The Mormon Trinity

I have never been to seminary school or Bible College but I have been to Calvary and I would like to ask LSD scholars what happens to person living today who kills or murders someone and then accepts Christ as his Savior? For sake of the question let us say that this person is as sincere a Paul the Apostle. What does LDS say to this man entering the Kingdom of Heaven?

Over at the blog New Cool Thang, I've heard Blake Ostler and others pushing the view that the creeds are not objectionable for their DOCTRINAL content (though I do think there are some objectionable doctrines in there), but more for the fact that they exist as such in the first place.

They cite Joseph Smith statements advocating a wide range of belief ("I never believed in condemning a man for believing too much") and speaking against a narrowing of belief ("it feels good not to be so tramelled").

Basically, it is the creeds themselves - the legal restriction on who is "in" and who is "out" based on mere intellectual beliefs - that are abominable, and not the theological content per se.

Interesting idea anyway.

Thanks for highlighting this excellent book, Dave.

To the first poster who said that he doesn't have time for "squabbling" about the nature of God, and calls such an issue "esoteric," I would say that Joseph Smith himself declared in the King Follett sermon that if a man doesn't diligently search for and come to learn the true nature of God, "he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle." Perhaps Joseph Smith was being slightly rhetorical, but, still, I applaud Dave's attempt to focus Evangelicals and LDS folk on our shared and not-so-shared views of God. Thanks.

In response to Cicero: What about the possibility of forgiveness but qualifiying for a lesser Kingdom. I doubt murderers will get into the Celestial Kingdom.

Excellent dialog. This is the kind of intelligent forum I have been looking for. As an active Latter-day Saint, I regularly find myself in these kinds of discussions with my Evangelical friends and find that most are very uninformed about this topic. I will be sure to tune them into this dialog. Thanks so much!

I am tired of this whole argument - even so, Mormon's interpret Scripture (i.e. the Bible) according to their own extra-biblical books, doctrines and revelations, so they really have no business pointing their finger at Evangelicals and denouncing them for interpreting the Bible according to the ancient Creed of the Church and calling it unbiblical.

There is nothing unbiblical in the Nicene Creed – there are a few words and phrases that are not found in the Bible, but they were coined to further define concepts that are in the Bible. The Mormon Religion is full of extra-biblical terms and language, so one would think they would be less inclined to throw rocks – living in a glass house of their own construct. .

Moreover, in truth I really know very few Evangelicals who could even quote the Nicene Creed, let alone any who interpret the Bible according to any Creed. Evangelicals tend to use the Bible to interpret itself, (comparing scripture with scripture) only using extra-biblical terminology (Theological language) to help define concepts they believe the Scripture teaches… for example… the “Incarnation:” Incarnation is a theological word not found in the Bible… even so the Bible says that “the Son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the devil,” it says that “Jesus Christ came in the flesh,” it says that “the Word was made flesh” and that “God was manifested in the flesh.” Thus any reasonable man can easily see that theological terms have their rightful place in helping to conceptualize Christian doctrine.

In other words – your Mormon blogger is full of beans and the divide is actually far wider than the book seems willing to acknowledge. Robinson may have a certain clout within some Evangelical circles – but he’s spent any credibility he had as far as most Christian apologists are concerned. He should really stay out of apologetics because he’s really no good at it.

~ Theophilus

what about the god seen by moses at sinai? i 'm talking about the literal description of the being who allowed moses to see his "posterior". i never hear this referenced in other discussions.

Theophilus wrote:

"I am tired of this whole argument - even so, Mormon's interpret Scripture (i.e. the Bible) according to their own extra-biblical books, doctrines and revelations, so they really have no business pointing their finger at Evangelicals and denouncing them for interpreting the Bible according to the ancient Creed of the Church and calling it unbiblical."

You're missing the point. Mormons never believed in the Bible-only approach of other Christians to begin with. We always believed in additional books of scripture and modern revelations.

However, our Evangelical friends always like to strut around about how they ONLY and exclusively follow the Bible.

Mormons are perfectly within their rights to point out that these "Bible men" are actually adding their own extra-biblical stuff to the equation in the form of the creeds.

It's merely a matter of calling out hypocrisy when we see it.

I agree with Theophilus that it is unpersuasive to argue that because a term is not found in the bible that it is unbiblical or that it would contradict the biblical data. This is an argument that individuals should either use less or use with more caution and care.

The point about interfaith dialogues is not so that in the end everyone will agree about everything. Rather, one of the purposes in my view is that where there is disagreement, the disagreement should be on the right things, where there is actual disagreement. But this can only happen when both sides are informed and seek to understand the other side. At times perhaps part of interfaith dialogue is allowing both sides to vent and express their frustration. However, we should also have the goal to move beyond venting and move beyond expressing frustration about how we have been treated, to increasing mutual understanding.

It is true that many Latter-day Saints say that they reject the historic Christian creeds. In fact, there are two main disagreements. The first is with the content of creeds, the second is with the function of creeds. As to the content, in reality there is very little in the creeds that Latter-day Saint must reject. Many of the creeds only make sense if understood in their historical context and once a person takes the time to learn the history the reason for the creeds become much less confusing. The only term in the Nicene Creed that most Latter-day Saints would feel they cannot accept is to say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is "one being." Latter-day Saints reject this only because they feel it violates their understanding of the Father and the Son being two personages of flesh and bone. In the orthodox Christian conception, God is immaterial. As to the second disagreement, that creeds serve the function of determining who is included in the Christian polity, historically this has happened. However, Latter-day Saints should at least acknowledge that most, if not all, religious communities have mechanisms to determine who is part of the community and who is not. Often doctrine is part of this determination. In addition, it is important for Latter-day Saints to realize that creeds also serve the function of preserving the historical understanding of the faith as it has developed in the history of the Church. To say that one accepts creeds is often to say that one accepts the historic understanding of the Christian faith. It is to say that one identifies oneself with the historic Christian Church. Here in lies one of the key points of miscommunication. On the one hand, many Latter-day Saints argue that they are "Christian" while simultaneously arguing that they are not Catholic, Protestant nor Eastern Orthodox, and that their beliefs do not correspond to the doctrines as developed within the historic Christian tradition. Latter-day Saints typically fail to see the difficulty with this position and fail to sympathize with the difficulty of readily understanding this position. On this point, further expressing frustration or disbelief at how any one can not understand this position does little to increase mutual understanding. Rather, we need to proceed with a genuine desire to increase understanding and to really try to see things from each others perspective. There are many who are not willing to do this. However, part of How Wide the Divide is to show what is possible when people make a good faith attempt to understand another.

aquinas:
Simply put and superbly written. I am humbled by your openness and objectivity. My response would simply be that in my view an ecumenical council that is comprised of religious scholars cannot make binding interpretations of scripture. The LDS view is that the authority of God does not reside in one's own intellect (independent of God), or the result of a scholarly debate. At some point people, even smart people, will inevitably veer off course. To then turn that collective, possibly incorrect, opinion into doctrine is to then make that opinion a primary basis upon which one's true acceptance of Christ is measured (by protestant standards). WOW, now that's a stretch...and for what?

The Christian world has taken the words of these councils and branded an "it is so" beside the statements, when the subscript should only read "it could possibly be so."

Most of the issues that protestants have with the LDS view are often from books and statements of past church leaders as though everything that came out of their respective mouths was official church doctrine. President Harold B. Lee refuted that idea when he said:

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth."

The word of God to the Prophet and the existing standard works are the only official doctrine of the LDS church. Using that standard it is impossible to accept the opinions of the councils as doctrinally binding on LDS Christians because they contradict the official LDS scriptural view. That does not mean we redefine protestant men and women as non-Christian. It simply means that their understanding of some points is different that ours. To require someone to accept the creeds as an entry point to a belief in Christ is, in itself, non-biblical. If a man had nothing but the Bible (or the Book of Mormon for that matter) in his posession and believed that book and believed in Christ and prayed for a testimony of his divinity and recognized him as the Messiah and Savior of the world, he is Christian...ergo, the LDS are Christian. Perhaps not in your historical sense, which I accept. But why would historical/traditional precedent count for even one shekel in the eternal drama of God's children?