Mormon Trinity

[seven7up]

How could Smith get anything wrong, 7up? He supposedly talked and saw God directly. He had the golden plates too. Exactly where would the confusion, or inconsistencies come from?

Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

Again, I give you a comparison to the apostles in the gospel accounts of the New Testament. These guys were with Jesus Christ every day for at least a couple years. They STILL had all kinds of misunderstandings. Even after receiving teachings about certain specific things from Jesus, they still didn't grasp the concepts.

Double standard much Sparko?

Why would he tell Smith that the Trinity was true, then tell him it wasn't?

The early church did not teach that "the Trinity was true". Allow me to give you some quotes that further solidify what I have explained here:

These were produced by Joseph Smith in 1830:

Joseph rendered the meaning of Genesis 1:26 as:

"And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them." (Moses 2:26-27.)

What does it mean when God says he created man "in mine own image"? Joseph Smith rendered the meaning of Genesis 5:1-2 as follows:

"In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; in the image of his own body, male and female, created he them" (Moses 6:8-9; emphasis added).

So, we have the teaching of a separation of the Father and Son, and insisting that both had some type of physical form which could be copied in the creation of humanity.

Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, mentioned that the LDS concept of God was different than that of other denominations (also in 1830):

"the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle."

Wake up dude! Read your own religion's literature with a bit of skepticism and ask some hard questions.

Say the folks who think they know about the my religion because they read some anti-mormon web sites.

Trust me Sparko, I have likely read more anti-mormon literature than you have. And when I come upon accusations like you and Cow Poke just attempted to promote, such as "early LDS taught the Trinity/Modalism" , I just shake my head and marvel at how uninformed you guys really are. All you have investigated is a bunch of biased sources providing half-truths and misinformation.

-7up

[seven7up]

Again, I wasn't saying that at all. You seem to be conveniently missing the whole point. In the EARLY STAGES, Mormonism taught the Trinity.

No it didn't. Like the Bible, I already showed how the Book of Mormon did not teach Modalism or the Trinity. The Book of Mormon shows a separation between Father and Son and an embodiment of the Father and an embodiment of the Son (i.e. the Father and Son each have shape, position, and form.) See: 3 Nephi 11:, 1 Nephi 11:1-11, Ether 3:14-18 or

I was with the Father
from the beginning. now let's look at the Lectures on Faith.

Having place WITH another Being, the Father, precludes the notion that Jesus is that same Being.

Source: Same Article - bolding mine

there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all thingsthe Father being a personage of spirit," and "the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man., or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image." The "Articles and Covenants" called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "one God" rather than the Godhead, a term which Mormons generally use today to separate themselves from trinitarians.9

© Copyright Original Source

Note that God the Father was a SPIRIT, not a man with flesh and bones.

The lectures on Faith does not teach Trinitarianism or Modalism.

Source: Lectures on Faith - bold added

the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him;

© Copyright Original Source

Sidney Rigdon wrote most of the Lectures on Faith. We see here that he understood God the Father as being the same way that Jesus was described in the Book of Mormon, as an embodied spirit with hands, eyes, head, etc. Why didn't Joseph correct the "personage of spirit" phrasing? Because Joseph Smith didn't know that yet. Why would he? It is not like he had an opportunity to touch God the Father's physical body. That detail had to be revealed specifically to Joseph.

Earlier on this thread, I asked:
7UP: Are you asking whether or not Joseph Smith received from God every concept (related to the nature of the Godhead) all at once at the very beginning?

You responded:

And AGAIN I answer, no

Well, why then do you expect the early Mormons to know that the Father's embodiment was "tangible"?

-7up

[seven7up]

Interesting you should try to make that comparison, 7up.

When God wanted us to know about Salvation through Christ, He sent us a sinless Savior prophesied throughout the Old Testament, and one in whom no guile was found, and sinless.

When Smith wanted us to believe that God sent HIMSELF to "restore" what Christ had done, God supposedly used a glass looking money digging woman chasing self promoting opportunist who couldn't get his story straight right from the beginning.

The similarity isn't that Joseph measures up to Jesus. Not even close.

However, I will say that people accused Jesus of being a lunatic, a fraud, or a myth. They still do. So, if a perfect and sinless man is accused of such things, then a sinful human being is even more likely to come under criticism.

I'm saying [the Book of Mormon] DID teach the Trinity, then Modalism, ....

I answered that. question.



So, then what do you do? You go into Ad hominem which does not advance the conversation.

a glass looking money digging woman chasing self promoting opportunist ...I believe Smith was a pathological liar and a fraud.

Then you jump all over the place from topic to topic instead of the original topic.

-- - - - - - - - - --

I would (and I imagine you would, too) be VERY careful about my pronouncements, personal character, trustworthiness, sexual conduct, faithfulness to my wife,

7UP: Imagine that God personally visits you tonight and asks you to start practicing polygamy as a direct command. How would you handle it? How would you go about it? Who would you ask? How would you tell your wife?

Interesting you should bring up the wife, 7up. That's the point at which I first began confidently declaring Smith a fraud -

You already start with the assumption that God did not command it, then you made conclusions based on that. My mind was open when I began investigating Mormonism.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So, are we going to discuss the translation process? Polygamy? Whether or not prophets are flawed? Why don't you just throw in the Book of Abraham while you are at it?

This conversation is going to go nowhere if this is how you handle a discussion.

What was the original topic again?

-7up

[seven7up]

Hey, 7up is back! I so don't have time to read and post right now, but just wanted to say hi.

--India

Hello.

[seven7up]

7UP: So, when the Book of Mormon said, Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," it is accurate.

This is what you don't get -- Joseph claims to have gotten this from the "golden plates". WHY would "the most perfect book on earth" need "clarified" on such a crucial point?

Let's look at the claim of the "translation" process... (bolding mine)

The original translation was correct. "Son of God" was not likely to be on the plates at all. That was added by Joseph for the benefit of the modern reader, to know which member of the Godhead was being referred to.

-7up

[Cerealman]

As Thread Starter, I must insist we get back on topic. There have been NO recent mentions of bacon.

If you had fairies you could wish for more bacon and make me king of tweb...

[Cow Poke]

As Thread Starter, I must insist we get back on topic. There have been NO recent mentions of bacon.

[thewriteranon]

Doug Dimmadome??

Owner of the Dimmsdale Dimmadome?

[Bill the Cat]

The Dainties?

Doug Dimmadome??

[Cow Poke]

The Danites.

The Dainties?

[ke7ejx]

The Danites?

The Danites.

[Bill the Cat]

God the Father IS God/Deity. Jesus Christ IS God/Deity. It is quite difficult to "differentiate" between them because they act as "one".

Because there is only one God.

Let's get into it shall we?

Hebrews 1 is a good place to start in this discussion, and it does not teach what most of the Christian world would like it to teach (it does not teach the Trinity as most Christians understand it.)* The chapter starts in the present and goes back in time describing Jesus and His relationship with God the Father prior to his incarnation. **The chronology of Christ's appointment to authority, then being born into mortality and then resurrection and return to the right hand of the Father is given.*

The first scene I will bring up chronologically (verse 9), shows God the Father seeing the superior qualities of Jesus amongst the other "sons of God" or among the "morning stars"* -** Remember that Christ is called the "Bright Morning Star", which is an angelic title (see Rev 22:16 and 2Pet.1:19 (see also Job 38:7 for another reference to the many "sons of God"). Nevertheless, we see that Jesus has superior qualities when compared to the other sons of god.

Answer: ALL of themAnswer: ALL of them

Heb 1
9*You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

Again, a kingly praise from Psalm 45:

45 My heart overflows with a pleasing theme;
I address my verses to the king;

Once again making a claim to the kingship of Israel for Jesus.

You see here that God (the God of Jesus) chose and anointed Jesus from among his "companions" (sometimes translated "fellows")

this is a kingly claim that He alone among humanity was worthy. THAT is the "fellows" or "companions" that are being referred to here, just as in Psalm 45.

... his fellow angels mentioned in the context of the passage (verses 4-9).*

No. Were that the case, it would read: "having become as much better than the OTHER angels". Again, the point is that Jesus is both High Priest and King, and more worthy of the devotion of the Jews than mere angels who were not their Kings.

Why was he chosen above the others? According to the verse we read, it was because Jesus loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.*
We see in Hebrews chapter 1 that God the Father elevated this perfect angel to the status of "God", and to have the status of godhood forever.

Wrong. We see that He was not an angel (as He was made lower than angels while He sojourned on earth) , was the perfect human (above all other humans), was worthy to become the Priest/King like His father David (but above David and the other kings due to His being immortal), and was/is God already (never said "you have now become God"). No. Hebrews 1 makes a clear distinction that the Son is NOT, nor has He ever been, an angel.

Heb 1
8*But to the Son, He (God the Father) says:
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

Direct quote of Psalm 45:6, directed to the King of Israel. Another claim of Jesus' kingship.

As Jesus is elevated to the status of Deity, the gives the scepter/throne of the Father's kingdom to the Son, and it will be the Son's Kingdom forever.

No. He was already called God before the scepter was given.

Heb 1
7*And of the angels He says:
Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.

A quote of Psa 104:4 which shows God's sovereignty over angels, and their mission to only be His messengers.

The other angels are subject to Jesus.*

Jesus is not an angel, so the angels are subject to Him as God. The word "other" in your reply was superfluous and improper.

Elsewhere in the New Testament we see that Jesus was chosen by God the Father to organize the hosts of heaven, organizing the powers, thrones, principalities and so forth (see 1 Col 1:16).

There is no "1" Colossians. And Colossians 1:16 says that He created them, not organized them.

Jesus was placed at the head of the hosts of heaven and became God's right hand;

No. He IS God's right Hand. See Isa.63:5, Isa.48:13, Isa.62:8, and Ps. 80:17

His Word, who fulfills the Father's will.* Jesus was also to be the Creator of the physical Universe as we know it (Heaven and Earth) under the direction of the Father, as mentioned in verse 2 and 10 of this chapter.*

And Isaiah says that God alone created it according to His own will, not the will of any other.

Let's look at verse 4, because it is important in this conversation:

Heb 1
4*having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

How did Jesus obtain the name and title of God?* He "obtained" it by INHERITANCE, by being elevated from among the other sons of God to a higher position!* Please note that Hebrews chapter 1 teaches that Jesus was "chosen/anointed" and that Jesus "obtained" the "more excellent name".* However, it is clearly well deserved.* As the only perfect spirit, Christ had no flaws and therefore could unite His will perfectly with God's, thus he "became better than the angels" becoming "one" with God and thus deserving the name of God.*

Wrong, wrong, wrong!! The "Name" that was given was "Jesus", the name by which we are saved. The name by which angels, demons, and all mankind are subject.

Philippians 2:9.

That at the name of Jesus

Now read verses 2 and 3:

Heb 1
2 God the Father] has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3*who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Your backtracking from a faulty premise is beginning to show pretty bad

Thus Jesus Christ, an exalted angel/son, who was "appointed" to be "heir of all things" and to be known as Jehovah in the Old Testament, and who now sits again on the right hand of the "Most High God".*

Jesus is not an angel, nor are the angels similar to Him. God orders the angels around as simple messengers. He exalts the Son.

That is how subordinationism was taught in the New Testament and understood within the Apostles' New Testament Church.*

No it isn't. Jesus was NEVER considered the same species as angels in the NT or by the Apostles. He may have shared their function as a messenger of the Father, but He was never considered the same as them. He was God and man.

This was long before the changes in doctrine which began to occur in the mid to second century A.D. in order to fit Greek philosophical monotheism.

No. The changes in doctrine were REJECTED in the mid second century in favor of what the Apostles taught, namely Jewish Monotheism and Wisdom theology.

The doctrinal changes solidified in Nicea and was found in creeds which describe the Father and Son to be "coequal" and "same substance" and and other terms/phrases not found in scripture.

False. That was what was taught all along. It was those who taught contrary that appeared later.

How does one "inherit" that which was already his? In the Trinity, the same Being is appointing itself, sending itself, and inheriting from itself.

Again, bastardizing the Trinity doctrine.

That, in my opinion, is wrong.

Well, when you so obviously don't even get what the Trinity does and does not teach, I'm not surprised...

The very same titles that belong to God the Father are given to the son.

The Son is never called the Father (with the exception of the unnecessarily vague translation in Isaiah).

Jesus was already spiritually perfect, and therefore Deity/God BEFORE entering mortality and had "inherited a more excellent name" BEFORE entering mortality.

So, are you claiming that Jesus was forever God, and that his "fire" was not lit at some point in the distant past by the Father's? Maybe there is hope for you yet...

The names and titles which are applicable to our Heavenly Father became applicable to the Son.

They never weren't.

Jesus Christ was the God of Israel, who interacted with the people, under the will and direction of the Father.

So is the Father, and so is the Holy Spirit. Yet there is only one God. None before and none after. One God. Eternally God. Never not been God.

[Bill the Cat]

7UP: For starters, let's not pretend that Christians have always represented the "Trinity" consistently. There is STILL debate amongst Christians concerning that doctrine.




Case in point.

However, the way Bill handles those theological debates is to brand those he disagrees with as heretics and non-Christians. Problem solved ... right Bill?

It's the way the Church has handled people who invent novel ideas that contradict what the Apostles taught their students all along, so yes. Problem solved.

Jesus stands "at the right hand of the Father".* This is a position which represents the second person in authority.* This contradicts the idea of the members of the "Trinity" being "coequal".

That's just a plain crappy bastardization of the Trinity doctrine. No one says the Father and Son are equal in authority. What we claim is they are co-equal in their essence. Functional subordination vs. ontological equality.

* We read in verse 3 that Jesus is not the same substance as the Father, but instead is a COPY of the Father or the "image/stamped imprint/facsimile/ of the Father's person".* There is a difference because the phrase "same substance" implies that they are literally the same being. That is not what the scriptures said.*

Rubbish. He is the exact representation of the Father's nature (or those things that make God God), meaning both attributes like being perfect, holy, and just, and their nature, being the One God.

Bill brought up the earlier discussion of Ex Nihilo creation, whereby I argued that there is no true free will in Ex Nihilo creation theology. I also addressed how the philosophical problems of evil and suffering in that scenario are insurmountable.

You argued that they were, but you failed miserably, when your argument boiled down to simply whining that "God COULD HAVE done better" in ex nihilo. And I showed you how that whine can be applicable to every theory of God, including yours.

I lay out some of the details of those issues here in a video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...lH9MxxLwwWnAea

However, I did not yet create the video which discussed how Ex Nihilo Creation theology affected the development of Trinitarian dogma.

The Arian controversy following the era of Apostolic Christianity was mishandled.* The reason that the debate was fruitless is because almost all of the Christians had adopted "Ex Nihilo" creation theology by then, and creation "from nothing" was a foundation from which correct doctrines could not develop. We can all agree that if Jesus was "created out of nothing", then he could not be Deity.* In a sense, the Arians / Semi-Arians and subordinationalists had very good points, but the concept of creatio ex nihilo made it impossible to defend their case coherently.

Simply untrue. Deity can not be created nor obtained as an inherent nature. It can be reflected by other beings as a function, but not innately possessed by anyone except God Himself. Any form of polytheism falls apart when a created being is classified as deity in and of itself.

Justin Martyr's analogy of Deity being a substance like fire is interesting. Let's say you take a fire and light another fire. You have the Father and the Son. Each has the same characteristics of Deity and therefore each person, in and of themselves, are fully Deity. This would even be true in the impossible/theoretical scenario of one of the flames going out. The other flame would STILL be fully Deity.

But the problem exists when we understand that there is only one deity that exists as fire in and of itself. Lighting another fire implies that the first was also lit by something else. The fire had to start somewhere, and those things who were "lit" are mere immitations of that which is fire in and of itself, and that never needed something else to light it. The Son was never "lit", which implies that there was a time when He was "unlit". He has always been on fire as the Father has, as the Spirit has, yet there is only one "eternal flame" which is God.

[Sparko]

Again, I wasn't saying that at all. You seem to be conveniently missing the whole point. In the EARLY STAGES, Mormonism taught the Trinity.

Source: Same Article - bolding mine

there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all thingsthe Father being a personage of spirit," and "the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man., or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image." The "Articles and Covenants" called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "one God" rather than the Godhead, a term which Mormons generally use today to separate themselves from trinitarians.9

© Copyright Original Source

Note that God the Father was a SPIRIT, not a man with flesh and bones.

the statement of the three witnesses at the beginning of the BoM ends with "And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen."

[Cow Poke]

So, you cannot say that the Book of Mormon teaches "Trinitarianism" or "Modalism".

Again, I wasn't saying that at all. You seem to be conveniently missing the whole point. In the EARLY STAGES, Mormonism taught the Trinity.

Source: Same Article - bolding mine

there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all thingsthe Father being a personage of spirit," and "the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man., or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image." The "Articles and Covenants" called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "one God" rather than the Godhead, a term which Mormons generally use today to separate themselves from trinitarians.9

© Copyright Original Source

Note that God the Father was a SPIRIT, not a man with flesh and bones.