General Conference talk on the understanding of the Godhead

[GoCeltics]

What's your perspective on this General Conference talk?

In contrast, many Christians reject the idea of a tangible, personal God and a Godhead of three separate beings. They believe that God is a spirit and that the Godhead is only one God. In our view, these concepts are evidence of the falling away we call the Great Apostasy.

I’ve been reading about how God is described as a spirit—for example, in Alma 18:26 28, where God is called the “Great Spirit.” At the same time, passages like 3 Nephi 11:36, 2 Nephi 31:21, and Doctrine and Covenants 20:28 talk about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as being “one God.”

Some questions:

When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?

When did the view that God is a spirit start to be considered incorrect? Related question: If God was not married and did not have a physical body, could we still be considered as being created in his image?

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?

 

Up until 1835 with the Lectures on Faith (the "doctrine" of the original Doctrine and Covenants) the Godhead was still viewed as 2 personages with the Holy Spirit being their shared mind. I believe the first time Joseph Smith describes them as 3 personages isn't until 1841.

[Pyreaux]

On 5/7/2026 at 8:52 AM, GoCeltics said:

What's your perspective on this General Conference talk?

In contrast, many Christians reject the idea of a tangible, personal God and a Godhead of three separate beings. They believe that God is a spirit and that the Godhead is only one God. In our view, these concepts are evidence of the falling away we call the Great Apostasy.

I’ve been reading about how God is described as a spirit—for example, in Alma 18:26 28, where God is called the “Great Spirit.” At the same time, passages like 3 Nephi 11:36, 2 Nephi 31:21, and Doctrine and Covenants 20:28 talk about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as being “one God.”

Some questions:

When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?

When did the view that God is a spirit start to be considered incorrect? Related question: If God was not married and did not have a physical body, could we still be considered as being created in his image?

In LDS thought the view is not necessarily that God being a spirit is "incorrect," but rather that it is an incomplete description. The modern LDS perspective argues that having a body does not prevent God from being described as a spiritual being (like in John 4:24).

The classic explanation for the "Great Spirit" is that its borrowed terminology, Alma 18 is interpreted as Ammon using the Lamanites' existing vocabulary to teach them higher concepts. Like what some say Paul might be doing on Mar's Hill declaring the "Unknown God".

But my explanation is in Alma 18:32-35, Ammon explains that the Great Spirit created all things. This matches the Book of Ether and modern LDS belief of the Lord God, Jehovah, is Jesus and the Creator of all things under the Father’s direction. In that sense God was at that time indeed a Spirit.

In 1830, when the Book of Mormon was published, there are specific moments where the text hints at a plurality or a distinct status for Jesus that aligns more with later LDS theology. 1 Nephi, 3 Nephi, Alma clearly show Jesus as a separate being who is subordinate to the Father. 1 Nephi 1 Lehi sees God sitting on his throne and then sees "One" descend. Here Jesus is clearly distinct from the one on the throne. Then there is Alma describing Jesus as "a" Son of God instead of "the" Son of God (Alma 36:17). Very Daniel-Esque.

But Joseph's beliefs were probably more traditional. Even though Joseph saw the personage of the Father, that doesn't mean that he could tell He was embodied or not. In Ether 3, the Brother of Jared sees the Lord and is shocked because his finger appears to be "flesh and blood." He explains he possessed a spirit body. This body has a shape, a form, and limbs, that looks like "flesh". Why not? Whenever God the Father is seen in the Bible, he looks like he has a human body sitting on a throne but that doesn't stop Christians today from thinking He is a Spirit.

Joseph did not write the standard First Vision found in the Pearl of Great Price until 1838, it seems after this that something shifted. By 1841 Joseph began teaching the distinctions and bodies of the Godhead more publicly in Nauvoo. In a sermon on January 5, 1841, he taught:

"That which is without body, parts, and passions is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones."

By 1843 it was canonized in D&C 130:22. During the Nauvoo period 1844, particularly in the King Follett discourse, it was taught that God the Father didn't always have a body, He had acquired his exalted body, maybe having a mortal probation, but not necessarily a non-divine period. At this time the term God became contextual. Joseph in one context refers to an exalted bodily state as godhood, yet Jesus always had an investiture of godly authority and power throughout known history prior to his exaltation.

Edited May 8 by Pyreaux

[GoCeltics]

On 5/7/2026 at 1:21 PM, Pyreaux said:

He had acquired his exalted body, maybe having a mortal probation, but not necessarily a non-divine period.

What does being non-divine mean for Him?

[Pyreaux]

7 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

What does being non-divine mean for Him?

Being like everyone else, being a common origin. By the Father [not] being considered non-divine in His mortality, I mean it is not clear at all whether his mortality was exactly like our current selves. The King Follet Sermon's comparison of the Father's mortality as being "like Jesus'" mortality throws out the idea he was "like us". While Jesus was a mortal, He was not like us, in power and authority, he was still a much greater being. One of several issues with an Infinite Regression. If not everyone has the same exaltation experience, how do we know what this supposed cycle truly looks like?

Edited May 9 by Pyreaux

[GoCeltics]

21 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

One of several issues with an Infinite Regression. If not everyone has the same exaltation experience, how do we know what this supposed cycle truly looks like?

You're assuming the supposed cycle for this Earth has to match the pattern followed by every being who was formed into a God before Heavenly Father attained godhood.

[Pyreaux]

On 5/10/2026 at 8:49 AM, GoCeltics said:

You're assuming the supposed cycle for this Earth has to match the pattern followed by every being who was formed into a God before Heavenly Father attained godhood.

My point isn't to insist on one specific pattern. The King Follett Sermon makes 'certainty' impossible whether God's "mortality" is mortality as we know it. When the King Follett Discourse supposes Jesus’ mortality mirrored the Father’s mortality in some way, Jesus was God before he obtained any bodily form, a Creator of His world before He walked on it, who had power over life and death and remained sinless. It does not suggest the Father's mortality was a standard human experience. It doesn't smoothly fit the simple "pattern" later thought of "as man is, God once was".

Other than saying one day God the Father simply chooses, for reasons, to exist in a physical form, there nothing in particular dictating the Father isn't still a unique, self-existing, innately powered, non-striving, never 'progressing' in the sense from sin to glory, simply transitioning. If the 'cycle' is inconsistent, if some gods are like Jesus and others were like us, then there is no 'pattern' at all, some are apparently exceptions.

What's most interesting, if we assume the Father was always God and just took a body like Jesus and glorified it, then the non-LDS charge of "blasphemy" of God being merely a "man" is weakened. He’s just a God with a body, no less Godly than Jesus is now or was.

Edited May 12 by Pyreaux

[3DOP]

 

On 5/7/2026 at 8:52 AM, GoCeltics said:

What's your perspective on this General Conference talk?

In contrast, many Christians reject the idea of a tangible, personal God and a Godhead of three separate beings. They believe that God is a spirit and that the Godhead is only one God. In our view, these concepts are evidence of the falling away we call the Great Apostasy.

I’ve been reading about how God is described as a spirit—for example, in Alma 18:26 28, where God is called the “Great Spirit.” At the same time, passages like 3 Nephi 11:36, 2 Nephi 31:21, and Doctrine and Covenants 20:28 talk about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as being “one God.”

Some questions:

When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?

When did the view that God is a spirit start to be considered incorrect? Related question: If God was not married and did not have a physical body, could we still be considered as being created in his image?

 Hi GoCeltics. 

LDS talk about not being a religion of orthodoxy. Instead it is a religion of orthopraxy. If only LDS allowed a little slack to the early church. You guys have Latter-day revelation to ultimately show how the early church was allegedly apostate.

I do not deny that you can argue a plausible case for an LDS Godhead from the Scriptures of the early church. But it seems to me like it isn't very clear for about a millennium and a half later with the coming of Latter-day revelation. Even now you guys get to have differing beliefs about this subject. 

It does not seem at all just to me for the orthopraxic LDS, to go all orthodox against good people who didn't even have the full picture of God's revelation, but offered their lives for Christ and practised the same moral virtues as Temple approved Mormons! What is wrong with early church orthopraxy that couldn't be corrected with Latter-day revelation? LDS like those you describe in this conference condemn their brothers as apostates because of theological mistakes due to ignorance that is in no way their own fault.

Thanks for your consideration.

3DOP 

Edited May 12 by 3DOP

[GoCeltics]

11 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I do not deny that you can argue a plausible case for an LDS Godhead from the Scriptures of the early church. But it seems to me like it isn't very clear for about a millennium and a half later with the coming of Latter-day revelation. Even now you guys get to have differing beliefs about this subject. 

When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?

I am sure the idea originated with the Apostolic teaching that implied a certain equality between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This appeared to be in conflict with the teaching of the Old Testament that there was one God. What was the resolution? It took some time, longer than the LDS faith has even been around yet. Eventually, it came to be recognized that there has to be a sense in which God is both One and Three. Even today there are non-creedal Christians who emphasize one or the other. The Oneness or the Threeness. We can maintain both.

It might help further to see how some LDS, and apparently these conference speakers you reference, misunderstand the creedal Christian teaching to which I hold as a Catholic. From your opening post above:

In contrast, many Christians reject the idea of a tangible, personal God and a Godhead of three separate beings. They believe that God is a spirit and that the Godhead is only one God. In our view, these concepts are evidence of the falling away we call the Great Apostasy.

1) I don't know of any creedal Christian today who would reject that Jesus is now tangible, that He has a human body, and always will. Still, he once was God without a body. If I understand correctly, the Holy Ghost (or Spirit, I do not quite understand the LDS distinction between the two English words which are thought to be synonymous among creedal Christians) is currently God, according to LDS, without a body. It seems like LDS could agree that God can have a body, but that body is not necessary for that person to be God.

2) We don't believe that God is a Person? I am wondering if this is an exact quote. Evangelical Protestants always talk about the need for a personal relationship with God. The creedal definition which tries to resolve the problem of a "Three God Monotheism", if you will, is precisely to affirm the Three as distinct and different Persons. The creedal God is definitely not impersonal.

3) As Persons God is Three, but in essence, or being, God is one and the same. There is no difference in the Godhead when the Father begets His Son. His Son has the same being, nature, or essence as the Father. It is no different than what we observe in earthly biology. Every offspring of a biological animal has all of the necessary attributes of its parents, whether it be a "kangaroo being" or a "human being". And so, creedal Christians believe that the Son, and the Holy Spirit, possess all of the supernatural attributes of God, while having other attributes that are unique to their Persons. 

4) #3 could imply the answer to your question above about God not being married, or having a body. Could we be still made in His image? Was the Son made in God's image before He took flesh in Mary's womb? Yes, according to the answer of the creedal Christian, and the LDS (I think). This can be hard for material beings like ourselves to grasp, but to be made in his image is to be a person, (like The Three), with a spiritual, immaterial nature like Their own. Humans have free will, and a rational capacity that is not characterized by anything material. Is free will liquid, solid, or gaseous? Of course not. But free will is a reality that we all know we have. It is an immaterial reality. This and all attributes of God's immaterial reality are possessed by the creatures made "in God's image" with the blessed potential to be elevated to partake of the very being of God, us silly humans! What a wonder and a privilege! What a stupendous thought!

Thank God for the gift of faith, without which so sublime a thought, is verily unbelievable. May the all-powerful and blessed God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be praised forever.

I got a little carried away there. Heh. Thank you so much Go Celtics for being God's instrument of grace to draw me to think of these things today. And may God bless you always.  

Rory 

Edited May 12 by 3DOP

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?

It was that way from the beginning, even in pre-Christian era early Jewish sources.

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE):  Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt:  *62. (Gen. ix. 6) Why does (Scripture) say, as if (speaking) of another God, "in the image of God He made man" and not "in His own image"?  Most excellently and veraciously this oracle was given by God. For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe but (only) in that of the second God, who is His Logos. For it was right that the rational (part) of the human soul should be formed as an impression by the divine Logos, since the pre-Logos God is superior to every rational nature. But He who is above the Logos (and) exists in the best and in a special form—what thing that comes into being can rightfully bear His likeness? Moreover, Scripture wishes also to show that God most justly avenges the virtuous and decent men because they have a certain kinship with His Logos, of which the human mind is a likeness and image."  (Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, Book II).

Justin Martyr (150 AD):  "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures,[of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them."  (Dialogue with Trypho , chapter 56)

Origen (185-254 AD):  "And although we may call Him [Jesus Christ] a "second" God, let men know that by the term "second God" we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of including all other virtues, and a reason capable of containing all reason whatsoever which exists in all things, which have arisen naturally, directly, and for the general advantage, and which "reason," we say, dwelt in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree far above all other souls, seeing He alone was enabled completely to receive the highest share in the absolute reason, and the absolute wisdom, and the absolute righteousness."   (Origen Against Celsus, Book 5, Chapter 39).

Lactantius (c. 240-c 320 AD):  "God, therefore, the contriver and founder of all things, as we have said in the second book, before He commenced this excellent work of the world, begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit, whom He called His Son. And although He had afterwards created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call angels, this first-begotten, however, was the only one whom He considered worthy of being called by the divine name, as being powerful in His Father's excellence and majesty.  But that there is a Son of the Most High God, who is possessed of the greatest power, is shown not only by the unanimous utterances of the prophets, but also by the declaration of Trismegistus and the predictions of the Sibyls. Hermes, in the book which is entitled 'The Perfect Word', made use of these words: 'The Lord and Creator of all things, whom we have thought right to call God, since He made the second God visible and sensible. But I use the term sensible, not because He Himself perceives (for the question is not whether He Himself perceives), but because He leads to perception and to intelligence.  Since, therefore, He made Him first, and alone, and one only, He appeared to Him beautiful, and most full of all good things; and He hallowed Him, and altogether loved Him as His own Son'"  (The Divine Institutes, Book 4, Chap. 6).

[3DOP]

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

It was that way from the beginning, even in pre-Christian era early Jewish sources.

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE):  Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt:  *62. (Gen. ix. 6) Why does (Scripture) say, as if (speaking) of another God, "in the image of God He made man" and not "in His own image"?  Most excellently and veraciously this oracle was given by God. For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe but (only) in that of the second God, who is His Logos. For it was right that the rational (part) of the human soul should be formed as an impression by the divine Logos, since the pre-Logos God is superior to every rational nature. But He who is above the Logos (and) exists in the best and in a special form—what thing that comes into being can rightfully bear His likeness? Moreover, Scripture wishes also to show that God most justly avenges the virtuous and decent men because they have a certain kinship with His Logos, of which the human mind is a likeness and image."  (Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, Book II).

Justin Martyr (150 AD):  "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures,[of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them."  (Dialogue with Trypho , chapter 56)

Origen (185-254 AD):  "And although we may call Him [Jesus Christ] a "second" God, let men know that by the term "second God" we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of including all other virtues, and a reason capable of containing all reason whatsoever which exists in all things, which have arisen naturally, directly, and for the general advantage, and which "reason," we say, dwelt in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree far above all other souls, seeing He alone was enabled completely to receive the highest share in the absolute reason, and the absolute wisdom, and the absolute righteousness."   (Origen Against Celsus, Book 5, Chapter 39).

Lactantius (c. 240-c 320 AD):  "God, therefore, the contriver and founder of all things, as we have said in the second book, before He commenced this excellent work of the world, begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit, whom He called His Son. And although He had afterwards created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call angels, this first-begotten, however, was the only one whom He considered worthy of being called by the divine name, as being powerful in His Father's excellence and majesty.  But that there is a Son of the Most High God, who is possessed of the greatest power, is shown not only by the unanimous utterances of the prophets, but also by the declaration of Trismegistus and the predictions of the Sibyls. Hermes, in the book which is entitled 'The Perfect Word', made use of these words: 'The Lord and Creator of all things, whom we have thought right to call God, since He made the second God visible and sensible. But I use the term sensible, not because He Himself perceives (for the question is not whether He Himself perceives), but because He leads to perception and to intelligence.  Since, therefore, He made Him first, and alone, and one only, He appeared to Him beautiful, and most full of all good things; and He hallowed Him, and altogether loved Him as His own Son'"  (The Divine Institutes, Book 4, Chap. 6).

I am not well informed about Philo. Thanks, the idea of a multi personal Godhead seems to have even preceded the Apostles!

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I am not well informed about Philo. Thanks, the idea of a multi personal Godhead seems to have even preceded the Apostles!

I wasn't aware of Philo's view on the relationship between God and the Logos until recently myself.  I thank Dan McClellan for making me aware of that.

[3DOP]

On 5/7/2026 at 8:52 AM, GoCeltics said:

What's your perspective on this General Conference talk?

In contrast, many Christians reject the idea of a tangible, personal God and a Godhead of three separate beings. They believe that God is a spirit and that the Godhead is only one God. In our view, these concepts are evidence of the falling away we call the Great Apostasy.

I’ve been reading about how God is described as a spirit—for example, in Alma 18:26 28, where God is called the “Great Spirit.” At the same time, passages like 3 Nephi 11:36, 2 Nephi 31:21, and Doctrine and Covenants 20:28 talk about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as being “one God.”

Some questions:

When did the idea arise that the Godhead consists of three separate Gods?

When did the view that God is a spirit start to be considered incorrect? Related question: If God was not married and did not have a physical body, could we still be considered as being created in his image?

Hey again everybody...a question.

Just so I understand, the LDS at this conference are quoted as saying that "many Christians", besides teaching that God must be intangible, also reject "a personal God"? And this is evidence  of the LDS view of a Great Apostasy?

If there are or were many Christians, as is claimed, who hold to these concepts, are there perhaps some who don't and didn't? Who counts among this many? What if there were many other Christians, if even only a minority in ancient times, who always believed in a personal God who lived in the flesh, and now numbers more than a billion baptized? If that were the case, could that count as evidence AGAINST the LDS view of a Great Apostasy as is said to be put forth at this conference?

I mean at least as far as intangibility and personhood are concerned. Would not such a case, if it could be found, undermine the argument put forth at this conference as evidence for the LDS view of a "Great Apostasy"? That is not to say that it would disprove a Great Apostasy. But it seems like it should disqualify the "evidence" put forth at the conference in question.

3DOP 

Edited May 14 by 3DOP

[GoCeltics]

On 5/12/2026 at 10:54 AM, 3DOP said:

Thank you so much Go Celtics for being God's instrument of grace to draw me to think of these things today. And may God bless you always.  

Rory 

Thank you for your kind words Rory.

[GoCeltics]

On 5/12/2026 at 12:43 PM, InCognitus said:

It was that way from the beginning, even in pre-Christian era early Jewish sources.

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE):  Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt:  *62. (Gen. ix. 6) Why does (Scripture) say, as if (speaking) of another God, "in the image of God He made man" and not "in His own image"?  Most excellently and veraciously this oracle was given by God. For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe but (only) in that of the second God, who is His Logos. For it was right that the rational (part) of the human soul should be formed as an impression by the divine Logos, since the pre-Logos God is superior to every rational nature. But He who is above the Logos (and) exists in the best and in a special form—what thing that comes into being can rightfully bear His likeness? Moreover, Scripture wishes also to show that God most justly avenges the virtuous and decent men because they have a certain kinship with His Logos, of which the human mind is a likeness and image."  (Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, Book II).

Justin Martyr (150 AD):  "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures,[of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them."  (Dialogue with Trypho , chapter 56)

Origen (185-254 AD):  "And although we may call Him [Jesus Christ] a "second" God, let men know that by the term "second God" we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of including all other virtues, and a reason capable of containing all reason whatsoever which exists in all things, which have arisen naturally, directly, and for the general advantage, and which "reason," we say, dwelt in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree far above all other souls, seeing He alone was enabled completely to receive the highest share in the absolute reason, and the absolute wisdom, and the absolute righteousness."   (Origen Against Celsus, Book 5, Chapter 39).

Lactantius (c. 240-c 320 AD):  "God, therefore, the contriver and founder of all things, as we have said in the second book, before He commenced this excellent work of the world, begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit, whom He called His Son. And although He had afterwards created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call angels, this first-begotten, however, was the only one whom He considered worthy of being called by the divine name, as being powerful in His Father's excellence and majesty.  But that there is a Son of the Most High God, who is possessed of the greatest power, is shown not only by the unanimous utterances of the prophets, but also by the declaration of Trismegistus and the predictions of the Sibyls. Hermes, in the book which is entitled 'The Perfect Word', made use of these words: 'The Lord and Creator of all things, whom we have thought right to call God, since He made the second God visible and sensible. But I use the term sensible, not because He Himself perceives (for the question is not whether He Himself perceives), but because He leads to perception and to intelligence.  Since, therefore, He made Him first, and alone, and one only, He appeared to Him beautiful, and most full of all good things; and He hallowed Him, and altogether loved Him as His own Son'"  (The Divine Institutes, Book 4, Chap. 6).

What of biblical verses which speak of only God one?

[theplains]

On 5/12/2026 at 12:43 PM, InCognitus said:

It was that way from the beginning, even in pre-Christian era early Jewish sources.

@3DOP @GoCeltics

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say 
that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. “Father, 
I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.” “Holy Father, keep through 
Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.” All are to be
crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world.
He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster" (History of the Church,
volume 6, chapter 23).

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and 
believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there 
be after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

@3DOP @GoCeltics

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say 
that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. “Father, 
I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.” “Holy Father, keep through 
Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.” All are to be
crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world.
He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster" (History of the Church,
volume 6, chapter 23).

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and 
believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there 
be after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Hi theplains.

I would find it helpful for an elaboration of how these two statements illustrate agreement or disagreement with any of the propositions made by the conference speaker or of those who have participated in this discussion.

I can be wonderfully dense. I regularly fail to understand a joke. But I don't perceive that this is a joke at all. I fear I should understand something that should be obvious to me. Perhaps I am exposing my common stupidity. But I must admit that I cannot see your point. My apologies...

3DOP 

 

[3DOP]

On 5/14/2026 at 8:48 AM, GoCeltics said:

What of biblical verses which speak of only God one?

It seems like every theory has been tried. I think the best LDS theory is called the Social Trinity. Somebody else could probably explain it better than I.

But the reason I prefer it is because it is closest to that Nicene Creed. So I am biased. I think we all agree that we need Oneness as well as Threeness though. 

If one wants rigorous exclusive monotheism, you can find it. But most Christians think Jesus is God and also the Holy Spirit for most of us. Judaism and Islam can claim to be stricter monotheists than almost all Christian communities. I think we should readily admit that, while affirming a real sense of true oneness.

 

 

[longview]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Judaism and Islam can claim to be stricter monotheists than almost all Christian communities. I think we should readily admit that, while affirming a real sense of true oneness.

It is practically a universal belief that Jesus was and is and will remain God. Many scriptures prophesy of the Messiah coming to earth to be "made flesh" and live among the people. Yet, as He ministered, He continually prayed to God the Father who is the Head of the Godhead consisting of three distinct personages (united in purpose just as WE can be united with God being ONE with all His Church). AND He unambiguously subordinates Himself completely UNDER God the Father (this remains TRUE thru all Eternity). "Not My Will But Thine".

I got chatGPT to list the prophesies from the Bible:

Quote

which old testament bible verses foreshadow or prophesy of God being made fleash

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Many Christians understand several passages in the Old Testament as foreshadowing or prophesying the incarnation — the belief that God would come in human flesh through Jesus Christ. Different traditions interpret these texts differently, but these are among the most commonly cited:

---

Isaiah 7:14 — A child called “Immanuel”

“Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

“Immanuel” means “God with us.” Christians connect this to the birth of Jesus in the New Testament.

---

Isaiah 9:6–7 — A divine child king

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given… and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

This passage is significant because the coming ruler is given titles associated with deity.

---

Micah 5:2 — Eternal ruler born in Bethlehem

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah… out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

Christians see this as pointing to a ruler with eternal origins who would nevertheless be born in a specific town.

---

Daniel 7:13–14 — The “Son of Man”

“One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven…”

The figure receives everlasting dominion and worship. Jesus frequently used “Son of Man” for himself in the Gospels.

---

Zechariah 12:10 — God pierced

“They shall look upon me whom they have pierced…”

In Christian interpretation, God is speaking, yet is also the one pierced — understood as foreshadowing the crucifixion.

---

Psalm 45:6–7 — The king addressed as God

“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever…”

Originally a royal psalm, but later applied in the New Testament to Christ.

---

Psalm 110:1 — David’s Lord

“The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand…”

Christians interpret this as showing a divine Messiah distinct from yet united with God.

---

Genesis 3:15 — The promised seed

Often called the protoevangelium (“first gospel”):

“He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

Seen as the earliest hint of a coming redeemer born from humanity.

---

Isaiah 53 — The suffering servant

This chapter describes a servant who suffers for the sins of others:

“He was wounded for our transgressions…”

Christians connect this closely to Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

---

Jeremiah 23:5–6 — The LORD our righteousness

“I will raise unto David a righteous Branch… and this is his name… THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

A descendant of David is identified with a divine title.

---

The “Angel of the LORD” passages

In several places, the “Angel of the LORD” speaks as God, receives worship, and yet is distinguished from God:

• Genesis 16
• Exodus 3
• Judges 13

Many Christian theologians view these as appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ.

---

Other symbolic foreshadowings Christians often point to

• The Passover lamb (Exodus 12)
• The bronze serpent (Numbers 21)
• The tabernacle where God dwells among people

These are usually viewed as “types” or symbolic previews rather than direct prophecies.

---

A key New Testament statement connecting these ideas is John 1:14:

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…”

Christians read many of the passages above through that lens.

Jewish interpretations generally do not understand these verses as predicting God becoming human, so the meaning of these texts depends heavily on theological perspective.

 

Edited May 16 by longview

[3DOP]

On 5/16/2026 at 12:18 PM, longview said:

It is practically a universal belief that Jesus was and is and will remain God. Many scriptures prophesy of the Messiah coming to earth to be "made flesh" and live among the people. Yet, as He ministered, He continually prayed to God the Father who is the Head of the Godhead consisting of three distinct personages (united in purpose just as WE can be united with God being ONE with all His Church). AND He unambiguously subordinates Himself completely UNDER God the Father (this remains TRUE thru all Eternity). "Not My Will But Thine".

I got chatGPT to list the prophesies from the Bible:

 

Hey longview. Yes! Fully subordinate. Christ said that His "meat was to do the Will of Him [The Father] who sent Him". It was nourishing in some analagous way to nourishment of the body, to the Soul of the Second Person(age) of the Godhead to obey His Father! This was "meat" that Jesus' disciples had not yet come to know of.

Thanks for that good reminder of Him (Jesus) who was God, and obeyed. How much more should we who are not God, recall that we also need to "eat the meat" of obedience to Him Who is God, else our own souls will be suffering from malnutrition. 

Regards,

Rory 

 

Edited May 20 by 3DOP

[longview]

7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Thanks for that good reminder of Him (Jesus) who was God, and obeyed. How much more should we who are not God, recall that we also need to "eat the meat" of obedience to Him Who is God, else our own souls will be suffering from malnutrition. 

Right. Not merely to hear but to undergo the challenges and rigor of "growing" and living in the Gospel of Christ. Becoming transformed ever steadily. The many "steps on Jacob's Ladder".

Thus we MUST resist the temptation of hellenistic fantasy of conflating the personhood of Jesus/Jehovah with the personhood of God the Father/Elohim. The Nicean Council and early "fathers" were in a tizzy over trying to define the single ONE God by using various non-biblical terminologies such as consubstantiation and whatever impenetrable "mysteries". We simply can take at face value the many descriptions of the members of the Godhead, all having important distinct personable roles.

Here are at least two distinct levels yet affirming the unity or oneness of disciples, apostles, the Savior, and God the Father (see Intercessory Prayer in John 17):

Rev 3:18. I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

[3DOP]

5 hours ago, longview said:

Right. Not merely to hear but to undergo the challenges and rigor of "growing" and living in the Gospel of Christ. Becoming transformed ever steadily. The many "steps on Jacob's Ladder".

Thus we MUST resist the temptation of hellenistic fantasy of conflating the personhood of Jesus/Jehovah with the personhood of God the Father/Elohim. The Nicean Council and early "fathers" were in a tizzy over trying to define the single ONE God by using various non-biblical terminologies such as consubstantiation and whatever impenetrable "mysteries". We simply can take at face value the many descriptions of the members of the Godhead, all having important distinct personable roles.

Here are at least two distinct levels yet affirming the unity or oneness of disciples, apostles, the Savior, and God the Father (see Intercessory Prayer in John 17):

Rev 3:18. I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Hi again longview.

There is another level of subordinationism found in God's Son that seems important in regard to our discussion. We spoke about God the Father obeying God the Son. I think we agree that this implies that if the Son who Is God obeys the Father, we are not even God, should more certainly obey Him Who Jesus taught us is Our Father. A second layer to Christ's obedience is found in the subordination of the Child Jesus to His human parents. Jesus was "going about His Father's business (King James Version), when His sorrowing parents found Him in the Temple, having learned discussions with the scribes and teachers of the Law. Jesus' mother explained to Him that she and his stepfather Joseph, had been seeking Him for three days with great anxiety. His reply seems almost like a rebuke: "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" They did not understand. Nevertheless, He followed them back home to Nazareth and as St. Luke puts it He "was subject to them." 

I hope to show how this relates to your misgivings and concerns about hellenism, consubstantiality, and the Council of Nicea in a following post. 

---to be continued   

[Navidad]

I don't know any Christians who reject a personal God. 

[3DOP]

---continued from above

longview, you wrote about what you allege to be the theological problems of at least some non-LDS Christians. Forgive me if I wrongly assume that Catholics would be included. Here is what you wrote: 

"Thus we MUST resist the temptation of hellenistic fantasy of conflating the personhood of Jesus/Jehovah with the personhood of God the Father/Elohim. The Nicean Council and early "fathers" were in a tizzy over trying to define the single ONE God by using various non-biblical terminologies such as consubstantiation and whatever impenetrable "mysteries". We simply can take at face value the many descriptions of the members of the Godhead, all having important distinct personable roles." (blue lettering is mine)

1) Hellenistic fantasy

I have never heard of a discussion among Catholic thinkers who while under any hellenistic influence conflate the personhood of Jesus/Jehovah with the person of God the Father/Elohim". Perhaps MisereNobis or tonyuk could comment on whether they have heard of any fellow Catholics dogmatically teaching different personal identities between Elohim and Jehovah. I am not aware of ANY dogmatic position on this question. I have been vaguely aware that LDS find this important for a reason that did not seem to concern me, and I have never addressed it until now, when it seems like the Catholic Church is accused of being on the wrong side. For my part, I can never even remember Who you say is Who, and I certainly don't have any understanding of any significant importance.

I suppose this question has arisen because of the great light that has been shed on the Old Testament since Jesus revealed to us the New Testament. Do you think that for 1500 years God's covenant people of Israel had this understanding? I would be personally hesitant to be dogmatic about this kind of speculation which for well over a millenium was understood differently without any apparent disharmony with God. How are Catholics apparently guilty of corrupting either Testament with their alleged Greek influences if I am correct that we are not so dogmatic as LDS about different identities.

I would be grateful if you could show me where you get the idea that the Catholic Church takes a position on this. I am willing to believe what you say about Elohim and Jehovah if you can show me either from Catholic magisterial sources or our shared Scriptures, where this is revealed and why it is important. As a Catholic, I don't think I could be disciplined if I voiced such a position. Further, at this time, I don't know why "hellenistic fantasy" would affect my lack of concern. Do you think that Plato or Aristotle or any other Greek philosophers said things that would imply that as one who embraces "hellenistic fantasy", I need to take up a dogmatic position on this question?

Next I will try to address your concerns about extra-biblical terminology, tizzie, and your apparent belief that the Council of NIcea makes Catholics reject "the many descriptions of the members of the Godhead, all having important distinct personable roles."

---to be continued