Mormon Trinity

[seven7up]

7UP: 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?

First, I apologize for implying you "lied", but that's the feeling I get when you just keep repeating the same thing, even after being told that's NOT what we think... That just makes you look like a kool-aid drinking script reader. "if they say X, respond with Y".

You are implying that Joseph Smith SHOULD have known that the Father had a tangible embodiment from the very beginning. I am simply responding to that. I explained, from the words in our conversation, how I arrived to the conclusion that was what you were implying.

The fact that you do not understand the Trinity does not prove that it was not taught in the early Mormon Church.

The fact that you think that the Mormon Church taught the Trinity (as taught in Creedal Trinitarianism) proves that you do do not understand the Trinity. The Trinity teaches that God is literally omnipresent. The Trinity teaches that the Father and the Son are the same being/substance. Joseph Smith was not teaching that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



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

Yes, he couldn't keep his stories straight -- even though he had, allegedly, the "Urum and Thummum", the golden plates, and the power of translation, he couldn't keep it straight.

I see. So, Joseph Smith was teaching Creedal Trinitarianism before 1835 , except when he wasn't.

The power of translation was a way to translate what was on the plates into English. You cannot blame the prophets that Joseph Smith was translating from for not having a complete understanding of the Godhead, when the Israelites did not have a complete understanding of the Godhead either.



-7up

[Bill the Cat]

Why was my post to Bill removed?

It was moved by me. I explained it in another thread.

[Cow Poke]

Wow, I didn't even KNOW this part....


So, as President*, Smith wanted unfettered control "an army" to intervene in states.... if THAT isn't ego, what is? I can't make this stuff up!



*praise God, it never came to that!

[seven7up]

Why was my post to Bill removed?

[Cow Poke]

Smith DID have a huge ego. In every sense... Grand PooBah of the Masons, President of the United States, "General" of the Militia prancing about on his horse.... he was a HUGE egotist.

Source: LDS.org

Joseph wasted little time in preparing a platform for his campaign. He met with William W. Phelps and dictated to him the headings for a political pamphlet titled , the foundation document for his presidential platform.

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

This is simple Sparko.

No fair minded person, who has studied all of the teachings of Joseph Smith, will ever believe that Joseph actually thought he was greater than Jesus.

Simply not true. I know a number of ex-Mormons who DID believe as you, but the more they studied, the more they saw what a self-serving egotistic narcissist Smith was.

It is contrary to everything that the prophet taught everywhere else. The context here was giving those people in the audience, who had violently attacked him and his family, something to chew on.

Who WERE "those people in the audience", Seven?

In retaliation, Joseph did not attack them back in a violent way, but instead entered into a description of "vain" and "foolish" boasting.

The point of quoting Paul's boasting "in folly" as an introduction to this, was to set up Joseph's own boasting "in folly". The bottom line was that , like Paul, he was telling them that he was going to accomplish what God had sent him to accomplish, no matter what they tried to do to him, because God was with him, albeit "in a still small voice".

Pretending that Joseph actually had an ego to the extent that Joseph supposedly believed that he was better than Jesus , is an argument that will never be taken seriously. There are too many facts that contradict such an accusation.

-7up

Smith DID have a huge ego. In every sense... Grand PooBah of the Masons, President of the United States, "General" of the Militia prancing about on his horse.... he was a HUGE egotist.

[seven7up]

He taught he was greater than Paul and Jesus. It is clear by the context. It was no idle boast. He meant it.
----

This is simple Sparko.

No fair minded person, who has studied all of the teachings of Joseph Smith, will ever believe that Joseph actually thought he was greater than Jesus. It is contrary to everything that the prophet taught everywhere else. The context here was giving those people in the audience, who had violently attacked him and his family, something to chew on. In retaliation, Joseph did not attack them back in a violent way, but instead entered into a description of "vain" and "foolish" boasting.

The point of quoting Paul's boasting "in folly" as an introduction to this, was to set up Joseph's own boasting "in folly". The bottom line was that , like Paul, he was telling them that he was going to accomplish what God had sent him to accomplish, no matter what they tried to do to him, because God was with him, albeit "in a still small voice".

Pretending that Joseph actually had an ego to the extent that Joseph supposedly believed that he was better than Jesus , is an argument that will never be taken seriously. There are too many facts that contradict such an accusation.

-7up

[Cow Poke]

Will do bro.

On the other hand, it's 7up's thread!

[Cow Poke]

The fact that you do not understand the Trinity does not prove that it was not taught in the early Mormon Church.

Joseph Smith DID set it straight.

No, not even close.

In reality, the only concept concerning the nature of the Father that Joseph did not have from the early years was that God the Father's embodiment was tangible (or possibly even resurrected). Otherwise, he was teaching correctly about two separate individuals, the Son of God at the right hand of the Father.

Which is DIFFERENT than what was taught prior to 1835. The fact that you can produce CONFLICTING teachings only underscores the confusion (or deception) Smith was fostering.

The Prophet Joseph said: 'Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.' - Zebedee Coltrin (1832-1833)

-7up

Yes, he couldn't keep his stories straight -- even though he had, allegedly, the "Urum and Thummum", the golden plates, and the power of translation, he couldn't keep it straight.

[Bill the Cat]

We seem to be going WAY off topic here. (not that I'm surprised )

Mormon theology USED to teach the Trinity.
Now it does not.

Can we please stick with that, and create other threads for the peripheral issues?

Will do bro.

[seven7up]

Regardless of what Mormons teach TODAY, or what McConkie said, the writings of the period before 1835 indicate a "God in three persons" view.

own "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, ... My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

If the Father and Son are the same substance, then how could he have forsaken himself?

In 3 Nephi 9:15 the resurrected Christ speaks to the Father in the third person and said He was with the Father in the beginning. with the Father from the beginning." Then he uses the same language of figurative "oneness" that is found in John chapter 17.

Why does that matter? The whole concept of the Mormon Church was that ALL OTHER religions were apostate, and God was allegedly using Joseph Smith to set everything straight.

Joseph Smith DID set it straight. In reality, the only concept concerning the nature of the Father that Joseph did not have from the early years was that God the Father's embodiment was tangible (or possibly even resurrected). Otherwise, he was teaching correctly about two separate individuals, the Son of God at the right hand of the Father.

The Prophet Joseph said: 'Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.' - Zebedee Coltrin (1832-1833)

-7up

[Cow Poke]

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

Why does that matter? The whole concept of the Mormon Church was that ALL OTHER religions were apostate, and God was allegedly using Joseph Smith to set everything straight.

Second, I would say that LDS views are often considered similar to a version of the Trinity, one that has been called "Social Trinitarianism".

Not at the inception of Mormonism.

While I have McConkie's quotes open from the thread, let me pull a few more from him, because he supposedly represents "hard line" Mormonism.[/COLOR]

He wasn't around at the beginning. To see what Mormons taught about the Trinity in the BEGINNING, it would make much more sense to use contemporary written sources.

[/COLOR]

He also says,



But keep in mind that he says "would be... in the same circumstance". However, they are not technically in the same circumstance. Members of the Godhead have different "roles". For example, God the Father is the Father of my spirit, and Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of my sins.

Explanations of the Godhead get tricky, because we say that there are "three". On the other hand, we say that they are "one". Well, in what sense are they three, and in what sense are they "one"?

When discussing their unity, you end up sounding like a modalist. When discussing their diversity, you end up sounding like a tritheist.

I think that one main difference between LDS and mainstream Christians is when it comes to terms like "BEING" and "SUBSTANCE".

Mormons do not believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being nor do we believe that they are the same substance. We instead would say that Jesus Christ is the image of the same Being/Substance.

Another way to look at it is this:

I know that this is impossible, but let's pretend for a moment that God the Father (and/or the Holy Spirit) were suddenly to drop out of existence tomorow. In that scenario, Jesus Christ would STILL be fully God. (i.e. the FULNESS of Deity would still exist in Christ.)

I am not sure if most Trinitarians would hold that position.


-7up

Regardless of what Mormons teach TODAY, or what McConkie said, the writings of the period before 1835 indicate a "God in three persons" view.

[Cow Poke]

We seem to be going WAY off topic here. (not that I'm surprised )

Mormon theology USED to teach the Trinity.
Now it does not.

Can we please stick with that, and create other threads for the peripheral issues?

[Sparko]

I have read Joseph Smith's writings for years. All of them.

It is YOU who missed the point. Joseph was purposefully speaking "in folly" and boasting "foolishness".

Only a deceiver, who totally misrepresents a single quote of boasting out of context, like you attempted to do, would pretend that Joseph Smith was actually teaching that he was better than Jesus Christ. That ignores and goes against everything else that Joseph Smith taught about himself and about the perfect and sinless Son of God.

I can provide a list of quotes proving that point, if you would like, (and I will if you press the issue) but we both know that your attempted deception failed here.


-7up

He taught he was greater than Paul and Jesus. It is clear by the context. It was no idle boast. He meant it. You can plug your ears and go "la.la.la. I can't hear you" all day long, but anyone reading his words can see exactly what Smith said. He was angry at those who were against him, and bragged about how nobody could drag him down because he was greater than Paul or Jesus at keeping the church together. His speech was petty, boastful, and arrogant.

Here it is, let the context speak for itself:
-------------
History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409
Address of the Prophet - His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo.

President Joseph Smith read the 11th Chap. II Corinthians. My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.

God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people. How I do love to hear the wolves howl! When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go. For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me. They have got wonderful things in the land of Ham. I think the grand jury have strained at a gnat and swallowed the camel.

A man named Simpson says I made an affidavit against him, Mr. Simpson says I arrested him. I never arrested Mr. Simpson in my life. He says I made an affidavit against him. I never made an affidavit against him in my life. I will prove it in court. I will tell you how it was: Last winter I got ready with my children to go to the farm to kill hogs. Orrin P. Rockwell was going to drive. An Englishman came in and wanted a private conversation with me. I told him I did not want any private conversations. "I demand one of you! " Such a one I am bound to obey anyhow. Said he-"I want a warrant against the man who stabbed Brother Badham. He said it was a man who boarded at Davis'. He said it was Mr. Simpson-it answered his description. I said I had no jurisdiction out of the city. He said-"The man must be arrested, or else he will go away." I told him-"You must go to Squire Wells, Johnson, or Foster." Mr. Lytle stepped up and said-"I am a policeman." I jumped into my carriage, and away I went.

President Joseph Smith read the 11th Chap. II Corinthians. My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.
----

[Sparko]

We don't shoot ourselves in the foot. We simply pay attention to CONTEXT, both textual and historical. Those verses fall under category 4 in this list:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

(1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.
(2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).
(3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.
(4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation

Really? a "community?" - Then you are calling YHWH a liar, because he said there was no God formed before him, nor after him. HE ("I" - note the singular, not "we") is the only God. If Jesus was once a man who "joined the community" then the community existed BEFORE he was God. Yet he specifically says that is not the case.


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

The phrases of "none beside me" and "there is no other" were Hebrew figurative speech speaking of superiority.* Not to mention the context of comparing Jehovah to false idols which held no true power, but were mere statues created by the hands of men.

Again:

I love how you like to take things literally that are obviously figurative in order to support your LDS doctrines, yet when something is clearly literal, but it disproves your doctrine, all of a sudden, and for no reason and with no support, it becomes "figurative"

This is not a figure of speech, 7up. It is exactly what it says. Yes, it means that there is no peer to the person, but that is exactly what it means literally too. God has no peer! No one, nothing is God besides him! There is only ONE God. Not a "community of Gods"



The word Elohim which is translated "God" can mean "God" or "Judge" - it is the context that matters. In the case where YHWH is teaching that there are no other Gods, he is speaking of Elohim as "God" - not "Angel" or "Judge" - if he were speaking of those other meanings then he would have been outright LYING by saying there were no Gods formed before him, nor will there be any formed after him. That he alone is God.

You get that right?

The LDS view fits far better with the whole of scripture, as opposed to these isolated verses which have historically been misused and ignore the original meaning of these Hebrew phrases. You find this kind of speech in modern language as well, like a husband saying to his wife "I only have eyes for you." Remember that song, "I only have eyes for you ; You're the only one." (The Flamingos sang that I think). Would you interpret that to mean that the husband couldn't actually see anything else with his eyes, and nobody else existed at all?

Isolated verses? LOL. Please 7up, don't try that crap on us. The bible is FULL of God telling mankind he is the creator, and God and that there is only him and no other God. If you were to chop out all those verses you would end up with a bible half the size it is now. Which is why I am guessing the LDS had to add their own "bible" and even then, Smith had to attempt to rewrite the bible we already have.

Also, consider the context. Can you imagine Christ standing at the right hand of God the Father and saying "There is no God beside me"? Of course not. The context is entirely different . How about this verse:



Here we have one God (the Father) AND a mediator (Christ) between God and men. There are TWO divine people being described in this sentence. It falls under category 2 in my list above. So does this one:

one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; AND one Lord Jesus Christ

The "one God" in both of this is referring to the Father ONLY. Then Jesus is referred to separated with the titles of Lord and Mediator. So, we have 1) God the Father AND 2) Jesus Christ , and any other gods that may exist are of no importance to us.

Yes I can imagine the Father with Jesus beside him. They are one God revealed as two persons. Your lack of the understanding of the trinity is the problem here.

Again, there is God AND Jesus Christ.* Who sent who? Who is in charge? Who is the "Most High God"?**

The Father sent the Son. The Father is in charge. The Father is the "Most High". Jesus Christ is fully divine, however, he was and is subordinate to God the Father. God "chose" and "anointed" Jesus to be the Savior and God "sent" Jesus, as described in Hebrews Chapter 1.* The authority and glory that Jesus had before the world existed was "given" to him by God the Father.

Foot, shot.

If Jesus is YHWH and the creator (Genesis, John) then the Father did nothing. He is no "most high God" - he didn't do squat. He is no God at all. Yet the bible says he is God. It also says Jesus is God. And the Holy Spirit is God. Yet only one God: YHWH.

Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many mansions..."

Who's house is it?

Well if Jesus is YHWH and the Father is not, as the LDS teach, then it must be Jesus' house huh?

Col 2:9 fits under category 3.

Do you want one that falls under category 1? How about this: And God said, 'Let us create man in our image..."

You realize that Elohim is a plural word. But that plurality doesn't extend to number of beings. It is like Sheep. The "we" used in Genesis is there because of grammar, not because of number of Gods. sheesh.

Here is one to consider:
John 20:17 - Jesus saith unto her, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father"

If Jesus and the Father are an inseparable and literal and metaphysical "one", or if God were literally omnipresent, why would Jesus need to go or ascend anywhere in order to be with the Father.

Again, you don't understand the trinity at all. At least try to understand what we believe before burning down a straw man. TWO persons, one divine nature: God. Also Jesus took on a second nature: Humanity. That is why it says in places "the man Jesus" - and in this case it is talking about Jesus in his resurrection body. He still has two natures. He is a different person from the Father, yet shares the same divine nature with him.

LDS theology fits better than yours, because we don't have a word or a phrase meaning one thing everywhere in scripture, but then make exceptions just in certain cases when you want it to fit your preconceived notions.

Bull crap. That is exactly what you do. And have done throughout your post!