Why Mormons Don’t Believe In The Trinity … Part 3

25 thoughts on “Why Mormons Don’t Believe In The Trinity … Part 3”

1. 

   Holly

   October 21, 2014 at 4:41 pm

   Reply

   And there you have it! Thanks for being so clear,concise,and giving scripture to back it up. I have never had a problem with believing the Godhead as three separate beings, and never thought the idea of the Trinity made sense.But sometimes as I try to back up my belief..I can only think of two or three examples off the top of my head.This great to have example after example,that solidifies the truthfulness of what and who the Godhead is, and that they are three distinct beings.Thanks!

2. 

   Dudleydoright

   October 21, 2014 at 4:46 pm

   Reply

   Fantastic series, keep them coming

3. 

   Donna

   October 21, 2014 at 5:56 pm

   Reply

   Thank you. I loved this. My heart burned within me as I read it. I needed it. Thank you for boldly sharing the truth.

4. 

   Broken bose

   October 21, 2014 at 8:59 pm

   Reply

   The Christian dogma of the Holy Trinity is not a concept born out of the creeds of early Christianity. It was actually a definition based on the tradition of the early Church on how to best understand who or what the nature of God actually is. The creeds are therefore a summation of that understanding drawn from the Scripture, traditions, and prayerful reflections that we have from the apostles and the early Church (at the Council of Nicaea, only two bishops out of roughly three hundred and twelve agreed with Arius on Christ’s divine nature. All others proclaimed Christ as God–of the same nature (homoousios) as the Father; one in Being, and not more than one Being.

   But set aside the concept of the Trinity for the moment on how God can be three persons, but only one God.

   Entertaining the idea that God can exist in more than one nature leads to logical inconsistencies that destroy a reasonable understanding of the universe that we actually observe.

   Perhaps you’ll say that Heavenly Father exists above reason. Perhaps He does, but He can’t live ‘outside’ of reason or else any conclusions or declarations that you might draw concerning God’s nature (or anything else for that matter) would be entirely impossible to make. You couldn’t, even as a Mormon, make any statement on who or what God is then with any kind of reasonable certainty. (maybe you could say it was by revelation alone. That’s fine, but it undercuts the reason for your blog posts–which is a reasonable argument against the Trinitarian understanding of God’s nature)

   So, if there is more than one God, then you must ask, from where did all other gods come? If God does not in Himself singularly and necessarily possess the attribute of existence, as the source of all existence, then He must derive existence from something or someone else. So where did it all begin? If it’s just a mystery, then it would be no better, according to you, than the Christian Trinitarian concept. But I believe it was B. H. Roberts who answered, supporting the statement from Prophet Brigham Young, that the number of gods were endless in the past. But this is really impossible.

   Let me explain: If there is an infinite regress of gods from the infinite past then reaching this present God–Elohim, and this present world He made–Earth, would be impossible. From any point in the infinite past, there would be an impassable gulf between then and now, because no matter how far we travel forward through time, there would always be an infinite amount more to traverse across before reaching the present. (this is the problem of ‘traversing the infinite’. We use it in math when we say dividing by zero is an illegal operation for instance)

   But here we are.

   Therefore the past is not infinite, and neither are the gods who populate it according to LDS theology, speculative or otherwise.

   Therefore the specific LDS understanding of Elohim (through the endless exaltation of men) must also be incorrect. There is simply no way around it. Brigham Young and B. H. Roberts must be wrong. The only other explanation is that if the nature and existence of God is true under LDS theology and understanding, then God’s existence is necessarily unreasonable. But God’s existence cannot be. Therefore it is the LDS understanding of God that must be false. And the implication here can’t be understated for the Mormon theological perspective. If the doctrine of exaltation is wrong, then it really destroys the entire underpinnings of LDS theology.

   (But perhaps matter existed forever, so God didn’t have to. But this position answers nothing. If an infinite number of gods could not have existed in the past because an infinite past didn’t exist, then matter, just like the gods who formed it, couldn’t have existed forever either. Matter therefore needs a reason and a cause for existence also.)

   So before we even get to the possibility of exploring the Trinitarian concept of God, we can show I believe, that the LDS concept of the nature of God existing in more than one nature is untenable.

   This is because there must be a single source for the beginning of everything (since everything must ultimately have a cause for its existence), necessarily and absolutely, or else you have to cede for instance, the source of existence of the present God to the God who came before Him. If you can’t do that either (since he was only exalted to the God head by the prior God), then we again are left with an infinite regress of gods whose existence was never part of their own immutable nature, but only “borrowed” as it were, from the God who came before; which leads to an unreasonable conclusion: no single source is ultimately responsible for the existence of anything. So we have to ask the questions Leibnitz asked: where did anything come from? And why is there anything at all? And if God isn’t responsible, then who or what is? Shouldn’t that source then be called God if it exists?

   This is like the ‘one fruitcake’ theory where there is only one fruitcake in the entire world, and it just keeps getting ‘gifted’ endlessly to someone else at Christmas time because no one wants it. No one has ever KEPT the fruitcake, because they have already given it to someone else.

   The question is: So how do you know if the fruitcake ever existed if no one can account for it’s whereabouts right now?

   So if God in LDS theology never possessed in Himself the attribute of existence outside of always inheriting it from the God before Him, then how does one explain the existence of the LDS God at all? In short, LDS theology doesn’t provide an answer. I suspect because LDS theology is wrong on the nature of God. But in any case, it is a mystery. And for a religion that eschews mystery, this is a bona-fide humdinger.

   The next problem in contradicting the concept of the Trinity comes from quoting Biblical Scripture frankly.

   Here’s the problem: in order to quote Biblical Scripture as a valid authority, you must first believe it is true. Since the Bible Canon wasn’t determined by the apostles (since they were dead), nor the LDS Church since it only recognized Scripture whose Canon was already authorized, then under what authority did we come to understand the Bible as the true Word of God? That would be the same authority you seek to undermine using the Bible–namely the Roman Catholic Church (the Biblical Canon was determined by the Catholic Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, and confirmed in Hippo in 392, in Carthage in 396 and 419, Florence in 1441, and finally in Trent in 1546).

   So if you don’t believe in the Trinity, then why believe in the Bible since it is only as reliable as the authority that produced the doctrine of the Trinity? Can’t the Bible (or at least it’s Canon) be just as wrong as the Trinitarian doctrine, since it was the same authority that erred so badly when determining God’s nature as Trinitarian?

   The logical position in rejecting the authority that gave you both, is to reject both the revelations of Biblical Scripture AND the nature of God that this authority decided.

   But by accepting the one, and rejecting the other, the LDS Church sets itself in contradiction to its own beliefs. Because by accepting the Bible as Scripture, there is at least an implicit assent to an authority that the LDS Church says shouldn’t exist. By accepting the Bible, it is saying that the LDS Church, at least for the purposes of knowing the revelation of Biblical Scripture, was unnecessary.

   And if the LDS Church is unnecessary in knowing God’s word, since it accepts the Catholic Church’s authority here, then why do we need it to know God’s nature, since we have the Catholic Church’s authority here as well?

   And so the Trinity.

   God must be one in nature as shown briefly by the above arguments. We can see I think that at least it can’t be more than one. But since Scripture attests to Christ’s Divinity also (see John 8:58) and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19), then there must necessarily be more than one person within the single nature of God.

   So this is where the Trinitarian understanding of God begins. It is reasonable, and it is what the early Church understood through its tradition and reflection handed down by the apostles.

   • 

     Ron Den Boer

     October 23, 2014 at 8:26 am

     Reply

     Mark 12:28 And one of the
     scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he
     had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of
     all? 29And Jesus answered
     him, The first of all
     the commandments is, Hear, O Israel;
     The Lord our God is one Lord:”

     • 

       SoundOn

       October 24, 2014 at 12:24 am

       Reply

       Jesus is only one personage. His Father is another personage and together they are united as one in purpose as the scriptures teach.

   • 

     Ender Wiggin

     October 28, 2014 at 9:59 pm

     Reply

     What you’re saying is that because we can’t comprehend infinity, because we don’t know exactly how eternity functions (before and after us) B.H. Roberts and Brigham Young couldn’t possibly be correct. Well that’s a bit self-centered and pompous don’t you think? Because humanity can’t comprehend a logic outside their own creation it must not exist. That’s absurd.

     “How do you know if the fruitcake ever existed if no one can account for it’s whereabouts right now?” — Same thing could be said of electrons. Since their position, scientifically nor mathematically, can ever be “at this point in time” exacted, can they really exist? Its a pointless argument, as we’ve already verified the existence of electrons despite our inability to pinpoint their precise location at any given moment.

     “So if God in LDS theology never possessed in Himself the attribute of existence outside of always inheriting it from the God before Him, then how does one explain the existence of the LDS God at all?” — The answer to this conundrum relies wholly in your frame of reference. If a being existed before we existed (in any state) and will exist forever after us, then TO US that being is eternal and infinite. This presumption does not infer the state of that being before our existence nor its relationship to anything outside our own sphere of reference. Since God created us, anything outside our sphere of existence is beyond our comprehension and has little to nothing to do with our existence. Put simply, if we were all ants, anything to do with our life as ants is within our sphere and comprehension. Life or beings or species outside the realm of our existence are also outside our sphere of understanding and thus irrelevant to our state of being. If an ant were to say that humans couldn’t exist because that ant couldn’t comprehend the realm of their existence would be the same as the reason you’re dismissing the LDS belief on God.

     In addition, to us as God’s children no other god could circumvent our God’s role to us. My earthly father will forever be my father despite the existence of the millions of other fathers who have lived worldwide throughout time. The fact that other fathers have families of their own does not prevent my father from being the “one and only father” to me.

     Thus the only thing wrong with your interpretation of LDS doctrine is your frame of reference.

     Your last argument fell on its face before it began. LDS doctrine considers the canon of scripture OPEN and not wholly contained in the Bible. Scripture is received from God through his prophets past and future.

     “Why believe in the Bible since it is only as reliable as the authority that produced the doctrine of the Trinity?” — The Bible and its teachings even the Christ’s church in the New Testament predates the Catholic Church. Trinitarian doctrine was decided upon in the councils during which the creeds were ratified. Thus your argument, being based on the assumption that the Catholic church holds sole responsibility for the Bible and thus can’t be wrong in Trinitarian doctrine when one holds the Bible as true, is faulty being built on a false assumption.

     Doesn’t it bother you that the doctrine of the Catholic church had to be ratified by popular vote to be confirmed? And this election vote dictated what all Christianity from then on must believe to be labeled as true…to whom?

     • 

       Broken bose

       October 30, 2014 at 10:14 pm

       Reply

       Ender Wiggin, thank you for your reply. And it’s a great name by the way. I’ve read Ender’s Game perhaps five times, and have finished the series. I’ve got to admit that I was disappointed with the rest of the books, but followed the movie development with excitement. I had high hopes there too, but the movie felt underdeveloped and rushed. Still, the first book is a classic.

       Now to your reply.

       You said in your opening,

       “What you’re saying is that because we can’t comprehend infinity, because we don’t know exactly how eternity functions”

       That is not what I said. What I said was that an infinite regressive series of physical objects does not exist in the physical universe. And since the gods of mormonism exist precisely in this way (with flesh and bones as tangible as man), that this LDS theological concept is false.

       Let me explain the reasoning behind this.

       The concept of infinity is merely an idea that has no true analog in the physical universe. While it exists in our conceptual thinking, that is where it stops (excuse the wonkish pun). There is nothing in the physical universe that exists in an infinite series, including time.

       Here’s an analogy to prove this:

       Remember the winner of the hot dog eating contest that Nathan’s hot dogs holds every year? His name was Joey Chestnut and he ate 61 hot dogs in ten minutes (I would hope I haven’t eaten that many in my entire lifetime, but sadly probably have).

       Now, let’s say I’m Joey’s brother, and haven’t won anything. My brother gets all the glory. So in your mercy you give me a chance to win my own hot dog eating contest, and in this contest, I only have to eat one-an-hour to win.

       In the first challenge you give me ten hot dogs to eat. At the end of ten hours, you look to see my plate is empty. So you ring the bell showing I’ve won the first contest.

       In your next challenge, you give me 100 hot dogs to eat. So after four days and fours more hours, still eating a hot dog every hour, you see my plate is again empty and you ring the bell. I’ve won again.

       Now let’s make an assumption at this point (whether it’s true or not in the real world). Let’s say that the universe is no more than a million years old.

       You give me a million years worth of hot dogs to eat. So I begin eating at the dawn of time in the newly created universe and every hour, without fail, I eat one hot dog until we get to the present time, and you can see that after a million years of eating, my plate is empty. I’ve won again. You ring the bell.

       Now let’s say you give me not one, but two million years worth of hot dogs the eat (just to be mean maybe), knowing that the universe is only a million years old. I plead with you that I’ve never won anything against my brother Joey and that I’m good for it. I’ll even give you my xbox to use for a million years until I finish the extra million years worth of hot dogs to eat. You eventually feel sorry for me and agree. So I start eating at the beginning of time. When we reach the present time, just as you’ve agreed, you wait the extra million years for me to finish eating while you use my xbox. At the end of the extra million years, you see that I’ve finished finally and you ring the bell in relief. I’ve won AND I get my xbox back (albeit now they’re making xbox version 60,000).

       Last challege.

       After racking up an impressive record so far, your give me your final, toughest challenge. Now, you give me ALL the hot dogs eat. An infinite number. So I start eating.

       Here’s the question: when will I be able to stop eating so that I win the contest again? When will my plate be empty? You, knowing this challenge is unbeatable, ring the bell to show me this time–that YOU’VE won the contest. This time, you’re the champion.

       Here’s the next question.

       Who are you ringing the bell?

       The answer is: you’re the universe we currently live in. Because anytime we reach the present time, it shows that there must have been a beginning from which we could start eating hot dogs (or doing anything else), traverse a finite course of time, and reach the end. The present time actually means that the end of finite time has been reached. If the universe were truly infinite, like finishing an endless plate of hot dogs, this would not be possible.

       Since LDS theology or theological speculation at least, requires an infinite universe to be proven true, and since an infinite number of gods require an infinite amount of time to exist in, the fact that the universe is indeed finite is proof that LDS theology is false, at least in this regard. Therefore the theology of Exaltation is wrong, since an endless number of gods must exist in order to have exalted endlessly the number of gods who came after them. Again, the implication for the LDS Church can’t be overstated here.

       I’m not being pompous when asserting this. I’m just trying to offer the facts, and to this point I haven’t received any cogent answer (and I’ve asked many, many Mormons the question concerning the problem with DC 93:33 and the problem of infinite past time) that refutes the above reasoning.

       Your answer to the question, which I’ve heard many times (the other answer I’ve heard equally as frequent: well, have you prayed about it? To which my response is, why if this religion is true, must I first pray about it to perceive its truthfulness), is that we simply don’t have an answer. And for a religion that denigrates ‘mystery’ as proof of a false Christian theology, I would be surprised if I hadn’t heard it so often from LDS members who resort to it as a go-to answer to LDS theological quandaries.

       Your other point was that say that my recourse to the Canon of Scripture is incorrect. You said:

       “Your last argument fell on its face before it began. LDS doctrine considers the canon of scripture OPEN and not wholly contained in the Bible. Scripture is received from God through his prophets past and future.”

       But again, my argument here is not that the LDS Church has an open Canon. The question I raised was why the LDS Church accepts the Biblical Canon in particular. The Biblical Canon IS closed. And since the apostles themselves didn’t authorize the Biblical Canon, since they were dead, nor did the LDS Church, since they only accepted a Biblical Canon already in existence (authorized by the Catholic Church), then why accept that Canon if the body that authorized it (the Catholic Church again) was illegitimate? In other words, if you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church, then why accept its book?

       By doing so, the LDS Church (as do Protestant churches I would add) contradicts the reason it says it exists–to bring Truth to the world. If there was already an authoritative body that could discern the revelation of Biblical truth (and there were hundreds of books contending for the distinction in the first four centuries of Christianity–Eusebius in his Church History [Amazon for 99¢] relates that in AD 325, several different Biblical canons were floating around the local churches), then doesn’t this undermine the claims of the LDS Church if the Catholic Church had already discerned what the Bible was by the end of the fourth century?

       Thanks for your reply to my earlier post, and I look forward to your next reply.

       God bless.

       • 

         Ender Wiggin

         November 3, 2014 at 3:42 pm

         Reply

         I’ve read Ender’s Game more times than I’d care to admit. I too am not a fan of Speaker for the Dead or Xenocide, though if you haven’t I’d highly recommend Ender’s Shadow and the rest of that series thread encompassing the same story from Bean’s perspective.

         I appreciate you taking time to revisit the comments and presenting your take on the matter. I typically jot down notes as I read your comment then flesh out the sections to address what you said. My format usually lists your comment in quotes followed by my response. I hope you can follow the process.

         “Infinite regressive series/gods of mormonism and their existence” – What you’re referring to here is pure speculation from LDS members (prophets as well). postulating from their understanding of things The concept frequently quoted here “as man is God once was…etc” is not doctrine though many have speculated and philosophized. While I welcome the conversation and the exchange of ideas, there is no way to say (regardless of argument) whether one or the other point of view is correct.

         I see it this way, mankind’s understanding is capped by the boundaries of its existence. I call it the sphere of our influence, anything outside this sphere is incomprehensible and undefinable. In this region beyond our existence everything is beyond the scope of our definitions and experiences and to question what we cannot comprehend is futile as there is no frame of reference for us to apply. Such questions as the infinite nature of God and the development of the universe before our creation exist outside our sphere of existence. The same logic and time, and space references and definitions, are incompatible as their existence is limited to the scope of our ability to define them.

         I do not present the concept of our sphere of influence as a cop out. Nor am I avoiding the question you asked about the concept of infinity. I simply mention it to define the requirements of infinity and an infinite existence. A finite existence is dependent on the measurement of time. Infinity is the extension of time in continuity before and after us, but is still defined by our reference on time itself. Our time reference is defined by the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. But time, by our definition does not exist outside our solar system. Indeed our references to time become completely irrelevant beyond the Sun’s gravity. Your reference to a hot dog eating challenge was also (interestingly enough) based on a time frame even when the topic switched from 1 million hotdogs to infinity or “ALL the hotdogs eat” [sic]. I assume you meant all the hotdogs that could be eaten or that could exist. Though this seems unending, this number is not infinite. It’s limited by the number of hotdogs that could be made, and by the continued existence of beef/pork animals, and by the life of humans, and the life of the earth. While this may be a LOT of hotdogs it’s still not infinite in the way you’re referring (unending) as there’s always an end that places a boundary on “infinite”.

         Since our time frame is based on the existence of the Sun, so long as a being is as old or older than our Sun that being could be described as infinite as, by our measure of time, it has existed as long as time itself. In astronomy the creation and destruction of suns, stars, and galaxies is witnessed. The depth and immense expanse of the universe disqualifies our dependency on the concept of time. Our existence is not the center of the meaning of the universe, but rather a miniscule and insignificantly short burst of life. However to us, inside our time frame it’s everything. That’s enough postulation for now, I’ll leave it alone by stating that limiting the possibilities of the universe based on the current scope of our understanding is pompous and futile.

         I have a question for you. According to Google the Milky Way galaxy contains around 300,000,000,000 stars (300 billion). It also suggests that in our observable universe there are more than 100,000,000,000 galaxies (100 billion). I emphasize the word “observable” as not all-encompassing, but rather only what we can currently observe. We also know that space is expanding. So here’s my question. What fills up space besides us? And would you define space itself as “infinite”?

         Back to your comment.

         “well, have you prayed about it? To which my response is, why if this religion is true, must I first pray about it to perceive its truthfulness” – This is a much easier question to answer than “how is infinity defined”, or “what is the concept of time outside our solar system”. The question you’re asking (that spawned our conversation) isn’t a doctrine question. It isn’t a gospel question. It is a fringe question on which there is little to no information and on which only exists speculation because it does not directly impact our salvation under the gospel of Christ. The only beings that can directly (without speculation) answer the question you have are those that exist outside our limitations. Thus, prayer is the option with the only secure answers available to us. While you and I could speculate and toss logic and philosophical arguments back and forth, the only “answers” we could decide on are unprovable theories. I love theorizing and appreciate your logic and analogies, but there are no answers to your questions in the realm of man. 

         “heard it so often from LDS members who resort to it as a go-to answer to LDS theological quandaries.” – The reason you hear this (pray about it) so often is that there are answers for everything, but we’re only given answers (to questions outside the gospel of Christ and its direct impact on our salvation) that we actively seek. This is a founding principle in the gospel of Jesus Christ, that knowledge is gleaned one step at a time. The phrase “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little” appears in scripture to illustrate that answers to complex questions unfurl as our understanding of the principles surrounding our question increases.

         You addressed the quandary that the concept of infinity exists nowhere in nature. At first glance I could agree with you, but I thought of one as I read the rest of your comment. Knowledge is infinite. You can never know “everything”. Perhaps I should insert a qualifier here. We, as people, can never know everything there is to know. We can pursue the increase of knowledge and understanding our entire lives only to realize that we truly know little.

         “In other words, if you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church, then why accept its book?” – I understood your position the first time you presented it. You’re correct in siting the principle that you cannot get good fruit from a bad tree. If the LDS church considers the Catholic Church to have gone astray (corrupted=bad) then how can we accept that the Bible created under their authority as authoritative. I admit it’s a quandary that all Christians (non-Catholics) face. Yours is a 2-part question:

         The first is “how can we trust the Bible and not the Catholic Church?”

         You said “why accept that Canon if the body that authorized it (the Catholic Church again) was illegitimate?”

         The second is “why the need for the LDS church if the Catholic Church was authoritative?”

         You said “If there was already an authoritative body that could discern the revelation of Biblical truth, then doesn’t this undermine the claims of the LDS Church”

         I hope I understood your comment correctly. Both are excellent questions. They are the same question (of authority) with two similar answers—

         You’ll probably laugh as this but the 1st answer here is to pray about it. The concept, which I don’t flippantly suggest (which encompasses all religious beliefs of any kind), is trust. Everyone decides in whom to place their trust and how deep that trust runs. Whether you choose to place your trust in theologians, or logic and philosophy, or prophets and scripture, and/or God, everyone depends on sources for their information. Even scientific “evidence” is accepted or discarded (regardless of supporting information) based on the “level of confidence” one places on its source. I have, throughout my life proven (for myself, with a high level of confidence) that prayer works. Thus, for me, I turn to God and scripture when I stumble on questions to which the answer is “difficult”.

         I have pondered questions through life and the scriptures and with my God and have placed my trust in those men I believe to be prophets called of God. Our prophets have said we can trust the Bible, so in trusting them I trust the Bible. I have also received (through prayer) answers for myself that the Bible is scripture to be relied on. Even these answers require follow-up when questions arise. So the process is ongoing.

         A belief of the LDS church is that “we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God” (8th Article of Faith — https://www.lds.org/search?q=articles+of+faith&lang=eng&domains=scriptures). All scripture works together and does not contradict. The Book of Mormon stabilizes the Bible and together they testify of Christ and the truth of the gospel presented to us.

         The answer to the 2nd question discussing claims on authority the Catholic Church vs. the LDS church is too long to tack on to the end of this 3 page comment. Sorry if I wrote too long, but these are complex issues you’re questioning. In any case I look forward to your take, redefining the boundaries of the term “infinite”. :p

         • 

           Broken bose

           November 14, 2014 at 7:56 pm

           Hey Ender, sorry for the delay in replying. And thanks for taking the time to reply. I see you’ve put a lot of work into it, and I didn’t mean to blow it off. I just honestly didn’t see it until today. And yes! I read Ender’s Shadow as well. I think what disappointed me with that book is that it made Ender’s accomplishments seem more like accidents, and that the real brains behind the whole operation belonged to Bean. Also, the ‘voice’ was different. Bean sounded different in Ender’s game than he did in Shadow. So it felt tacked on a bit to me–like more of a money grab from Card (who I know is LDS and whose stance on traditional marriage I greatly appreciated as a Catholic), trying to capitalize on the success of his first book in the series–that’s the cynic in me coming out. In the movie, Ender found the bugger Queen so quick at the end, it made me wonder why they didn’t try and find her first to resolve the entire situation–she was right there all along! Oh well.

           To your reply.

           You said,

           “Infinity is the extension of time in continuity before and after us, but is still defined by our reference on time itself.”

           Infinity is a tricky beast. In order to posit its reality in nature, you actually have to forgo a past, present and future time frame–it doesn’t exist in a past-infinite (or past-time complete physicists might say) universe.

           Because we have the past, live in the present, and look forward to the future, it means that the universe must be finite by definition.

           Here’s the reason: if you were to pick any point in the infinite past and move forward in time, how long would it take you to arrive at the present? The answer is: you would never reach the present time because there would always be an infinite amount of time between that point in the infinite past and our present time. That’s what infinity means. So how long would it take to reach the hour just before the present hour? The answer is the same–you’d never reach it either. How about the hour just before that? Nope. You would never reach any past hour because an infinite amount of past time would always prevent any hour from becoming at some point the present hour, to then move into the past. The interesting conundrum in actually having an infinite past, would be that there would be no past, present or future frame of reference. It wouldn’t exist. Therefore our universe, by the very fact that we experience present time, and have experienced past time, and look forward to the future, is proof of a universe that has only existed for a finite amount of time in the past. There really is no other explanation for how we experience the universe–from our frame of reference or any other. Again, the present time means that the end of finite time has been reached.

           Now the quandary that I mentioned to you regarding this fact has to do with the doctrine of Exaltation, and that the doctrine relies on the necessity that the universe be infinite in order for the doctrine to always be true. And of course you’re correct, it is only a theological speculation. Still, if the truth of a doctrine is valid, it’s truth claims should be able to withstand the rigor of reasonable questioning. And here, a difficulty emerges. Namely that if the universe was not infinite, then the Exaltation of men was not always true. So if it wasn’t true always, then when was it not true? And, was it ever true? Frankly, if you can’t say definitively that the doctrine has always been true, then in this case you can’t really say it was ever true at all. The doctrine of Exaltation doesn’t allow for it by the nature of its claim that men have always been exalted by the gods that came before them–what else would Exaltation be? My point is that the eternal doctrine of Exaltation is false if the universe in which it is supposed to exist is finite. And since our universe is finite, the doctrine must be false.

           (The analogy that I used with the hot dogs was just that. Hot dogs were analogous to hours. So if an infinite number of hot dogs on a plate cannot be finished, then an infinite number of hours in the universe can’t be finished either (since both hours and hot dogs physically exist). But since the hours of the universe HAVE been finished (since we have reached the present time), then it must mean that the universe doesn’t possess an infinite number of hours. I hope that makes more sense.)

           Now your question about infinity. And it’s a fascinating question if I understand you correctly. I think you’re asking–what is the universe expanding into if the universe is all that exists? It’s the ultimate theological speculation. The answer I would give from my theological/philosophical standpoint, is if the universe is all there is–then God is constantly creating something from nothing at every moment the universe expands–which is exactly what God did when He created the universe in the beginning from nothing at all (this is classic Christian theology). And since our observation of the universe strongly implies an absolute beginning, then it’s present expansion is an extension of God’s creative power. The classic Christian concept of Creation is that there was an absolute beginning to everything, and that God, who is outside of physical reality (since all physical things began to exist with the beginning of the universe), created everything. Prior to this, nothing–not space, nor time, nor any material substance, existed. There was a complete absence of all things. So in essence, there wasn’t even a ‘prior time’ to the beginning of the universe, since time is itself part of the physical universe. We simply cannot imagine this state of non-being. We don’t even have proper language to describe it. (Incidentally time does exist outside our solar system. It must exist as it is part of the fabric by which space and dimensionality is comprised. Think of the three dimensions of length, height, and width as the photograph or snap-shot of physical reality. When time is added, that’s when the movie starts playing. So if stars move, and brighten and combust, even light-years away, time must exist there also, to move those actions along.)

           Here’s the weird part to all the above if the above wasn’t weird enough–it’s the only viable explanation we’re left with to explain why anything exists. God must be the ultimate cause, because without Him, nothing ‘begins’ to exist at all. Nothing has the power to simply exist independently of someone, or something else having placed it into motion; or having given it existence. We don’t have the experience of seeing stuff just ‘pop’ into existence. Stuff doesn’t work that way. It never has (not even at the quantum level as some quantum theorists fudge). The universe didn’t just pop into existence under its own power–since it didn’t yet exist to have any power, nor did it exist forever. Therefore the only explanation we’re left with is that a Being, who is non-material (since everything material began to exist at the beginning of the universe), outside of time (since time began with the beginning of the universe), and Omnipotent (since He had the power to create everything from nothing and exist without needing to be brought into existence) is the reason for all that there is. (The question, who created God? then, is a non-starter, because if someone or something else brought God into being, then He wouldn’t be God, but merely another created being. But if there is a beginning (and we’ve shown that there must be), then the first or initial reason for all of creation must itself not be created–or else you get back on that infinite bike ride of no return again–which again cannot be true since the universe is finite.

           In short, this is classic Christian (Catholic) theology. And it comports perfectly with our observation of how the universe really works.

           One last point. Science has now given us a proof that there was indeed a beginning to the universe, in the famous BGV theorem. Three of the most renown astrophysicists in the world; Alvin Borde, Alan Guthe, and Alexander Vilenkin have produced a proof that shows that all possible configurations of possible universes with an average positive expansion rate (which ours is), are “past-time interrupted”, which means that they all had a beginning at some point in the past. They couldn’t have existed forever in the past. The proof is basically unquestioned in the scientific community because the conditions that require it to be true are basically evident (but I’m sure some will try anyway).

           Here’s the problem in a nutshell:

           The universe doesn’t look like what LDS theology says it should. If the universe didn’t always exist, then the Mormon concept of god is wrong, since the LDS concept of God only makes things from pre-existent matter, and does not create matter. In fact, Mormon ‘godhood’ wouldn’t exist if the universe wasn’t eternal. So where did they come from? And who created the universe if Mormon gods are merely an indigenous species to the existing universe but not transcendent to it? Where did anything come from if we know the universe had a definite beginning? It IS doctrine that LDS gods only made things out of existing matter, but did not create matter itself. But if we know that the universe at some past point didn’t exist, then this doctrine must be wrong. Since the universe began to exist, LDS theology concerning the nature of God and the universe is wrong.

           The other question you had concerns the Biblical canon.

           Your answer was to pray about it.

           While I appreciate that as a sincere answer, it isn’t a solution to a very big problem. The problem is that there would be nothing to pray about if the authority of the Catholic Church didn’t at first provide you (and other non-Catholics) with a Canon to consider. And since the LDS Church accepts that Canon (but didn’t produce it), then it is admitting that as a Church, it was unnecessary for knowing or proclaiming that revelation. Why isn’t this a contradiction to the existence of the LDS Church if the authority of the Catholic Church was sufficient for knowing the revelation of the Bible? By accepting the revelation of the Canon, the LDS Church is really admitting that it’s own authority was unnecessary.

           Let me say that one more time: the LDS Church is saying it’s existence is unnecessary for knowing God’s revelation (and we’re not talking any revelation here–we’re talking the Bible). Can you see the implication here? If the Bible is true, then the LDS Church is… not. Wait–what? Why would I say that? It’s simple. Because an authority already existed to discern and proclaim truth. It means that a restoration of authority was unnecessary, because the authority to proclaim truth–like the Biblical Canon–never left. By accepting the Bible then, the LDS Church is implicitly agreeing with that stunning contradiction. I hope you can understand why praying about it doesn’t assuage that contradiction the LDS Church is asking you to ignore here. It’s the big elephant in the room that Protestants as well try their level best to ignore.

           Ender, it know I’ve said some pretty controversial things, so I’ll apologize up front for any offense I’ve caused. I’ve thought quite a bit about the legitimacy of the LDS Church. I have great friends that are LDS. These are just some of my thoughts–that I’ve shared with them also, and the their great credit, we’ve remained close friends. Thanks for your comments, and I look forward to your next reply.

           God bless.

         • 

           Ender Wiggin

           December 12, 2014 at 5:47 pm

           Ender’s Shadow presents Ender as the one and only person who could’ve accomplished the feat he did. Bean himself says something to that effect in the end. I like how the book shows that Ender wasn’t the only brilliant, miracle child of the age and gives Bean the credit which was hinted at in Ender’s Game (he was the youngest, fastest thinker, and most effective soldier in Ender’s army). I don’t think Bean’s existence denigrates Ender in any way and I’m glad his backstory was told.

           I’m trying to hone a new skill—that is reading/listening with the intent of understanding what the commenter is saying rather than reading/listening to find how I would respond to what’s being said. It’s a fine line of intention but the realization that I must desire to first understand and appreciate your views before I can adequately examine my own opinions made me reread your comment several times. I also got insanely busy at work, but decided it was past time to readdress your comment. Since your reasoning (pleasantly, but insistently) demands LDS theology doesn’t hold water I find myself having to start at the end of your comment rather than the beginning.

           Your last point about the Bible existing outside the LDS church, I do see your point, and it is an interesting thought, but the possession of truth doesn’t equate to the organization as a whole being true. The Catholic Church isn’t responsible for “discovering” the revelation that is the Bible. The best that can be claimed is that they preserved the Bible. There is no justification of the Catholic Church because of its existence concurrent with the Bible (other churches of other faiths existed concurrent with the Bible, this does not make them true). Thus your insistence that the LDS church is unnecessary because the “Catholic Church is responsible for the Bible” is a dead argument in my opinion. Indeed it was a “disobedient” Catholic, a heretical dissenter from the church if you will, that translated the Bible for the masses.

           Truth doesn’t need ratification from an organization or church to be true. Truth is universal. Thus its existence and that of the Bible is independent of the Catholic Church and gives no credence or justification for the Catholic Church. That being the case it is also true that the LDS church isn’t “defeated” because of the truthfulness of the Bible. I find that Christianity as a whole falls short due to their insistence on the belief that no one, even God himself, can add to the Bible. I believe the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is particularly significant as it shows that God is not done speaking to his people.

           Moving on to the depth of our discussion on infinity and the existence of the universe. There’s a fundamental principle in LDS doctrine that you’re failing to apply to your explanation of the finite universe which upsets all your conclusions. You said that God must inherently be outside the material universe for your hypotheses to work. I have no issue with that. What you’re missing is that we are all children of God. I don’t mean this metaphorically but physically. We are all God’s children. This puts us, before and after our lives on earth, on his material plane of existence. The doctrine of eternal life with our Heavenly Father does not equate to living out our lives on another planet in a different solar system within the confines of this universe (as I assume you belief we believe from your initial argument against the “infinite regress of gods”). The spiritual world transcends the physical one (as God himself does). The theories you’re getting very deep into define God (from an incorrect LDS point of view) to be a species within the universe as we know it. This is incorrect. In truth, you’re attempting to defeat through logic religious beliefs that you do not have enough information about to postulate on, let alone debate. As our universe is God’s creation for our benefit, he is inherently outside his creation’s existence, as are his offspring (we believe we existed before the creation and will exist after it as well). So then will our existence after this life not be hampered by the finite nature of the universe who’s construct we now reside within.

           The problem with your eloquent logical analysis is that its founded on the false belief that the “LDS God” is a man living on some planet within the universe. We don’t believe that Exaltation exists within the rules and properties of the current universe. I personally don’t believe science and logic can explain or interpret how the earth will “be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.” (10th Article of Faith)

           I had read an interesting article explaining how math was unable to describe our true existence and that the concept of one + one is self-defeating as it defines our world through quantity rather than quality, but I was unable to find the article again. I did find this though, which I thought was particularly pertinent to our discussion. It talks of what science (to which I would add logic as it is used to develop hypothesis for science to explain) cannot explain:

           http://powertochange.com/discover/life/five-things-science-explain/

           It is interesting to me how many people insist that the LDS church is proven incorrect by this or that scientific “evidence”. To which the only reasonable response is “you choose what you wish to believe in, and I will do the same”.

           I picture, in my own concept and understanding of the universe and how God functions, and perhaps how the eternities will seem, that the universe is like a large canvas on which God creates his miracles and wondrous creations. That those who dwell with him, whether they are referred to as other gods or as his angels, also have access to that canvas and facilitate the creative process. Thus the number of other artists participating in creation is irrelevant, be they gods or angels or what have you. And should any of God’s children attain godhood themselves it does not in any way diminish or supplant God The Father’s role or power. But again, this is merely speculation and not meaningful in a debate on gospel doctrine.

           Just so we don’t continue to spiral outward more and more from the original point of disagreement, you stated in your original comment that an infinite regress of gods from the infinite past would be impossible because of our principle understanding of how infinity functions and the existence of the universe as a finite entity.

           To which we talked about infinity and the universe, ultimately agreeing (at least I hope we did) that God exists outside of the universe and by definition must predate the universe itself. Thus I would submit that the “infinite regress of gods” (should that actually be the case, as LDS doctrine does not include this teaching save only as postulation) existing outside the confines of the universe itself is not refuted by your argument. You stated that “there is simply no way around it”, speaking of the “endless exaltation of men”. I submit that the only realm in which your assumption exists and is proven correct is built on the mistaken belief that it must occur within the confines of our present universe. You then state that as these principles cannot coexist that it is “the LDS understanding of God that must be false”. Essentially, you’ve constructed an elaborate house of cards built on top of false pretexts that don’t exist in LDS theology, then through the use of logic and speculation use what follows those false theories to disprove (as a result of that house of cards) LDS theology. I submit that your initial pretenses were incorrect, thus that which follows them cannot be correct either. Perhaps a more thorough study of what is actually taught should be accomplished before you then attempt to refute fringe doctrine. As always, it is interesting to discuss the principles of the gospel.

           To your continued good health and happiness,

           Ender

5. 

   thompsonsix

   October 22, 2014 at 5:06 pm

   Reply

   Each of the scriptures used, have a Biblical answer. So for your consideration here are the answers from a Biblical perspective.

   First, lets talk about the fact that God is a ‘mystery’ to anyone who thinks deeply about the nature and character of the God of the Bible.

   In Isaiah 55:8-9 God says, “My thoughts are not your thoughts,
   Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
   So are My ways higher than your ways,And My thoughts than your thoughts.
   So, can anyone reading this post tell me how high the heavens are above the earth? Would infinite be a possibility?

   Isaiah 46:5 God says, ““To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal
   And compare Me, that we should be alike?” Then in the same chapter, vs. 9 He says, “Remember this, and show yourselves men; Recall to mind, O you transgressors. Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me.”
   So, if there is no other being like God, that would make him a one-of-a-kind Being. The reason this is so is because He is the only uncreated Being — everything else in all of eternity was created by Him. The name of the God of the Bible is ‘YHWH Elohim’ or ‘Yahweh God’ or in old English ‘Jehovah God’. The word YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah means “I Exist”. In Exodus chapter 3 when Moses met God at the burning bush God told him “I AM that I AM” or “I Exist because I Exist”. The God of the Bible is the Self Existing God. I don’t know about you, but that is mind boggling to me.

   Psalm 33:6-9 tells us, ” By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
   And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth…
   8 Let all the earth fear the Lord; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
   9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.
   So, not only did God create everything, He also spoke it all into existence! The entire universe with it’s trillions upon trillions of stars were all created by God. Now, if that is not a mystery I don’t know what is! And, if the universe boggles our minds, how much more the one who spoke it all into existence.

   So, now let’s look at the passages Greg sets forth as a problem for those who believe in the Biblical understanding of the Trinity.

   John 14:28 – “I go unto the Father, for my Father is Greater than I”
   This is true because according to Philippians 2, Jesus who was by very nature God, prior to His incarnation, humbled himself and became a human being. As a human being,
   God the Father, at that moment in history was greater in power than the human Jesus.”

   Matthew 12:31-32 – “whosoever speaketh a word against the
   Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy
   Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him.”
   The context is important here. The religious rulers of Israel were saying the miracles being done by Jesus through the power of the Holy Ghost/Spirit were actually being done through the power of Satan. And, if you believe Jesus is of Satan you can never be saved because according to Acts 4:12 Jesus is the one and only way of salvation. So anyone who blasphemes the Holy Ghost/Spirit in this way cannot be saved, because they will never believe that Jesus is the Savior.

   Romans 8:16-17 & Acts 17:29 – “we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.”
   Here Greg leaves out some vital information. Jesus is the only Son of God by
   nature, all humans are sons of God by adoption. Jesus as the only begotten Son
   of God in the flesh is the heir of everything God possesses because He is God.
   Humans have to become sons of God (John 1:12) and we are not sons of God by
   nature, we are sons of God by adoption (Romans 8:15 & Ephesians 1:5).
   Through this miracle, we humans become joint heirs of everything that God
   possesses as well.

   Matthew 17: 4-5 – “voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him”
   Greg asks, Why would Christ cause His own voice to come out of heaven in order to tell His apostles to listen to Him.
   This is a misunderstanding of the definition of the Biblical Trinity. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit are the three persons of the Godhead. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost/Spirit and the Holy Ghost/Spirit is not the Father. These three co-eternal Persons, are the one God of the Bible. The voice of the Father is the voice of the Father, the
   Father is not Jesus, but both the Father and Jesus are the one God of the Bible
   (see Isaiah 43:10, 44:6,8, 45:5-6, 46:5-9). There is only one true God so if
   you believe the Father is God and Jesus is God they cannot be two separate Gods
   according to the Bible — the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit is one God (as
   I said in an earlier blog, the Book of Mormon teaches this — so why it is a
   problem for Mormons? see Alma 11:44 & 2 Nephi 31:21).

   John 12:26-30 – “if any man serve me, him will my Father
   honour. Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from
   this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name.
   Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will
   glorify it again.”
   This is the same misunderstanding of the Biblical Trinity,
   the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit are the three co-eternal persons of the
   Trinity and they must be one God according to the Bible (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6,8,
   45:5-6, 46:5-9) and the Book of Mormon (Alma 11:44 & 2 Nephi 31:21). So I
   don’t get the point being made by here.

   Acts 7:55-56 – “Jesus standing on the right hand of God…and
   the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”
   In Acts 7, Steven is fulfilling a prophecy made by Jesus during his trial — Matthew 26:64
   “Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you,
   hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power,
   and coming on the clouds of heaven.” This was in reference to a messianic passage
   from the Book of Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus claiming to be the ‘Son of Man’ of
   Daniel 7 was considered blasphemy by the Jewish rulers, so they crucified
   Him. And, yes, Christians do believe that Jesus has a resurrected human body, so yes, for Steven to see the resurrected Jesus in Heaven standing at the right hand of God (or in the place of power). Is exactly what we would expect Steven to see and express to the
   Jewish rulers who were about to stone him to death.

   Revelation 5:1-7 – “he came and took the book out of the
   right hand of him that sat upon the throne.”
   Again, the whole story is not in view here, in the book of Revelation there is only one throne and only One seated upon the throne (Rev. 4:2). The One seated upon the throne is the
   Triune God. So both Jesus and God the Father are recognized as God and both are
   recognized as being seated upon the throne. In Revelation 1:8 Jesus is speaking
   and he says, ” I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith
   the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty”. In Revelation 4:8-11 the one seated upon the throne is the “Lord God Almighty, which was, and is,
   and is to come” or Jesus. In Revelation 5:6 the Lamb comes out from the
   “midst of the throne” and the Lamb then takes the book from the one
   who is still seated upon the throne. This is a perfect example of the Trinity!
   This does not disprove the Trinity!

   John 8:16-18 – “written in your law, that the testimony of
   two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent
   me beareth witness of me.”
   This is a prime example of reading one’s theology into the passage because Jesus does not say that he and the Father are two men. Here Jesus is using a principle from the Old Testament to state that the Old Testament law requires testimony from two witnesses before any judgment can occur. Here both Jesus and God the Father are the witnesses for the same truth, that Jesus is the Messiah.

   Matt 5:48 – “Be like your Father in Heaven” Greg comments, Christ wants us to be perfect like our Father in Heaven…but if He and the Father were one, then why wouldn’t He just tell us to be perfect like He is instead of creating the illusion of a Father?
   No Christian in the world would claim that Jesus was “creating the illusion of a Father”. This
   is a spurious comment.

   Matthew 6:9 – “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.” Greg says, Imagine this. The Lord is teaching people how to pray. Why does He ask them to pray to His other identity? If they are the same…why can’t people just pray to Christ?
   According to Jesus believers can just pray directly to Christ, Jesus said, “And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” John 14:13-14. Christians believe both the Father and Jesus are God. When Christians pray, we are praying to the Triune God.

   John 7:16-17 – “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent
   me.”
   Jesus answers this simple question in John 14:10-11 “Believest thou
   not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto
   you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the
   works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else
   believe me for the very works’ sake.” So, I have a question for Greg, if
   Jesus and God are “two men” as he states above, how is it that Jesus
   said “the Father dwelleth in me.” It was the spirit of the Father in
   Jesus that gave Him his doctrine and it was the power of the Father in him that
   did the miracles — remember, Jesus (who was by very nature God) humbled
   himself and became a human.

   IS ANYONE GETTING TIRED OF THIS YET???

   John 5:22 – “the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed
   all judgment unto the Son” Greg says, So if Christ is in charge of the
   judging…and Christ is the Father…then…?
   Again, Greg’s misunderstanding of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity
   is the problem here. The One True God of the Bible is the Father, the Son, and
   the Holy Ghost/Spirit. John 5:27 tells us why all judgment has been given to
   the Son, “And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because
   he is the Son of man.” Because Jesus humbled himself and became a human
   being, He, therefore has been granted the right to judge human beings.

   Matthew 10: 32-33 – “Whosoever therefore shall confess me
   before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But
   whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which
   is in heaven.” Greg says, The imagery of a mediator and advocate is
   beautiful…as long as there are three people in the image.
   Again, this is a misunderstanding of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
   The One True God of the Bible is the Father, the Son, and the Holy
   Ghost/Spirit. We are talking about three persons here, and according to the Bible the
   Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit are the one and only true God.

   Matthew 16: 13-19 – “Jesus answered and said unto him,
   Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
   thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
   Again, this is a misunderstanding of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. The One True God of the Bible is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit, so yes, the Father
   revealed this truth to Peter.

   Luke 2: 41-51 – “wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”
   The One True God of the Bible is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit. Jesus is not the Father according to Biblical Christianity but according to the Bible they are the one and only true God.

   John 2:13-16 – “make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.” Greg said, Notice He didn’t say “His house”.
   REALLY??? Jesus “said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of
   prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.” Matthew 21:13.

   John 11: 41-43 – “Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.” Again, Greg’s misunderstanding of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity is the problem here. The One True God of the Bible is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit. Jesus is not
   the Father.

   John 17:11 – “keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” And, John 17:20-21 – “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us:” Greg asks, Christ said He and His Father were one…yes…thats correct. But what was he meaning when He said He wanted us to become one with Him and the Father?
   Good question Greg! When Jesus humbled himself and became a
   human being, it was the Father in him that gave him the words he spoke and did the
   miracles, remember John 14:10-11 “Believest thou not that I am in the
   Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of
   myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that
   I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very
   works’ sake.” This is exactly what Jesus was praying would happen to his
   followers after his death and resurrection. Notice what Jesus said in John
   14:23 “Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my
   words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our
   abode with him.” Why does Jesus use the word “we”. Seems like
   exactly what Jesus was praying for in John 17.

   Luke 22:41-43 – “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup
   from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done” Greg said, In that
   secluded Garden at the Mt. of Olives…Christ asked His Father if there was
   another way. There wasn’t. But why would He ask? Wouldn’t He already know if He
   was the Father?
   Again, Greg’s misunderstanding of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity is the problem here.
   The One True God of the Bible is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit. Jesus is not the Father.

   Luke 23:34 – “Father, forgive them; for they know not what
   they do”
   I guess I don’t get the problem here? This was for the sake of the
   people who were present, not the Father, just like at the resurrection of
   Lazarus when Jesus said, “Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
   And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand
   by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.”

   If anyone has read this far and wants me to continue I would be glad to do so. I think enough has been said to show that these verses are not a problem for people who believe in the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian belief in the Trinity is based upon the Bible, not the creeds of men. The men who drafted the creeds were simply interpreting the scriptures and explaining it on paper. The only way LDS doctrine can be considered as a reliable interpretation is if it agrees with the entire context of scripture and the fact that God tells us there are no other Gods, He does not know any other Gods, there were no Gods formed before him nor will there be any formed after Him, He is God and there is none else – (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6,8, 45:5,18, 46:5 & 9-10) is very problematic for those who want to follow the LDS doctrine of multiple Gods.

   • 

     SoundOn

     October 24, 2014 at 12:27 am

     Reply

     Mormons believe all these scriptures. Just want to make that clear, but not a single one of these explains that Jesus is the same literal being as His Father.

     • 

       Andrew

       October 24, 2014 at 2:20 pm

       Reply

       That’s modalism. That isn’t what Trinitarians believe and that’s not the formulation found in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

   • 

     Ender Wiggin

     October 28, 2014 at 9:52 pm

     Reply

     I’d also chime in the the LDS church’s doctrine is built solidly on the Bible and is sound in every language including the language of Mathematics. 1 + 1 + 1 has never and will never equal 1 no matter how dogmatic you wish to be…

6. 

   Andrew

   October 22, 2014 at 6:13 pm

   Reply

   This whole series is bunk. It is based on a severely flawed understanding of who attended and what happened at the Council of Nicea and employs straw man logic. It is only persuasive to the historically illiterate, those who haven’t read all of the surviving eyewitness accounts for themselves.

   • 

     SoundOn

     October 24, 2014 at 12:26 am

     Reply

     Which scripture teaches that Jesus is the same being as His Father? There is none.

     • 

       Andrew

       October 24, 2014 at 2:11 pm

       Reply

       The scriptures can be interpreted different ways. Trinitarians use the exact same scriptures that Mr. Trimble and other Mormons use in their worship of the Holy Trinity. In fact, Trinitarians compiled, preserved, and gave the New Testament to you. Mormons and Trinitarians begin from different premises and have different interpretive frameworks. Proof texting, quoting scriptures back and forth, is is pointless and a waste of time.

       That’s not why I called this series bunk, though. What I said was that Mr. Trimble’s arguments are based on flawed history and straw man logic. He gets the history completely wrong and he’s completely ignorant of what Trinitarians, especially those who attended the Council of Nicea, mean by the Trinity. It’s no excuse if he has encountered people who are confused in the definition and understanding. He obviously hasn’t done his homework and needs to go back to school. If he hasn’t read the eyewitness accounts written by attendees that describe what happened at the Council for himself; if he hasn’t read the theological treatises written by bishops and priests who are known to have attended the Council or who lived contemporaneously with it and wrote to support of the formulations contained in the Nicene Creed, then he’s just being intellectually lazy – along with every person who has responded to his series with parroted words of misguided praise.

       If Mr. Trimble had done his homework, then he would have known how simplistic and inaccurate his version of history really is. He would have known that:

       1. Constantine was already a Christian, not a pagan, as Mr. Trimble incorrectly asserts, when he called the Council to meet. Constantine had previously undergone the rites making him a catechumen in the Church (a professed Christian who has not yet gone through the remaining rites of initiation – baptism, chrismation, Eucharist, kind of like if an LDS investigator heard all the discussions, was interviewed by the bishop, was baptized, but had not yet been confirmed a member of the church).

       2. Council invitees were all bishops and each bishop was allowed to bring one priest and two deacons with him. It wasn’t “Roman pagans and politicians of the 4th century”, as Mr. Trimble incorrectly asserts.

       3. The bishops were invited, not ordered to attend. Out of approximately 1600 bishops in the whole Roman Empire, fewer than 400 attended. Constantine paid for all of the attending bishop’s travel and lodging expenses out of public funds.

       4. The Council was held in 325 and Constantine had only legalized Christianity 12 years before. Many of the bishops in attendance at the Council were confessors of the Faith, i.e., they still bore the scars of tortures received at the hands of Roman authorities on their faces.

       5. Constantine didn’t call the council to unite Christians and pagans, but to unite Christians. There were plenty of pagans still occupying positions of State, but none were in attendance at the Council. This was a Christian-only affair. Only bishops participated in the voting. Mr. Trimble says that “politicians and a few clergymen voted on how to define God at Nicea and it became later known as the Athanasian creed”. This is completely wrong. Those who voted were ALL clergymen. Only bishops voted. Constantine did not vote. The vote resulted in the Nicene Creed, not the Athanasian Creed. Contrary to Mr. Trimble’s assertion, Athanasius did not lead the debate or dominate the Council. He was only a deacon and only bishops participated in the debate and voting. Athanasius did pen the creed that bears his name, but he didn’t write it until after the Council.

       6. At the Council, Constantine supported the decision of the Council, as represented by the majority, contra-Arius party who won the vote. After the Council, Constantine used the power of state to suppress Arianism, but later he switched sides and supported the Arian view, suppressing the view contained in the Nicene Creed. Athanasius was exiled for his opposition to the Emperor. The Nicene-Arian dispute within the Church continued for another fifty years, until 380, when the Emperor Theodosius made Nicene Christianity the official state religion and outlawed both paganism and Arianism. Even then, there were Arian bishops in the church for many centuries after that. The Germanic pagans who invaded and eventually conquered the Western Roman Empire (the Latin half of the Church) were all mostly converted to Christianity by Arian bishops, only later converted to the Nicene faith by Roman Catholic missionaries.

       7. What the Nicene Creed promulgated was Trinitarianism. What Mr. Trimble calls Trinitarianism is Modalism, or the heresy of Sabellianism (named after Sabellius). Every single scripture passage Mr. Trimble provides and interprets betrays his misunderstanding of the Trinitarian doctrine and his confusion of the doctrine with modalism (all too common among Mormons). Modalism posits that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one being and that the persons are manifestations or modes of that being. The Nicene, trinitarian faith maintains that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct and separate persons who share one infinite and eternal divine essence or nature. Mr. Trimble’s criticisms all desribe modalism, not trinitarianism. Thus, he says things like:

       “Why would He call Himself His own son? Would He need to tell
       everyone there that He was pleased with Himself? There are clearly 3 entities
       present…each doing something different. “

       “would He really send Himself…and then create a split
       personality for himself?”

       “There would be no need to use the word “Mediator” in the
       scriptures to describe Christ if Christ was the same person as the Father.”

       “If Christ is the same person as the Holy Ghost, then why can
       you sin against Christ and be forgiven, but sin against the Holy Ghost and
       never be forgiven?”

       “Why would Christ cause His own voice to come out of heaven
       in order to tell His apostles to listen to Him. He was right there next to them!”

       “Why wouldn’t Christ just say that He was glorifying Himself
       number one. Number two…why would He cause a voice from heaven to emanate from heaven? Was He trying to create a dialogue between himself in heaven and himself on earth?”

       “If they were just one man, or one entity…”

       “If He and the Father were one, then why wouldn’t He just
       tell us to be perfect like He is instead of creating the illusion of a Father?”

       Each of these statements reveals Mr. Trimble’s confusion. He’s describing modalism, not the belief of Nicene Christians.

       This series is bunk. History is more nuanced and interesting the the inaccurate version that Mr. Trimble promotes on his blog. His understanding of the trinitarian doctrine is flawed. If this was a school and Mr. Trimble was an educator, I would recommend that he be fired. He’s leading his ‘students’ down the primrose path of continued ignorance of what really happened and what Nicene Christians believe. It really is inexcusable. He just doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He needs to do his homework (don’t just take my word for it, Mr. Trimble – go read the ancient documents for yourself) then come back and revise these three blog entries. It’s fine to believe in the Mormon concept of God and say it makes no sense that something immaterial and outside time and space can exist. The same New Testament verses can be used to support either view. It’s not fine to promote historical misinformation and error. I recommend that Mr. Trimble and any Mormon who really wants to educate himself about these matters go read the ancient books that describe what happened and what the ancient Nicene church believed at the time of the Council. These are the same ancient books that scholars who make a living researching these matters read. Go read the early church fathers from the 2nd and 3rd Cenuries. Go read the 4th Century accounts written by eyewitnesses who attended the Council and relate who attended and what happened. If you have a Kindle, you can own and read every one of these books in English translation for only $2.99. Check it out.

       http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Ante-Nicene-Post-Nicene-Fathers-Collection-ebook/dp/B00KYBSUUM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414159365&sr=8-1&keywords=ante-nicene+nicene+fathers

     • 

       Andrew

       October 24, 2014 at 2:30 pm

       Reply

       One being, two persons. You’re conflating the two concepts. Trinitarians believe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons who share a single divine nature or essence. The Son prayed to his Father, not to himself. The Son is not the Father. They share the same divine essence but they are distinct. What you (and Mr. Trimble) describe and think Trinitarianism is, is actually modalism.

       • 

         Guest

         November 5, 2014 at 12:09 am

         Reply

         So, the only question I have left after your explanation is: are Mormons Trinitarians, or are Trinitarians Mormons? Because based on your definition of the Trinity, I don’t see the difference.

         • 

           Andrew

           November 9, 2014 at 8:42 pm

           Sorry for the delay in responding. I just noticed your reply.

           Mormons are not Trinitarians and Trinitarians are not Mormons. Mormons believe the Godhead is comprised of three gods: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Each person is a separate being, just like you and I are separate beings.

           Trinitarians believe there is only one god, only one divine being. The divine being is indivisible. The instant you divide the infinite One into two it ceases to be infinite and thus ceases to be divine. The one divine being can be in three persons because the divine being is infinite and dwells outside/beyond space and time. This is difficult to grasp because we have no experience of that kind of life. We are material beings stuck in a particular place and time. We are finite beings with finite bodies. Such limitation does not apply to God in Trinitarian thought. God is infinite and the Infinite is necessarily immaterial and dwells beyond time and space. There is only one God but the one God is in three persons.

           Summing up, the Mormon godhead is comprised of three gods, three divine beings, three persons who are separate but one in purpose. 1+1+1=3. The Trinitarian God is comprised of only one god, one divine being in three persons. God is simultaneously One and Three. 1+1+1=1.

7. 

   mingju

   October 22, 2014 at 10:06 pm

   Reply

   In the scriptures Jesus said we are one, meaning we are all one. Heavenly Father was more perfect on a higher level than Jesus. As he worshipped the father in heaven.You know how we believe everything happens for a reason? If you sin you’ll feel the wrath of not following Gods rules but if you follow them you’ll get blessings. But with everything happening for a reason, we are all actually perfect, there are just higher levels of perfection. How do you think Heavenly father came to be? He had to go through trials to just be where he is now. Jesus was sent down to preform great work for us(dying for our sins) all which made him greather because he endured till the end. He glorifies his father because he is higher in perfection than he is. “Not my will but thine be done.”

8. 

   Joel Reyes

   October 31, 2014 at 2:28 am

   Reply

   Greg, i found your blog today, and i love it very much, I’ll post in my facebook account, keep what you love doing like this.

9. 

   Sue

   October 31, 2014 at 9:56 am

   Reply

   Do Mormons believe in the Trinity?
   Mormons most commonly use the term “Godhead” to refer to the Trinity. The first article of faith for the Latter-day Saints reads: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” Latter-day Saints believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose but are not literally the same being or substance, as conceptions of the Holy Trinity commonly imply. (mormonnewsroom.org)

10. 

    Sue

    November 1, 2014 at 9:49 am

    Reply

    I am a Mormon. We worship God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ. There is more than one reason for applying the title “Father” to Jesus Christ. Jesus often speaks in the first person as though he were the Father. In other words, “the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority.” Christ has the power and authority to act, represent, and speak for God the Father in the first person by “divine investiture of authority.” Learn more about this principal of authority and “the solemn fact of the literal relationship of Father and Son between Elohim and Jesus Christ” at lds.org. (The Father and the Son–article)