Re: [TruthTalk] Hows does this Mormon concept work

[Dave Hansen]

Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave,   Let's be fair here. Private conversations with your comrades, whether in the temple or without, is a bit different than what the temple endowmwents contain. I do not ask you what you pray, or to whom you pray. I do not ask you about a personal conversation you had with your bishop, or Blaine, or anyone else. Besides, as you have pointed out, the temple endowmwments are publicized all over the web and in numerous books. What is private about that? DAVEH:  That's my point.  Why did you want to know from me what goes on in the Temple if you have access to the the stuff posted on the net.  What's left?....just private conversations.   As far as the Trinity. You shall never understand it. DAVEH:   Again Perry, you are making my point.  Not only will I never understand it, but neither will you....nor anyone else.  It was designed that way, IMO. The fact that there is a Trinity is a fact. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity. The nature of the Trinity...the way in which the Three are addressed in the bible, where all three share the attributes of God, is clear. Yet, we also know from scripture that there is only ONE God. DAVEH:  As I've said before, I believe most Christians have misunderstood that oneness of God. There must be a resolution to this apparent dilemma. DAVEH:  What dilemma?  If you can be one with God, Perry.  Why can't Jesus be one with his Father in Heaven.  That would make 3 separate entities that are one with each other.  Doesn't seem difficult to understand to me.  Why is it so hard for you?  Or....do you not believe you can be one with God? There are basically two...whether the Three are of the same God, combined in some mystical way that we do not (yet) understand DAVEH:  ???   Already you are losing me, Perry.  Why are their basically 2 Gods in the Trinity?  Or....are you saying that the Trinity doesn't exist as one godhead (to choose a Biblical term that you have yet to introduce) with only 2 Gods, but it requires 3 Gods to form a Godhead (or Trinity, if you wish)? ...or there are three Gods. Christians, in general, choose the first option. Joseph Smith chose the second. The doctrine of the Trinity, while the nature of the union is not (cannot be) fully understood DAVEH:   That must be the reason you think I will never understand it. this side of Heaven, is the ony one that adequately deals with ALL aspects of the nature of the Three revealed in the Holy Word of God. All others have to abuse ignore some aspect of the text to make it fit their view. Some say Christ was not deity, yet the Bible makes it clear that he was. Some make them three separate gods, yet the scripture makes it clear that there is only one God. DAVEH:  As I've said before, Scripture makes it clear that there is only one God who should be worshiped.   Surely you admit that Scripture alludes to false Gods, and compels men not to worship such.  Instead, it compels men to worship the one true God.  It also deifies the Holy Spirit.  Does it suggest we worship the Holy Ghost?   No....it doesn't do that.  Scripture also teaches Jesus is a God.  Yet who does Jesus say we should worship....himself?  NO!  Jesus teaches us to worship his (and our) Father in Heaven.  Does Jesus (who is a God) claim the glory by himself?  Again......NO.......Jesus' glory was all gained from his Father, as he did not seek glory on his own.  Furthermore, he directs us to give all glory to and our Father in Heaven.  What's so hard to understand about any of that, Perry?  This simply is not a mystery such as that that the T-Doctrine tries to foist on us. Some make them all separate manifestations (appearances) of the one God, yet they can appear separately at separate times and interact with one another. A truly mystical union. DAVEH:   Mystical?!?!?!?!   Hardly.  Three separate Gods can interact as the Bible describes, yet still point to the glory of our Father in Heaven.  Did Jesus not say that his Father was greater than he?  (Jn 14:28)  Is glory not associated with the Father?  (Acts 7:55)  Did not Jesus give glory to his Father?  (Jn 17:4)  And....did not the glory of Christ come from his Father?   (Jn 17:5) It has been called a "hypostatic union", but I am not even sure what that means, nor do I think it matters. DAVEH:  Again, you are making my point, Perry.........Such theories were proffered in an effort to obfuscate rather than illuminate.    Some argue that since the word "Trinity" is not in the bible, there is no such thing. The word "Trinity" is the word used to represent the mystical union of the Three as a single God. DAVEH:   Do you know why they simply did not refer to it (Trinity) as the Godhead?   Wouldn't that have been more Biblical and easier to perceive?  Or....do you believe there is a difference between Godhead and Trinity? Because we can't understand it's very nature does not mean that it does not exist. Life is full of such mysteries...things that we know, but cannot explain or fully understand.   Besides, I do not find any of the Mormon characters from the novel called "The Book of Mormon" mentioned in the Bible. DAVEH:  Once such character is Martin Harris, who is described in Isa 29:11 and again in JS 2:63-65 Nor do I find any of the Mormon temple endowments described in the Bible DAVEH:  Do you consider annointings to be Biblical? doctrine (although I do see them in handbooks on Masonic rites). For that matter, I do not find the mormon jesus, DAVEH:  A God who atoned for our sins by dying for in our behalf, who was resurrected so that we too could overcome death, and now possesses an exalted physical body of flesh and bone....which we will also enjoy due to his grace.  That is the mormon jesus I believe is my Elder Brother, Perry.  mormon satan, DAVEH:  Who is one of the Lord's creation who was cast out of heaven in the pre-mortal existence for disobedience.  or mormon god in the Bible, either. In spite of this, you would argue that they are there. DAVEH:  Yes, Perry.  I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.   You statement "it seems the T-Doctrine was politically contrived to actually mystify the Trinity in an effort to bring a lot of diverse beliefs under one theological umbrella" just sounds like anti-christian crap. DAVEH:   Call it what you wish, but it seems to have worked in your case.  Otherwise....why do you not understand it??? What is your reference for that statement? DAVEH:   You....... The doctrine of the Trinity, while the nature of the union is not (cannot be) fully understood..... Is it yours, or is it standard Mormon patter? DAVEH:   No, Perry....I think it is you who suggested the Trinity Doctrine could not be understood.   The Trinity doctrine is merely man's best attempt at resolving an apparent paradox in the Bible DAVEH:   ???  I would suggest the paradox was created by the Trinity Doctrine in an attempt to make incorrectly understood conflicting beliefs harmonize.   As I've shown above, there is no need believe there is a paradox in the Godhead.  Why should God be a paradox or a mystery?  That doesn't make sense.  Paul suggested the gospel is to clarify mysteries, not enhance them as does the T-Doctrine. ...and as I have stated...it does more justice to the text than any other explanation. DAVEH:  May I recommend you read my above simple explanation again.... And, although mormons apparently cannot bear the thought that there are some aspects of God that we (humans) simply do not understand, there certainly are. DAVEH:   Why would you say that, Perry?  In a post a few days ago, I carefully explained to you that there are numerous things that have not been revealed about the nature of God.  Contrary to what you may think, that does not trouble me or any other LDS folks I know.  What would trouble me though is to think of God as a paradox.      And Perry....I do find that very fascinating, that you would be comfortable believing in a paradox.  To appease such an apparent conflict, a political figure brought a group of men together to hammer out (contrive) a solution that would be acceptable to a large number of people to keep peace in the kingdom, so to speak.  What came from that consortium of diverse opinions is the T-Doctrine, which for all intents and purposes appears to be the result of being....... merely man's best attempt at resolving an apparent paradox in the Bible .........rather than what the Bible teaches.  Wouldn't you agree, Perry?!?!?!    To think otherwise is to make oneself equal with God...and that is what Mormons are trying to do with their un-biblical "men-to-gods" heresy. They have bitten from the proverbial forbidden fruit...they have swallowed Satan's original lie, and are attempting to convince others that it is true, as Satan did with Eve, and as Eve did with Adam in the Garden. When one sins, there are three ways to absolve the guilt. Convince others to join the sin (misery loves company), convince others the sin is not a sin (moral relativism), or drop to one's knees before a merciful and forgiving God, confess their sin, and ask for forgiveness. (The first two only delay the penalty...not remove it). DAVEH:   Was there a question in there, Perry?  Or were you just ranting?   It is time for the entire body of Mormons to cease from their sin, confess, and ask for forgiveness. The Worldwide Church of God did this a few years back under the inspired and wise leadership of Edward Tkatch...I am sure it can happen within the Mormon church as well, with the help of the Holy Spirit and a handful of spirit filled and inspired individuals in the church. When that occurs, Dave, be sure you are on the side of the Holy Spirit. Perry -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.