Josh Khinder Posted January 13, 2018 Posted January 13, 2018 52 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Neither of which is in the Bible. Therefore applying them to God is an invention of man. Nobody is doubting what the Church fathers meant. Just that it's not Biblical. Not even close. None of these offices in the Bible or Book of Mormon, does that mean there wrong ? First and second Counselors, Elder Quorum Presidents, Relief Society Presidents, Wards, Ward Clerks, Stake Presidents, Stake High Councilmen, Regional Representatives ,Temple Recorders, etc.
JLHPROF Posted January 13, 2018 Posted January 13, 2018 11 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said: None of these offices in the Bible or Book of Mormon, does that mean there wrong ? First and second Counselors, Elder Quorum Presidents, Relief Society Presidents, Wards, Ward Clerks, Stake Presidents, Stake High Councilmen, Regional Representatives ,Temple Recorders, etc. No, it means they aren't offices, or part of the eternal gospel. These are administrative functions in the Church organization created and adapted to the needs of the organization. Are you trying to say that God is an administrative office? Look, the bottom line is that the doctrine of the Trinity isn't Biblical because the Bible never ever even once states that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in substance/consubstantial/ Homoousios. This is something invented by the early Fathers to explain how the three members of the Godhead function in union. But it's not in the Bible. All the Bible does is state they are united. The Trinitarian explanation of that union is not in the Bible. 1
Stargazer Posted January 13, 2018 Posted January 13, 2018 4 hours ago, Josh Khinder said: You have a wrong understanding of the Nicene Creed that expresses the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate and distinct persons, I'm not a Lutheran but this Lutheran Catechism Manual points this out quite plainly . You know, I don't disagree with all the notions expressed in the graphic you posted. I wouldn't dream of disagreeing that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God and distinguishable from each other. And oddly enough, in teaching investigators we use the separate manifestation of each member of the Godhead at Jesus's baptism as evidence for the fact that they are three separate and distinct persons. But "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" does not need to mean that they are one person, or, as the Nicene Creed put it, "of one substance". My wife and I are one when it comes to our dealings with our children, and ideally the children cannot come to Dad to get around something Mom said that they don't like. But being one in purpose and intent does not make my wife and I into a single person; neither does being one in purpose, intent and righteousness, make the members of the Godhead into a single person. I think it's clear that when Christ prayed he prayed to his Father, and not to himself, or, to the other part of himself. And when Christ cried out at his apparent worst time on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" -- if you're going to say that he forsook himself, I think you need to explain that. There is here no better evidence for there being three separate personage personages in the Godhead. For, if they were one God as you insist, there is no way Jesus could have been alone on the cross at any time. Sure, they are one God, as it says in the graphic, and I'd agree that to pray to the Father is to pray to all three of them. But the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, and only some very doubtful and tendentious readings of certain verses can justify it. And I should like to point out that your Lutheran Lesson 16 does not comprise the doctrine of the Trinity. It is clearly trying to make an essentially laborious and tortuous mess understandable to a layperson. And perhaps it succeeds, but succeeding in making false doctrine understandable is not much of a victory. Another thing about this: don't you understand figurative speech? When the scripture says "God is love" (1 John 4:8) it does not mean that God is an emotion. 4 hours ago, Josh Khinder said: I realize Mormons teach no original sin but the Book of Mormon disagrees Apostle John Widtsoe said, "In the true gospel of Jesus Christ there is no original sin" (E. & R., p. 195). By no means does the Book of Mormon teach original sin. You quoted: Mosiah 16:3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil. 4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state. Mosiah 3: 19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. 2 Nephi 2:21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents. Because of the transgression of their parents all men are lost, because they are born into a world where they will be constantly tempted and it is certain that they will eventually sin and fall short of the glory of God. But the Book of Mormon isn't teaching "original sin" in these verses. It's teaching that because of the Fall we will sin, and that until we yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, we will be enemies to God. It is a tendentious reading of those verses you quote in the Book of Mormon to believe it backs up your point. "Original sin" as the Trinitarian churches teach it is, like I said earlier, a devilish doctrine. A newborn baby does not need salvation, has not committed sin, and in its innocence it can return to God unspotted from the word. If it lives past its infancy of course it will sin and will need salvation. Since you like quoting the Book of Mormon in futile attempts to prove your false doctrine, let's try this one, which quite clearly refutes your misuse of those scriptures above. From Moroni 8 8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. 9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! I've quoted the relevant verses partially; if you want the complete passage, take it to verse 24. After reading these verses, if you can still assert that the Book of Mormon teaches original sin, then you must be an attorney by profession.
Stargazer Posted January 13, 2018 Posted January 13, 2018 (edited) On 1/12/2018 at 4:01 PM, RevTestament said: Hi Pogi, Not to debate with someone largely agreeing with me, but I no longer think of the atonement that way. See my post above. I think of the atonement being infinite in scope rather than infinite in time. In other words it applies to cover all sins committed on this world - no matter how many or how great - except the unforgivable ones. It does not apply to prior worlds or future worlds. I've wondered about that, myself. Is Christ the Savior for all the worlds that Father has created, or only for this world? The implication of what you say is that He is only the Savior for this world of humans. I don't think that that is justified by what we know, or what has been revealed. When Jacob and Alma say it is an infinite and eternal atonement, I don't think we can limit it in the way you seem to be doing. (2 Nephi 9:7 & Alma 34:10) On the other hand, it is written "infinite and eternal atonement", and since we know that "eternal" and "infinite" are both titles held by God, they can mean what He means them to mean. As you pointed out later. I think I am satisfied to know that Christ's blood saves me from my sins; as for the rest of the details, as Joseph Smith once said, they "are only appendages to it". Edited January 13, 2018 by Stargazer
Stargazer Posted January 13, 2018 Posted January 13, 2018 (edited) On 1/12/2018 at 5:55 PM, mfbukowski said: Here you go. Direct quote, including link to an anti-mormon, hole in the wall site, citing someone no one ever heard of who wrote a book in the 1940's as a "leader". Quit JOSHING us! You have zero credibility here finally. Well, I must be no-one, because I have heard of Milton R. Hunter. In fairness, I must point out that Elder Hunter was a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy at the time of his death in 1975. Edited January 13, 2018 by Stargazer
Stargazer Posted January 13, 2018 Posted January 13, 2018 On 1/12/2018 at 6:35 PM, mfbukowski said: Oh yeah. My point was the source I should finish reading the thread before I comment. I am constantly finding myself repeating what someone else said before I even got to it.
Josh Khinder Posted January 13, 2018 Posted January 13, 2018 36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: No, it means they aren't offices, or part of the eternal gospel. These are administrative functions in the Church organization created and adapted to the needs of the organization. Are you trying to say that God is an administrative office? Look, the bottom line is that the doctrine of the Trinity isn't Biblical because the Bible never ever even once states that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in substance/consubstantial/ Homoousios. This is something invented by the early Fathers to explain how the three members of the Godhead function in union. But it's not in the Bible. All the Bible does is state they are united. The Trinitarian explanation of that union is not in the Bible. How come these Mormon leaders were fine with the Trinity ? 1. Discourses of Brigham Young, p.30 The Holy Ghost, we believe, is one of the characters that form the Trinity, or the Godhead. 1. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.61 Now I repeat-the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, he constitutes the third person in the Trinity, the Godhead 1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.312 In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost-in other words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are separate and distinct personages. This is one distinguishing and, to some, disturbing doctrine of the Church. 1. James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.4, p.264 From these statements, and from many others that might be quoted, it is clear that Adam and Christ are two persons-not the same Person. It is erroneous doctrine to consider them one and the same person, for Jesus is the Christ, a member of the Trinity, the God-head, and to whom Adam, the father of the human family upon this earth, is amenable. Adam will have to account for his stewardship to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose blood atones for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam. James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.6, p.236 1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.313 Surely this was not ventriloquism where Christ was speaking to and of himself. It was the Father introducing His Son. In this case, the members of the Holy Trinity manifested themselves, each in a different way, and each was distinct from the others. A similar event occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration when members of the Godhead were distinguished in the presence of Moses and Elias, and Peter, James, and John. J. Reuben Clark Jr. Second Counselor to the LDS First Presidency speaking to diversified audience in the mid 1940s speaks of God in terms of the Trinity-God has revealed to us that he is the Father of all, and that he loves and cares forth righteous everywhere, and seeks ever to bring back the wayward to his ways. He has made known that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father, the Redeemer of the World, the First Fruits of the Resurrection. He has shown to us that as Jesus died, lay in the tomb, and was resurrected, so shall it be with every son and daughter of God. He has manifested to us that he is a person, that Christ is another person, and that the Holy Ghost is a third person, and that these make the Trinity of the Godhead Another explanation is found in Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fulnesspel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covanants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason: General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28.
JLHPROF Posted January 13, 2018 Posted January 13, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said: How come these Mormon leaders were fine with the Trinity ? They're not preaching the evangelical Trinity. Do you delight in being obtuse? Calling the Godhead the Trinity is not the same as being "fine" with trinitarian false doctrine. Edited January 13, 2018 by JLHPROF 1
Stargazer Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 1 minute ago, Josh Khinder said: How come these Mormon leaders were fine with the Trinity ? 1. Discourses of Brigham Young, p.30 The Holy Ghost, we believe, is one of the characters that form the Trinity, or the Godhead. 1. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.61 Now I repeat-the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, he constitutes the third person in the Trinity, the Godhead 1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.312 In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost-in other words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are separate and distinct personages. This is one distinguishing and, to some, disturbing doctrine of the Church. 1. James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.4, p.264 From these statements, and from many others that might be quoted, it is clear that Adam and Christ are two persons-not the same Person. It is erroneous doctrine to consider them one and the same person, for Jesus is the Christ, a member of the Trinity, the God-head, and to whom Adam, the father of the human family upon this earth, is amenable. Adam will have to account for his stewardship to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose blood atones for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam. James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.6, p.236 1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.313 Surely this was not ventriloquism where Christ was speaking to and of himself. It was the Father introducing His Son. In this case, the members of the Holy Trinity manifested themselves, each in a different way, and each was distinct from the others. A similar event occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration when members of the Godhead were distinguished in the presence of Moses and Elias, and Peter, James, and John. J. Reuben Clark Jr. Second Counselor to the LDS First Presidency speaking to diversified audience in the mid 1940s speaks of God in terms of the Trinity-God has revealed to us that he is the Father of all, and that he loves and cares forth righteous everywhere, and seeks ever to bring back the wayward to his ways. He has made known that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father, the Redeemer of the World, the First Fruits of the Resurrection. He has shown to us that as Jesus died, lay in the tomb, and was resurrected, so shall it be with every son and daughter of God. He has manifested to us that he is a person, that Christ is another person, and that the Holy Ghost is a third person, and that these make the Trinity of the Godhead Another explanation is found in Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fulnesspel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covanants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason: General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28. Look, Josh, the Trinity is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All three are God, yet they are not the same person, but three persons. Just because the Nicene Creed insists upon consubstantiality and calls it "Trinity" does not mean that 'Trinity" can have no other meaning. Trinity means "threesome". Like three horses drawing a cart could be called a threesome or a trinity. I have a sweet Buddhist Vietnamese friend named Trinh, and everyone calls her "Trinity" because it sounds neat, but she is definitely not three in one. Stop getting hung up on what you think the Book of Mormon and LDS general authorities are saying when they use "one God" and "Trinity". They blithering don't mean the Nicene Trinity, OK? Stop trying to read into things what is not there, and insisting so firmly upon your own interpretation like this. You can have your three fictional consubstantial deities if you want them, I am quite willing to cede it to you, but the doctrine is neither sensible nor Biblical. 1
Stargazer Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: They're not preaching the evangelical Trinity. Do you delight in being obtuse? Calling the Godhead the Trinity is not the same as being "fine" with trinitarian false doctrine. I think he does delight in it. Or else this would have been a much shorter conversation. 2
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I'd also be curious to know which scriptures in the Bible supposedly indicate the part I marked in red. born of the Father before all ages. Does that mean Christ is not eternal and had a starting point before time when he was born/created? God from God, Light from Light, This makes sense, Christ is a member of the Godhead and came from his Father true God from true God, Again, makes sense. He came from his father (as we all do) and is a member of the Godhead begotten, not made Again, same as the rest of us. We are all begotten by our fathers (and mothers), not made. His Father just happened to be God. consubstantial with the Father; Never seen this word in the Bible nor any verse to explain it. Consubstantial, Homoousion, whatever you want to call it, I've never seen anything like it in scripture. I've seen scriptures that state they one God, but nothing that indicates this refers to their makeup. Honestly, that whole passage seems to contradict itself and use made up terms. It does. That is the only way you can make three things into one thing, or lead into gold or bread into flesh. That was the whole basis for alchemy!! On the other hand if you want to do that "substance" theory is your deal!! The world is made of immaterial modeling clay and all you have to do is hit it with the right cookie cutter and you make it to appear like anything you like! You keep the same clay from your pile of lead and make it appear to be gold! Or take the substance of flesh and make it appear to be bread! Or you can do it the other way and make three lumps into one lump of clay so three persons become ONE SUBSTANCE of the same kind! Con-substan-tial. Same substance! Three persons, with the same substance become one person. Tran-substan-tiation. In this case the substance of bread is transformed into the substance of flesh while retaining its appearances Trans -mutation of appearances - in alchemy- in which the substance of lead or another metal retains its metallic substance and changes its appearances into that of gold. For all of this to work, one must postulate a cookie-cutter universe where the appearance of a thing is separate and distinguishable from what it "really is" which is its substance. All three theories are based on the same reasoning, which came ultimately from Aristotle. Substance is sometimes called "essence" and appearance is sometimes called "accident" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy) Quote Aristotle made a distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. For example, a chair can be made of wood or metal, but this is accidental to its being a chair: that is, it is still a chair regardless of the material from which it is made.[2] To put this in technical terms, an accident is a property which has no necessary connection to the essenceof the thing being described.[3][4][5] To take another example, all bachelors are unmarried: this is a necessary or essential property of what it means to be a bachelor. A particular bachelor may have brown hair, but this would be a property particular to that individual, and with respect to his bachelorhood it would be an accidental property. And this distinction is independent of experimental verification: even if for some reason all the unmarried men with non-brown hair were killed, and every single existent bachelor had brown hair, the property of having brown hair would still be accidental, since it would still be logically possible for a bachelor to have hair of another color. The nine kinds of accidents according to Aristotle are quantity, quality, relation, habitus, time, location, situation (or position), action, and passion ("being acted on"). Together with "substance", these nine kinds of accidents constitute the ten fundamental categories of Aristotle's ontology.[6] Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas have employed the Aristotelian concepts of substance and accident in articulating the theology of the Eucharist, particularly the transubstantiation of bread and wine into body and blood. According to this tradition, the accidents (or species) of the appearance of bread and wine do not change, but the substance changes from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ. And so we have "con-substan-tial" meaning being of the same substance or essence. The nature or essence of a god is to be a god, the essence or nature of a man is to be a man. Redundant and circular? Of course. So Christ has two natures- God and Man and one substance in common with the Father. What does that mean? Two thousand years of theology has failed to describe any of it. And that mess is what is called "True Christianity", while we worship a "false Christ". Sounds like a comic-book plot to me. Somebody forgot to reverse the coils to prevent the Wackovsky Converter to inersify the Whichamajigger and so Mormons worship a false God. What could be wrong with that? Edited January 14, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 50 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I think he does delight in it. Or else this would have been a much shorter conversation. Or best of all, no conversation at all. But I think it is instructive to show how ridiculous all this is.
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: They're not preaching the evangelical Trinity. Do you delight in being obtuse? Calling the Godhead the Trinity is not the same as being "fine" with trinitarian false doctrine. The Godhead is consubstantial with the Trinity. There we go. We have just re-defined all of sectarian "Christianity" in their own terms.
Josh Khinder Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: They're not preaching the evangelical Trinity. Do you delight in being obtuse? Calling the Godhead the Trinity is not the same as being "fine" with trinitarian false doctrine. I thought you said Trinity not found in the Bible yet early Mormon leaders used that term defined as The Evangelic leaders taught , One God three separate and distinct persons represent that ONE GOD ? Who being abtuse ?
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: Well, I must be no-one, because I have heard of Milton R. Hunter. In fairness, I must point out that Elder Hunter was a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy at the time of his death in 1975. Hey I joined the church in 1980, so that is when the church started, right? No I apologize for the mistake. I guess I am the only one who never heard of him. But I did acknowledge that the quote was in fact Mormon doctrine as we accept it.
Josh Khinder Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: The Godhead is consubstantial with the Trinity. There we go. We have just re-defined all of sectarian "Christianity" in their own terms. Of course the Trinity defines the Godhead Jesus being the one member with a body .”for in him dwells all the fullness of the GODHEAD BODILY,” Colossians 2:9 King James “GODHEAD” {Greek-Theotetos}. In Thayers Greek page 288; The state of being God
cdowis Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 59 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Look, Josh, the Trinity is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All three are God, yet they are not the same person, but three persons. Just because the Nicene Creed insists upon consubstantiality and calls it "Trinity" does not mean that 'Trinity" can have no other meaning. Trinity means "threesome". The correct term is "Triune".
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 (edited) nevermind Edited January 14, 2018 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 (edited) nevermind squared. Edited January 14, 2018 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: I should finish reading the thread before I comment. I am constantly finding myself repeating what someone else said before I even got to it. LOL yeah me too I guess!!
Stargazer Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 45 minutes ago, cdowis said: The correct term is "Triune". Yes, and so what? Not sure what you're getting at, actually.
Stargazer Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Hey I joined the church in 1980, so that is when the church started, right? No I apologize for the mistake. I guess I am the only one who never heard of him. But I did acknowledge that the quote was in fact Mormon doctrine as we accept it. No, the church started in 1966, when I joined it! 1
Josh Khinder Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 1 hour ago, cdowis said: The correct term is "Triune". Does this look like we teach there the same person ?
cdowis Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: Yes, and so what? Not sure what you're getting at, actually. Trinity is a general term referring to the three members of the Godhead, while Triune is a subset where the three members are one substance. LDS believe on the Trinity but not the Triune Godhead. Just a point of clarification Edited January 14, 2018 by cdowis 1
JLHPROF Posted January 14, 2018 Posted January 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Josh Khinder said: Does this look like we teach there the same person ? Is there some reason we should want to? I have no interest in a god with the nonsensical attributes of so called "traditional Christianity". 1
Recommended Posts