mormanity @mormanity

Great article out today by Allen Wyatt on our modern Rameumptoms. interpreterfoundation.org/journal/atop-t…

@KalenWilliams_ Simple! Because Deuteronomy 4:2 says nobody can add or subtract to the word. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it...." Still not sure why we have Deuteronomy 5, or the book of Isaiah, or the New Testament.

A thought relevant to Mother's Day from Meridian Magazine: "How Did Lehi Know That Adam and Eve Could Have Had No Children Before the Fall? Mother Eve’s Statement May Be the Answer." latterdaysaintmag.com/how-did-lehi-k… Part of my work on the Book of Moses.

@elanning64 Congratulations!

If you actually knew the history of Christianity, you'd see why Latter-day Saints don't accept the Trinity the way other Christians define it. And why that's a totally reasonable position. Start with the timeline. For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Nicene Trinity. The word "trinity" wasn't even used until around 200 AD, by an early Christian writer named Tertullian. Early Christian writers had all kinds of different views about how the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost related to each other. They didn't agree. Many of those views wouldn't match the formal doctrine that came later. Same goes for the body of God. The Bible describes him with face, hands, and form. The idea that he's bodiless came from Greek philosophy, not from scripture. So what changed? In 325 AD, the Roman emperor Constantine called a council at Nicaea to settle the argument. The argument was about whether Jesus was fully divine or a created being. Bishops were told to sign the creed or get exiled. Even some of the bishops who signed it didn't fully agree with it. That's how the Trinity became official. Not because the Bible spelled it out. Because an emperor needed unity. The same thing was happening with how God himself was described. The Bible talked about God in physical terms. The councils used Greek philosophical categories to settle the question. The Bible's more physical language about God got reinterpreted in those abstract terms. Here's where Latter-day Saints actually land. We believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We pray to the Father in the name of the Son. We baptize in all three names. What we don't accept is the philosophy added later, that they're "one substance" in some Greek metaphysical sense. That part isn't in the Bible. It was developed later by theologians working out questions the Bible didn't directly answer. We also read the Bible's language about God's body the way the original audiences did, instead of reinterpreting it to fit Greek philosophy. And this isn't just a Latter-day Saint argument. Mainstream Bible scholars say the same thing. A Jesuit priest named Edmund Fortman wrote that there's "no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers." Harper's Bible Dictionary says the formal Trinity doctrine "is not to be found in the New Testament." Here's a way to think about it: Imagine a grandmother passes down a recipe. Three hundred years later, her descendants argue about whether she meant a pinch of salt or a teaspoon, and whether butter or olive oil is acceptable. One branch of the family writes up an "official" version and says anyone who doesn't follow it isn't really making grandma's recipe. The original recipe didn't say. The official version was added later. That's the situation with the Bible and the Trinity. The Bible has Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The specific Nicene formula came centuries later. The disagreement didn't end at Nicaea, either. For over 1,000 years, Catholics and Orthodox have argued about whether the Holy Spirit comes from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son. That's a fight about the nature of the Trinity itself. Two ancient Christian traditions, two different views, both still considered Christian. So the idea that there's one fixed Trinity test for being Christian doesn't hold up. To be clear, none of this is a shot at people who believe the Nicene Trinity. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, all of them are sincere Christians. Their faith is real. They have every right to worship how they see fit. The point here is just that Latter-day Saints reading the Bible and reaching a different conclusion isn't weird, dishonest, or anti-Christian. It's a position that fits the historical record. There's also a contradiction worth noticing. A lot of people say "the Bible alone is enough," and then turn around and say "you also have to accept the creeds to be Christian." Those two ideas can't both be true. Either the Bible is enough or it isn't. Early Christian art reflected the same uncertainty. Different communities pictured God in different ways for centuries before a unified image took hold. So here's the bottom line. Reasonable people read the New Testament and land where Latter-day Saints land. So did a lot of early Christians before the councils made one view official. You don't have to agree with us. Just understand that our position has roots in actual Christian history, not in some random departure from it. Believe the Trinity. Don't believe the Trinity. The history is what it is. Knowing it doesn't threaten anyone's faith. It just clears up why other Christians read the Bible the way they do.

@ThoughtfulSaint Nicely explained. Thanks!

@LatterDayBean Glad you made it back!!

Revolutions in understanding the nature of matter and energy may suggest that some theological notions about God might need updating as well. I discuss this and the materiality of the Resurrection in this article at Meridian Magazine: latterdaysaintmag.com/the-physical-r…

Great to see an article by BYU professor Mattthew Grey in the latest volume of Biblical Archaeology Review. Good insights into what the Last Supper was probabyly like (not Roman style!): biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-….

The Book of Moses uses "meridian of time" 4 times. What does this mean, and does it have an analog in the Book of Mormon? My article on this rare English term was published today at Meridian Magazine: latterdaysaintmag.com/reflections-on…. Book of Moses-Book of Mormon parallels are considered.

Part 3 coming soon at Meridian Magazine. My list of articles there is at latterdaysaintmag.com/author/jeff-li….

Love the book Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an📷Infinitely Bountiful Planet by Marian L. Tupy and Gale L. Pooley. Here are Parts 1 & 2 of a 3-part article: Part 1: latterdaysaintmag.com/the-doomsayers… Part 2: latterdaysaintmag.com/the-doomsayers…

For those interested in the Book of Mormon, there's a connection between it and the later Book of Moses translation that can't readily be explained by the use of KJV language. Thanks to Avram and Thora Shannon for interviewing me on this topic: interpreterfoundation.org/conversations-…

@wndyW1LL0w Thank you! The strangeness of the translation process actually adds to the impossible nature of Joseph doing the translation on his own. No chance to read notes, just dictating what he saw hour after hour at an incredible pace with brilliant intertextuality and rhetorical tools.

Very pleased that Brian Stubbs has new editions for both of his books on the ancient Old World language connections to Uto-Aztecan, now available for free. For links, see my post at arisefromthedust.com/brian-stubbss-…. This is a topic of potential interest to students of the Book of Mormon.

@Rightanglenews Just give away the ice scrapers, take them out of the sales system, and thank the protesters for visiting.

@wndyW1LL0w I had to call the hotline years ago and there was deep concern for the victim, lots of discussion, and follow-up calls. Under guidance from the Church, I reported the perpetrator and he was soon convicted. The main concern, naturally, was the safety and well-being of the victim.

@sput_nick @Ch_JesusChrist Kudos to the few in the stadium who had the basic decency to not be so easily manipulated into chanting something hateful and vulgar.

@Soulsandpassion @DeseretPews @grok Satire -- but I sure loved Erika's speech!

@RykerJackson97 I wish this were what people meant when they talk about intersectionality.