Changes

Following this in the same section is the idea that because Jesus took on physical flesh, that the Father must also have physical flesh as well. The problem is that the Trinity doesn’t work that way. The Father, Son, and Spirit all share one spiritual being. But that doesn’t mean that if one does something then the other two are required to do it as well. Just because the Son took on human flesh doesn’t mean that the Father had to. Trinitarians do not believe that nor do because we see the distinction in the personhood of the Father and the Son. (Note that I said the distinction in personhood, not being.) Following the logic that the author presents, then if the Son were crucified on the cross, then that would mean that the Father was as well. But such is not a Trinitarian idea in the slightest.

Following this in the same section is the idea that because Jesus took on physical flesh, that the Father must also have physical flesh as well. The problem is that the Trinity doesn’t work that way. The Father, Son, and Spirit all share one spiritual being. But that doesn’t mean that if one does something then the other two are required to do it as well. Just because the Son took on human flesh doesn’t mean that the Father had to. Trinitarians do not believe that nor do because we see the distinction in the personhood of the Father and the Son. (Note that I said the distinction in personhood, not being.) Following the logic that the author presents, then if the Son were crucified on the cross, then that would mean that the Father was as well. But such is not a Trinitarian idea in the slightest.

In the section “God is a Man”, the Trinity is once again misunderstood and misrepresented. The author claims that because Jesus was born on earth with a physical body then the Trinity would necessitate that the Father be born with one as well. Again I would point out that Trinitarians do not believe that just because the Son does something then the Father would have to do it as well. But secondly, and more importantly, LDS teachings are that the Father was originally a man and that He was exalted to godhood. He was a man who became God. But Protestants believe that God has always been God for all of eternity. The Father never was a man and never will become a man. (In the Protestant view, at least.) And when the Bible uses the term “Father” of the Father God it is referring to either Him in His creator role or to His role as our adoptive Father. (Per Romans 8:15).

In the section “God is a Man”, the Trinity is once again misunderstood and misrepresented. The author claims that because Jesus was born on earth with a physical body then the Trinity would necessitate that the Father be born with one as well. Again I would point out that Trinitarians do not believe that just because the Son does something then the Father would have to do it as well. But secondly, and more importantly, LDS teachings are that the Father was originally a man and that He was exalted to godhood. He was a man who became God. But Protestants believe that God has always been God for all of eternity. The Father never was a man and never will become a man. (In the Protestant view, at least.) And when the Bible uses the term “Father” of the Father God it is referring to either Him in His creator role or to His role as our adoptive Father. (Per Romans 8:15).

Now certainly Protestants and LDS would disagree on a great many of things. But if we wish to have a meaningful dialogue, then we must do our best to represent each other accurately. It is perfectly fine to link to a defense of LDS teachings, but preferably not one that so utterly microprints the historical beliefs of Protestants. The Trinity was the major issue at hand here, although to be honest there were many other glaring errors on the author part. But, to cut to the chase, because Protestant theology has been misrepresented in this way I humbly suggest that the link be removed. Thank you. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 07:01, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Now certainly Protestants and LDS would disagree on a great many of things. But if we wish to have a meaningful dialogue, then we must do our best to represent each other accurately. It is perfectly fine to link to a defense of LDS teachings, but preferably not one that so utterly microprints the historical beliefs of Protestants. The Trinity was the major issue at hand here, although to be honest there were many other glaring errors on the author part. But, to cut to the chase, because Protestant theology has been misrepresented in this way I humbly suggest that the link be removed. Thank you. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 07:01, 27 November 2008 (EST)