[The following is the first in a 4-part series on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, offered by Mormon Coffee guest contributor Andy Watson. All parts of the series will be posted in succession, following our regular schedule of new posts appearing each Monday and Thursday.]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) proclaims that they are a church that embraces ongoing or continual revelation. This primarily means that they view the canon of Scripture as not being closed. Christianity affirms that the canon of Scripture is closed in that God has given His Word that encompasses all that is needed to be known for the salvation of humankind and reconciliation with a holy, triune God. God being triune/tri-unity is God’s highest revelation of Himself to fallen humanity. Mormonism rejects this highest revelation of God. God revealed in Scripture as triune/tri-unity is known in Christianity as the Trinity. How’s the Trinity defined?
Within the one Being that is God,
there are three distinct Persons who are
coequal, coeternal, coexistent, and co-substance:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
What are the particular highlights and considerations of this doctrine?
- There is only one God.
- God is three Persons.
- Each Person is fully God in substance/nature/essence.
- All the Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are equal in all of their attributes. However, there are distinctions and differences in roles that are particular to each Person. A difference in role does not mean inferiority in nature or essence. The Father decrees all that will take place; the Son brings to pass all that the Father decrees; the Spirit brings all into conformity or compliance.
- The Trinity must be divinely revealed and not humanely constructed.
Who is this doctrine for and why is it important? I concur with Dr. James White’s points that were made in his book The Forgotten Trinity:
- This doctrine is one of the main pillars of Christianity
- The Trinity is for Bible-believing people. The eternality of God and His triune nature are doctrines for Christians.
- The miracle of salvation must take place for the Christian to love and accept the doctrine.
- Christians are compelled to accept this doctrine for the same reasons the early church fathers did: the Scriptures compel us and leave us no choice!
- After looking at the Trinitarians language of the New Testament, it’s easy to see why the early church formulated the doctrine. This truth couldn’t be denied.
- Mature Christians desire to know, understand, and love the Trinity.
- One must understand and accept the Trinity to know Christ.
- We have to worship God as He exists and not merely as we wish Him to be.
Is this doctrine understandable? Here are some thoughts on this matter:
- One would be in error to state that the Trinity is understandable and without mystery. However, mankind can understand the doctrine of the Trinity as to what the Bible teaches about the nature of God and three Persons that reveal the one Being/God.
- It is correct and wise in saying that to fully comprehend the Being of God is beyond comprehension. There are some things about God that He has reserved only to be known within His own counsel. These are the secret things; other things He has chosen to reveal to humankind (Deut 29:29).
- Christians affirm this doctrine because God has revealed that this is what He is like. Our finite minds cannot grasp the infinite. The fullness of the Trinity is incomprehensible. This is what makes God who is He is: infinite; this makes human beings who they are: finite.
Mormonism joins the ranks with many non-Christian sects in its denial of the Trinity:
While respecting the divergent views of other people of faith, Church leaders want to be clear about the beliefs that help define Latter-day Saints…Among the most important differences with other Christian churches are those concerning the nature of God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. (Mormon Newsroom, Core Beliefs)
The Trinity of traditional Christianity is referred to as the Godhead by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While the same terms are used by Latter-day Saints and other Christians for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost), the Latter-day Saints understanding of the three members of the Godhead is significantly different from that of traditional Christianity. (Mormon Newsroom, The Godhead)
It’s admirable that the LDS Church made that clarification, because this is what separates Mormonism from Christianity. Mormons are constantly stating to the Christian community, “We are Christians just like you.” Why and how so? They have excluded themselves by their own admission in their rejection of the Trinity doctrine. Mormons blur the horizon by applying to themselves the “Christian” label. However, this doesn’t nullify the fact that Mormonism has diverted sharply and greatly from “…the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3). What are the talking points and statements by the LDS Church regarding the Trinity that are put forth by LDS General Authorities and repeated verbatim by LDS Church members?
- The word Trinity isn’t in the Bible along with the doctrine.
- The Trinity doctrine came out of the Council of Nicea.
- The Trinity doctrine is the product of the councils of men and was not believed by the early Christians including the apostles, church fathers, and those that followed them prior to the Council of Nicea.
First, the Council of Nicea didn’t formulate the doctrine known today as the Trinity. The Council of Nicea was called to affirm the deity of Jesus Christ – not to affirm or formulate the Trinity doctrine – in light of the Arian heresy instigated by Arius, a church presbyter, who was quickly condemned as a heretic.
Second, it’s true that the word Trinity isn’t in the Bible. Nevertheless, the word Trinity (tri-unity) was coined because it accurately describes and names what is revealed in Scripture when the doctrine is defined. There are numerous words and doctrines that are exclusive to Mormonism that cannot be found in the Bible. These would include words such as quorum, endowment, Kolob, and many others. Doctrinal terms would be celestial marriage, exaltation, eternal progression, the preexistence of human spirits and their passing through the veil of forgetfulness, etc. The difference between these LDS words and doctrines and the Christian word Trinity and the doctrine as it is defined, is that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the Bible while the LDS words and doctrines (as Mormons define them) cannot. Of course, our Mormon friends will point to further or ongoing revelation outside of the Bible in defense. However, if these LDS doctrines were true, then God would have revealed them to His people in the Bible. God did not withhold from His people issues regarding their salvation until 1830 when the Mormon Church came into existence.
Third, the LDS Church looks unfavorably at the ecumenical councils of the Christian church that took place so long ago as merely “the councils of men.” I have always found this puzzling. What do they call General Conference held twice a year in which they gather to get counsel and direction from their General Authorities? I see these as the councils of men especially when their prophet never puts forth any new revelation coming from the god Mormons pray to who resides near Kolob.
In conclusion, there is a sharp distinction between Christianity and Mormonism just on the doctrine of the Trinity alone not to mention many others. It is for this reason and others that Mormonism will continue to remain outside the Christian community of faith. The next installment in this series will examine the origins of the word Trinity and the teachings that were passed down to Christians, coming from the apostles to the early church fathers.
“In conclusion, there is a sharp distinction between Christianity and Mormonism just on the doctrine of the Trinity alone…”
As a nonTrinitarian Christian, I am looking forward to you trying to explain why Trinitarianism is the only true religion.
I hope you are able to teach why you believe you are correct and not why you think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is wrong.
“…that cannot be found in the Bible.”; “… then God would have revealed them to His people in the Bible.”
I hope you will address the type of revelation and authority from God that gave the men who decided what books go into your version of the Bible. It had to happen after your version of Bible cannon was closed.
“Third, the LDS Church looks unfavorably at the ecumenical councils of the Christian church that took place so long ago as merely “the councils of men.” I have always found this puzzling. What do they call General Conference held twice a year in which they gather to get counsel and direction from their General Authorities?”
An open meeting where God’s earthly leaders teach His children, not where a group of religious leaders get together to fight over doctrine.
Best line in this very good article?
“The Trinity must be divinely revealed and not humanely constructed.”
That’s where Mormons, and others, make their mistake. The simplified version of the Mormon narrative is that the Emperor in the third century decreed this doctrine as constructed by men.
This shows a really poor understanding of history and an ignorance of the writings of the Church Fathers going all the way back to the second century.
This doctrine didn’t have to be constructed by men or teased out of the Scriptures. God reveals Himself in this way and it’s for men to either accept Him as He is or construct their own version of God.
In Mormonism God is a former man who due to his obedience to the Mormon system, morphed into a god. There are millions perhaps billions of these man made gods in the universe. They rule with any number of their goddess wives who have the feature of being able to procreate spirit off-spring.
Yea, that’s some really deep spiritual stuff constructed by a man with a magic rock.
What I find interesting is that Mormonism, as it was founded, was trinitarian in its doctrine of the nature of God. It wasn’t until Joseph Smith got his full prophetic mojo on that he started coming up with all sorts of nonsensical ideas including men becoming gods and polygamy. Brigham Young really went full-throttle on with his Adam-God doctrine. Interestingly enough, there is at least one Mormon sect which was headed by Joseph Smith’s son that clings to the original “revelation”.
“The Community of Christ was founded by the confederation of a number of smaller groups that declined to migrate with Brigham Young to Utah or follow any of the others vying to become the successor to Joseph Smith, Jr. Prior to the reorganization conference of 1860, numerous doctrinal differences were espoused by the leaders of the various splinter groups. Following the reorganization, these differences were formalized into a litany of what might now be called wedge issues”.
“The Community of Christ teaches trinitarian principles. The LDS church sees the Godhead as composed of three physically distinct personages.”
The problem with Joseph Smith’s and then Brigham Young’s views on the nature of God is that they reflect the thinking of men who went way off track from the revelation of the nature of God in the Bible.
Even today there are Mormon sects that cling to BY’s Adam-God doctrine while the Utah sect can’t get enough distance between their prophet who was hearing from God and his ridiculous utterances. He even saw fit to have the Mormon heavenly father have actual physical sex with the Virgin Mary.
And Mormons want to find fault with the Church Fathers and the revelation found in the Bible?
To Biblically confirm this sentence:
“God did not withhold from His people issues regarding their salvation until 1830 when the Mormon Church came into existence,”
Jesus says in John 15:15b- “for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.”
Parkman, you are a “Trinitarian Christian ” IF you accept what your apostles have
stated about this as they declared to have the true trinity . ( I think I know what you
are trying to say so you might state it in a different way ) . This issue boils down to :
have Mormon apostles truly heard from Jesus to declare the truth about God ( Father,
Son, Holy Ghost Matt 28:19 ) ? In the light of Mk 13:22,23 should we be leary of them?
I don’t know exactly what you’re trying to say when you use the phrase ” your version
of the Bible” , Mormon leadership chooses to offically accept the same version many
of us would use .
Concerning Mormon church councils : since Mormon apostles meet in a private
session in the Temple to discuss possible changes to church teachings or policy
how would you know if there is no heated discussion going on before they vote
among themselves to arrive at a decision which is then presented to the public ?
Do you have revelation on this ?
Mormons as trinitarian Christians? More of the fog bank and obfuscation of Mormonism. They know very well what set of principles constitute the doctrine. This is just one more example of how Mormons lie. Yes, lie!
Your version of the Bible? What’s that? A statement like that shows just plain ignorance regarding the Biblical text. Do the Utah Mormons use the Joseph Smith version of the Bible? BTW, who owns the copyright of this very scholarly work? That’s a joke in case our Mormon readers didn’t get it. Hint, it’s not the Utah sect.
Mormons rail against the doctrine of the Trinity so it would be logical to ask them, “What you got, boys?” Their explanation of the nature of god and the source of this information would be pretty hysterical if it weren’t so tragic.
Let us look at the second two points, concerning the counsel of Nicea, that were listed as arguments from the church.
While it is true that the doctrine of the trinity was taught and believed by many before this counsel; and while it is true that the counsel was convened to discuss the divinity of Christ; it is also true that it was this counsel that set down in writing the definition of the trinity that is now used, and this counsel is the one that declared it to be the orthodox doctrine, and all others being heresies. This declaration is what is really being referred to when we say the doctrine came from this counsel, as it solidified the doctrine in the church.
As to comparing this to General Conference, there are a few problems here. First of which is the discord the prevailed at the counsel of Nicea as compared to the unity of General Conference. There is no debating doctrine at the General Conference; there is only us listening to the leaders of God. The counsel of Nicea was one large debate, between dozens of people, for the express purpose of voting on doctrine. This attitude of debate and discord (with many rejecting the final decision anyway) is a stark contrast to the unity of the General Authorities and the manner in which the attendants conduct themselves.
homeschoolmom
John 15: 15 was addressed to the apostles, not the general membership.
Even so, Christ says in John 16: 22 that he has yet to reveal all things, and thus the statement in 15: 15 cannot be referring to all truth, but only to that portion of the truth that the Father had given to the Son to give to the apostles.
In other words, Christ is telling the twelve that he has given them everything he has been told to give them, and has withheld nothing that they were supposed to receive.
Personally, I have no doubt that they all knew these things. There are numerous epistles and other texts that we know were written, that we do not have (like the missing epistle to the Corinthians, or the one to Laodicea. I believe that if we had all the records and epistles that the early leaders wrote it would be exactly what you find in the LDS church.
Mike
Could you post the quote that says we are Trinitarian again please.
[I don’t know exactly what you’re trying to say when you use the phrase ” your version of the Bible”]
Have you ever read the Catholic version of the Bible and compared it to the Protestant version of the Bible. Different groups of men got together and without the authority of God decided which of the church writings were to be included in each version of cannon of the Bible. Why do you think either one had any more authority the Jefferson, when he selected the cannon of the Jefferson Bible?
The big thing to remember is that men created all these versions of the Cannon of the Bible after you say God no longer used authorized leaders for His Church.
()()()()()
[Concerning Mormon church councils : since Mormon apostles meet in a private session in the Temple to discuss possible changes to church teachings or policy how would you know if there is no heated discussion going on before they vote among themselves to arrive at a decision which is then presented to the public ?]
I have read some accounts of lively discussion among the Apostles.
()()()()
Since your author is wrong about how General Conference and the Council of Nicea are to be looked at as the same kind of meeting, I have a lower expectation of his ability to get it right overall, when he talks about God’s authorized servants.
Parkman , I don’t think you understood a thing I said . You failed to grasp the point
being made about ” councils”, “voting” , and your view on Bible versions is off the
mark .Can’t you just relax and use the version that your leadership recommends ?
You’re making this more difficult than is necessary . Now I’m sure you would say that
Mormons are the true Christians with the true Trinity , right ?
“Can’t you just relax and use the version that your leadership recommends ?”
I am asking about your version of the cannon of the Bible, not mine. Which one is the true cannon of the Bible that goes with your one true religion idea of your definition of Trinity? You say I must believe in your one true definition of Trinity “to know Christ”, so I just want to know which Bible is the Sola scriptura Bible that you follow.
“Now I’m sure you would say that Mormons are the true Christians with the true Trinity , right ?”
Are you going to answer shematwater about the writings you try to twist into saying we follow your version of the Godhead? Or are you just going to spam us with innuendo?
Shematwater,
You’re in error about what took place at the Council of Nicea. I’ll repeat what I briefly touched on in the first installment in this series on the Trinity. This council was called primarily to deal with a heretical movement originating with Arius that distorted the relationship between the Father and the Son. Arius taught that Jesus was a created being and not equal to the Father in essence/nature; Jesus was somehow subordinate to the Father; there was a point in time when Jesus did not exist; therefore, Jesus cannot be fully God. That is a brief summary of Arius’ claims that brought about the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.
You stated:
it is also true that it was this counsel that set down in writing the definition of the trinity that is now used, and this counsel is the one that declared it to be the orthodox doctrine, and all others being heresies. This declaration is what is really being referred to when we say the doctrine came from this counsel, as it solidified the doctrine in the church.
This is historically inaccurate. The Council of Nicea did lay the groundwork for what would be the formal statement on the Trinity that would come at later councils as the Nicene Creed itself would also be clarified. The groundwork that I am referencing is the deity of Jesus Christ. It was well-known and agreed upon that the Father was God. The bishops that attended the Council had read the Word of God (not yet a formal canon known today as the “Bible”) and could see clearly from Scripture that Jesus Christ was also called God; they also knew there was only one God. This had to be dealt with and it didn’t happen overnight, and it sure didn’t happen in finality at the Council of Nicea.
You stated:
The counsel of Nicea was one large debate, between dozens of people, for the express purpose of voting on doctrine. This attitude of debate and discord (with many rejecting the final decision anyway) is a stark contrast to the unity of the General Authorities and the manner in which the attendants conduct themselves.
There were around 1,800 bishops from the East and West that were summoned to attend the Council held at Nicea. It is estimated that around 318 bishops actually made it. The vast majority of those bishops that did attend came from the East. There was only seven bishops who came from the West. Arius was also there. You’re wrong about the vote. Only three people voted against the creed that came from the Council and the term homoousius (Father & Son have the same essence/nature). Those three were Arius and two bishops. The other 300 plus bishops signed the creed and affirmed the full deity of the Son in relation to the Father.
I’m not comparing the Council of Nicea to the LDS General Conferences in regards to the format or theological discussions. There is no comparison other than to make my point that this Council was a formal gathering of clergy to be held at a specific location at a specified time the same way that the LDS General Conference is held. In Christianity, especially at that crucial time in history, there are some things worth fighting and dying for and that is the deity of Jesus Christ. The bishops who attended this Council had all come from a time of persecution. I’ve read accounts given of the physical descriptions of those that attended – not a pretty sight (eyes dug out of their sockets, charred hands, etc.). They bore the scars and marks of what it means to suffer for the sake of Christ and His claim of deity.
If only the LDS had such zeal, but they don’t because they have accepted the “jesus” that Arius invented – a created being brought forth in time who is not equal to the Father and is subordinate. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are modern-day Arians. Mormons are also tritheists – double heresy. General Conference is a gathering of modern-day Arians, tritheists, polytheists, and pagans to discuss social issues, living good lives, and talk about a “jesus” that is not the Jesus of the Bible. Thomas Monson would receive the same reception that Arius did when he got up at the Council and started blaspheming Christ by stating his heretical claims as stated earlier. The bishops screamed in horror, covered their ears, and physically attacked Arius gathering his papers and ripping them to shreds. Monson wouldn’t have been welcomed at Nicea; he would have been condemned as a heretic, which is what he is along with Mormons who hold to Arian doctrines. Mormons weren’t around during the Council of Nicea. The name itself and the people identified by that title is a 19th century term and people group.
Finally, I’m surprised that you stated that “it is true that the doctrine of the trinity was taught and believed by many before this counsel”. If that is the case, then what am I to make of the LDS theory and claim that this didn’t occur before the Councils? Stay tuned for the future articles and see the documentation.
“Finally, I’m surprised that you stated that “it is true that the doctrine of the trinity was taught and believed by many before this counsel”. If that is the case, then what am I to make of the LDS theory and claim that this didn’t occur before the Councils?”
I know of nonMormons who miss state what we teach about when the manmade definition of Trinity was started; Mormons teach that the manmade definition Trinity was practically made scripture by this council, not started by it.
I will defer to the scholars at The Catholic Encyclopedia to speak of how trinity grew in man’s understandings of God’s teachings.
“In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of “the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen (“In Ps. xvii”, 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen’s pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
“■The Trinity must be divinely revealed and not humanely constructed.”
Please explain how this can be when you think that God no longer gives any man the authority to speak for Him as a Prophet. All you have left is a group of men who agree with each other as to what they think God meant in your version of Sola Scriptura.
Parkman,
First of all, there is no such thing as a “nonTrinitarian Christian”; this is an oxymoron. This would be the same thing as me classifying myself as a “Trinitarian Mormon.” Christians are Christ followers, which presuppose that one is following the true Christ and not a false Christ. Trinitarianism isn’t a religion – it’s a doctrine. This doctrine is the heartbeat of Christianity. To deny it is to be outside the family of God – the true God that Jesus referenced in John 17:3. This true God is one God revealed in Scripture as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Second, I really don’t understand what your point is in saying “your version of the Bible.” The people of God in the first three centuries of the Christian Church are the very ones who assimilated the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament (officially declared in A.D. 367 and then again in 393 & 397). These are the same books listed in the King James Bible that the Mormons carry around attached in their “quad.” Mormons want to look like Protestants; therefore, they continue to tote the KJV Bible. You seem to have a problem with the “authority” of those who put the books together in your KJV Bible that the LDS Church says is part of the Standard Works. Would you prefer that the LDS church adopt the Catholic Bible or maybe the Eastern Orthodox canon or something else? I would suggest if you don’t like that version of the Bible or the books contained therein, that you request through your ward bishop that the prophet in Salt Lake City strike a deal with the Community of Christ Mormons in Missouri and adopt the JST and drop the KJV altogether. They did and their membership dropped dramatically. The Utah church doesn’t want that. Or, the prophet could learn Greek or fake it and come out with his own version of the Bible in the same way that the Jehovah’s Witnesses did with their New World Translation.
Parkman, here is my bigger question in reference above: why do you want to talk about the canon of the Bible now? You’ve wanted to discuss and harp on the Trinity for so long. The topic at hand is about the Trinity – not the canon of the Bible, Bible versions, or Sola Scriptura. Stay focused and on topic. I’m not going to let you take this thread down a different rabbit trail.
I see the Trinity, one God revealed in three Persons, in the very Bible that is part of the Standard Works – the King James Bible. I hope that answers your question.
Andy,
Good article on the Trinity – I enjoyed reading it. The importance of this truth is central to understanding Scripture. As Christians, we are baptized into the triune name of God as His name is placed upon us – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At Church, our services are called together to worship calling upon the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in many current and traditional Christian liturgies. We do not worship a non-distinct god, but the true and living God who has revealed His nature to us and provided for our salvation. If more Christian Churches taught the centrality of the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity, I think fewer would be susceptible to being drawn away into doctrinal error by Jehovah Witnesses, LDS, and other heresies. Personally, I think there is so much error now that calling another Church council to declare Christian basics would be a good start – I don’t know exactly how that would happen, but it would be a good start if it could happen.
I know of nonMormons who miss state what we teach about when the manmade definition of Trinity was started; Mormons teach that the manmade definition Trinity was practically made scripture by this council, not started by it. I will defer to the scholars at The Catholic Encyclopedia to speak of how trinity grew in man’s understandings of God’s teachings.
Parkman, it would be wonderful if there was even the slightest hint of consistency with Mormons when it comes to their defining when “the manmade definition of the Trinity was started.” The theories (mostly conspiracy) are all over the place. However, this all results from gross ignorance of Christian church history and distortions given to the Mormon people who know the history and have purposely maligned it to cater to their own theological and church agenda. (I’m thinking of Jeffrey Holland and his General Conference address a few years ago on the Council of Nicea.)
I’m puzzled why you are referencing The Catholic Encyclopedia. The Catholic Church is trinitarian in its theology. It’s no friend to Mormonism when it comes to this doctrine. Why would you reference a church and it’s encyclopedia that the LDS Church states is of the devil?
Yes, the word Trinity isn’t in the Bible. That was discussed in the article already. The Catholic Encyclopedia is merely stating the obvious and what all Christians say regarding the struggle that the church fathers went through as they dealt with the New Testament text that was God-breathed to human beings for those who have received His spirit to believe and accept. There are three more installments in this series. We’re just getting started. It’s going to be a bumpy ride for some folks.
Parkman, you still don’t understand , you’re not attempting to listen to what is being said.
You said you were a ” non Trinitarian Christian ” . I merely reminded you that Mormon
leaders have said that they are the true Christians and have the true Trinity, nothing was
said about “my version ” of the Trinity. You ran with what you assumed I was saying . Now
this can happen to anyone but you have a personality that makes it more prevelant . You
think that only non-Mormons use that term when the truth is that Mormon leaders have felt
comfortable with it and thus used it many many times . The reason Mormons prefer the term
“Godhead ” is because it can accommodate another God or more into the “Supreme Council ”
easier and perhaps at next conference it will be announced that Heavenly Mother is a new
member of the Mormon Godhead . Sadly but this is a very real possibility if you submit to men
claiming to be the apostles for the latter days who feel a special annointing to be God’s sole
mouthpiece . 2 Cor 11:13 ; Rev 2:2 .
Shem,
Mormon leaders have claimed to be the true Christians who have the true Trinity :
” The Godhead : The Trinity ….Each of the members of the Trinity is called God …”
[ Articles of Faith, by Talmage , p.38,39 ].
In 1930 the Church published an abridged version of the D&C , entitled : ” Latter-day
Revelation”. In introducing D&C 130:22 it read : ” The Holy Trinity ” .
Church curriculum : ” Christ created the world and all that it is , first spiritually , then
temporally , and that in this work of creation he acted as one of the Great Trinity of three
distinct personages…” [ Mel Priesthood Course of Study , 1968-1969 p. 57 ].
” Some of the tenets of Mormon faith are not unlike those of other Christian churches. It
believes in the Trinity , the Lordship and Atonement of Jesus Christ ….but the interpretation
which it places on these and other commonly accepted doctrines and the contributions which
it has made in new theological conceptions and principles have given it a very unique and
distinctive place in the religious world. ” [ About Mormonism , by Pres. Stephen L.Richards
First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, p13]
” You Talk about teaching false doctrine and being damned. Here is a list of false doctrines that
if anyone teaches he will be damned : …….the sectarian trinity .” [ Sermons and Writings of
Bruce McConkie p337 ].
” Latter-day Saints are true Christians….We are the true followers of Jesus Christ.” [Teachings
of Spencer W. Kimball p434]
Andy,
Nice catch with our Mormon friend acknowledging that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught long before the Council of Nicea.
If a Mormon believes that, he/she is contradicting the tale that is put out by the Mormon church that the Council of Nicea just made it all up as directed by the Emperor.
If I were a Mormon, I’d exit the current discussion. The reason is that they are going to learn something. Knowledge is the enemy of Mormonism. What Mormons are left with when they are painted into a corner is either bear their testimony or come up with some fantastic explanation that sounds like a child trying to continue to believe in Santa Claus.
Mormons are woefully ignorant of actual Church history. They are also woefully ignorant of the history of Mormonism. The only reason they would continue to believe in any brand of Mormonism is because emotionally, socially or economically it’s very difficult to give it up. That’s why there are so many social Mormons and Jack Mormons who populate the Mormon wards.
I remember Sandra Tanner talking about how her and Gerald continued to carry their BoM around physically and emotionally until that last piece of the puzzle of Mormonism wouldn’t fit any more.
I think this series of articles should have come with a warning label because the truth, as odd as this sounds, is toxic to Mormonism and other cultic belief systems.
Mormons, whether they choose to believe the doctrine of the Trinity or not, should at least display some intellectual integrity and make an attempt to get it right. “Get it right” specifically concerning the history of the early Church and the reasons for the clarification regarding who God reveals Himself to be.
I don’t know if it’s just plain ignorance on their part, laziness or a desire to believe the tale told by the man with the magic rock, but they embody that saying “ignorance is bliss”.
I draw a distinction between “knowing” and “believing”. An atheist can study the history of the early Church and the doctrine of the Trinity and grasp the essential aspects of both. Mormons can’t or won’t do this because it means giving up on something that they think is gaining a benefit for them within the LDS church. When someone leaves the Utah based sect of Mormonism, those who are deep in the (sect) will exclaim, “Don’t they know what they’re giving up?” They of course are referring to the forever families and the chance to become a god and rule over their own planetary system.
The apostle Paul said that he gladly gave up his religious system for the upward calling of Christ. He even said that all that he had accomplished in the religious system he was a part of was rubbish comparing to knowing Christ Jesus His Lord.
There’s a clear distinction here. A Mormon can’t have it both ways. It’s either Mormonism or Jesus. Basically that’s what the early Church Bishops were telling the heretics. There’s a cost to not getting it right about Jesus. It’s easy to see through Mormonism and the deception that lies within it but then when someone knows Jesus personally, it’s easy to spot a fake.
If the doctrine of the Trinity is so important then why isn’t it taught explicitly in the Bible? Why does one have to cherry pick verses? Why didn’t Jesus teach it so perfectly and simply as it is being taught now?
I said this in an earlier blog; Jesus affirmed His belief in the God of the Jews when He cited the Shema Israel. No one argued with Him that He was declaring a different God to what they believed and when they agreed with Him, He did not teach them about the Trinity but told them they knew the truth. Now MikeR said in that last blog that Jesus was giving them milk and He allowed the later disciples to teach the true Trinity after ‘revelation’ about it, thus giving them the meat. Isn’t this that bait and switch that Falcon keeps talking about? Here Jesus is saying to the Jews I believe in the same God you do, them bam, His disciples a few decades later teach another God – a trinity God.
Yes there is one God to worship, and He is the one and only Supreme Being over all of the creations that He made through His Son Jesus, but the Bible even shown that there are more than one real god. The devil is called god and certain men are called gods. The latter has been discussed to mean that these were judges, however, if the scriptures are ‘God breathed’ then God gives them the title of small gods. So even if Jesus and the Holy Spirit are called Gods, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they form a Trinity with the only Supreme Being. Even Jesus refers to Him as His God and our God.
Andy,
It was interesting that one of our Mormon posters was making a foray into Catholic teaching and doctrine in reference to the Trinity. As most here know, I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school. I haven’t been a practicing Catholic for forty-six years but my early training has served me well especially in the areas of morals and ethics.
I hauled out a couple of copies of different Catholic catechisms that I keep on hand here and looked to see what was taught about the Trinity. It starts out pretty basic when it says, “In God there are three divine Persons-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” I was surprised at how in depth the teaching is within the Catholic faith even for grade school level kids. As was suggested by 4/5, Christians could use a regular refresher on this topic. Get this tid bit: “The Blessed Trinity does Not mean 1 God in 3 Gods, 1 Nature in 3 Natures, 1 Person in 3 Persons BUT 1 Nature in 3 Persons.” Chew on that for a while especially the first three examples.
So then the question is asked, “What do we mean by the Blessed Trinity?” The answer, “By the Blessed Trinity we mean one and the same God in three divine Persons. It goes on to explain that The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Holy Spirit. It is explained that the three divine Persons are perfectly equal to one another, because all are one and the same God. It says that all three are all-powerful, all knowing, eternal and every where (omni-present).
Finally, the three divine Persons, though really distinct from one another, are one and the same God because all have one same divine nature.
This is pretty mind blowing for a kid to grasp so there is a question regarding supernatural mystery. It says that, “A supernatural mystery is a truth which we cannot full understand, but which we firmly believe because we have God’s word for it….is something about God or our soul that we could not find out for ourselves, but which God has made known to us. We can know some things about supernatural mysteries from what God has told us, but not everything about them. For example: the truths contained in the Apostles’ Creed.”
The Church Fathers were men dedicated to Christ and had been taught the truth about who He is from their mentors and teachers, the apostles who walked with Jesus. It wasn’t only their resolve and dedication to preserve these teachings for which they should be held in high esteem, but it’s their steadfastness in not letting the light of the Holy Spirit dim when they were the subjects of persecution.
It doesn’t get much more serious or basic than knowing who God is. Getting it wrong is a spiritual disaster. People need to go to the source in order to determine whether or not what they believe concerning the nature of God is reliable and valid.
Following false teachers and prophets while it may make some feel good is no test for truth. I get a good feeling when I meditate on the truths articulated by the Church Fathers regarding who Jesus is. Does that count as confirmation as to the nature and work of Jesus? Does God communicate to us through our feelings. I’m sure he does but he also communicates to us through our intellect. In the end it’s the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth that leads us into all truth.
Ralph,
Nice term, “cherry picking”. I think you probably learned that while visiting this blog because that’s what we point out regarding the horrendous methods that Mormons and other cults use to bolster their false doctrines.
So you want to follow the word of a man with a magic rock who started out believing the doctrine of the Trinity and then began inventing doctrines of his own? You find that a reliable source to lead you to the truth? Mormons have no sense of systematic theology or the principles that lead to a proper understanding of the Biblical text.
Ralph I’ve had a concern for not only you but for your family for some time. I’d say its become somewhat of a spiritual burden for me and I’m led to pray for you, your wife and children. As the spiritual head of your home you have a duty and responsibility before God to get it right regarding who He is and what His plan of salvation entails. God keeps bringing you back to this blog and is revealing His Word and His Son to you that you might turn to Him and be saved. I pray even now that the spirit of deception that is Mormonism will be lifted from your heart, mind and soul and that you will come to a saving knowledge of the grace of Jesus Christ.
Jesus is not only our Savior but He is our Healer both in a physical and emotional way. Might God, through the power of His Holy Spirit descend upon you even now as I see Him and bring to you and your family ever lasting peace and redemption through the precious blood of Jesus the Christ………….Amen!
1/2
“I hope that answers your question.”
Not very well Brother Andy. Here is why your answers fall short of what is needed.
()()()()
“First of all, there is no such thing as a “nonTrinitarian Christian”; this is an oxymoron.”
Only if we accept your man made definition Trinity as if it were like scripture, but you admit that it is manmade when you classify it as ‘doctrine’.
()()()()
“This doctrine is the heartbeat of Christianity.”
This manmade definition is the heartbeat of your understanding of Christianity.
()()()()
“This true God is one God revealed in Scripture as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
As defined by your manmade doctrine of Trinity. As you say, your doctrine is not scripture; it is just your attempt to understand God’s teachings in the scriptures.
()()()()
“Second, I really don’t understand what your point is in saying “your version of the Bible.””
“Would you prefer that the LDS church adopt the Catholic Bible or maybe the Eastern Orthodox canon or something else?”
Talk about an oxymoron, you say you do not understand what I ask about then you show that you really do understand what I am talking about.
()()()()
“You seem to have a problem with the “authority” of those who put the books together in your KJV Bible that the LDS Church says is part of the Standard Works.”
Here I see that you do not reply as to how you got your version of scripture by pointing your finger in my direction as if I were questioning the Scriptures of the LDS Church. I asked YOU why the version of the Bible YOU accept as correct is better then other versions of the Bible.
()()()()
2/2
“The topic at hand is about the Trinity – not the canon of the Bible, Bible versions, or Sola Scriptura. Stay focused and on topic.”
The cannon of scripture is very important to the subject of how you got to the manmade doctrine of Trinity. It is what you say you base your manmade doctrine on and it is open to question.
()()()()
“Why would you reference a church and it’s encyclopedia that the LDS Church states is of the devil?”
Yes, we believe that Satan has taken parts of God’s truth away from what was taught by God in the Bible. If you follow the ‘true teachers’ listed here at mrm, you too believe that the Catholic Church is not teaching God’s Word. Moreover, as you folks are so fond of saying, if someone is not teaching your definition of God’s Word, their teaching is from the devil.
Friends, this thread (and the three that will follow) is on the topic of the Trinity. While the formation of the biblical canon is an important topic for discussion (elsewhere), it is not an essential element in relation to a discussion of the history and doctrine of the Christian Trinity (parkman’s opinion notwithstanding). Please be forewarned that any comments that are deemed diversionary from the primary topic of the Trinity will be deleted.
Per Mormon Coffee’s comment policy, do not post comments here regarding moderation decisions. Please direct any such concerns privately to moderators[at]mrm[dot]org.
Great information Andy . This will be a valuable study to equip people with the knowledge
to spot spiritual counterfeits today . One of the dangers Paul warned about was false prophets
who would mislead people with an imitation Jesus the author of an imitation gospel which
could be easily embraced by people because these prophets would use the same terms
like ” gospel” and “Jesus” as the apostles used –Gal.1:8 ; 2Cor 11:4 . Mormon prophets
have used the term “Trinity” in such a manner , they claim to have the true Trinity , the true
gospel, the true salvation etc. To those who believe that the Bible reveals the truth about our
Creator and who are wise enough to test the message of prophets today who seek to
supplement the Bible’s testimony about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost with their new
teachings, safety is found . But to those who are not wise to test , they can be easy prey to
counterfeits . In our day , the latter days , it is crucial to test as per Jesus : Mk 13:22-23.
I’ve got this really cool book here titled “Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine” by H. Wayne House. The introduction to the section on the doctrine of the Trinity states:
“The doctrine of the Trinity is central to biblical Christianity; it describes the relationships among the three members of the Godhead in a manner consistent with the Scriptures. Central to this doctrine is the question of how God can be both one and three. The early Christians did not want to lose their Jewish monotheism while exalting their Savior. Heresies emerged as men sought to explain the Christian God without becoming tritheists. Christians argued that OT Jewish monotheism did not preclude the trinity. The climax of Trinitarian formulation occurred at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. To this council we owe the expression of the orthodox view of the Trinity. To appreciate what the council said, however, it is helpful to trace the doctrine’s historical development. This is not meant to imply that the church or any council invented the doctrine. Rather, it was in response to heresies that the church explicated what the Scriptures already assumed.”
So then this book presents historical benchmarks re. years so that the reader can appreciate what the church believed and taught going back to the years 33-100 A.D. The teaching of the apostles is clearly seen in the accepted full and real deity of Jesus with the adoption of the baptismal formula. When we get to the writings of the Church Fathers circa 150-325 we have them saying:
Justin Martyr: Christ is distinct in function from the Father.
Athenagorus: Chirst was without beginning.
Theophilus: The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Logos.
Origin: The Holy Spirit is coeternal with the Father and the Son.
Tertullian: He spoke of “trinity” and “persons”-three in number, but one in substance.
“Friends, this thread (and the three that will follow) is on the topic of the Trinity. While the formation of the biblical canon is an important topic for discussion (elsewhere), it is not an essential element in relation to a discussion of the history and doctrine of the Christian Trinity (parkman’s opinion notwithstanding).”
I see you are willing to stack the deck so you do not have to defend how your man made doctrine was created.
Parkman has been Crying over and over about the trinity, Now were talking about it, and now as has been pointed out, he again is trying to change the subject and when we point that out, he again Cry’s.
Besides saying Boo Hoo, and grow up, I say just kick him off. All he ever does is complain about the topic at hand, trys and hijacks the topics and complains. Just get rid of him. Besides we all know even if you do ban him, he will just come back at a later time under a different name and do it all again.
Andy
Allow me to clarify.
I am not so conversant with details that I know how many in attendance actually signed the document. However, I am familiar enough with history to know that many Christians of that day did not believe the doctrine and rejected the counsels final creed. They were branded as heretics and eventually run out of the Christian community.
While I do admit freely that the doctrine was not invented at the counsel of Nicea, it was at this counsel that it got its strength and orthodoxy. I may be wrong on the actual written definition coming from this counsel, but the doctrine was indeed made orthodox by it. Before this counsel there were half a dozen beliefs concerning Christ and his relationship with God, but after the counsel there was only one.
Now, I also have to say that you have proven the discord, and in my mind the utter lack of divine guidance that these men had at this counsel.
“The bishops screamed in horror, covered their ears, and physically attacked Arius gathering his papers and ripping them to shreds.”
This is not the behavior of men of God. If they were violent, as you say, then they are no better than the Jews who persecuted and killed the apostles. If this was a counsel set up and inspired by God such behavior would not have taken place.
As to your comparisons, if all you are doing is saying that, in your opinion, any gathering of people who do not espouse the doctrine of the trinity as defined by you is a gathering of men without the inspiration of God, then fine. I couldn’t care less.
Andy (continued)
Oh, and I am sorry, but I have to take a little offense at this statement:
“They bore the scars and marks of what it means to suffer for the sake of Christ and His claim of deity. If only the LDS had such zeal, but they don’t because they have accepted the “jesus” that Arius invented…”
This completely ignores the violent persecution of the Saints for two-third of a century. Many men and women carried the scars of and marks of what it means to suffer for the sake of Christ even into the early part of this century. We have the Zeal that you cherish, and your ignoring of this fact is offensive.
Mike
In other words, when the leaders of our church have used the term Trinity in connection with our doctrine it has always been synonymous with our understanding of the Godhead.
When the Godhead is fully understood, the term trinity can rightly be applied to it. However, if the term trinity is being used to describe the doctrine of the rest of Christianity, then it cannot.
So, we are the true Trinitarians, as we are the ones who have the correct understanding of the Godhead, and thus the correct understanding of the trinity.
However, we are not classified as Trinitarian Christians because that classification pre-supposes the acceptance of a different doctrine of the trinity.
Shem said
Shem keeps saying over and over, when it is properly understood, so lets cut the crap and be honest. The best and most honest way Shem could re-word it would be to say, Unless you agree with me, your wrong.
We have seen this many times with mormons, If we are told to pray about the book of mormon, we claim we did, but if we still dont believe then something is wrong with us, we did not read it, were not sincere, we really dont want to know. Etc.
Shem said
Well I guess if men of God really are not men of God if they scream and yell in horror and rip up papers of what they believe are heretics, Then I guess moses and king David cannot be men of GOD since they both murdered someone. And lets not forget Jesus, twice made a whip of cords and beat people and over turned their tables. Plus other things He said and did were not Christ like. So something must be wrong with Him also.
Falcon,
Thanks for sharing your Catholic catechetical instruction on the Trinity that you received when you were just a young person. Reading what you quoted was like reading the Athanasian Creed or the writings of the fathers themselves regarding the Trinity. That was the point I was trying to make to Parkman when he quoted Catholic resources. That is not the direction any Mormon wants to go when looking for help in justifying heresy that rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t seek or quote Mormon sources when I want information on God creating ex-nihilo (out of nothing), because the LDS Church denies this teaching.
I don’t think Mormons really want to share with us what the source of their information is regarding the nature of God. As we know, the various sects of Mormonism have different views on exactly who God is. Strange isn’t that? When we look at Christian denominations, they hold to the basic nine or ten doctrines that are considered orthodox especially the doctrine related to the nature of God.
As Christians we can trace back to the first century and know what was taught, accepted and rejected by the Church. It’s been around for centuries; studied, dissected and reported on.
When the Church Fathers were battling the heretics, part of their frustration was how the heretics twisted Scripture. Things haven’t changed much, in fact this is very much evident today in groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses.
Where do Mormons get their ideas about the nature of God? Mainly from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and a few of the other creative types that have led the Utah sect of Mormonism. The Church Fathers could trace their lineage back to the apostles who walked with Jesus. The Mormon prophets can’t trace their lineage back any where or to anyone with any authority. So they just make up their authority based on some creative use of faux visions and imagination disguised as revelation.
There is no authority for Mormonism. The fact that the Mormon sect that was led by Joseph Smith’s son and which had as a member Joseph Smith’s first wife Emma, follows the original “revelation” which included an orthodox view of the nature of God says a lot. These people knew that Joseph Smith threw a rod when he hit Nauvoo, Ill.
If the doctrine of the Trinity is so important then why isn’t it taught explicitly in the Bible? Why does one have to cherry pick verses? Why didn’t Jesus teach it so perfectly and simply as it is being taught now?
Ralph,
You and I have been talking about the Trinity for a few years now. I’m sure you recall our study of the church fathers and their writing on the Trinity long before the Council of Nicea. There is no cherry picking (proof texting) of Bible verses to make the Bible teach something (Trinity or another doctrine) that it clearly doesn’t. Let’s honestly consider this assertion. What motive would the Christian church fathers have in doing this? What is understood today by Christians regarding the Trinity would NEVER have began in the minds of men as its starting place. No human being would have conceived this and then asserted that into the text of the Bible (eisegesis). The fathers would have no purpose in creating a doctrine that would deliberately force them to reflect and consider for three hundred years in trying to understand as they wrestled with the implications of that doctrine. That not only makes no sense it’s also patently ridiculous and absurd. What took place is the exact opposite: the fathers carefully and meticulously studied the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of Scripture and were forced to deal with the God-breathed texts that declared that there is one God while at the same time there are three Persons who are called God, have the attributes of God, and are worshipped as God. This is explicitly taught in the New Testament.
Ralph, Jesus was the Teacher – the greatest Teacher. He taught everything to His people that the Father sent Him here to teach – everything that the Father wanted fully revealed. Do you demand that the sovereign God of the universe give you full disclosure regarding His infinite Being? Is God not allowed to hold certain things within His counsel only to Himself? God said that He does have that prerogative (Deut 29:29). Do you think you are capable of understanding the infinite? Does God have to answer all your questions? Does He owe you anything in terms of explanations to let you in on things that He wants to keep to Himself? Are you equally upset and disturbed that God didn’t give precise details regarding when this world is going to come to an end and when the Second Advent is going to take place? Can God be God? Obviously He can’t when it comes to Mormonism. This is why your god who resides near Kolob is a man who exalted himself and became a god. Mormons have to have a god that is completely understood in their finite minds.
Maybe you want to put God on trial and question him like Job did, yes or no? If so, be prepared to be given the same answers that God gave to Job in chapters 38-41. Ralph, God has some questions for you beginning in Job 38:2-4. Another question from God to you is in Job 40:2. God owes you no answer or explanation – nothing (Job 41:11). Ralph, let your answer be that of Job in Job 42:6.
Ralph, what would Jesus needed to have done while here on His earthly ministry to make it (one God revealed in three Persons) simple for you to understand that isn’t already written in the New Testament? I refer back to what I said in my article. This doctrine and the teaching therein will never be seen or understood by those who have not been regenerated spiritually meaning being brought to spiritual life. Why do you make demands on the Father and Son? What more could the Father have done? The Father elected and chose a people unto Himself; the Father sent His Son to die for the sins of those people so that they could be reconciled with the Father. These people are given to the Son sort of like a love gift. The Spirit regenerates them, convicts them of their sin, leads them to repentance and faith, brings them into union with God, and seals them until the day of their glorification. God gave us His Word that is God-breathed so that we can fully know and understand all that God wanted revealed to us. The Mormons have given lip service to the Bible and demand more revelation. Their not content and happy with the God described in the Bible. It’s not satisfactory to the Mormons that everything pertaining to the salvation of humankind is in the Bible. It’s not enough that the timetable in the Bible takes humankind all the way to the eternal state (finality of end times). What more or what else is there? All that God wanted you to know about Him and what He demands of you is in the Bible. It’s all right there, Ralph, and that includes the one, living God who has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – three, distinct Persons.
Ralph, where is the consistency when it comes to the numerous Mormon doctrines that you cannot explain or understand, yet the LDS Church requires you to accept them based on faith as having come from Joseph Smith?
I asked YOU why the version of the Bible YOU accept as correct is better than other versions of the Bible. The cannon of scripture is very important to the subject of how you got to the manmade doctrine of Trinity.
Parkman, I will be happy to answer your question regarding Bible translations/versions as it pertains to the Trinity discussion specifically. I can take any sound Bible translation or version and see the doctrine of the Trinity: KJV, NIV, NET, NASB, NRSV, NKJV, NLT, ESV, ASV, etc. You can take your choice and hand me any one of these Bible translations; I’d be happy to show you. However, my guess is that your reaction would continue to be the same as it is here on this blog. You’ve found a Christian doctrine that your religion loves to beat up on. You can stomp, punch, complain, cry, scream, protest, and ridicule to your heart’s content about the Trinity. However, it’s not going to change what is written in God’s Word that He wanted revealed to those who will worship the one true God in spirit and in truth. It’s all right there in your LDS KJV Bible. Repent of your polytheism and false religion. Ask the true and living God to give you spiritual life that will give you the ears and eyes to hear and see these blessed truths and doctrines contained in the Bible.
This is not the behavior of men of God. If they were violent, as you say, then they are no better than the Jews who persecuted and killed the apostles. If this was a counsel set up and inspired by God such behavior would not have taken place.
As to your comparisons, if all you are doing is saying that, in your opinion, any gathering of people who do not espouse the doctrine of the trinity as defined by you is a gathering of men without the inspiration of God, then fine. I couldn’t care less.
Shem, you should care. Your eternal destiny depends on it. But, I can’t save you and you can’t save yourself. Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9). Moving on…
I don’t think you are being very fair to the bishops in their reaction upon hearing blasphemy espoused by Arius. Shem, try putting yourself in their shoes instead of thinking in the probable 21st century sophisticated lifestyle that you probably lead here in America free from persecution. The year is A.D. 325. Christianity had just barely received some resemblance of freedom granted to them in the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Many of these men saw their friends and family tortured and martyred for faith in Jesus Christ choosing to die in calling Jesus Christ their Lord and God rather than Caesar. Imagine seeing your wife ripped to shreds and eaten by wild beasts right before your eyes, or having your children placed in the roasting seat to be cooked to death while you are made to watch their slow deaths. To add to your agonizing pleasure the Roman soldiers decide to dig out one of your eyes with a spoon, burn your hands, and break numerous bones stopping short of killing you so they can do more of the same the next day all because you insist that Jesus Christ is Lord and God instead of Caesar.
You live through it and make it alive to the year A.D. 325 by God’s grace and providence. Because of your faithfulness, you are called a “confessor” instead of a martyr. You are made a bishop of a church and you are invited to attend the first ecumenical council of the body of Christ in Nicea – what an honor! After all you have gone through up to this point you now hear some loud-mouthed heretic claiming to be in the body of Christ openly blaspheming Jesus Christ. I guess you would want me to believe that you would be such a dignified and modern-day man that you would just shrug your shoulders and dismiss the whole thing as this just being the opinion of some man. I’m not buying it. The way it was explained to me by my church history professor, those that heard this blasphemy rushed at Arius to get his papers that he was reading from so he would stop talking and they physically removed him from the meeting place. If you were there and had the above stated done to you, I think you would have been one of the first ones to rush the podium to get this heretic out of there.
Shem, if we want to discuss what is acceptable “behavior of men of God,” then we will need to examine first and foremost the personal life and conduct of your founding prophet: Joseph Smith. Unfortunately, we all know it too well. It’s hypocrisy, Shem. It’s also not the topic of this thread.
This completely ignores the violent persecution of the Saints for two-third of a century. Many men and women carried the scars of and marks of what it means to suffer for the sake of Christ even into the early part of this century. We have the Zeal that you cherish, and your ignoring of this fact is offensive.
Shem, you have the right to be offended. As a believer and worshipper of the triune God revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Bible, I am very offended at the heretical teachings of the LDS Church and its slander of the triune God that I worship and adore. I also don’t equate Joseph Smith’s getting tarred and feathered along with other LDS persecutions on the same par with those Christian martyrs and persecutions at the hands of the Jews and Romans in the first three centuries of the Christian church. The Mormon people have zeal, but it’s the same kind of zeal that the apostle Paul described of the Jews: zeal not based on knowledge (Romans 10:2). Many people are persecuted for their religious beliefs, but that doesn’t make them worthy of spiritual accolades. People can be sincere and devout in their spiritual quests and also be sincerely wrong. This is my conviction and conclusion of the Mormon people and this is the reason why I labor on this blog. To not care about the Mormon people is to simply say or do nothing. That isn’t the loving thing to do.
Shem, my whole point in mentioning that Mormon leaders have claimed to be the true
Trinitarian christians was for Parkman’s sake . I have met Mormons like him who have
such a distaste for the term “trinity” and therefore they need to be reminded of the fact that
Mormon authorities had no qualms about using that term to promote their teaching about
God. Now Mormons don’t publically advertise themselves as trinitarians and they prefer
to use the term “Godhead ” when talking about God and “Christians ” or “Mormons”
when talking about themselves , and I understand why this is , but that does’nt change the facts
on the point I wanted to make . You seemed to understand that .
With that I’ll move on .
What is not mentioned is that The emperor Theodosius issued an edict making the arian teaching heretical. Later instead of leaving paganism and Jews alone, The pagan temples were destroyed and in one case a synagogue was destroyed. A christian named Priscillias was killed for teaching doctrinal error. It is interesting when someone says the scriptures compel us and leave us no choice! Gee it sounds like the Emperor also strongly compels us.
clyde,
Why stop there? Trace history and take a look at the reformation, the counter reformation and the Spanish Inquisition if you want to highlight mans’ inhumanity to man in exploring religious intolerance?
In typical Mormon fashion you could have added “therefore the LDS church is true”. Who was that guy, bishop Snow I believe his name was? He was a Mormon leader who had a man castrated because he wanted the man’s fiance for his wife and the man wouldn’t consent to it.
We can play this game all day long regarding persecution if you want. That’s apart of Andy’s presentation because it sets the historical context in which the early Church was functioning. I imagine it’s a good way for the LDS folks here to ignore the real topic which is the doctrine of the nature of God as it is expressed in the (doctrine) of the Trinity and how the Church came to the conclusions that it did.
Let’s face it, the LDS folks have their backs against the wall when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity. First of all when the Mormon church was founded it was Trinitarian, as has been stated. There are still Mormon sects that hold to that original “revelation”. Others, like the Utah based LDS church and the FLDS embrace what Joseph Smith got into later and what was expanded upon by Brigham Young. The Utah sect saw fit, for political purposes, to reject Smith’s revelation of polygamy as a means of personal deification and to ignore BY teachings on the nature of God. The FLDS still embrace what BY taught.
It’s quite simple, if the LDS people want to attain eternal life, they need to embrace God who can grant it. Having a belief in a man-god won’t do.
To be perfectly honest, the trinity is something that has always been confusing to me. Not confusing in the sense that I don’t believe in it, but more in the sense that it doesn’t always make sense to me. But it’s what I’ve believed nonetheless, which I imagine is something that many people can say.
However, what it comes down to for me is this:
I believe in one God/god. (I separated upper and lower, because I don’t believe there are or ever was or ever will be other gods outside of God.)
To that end, I also believe that Jesus Christ is God made flesh. And I believe the Holy Spirit is God as well. If I believe in one God yet there are three “persons” of God, then the Trinity makes perfect sense. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all one God, but in three, for lack of a better word, “formats”. So the One in Three, Three in One, makes sense and yet I don’t think I will ever fully understand it.
If I didn’t believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, God made flesh, one and the same as God the Father, then I can absolutely see how the Trinity is a doctrine that could be easily ignored.
Rick
Moses never murdered a man, and Kind David has been condemned for the murder he committed. Christ never once violently attacked a person for what they believed, but reasoned with them. When he did use the whip it was not because of belief, but because of action: They had defiled the temple.
None of this compares to the description of these bishops.
Now, you are right that when I say something has to be properly understood I am saying you are wrong. The reason I put it this way is not to conceal this fact, but to invite you to seek a proper understanding. If I just said you are wrong that shuts out discussion.
Andy
I have read the Bible more than once, and I have yet to see the evidence for the Trinity that does not require a wresting of the text.
As to why they would do this, the reasoning is simple. The idea of three separate Gods horrified them for the same reason it horrifies you. It is the pagan who believed in many Gods. We are Christian, and thus we must separate ourselves from the pagans by believing in only one God. However, since the Bible clearly states that there are three Gods we are going to have to find some way to reconcile all this so that we can have only one.
Add to this a little inspiration from below to help it along and it is not surprising what came out of it.
You are right that it is not what reasonable men would think of first. But it is what men would think of when they are trying desperately to distance themselves from pagans.
(continued)
Just note, I am not a violent person. I don’t care what you think; don’t try to imprint your tendencies on me. I am much more of the persuasion of Gamaliel, who said “Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”
I don’t care what a man espouses as doctrine. I will not attack him for it. I will calmly reason with him and if I cannot persuade him of his error we would both leave in peace, as friends if he be willing.
And no, the persecutions you describe would not change this. To turn violent like this is to deny God and all that Christ taught. While the attitude is understandable, it is not what Christ would approve of or inspire.
(Oh, and despite your attempts at slander and libel, Joseph Smith was not a hypocrite.)
Now, let me take even greater offense at your words. I really couldn’t care less what you think, or what you say your motivations are. The saints of this day have suffered for the name of Christ, just as the early saints did. You can paint over that suffering and diminish it all you want in your mind, but they suffered for the truth and I take great offense at anyone trying to downplay their sacrifice simply because they don’t have the same beliefs.
I have to say that I really feel sorry for anyone who has to downplay and ignore the suffering of others in order to feel better about their own.
Falcon
Reference on snow please.
Let us look at common ground. I believe in God, you believe in God. I believe in the son of God-Jesus, you believe in the son of God-Jesus. I believe in the Holy Spirit, you believe in the Holy Spirit. Ta-da common ground!
You believe the Father, the Son and Spirit are One. I believe they are separate but one in purpose. Now, the topic of the blog is the Trinity. The trinity of oneness or the tri-unity of three with one purpose. Oooohhhhh, there goes the common ground.
Now this blog seems to want to try to see how much separation there is in this common ground. In history Theodosius made the trinity the sole idea for God. When you eliminate a different view point you get a narrow view of what you have. God is boxed in for you. Any idea that is outside the definition of the trinity cannot be seen as correct even if it might be. I want to know God and Jesus whom He has sent. So I don’t want to total eliminate some ideas that might come up.
My last comment was meant for Falcon.
shematwater, if you’ve read your Bible more than once as you say you have, you’d know that Moses did actually commit murder.
Exodus 2:11-12
And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.
And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.