The Standard Works and the Trinity

[Vivian]

When you do that, you end up with a lot of this:
"You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Oftentimes what happens is that the modern day followers have a different understanding of the words of a particular writing than had by the author of the writing, or understood by the culture in which the author lived.

Multiply this times two and you have two sets of modern followers, each with an interpretation different than their respective authors, arguing between themselves. So we actually have 4 plus possible interpretations of the words being used! Oy vey!


Shalom!

Viv

[Geoffrey]

But in the BoM verse, it goes further and says that Jesus himself claims to be the Father and the Son. In that context he is claiming to be both God the Father and God the Son. There is no indication of any other meaning.

I do not see an explicit modalistic meaning in those verses. In fact, two of the three verses speak of Christ in terms reminiscent of being the Creator of "heaven and earth, and all things which in them are".

It would be odd for the Book of Mormon to posit modalism when the Book of Mormon repeatedly contains standard Trinitarian formulations (as given by OC in his post above). It would also be odd since the Book of Mormon plainly has two speakers--the Father and Jesus--in 3 Nephi 11.

Further, if the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price wished to deny the doctrine of the Trinity, their silence is significant. Joseph Smith lived in a society consisting primarily of Trinitarian Christians. Given that the Trinity is a central doctrine of the churches in his environment, one would suppose (if Joseph Smith wished to deny the doctrine of the Trinity) that the Standard Works would clearly contain such a denial. (Cf., for instance, the Qur'an's repeated insistence that God does not have a son). Instead, they abound in Trinitarian language, as OC has given us a sampling.

While the passages you quoted can be read in non-Trinitarian ways (even as Biblical passages can be read in non-Trinitarian ways), they can also be read in a Trinitarian manner. That is what counts in this thread's dialogue. We are not trying to establish that the Standard Works must be read in a Trinitarian manner. We are instead exploring the more modest possibility that the Standard Works can be read in a Trinitarian manner.

[Geoffrey]

Geoffrey, your problem is that you are reading the Mormon standard works with trinitarian vocabulary. That is your error. You must define words from a Mormon paradigm to understand what the standard works mean when they say "Father" "Son" and "Holy Ghost". You can not take Mormon scripture and use orthodox definitions. it simply doesn't work that way.

This dialogue isn't examining "a Mormon paradigm". (If, for no other reason, that I have encountered a plethora of differing and mutually contradictory "Mormon paradigms".) Instead, we are examining the Standard Works in their own literary context in isolation from any larger theological or ecclesiological context (thus the stricture herein on LDS authorities outside of the Standard Works). To put it in Reformational terms, we are examining the theology of "sola Standard Works".

If the Standard Works, when they mention "Father", "Son", and "Holy Ghost", definitely mean something fundamentally different from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, that would have to be conclusively established from a study of the Standard Works themselves. We cannot start with that conclusion. Such a conclusion can arise only from a serious and thorough reading of the Standard Works.

[Sparko]

I do not see an explicit modalistic meaning in those verses. In fact, two of the three verses speak of Christ in terms reminiscent of being the Creator of "heaven and earth, and all things which in them are".

It would be odd for the Book of Mormon to posit modalism when the Book of Mormon repeatedly contains standard Trinitarian formulations (as given by OC in his post above). It would also be odd since the Book of Mormon plainly has two speakers--the Father and Jesus--in 3 Nephi 11.

Further, if the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price wished to deny the doctrine of the Trinity, their silence is significant. Joseph Smith lived in a society consisting primarily of Trinitarian Christians. Given that the Trinity is a central doctrine of the churches in his environment, one would suppose (if Joseph Smith wished to deny the doctrine of the Trinity) that the Standard Works would clearly contain such a denial. (Cf., for instance, the Qur'an's repeated insistence that God does not have a son). Instead, they abound in Trinitarian language, as OC has given us a sampling.

While the passages you quoted can be read in non-Trinitarian ways (even as Biblical passages can be read in non-Trinitarian ways), they can also be read in a Trinitarian manner. That is what counts in this thread's dialogue. We are not trying to establish that the Standard Works must be read in a Trinitarian manner. We are instead exploring the more modest possibility that the Standard Works can be read in a Trinitarian manner.

I believe that the problem here is that you seem to be the only one who wants to see the traditional Trinity in the Book of Mormon. Neither the mormons or us Christians believe that the BoM teaches anything like orthodox trinitarianism. You are trying to shoehorn your ideas into the BoM in order to force-fit a truce between Christianity and Mormonism on the subject.

Personally I see many inconsistencies in the BoM. I see modalism in the verses that I posted, and I see monotheism in other verses. But I don't see anything like the Trinity in it. I also don't see any Polytheism in the BoM in the way that the LDS believe (three separate Gods) - but it does appear in the other Standard Works.

I think the BoM is sufficiently vague that if you are willing to ignore such verses as I have posted you could read trinitarianism into it, but I also think that would be an example of eisogesis, of reading into the text what your preconceptions want to see there.

[Geoffrey]

I believe that the problem here is that you seem to be the only one who wants to see the traditional Trinity in the Book of Mormon. Neither the mormons or us Christians believe that the BoM teaches anything like orthodox trinitarianism. You are trying to shoehorn your ideas into the BoM in order to force-fit a truce between Christianity and Mormonism on the subject.

Please remember the imagined instructions given to you by the highest official in your church:

"We are opening a series of dialogues with the LDS Church. The first is to study whether the Standard Works can be reasonably interpreted in a way that is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. I've spoken with LDS President Monson, and we are optimistic that the conclusion of our study and dialogue will indicate that the Standard Works can indeed be understood in a way that is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. We need for you to strive to clear away any misunderstandings and to work side-by-side with the LDS to study this issue. Begin the dialogue by giving every benefit of the doubt to the Standard Works. This is not a debate. This is a congenial, ecumenical discussion. Its purpose is not to determine the truthfulness or the falsity of either the Standard Works or of the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, it is to determine whether the Standard Works can be understood in a Trinitarian manner. If you are unwilling to proceed in this manner, please excuse yourself from participation."

[Vivian]

There are followers of Joseph Smith who do not believe that he taught as the LDS Church teaches, so there are differences of opinion regarding the meaning of JS' words.

There are present day followers of Joseph Smith and the BoM who believe as Geoffrey is stating.

[Kabane52]

Actually, Joseph Smith probably intended to teach the Trinity within the Book of Mormon. Remember that the Book of Mormon was conceived before the First Vision where it was said that "all churches are corrupt." That came in 1832. While 1 Nephi contains detailed prophecy of significant events in the Americas, including the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the Three Witnesses, it makes no mention of the restoration of the church.The Book of Mormon itself was probably intended as Baptist Protestant text. Its errors when explaining the doctrine of the Trinity likely originate from Smith's foggy understanding of the doctrine rather than an attempt to contradict it.

The D&C and Pearl of Great Price (the latter especially) are not Trinitarian.

[apostoli]

Good point, apostoli.

The 4th-century saints (primarily St. Basil the Great, his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend St. Gregory the Theologian, altogether referred to as the Cappadocian Fathers) who formulated the language used to describe the Trinity used the following Greek terms (which I've here transliterated into Roman characters):

hypostasis (typically translated as "person")

ousia (typically translated as "nature" or as "essence")

God the Father is one Hypostasis (Person). God the Son is one Hypostasis (Person). God the Holy Spirit is one Hypostasis (Person). Thus, there are three Hypostases (Persons) in the Trinity.

God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all share the same divine Ousia (Nature). Therefore, the three Hypostases (Persons) of the Godhead are referred to as homoousios (Greek for same ["homo"] nature or essence ["ousia"]).

St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote a treatise entitled On "Not Three Gods". Therein, by way of illustrating the Trinity, he mentioned "Peter, James, and John". Each of these three men is a hypostasis (person), and they all are of the same human ousia (nature). The Trinity is similar: three Hypostases (Persons) Who are all of the same divine Ousia (Nature). Please note that the divine Ousia (Nature) does not independently exist apart from the three divine Hypostases (Persons), just as our shared human ousia (nature) does not exist independently of any human hypostasis (person).

Of course, the three Hypostases (Persons) of the holy Trinity are in perfect harmony, unlike the discord that exists amongst human hypostases (persons).

Please forgive my pedantry but there is a subtle difference between ousia & physis. Ousia specifies the essentiality of a thing (what a thing is in reality=essence) whereas, imu, physis specificies what a thing is perceived to be (nature). It is a subtle difference which I'm sure you would appreciate...

[robert51]

I am a Mormon of 48 years and have read these standard works numerous times. I have never read any thing about the "Nicene Council" and those that followed. However, I am a simple man who has read the New Testament and the Book of Mormon and can tell you that these books were not delivered to us for debate at any time. Paul did much debating and had not much success.

If you read the Bible and the Book of Mormon with and open mind, without looking for a reason to disagree or debate you will find that both books defend each other and teach of the very same doctrine Christ taught while on the earth.

Common sense tells us that when the words Father, Son, son, daughter, mother are all every day words. Christ did not intend for us to debate using semantics. Father comes from the greek word meaning one who "organizes." When the Bible is read with a simple mind and open mind you immediately begin to understand that these words have very specific meanings. Such as mentioned. If there is a Father and a Mother, the natural course of events would be for them to have "children" and since we are God's Children according to the Bible, then we are His children. He is the one who has made this statement of fact. There is no stumbling block with the definitions other than the ones you so called scholars place before yourselves. If you believe in the Bible, then believe in it without all the posturing, debating, extrapolation, etc. You'll find that the Bible is a great and wonderful book filled with the code of conduct we should live. Christ's life was one of perfection. He did not come to debate His meanings of words rather He lived what He preached, Remember this and learn, my friends. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is very simplistic and if one will only try applying his works in your life you will find happiness and contentment. This will leave you with the desire to simply live as He did. May the Lord bless us as we strive to understand his simply message of love. Robert51

[Bill the Cat]

This dialogue isn't examining "a Mormon paradigm". (If, for no other reason, that I have encountered a plethora of differing and mutually contradictory "Mormon paradigms".) Instead, we are examining the Standard Works in their own literary context in isolation from any larger theological or ecclesiological context (thus the stricture herein on LDS authorities outside of the Standard Works). To put it in Reformational terms, we are examining the theology of "sola Standard Works".

Thoroughly impossible. One can not gather the author's intent without understanding the thoughts behind them. It reminds me of the scene from Back to School where Rodney Dangerfield interviewed Kurt Vonnegut for a project, and the English teacher said that his paper showed that he didn't know the first thing about Vonnegut. I prefer to let the author of the work interpret his own meanings, and derive subsequent discussion/debate from that.

If the Standard Works, when they mention "Father", "Son", and "Holy Ghost", definitely mean something fundamentally different from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, that would have to be conclusively established from a study of the Standard Works themselves. We cannot start with that conclusion. Such a conclusion can arise only from a serious and thorough reading of the Standard Works.

Sorry, but you are wrong. The best way to understand a book is to know something about the author's context. You are attempting to foist your own ideas onto the Book of Mormon, and that is called eisegesis.

[Sparko]

Please remember the imagined instructions given to you by the highest official in your church:

"We are opening a series of dialogues with the LDS Church. The first is to study whether the Standard Works can be reasonably interpreted in a way that is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. I've spoken with LDS President Monson, and we are optimistic that the conclusion of our study and dialogue will indicate that the Standard Works can indeed be understood in a way that is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. We need for you to strive to clear away any misunderstandings and to work side-by-side with the LDS to study this issue. Begin the dialogue by giving every benefit of the doubt to the Standard Works. This is not a debate. This is a congenial, ecumenical discussion. Its purpose is not to determine the truthfulness or the falsity of either the Standard Works or of the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, it is to determine whether the Standard Works can be understood in a Trinitarian manner. If you are unwilling to proceed in this manner, please excuse yourself from participation."

So you are not actually interested in what the Standard Works actually say, or what the LDS believe, but just interested in how to force-fit your idea of the Trinity into the BoM? That is not very honest. It is nothing but a contrivance. A sham.

And I am being congenial. I simply am stating that there is no reasonable way that the Standard Works can be understood in a Trinitarian manner without ignoring large swathes of it.

If all you want are posts that agree with your point of view, then you are out of luck. This is a debate site, not a soapbox, nor a kumbaya campfire gathering.

I will remain respectful but I won't simply ignore what I see the BoM teaching and merely post things that agree with your point of view. That would be intellectually dishonest.

[Sparko]

Actually, Joseph Smith probably intended to teach the Trinity within the Book of Mormon. Remember that the Book of Mormon was conceived before the First Vision where it was said that "all churches are corrupt." That came in 1832. While 1 Nephi contains detailed prophecy of significant events in the Americas, including the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the Three Witnesses, it makes no mention of the restoration of the church.The Book of Mormon itself was probably intended as Baptist Protestant text. Its errors when explaining the doctrine of the Trinity likely originate from Smith's foggy understanding of the doctrine rather than an attempt to contradict it.

The D&C and Pearl of Great Price (the latter especially) are not Trinitarian.

I can agree with that. Smith didn't seem to understand the Trinity at all. That is why there are such verses as I have posted that show a form of modalism (Jesus is the father and the son). And yes, the D&C and PoGP do show that as time progressed, Smith changed to a nontrinitarian, polytheistic stance.

[Bill the Cat]

I am a Mormon of 48 years and have read these standard works numerous times. I have never read any thing about the "Nicene Council" and those that followed. However, I am a simple man who has read the New Testament and the Book of Mormon and can tell you that these books were not delivered to us for debate at any time. Paul did much debating and had not much success.

Paul had great success. It was because of him and his disciples that the churches in Asia flourished.

If you read the Bible and the Book of Mormon with and open mind, without looking for a reason to disagree or debate you will find that both books defend each other and teach of the very same doctrine Christ taught while on the earth.

Actually, I read the book of Mormon with an open mind several years ago. And when I prayed the prayer, I got a resounding NO when I prayed and asked if it was from God. The Bible nowhere defends the Book of Mormon.

Common sense tells us that when the words Father, Son, son, daughter, mother are all every day words.

And are used in a variety of ways.

Christ did not intend for us to debate using semantics.

I know He didn't. He intended for us to be united in our doctrines. He intended for us to believe in the Torah and the things contained inside it, such as monotheism. He intended for false doctrines to be exposed and rejected.

Father comes from the greek word meaning one who "organizes."

No it doesn't. It comes from the Greek word pater which means a nourisher, protector, father.

When the Bible is read with a simple mind and open mind you immediately begin to understand that these words have very specific meanings.

You mean like:

Mar 3:17 and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder");

So, does sons mean that they are the literal offspring of thunder?

Such as mentioned. If there is a Father and a Mother, the natural course of events would be for them to have "children" and since we are God's Children according to the Bible, then we are His children.

By adoption, we are. Jesus gave us a wonderful model of this on the cross:

Joh 19:26 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
Joh 19:27 Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

Mary did not give birth to John, but via adoption, she became his mother. Just as we are sons of God by adoption.

Rom 8:15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"

Eph 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

It is not until we believe that we become adopted sons.

He is the one who has made this statement of fact. There is no stumbling block with the definitions other than the ones you so called scholars place before yourselves. If you believe in the Bible, then believe in it without all the posturing, debating, extrapolation, etc. You'll find that the Bible is a great and wonderful book filled with the code of conduct we should live. Christ's life was one of perfection. He did not come to debate His meanings of words rather He lived what He preached

Then you are completely ignorant of the culture Jesus lived in. He did in fact debate, extrapolate, and posture with the Pharisees to expose their faulty interpretations. Every parable He gave was an extrapolation of a Torah lesson. Every rebuke He gave them was for misunderstanding the Torah.

, Remember this and learn, my friends. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is very simplistic and if one will only try applying his works in your life you will find happiness and contentment.

Really? Happines? Do you think Peter getting crucified upside down brought him happiness? Do you think Paul getting whipped and jailed brought him happiness? The Gospel is supposed to bring us salvation, and we are instructed to be content in our joy and suffering, but we are promised suffering as well as joy.

This will leave you with the desire to simply live as He did. May the Lord bless us as we strive to understand his simply message of love. Robert51

So, did Jesus act in love at all times in His life?

[Sparko]

Geoffrey, let me ask you a question.

Suppose I believed that Jesus was an Alien from outer space, and I claimed that the "standard works" of Christianity could be read in such a manner as to show that. Would it be intellectually honest of me to start a thread, saying

If you are a Catholic, imagine the Pope telling you that
"We are opening a series of dialogues with the Church of Jesus is an Alien. The first is to study whether the Bible can be reasonably interpreted in a way that is consistent with the doctrine that Jesus is an Alien from Outer Space. I've spoken with the CJA President, and we are optimistic that the conclusion of our study and dialogue will indicate that the Bible can indeed be understood in a way that is consistent with the doctrine of Jesus is an Alien. We need for you to strive to clear away any misunderstandings and to work side-by-side with the CJA to study this issue. Begin the dialogue by giving every benefit of the doubt to the Bible. This is not a debate. This is a congenial, ecumenical discussion. Its purpose is not to determine the truthfulness or the falsity of either the Bible or of the doctrine of the Jesus is an Alien. Rather, it is to determine whether the Bible can be understood in a Jesus is an Alien manner. If you are unwilling to proceed in this manner, please excuse yourself from participation."

and something similar for protestants.

In other words, I would be asking people to ignore what the bible is really saying, and try to find evidence for something the bible isn't saying, just to give my idea credence.

So, I could say find verses like:

John 8:23
But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

John 17:14
I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.
{wow we are ALL aliens!}

---
The end result would be a travesty of what the bible is actually teaching. I would be using a thread to have people gather "evidence" to support my idea, and telling them to shut up and leave if they have any contrary ideas. It would not be a free forum for thought, but a controlled and contrived situation that merely feeds my own ego and ideas.

[Geoffrey]

Quoted from the OP:

'If you are non-LDS, imagine that the highest leader in your church (Pope, Patriarch, bishop, president, minister, reverend, pastor, or whatever as the case may be) has summoned you to a private meeting with him. He tells you, "We are opening a series of dialogues with the LDS Church. The first is to study whether the Standard Works can be reasonably interpreted in a way that is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. I've spoken with LDS President Monson, and we are optimistic that the conclusion of our study and dialogue will indicate that the Standard Works can indeed be understood in a way that is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. We need for you to strive to clear away any misunderstandings and to work side-by-side with the LDS to study this issue. Begin the dialogue by giving every benefit of the doubt to the Standard Works. This is not a debate. This is a congenial, ecumenical discussion. Its purpose is not to determine the truthfulness or the falsity of either the Standard Works or of the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, it is to determine whether the Standard Works can be understood in a Trinitarian manner. If you are unwilling to proceed in this manner, please excuse yourself from participation."'

Sparko and Bill the Cat: You are both derailing the topic of this thread. You both seem to have already made up your minds that the Standard Works and the doctrine of the Trinity are incompatible, or (at the very least) you seem to have made up your minds that the methodology of this thread is quixotic. You do not have to participate. In fact, in the imagined instructions quoted above, you are asked to please excuse yourself from participation.