Thanks for providing this citation. What the RCC teaches now was never really is question as St. Justin Martyr’s writings are not normative for today’s church. I submitted analysis of Justin’s beliefs simply to support the notion that all ante-Nicean fathers were subordinationalists and some extra-biblical concepts of the orthodox Trinity were developed late in the game with Athananius and others.
That expression, or words close to it, occurs in several places in LDS scripture. The LDS Church put out a statement once, called “The Father and the Son: A doctrinal Exposition,” which was designed to answer that question. You can read it here. There is, however, a deeper mystery contained in this doctrine which is partly explained in Mosiah 15:2-3; 3 Nephi 1:14; and D&C 93:3-4; quoted in post #79 above. Like the Catholic Church, we also believe that there are mysteries the fullness of which God has not yet revealed. This appears to be one of those.
I will try to answer that in a separate post. You have raised a lot of issues in that post, each of which requires a separate discussion. I can only comment briefly on each of them in one post. If you want to discuss any one of them more deeply, you will have to say which one, and we will talk about it further.
Yes, we do believe that the Father and the Son are two distinct personages, as described above. But I don’t see what issue you are raising here. If you are suggesting that this doctrine is unbiblical, then I would disagree. The Bible certainly teaches that the Father and the Son are two separate beings. It does not state that the Father has a tangible body as the Son does; but it does not contradict it either. So I don’t see what is the issue you are raising here.
Let me first say that these passages you are quoting from are not from canonized LDS scripture, and therefore do not express binding LDS doctrine. All I can say in response to them is to examine them and see to what extent they appear to harmonize with what is taught in LDS scripture. I would say that the above passage is in harmony with what is taught in the Bible. For example, the Bible quotes Jesus as saying that He “. . . can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do” (John 5:19). That is an indication to me that He works under the direction of the Father. Jesus also says that He is “one” with His Father, which to me suggest that He is in harmony with the Father in His mind, thought, intentions and will. I don’t see the issue with that.
Well, the Bible does say that Jesus is the “firstborn of every creature” (Colossians 1:15); and the “beginning of the creation of God” (Revelation 3:14). I understand that to mean what it says. The scriptures also say that we share the same kinship with Him:
I think I would go along with that, explanation being the same as given above.
As stated above, we do believe that the Trinity consists of three distinct and separate personages who are divine, and this is in harmony with that. I think that the identity of the Holy Ghost as a separate personage, as well as His divinity, is affirmed in the Bible, so I don’t see any problem with that.
Big one of what?
I would say that is correct. Can you show me how we can know God unless He chooses to reveal Himself to us?
You have given us these lengthy quotes, but you have not told us why it is that you object in then, or what is the basis of you objections to them. I cannot respond to it properly until I know that.
The same here. If you can tell me what it is that you are objecting to in these passages, and why, I will try to answer it for you.
It is at least partially derived from the Bible. I willingly concede that it contains non-biblical portions that appear to support a Trinitarian view. This goes to my previous point about the BoM being influenced by the beliefs of Joseph Smith, Jr. and his friends/family who helped him to publish it.
As expected. But to those who do not believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. was a prophet it appears to be yet another influence on his writings.
I’m not a big fan of FAIR or FARMS but in any case, I don’t think it’s that simple. The various versions of LDS scripture over the years can be viewed and do show a changing view of the “Godhead”. The lectures on faith were blatantly binitarian and taught that the Father did not have a body. That seems very “Sidney Rigdon” to me. It also appears problematic when compared to the various versions of the “first vision”. BY taught Adam-God which has been firmly denounced as false doctrine by modern LDS leaders but it definitely was taught at one time by the person recognized by LDS as the “prophet of God”. My point here is that doesn’t seem to be a single position on the nature of God within the LDS church and even now many things on this are undefined. (The Holy Ghost being the most significant)
Okay, but that would seem problematic then since somewhere along the line (as you can see in the D&C) the LDS church stopped being Trinitarian. The semantics of henotheism can be argued all day but the fact is that current LDS doctrine makes it clear that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct and seperate beings, two of which have physical bodies. It claims that the Son and the Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father and that while they are OUR only Gods there are many others. Further it teaches that the Father wasn’t always God. Another unique item is the fact that only the Father is prayed to/worshipped. All things(prayers/ordinances) are done in the name of the Son only, with baptism being the one exception where the Holy Ghost is mentioned. Define it as you will (poly/heno-theism, modalism, subordination, etc.) But it isn’t Trinitarian.
Fair enough. I agree that one can “read into” the BoM many things. The variety of “Mormon” offshoot churches bears that out and in fairness is no different than the Bible in this respect. (as evidenced by the plethora of “Christian” churches)
Done.
. Others, well let me just say they are understandable when one adopts the 19th century origins theory. I would have to read more studies about how Joseph Smith’s surrounding culture supposedly may have affected the Book of Mormon’s views on the Trinity. But what I have read so far does not impress me.
Well I apologize for being such a FAIR/FARMS homer, but they more or less corner the market on writing about the topics that tend to come up on boards like this. I have helped write some articles for FAIR and I hope to published by FARMS soon (I am involved in a word print analysis that shows the text of the BOM does not match any known modern author’s style with any realistic probability.)
I agree. Word print studies and rhetorical analysis show that Sidney Rigdon wrote it. Since the 5th article is very awkward with LDS teachings both before and after it came out in 1836, I consider it an anomaly rather than a linear development step. If (big if) the Lectures on Faith represents Rigdon’s consistent thought over time we can eliminate him as influence on the Book of Mormon text. BY taught Adam-God which has been firmly denounced as false doctrine by modern LDS leaders but it definitely was taught at one time by the person recognized by LDS as the “prophet of God”. My point here is that doesn’t seem to be a single position on the nature of God within the LDS church and even now many things on this are undefined. (The Holy Ghost being the most significant)
It is certaintly not an orthodox Trinity, but given the wiggle room allowed by non-brown and non-green it can’t be easily categorized. I prefer to call myself a monotheistic social trinitarian.
Well I am glad we can agree on the latter point. It is less of a semantic issue than a taxonomical one. It is like sorting out the species like we did in grade school into the plant and animal kingdoms. A few grades later we learned about other organisms that don’t fit so well in either category so we learned about other kingdoms.
I dont have much time now to respond, but I did get a chance to read that link. There is a lot I want to respond to which I will do asap.
How interesting that you would reference THIS particular publication since you have always claimed to have never heard of “eternal progression” and that you don’t know what it means when this explains it so well:
Thank you majick for reminding me of that. I had forgotten that that statement says that, otherwise I might not have referenced it! I am indeed not a little uncomfortable with the term of “eternal progression,” especially as it is bandied about by you guys. Nevertheless, the statement is the Church’s official response to the specific question which he had asked, therefore it was important that he should be aware of it. The scriptural references that I had given him, however, give a more accurate scriptural explanation of this mystery, as far as it has been made known at the present time. It is a mystery about which complete knowledge has not yet been revealed, and I am sure it will be at some future date when the Church is better prepared for it.
You are wrong about that one. The statement itself doesn’t say it is a revelation. James R. Clark calls it a revelation. James R. Clark is the editor and compiler of the book: “Messages of the First Presidency,” who wrote the introductory note at the beginning of that statement. I would also remind you that that statement was issued around 90 years ago. Since than the expression “eternal progression” has gone out of favour, and it is hardly ever used in recent years in the teachings and sermons of the top leadership of the Church.
Wrong about that too. There is nothing in the statement that says that “God was once a man”. The rest of your post is just a silly rant, and doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to be able to reply to.
I see you are still up to the same old assertions sans evidence of a post-apostate Church.
Ok, I found the time to post what I thought stood out in that article. First of all it talks about God not being the creator of the world but only the “organizer”? It goes onto say that “He certainly did not create, in the sense of bringing into primal existence, the ultimate elements of the materials of which the earth consists” What exactly does this mean? God didnt create oxygen and hydrogen, etc?1. “Father” as Literal Parent