Mormonism and the Trinity

[_KimberlyAnn]

I will contact Ben Huff and attempt to get the correct publication through him because I cannot find a way to purchase it online. Nightingale, you're not the only one who can't seem to figure out how to buy a copy!

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.

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Of course, my thoughts are relatively uninformed as I haven't yet read Dr. Peterson's article. Which I will do as soon as I figure out how to purchase it.

KA

[_Nightingale]

I will contact Ben Huff and attempt to get the correct publication through him because I cannot find a way to purchase it online. Nightingale, you're not the only one who can't seem to figure out how to buy a copy!

That's a relief. I hate to be the only one!

I did send an email to Mr. Huff but so far no reply. I know he's busy, etc. But when you want to read something, you want it now. I guess we're accustomed to the Amazon Age where everything is instantaneous. It makes sense for at least someone to read the article or have access to it before we can talk about it. Meanwhile, though, the topic is certainly broad enough that we can go off on tangents. I agree with what KA said about the Great Divide on this one. That is why I said I'd be surprised if EVs at least ever saw any common ground. It's "another Jesus" and all that. Believing that God was once a man (which is what was certainly explained to me as Mormon doctrine - the famous couplet etc) is a total non-starter for an EV. He is and was and ever will be and all that. Alpha. Omega. Without beginning or end. From everlasting to everlasting. Divine. Not created. Not human. Not progressive but eternally God.

When a missionary told me (after my baptism) that the whole scenario of God the Father, Jesus the Son and the death/resurrection/atonement is played out over and over and over again in other worlds and that eternal progression includes the progression of a man to become God and Jesus, over and over, I dropped my Bible and fell off my chair. Then my brain exploded. It gave me a giant clue that I had joined a church with vastly different doctrine than I learned at my corner EV assembly! It was so unexpected and unusual a concept to me that I nearly couldn't comprehend what he was saying.

To mainstream Christians, and certainly EVs, God never could be human or progressive or less than God Almighty.

I can see that communication, understanding and acceptance could improve and that more common ground and even friendship could occur between LDS and Christian groups. I don't expect they will lessen the divide that inevitably exists due to the chasm of difference between the two sides re the doctrines and understanding of the nature of God.

I'm not saying that DCP is claiming this, that or anything at all, mostly because I haven't read his article yet, so I don't know what he's saying, exactly. I'm just making general comments on this issue, one which has always interested me. Which is all I can do until the article is posted for public sale or Benjamin answers my email. I even put "Dr. Peterson" in the sub line so he might actually open it and take me seriously. I can't imagine what other duties he has more important than snagging $7.00 from some Cdn emailer he's never heard of.

Meanwhile, my English football team is losing a big game and I'm depressed.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It might be helpful, Nightingale and Kimberly Ann, if you've found it so difficult to order the journal, for you to mention that to Professor Huff. He needs to know that there's a problem so that it can be fixed.

Frankly, I haven't gotten around to looking yet.

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.

The two issues are actually quite distinct.

But, for the record, I don't think there's much disagreement among Latter-day Saints about the doctrine that the Father was once a man. I believe it. I know only one communicant Latter-day Saint (perhaps two) who doesn't, and I consider him to be out in left field on this issue.

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.

Not really. And, for what it's worth, although my article doesn't address that issue directly, I think it does so implicitly.

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.

I'll be amused if you judge my article "superficial." Maybe I'm just terminally shallow.

[_Nightingale]

Maybe I confused Ben Huff as I asked for the article, not the journal. I would be embarrassed to say I found it difficult to order as I haven't determined quite yet if it's just me being clueless, which does happen from time to time. As the issue is due out on Thursday, I thought I'd at least wait til then and see if it shows up on the site at that time.

It's just when your interest is piqued and you're a reader who's wanting to buy and read, it's hard to wait, and too bad for author, journal, publisher etc to miss a sale or some wider exposure. But I certainly understand people being busy and volunteers looking after small publications and web sites. I'm too busy myself; in fact, should not be here at all right now as I have clients waiting, but I wanted to check in and then KA mentioned my name and I stopped to respond and man, it gets time-consuming...

How long is this article? Is it PDF or otherwise downloadable? Last time I got something shipped by land from Utah I forgot what I had ordered before it ever showed up. Could you email it to me and I will send a donation to the site or is that too outside the box? I did that once for something from FAIR. They trusted me to buy now, pay later. Maybe they didn't know I was an evil apostate so they went out on a limb for me.

[_KimberlyAnn]

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.

I'll be amused if you judge my article "superficial." Maybe I'm just terminally shallow.

I'll be surprised if I find it superficial; I certainly don't expect to! I am curious as to how you address the issues I raised, if not directly, at least implicitly. When I finally get my hands on the article, (which I'm straining at the bit to do, and wish, like Nightingale, that I could procure it in an expedited manner), then I'll comment on whether or not the chasm that exists between the Trinity of mainstream Christianity and the Godhead of Mormonism has been lessened.

Don't let your expectations get too high, though. Discussing the intricacies of theology with me is like discussing astrophysics with Harry Caray.

KA

[_harmony]

I'm sure I speak for others in noting what a remarkable privilege it is to have with us here a person, harmony, who sees so clearly into the souls of the Brethren and who judges them with such unerring insight and accuracy.

Prediction, conclusion, either way I'd be surprised to see it.

Uh... Daniel? In case you missed it, you are quoting Nightingale, not me, in this whole post. She's not nearly as witchy as I am, so I suppose that means she doesn't have the same jaundiced view of the Brethren. And since my comments on this thread had nothing to do with the Brethren and everything to with water/steam/ice, I'm not seeing what part of your comment about my judgment of the Brethren has to do with my comment about the Trinity.

[_Nightingale]

Uh... Daniel? In case you missed it, you are quoting Nightingale, not me, in this whole post. She's not nearly as witchy as I am, so I suppose that means she doesn't have the same jaundiced view of the Brethren.

I wouldn't automatically jump to that conclusion about my view on that topic.

Also, I can be witchy too, if I try hard enough.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

[_Trevor]

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.

But with traditional Christian theology, God is equated with the "First Cause" of the philosophers and He is thus the source of everything. Some would say that in Mormon Theology, as many of us once understood it, such was not the case. That was the vision of Mormon Deity that I believed in and preferred. Although I respect the minds who pursue more mainstream-sounding theological options, I am not that excited by things that sound like efforts at theological mainstreaming.

[_Daniel Peterson]

But with traditional Christian theology, God is equated with the "First Cause" of the philosophers and He is thus the source of everything. Some would say that in Mormon Theology, as many of us once understood it, such was not the case. That was the vision of Mormon Deity that I believed in and preferred. Although I respect the minds who pursue more mainstream-sounding theological options, I am not that excited by things that sound like efforts at theological mainstreaming.

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.