the religion of the Latter-day Saints better than the Latter-day Saints themselves.? Read my post that's just before yours and get the real "scoop."

Edited January 19, 2015 by teddyaware

[Flyonthewall]

What difference would it be if Joseph Smith came from a Trinitarian back ground since the Book Of Mormon teaches the Trinity , if the Book of Mormon came from the omniscient God ?

The Book of Mormon does not teach the trinity, but I Understand you will read the trinity into it.

The omniscient God was dealing with Joseph, along with all the teachings he had received about the trinity. God had to teach the difference, and as most trinitarians, I don't know that Joseph understood it all at once, but was a sinking in process.

So just like after you watch a movie with an unexpected twist to it, when you see it again you can better see things you missed the first time.

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

According to the Mormon hierarchy Orthodox Christians believe in modalism , Robert Hales Jeffrey R Holland recently . However We consider that teaching a heresy since we be believe Jesus and God the Father are separate and distinct persons and not the same person as modalism teaches .   

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

teddyaware , I do know what the Book of Mormon teaches about GOD and it contradicts Mormonism completely

[teddyaware]

According to the Mormon hierarchy Orthodox Christians believe in modalism , Robert Hales Jeffrey R Holland recently . However We consider that teaching a heresy since we be believe Jesus and God the Father are separate and distinct persons and not the same person as modalism teaches .   

 

If you are addressing my post, I was speaking to possible Judaic notions of a one personage only God. I was not speaking to the "immaterial" personages of the Trinitarian God.

 

teddyaware , I do know what the Book of Mormon teaches about GOD and it contradicts Mormonism completely

 

Please address each of the 13 points in my post #113, rather than just make a know-it-all blanket assertion.

Edited January 20, 2015 by teddyaware

[Flyonthewall]

According to the Mormon hierarchy Orthodox Christians believe in modalism , Robert Hales Jeffrey R Holland recently . However We consider that teaching a heresy since we be believe Jesus and God the Father are separate and distinct persons and not the same person as modalism teaches .

There are some Christians out there that do describe their belief as modalism when trying to describe the trinity.

The "Mormon hierarchy" have addressed heretical beliefs of the Godhead that are described by other Christians. It is very difficult to make a blanket statement that fits every Christian sect that is out there so if something that is addressed does not fit your belief, then most likely it is not your specific belief that is being addressed.

[MormonFreeThinker]

teddyaware , I do know what the Book of Mormon teaches about GOD and it contradicts Mormonism completely

 

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Book of Mormon or the Bible. 

 

The Trinity 

"We believe in one God. This God is trinitarian. That is to say, God includes three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But if He is three persons, how can He be one God? This is the greatest mystery that the human mind can absorb. It does not perplex only us. We are not the only ones who cannot understand by rational means the great mystery of the Holy Trinity. Great wise men and the great Fathers of the Church had the same problem...Holy Trinity cannot be comprehended with human reasoning. It is a matter of faith rather than of human reasoning" 

http://biserica.org/Publicatii/Catechism/cathholy.htm

 

 

The Doctrine of the Trinity is defined in the Athanasian Creed (A.D. 500), not in the Bible. 

"So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord." 

Edited January 19, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

Again, thanks for your reply. 

 

You're making the point I also started out wit

 

You are missing my point, I agree the Book of Mormon is not 100% clear about the nature of God, but it helps to clarify some points. I cannot prove the Book of Mormon contradicts the Trinity because I cannot prove a negative. It is hard because the doctrine of the Trinity is three distinct persons. 

 

 

 

1838 was the year the official version of the first vision was published. Earlier accounts had been written but the 1838 version is far more specific about two personages.

https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

 

The 1838 account says "When the light rested upon me I saw two personages (whose brightness and glory defy all description) standing above me in the air. One of <them> spake unto me calling me by name and said (pointing to the other) “This is my beloved Son, Hear him."

 

Personage is a person. The 1838 account is no different than Acts 7:56 "And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

The 1838 account does not say both of them have bodies, two Gods, or two beings. 

 

The 1838 account is not different than Moroni 9:26 "And may the grace of God the Father, whose throne is high in the heavens, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who sitteth on the right hand of his power"

Edited January 20, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

The Trinity is taught in BC 556 in the Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 31;21

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

99.8 % of all Christian denominations teach " With in the nature of the ONE GOD exists three separate and distinct persons. The only ones that teach modalism that I know of are United Pentecostal Church of God "Jesus Only" and the Way International .  

 

  Jeffrey R. Holland and Robert Hales are very confused

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

Mark 12:28-29 Jesus teaches exactly your quote from the Athanasius Creed