What?!
This thread is highly provocative.
Ronan at the blog, By Common Consent, joins another blogger, Clark, on recently exploring LDS trinitarian relationship.
Ok, Ronan and Clark, this is what I would like to do. In Southeast Idaho, my friends in the pastorate would like to begin a series of “For His Glory” conferences in the LDS I-15 corridor.
(1) I will be speaking on the Triune God in conference sessions. I plan to utilize/quote from your blog entries and other current sources to add flavor to local community thought. We are starting in Ashton, Idaho.
(2) In all the conferences, I will be asking as many LDS authorities as I can to come join in on the sessions and listen.
Sound like fun?
Some might ask what is the purpose for these mini conferences?
We have one over-arching desire: A call for people to worship in spirit and truth the God of all glory.
There should be no greater ambition in the Intermountain West.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Todd, I hope that when you quote Ronan, what you quote is his comment # 84 to his thread at By Common Consent, which comment reads as follows:
The sentence in bold is consistent with the entire message of the Book of Mormon and, of course, with the Bible. It is what Mormons fundamentally believe. Ronan (a personal friend of mine) perhaps approaches the extra clarity we have about the matter of God’s nature through Latter-day revelation with a little too much (unnecessary) skepticism and intentional problematization, but as you can see, he still expresses the core of Mormon faith, which is nicely summarized in one (among hundreds of) key, Christ-centered selection from the Book of Mormon:
(1 Nephi 11:26-33)
Nowhere in the Bible does it require followers of Jesus Christ to accept the concept of the one substance Trinity in order to be true believers in Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Savior of the World.
By contrast, your whole focus in religion, by and large, seems to be getting people to agree with the extra-biblical philosophical abstraction of the one substance Trinity. All religion seems to revolve around that for you, from what I can tell from your writing here. Throw in a bit of unconditional election to salvation/damnation, salvation by Grace alone, and the priesthood of all believers (none of which are actually biblical doctrines, with the exception, perhaps, of salvation by Grace once we have, through our own free will, accepted Christ in our hearts and shown that we have done so through receiving the mandated ordinances — which is strictly biblical with no rhetorical gymnastics required) and it provides a pretty full picture, as far as I can tell, of what true religion means for you.
I think it’s safe to say that Mormons prefer James’ take on what true religion undefiled before God is than Tertullian, Luther, or Calvin — which is not to say that they do not admire and respect those individuals in their own right for their own singular dedication to God, though in the case of these men that dedication brought an undeniable reign of blood and horror in its aftermath for a few hundred years after their own lives in the case of the latter two and for close to a millenium in the case of the former.
This undue emphasis on pressuring everyone to accept the one substance Trinity as the touchstone of all religion comes off as insisting that everyone must see things exactly the same way as you and those whose views you have chosen to privilege. Ronan, by contrast, although he appears to have complicated the matter much more than it needs to be (see my comment # 74 to his post for my attempt to point this out to him) does not face eternal sanction for conceding that whether God is one substance or three is not the point of the Plan of Salvation or God’s mission in furtherance of the joy and eternal potential of his children. He can be a fully eligible Mormon even if he believes that Jehova is NOT Jesus Christ after all but rather God the Father — and even if he subscribes to the Nicene Creed, which I believe he might. The key is that he accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior — as the one who has taken his sins upon Him and upon whom he relies for salvation. This acceptance is what the Bible requires and it is what you will find in most Mormons, regardless of the metaphysical conclusions they have come to about the molecules in God’s body.
How very, dare I say, ecumenical of you.
Just wait, Tate.
Some authorities might come unglued.
But the best is yet to come.
Todd, for starters you could release my comment from this morning from moderation.
Hey, I will.
Didn’t know you were stuffed away back there. 🙂
WordPress sometimes does this, especially if there are links in the comment.
Any more than two links actually.
two or more* I mean to say.
Todd,
My post at BCC was motivated simply by a desire to show that the common, modern LDS declaration that “Jesus is the God of the Old Testament,” does not fully take into account the Book of Moses (from the Pearl of Great Price). The simplest reading of those verses is that it is God the Father who is conversing with Moses. Most Mormons who wish to maintain a consistent view of Jesus-as-Jehovah typically invoke the so-called Divine Investiture of Authority paradigm, where the Son speaks as if he is the Father. In other words, it is the Son, not the Father, who is speaking in these verses, despite appearance to the contrary. Make
of that what you will.
(On the other hand, my friend Mr. Fowles believes that Moses’ theophany is a rare case of the Father being present in human history. He believes this to be a valid reading. If true, it still demonstrates that when Mormons say that “Jesus is the God of the Old Testament,” it ain’t quite as simple as all that.)
I personally hold to the view that “God” has been present in all human history as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Most importantly, I believe that Jesus was God made man. Now here’s what I want you to pay attention to: I do not think any of us has been made party to a full and absolute theology of God. If you want to believe that “God” is
a Trinity of one substance, or that “God” is a Godhead of three Personages, I am not bothered. When Jesus said that He and His Father are One, there are different ways to interpret this. I fail to see how your view is more “biblical” than the Mormon view.
I think most Mormons would find little to grumble about in the Apostles Creed. I therefore find it tiresome that we are forced by a belligerent few to continually parse our beliefs on this matter. I do not see where Jesus made this a requirement of taking up one’s cross and following him. I am inclined to think that when Joseph Smith suggested that knowing the character of God is essential for exaltation, it is of less worth to know a true theology than it is to know what God *is* — love, mercy, justice, holiness, perfection — and to try and emulate him.
I wish you a meaningful Holy Week.
Thanks Ronan.
I am working on a presentation. I will keep you posted.