Mormonism and the Trinity

[_moksha]

Why would Dr. Peterson invite us to read an article of his which is manifestly difficult to access? Does he genuinely want us to read it? Or is he up to something else instead?

Dr. Scratch, what do you have against the American entrepreneurial spirit? Dr. Peterson was just giving us a heads up. There is a product and you can buy it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And I make $35.00 off of every $7.00 copy of Element that's sold.

Or something like that.

Lessee. I think I'll do the math.

Oh. Right. I make $0.00 from every copy that's sold.

Further evidence of my mercenary greed!

[_moksha]

You'll be happy to know, then, that I don't believe that the Father is the "First Cause" of the philosophers or the source of everything, and that I haven't the slightest interest in theological mainstreaming. Quite the contrary, in fact.

So we can keep God as a visitor from another planet with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men and retain our peculiarity.

[_huckelberry]

Additionally, it occurred to me that if Latter-day Saints are unable to come to a definitive conclusion as to whether or not God the Father used to be a man, I cannot see how their concept of the Godhead can reasonably be compared to the Trinity, orthodox or no. It seems to me that particular quibble should be resolved first.

What I'm thinking is that if Mormons truly believe God the Father to be a resurrected, perfected man of flesh and bone, then there is a gaping chasm between Mormonism's Godhead and the Trinity (orthodox or social), the narrowing of which seems incomprehensible. When the very nature of Mormonism's God is other than the God of mainstream Christianity, any valid comparison to even the Social Trinity would seem so superficial as to not merit mention.


KA

It is always interesting to me that traditional Christians seem so concerned that LDS believe God may have once been a man and is a glorified resurrected being. Don't they believe Jesus is God? And isn't Jesus God who became a mortal man, learned and grew from grace to grace, died, was resurrected and now has his once held glory and a glorified resurrected man? Just move this back one step to the Father doing the same thing Jesus did-being the savior of a world, and you have the same thing.

Jason,your post is exactly to thepoint of why this subject is frustrating. It is possible that what you describe is what Momons believe. If you are correct the difference between this and traditional trinity is not much. However it sometimes seems that what Mormons believe is that God became divine from a time when he was not yet divine through a process of being human, learning and develpoement. That idea is very different than what other Chfhristians believe happend with Jesus when he was made man. He is understood to be divine both before and after becoming human. Now the real difficulty is that I have no clue what the real Mormon view is on this matter is so there is nothing to compare.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason,your post is exactly to thepoint of why this subject is frustrating. It is possible that what you describe is what Momons believe. If you are correct the difference between this and traditional trinity is not much. However it sometimes seems that what Mormons believe is that God became divine from a time when he was not yet divine through a process of being human, learning and develpoement. That idea is very different than what other Chfhristians believe happend with Jesus when he was made man. He is understood to be divine both before and after becoming human. Now the real difficulty is that I have no clue what the real Mormon view is on this matter is so there is nothing to compare.

I understand there are a number of lines of thought about this. Joseph Smith did say however in the KFD that Jesus did the same thing his Father did:

First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary they should understand the character and being of God; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. [That he was not is an idea] incomprehensible to some. But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel-to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible.

I wish I had the Trump of an archangel; I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, elder Rigdon!) Jesus said, "As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power." To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it.

Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves--to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.

One can certainly interpret that to mean that Jesus was following the pattern of His father, that his Father was a world savior in some other eternity. Of course there are other parts Old Testament the sermon that can be understood differently and others have interpreted it to mean God was a measly man that sinned like you or me.

[_cksalmon]

Bump. Just didn't want to let this one get away.

I realize that it's, apparently, just sort of a "Hey, I wrote this thing once and you can read it maybe if you contact this one guy I know at his work email and ask him nicely" kind of announcement, but, is it actually possible to read this article yet without subscribing to a journal whose last print edition was in, what, 2006?

'Cause it sounded interesting.

cks

[_Daniel Peterson]

Bump. Just didn't want to let this one get away.

I realize that it's, apparently, just sort of a "Hey, I wrote this thing once and you can read it maybe if you contact this one guy I know at his work email and ask him nicely" kind of announcement, but, is it actually possible to read this article yet without subscribing to a journal whose last print edition was in, what, 2006?

'Cause it sounded interesting.

cks

The journal's latest printed edition appeared less than two weeks ago.

You can drop a note to the journal's editor, Dr. Brian Birch, and see what he can do for you:

http://www.uvu.edu/profpages/profiles/show/user_id/450

Or you can drop a note to the Society's secretary, Dr. Benjamin Huff, and see what he can do for you:

http://www.rmc.edu/Academics/ethics/faculty.aspx

In either case, a brief (and respectful) note about the difficulty of purchasing issues of Element, or of subscribing to the journal, wouldn't be amiss.

[_cksalmon]

Bump. Just didn't want to let this one get away.

I realize that it's, apparently, just sort of a "Hey, I wrote this thing once and you can read it maybe if you contact this one guy I know at his work email and ask him nicely" kind of announcement, but, is it actually possible to read this article yet without subscribing to a journal whose last print edition was in, what, 2006?

'Cause it sounded interesting.

cks

The journal's latest printed edition appeared less than two weeks ago.

You can drop a note to the journal's editor, Dr. Brian Birch, and see what he can do for you:

http://www.uvu.edu/profpages/profiles/show/user_id/450

Or you can drop a note to the Society's secretary, Dr. Benjamin Huff, and see what he can do for you:

http://www.rmc.edu/Academics/ethics/faculty.aspx

In either case, a brief (and respectful) note about the difficulty of purchasing issues of Element, or of subscribing to the journal, wouldn't be amiss.

I have dropped an email note to Dr. Birch explaining my dilemma, per your suggestion. I honestly don't know what to expect. Both extremes seem unfair (I expect no response; I expect an immediate response). At any rate, I expressed my sincere desire to purchase this particular number and my inability to figure out a way to do so, thus far.

cks

Maybe all I need is a shot in the arm.

[_KimberlyAnn]

This evening I received an email from Dr. Huff letting me know there was a problem with the printing of the issue I requested but that I should check back with him in two to three weeks.

The issue, when available, will cost $7.00 plus $2.00 shipping.

KimberlyAnn

[_cksalmon]

This evening I received an email from Dr. Huff letting me know there was a problem with the printing of the issue I requested but that I should check back with him in two to three weeks.

The issue, when available, will cost $7.00 plus $2.00 shipping.

KimberlyAnn

Well, that's better than what I got back from Dr. Birch, the journal's editor, which is, as of this evening, nada.

I am having trouble piecing together the data. Dr. P says the print edition appeared "less than two weeks ago" (as of May 31, 2009)--so, say, May 20, 2009--but Dr. Huff has stated that there was a problem with the printing of the issue, and that you should check back with him in two weeks (as of June 01, 2009)---so, say, check back June 17, or so.

I'm at a loss as to how a printed edition of the journal can both (1) appear on or around May 20 and, at the same time, (2) encounter a printing problem that requires you to check back on June 17 for further update, apparently to see if the printing problem has been resolved.

If Dr. Huff is correct about the printing problem, it seems very hard to believe that the actual printing of the issue occurred back in the latter part of May. After all, Huff has stated on the first day of June that there was a printing problem that prevents you from purchasing the relevant journal at this time. In other words, the journal was just not available when you queried, due to a printing problem.

I know, I know. Dr. P was merely making a recommendation. Like a recommended book, or something. Well, it's one thing to announce a book that will be published shortly and another to recommend a journal article that may or may not have (depending upon who your source is) been published recently. Or, not have been published.

Who knows, at this point? I'm sure it's in the can, so to speak. But, hey, I've got some article from 2005 that may or may not have been published in some journal. I don't want your comments on it. I'm just making a recommendation. Find it if you can. Go!

cks