The Great Apostasy Debate

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

There was a period of time when I prayed to know if the CoJCoLDS was true. I sure seemed like it was true to me, but I did not believe that it is impossible that I could have been deceived. Having received answers to this prayer, I no longer pray it. Instead, I pray that I will be guided by God and follow Him as He directs. I have faith that if you are correct and I am in need of being called from the CoJCoLDS, God knows me perfectly and loves me enough to reach me. This is probably the corner stone of what is necessary to call me out of Mormonism.

There are perhaps some radical developments that could occur within the CoJCoLDS that would cause me to return to praying more direct prayers. Perhaps the church moves away from many of the doctrines that witness to me that we are a restoration. Perhaps the historicity of the BOM is challenged such that I no longer view it as the best or even the most likely explanation for the BOM. More radical than these are things like perhaps a basement of the old Vermont home of the Smiths is uncovered containing Lucy’s extensive library and first few drafts of the BOM (and of course I felt compelled to believe that it was authentic).

I am also unwilling to reject out of hand some of the claims by folks who suggest they have received new records or … I try to not be unduly skeptical, but I suspect that I am. I have yet to be convinced there was something God felt I must have coming from these groups. Perhaps one day I will be convinced there is in fact something I must have.

Charity, TOm

Tom, I apologize, I didn’t make my question clear enough. I’m not talking about proof that the BOM isn’t true or that Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet. Assuming all that you now believe is true, and that the Gospel was indeed restored through Joseph Smith, what would convince you that the restored Church had fallen into a state of apostasy? What specific changes in ordinances or doctrines would make you think “Christ’s church is in a state of apostasy yet again and is in need of another restoration”?

If that scenario is implausible to you then you must believe it is impossible for God’s restored church to go astray. If you do hold that belief I’m curious as to why.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

You are definitely not correct that this “is the only way.” Not only that, but I think it is not even the likely way.

It has been my experience that most people do not look at their religion with the same level of criticality with which they look at other religions.

There are those who strive not to do this, but there has never been someone who has seen the evidence as the evidence is. We all see the world through our eyes. I have faith God knows this. I do not believe anyone lacks bias.

The other thing is that few folks embrace a particular religion after some sorting process. The majority of people embrace a religion because of their environment. Few people do the type of weighing of evidence we are talking about here. Some follow the religion of their parents. Some embrace the religion of their super nice friends. Some embrace the religion that reached out to them in their time of need.

The LDS concept of praying to find the correct religion is actually a minority view among Christians. As a result, I would guess there are more LDS who have become LDS largely as a result of the spiritual confirmation. But still there are many LDS with solid intellectual reasons to be LDS.

You’re right. I over exaggerated. My apologies. However, we were talking about praying to find out if the church we belong to is the “true church”. If we have people who do this, and yet still have them spread out across so many religions, how can you explain that? They can’t all have been given a message from God telling them that their church is right.

I agree that very few people actually critically look at evidence and make a decision based on that. And that, I believe, is a shame. I think people should look at both the “spiritual” and “intellectual” aspects of religion. You are right that no one looks through unbiased eyes, but I believe that through true study, prayer, and a true openness to the truth, people can see things the “right” way.

 

[oat_soda]

As a result, I would guess there are more LDS who have become LDS largely as a result of the spiritual confirmation. But still there are many LDS with solid intellectual reasons to be LDS.

the catholic church is the only church founded on first principles. or that people can agree on things such as taking innocent life is wrong or that things exist or “be”. it is the church of common sense. we absolutely believe in truth and that it can be known. to argue otherwise is to contradict reality.

you attempt to show mormonism as being intellectually superior to catholicism by saying the opposite. or that at some level, we accept everything on faith as we really can never know what is truth. in doing so, you shoot yourself in the foot and admitt mormonism has ZERO credibility in any kind of intellectual objective reality.

this is the work of the devil. he is “who is not” whereas God is “Who is” or “I AM”. God’s essence is his existance in that He and only He contains the reason for his existance and is existance himself and is pure intellegibility. this is why he is Truth. the big bang for example is scientific fact which shows his existance. nothing could be intelligible if it doesn’t have a reason for existing. existance presupposes causality. weather you realize it or not, you are spreading lies and are with the father of lies.

 

[Tmaque]

oat soda:

the catholic church is the only church founded on first principles. or that people can agree on things such as taking innocent life is wrong or that things exist or “be”. it is the church of common sense. we absolutely believe in truth and that it can be known. to argue otherwise is to contradict reality.

you attempt to show mormonism as being intellectually superior to catholicism by saying the opposite. or that at some level, we accept everything on faith as we really can never know what is truth. in doing so, you shoot yourself in the foot and admitt mormonism has ZERO credibility in any kind of intellectual objective reality.

this is the work of the devil. he is “who is not” whereas God is “Who is” or “I AM”. God’s essence is his existance in that He and only He contains the reason for his existance and is existance himself and is pure intellegibility. this is why he is Truth. the big bang for example is scientific fact which shows his existance. nothing could be intelligible if it doesn’t have a reason for existing. existance presupposes causality. weather you realize it or not, you are spreading lies and are with the father of lies.

As much as I disagree with Tom Nosser he is certainly not “with the father of lies”. I very much respect Tom’s spiritual AND intellectual reasons for believing in the LDS faith. He is anything but deceitful and nothing but honest with himself and others. Just like the rest of us he seeks the truth, he has simply come to a different conclusion, for now. Personal attacks are unwanted, unneeded and nothing but counter-productive in this forum.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

but no I have no intention of saying that matter predated God.

Then where did matter come from? Either God created matter or He didn’t. In the case of Him not creating matter, where did it come from?

It seems to me that it must be one or the other. Either God created everything from nothing or something else created everything (including God) from nothing. In which case God was then merely an organizer and not a creator.

 

[tkdnick]

Tmaque:

As much as I disagree with Tom Nosser he is certainly not “with the father of lies”. I very much respect Tom’s spiritual AND intellectual reasons for believing in the LDS faith. He is anything but deceitful and nothing but honest with himself and others. Just like the rest of us he seeks the truth, he has simply come to a different conclusion, for now. Personal attacks are unwanted, unneeded and nothing but counter-productive in this forum.

 

[Exporter]

TomNossor, In posts # 61 and 62 I believe you wrote quite a few words attempting to say what the Holy Trinity is. You talked all around it but never did, im my opinion, actually tell us what the Trinity really is.

Will you tell us what the Holy Trinity is in understandable terms. I have had Mormons tell me that God is made of flesh and bone. That Jesus is made of flesh and bone.

I say that God said he is a Spirit, of course the Holy Spirit is a spirit.
What do you have to say. Tell me what the Trinity is.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

Tom, I apologize, I didn’t make my question clear enough. I’m not talking about proof that the BOM isn’t true or that Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet. Assuming all that you now believe is true, and that the Gospel was indeed restored through Joseph Smith, what would convince you that the restored Church had fallen into a state of apostasy? What specific changes in ordinances or doctrines would make you think “Christ’s church is in a state of apostasy yet again and is in need of another restoration”?

If that scenario is implausible to you then you must believe it is impossible for God’s restored church to go astray. If you do hold that belief I’m curious as to why.

The last part of my answer dealt with what you were asking a little.

“I am also unwilling to reject out of hand some of the claims by folks who suggest they have received new records or … I try to not be unduly skeptical, but I suspect that I am. I have yet to be convinced there was something God felt I must have coming from these groups. Perhaps one day I will be convinced there is in fact something I must have.”

That being said, without the CoJCoLDS I would be Catholic. I would not be a restorationist in waiting. I would not be a Protestant. I look at the history of the Catholic Church and I see things to be concerned about. Cardinal Newman’s re-visioning of what Tradition means was very powerful for me.

I think the CoJCoLDS deserves the same type of respect. Not only do we have practices in place that account for errors and development within the church, but these practices were established during the first couple decades of the church. Joseph Smith was very clear that “a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.” From Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Harold B. Lee, and other LDS prophets/leaders we know that accepting of doctrines by common consent is how the CoJCoLDS seals truth with our divine authority (even here we do not embrace a strict infallibility).

It would take a pretty convincing contender to demonstrate that the CoJCoLDS is now apostate. Without such a contender I would forever be a young Martin Luther who tries to help correct errors but always recognizes the need to submit to authority. I have taught lessons on grace alone. I have emphasized the oneness of God (always acknowledging His threeness of course) as contained in LDS scriptures and thought but seldom conceptualized by members. I will follow the prophet, but in absence of direct guidance I will use the Bible, BOM, D&C, and PGP to formulate a consistent view.

Some of the more radical underminings of the truth of the CoJCoLDS that I mentioned during the first part of my message could send me back to the Catholic Church ultimately, but that would be a tough path. Not tough because I would not love to be a Catholic, I surely would, but because I am quite convinced that Joseph Smith restored authority.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

You’re right. I over exaggerated. My apologies. However, we were talking about praying to find out if the church we belong to is the “true church”. If we have people who do this, and yet still have them spread out across so many religions, how can you explain that? They can’t all have been given a message from God telling them that their church is right.

I agree that very few people actually critically look at evidence and make a decision based on that. And that, I believe, is a shame. I think people should look at both the “spiritual” and “intellectual” aspects of religion. You are right that no one looks through unbiased eyes, but I believe that through true study, prayer, and a true openness to the truth, people can see things the “right” way.

I want to start by saying that LDS, TOm, and Catholics have a one true church concept. I will also mention that Protestants sure better think they follow God in the best way possible or they need to repent and get on the path. There are ways for Catholics and LDS to integrate “one true church” with what I say below. Things like Baptism of Desire, Baptism for the Dead, Purgatory, and Post-mortal education can fairly easily be weaved into a plausible worldview. I hope you will not require me to do such things because it would be almost wholly speculative.

On to your question:

I believe God has communicated with me concerning His purposes in my life. This communication has been powerful and clear to me. That being said there are a few aspects of this communication I wish to share with you.

First, God has never made his will known to me with such power and clarity that I could do something like what Abraham was called to do. If I ask if I should forgive so and so and the answer is yes and that is tough and …, that is quite fine. It is in alignment with what I know of God and how He calls me to interact with His world. If God ever desires me to turn from all I know and sacrifice my son, I do not know if I could; but I do know His communication would need to be much clearer to me than it has ever been in the past before I would even consider such things.

I believe our intellects are guided as we study scriptures and religious subjects. The truth becomes clearer to us. The sealing of faith based decisions may come in supernatural ways, but the initial steps are very natural. It is a fairly well established principle within the CoJCoLDS that we are not to be intellectually lazy. The first steps of inspiration involve perspiration.

Now, for all the communications I have received from God both natural and supernatural I have never received any communications regarding what the communications/perceptions of communications of others mean. God has never told me that Protestant Joe or Catholic Mary is deceived, lost, or on the wrong path. God has never felt the need to give me such inspiration. I do not understand people who claim to have prayed to know God’s will and that their answer involves a certain knowledge that I am deceived. Does God communicate differently to them than me? Does He tell them things about me that He has never seen the need to tell me about others? I do not get it.

I have faith that if I have faith, God will direct my path. ULTIMATELY, I can only walk by the light God has shone for me, not by the light witnessed from my fellow travelers. They may aid me, but it is God to whom I must be true.

Charity, TOm

 

[Benadam]

TOmNossor:

The last part of my answer dealt with what you were asking a little.

“I am also unwilling to reject out of hand some of the claims by folks who suggest they have received new records or … I try to not be unduly skeptical, but I suspect that I am. I have yet to be convinced there was something God felt I must have coming from these groups. Perhaps one day I will be convinced there is in fact something I must have.”

That being said, without the CoJCoLDS I would be Catholic. I would not be a restorationist in waiting. I would not be a Protestant. I look at the history of the Catholic Church and I see things to be concerned about. Cardinal Newman’s re-visioning of what Tradition means was very powerful for me.

I think the CoJCoLDS deserves the same type of respect. Not only do we have practices in place that account for errors and development within the church, but these practices were established during the first couple decades of the church. Joseph Smith was very clear that “a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.” From Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Harold B. Lee, and other LDS prophets/leaders we know that accepting of doctrines by common consent is how the CoJCoLDS seals truth with our divine authority (even here we do not embrace a strict infallibility).

It would take a pretty convincing contender to demonstrate that the CoJCoLDS is now apostate. Without such a contender I would forever be a young Martin Luther who tries to help correct errors but always recognizes the need to submit to authority. I have taught lessons on grace alone. I have emphasized the oneness of God (always acknowledging His threeness of course) as contained in LDS scriptures and thought but seldom conceptualized by members. I will follow the prophet, but in absence of direct guidance I will use the Bible, BOM, D&C, and PGP to formulate a consistent view.

Some of the more radical underminings of the truth of the CoJCoLDS that I mentioned during the first part of my message could send me back to the Catholic Church ultimately, but that would be a tough path. Not tough because I would not love to be a Catholic, I surely would, but because I am quite convinced that Joseph Smith restored authority.

Charity, TOm
Tom,
for me, I see little to substantiate that the visible seat of God’s authority established on Moses has ever receded into invisibility. The People who carry it on are the People of God who’s Father was Adam. From Adam to Moses God’s authority was possessed by them although unrecognized by an official office. In Moses it’s visibility is established through official means within the organized religion of the People of God and has, in my view only increased in stature. Having said that, if you were pursuaded that God’s authority once bestowed is never lost would that change your religious world view and your view of Mormonism and Catholicism respectively?

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

the catholic church is the only church founded on first principles. or that people can agree on things such as taking innocent life is wrong or that things exist or “be”. it is the church of common sense. we absolutely believe in truth and that it can be known. to argue otherwise is to contradict reality.

you attempt to show mormonism as being intellectually superior to catholicism by saying the opposite. or that at some level, we accept everything on faith as we really can never know what is truth. in doing so, you shoot yourself in the foot and admitt mormonism has ZERO credibility in any kind of intellectual objective reality.

When I attempt to show the CoJCoLDS is intellectually superior, I attempt to do so in an intellectual venue with intellectual points. I have provided a number of responses to positions you have put forth. These have not been some kind of “well we must rely upon faith.”

My communications with the divine are for bringing me closer to God not for you or anyone else (at least for the most part this has been true).

I do not claim to prove that the CoJCoLDS is God’s church because I honestly do not believe that I can or have done this. I do claim that you cannot prove the same for the Catholic Church and most people acknowledge this. Faith and mysteries have been part of Christianity since before Jesus Christ walked the earth (if you take exception to that then just “since Jesus Christ walked the earth.”) If your faith is the “common sense” acceptance of Catholicism, I would suggest there is a whole world of beauty and wonder (within the Catholic Church even) that God desires to open up to you.
oat soda:

this is the work of the devil. he is “who is not” whereas God is “Who is” or “I AM”. God’s essence is his existance in that He and only He contains the reason for his existance and is existance himself and is pure intellegibility. this is why he is Truth. the big bang for example is scientific fact which shows his existance. nothing could be intelligible if it doesn’t have a reason for existing. existance presupposes causality. weather you realize it or not, you are spreading lies and are with the father of lies.

Let me say this as boldly as I can. I do not suggest that Catholics must cease to be Catholics. I especially do not suggest that Catholic should cease to be Catholics based upon the stuff I say on this board. I do suggest that Catholics should be secure enough to treat LDS with respect. I do suggest that the CoJCoLDS is not an anti-intellectual cult (cult being used with the common negative connotations here).

The truth is I have not lied on this thread. To lie would be to intentionally misrepresent the truth. The truth is that the majority of my communication has been the relaying of facts and my interpretation of those facts. These are also not lies.

If there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and I lead anyone away from the Catholic Church then I am in league with Satan. Do not follow TOm! Follow God!

But do so with respect for others and intellectual integrity. Catholics should stand on their feet aided by the Catholic Church. They should not rest on the merits of the Catholic Church while not developing their own knowledge and own personal relationship with God. That is not what a good Catholic would do. Even deceived, I can encourage this type of Catholic faith. Do not follow TOm!

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque:

As much as I disagree with Tom Nosser he is certainly not “with the father of lies”. I very much respect Tom’s spiritual AND intellectual reasons for believing in the LDS faith. He is anything but deceitful and nothing but honest with himself and others. Just like the rest of us he seeks the truth, he has simply come to a different conclusion, for now. Personal attacks are unwanted, unneeded and nothing but counter-productive in this forum.

Todd and TdNick,
Thank you for the kind words. Let me again say even though I know I do not need to, “Do not follow TOm.”

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Then where did matter come from? Either God created matter or He didn’t. In the case of Him not creating matter, where did it come from?

It seems to me that it must be one or the other. Either God created everything from nothing or something else created everything (including God) from nothing. In which case God was then merely an organizer and not a creator.

LDS believe that God and matter are eternal. God formed all that we experience from the eternal matter (chaos, disorganized matter) that always was. I can no more answer where God and matter came from than can you answer where God came from.

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

LDS believe that God and matter are eternal. God formed all that we experience from the eternal matter (chaos, disorganized matter) that always was. I can no more answer where God and matter came from than can you answer where God came from.

Charity, TOm

All we can say is God always existed. He is the first cause. He is the only thing uncreated. All else, including matter, had to be created. God exists apart from the cosmos, he is not one of its parts. To suggest otherwise leads us down a path of innumerable god before god.

 

[oat_soda]

LDS believe that God and matter are eternal. God formed all that we experience from the eternal matter (chaos, disorganized matter) that always was. I can no more answer where God and matter came from than can you answer where God came from.

use your brain, you have one. your intellect is darkened and i don’t think you can claim invinsible ignorance. your soul is at risk. if matter has always existed, then today would never have come. logic proves that the universe is not infintely old and observation supports this.

 

[Benadam]

TOmNossor:

LDS believe that God and matter are eternal. God formed all that we experience from the eternal matter (chaos, disorganized matter) that always was. I can no more answer where God and matter came from than can you answer where God came from.

Charity, TOm

I didn’t know that about Mormon theology. Hindus believe that too.
I don’t like it because it denies God’s omnipotence.

 

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

The last part of my answer dealt with what you were asking a little.

“I am also unwilling to reject out of hand some of the claims by folks who suggest they have received new records or … I try to not be unduly skeptical, but I suspect that I am. I have yet to be convinced there was something God felt I must have coming from these groups. Perhaps one day I will be convinced there is in fact something I must have.”

That being said, without the CoJCoLDS I would be Catholic. I would not be a restorationist in waiting. I would not be a Protestant. I look at the history of the Catholic Church and I see things to be concerned about. Cardinal Newman’s re-visioning of what Tradition means was very powerful for me.

I think the CoJCoLDS deserves the same type of respect. Not only do we have practices in place that account for errors and development within the church, but these practices were established during the first couple decades of the church. Joseph Smith was very clear that “a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.” From Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Harold B. Lee, and other LDS prophets/leaders we know that accepting of doctrines by common consent is how the CoJCoLDS seals truth with our divine authority (even here we do not embrace a strict infallibility).

It would take a pretty convincing contender to demonstrate that the CoJCoLDS is now apostate. Without such a contender I would forever be a young Martin Luther who tries to help correct errors but always recognizes the need to submit to authority. I have taught lessons on grace alone. I have emphasized the oneness of God (always acknowledging His threeness of course) as contained in LDS scriptures and thought but seldom conceptualized by members. I will follow the prophet, but in absence of direct guidance I will use the Bible, BOM, D&C, and PGP to formulate a consistent view.

Some of the more radical underminings of the truth of the CoJCoLDS that I mentioned during the first part of my message could send me back to the Catholic Church ultimately, but that would be a tough path. Not tough because I would not love to be a Catholic, I surely would, but because I am quite convinced that Joseph Smith restored authority.

Charity, TOm

Tom,

I take it then that you believe that there will never be another restoration. You believe either the CoJCoLDS will never fall into apostasy, or (outside chance), there never was a total apostasy in which all authority was lost. Do I understand your view correctly? If so, that is a very interesting take on things. One I have never encountered before.

I have some FLDS relatives that believe the LDS church is now in a state of apostasy. They are waiting for “the one mighty and strong” to come and restore the church. They would never even consider the possibilty that the Catholic Church kept it’s authority. It’s totally out of the question. The other view I’ve encountered from my mainstream LDS siblings and friends is that it’s simply impossible for the LDS Church to ever go astray…period. In talking with them about this I’ve concluded that there are no doctrinal changes that would ever compel them to question that belief.

 

[Tmaque]

TOmNossor:

LDS believe that God and matter are eternal. God formed all that we experience from the eternal matter (chaos, disorganized matter) that always was. I can no more answer where God and matter came from than can you answer where God came from.

Charity, TOm

This has always puzzled me, even when I was LDS. God is eternal but he was once a man? If he was once a man he was created. If he was created, at some point in time he did not exist. So, how can he be called eternal? I can understand the LDS idea in terms of God living indefinitely once he begins to exist. Perhaps that is what is meant by “eternal”. You’re not suggesting that LDS now believe that God has always existed are you?

 

[TOmNossor]

Exporter:

TomNossor, In posts # 61 and 62 …
Will you tell us what the Holy Trinity is in understandable terms. I have had Mormons tell me that God is made of flesh and bone. That Jesus is made of flesh and bone.

I say that God said he is a Spirit, of course the Holy Spirit is a spirit.
What do you have to say. Tell me what the Trinity is.

Post #61 and #62 were actually associated with how I see creation ex nihilo creating many of the controversies in the early church. I believe without the acceptance of creation ex nihilo there are much simpler answers to many of the questions that created such debate in the early church (and still create much confusion in today’s church). I assume you want me to discuss the Trinity though so I will.

I think it will be easier for me if I make a couple of statements and then post something I put together when I was trying to understand what Christians believed with respect to the Trinity.

You talk about the Father and the Son having a body of flesh and bones. This is definitely part of LDS theology. However, the Holy Spirit is God and has no body of flesh and bones. From this we must acknowledge that a physical body is not a necessary component of divinity as such.

Also, the Father and the Son posses a body, but they are not constrained by it. It is part of them, but they may influence and experience apart from their body. LDS speak of the Light of Christ. This is not the Holy Spirit. It is an influence of Christ. It can be felt anywhere and everywhere.

On to the Trinity (I know this is more than you want, but I hope it will still be worthwhile).

1. Absolute Monotheism: This is the classic one God and only one God. Modern day Jews and Moslems would be AMs. A Jew would claim that ancient Jews where AMs, but some Old Testament scholars might not agree. Jews and Moslems can logically call Christians polytheist even though we reject this title.

1a. Jehovah’s Witness (this is called by most Christians the Arian Heresy): God the Father is the only true God. Jesus Christ is His son and through Jesus we come to know the Father, but there is one true God. Jesus Christ certainly shares in the power and knowledge of his Father, but he is not rightly called a God. The term god when applied to Jesus refers to those judges/rulers/men with extraordinary power. Jesus was created by the Father.

1. Modalist:This is the Sabellian heresy. It maintains that God is one, but we experience him as 3 different modes. In human experience we see evidence of a God the Father, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit. This is just a representation of the one true God. An analogy could even be: Bush is the President, Bush is a Texan, Bush is an exerciser, Bush is one. Sometimes mentioned and generally true is the fact that a fourth nature exists for God that is his real nature encompassing all of his modes.
2. Modal Trinitarianism: This is similar to the above, but is an attempt at a real Trinitarian structure. We experience God as three different modes as above, and He really is composed of three different modes. There is no fourth “real nature.” God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We experience him as such and he exists as such. This structure is linked to Karl Barth. Critics claim it is just a restatement of the Sabellian heresy.
3. Augustinian Trinitarianism: While there is some wiggle room in what a Catholic can believe about the Trinity, if I understand correctly it generally centers around this formulation of the Trinity. For simplicity I will state this formulation with just two components, but of course the Holy Spirit is included.

a. There is exactly one God

b. The Father is God

c. The Son is God

d. The Father is not identical to the Son

The Trinity is more complex than this, but the above is a good starting point. If you look at a-d, it is a paradox or a mystery to hold all 4 of these positions at once. To distinguish this from the below I must mention some more things. The Father alone is unbegotten and non-proceeding. In Western or Augustinian Trinitarianism the fount of Diety resides in the Father’s Being (the more oneness component) rather than in his person. This allows for the Holy Spirit to proceed from both the Father and the Son. Another distinction is that Augustinian Trinitarianism starts with the oneness and formulates the threeness.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

1. Easter Orthodox Trinitarianism: Same as above except that the fount of Diety resides in the Father’s person. This results in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father alone. Also the threeness is a starting point from which oneness is formulated.
2. Social Trinitarianism LDS: God is one and GOD is three. In a simplistic way the term God refers to one thing when it is attached to one and refers to a different but related thing when attached to three. (much of the below is from Ostler)

a. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct divine persons and one Godhead in virtue of oneness of indwelling unity of presence, glory, and oneness of mind purpose, power and intent. Three wills exist, but the Son and the Holy Ghost freely, perfectly, and always choose to submit their will to the Father’s (the Son and Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father, but they are fully divine).

b. The Father is the fount of divinity. The Son and the Holy Ghost exist, but through the indwelling love of the Father are divine. Also, part of divinity is the love of the Father for the Son and Holy Ghost (and of course their love of Him and eachother). Divinity is expressed through the relation of the three, thus one divinity exists.

c. The unity of the divine persons falls short of identity, but is much more intimate than merely belonging to the same class. There are distinct divine persons, but hardly separated or independent divine persons.

1. Social Trinitarianism (more Tri-theist): “The Holy Trinity is a divine society or community of three fully personal and fully divine beings…” - Cornelius Plantinga. The Protestant author who presented this possibly didn’t do Plantinga justice, but there is clearly a continuum within Social Trinitarianism.

7a. Jehovah’s Witness: (this may be closer to the what Arius believed, because most of what we know of his beliefs was preserved by those who claimed he was in error). God the Father is the Almighty God. Jesus Christ is the Mighty God. They are separate personages and beings, but they are united as those in the Social Trinity are united. The “One God” statements in the Bible refer to God the Father, but Jesus Christ is divine just in a lesser and a subordinate way. Jesus was created by the Father.

1. Tri-theism: Three gods, Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Independent and all fully God.
2. Pagan Polytheism: Many gods. Sometimes look to components of nature as gods.

Sources:

For just LDS ideas:

Written by Blake Ostler about LDS Godhead concept. If you want to understand what I think LDS scriptures say, this is a good read.

http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/ostler_element1-1.html

A much shorter link that briefly discusses LDS Trinity ideas (this is in a Protestant journal).

http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,PTID307086|CHID581342|CIID1671522,00.html

More ideas:

Written by Protestant Paul Owen at Norte Dame about Catholic and LDS Trinity concepts http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/owen_element1-1.html

Written by Protestant about various Trinity concepts.

http://jsrhee.hihome.com/ImportedFiles/thesis5.htm

JW:

“Should you Believe in the Trinity?”

http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/

Charity, TOm