Ron Lafferty wrote:One of the reasons you are so horrible at framing issues and asking pertinent questions...
Blah, blah, blah...
Snip gibberish...
Oh, look: a conclusory statement in response to my saying that all you do is make conclusory statements. Touche.
The question you are begging here is whether the Christian concept of the Trinity is in fact "neo-Platonic metaphysics."
We know this to be the case, LDS, as many secular, Catholic, and Protestant scholars and theologians together have long been aware and made clear. This is long, long past serious argument except among primarily Protestant fundamentalists and uninformed, secularist, anti-Mormon lawyers trolling for polemical chum.
Tell me what was incorrect in the link I provided, where a Christian apologist disputes the claimed Hellenistic influence on orthodox Christian theology.
However, the Trinity in the Book of Mormon is found passim. Here are a couple of examples, though:
Alma 11:44
Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.
Notice verse 44 says "which is" (third person singular) one God, not "who are" (third person plural) one God. Remember, this is the most correct book on earth that was translated by the power of God.
Now, please show me where the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in this verse. You are being intelligence insulting here, which will not get you very far. Your semantic quibbling indicates how far you are required to stretch here to make your argument appear as if it was anything but a concoction.
The Mormon Apologetics Articles of Faith
12. The plain, obvious meaning of the words someone said are not a reliable indication of what they meant.
"Which is" is perfectly acceptable in an LDS context, as the oneness of God in mind, perception, and aim is total. The Grand Council in Heaven is one; it is a unity and a totality. I can quibble back, by showing that nuances of LDS doctrine can easily support the traditional LDS view, but why bother? Socratic sophistry and serious philosophical discourse are only distantly related.
I am already aware that you are reading the Book of Mormon the way that the Correlation Committee has told you to read it.
Alma 11 also says this:
26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.
Any Blazer B could untangle this for you. Should I go get one and see if you could be educated on LDS doctrine a bit for firmly?
I am already aware that you are reading the Book of Mormon the way that the Correlation Committee has told you to read it.
Moroni 7:7
And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end
But Alma told us that there is only one God, so in order to maintain internal consistency within the most correct book on Earth that was translated by the power of God, we can't be reading this as "three Gods who are one in purpose." But don't take my word for it. Look at what the statement attributed to the Three Witnesses:
And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God.
Oh, look: it's that third person singular again.
The Grand Council is an entity, a unitary body, and unified whole. As you have no idea what was in the minds of the original authors here,
Nor do you. You can only rely on what is actually written.
you semantic/grammatical nickpicking is nothing more than a straw grasping exercise that focuses on fine points of 19th century English word usage bacause you cannot get past the very serious problem you have in that other parts of the Book of Mormon clearly teach that Jesus Christ has a body of flesh and bones and that that body corresponded to the spirit body shown to the Brother of Jared.
Translation: instead of relying on what the text actually says, we should read what the Correlation tells us to read into it.
Again, by your own logically self contradictory argument, if God and the Father are one, not only in a mental and personological sense, but in essential nature, then God the Father must have a body of flesh and bones. He must be, in all senses, like the Son. If the Son does nothing but what he has seen the Father do, then if follows necessarily that the Father has done those things (been born in mortality, lived in a mortal state, died and been resurrected, and functioned in all ways as Jesus Christ functioned - as a physical being composed of element have form, structure, and extension in space).
If God and Christ are one, then they are identical in fundamental nature. If the fundamental nature of Jesus included his being a physical, embodied personage, then God the Father must be a physical, embodied personage.
1. Anything that is true of the Father is true of the Son.
2. It is true that the Son has a body of flesh and bones.
3. Therefore, it is true that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones.
Another thing you are particularly poor at is understanding what the issue even is on any given topic. Here, you are arguing with me as if I believe in the Trinity, when the issue is not what I personally believe, but what the text of the Book of Mormon says.
Christian apologists who believe in the Trinity answer this issue about the Bible the same way that LDS apologists address it in the Book of Mormon: by making it a foregone conclusion that their predecessors had the same beliefs, and then reading that foregone conclusion into the scriptures.
Which is not a relevant argument for or against anything, but only an observation the different people hold different views. Brilliant deduction.
"Different people hold different views" is, coincidentally, the issue of this thread. That is, it is not self-explanatory that the modern LDS correlated view of theology is found within the pages of the Book of Mormon.
Did you have an explanation as to why the Community of Christ is able to believe in both the Book of Mormon and the Trinity, if the D&C 130 version of God is so obvious in the Book of Mormon?
Because they choose to do so, against both the plain evidence of both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.
Roll the dice again.
"Which is not a relevant argument for or against anything, but only an observation the different people hold different views. Brilliant deduction."