Mormon Trinity

[Sparko]

What did NRAJeff used to call himself in his profile? The "enforcement" group of thugs Smith used to keep his followers in line, and fight off his angry former followers?

The Danites?

[Cow Poke]

Then there was the book of Abraham scam, the missing pages of the BoM, direct plagiarism of the KJV Bible, the witnesses to Smith were eventually excommunicated by Smith and retracted their statements (most of them anyway), the Mormon massacre they tried to blame on Indians, and destroying the Navoo Expositor printing press. I am sure I am missing a few more.

But for "the restored" church, it sure looks pretty shady to me.

What did NRAJeff used to call himself in his profile? The "enforcement" group of thugs Smith used to keep his followers in line, and fight off his angry former followers?


ETA: AH, yes, the DANITES -- and this is FairMormon's attempt to deal with the topic:



That's the "question" being dealt with. Here's the "answer":

Source: FairMormon.org

Regardless of their original motives, the Danites ultimately were led astray by their leader, Sampson Avard. Avard attempted to blame Joseph Smith in order to save himself. Joseph, however, clearly repudiated both the organization and Avard.

© Copyright Original Source

Here's the ... well, heck, NEW THREAD!!!!

[Sparko]

Speaking of "living the high life", I started a new thread on the Kirtland Banking Mess.

Then there was the book of Abraham scam, the missing pages of the BoM, direct plagiarism of the KJV Bible, the witnesses to Smith were eventually excommunicated by Smith and retracted their statements (most of them anyway), the Mormon massacre they tried to blame on Indians, and destroying the Navoo Expositor printing press. I am sure I am missing a few more.

But for "the restored" church, it sure looks pretty shady to me.

[Cow Poke]

Don't just look for ways to excuse the obvious clues that Smith was a conman who decided he could live the high life by inventing a religion and getting a bunch of hicks to follow him around.

Speaking of "living the high life", I started a new thread on the Kirtland Banking Mess.

[Sparko]

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 did Smith quote God directly about something, then turn around and change his mind and give the opposite "revelation" later? If God is really God, he would not have to change his story or mind. Why would he tell Smith that the Trinity was true, then tell him it wasn't? Why would God tell Smith that polygamy was an everlasting covenant and then make it a sin later?

Smith was all over the place with his nonsense. Wake up dude! Read your own religion's literature with a bit of skepticism and ask some hard questions. Don't just look for ways to excuse the obvious clues that Smith was a conman who decided he could live the high life by inventing a religion and getting a bunch of hicks to follow him around.

[Cow Poke]

So, when the Book of Mormon said, Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," it is accurate. We would especially expect this wording from the perspective of someone like Mosiah, who was seeing the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, as becoming flesh. The change was made as clarification by Joseph Smith for the benefit of us readers who, unlike Mosiah, are looking at it from a New Testament perspective and want to know which member of the Godhead is being referred to.

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)

Source: fairmormon.org

One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear.

© Copyright Original Source

That HARDLY leaves room for the need for later "revisions". UNLESS, of course, this isn't actually the way it happened! (And we find multiple OTHER accounts of how it supposedly happened, conflicting with this, that DO allow for the need for later correction. I can't make this stuff up!)

[Cow Poke]

Obviously he wasn't perfect,

Agreed. It seems, when God brought us Salvation through Christ, He sent the perfect one. SUPPOSEDLY, when He wanted to "restore" what Christ built, He went to the other end of the spectrum.

Nah, didn't happen.

but I don't think that Joseph made as many errors as people accuse him of.

Naturally -- you believe he was a for really prophet.

I think that God placed him in very, very difficult circumstances.

And you think Jesus was NOT? I think Smith REPEATEDLY placed himself in difficult situations, like shacking up with the wives of his supporters/followers, having a bar in the hotel he owned while preaching against alcohol, defrauding his flock out of their money through the Kirtland Bank scandal...

I know you don't believe that God did this, but just imagine for a moment.

Ain't gonna happen.

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 -- when I discovered that he came up with this cowardly "prophesy" that his faithful and obedient wife would be DESTROYED if she didn't put up with his serial adultery.

Source: Phony Prophesy

And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law" (DC 132:54.)

© Copyright Original Source

How do you buy this nonsense, 7up? How do you make yourself believe that God would have Smith threaten his faithful wife with DESTRUCTION for no other reason that she got tired of his sexual exploits outside of their marriage?

[Cow Poke]

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

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it DID teach the Trinity, then Modalism, THEN the "man can become God" nonsense.

And the LDS faith is not a "brand new religion". It is a continuation of the previous religion, only with more light, more knowledge and revelation.

No, it's not. Smith is a fraud, and Mormonism is his craft. And your attempts to prove the legitimacy of this new religion by using the Book of Mormon is like foolishness. I believe Smith was a pathological liar and a fraud. Why would I believe "but, here, read this book he wrote proving he's legit".?

[Cow Poke]

Mormonism is not claimed to be a "brand new religion" any more than Christianity was a "brand new religion". The very same kind of criticism that you toss at the LDS faith are the same criticisms that Judaism tosses at Christianity.

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.

Yeah, I see the similarity!

[seven7up]

Yes, because the god of Mormonism had a perfect opportunity, creating a BRAND NEW religion, to get things right from the start. Instead, the god of Mormonism apparently chose a man who couldn't seem to keep his own story straight about a number of very critical events and issues pertaining to the foundation of this "new religion".

Mormonism is not claimed to be a "brand new religion" any more than Christianity was a "brand new religion". The very same kind of criticism that you toss at the LDS faith are the same criticisms that Judaism tosses at Christianity.

Now, back to the Book of Mormon and the view presented on the nature of Deity.

In Ether 3:16, the premortal Jesus presents himself to the Brother of Jared. In that text, the Old Testament God indicated that His spirit is anthropomorphic (having human form).



So, you cannot say that the Book of Mormon teaches "Trinitarianism" or "Modalism". And the LDS faith is not a "brand new religion". It is a continuation of the previous religion, only with more light, more knowledge and revelation.

-7up

[seven7up]

Before 1835, Mormon publications at the time seemed to assume that God or Christ was the creator, but didn't differentiate much at all between Christ and God.

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

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.

You see here that God (the God of Jesus) chose and anointed Jesus from among his "companions" (sometimes translated "fellows") ... his fellow angels mentioned in the context of the passage (verses 4-9).* 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.

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.

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.

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

The other angels are subject to Jesus.* 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). Jesus was placed at the head of the hosts of heaven and became God's right hand; 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.*

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.* 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.

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".*

That is how subordinationism was taught in the New Testament and understood within the Apostles' New Testament Church.* 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. 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. How does one "inherit" that which was already his? In the Trinity, the same Being is appointing itself, sending itself, and inheriting from itself.

That, in my opinion, is wrong. The very same titles that belong to God the Father are given to the son. Jesus was already spiritually perfect, and therefore Deity/God BEFORE entering mortality and had "inherited a more excellent name" BEFORE entering mortality. The names and titles which are applicable to our Heavenly Father became applicable to the Son. Jesus Christ was the God of Israel, who interacted with the people, under the will and direction of the Father.

So, when the Book of Mormon said, Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," it is accurate. We would especially expect this wording from the perspective of someone like Mosiah, who was seeing the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, as becoming flesh. The change was made as clarification by Joseph Smith for the benefit of us readers who, unlike Mosiah, are looking at it from a New Testament perspective and want to know which member of the Godhead is being referred to. Yet even from our perspective, it is correct to say that Mary is the mother of God. It is correct to say that "God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people." Only those who deny the Deity of Christ would be restricted from such wording.

-7up

[seven7up]

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

No there isn't. There is debate between Christians and those who THINK they are Christians, but not between Christians.

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?



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".* 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.*

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. 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.

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.

-7up

[seven7up]

Godhead in early Mormonism

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?

And AGAIN I answer, no --- I'm specifically referring to what I THINK should be a very important and fundamental doctrine -- Who JESUS is.

It is important. However, will you admit that before the mortal ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the Godhead was not fully revealed to most people in Old Testament times? Even now looking back, most of the time in the Hebrew scriptures it appears that Jesus was Jehovah of the Old Testament, yet other times it appears that he is the "angel of the Lord". He is speaking on the Father's behalf as a perfect representative, which makes things difficult to discern in terms of who is speaking or acting. It did become a little more clear with the New Testament, but still there was a lot of disputes on the nature of the Godhead which required council's, votes, creeds, etc. Disputes still continue to this very day.

7UP: Tell me who you think Jesus is, and tell me where you think Joseph got it wrong.

That's not important.

On one hand you say that it is important, yet on the other hand you say that it is not.

-- what's important is that Smith had a "clean sheet" upon which to write what God said about Jesus. A reasonable person would THINK that, given this incredibly important "ALL religions are corrupt and I'm here to set things straight" moment, that Smith would have gotten it right the first time.

What was the clean sheet? I am not sure if there is such a thing. I don't see it in this scenario.

After all, why did God pick Smith to condemn all religions and establish a new one, if Smith was "just another guy" who couldn't get things right the first time?

Haven't we established that God works through imperfect instruments.

Because God is not the author of confusion.

If you ask me, after the death of the Apostles, the Christian church has been filled with confusion.

Smith SUPPOSEDLY had things handed to him "on a golden platter" (so to speak) and professed to be speaking directly for God.

If it were to be handed to him "on a golden platter", then God could have handed Joseph Smith printed copies of the Book of Mormon in English, along with the Doctrine and Covenants etc. It wasn't that easy. There was a lot of work involved in establishing the Restored Church.

I suspected I would get "the party line", but I had thought you were a little more "straight shooter" than you appear to be.

Don't judge. We haven't even started yet.

7UP: I live in Texas, like you, where there are not many LDS. I listen to Christian radio, and depending on the pastor, 80-95% of the time I find myself agreeing with what is being taught.

I think the Mormon Church is trying everything it can to be "more Christian", and Mormon teachings are becoming more like Christian denominations. ... So, have these religions suddenly become "acceptable"?

There were doctrines where Mormonism and mainstream Christianity never clashed. I have seen Christianity change though. I hear Christians speak of an "age of accountability" such that children who die are not condemned to hell for not accepting Jesus or not being baptized. I see Christians practice full immersion baptism rather than just sprinkling. I have seen Christians open up to the possibility that those who never even heard the gospel may not necessarily condemned to hell for eternity. I have seen doctrinal developments of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit change into ideas like "Social Trinitarianism", which is closer to the LDS view.

A while back, I was listening to a Christian radio show, where the pastor/host told a story about how he always taught about salvation throughout the decades of his ministry. The emphasis of his sermons were were always about grace and forgiveness. One day a caller dialed up and asked simply , "What about repentance?" This question shook him. The pastor said that one of his biggest regrets was preaching an incomplete gospel, whereby he did not sufficiently preach about turning away from sin.

This is a theme that I have seen stressed more and more frequently in some Christian churches, which is an improvement from a lot of the 'Free Grace Theology' points of view. In other words, in certain groups of Christianity, I see more criticism of those advocating an acquiescence in sin by allowing greatly sinful behavior to exist together with the same assurance of salvation as someone who does not currently allow greatly sinful behavior. Some of these teachings are headed more in the LDS direction.

He was the one who kept on and on about free will and ex nihilo being incompatible.

And then you all turned me over to one of your philosophy majors, with whom I had a long debate. And in the end he decided that Ex Nihilo wasn't so necessary in Christian theology after all.

7UP: I consider all of my own weaknesses and flaws and often wonder, "What would I have done if I had been raised in that culture and placed in those very difficult circumstances? Would I have done any better?" Sure, it is easy to look back and snipe and say, "oh, well I would of done this or that." But as they say, hindsight is 20/20.

I imagine you're a pretty decent guy. I would think that you would recognize the incredibly important task you had before you, having been chosen by God to set things straight, and to establish the "REAL" Church of God.

I think the weight was quite heavy on Joseph. Let's not pretend that he had it easy.

Therefore, I would (and I imagine you would, too) be VERY careful about my pronouncements, personal character, trustworthiness, sexual conduct, faithfulness to my wife, consistency of doing what I say, etc. I wouldn't shrug it off as, "aw shucks, boys will be boys, and people will just have to accept me as I am".

Obviously he wasn't perfect, but I don't think that Joseph made as many errors as people accuse him of. I think that God placed him in very, very difficult circumstances. I know you don't believe that God did this, but just imagine for a moment. 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?


-7up

[Cow Poke]

The God of Mormonism is.

Yes, because the god of Mormonism had a perfect opportunity, creating a BRAND NEW religion, to get things right from the start. Instead, the god of Mormonism apparently chose a man who couldn't seem to keep his own story straight about a number of very critical events and issues pertaining to the foundation of this "new religion".

[ke7ejx]

Before 1835, Mormon publications at the time seemed to assume that God or Christ was the creator, but didn't differentiate much at all between Christ and God. Who was in charge of these publications at that time?

Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision spoke only of one personage. In the 1838 version, of course, there's the differentiation.

Source: same article

The Book of Mormon declared that Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," which as James Allen and Richard Howard have pointed out was changed in 1837 to "mother of the Son of God."

© Copyright Original Source

So WHY would God have Smith denounce ALL OTHER RELIGIONS, then borrow their Trinity, only to poo-poo it later? Again, God is not the author of confusion.

The God of Mormonism is.