Adam-God doctrine explained

[sdc999]

5 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I am wondering what parts of the missionary discussions are filled more with lore than truth?? They only teach the core doctrines of the gospel, and then only in abbreviated form. But that may be fodder for another thread also. Certainly Adam-God was not taught in those discussions???

However, you did get a spiritual confirmation that the things that you were taught were true. So, now you have placed your reason above those spiritual confirmations? This happens a lot in the church. Reason and emotionalism trump spiritual revelations. And that is the basis for people leaving the church, in my opinion.

Could it as well be that your spiritual revelations were indeed accurate but that that your reasoning and the information upon which you base your reasoning is imperfect?

If I were to come to the conclusion that the the LDS church is not "true". I would pretty much have to become an atheist. Just about any argument used against Joseph Smith as a prophet, the Book of Mormon, etc. can be used against the Bible and the events portrayed therein. But that also is fodder for another thread.

The Lord expects us to read, ponder, meditate, and pray in order to come to a knowledge of the truth. That is implicitly and explicitly taught. Spiritual truths can only be obtained spiritually.

Glenn

The parts were the summation of the entire conversations that were had over a couple of months.  Obviously, way more was covered than, 'step A, discuss xxx with perspective member'.    Spiritual confirmation or emotionalism?   That can honestly be the basis of not only leaving the church but also of those joining the church.  I would hope that you don't believe that only those joining fall into the spiritual and those leaving only fall into the emotionalism.

The Lord may expect us to read, ponder, meditate, and pray in order to come to a knowledge of the truth, but the church itself wishes to stipulate the first.  It is undeniable that the church has steered its members in the matter of what is acceptable to read and what should be avoided.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

You use the word 'current teachings' in your description of official doctrine.  Are teachings in past General
Conferences to be considered as true official doctrine or false?  Example: the location of the Hill Cumorah.
source: http://www.archive.org/details/conferencereport1928a

Thanks,
Jim

The opinions and speculations of the Brethren expressed during a general conference are not necessarily the official doctrine of the LDS Church.  They might be if they can be backed up by already extant Scripture.  Otherwise, one must receive a witness of the truth via the Holy Spirit.  That leaves a lot of room for interpretation and suggestion.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Funny that...none of the members are ready to be taught meat..but ready to pay tithes and total devotion.  One would think that they deserved the deeper understanding of the meat.

And children are generally required to do their bit at  chores and total devotion to their parents before the parents start given them the more sophisticated meals.  Do you think you should be serving your 2 year old sushi or flaming crepes suzette?  Or even a good filet mignon?

I think a lot of us think we are older in the gospel than we really are.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Calm

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The opinions and speculations of the Brethren expressed during a general conference are not necessarily the official doctrine of the LDS Church.  They might be if they can be backed up by already extant Scripture.  Otherwise, one must receive a witness of the truth via the Holy Spirit.  That leaves a lot of room for interpretation and suggestion.

So just what are the doctrines?  We hear they never change and that only policies, practices and past teachings of Prophets change.  Yet, the teaching we are discussing in this thread, has been called the "Adam/God Doctine".  It was taught by BY and was so truthful and important that he altered the temple endowment to add it from what Joseph had restored and also added the Lecture at the Veil.  But it's now disavowed and not taught, so no, I guess it wasn't doctrine after all.  That undermines all current or recent teachings by our Prophets.

How about the current policy received according to President Nelson as a revelation from God.  Is it doctrine?  Or, when or if it's disavowed or altered as other past teachings have been, will it be labeled as just man's opinion or teaching? Again, that undermines current revelations or teachings.

You have to see the pattern and confusion here and at least have some understanding why some feel as they do about this topic.

Edited September 25, 2016 by JulieM

[sdc999]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

And children are generally required to do their bit at  chores and total devotion to their parents before the parents start given them the more sophisticated meals.  Do you think you should be serving your 2 year old sushi or flaming crepes suzette?  Or even a good filet mignon?

I think a lot of us think we are older in the gospel than we really are.

I wonder if the headlines read, "LDS church mistakenly calls 'too young for the meat' member,  H. Jerrell Chesney as Temple President" right after he and his wife resigned from the church. 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

So apparently none of the church members are ready to be taught the meat or deeper doctrines?

Really?  

 Or can you give an example of when one of our leaders have taught the meat in a talk given in General Conference or anywhere else where they were speaking to and teaching members?

I think most conference talks  for those who have ears to hear.  This talk by Elder Bednar, for example, goes well beyond anything that the missionaries teach, or in the church manuals. https://youtu.be/y0rr5rRF6kQ

Also Elder Packer's talk on the Atonement and the Mediator.  Take note of his opening comment on this subject.  https://youtu.be/Z__xwsnivgQ

 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Shouldn't there be room for questions and dissent?

This question indicates that youare not listening to General Conference talks, especially the recent ones.  And, no, I'm going to let you find them for yourself.

The leaders seem to be speaking as men a lot and rarely let us know when they are speaking directly for the Lord. So, it seems that the questioner should be allowed to question, at least when it's coming from men and not the Lord. Maybe constructive criticism will help them avoid p.r. nightmares like the dust up that happened last year and recently with the LGTB/kids policy/revelation/policy ... whatever it was.

I cannot help you.

 

Edited September 25, 2016 by cdowis

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

You use the word 'current teachings' in your description of official doctrine.  Are teachings in past General
Conferences to be considered as true official doctrine or false?  Example: the location of the Hill Cumorah.
source: http://www.archive.org/details/conferencereport1928a

Thanks,
Jim

Good question. Hadn't thought through that. 

General Conference gives us the marching orders we need right now.  So I guess the further back you go, General Conference becomes less official.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

"We appreciate your advice, and I'm sure there are many other churches who would appreciate your guidance."

But you hadn't "pointed out the danger" at all, but instead more or less told her her "advice" was unwelcomed in a sarcastic way and suggested it would work better elsewhere, thus she should go elsewhere.  There is nothing there to thank you for.  If you wish to teach than I advise choosing a plainer version without the not so subtle digs.  The rest of your post is actually informative and does well at pointing out not only truth, but what she needs to do with it.  Cut off the bottom and you have been helpful.  Leave it there and you suck the power and charity out of your own words.

This is apologetics, not Social Hall.  If she thinks about what I said, perhaps she will avoid going down a path that leads to a very dark place, instead of whining about my insensitivity.

As I said, perhaps someday you will thank me, or maybe not.

I probably won't last here very long,so take advantage of my wisdom whilst you can.

Edited September 25, 2016 by cdowis

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, cdowis said:

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

So apparently none of the church members are ready to be taught the meat or deeper doctrines?

Really?  

 Or can you give an example of when one of our leaders have taught the meat in a talk given in General Conference or anywhere else where they were speaking to and teaching members?

I think most conference talks  for those who have ears to hear.  This talk by Elder Bednar, for example, goes well beyond anything that the missionaries teach, or in the church manuals. https://youtu.be/y0rr5rRF6kQ

Also Elder Packer's talk on the Atonement and the Mediator.  Take note of his opening comment on this subject.  https://youtu.be/Z__xwsnivgQ

 

CFR for what is in these talks that wouldn't be taught to investigators because it's considered "meat", not "milk".

Just a quote from either talk will do.

Edited September 25, 2016 by JulieM

[cdowis]

26 minutes ago, JulieM said:

CFR for what is in these talks that wouldn't be taught to investigators because it's considered "meat", not "milk".

Just a quote from either talk will do.

"CFR"

This is my personal opinion, based on my experience.  

Edited September 25, 2016 by cdowis

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, cdowis said:

"CFR"

This is my personal opinion, based on my experience.  I have no interest in a further discussion with you on this subject.

Yeah, didn't think you could provide a quote for any "meat" vs "milk" in those examples. Nice try though and I understand why you're opting out now.

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, and I had no idea as an 8 year old or a nearly 48 year old the extent of our doctrine.

So this isn't what the LDS church leaders believe? Or we don't even have a clear idea from these leaders?

We don't have an edge over other churches out there, since we have living prophets and apostles? 

Calm, am I to understand that the temple ordinances are not Adam-God driven?

Boy, I'm confused. 

Temple ordinances are definitely NOT "Adam-God driven".

There is nothing like that in the temple.  Adam did assist in organizing the earth as lead by Eloheim and Jehovah, but the three are clearly different persons.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, ChristKnight said:

Unfortunately that would not be correct.  As you quoted, it states that the Persons are distinct from one another in their relations of origin, and their relations with one another.  So no, it would not be Trinitarian belief that God the Father came down on earth and died on the cross.  Robert and yourself actually describe Trinitarian heresies denounced by Trinitarians.  From wikipedia as well:

1) Patripassianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism): 

patripassianism (as it is referred to in the Western church) or Sabellianism in the Eastern church (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead - that there are no real or substantial differences between the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.[1]

In the West, this belief was known as patripassianism (from Latin patri- "father" and passio "suffering"), because the teaching required that since the Father had become incarnate in Christ, he had suffered.[2]

From the standpoint of the doctrine of the Trinity—one divine being existing in three persons—patripassianism is considered heretical since "it simply cannot make sense of the New Testament's teaching on the interpersonal relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit."[3] In this patripassianism asserts that God the Father—rather than God the Son—became incarnate and suffered on the cross for humanity's redemption. This not only denies the personhood of God-the-Son (Jesus Christ), but is seen by trinitarians as distorting the spiritual transaction that was taking place at the cross, which the Apostle Paul described as follows: "God [the Father] was reconciling the world to himself in Christ [the Son], not counting people’s sins against them. . . . God [the Father] made him who had no sin [God-the-Son] to be sin for us, so that in him [the Son] we might become the righteousness of God [the Father]." (2 Corinthians 5:19, 21)

2) Modalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism):

In Christianity, Sabellianism in the Eastern church or Patripassianism in the Western church (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spiritare three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead—that there are no real or substantial differences among the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.[1]

Also, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the Trinity:

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

From the quote from the Catechism, we see that it is Trinitarian doctrine that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, the Spirit is not the Father nor the Son, etc.  From all of this, we see that no, it is not Trinitarian doctrine that the Father came down and incarnated as the Son, nor is it Trinitarian doctrine that it was the Father that was crucified (as we see above, that is the non-Trinitarian heresy of patripassianism), nor is it Trinitarian doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Person (as we see above, that is the non-Trinitarian heresy of modalism).

Anyway, sorry for going way off topic, but I had to address this clear misunderstanding of the Trinity doctrine.

Most Christians have no idea what a modalist, or patripassianist might be, and couldn't care less.  My summary of those ordinary Christian beliefs was correct, even if not in line with the conciliarists and their formal creeds.

Quote

The mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity, namely, the teaching that God is three distinct hypostases or persons who are coeternal, coequal, and indivisibly united in one being or ousia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism .

 

Quote

Christians believe in the Trinity - that is, in God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Some confuse this and think that Christians believe in three separate gods, which they don't.

Christians believe that God took human form as Jesus Christ and that God is present today through the work of the Holy Spirit and evident in the actions of believers. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/basics_1.shtml .

 

Quote

Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God Himself come to earth in human flesh, and is an equal part of the Holy Trinity.  http://truthbygrace.org/the-most-common-false-beliefs-of-professing-christians/ .

 

Quote

"Christ's humanity was not a mere fleshly shell that God rented and used for a temporary amount of time. God did not just come to live in flesh as a man, but the 'Word became flesh' (John 1:14). God incorporated human nature into His eternal being. In the incarnation humanity has been permanently incorporated into the Godhead. God is now a man in addition to being God. At the virgin conception God acquired an identity He would retain for the rest of eternity. His human existence is both authentic and permanent. Jesus' humanity is not something that can be discarded or dissolved back into the Godhead, but He will always and forever exist in heaven as a glorified man, albeit God at the same time."^[6]^ Upon his ascension, Jesus was not deified, but rather was glorified.  http://www.theopedia.com/hypostatic-union 

note 6.  Jason Dulle, "Can God be God if the Incarnation is Permanent?" http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/godbegod.htm . 

Quote

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from trinus, "threefold")^[1] holds that God is three consubstantial persons^[2] or hypostases^[3]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).^[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.^[5][6][7]   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

The upshot is that 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-one,^[1] which some take to be tritheism.  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.^[2]

J. Gwyn Griffiths, Triads and Trinity, Cardiff: University of Wales Press 1996.

Griffiths, "Triune Conceptions of Deity in Ancient Egypt," Zeitschrift fuer Aegyptische Sprache 99 (1973):28-32.

H. te Velde, "Some Remarks on the Structure of Egyptian Divine Triads," Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 57 (1971):80-96. 

---

^[1] J. Bassler, AGod (NT),@ in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, II:1055.

^[2] 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, Search for God, 177-180,238-239.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, JulieM said:

So are all the teachings members see today in the endowment (Adam/God influence) from Brigham Young and not what Joseph restored?

That is a false conclusion from what was said- and no the endowment is not all from Brigham Young

Besides that, the endowment is a treasure trove of covenants and blessings, the PRESENTATION of the endowment has changed over the years.  Much of it is taught in parables.  Worrying about who came up with what is like worrying about if Christ dreamed up his parables or borrowed them from other sources teaching the same symbolic messages.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Temple ordinances are definitely NOT "Adam-God driven".

According to others on this thread, it was added by Brigham Young and was not included in what Joseph restored.  The Adam/God influence that remains in the endowment came from Brigham (and not just the Lectures at the veil part that has been removed) according to what I've read here.

Edited September 25, 2016 by JulieM

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Why does the church only ever teach milk and never meat?

Are you personally ready for it?

It's there- for you to find, all taught by the church explicitly through study and symbolically in the temple.  If all you find is milk, it is not the church's fault.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

So just what are the doctrines?  We hear they never change and that only policies, practices and past teachings of Prophets change.  Yet, the teaching we are discussing in this thread, has been called the "Adam/God Doctine".  It was taught by BY and was so truthful and important that he altered the temple endowment to add it from what Joseph had restored and also added the Lecture at the Veil.  But it's now disavowed and not taught, so no, I guess it wasn't doctrine after all.  That undermines all current or recent teachings by our Prophets.

How about the current policy received according to President Nelson as a revelation from God.  Is it doctrine?  Or, when or if it's disavowed or altered as other past teachings have been, will it be labeled as just man's opinion or teaching? Again, that undermines current revelations or teachings.

You have to see the pattern and confusion here and at least have some understanding why some feel as they do about this topic.

I understand it very well, and noted over 50 years ago that the Tanners were publishing those "shocking" statements (among others) by Brother Brigham in order to confuse and unchurch as many unwary Mormons as possible.  Yet they never bothered to note the strong opposition by Orson Pratt, nor that Orson's views are the ones which prevailed in the long run.  That applies also to Brother Brigham's racist views which took away ordination of Blacks.  Orson knew that was wrong and said so.  Had Brigham not taken away his seniority in the Twelve, Orson very likely would have reversed Brigham's policies when he became LDS President.  These were policies plain and simple, never becoming a formal part of LDS Scripture.  One can use terms like "doctrine" very loosely, but what does it really mean?  Is it important when the Twelve and First Presidency are not united on a "doctrine" or "policy"?  All prophets are fallible, now and anciently.  The notion that, because one said something, that therefore makes it Gospel is nonsense.  It is far more complex than that.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Thanks for your input. I seriously do not understand yet that aspect of the Trinity doctrine, but it is something that would need its own thread.

Edited to add: Yet, does your understanding of this doctrine coincide with the understanding that most other Christians believe? I have heard modalism argued as well as other positions.

Glenn

You are not supposed to understand it.   It is a "mystery".

This much I can claim for sure- it is not possible to explain it clearly without believing it.  "Substance" is undefinable and most of the definitions I have seen are circular.  It is not used as the normal English word is used- it is a name for something ineffable and undefinable.

[ChristKnight]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most Christians have no idea what a modalist, or patripassianist might be, and couldn't care less.

Which of course isn't relevant to anything.  The point is that your statements are quite clearly not representative of what the Trinity doctrine is actually teaching, but are representative of the modalist/patripassianist non-Trinitarian heresies, as I documented.

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My summary of those ordinary Christian beliefs was correct, even if not in line with the conciliarists and their formal creeds.

What do you mean by "ordinary" Christian beliefs?  Who are "conciliarists"?  Interestingly enough, your references do not actually support what you said earlier ("Most so-called "christians" do believe that God the Father came down, took on a body, was crucified, and then resurrected.  For them, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God the Father are all one and the same person").  None of those references state anything about "God the Father" coming down to the earth, being crucified, and being resurrected.  None of those references state anything about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being "one and the same person".  Indeed, you quote Wikipedia, which explicitly states that there are three Persons, and that they are distinct from each other.  

Anyway, thank you for trying.  As mentioned earlier, I don't want to derail this thread.  However, I did want to address a clear misrepresentation of the Trinity doctrine.  Now, I will grant that there are many who do not understand the Trinity, and perhaps will describe it (incorrectly, as we have seen) as the Father incarnating, or the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being one Person.  However, it is clear that they are wrong, and are not representative of what the Trinity actually teaches (by your own references), and there is no evidence that "most so-called 'christians'" (as you say) believe such things.  It is clear that the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, mainline Protestantism, and evangelical Christianity (representative of the vast majority of Christianity) all teach the distinction of Persons and God the Son (not God the Father) incarnating, against your characterization.  

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

Heb 5 [12] For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

D&C 19   21 And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me.22 For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.

Anyway, when someone is advocating to the church on how to preach the Gospel,  they are going down a very dangerous path.  And perhaps I am the only one who has pointed out the danger to you.  Someday you may thank me, or maybe not.

Just ignore me if you find it offensive.

And that is in the "Christian" literal and fundamentalist BIBLE

So where is the "meat" in Evangelicalism?  I mean if we want to get into it, that criticism certainly applies here.  Is it really just "confess Jesus" and be saved?  Where's the beef?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

So apparently none of the church members are ready to be taught the meat or deeper doctrines?  Or can you give an example of when one of our leaders have taught the meat in a talk given in General Conference or anywhere else where they were speaking to and teaching members?

Do you believe these topics and doctrines are only to be revealed to those who go outside church settings or read books or go to online sources to find the meat?

Did you read the scriptures he quoted?  They are just doing what those scriptures say!

Yes the truth is to be sought from the "best books", there is nothing wrong with that.  The church has nothing to fear- but yes we are in a winnowing period for those who do not really understand the gospel

That is fine- in the end we will be stronger.   The kingdom of God is within us and proven by testimony.  If you don't have one, you will not stand.

"There are more ways to see than with our eyes, more ways to feel than with our hands, more ways to hear than with our ears"- Elder Dieter Uchtdorf, this Woman's conference, given just today

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

CFR for what is in these talks that wouldn't be taught to investigators because it's considered "meat", not "milk".

Just a quote from either talk will do.

Newsflash-  temple content.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Can you give an example of the so called "false doctrines" that these "anti-mormons" supposedly foist onto the innocent lambs of the church?  In my experience, what church leaders and apologists claimed to be false in the past has been admitted to be true by the church today.  Back in the day, the Tanners and other history buffs were vilified for talking about seer stones and JS's belief in white christian magic.  It was down-right scandalous to talk about JS being charged in court for using his seer stone to look for buried treasure.  Now, it's quietly admitted.

I know of no one who vilified the Tanners for their reprints of early Mormon documents (I thought that was great, and so did many others, since they were making hard to obtain items available cheaply).  What annoyed a lot of Mormon scholars was the frequent misinterpretation by the Tanners of those early documents, taking them out of context with reckless abandon.  I tended to excuse them due to their lack of formal training in history -- and lack of higher education.

Thus, while I agreed with Jerald Tanner on the racism of failure to ordain Blacks, I knew that Joseph Smith had authorized such ordinations -- something Jerald didn't bother to mention.  No revelation backed the prohibition, and I understood it to be a policy, not doctrine (I did not know at the time that Pres McKay had come to the same conclusion).  Jerald took Brother Brigham's racism out of context.  Jerald did not know, and could not even imagine, that there were Mormons actively participating in the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

The same sort of misdirection and faux problems included the Tanners claiming thousands of changes in the Book of Mormon text (true, but out of context and irrelevant), the Tanners claiming that "adieu" is not English and must have come from the Plates (thus falsifying their origin, since the Nephites could not have known French), Fawn Brodie falsely claiming in her book that Nauvoo was not a Hebrew word, etc.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, ChristKnight said:

Which of course isn't relevant to anything.  The point is that your statements are quite clearly not representative of what the Trinity doctrine is actually teaching, but are representative of the modalist/patripassianist non-Trinitarian heresies, as I documented.

I was not speaking to the formal creedal doctrine, but to what "most so-called 'christians' do believe," as you yourself quote below.  As to the formal creeds, I do not believe that even well-educated adherents to the version of the doctrine whom you quoted actually understand what it means.

17 minutes ago, ChristKnight said:

What do you mean by "ordinary" Christian beliefs?  Who are "conciliarists"?  Interestingly enough, your references do not actually support what you said earlier ("Most so-called "christians" do believe that God the Father came down, took on a body, was crucified, and then resurrected.  For them, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God the Father are all one and the same person").  None of those references state anything about "God the Father" coming down to the earth, being crucified, and being resurrected.  None of those references state anything about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being "one and the same person".  Indeed, you quote Wikipedia, which explicitly states that there are three Persons, and that they are distinct from each other.  

Anyway, thank you for trying.  As mentioned earlier, I don't want to derail this thread.  However, I did want to address a clear misrepresentation of the Trinity doctrine.  Now, I will grant that there are many who do not understand the Trinity, and perhaps will describe it (incorrectly, as we have seen) as the Father incarnating, or the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being one Person.  However, it is clear that they are wrong, and are not representative of what the Trinity actually teaches (by your own references), and there is no evidence that "most so-called 'christians'" (as you say) believe such things.  It is clear that the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, mainline Protestantism, and evangelical Christianity (representative of the vast majority of Christianity) all teach the distinction of Persons and God the Son (not God the Father) incarnating, against your characterization.  

I quoted my sources, which you clearly reject, as is your right.  However, I don't see how it is possible to misrepresent a trinity doctrine which is as clear as mud.  Memorizing the catechism will not make it more clear.  It is hopelessly turgid and paradoxical.