http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/04/for-what-do-i-hunger-and-thirst.html

For a long time, even though I am a philosophically and theologically-minded, I considered that beliefs shouldn’t matter, only behavior. (It’s one reason I considered myself a humanist for several years after I ceased a strict belief in Mormonism.) Yet as I tried to reconcile a continuity of faith between “old school” Mormonism and modern Mormonism, I found out that behavior alone wasn’t sufficient faith defense to me. Yet, while praxis certainly has many common expressions among faiths, when the Mormon tradition seemed to undermine my faith, then, once again, I found myself taking my doctrinal allegiances more seriously. Still, once we decided to become practicing Christians, it really was out of a matter to seeking an environment for us and our kids where the practice nurtured our faith better. Doctrine is important, but it was faith experience we mainly sought. Afterward we would focus on the shared Christian practice and beliefs with family, and some were just not content to leave it there. Once they started to affirm the salvific necessity for our LDS allegiance, then doctrine _had_ to be stressed as important, even though it wasn’t our main motivator. And here, again, it became terribly frustrating to pin it down to have a constructive dialogue. Basically, we found our extended family had/have a tough time honoring our decision , whether based on our grounds of spiritual experience or of doctrine.

What I realized though, with my family, and especially my MIL, that I have more in common than I first was willing to realize. And even in comparing ourselves on this blog (or in this thread per Bruce #85), many of us tend to be very thoughtful in our beliefs. Blogging also tends to make it very convenient to get into very mindful and detailed proofing of our positions, something that would not enflame as likely were we talking in person. I am persuaded strongly by the cogency of historical Christianity, but I realized that I also need to have greater respect for LDS who have very thoughtful commitments to their faith. As Ray said, even though we “embattle” one another for the “best argument or sharpest intellect” we can each reach very intellectually thoughtful, logical AND spiritually persuasive positions that are going to be beneficial for those who tend to think similarly. To the extent that Bruce was making an olive branch statement in #85, and I’m interpreting it that way, I wish to reciprocate by saying I also appreciate the dialogue, and learning a bit more about myself.

My point was that “credal Christians” tend to affirm another person’s loyalty to Christ based on either if I would affirm that I believe a creed or if I would at least affirm certain phrases from a creed (i.e. “of one substance.”) It didn’t matter if I understood it correctly or even if they understood it correctly. It didn’t even matter if my non-creedal view was closer to what the creed taught than their misunderstanding of the creed. In other words I perceived “orthodoxy” in Protestant Christianity as being determined by creedal affirmation (or catch phrases) rather than by doctrine.

It would seem that JFQ is saying we have a parallel in the LDS Church. “It is rigid praxis that binds divergent LDS believers together into an orthodoxy.” In other words it seems to JFQ that Mormons determine orthodoxy by paraxis rather than doctrine.

While I need to give this more thought, I think we might both be right.

If there is a lesson learned out of this, I think it’s that it’s unfair for me to compare myself with inner city (and less educated) Christians I interacted with on my mission and that it’s unfair for JFQ to compare himself to his MIL. We can debate numbers, but I think it’s a fair statement that most members of most religions don’t have more than a basic doctrinal understanding of their own religion. Few are really deeply studied.

Perhaps we should really be comparing ourselves to each other on this very blog.

Ray was wise in pointing out that LDS “orthodoxy” is really not a doctrinal one. Clark further noted, “I think Mormons tend to be much more distrustful of formal theology and the Church’s position, even at the time it emphasizes some doctrinal point, is still ‘figure it out yourself.’” It is rigid praxis that binds divergent LDS believers together into an “orthodoxy”, IMO, such as: are you loyal and obedient to the Church? (Which is the same as the ‘Lord’ though not clearly defined how so.) Do you attend your meetings regularly and attend temple? Do you follow the WoW, pay tithing, etc., etc., etc. As Ray noted it is absolutely correct that this, “doctrinal fluidity” to Christians with whom modern LDS would seek to find fellowship, is frustrating, mildly. LDS theology is so hard to nail down. The LDS theological “tradition” to which an “orthodox” believer adheres could be no older than a decade (or younger). And it is quite alienating to many Christians that the allegiance is in praxis rather than doctrine, because that is the standard by how the universality of Christian fellowship is measured.

When you get down to the LDS faith experience, there is no external authority to appeal to. How one interprets the scriptures, what prophets or authorities one listens to or not, etc., are easily changed and dismissed. The _only_ authority is the personal revelation one has had, and _if_ that revelation results in allegiance to the Church organization. Ironically, this binds the LDS believer quite in fellowship to his Christian brothers and sisters more than it would seem. When we left the LDS church my mother-in-law complained that we were “being deceived.” My wife asked how? MIL couldn’t say. I told my MIL she could just as easily be deceived, because she knows her LDS theology so poorly that anything she didn’t agree with in scripture, or with any prophet or authority, she would freely dismiss as being a mistranslation or a teaching no longer applicable. The rub with her is that we were giving up tradition and “orthodox” praxis — corporate loyalty. But her spiritual manifestation is no more valid than ours. We both have strong spiritual witnesses to why we believe as we do. I did have more confidence in that I am aligning myself to centuries-old Christian creeds, debates, thought and, especially, a stronger trust in foundational exegetical Bible study than the “moment in time” doctrinal Mormonism to which she seems to be firm, which is pretty close to “McConkiedoxy.” (thanks, Ray *smile). (And she would definitely not consider Bruce to be an “orthodox” LDS theological believer but that’s obviously neither here nor there.) Still, when I get down to it — and this thread has helped me see that — that doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t find commonalities of faith, that the most binding spiritual witnesses to which we cling are remarkably similar experiences. They just affirm very different faith practices. We both have loyalty as a nature of our faith, even if to what we are loyal differs. And even with differences, we share a loyalty to Christ, and the life that calls us to live.

Like Nick, it is very frustrating to me that Mormons disregard and reinterpret Joseph Smith doctrines to such a degree that I’m quite certain Smith would not recognize the modern Church. As Bruce has fairly noted, if I do not accept Joseph Smith then why do I care that modern Mormonism doesn’t adhere strictly to his doctrine? I guess it comes down to the fact I can’t reconcile these inconsistencies, nor can I reconcile how the LDS church can so firmly cling to “exclusive truth” and claim they believe Joseph Smith was a prophet yet so malleably commit to what prophethood really means. In the end the theological orthodoxy of any iteration of Mormonism seems no more than a generation old. Similarly, my discomfort that follows is a basic discomfort with the nature of the modern LDS faith being just what it is. Like Utah weather, if you don’t like what the LDS believe, wait 15 minutes.

But does it mean I have it figured out, that I am on more sure footing? I thought I was, but now I’m not so sure. I see a modern LDS faith that is grasping toward many Christian-like scriptural interpretations to which I now hold dear. Why should that bother me? We’re so close … yet so far apart. Exclusivity claims, and a belief that traditional Christianity is corrupted without really showing strong evidence for why this is so separates us. A rejection of theological alignment with orthodoxy separates us. I can’t reconcile this, but similarly, I can, and have, been guilty of a similar emotional dismissal of LDS. Just because my dismissal is based on allegiance to an older, more historical standard, does that _de facto_ make me right? It may not. In the end, we are each grasping for divinity. Perhaps the post-modernists have it right that we are both right … and wrong.

Got to go to bed and I can’t keep posting But let me acknowledge:

1. “I think you may be conflating the comments of others with mine here.” Fair enough. Apparently I was. But regardless of my poor example, I think it’s fair to say that I’m a correct that you “don’t… embrace Joseph’s theology” which is the underlying point of my statement.

2. “It’s fair to say that I resent what I see as the callous dismantling of a brilliant legacy. I don’t have to embrace Joseph’s theology in order to admire it, nor do I have to embrace Joseph’s theology in order to bemoan its passing away” Also fair enough. Please understand, I don’t care about the Joseph you believe in. I have no interest in him at all. And I apparently disagree with it on many points of doctrine. So I don’t care if I’m departing from his “original teachings” as you view them. This is fair enough too, right?

So while I now understand why it bothers you so much when people disagree with you about what Joseph taught, please understand that I can’t depart from what I believe and still be true to myself. I *am* going to continue to understand Joseph as I already do. You need to let me without insulting me.

If it helps, think of my as a prebyterian instead of a Mormon. Or think of me as believing in a “different Joseph” if you like. I don’t care.

This situation is a real test of tolerance: we have fundamentally different views of what Joseph did teach (on some or many points anyhow, perhaps we agree on much also) so we both need to be able to talk about “what Joseph taught” and it needs to be understand implicitly as “Bruce’s view of what Joseph taught” or “Nick’s view of what Joseph taught.”

I shouldn’t have to say over and over “as I understand Joseph.” That’s implicit. Everyone understands that my views of Joseph are what I understand about Joseph.

I merely ask that you don’t barge into a conversation and say that I’m being dishonest. I’m not being dishonest, because I really do not interpret Joseph the same way you do.

Now in private you may feel that the reason I’m (from your point of view) misunderstanding Joseph is because I’m stupid or lying, or whatever. But tolerance is not saying that about me publicly.

Of course tolerance means you can directly attack my position. (After all, you are only “toleranting” my view, not “accepting” it.) For example, you can factually point out what I’ve missed. You can explain your alternate view or alternate interpretation. You can tell me you believe I’m wrong. You can tell me “no, Joseph taught this!” (and I’ll implicity understand that you mean “Nick’s view of Joseph Smith taught this!”)

But please don’t say I’m being dishonest or I don’t have a brain or some other insult. It doesn’t matter one whit whether or not I’m, in fact, lying or don’t have a brain. Who knows, maybe I’m both lying AND don’t have a brain. What matters is that you don’t say it because it’s insulting and not tolerant.

Thanks. And thanks for the non-angry tone in your last post.

Oh, by the way, I appreciate your point of view about “it’s a miscarriage of justice to impose modern ideas of child sexual abuse on Joseph’s era, in order to condemn those who simply followed marital norms of the time.” This is very fair of you. You often suprise me with your points of view.

Bruce, I think you may be conflating the comments of others with mine here. It’s certainly true that I believe Joseph lied at times (as even many faithful, believing LDS acknowledge). It is not true that I believe Joseph Smith “sexually abused women,” nor do I think I have ever made that allegation. That idea is usually advanced by critics in connection with the youth of some of Joseph’s wives, but any educated person knows it was entirely accepted in Joseph’s day for a young teenage girl to marry a more mature man. I think it’s a miscarriage of justice to impose modern ideas of child sexual abuse on Joseph’s era, in order to condemn those who simply followed marital norms of the time.

And I do think that is a valid question for Nick. I do not understand, Nick, why you care so much about departure from Joseph Smith’s original teachings because you too have departed from them by your own admission.

Bruce, even though I now differ from Joseph’s theology in some respects, I still admire his teachings as a particularly beautiful system. In particular, I find beauty in some of his more esoteric and unusual ideas. Sadly (to me) these are the very aspects of Joseph’s theology that I have observed the LDS church discarding, at an ever-increasing rate. It’s fair to say that I resent what I see as the callous dismantling of a brilliant legacy. I don’t have to embrace Joseph’s theology in order to admire it, nor do I have to embrace Joseph’s theology in order to bemoan its passing away.

Bingo!

This is probably what I meant when I said “There is no other God before God” (assuming I understood *you* correctly.) But I sort of have this up coming post where I’m going to address it further. Can I email you and run ideas past you and get feedback as a way of appeasing you earlier? I’d be happy to explain and explain and explain myself to an interested listener.

But yes, I very much do understand LDS doctrine as being the same as “there is no other God before God.”

Bruce: Just for the record, I completely and literally believe this statement: “There is no other God before God.” I very literally believe that and believe orthodox Mormonism teach exactly that and nothing but that. (And, yes, it’s a paradox with the plurality of gods doctrine.)

Could you explain what you mean here Bruce? Like Nick I think Joseph already answered this issue. (Rather clearly in the sermon I quoted from above) But then I think Paul did too.

Ray: Nick doesn’t reject Mormonism; he doesn’t agree with the direction the Church has taken on many doctrinal and social issues. He still has a lot of admiration for the Church in some regards, and for many Mormons as people, but he just doesn’t accept the evolution of the Church over the years.

I suspect Nick ought speak for himself but while he may have felt that way initially I believe he has much stronger views now towards the LDS faith and religion in general.

Actual Mormonism, the religion taught by Joseph Smith, is unquestionably henotheistic, as Joseph quite clearly taught a plurality of gods, and worship of one deity (Hint: That one deity wasn’t Jesus).

Nick, hopefully the discussion here has pointed out how this is a narrow way of thinking. Part of the problem was that clearly Joseph thought the Trinity was equivalent to modalism. (Reread the Sermon in the Grove and the King Follet Discourse and it leaps out at you.) In terms of the persons of course there is a plurality of gods. But that’s what the Trinity teaches.

The issue isn’t the plurality of gods but rather their unity (if any).

Now Joseph was very clearly teaching that there was an unity to the gods. (There’s a section on this in the Sermon in the Grove)

As to the point I think you are making with respect to the persons it is this one from the Sermon in the Grove.

the word Eloiheam ought to be in the plural all the way through– Gods—the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us–& when you take a view of the subject it sets one free to see all the beauty holiness & perfection of the God–all I want is to get the simple truth–naked & the whole truth–Men say there is one God–the Far. Son & the H. G. are only 1 God–it is a strange God any how 3 in 1 & 1 in 3. it is a curious thing any how–Far. I pray not for the world but I pray for those that thou givest me &c &c all are to be crammed into 1 God–it wod. make the biggest God in all the world–he is a wonderful big God–he would be a Giant

(I quoted the fun stuff about all being crowded into God too)

I would ask Nick, in the interest of tolerance, to not get bent out of shape over a widely accepted usuage of terms. But in the interest of tolerance I will, from this point forward, no longer use those two words as synonyms in this discussion. But old habits die hard, so I do the best I can. In a worst case scenario I have merely departed from Joseph Smith as you did, but happen to be ignorant of that fact. But so what? I’m free to believe whatever I wish. So is the LDS church as a whole.

Ray,

You are right that Nick accepts Joseph Smith was often inspired.

While I do not want to speak for Nick, I will explain myself more fully: What I meant by “false” was that Nick also accepts (as per his comments elsewhere) that Joseph Smith was often a liar, sexually abused women, was drastically wrong about a good many doctrines, etc. Now Nick believes he has sorted through all this and has formed his own belief system partially based on, but different than exactly what he believes Joseph originally taught.

That is to say, if I really believed in the Joseph Smith Nick believes existed it would still be an incorrect religion compared to the belief system Nick believes is correct. Does that make sense?

So perhaps (again, I’ll let Nick talk for himself) I am too hasty to assume that Nick doesn’t differientiate between “wrong” and “more wrong.” Maybe that is what I am misunderstanding about Nick. But whether or not I have departed from the teachings of Joseph Smith (as Nick defines that) either way Nick would believe my religion is “not true.” (i.e. that’s what I actually meant by “false”)

And I do think that is a valid question for Nick. I do not understand, Nick, why you care so much about departure from Joseph Smith’s original teachings because you too have departed from them by your own admission.

Update: Actually, I’m going to take this one step futher. If Nick is correct in his understanding of Joseph Smith, then I see no reason to accept anything Joseph taught nor anything in the LDS Church at all. Nick subscribes to a different view of what revelation from God is than I do. So naturally we would come to different conclusions about this. But if Nick is in fact correct about Joseph Smith, then I reject all of Joseph Smith. I do not believe I have anything to learn from him and would rather not waste my time studying his doctrines. ThatI believe the whole “cafeteria” approach to Mormonism and/or Christianity is a flawed approach, so that would be natural for me to believe that.

I would have left this to Nick to answer, but, frankly, this exchange is getting a bit heated and turning personal - and I respect both of you too much to want to see that happen, especially after such pleas this weekend for tolerance and acceptance and understanding for those with whom we disagree.

Nick, if I have mis-characterized your beliefs, I apologize.

As I stated previously: “Granted that there is more than one orthodox Mormon view, mine is not out of the ordinary or even rare.”

I am not trying to assert my views are the only orthodox Mormon view. I’m merely asking that I am not defined by outsiders as not being within the range of “orthodox” (which clearly I am.) There are many ways to interpret scripture. There are many ways to interpret “Mormonism.” There are many *valid* ways to do so, in fact.

Even the Articles of Faith are flexible enough as a whole to allow for multiple interpretations and differing emphases at varying times. I love that; it flummoxes others; it really, really torques some.

I ask kindly that you practice some tolerance here and stop calling me dishonest. It’s inappropriate and it’s insulting.

If you want to argue that LDS doctrine has changed since Joseph Smith, that’s fine. Since you believe it’s a false religion from the beginning anyhow, it seems odd to me that you are ardently defending against change as you do. God could care less about how a false religion changes to be some other kind of false. Since supposedly you believe it’s false from the beginning, it’s logically inconsistent for you to care that I am now interpreting Joseph Smith differently than how he intended it. Furthermore, if Jospeh Smith DID mean what you think he means, than all that means is I believe in a fake Joseph Smith and I am happy to be blissfully ignorant of that fact since it’s the modern Church I believe in, not your take on Joseph Smith.

That being said, I don’t believe you have any way of knowing what Joseph did or didn’t mean and, objectively speaking, you have no basis for your assertion that my interpretation of Joseph Smith goes against all evidence. It is just as possible that you are deeply bias and that you are interpreting him wrongly.

And let’s keep this in perspective. If I’m wrong and you are right, there is no reason for you to be upset and insulting as you are being because it was all false to begin with and my non-Joseph Smith based religion (as you suppose it is) should be seen by you as the same as, say, the Prebyterian religion or some other religion. Hardly something worth getting worked up over as you are.

But discussing what we LDS believe today is still a valid subject for discussion, and make no mistake, that was the dicussion. You are off topic and so I won’t be going down the path of arguing with you whether or not Nick or the LDS church interprets Joseph Smith more accurately.

Since this is, in fact, a disucssion about what the modern LDS orthodox view is compared to orthodox Christian views, if you are not interested in particpating in that discussion, please bow out respectfully and gracefully and stop the insults and accusations of dishonesty, please.

I did nothing of the sort, Bruce. You see, for 26 years, I was an “orthodox Mormon.” Because I was an orthodox Mormon, I found modern LDS-ism frustrating. Your attempt to equate “orthodox Mormonism” with the present positions of the modern LDS church is truly objectionable. To me, it’s essentially a game of identity theft.

What I am trying to say is, I have a certain very orthodox understanding of Mormon doctrine and it is monotheistic. Period. I reject the henotheistic label JFQ is placing on me because I believe it to be an incorrect understanding of my orthodox Mormon beliefs.

No, your monotheism is not a “very orthodox understanding of Mormon doctrine.” Rather, it’s a very orthdox understanding of LDS doctrine. Actual Mormonism, the religion taught by Joseph Smith, is unquestionably henotheistic, as Joseph quite clearly taught a plurality of gods, and worship of one deity (Hint: That one deity wasn’t Jesus).

Just for the record, I completely and literally believe this statement: “There is no other God before God.” I very literally believe that and believe orthodox Mormonism teach exactly that and nothing but that.

Thanks for unequivocally stating your beliefs, Bruce. You are free to believe as you choose, of course. Just know that any person who actually believes what Joseph Smith taught will never agree that your doctrine is “orthodox Mormonism.” Your “no other god before [our] god” theory is completely and utterly at odds with the teachings of Joseph Smith. You should be honest about that, rather than trying to convine others, against all evidence, that Joseph taught your particular theory.

Thanks for the comment, though. I appreciate it.

This is a strange argument to me, as per my footnote #7. You are using the word “paradox” instead of “contradiction.” One man’s paradox is another man’s contradiction, I suppose.

That being said, let me use your very own argument right back: I find it “paradoxical” that there is exactly one God and also a plurality of gods. I do not see it as contradictory at all. You see the assertions of the Bible as “paradoxical” just like I see the assertions of Mormon scripture (including the Bible) as “paradoxical.” So we are on even footing logically speaking.

What possible arguement could you logically make whereby you can reject my “paradox” as somehow worse than your “paradox?” What is your basis for claiming my “paradox” is wrong and yours is right?

In other words, on what grounds are you objecting to Mormon doctrine being “contradictory” (or is that “paradoxical?”) to the Bible when your own doctrines within the Bible (as you read/interpret them) also seem to contradict each other? I think this is a fair question and it is the crux of my objection to orthodox Christian doctrine.

However, I could take this further and state that they are not actually equal because I wouldn’t mind sitting down with you and using predicate logic and showing beyond doubt that my beliefs on this subject are literally “paradoxical” and not “contradictory.” That is to say, I could prove via a logical proof that there is no logical contradiction. (Namely through use of how I define words.) But I have my doubts that any orthodox Christians could do the same over their view of the Trinity, which I believe really is a bona fide contradiction.

I once worked out the predicate calculus on the orthodox Trinity doctrine and found it (by logical proof) to be a contradiction. If you want to take my predicate logic proof (I still have it) and show me where I went wrong (either in my assumptions or in my logic) feel free to clarify your meaning better for me and I’ll very quickly change my point of view about how I understand the orthodox Trinity. (And I’m serious about this. I would *really* appreciate it if an orthodox Christian could help me understand how I am misunderstanding the orthodox Trinity doctrine if in fact I am. It seems like looking over predicate calculus, if understood, would be a sure fire way to get to the bottom of any misunderstanding I might have.)

My original objection to JFQ was this statement: “LDS theology disagrees with more than one of these biblical assertions–and more” That is simply not true for “orthodox Mormonism.”

I am not playing a word game when I say that I literally and straightforwardly believe that God’s nature is “that there are 3 distinct persons, but each is fully God, and there is but one God. But it also affirms the nature of God–who is spirit; Jesus, who is both fully man and fully God; and The Holy Spirit.” Granted that there is more than one orthodox Mormon view, mine is not out of the ordinary or even rare.

I also objection to these statements from JFQ:

“While it may seem that Bruce can claim LDS doctrine agrees with the basic monotheistic assertions of Trinitarian doctrine, doing such is playing on the surface word games and staying blind to the biblical teachings orthodox Trinitarian doctrine affirms”

“Mormon doctrine is distinctly henotheistic, not monotheistic”

JFQ is defining what Mormon doctrine is and in my opinion he is doing so incorrectly. I can’t say for certain if all Mormons would reject these statements and labels as I do, but this orthodox Mormon does. Orthodox Mormonism is certainly broad enough that there may be some henotheists amongst us, perhaps. But even Mormons that might accept such statements at first, if I had 30 minutes to discuss it with them privately, would probably often end up rejecting such statements once I explained them. (Or more likely they might say they accept the terms if defined a certain way and reject the terms if defined another way, which is probably what I’m really saying here.)

What I am trying to say is, I have a certain very orthodox understanding of Mormon doctrine and it is monotheistic. Period. I reject the henotheistic label JFQ is placing on me because I believe it to be an incorrect understanding of my orthodox Mormon beliefs.

Now JFQ may have been henotheistic when he was a Mormon, but I am not and orthodox Mormonism isn’t either.

Let me sum up my point this way. I believe Mormon doctrine is made up of millions of data points that have to be interpreted. Mormons allow for a lot of different interpretations that are orthodox. There are millions of data points that make up the Bible. There are multiple ways to interpret them as well.

I believe JFQ, that you are taking one possible interpretation of Mormon doctrine (perhaps one of the orthodox views even, I can’t say for sure at this point in time) and one possible interpretation of the Bible and you are showing that they are contradictory or at least paradoxical.

While I agree with you that that one particular view of Mormon doctrine and that one particular view of the Bible seem to be at odds with each other, this doesn’t mean much to me because I personally accept neither of them.

So what I am asking is that you don’t state what Mormon doctrine is and isn’t in broad sweeping statements/judgments. I don’t mind you saying “When I was Mormon I believed…” or even “many Mormons seem to believe…” And of course, you are free to hold my feet to the fire and make me define my terms better or ask me probing follow up questions. And if you believe my views to be paradoxical or contradictory, you are free to call them that and state why you feel that way. But please don’t define them for me.

Just for the record, I completely and literally believe this statement: “There is no other God before God.” I very literally believe that and believe orthodox Mormonism teach exactly that and nothing but that. (And, yes, it’s a paradox with the plurality of gods doctrine.)

I like your post on your blog addressing the differences with Mormonism and Arianism. I can appreciate your “ruffledness” to my use of the term as I did. Even though I tried to quality my use, it wasn’t the most precise of persuasive analogies. Still, I disagree that creatio ex nihilo was as a defining philosophy to the affirmation of Trinitarianism that you seem to be arguing in that article, as well as here in this thread. [Though it certainly _is_ a point of difference between Mormonism and much (not all) of Christendom.]

The issue isn’t human perfection but rather doctrine perfection.

I disagree that 400 AD (I think you probably meant 4th century) was the point at which Trinitarian context was established.

I didn’t mean to imply that. I was more thinking that by 400 AD the modern notion of Trinity with most of its creation ex nihilo context was largely stable. Before that point it’s still developing. If we are including connotation as well as denotation then that’s important. However I’m well aware of the pre-400 history. (Well, a bit rusty - I’d hate to have to debate it without some texts handy to refresh my memory)

Regrading your point of contexts which (what became) mainstream Christianity found itself up against I agree. I suspect I’d say that some of those other movements had strong parallels within Christianity proper. (i.e. neoPlatonic influences which are unmistakable in Augustine, the issues in the Gospel of John, and so forth) But that’s ultimately neither here nor there.

Regarding Arianism I get a bit ruffled simply because I think there’s so much misunderstanding here. I’d blogged about this quite some time ago. There’s really not much in common between Arians and Mormons. To say “we lean Arian” seems to miss the assumptions that are driving LDS thought. Given so little parallel between Arians and Mormons it’s just not a helpful metaphor or analogy. For discussion clarity, if nothing else, one probably should simply point at what one sees in both Arians and Mormons. My experience is, though, that usually such views are hinged upon misreadings of Mormon thought.

Also because I think LDS theology does affirm a relationship with Father and Son (and Holy Ghost), supported by its modern scripture; traditional theology of literalness such as “child of God” and “Jesus as brother”, etc.;

But there’s nothing like that in Arianism. I should add that while certainly the Utah period theology and after takes quite literal the “child of God” even there exactly what that entails isn’t certain. However the main divide over the relationship of God to his children ontologically is certainly unclear. The one thing I think we can say is that Mormons reject ex nihilo (which if nothing else puts us against Arius)

Let me also say that while I favor a more traditional 19th century view of the theology here in terms of more formalized LDS teaching there really isn’t a clear doctrine. Thus Blake Ostler can argue against the distinction between spirit and intelligence and argue for “children” as being more metaphoric and implying a relationship between creator and creature. Even with Brigham Young it appears the spirit birth was the forming of some prime-matter like substance into spirits. The latter 20th century view of intelligence - spirit - body came largely from B. H. Roberts who was infusing the spirit birth doctrine with a heavy dose of Carestianism.

I bring this up merely to suggest we make a distinction between social inquiry into what Mormons believe (i.e. what a given collection of Mormons believe) versus what is more formal or at least semi-formal Church doctrine independent of the laity. I think the latter discussion is more interesting and in that case things are much more open than it first appears.

… but since so much soft-canon doctrine is treated canonically where needed, and where it is de-emphasized it is largely and seldom clearly refuted, it leaves a lot of play in what is “real LDS doctrine” from generation to generation. It raises major questions to me what real value an LDS prophet is.

Just because some things are left vague doesn’t mean everything is left vague. (And isn’t this true within mainstream Christianity? I can list a dozen issues for which there’s no formal doctrine.)

Also I think Mormons don’t see the main emphasis of religion as being propositions about theology. Rather the main emphasis is Christlike living and then the unity of the community of Saints. Given that different emphasis we shouldn’t be surprised that this is also the emphasis of prophetic direction - even in Joseph Smith.

You have given a very lucid argument, both here, and your off-site posts about how the term Trinitarian fits and doesn’t fit LDS theology. Without carrying the multi-branched discussion to a level where we would lose site of the point I think Bruce was first trying to make, I’ll concede some issues, and address a couple more, at least to further the point of mutual understanding and respect rather than working further to try and settle the, perhaps, unsettle-able.
I agree with your point regarding context, both connotative and denotative. I disagree that 400 AD (I think you probably meant 4th century) was the point at which Trinitarian context was established. From my study of the early church, certainly it was a vibrant history of fracture, practice and debate, namely –for this discussion– against the influence of the Gnostics, Neoplatonists and the (neo)Arians. The Marcan Gospel and Pauline epistles are certainly our best early texts, in my view, to establish the lens thru which to consider Christian christology, God’s nature, the interpretation of the Tanakh, etc. Nevertheless that John became the most favored Gnostic Gospel certainly bespeaks the vitality thru which different communities of believers interpreted different Christologies. (Certainly there were traditional communities who also saw John more traditionally than the Gnostics did, too.) Nonetheless, the tradition of Trinitarian context was for hundreds of years firmly on the side of what eventually became affirmed in the 4th century. Again, context was not “created” at Nicea. Nevertheless, the context through which you interpret, which seems to favor the anti-establishment spirit of the revolutionaries like the Gnostics and Arians, I would do well to respect, even if I disagree partly, like I do with postmodern Transformationalist interpretation of scripture. Therefore, since I favor what I see is the more clear doctrine evident in the earliest Pauline epistles, I tend to be less persuaded by the revolutionary theologies, and hence, object more than you do to the LDS use of the term Trinitarian.

I didn’t say LDS theology is Arian, only that it “leans Arian.” On one level “Arian” can be used as an inflammatory doctrinal epithet, which was not my intent — just so you know. It seemed appropo in this context to address the parallel because of the traditional LDS opposition to Athanasius and Nicea. Also because I think LDS theology does affirm a relationship with Father and Son (and Holy Ghost), supported by its modern scripture; traditional theology of literalness such as “child of God” and “Jesus as brother”, etc.; the temple ceremony; interpretation of post-resurrection kingdoms; etc., that I think is more compatible and parallel with the Arian and neoArian Eastern homoiousness than traditional “Athanasian” homoousness.

Lastly, my position _could_ be a matter of preference. Where you seem to enjoy a flexibility of theological emphasis, I do not see LDS theology as quite so flexible, per se. Certainly I agree it is “pendulum-like” in its marketing and emphasis, but since so much soft-canon doctrine is treated canonically where needed, and where it is de-emphasized it is largely and seldom clearly refuted, it leaves a lot of play in what is “real LDS doctrine” from generation to generation. It raises major questions to me what real value an LDS prophet is.

I do like the vibrancy of Christian church development, especially in the early church, but I will admit to being much more comfortable with an alliance to positions that have tradition and history of weathering (even if not winning) centuries of debate and affronts generation to generation– and, perhaps, is a less flexible to “rethink[ing] the issues.” As Bob Millet emphasized on NPR in January that Mormonism is a young faith in the “religion making business,” perhaps my position, while it seems to my mind and heart to be more biblical, could be merely a basic discomfort with the malleable, still-in-evolution, young history of the LDS faith. I can say for certainty, once I ceased to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, but yet had a profound attraction to the Christian message, it seemed necessary to me to align more with traditional Christian perspectives. In that sense we are each coming at this from an apologetic perspective, not an objective one. [So we should be able to get along, yes? ]

P.S. Ray (51): Your critique is fair. I _was_ letting myself get carried a little too far on the definition of “biblical” and “unbiblical” especially considering Mormons and traditional Christians generally have such divergent amount of authority and weight they place in the text. BTW, I would love to read your paper, were it available in electronic format.

One thing about LDS theology is that often theology develops as leaders are working against some particular movement. However I think that, unlike the creeds, Mormons wisely rethink their theology and then correct any excesses that may have occurred during the oppositions.

To give one example until around the time Pres. Hinkley became so prominent most Mormons went to pains to distinguish our theology from Evangelicals. This often led to leading to a lack of clarity on some terms (such as grace) simply because they were rhetorically so important to Evangelicals. Yet many of these ideas, such as Grace, are key LDS conceptions and arguably the main teaching in our LDS scriptural texts.

Now that we’ve been focused on building more bridges with Evangelicals the pendulum has perhaps gone too far the other direction. So some thinkers are devaluing way too much texts like the King Follet Discourse.

My point is that because Mormonism is quite a bit more flexible in how we treat doctrine we can make corrections. In the history of mainstream Christianity once something has one a battle (often a political batter) and established in a creed it’s much, much harder to rethink the issues.

What is interesting in all this is that I think the Mormon position on ultimate substance ends up being much closer to the Platonists than mainstream Christianity precisely because of the rejection of creation ex nihlo. Mormons tend to over-emphasize the platonic roots of mainstream Christianity (especially Augustine). But the main place I think we differ is precisely the place mainstream Christianity made such a decisive break with Platonism.

One of the many dominant evidences on behalf of the _creatio ex materia_ argument is precisely the writings of many influential church Fathers, many of whom worked tirelessly to distinguish orthodoxy from the Gnostic influence. I appreciate your emphasis that if the _ex materia_ teachings had influenced Christian culture as much as the _ex nihilo_ argument has, perhaps we might find a more sympathetic environment to the theology of Joseph Smith. I can’t say this wouldn’t be true. For my part I disagree that it would, because the holistic writings of these Fathers like Origen, Philo and Justin the Martyr, for example, many of whom I have read, do not teach a God nature and deiosis that is sympathetic to traditional Smith doctrines — at least Nauvoo-era Smith doctrine. But they certainly do seem to favor more strongly an _ex materia_ creation perspective.

I concur my articulation earlier may not have been as fair as it should have been. Either way, I do not think either perspective (ex materia or ex nihilo) would radically change Trinitarian doctrine from where it stands today, as it was affirmed in the time before ex nihilo had really began to take sway in the debate. Trinitarian doctrine, furthermore, was affirmed with a sola scriptura argument, which, in the debate of creation, does not settle the issue in the way I think it does for Trinitarian doctrine.