General Conference talk on the understanding of the Godhead

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

No, I don’t believe that.  Given what I see in manuals in the last 25 years, I think they try to use scripture as much as possible to support teachings and if an belief is not fleshed out in scripture, it may not get discussed in detail.  Speculation is much less present in manuals as well now than it was in the past….which I very much approve of.

And God the Father as a mortal is not detailed in scripture or imo official sources for labeled revelation.   I also think with the misrepresentations that have been done by antis, they are more careful in how this is taught in official publications, including conference.  I don’t think it’s about looking more mainstream, but an overall approach to keep to the better supported basics when teaching.

Functionally it may often end up looking the same, but the purpose is quite different imo….just as me cleaning my house because I love order is not anywhere close to me cleaning my house so I won’t be embarrassed when others come over, but it looks identical with a very clean house.

Interesting. As for God being a man and scripture, Joseph did site a NT passage where Jesus says he only does that which he saw the Father do. The implication being the Father was a man on a world and a Savior and Jesus is doing the same thing. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Interesting. As for God being a man and scripture, Joseph did site a NT passage where Jesus says he only does that which he saw the Father do. The implication being the Father was a man on a world and a Savior and Jesus is doing the same thing. 

Right, that’s pretty much is the only info I can think of we believe is revealed and I see that as pretty vague.   Was the Father also persecuted, was his life threatened, or were those of his world more receptive?  Was he born in a time where there was little tech or higher tech so he himself was able to bring the Gospel to his world at that time.  Did he die young or old?  Married or not?Given the details of the Father’s life not only depended on his choices, but the choices of those around him which we have no information on, I don’t believe we can extrapolate much beyond what you have said.

Did Jesus do everything he saw the Father do or only those things his circumstances allowed?

Edited June 25 by Calm

[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. So look at the way the thread has gone. As an LDS can you see that you can get away from the King Follett Discourse? 

Think about how the Restoration is still less than 200 years old. You seem to see some problems at General Conference with how LDS leadership still misunderstands that which they seem obliged to oppose. Not necessarily GoCeltics. LDS have more freedom to think it all over.

I have been here for a long time as a Catholic. I only knew what LDS said they believed about the Godhead. I have proceded as though these beliefs found significant support in the LDS Standard Works. But if most of this stuff about God as a more evolved human comes from non-canonical sources, it seems from the outside like a game changer. Going with your canon apart from a King Follet Discourse, it seems like you could not be excluded from the Christian family! My church would have to accept your baptisms. I would be happy for that to be so.

But what do you see from the inside, as a Latter-day Saint? 

 

 

Edited June 26 by 3DOP

[theplains]

On 6/23/2026 at 4:41 PM, Teancum said:

When I was an LDS believer I took the position that indeed God the Father was not just a God of some other gods.

Why did you leave the LDS faith?

[theplains]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Right, that’s pretty much is the only info I can think of we believe is revealed and I see that as pretty vague.   Was the Father also persecuted, was his life threatened, or were those of his world more receptive?  Was he born in a time where there was little tech or higher tech so he himself was able to bring the Gospel to his world at that time.  Did he die young or old?  Married or not?Given the details of the Father’s life not only depended on his choices, but the choices of those around him which we have no information on, I don’t believe we can extrapolate much beyond what you have said.

Do you believe Heavenly Father did not get married while he was only a man on
some planet that his Father has created for him and his future bride?

Following what I have seen in LDS teachings, Heavenly Mother becomes a God
before Jesus becomes a God, when he reaches some pinnacle of intelligence and
is ranked as a God.

[manol]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Do you believe Heavenly Father did not get married while he was only a man on
some planet that his Father has created for him and his future bride?

 

One of the nouveau fundamentalist groups I studied with had an interesting Adam-God-Theory-like take on who's who:

Their ranking was God > Adam > Jesus, the idea being that the next step after being the savior of a world was being the father of a world, Adam (or more precisely Adam and Eve jointly) being the "heavenly father" (and mother) of this one.

Not endorsing, just describing. 

Edited June 26 by manol

[GoCeltics]

On 6/25/2026 at 7:09 PM, 3DOP said:

it seems like you could not be excluded from the Christian family! My church would have to accept your baptisms. I would be happy for that to be so.

But what do you see from the inside, as a Latter-day Saint? 

I am not LDS – I attend a non-denominational Christian church.

The Latter-day Saints believe our baptisms, or Catholic ones, are invalid because they are not done by properly authorized individuals.

[3DOP]

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

I am not LDS – I attend a non-denominational Christian church.

The Latter-day Saints believe our baptisms, or Catholic ones, are invalid because they are not done by properly authorized individuals.

Hi Go,

You are right. LDS have a current belief that only ordained priests may carry out baptisms. My church goes the opposite direction. However, am thinking that it wasn't until at least the 4th Century before my church hashed it out! Don't we need to allow for time to similarly grow and development in such a young church as the LDS? But we are moving a little far from the fruitful discussion subject.

I find it encouraging that there are LDS here who are recognizing that reliance on canonical revelation exclusively allows them to inch closer to classical theology as regards the Godhead. Through your thread I learn how extra canonical data is perhaps the primary source for the huge gap that seemed to have existed between us. The gap now narrows.

To rephrase my original question slightly since you are non-LDS:

As a non-LDS, can you see how they can get away from the King Follett Discourse?

I mentioned how I was pleased to discover that the Latter-day Saints have more freedom than I had supposed. They can back away from rigidity regarding what have been unofficial "teachings", mere speculations, on the Godhead.

But what do you see from the outside as a non-LDS?

-------off topic:

Out of curiosity, since you bring it up, in what century did your church begin to believe that the minister of baptism need not be ordained?

 

 

 

Edited June 27 by 3DOP

[Calm]

On 6/27/2026 at 10:39 AM, 3DOP said:

I find it encouraging that there are LDS here who are recognizing that reliance on canonical revelation exclusively allows them to inch closer to classical theology as regards the Godhead.

While there may be some Saints who are intentionally moving closer to classical theology, I think for most who study such it is a matter of following scriptural counsel to “seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and faith”.  I wonder how many look on it as moving closer as opposed to finding truths to add to our knowledge.  Not saying the gap isn’t closing at this point, but “inch closer” makes it sound intentional and if that is the understanding, I think it will end in disappointment as movement may be as likely to move away as well, imo. 

On 6/27/2026 at 10:39 AM, 3DOP said:

Through your thread I learn how extra canonical data is perhaps the primary source for the huge gap that seemed to have existed between us.

I see the huge gap as based on the Father as an exalted man (no matter what he originally existed as) and humanity as the same species as he is, no unbridgeable gap of any sort between creator and creature (even if the Father always existed in the same state of being he has now added:  and we have not).  This point God is an exalted human and we can become essentially as he is while maintaining the relationship of Father and child) is official revelation of a longstanding nature in my view and has canon to support it (D&C 130:22, D&C 132:19-20).

 

Edited June 28 by Calm

[InCognitus]

Hi Rory, I'll try to respond to your post now that I'm back in town:

On 6/10/2026 at 12:31 PM, 3DOP said:

I see a danger from the Israelites worshipping "gods" that are unworthy of comparison with the God of Deut. 10:17, made by men's hands like the Golden Calf fashioned by Aaron, or other such "gods" of the nations. I am not familiar with any reasons for why God should be warning them about worshipping a council of "less unworthy gods", when they are already worshipping created gods of clay, wood, or stone. Likewise living creatures whether animate or vegetative. Also no planets, stars, or mountains. No emperors or magistrates. I cannot make an exhaustive list. In short, no created object in existence is worthy of worship.  

There is indeed a danger in the Israelites worshiping false gods.  You provided a good list of those.  But there are still those “gods” that coexist with God, and they are the ones being spoken about in Deuteronomy 10:17 and elsewhere (in the council of gods or divine council). 

God is the God over those gods, and they are in heaven with God (as noted in Psalm 89:5-7), and their works are sometimes compared to the works of the Supreme God, but the works of the Supreme God are beyond comparison (Psalm 89:5-7, Exodus 15:11, 18:11, Psalm 86:8, 97:9, 135:5).

On 6/10/2026 at 12:31 PM, 3DOP said:

As for magistrates called "gods" in certain translations, I could only think that the LORD was certainly referring to those, as opposed to "strange false gods", or a heavenly council of gods, none of whom one would suspect of being subject to bribery, or respecting persons in false judgment in Deut. 10.

Again, I don’t find Deuteronomy 10 saying anything about the other gods (the gods that God is the God over) being subject to bribery or respecting persons.  Instead, I see those verses as emphasizing greatness and the integrity of the “most high” God, the God over other gods, the Lord over other lords.

God counseled the men who he called to be judges in Israel to not respect persons or take bribes in Deuteronomy 16:18-20.  But these are not the “gods” (elohim) of Deuteronomy 10:17, because of the Hebrew superlative being used in that verse (as I said before).  It is not saying that he is the Civic Magistrate of civic magistrates in those verses, it’s saying he is the “God of gods and Lord of lords”. 

On 6/10/2026 at 12:31 PM, 3DOP said:

It would seem that you might admit this argument except that you hold that it is a mistranslation of the biblical text? I would be satisfied at this time if you could admit that if the translation which has guided my thinking on Deut. 10:17 were accurate, you too, would need to admit corruptible earthly civil authorities among those who are designated as gods in Scripture. 

There is not a translation issue with Deuteronomy 10:17.

But there is a problem when translators render the word “elohim” as “judges” (as it is done sometimes Exodus 21:6 and 22:7-9), because that’s not the original or intended meaning of the word “elohim” at all.  Translating the “elohim” as “judges” is just a way to avoid a meaning that would be uncomfortable to the theology of the translators.

As for thinking of the “gods” of Deuteronomy 10:17 as earthly civil authorities, I just can’t find any way to make that work with the Hebrew superlative unless we consider God to be the greatest Earthly Civil Authority above all other earthly civil authorities (as I explained above).  Furthermore, the idea that these “gods” are earthly civil authorities doesn’t work for verses like Psalm 89:5-7, which indicates that the “gods” are with God in the heavens.

On 6/10/2026 at 12:31 PM, 3DOP said:

I agree that no false gods are comparable to the one true God. But creatures that are made in His image, as I am sure you will agree, have attributes that are indeed similar, which give hope for exaltation and greater participation in God's incomparable nature. But when creatures which have such potential because of their similarities to the true God worship  created things, it is a truly abominable demeaning of not only their own dignity, but especially that of the Creator. But this was what they did in ancient Israel, and I believe that this is what most of the Old Testament is talking about. 

I agree that humans are made in God’s image and therefore have attributes that are similar to God, but there is much more to it than that.  As I have discussed elsewhere on this board, the apostle Paul taught the Athenians that we are all the very génos of God, the very same "kind" of being as God, in Acts 17:28-29 when Paul was quoting the Greek poet Aratus. The Greek word génos in that verse is translated as genus in the Latin text, and is the same word used in the Septuagint for "kind" of being (as in Genesis 1:21, 24, and 25). The teaching that we are the same kind of being as God is central to Paul's argument in the context of Acts 17, which was that since we are the same kind of being as God "we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device." That argument falls to pieces if we are merely God's creations as many assume (gold, or silver, or stone are God's creations too).

I see this as referring to our spirit that came from God.  God created our physical world and our physical bodies, but our spirits came from God (the Bible says that in multiple places).  So when it says God is the "God of gods", it isn't comparing God to his creations, but to others who coexist with him as spirits.

I also agree that it is an abomination to worship created things, idols of wood, stone, gold, and silver.

On 6/10/2026 at 12:31 PM, 3DOP said:

Since you appear to be refraining from a definition of whom "the Heavenly Council" consists, or its function, I have no wish to oppose it.

We believe there was a council in heaven in the beginning, and I think Job 38:4-7 is referring to that kind of council at the time when creation began (when "all the sons of God shouted for joy").  

But as far as I know there is no official church doctrine about the individuals included in “the Heavenly Council” described in verses like Psalm 82:1, 89:5-7, or 1 Kings 22:19-22, or what was their function.  So, I have no opinion on who they are or what was their function other than how the Bible describes them.  I prefer to try to understand them in the way that ancient Israel would have understood them.

On 6/10/2026 at 12:31 PM, 3DOP said:

It could consist of men or angels.

Some of the early Christians considered the “gods” to be “those who have received the adoption”, or the church as did Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Book III chapter 6, paragraph 1.  And Origen points out that “divine” beings who are at times called “gods” in the scriptures are also called “angels” because of their employments (Origen, Contra Celsum, Book V, Chapter 4).

From a Latter-day Saint point of view (and I would include from the Biblical point of view), humans and angels are one in the same.  Humans are spirit beings that lived with God in the beginning, and God called some of them to be his “angels” (messengers) to minister to mankind (either as spirits or in the flesh), or sometimes mortal humans are referred to as “angels” in scripture.  An “angel” is just a job description (to be a messenger of God).

On 6/10/2026 at 12:31 PM, 3DOP said:

I could not conceive of its being an advisory body. Unless you would assign its function as a guide by which God discerns what He should do, or if you would teach that like God, the heavenly council are uncreated, I have no objection. 

There seems to be some kind of deliberation and seeking a consensus among those in the heavenly council, as well as individual volunteering going on, like in Isaiah 6:8 where it says, “I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.”

And I do think that those in the heavenly council are uncreated in the sense that they are spirit beings who coexist with God, but I also consider pre-mortal humans to be in the same category (spirit beings who coexisted with God prior to them being sent to earth in a physical body).

On 6/10/2026 at 12:31 PM, 3DOP said:

But theplains is GoCeltics? I thought GoCeltics was a questioning Latter-day Saint. I do not wish to offend by speaking to either of you in third person. 

This is the first post from GoCeltics indicating that he (“Jeremy”) is not LDS.

Below is a link to the posts explaining how TheTanakas ("Pete", who claimed to be LDS but is not), telnetd ("Gail"), theplains ("Jim"), and marineland ("Tony", who posted previously on this board as orion88) are all the same person.

This is the thread link:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74208-the-uniqueness-of-the-lds-church/page/35/

See the post from me on 11/27/2022 and 12/03/2022 on that page where I get into the specific evidence.

GoCeltics (“Jeremy”) came along a little later but also comes from the same source.

On 6/10/2026 at 12:31 PM, 3DOP said:

Thanks, InCog, as usual, I appreciate the discussion with you here.

Thank you for your comments, and sorry for the late response.  I've had a lot going on.

[InCognitus]

On 6/27/2026 at 10:39 AM, 3DOP said:

I find it encouraging that there are LDS here who are recognizing that reliance on canonical revelation exclusively allows them to inch closer to classical theology as regards the Godhead. 

I agree with what Calm said above completely.  And I want to elaborate on something she said about following the scriptural counsel to “seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118).

I take that to mean our reliance for truth is not on canonical revelation alone, but that every truth we encounter should at the very least not contradict canonical revelation.  And I think this seeking "learning, even by study and faith" even extends to carefully trying to understand the things we have in the King Follet Discourse (to the extent that they are an accurate recording of Joseph Smith's words) more carefully.  I think many people have misinterpreted things that Joseph Smith was saying in that sermon, and other sermons, because they assumed a particular interpretation of his words that would contradict the revelations.

And what Calm said here is key:

On 6/27/2026 at 2:28 PM, Calm said:

I see the huge gap as based on the Father as an exalted man (no matter what he originally existed as) and humanity as the same species as he is, no unbridgeable gap of any sort between creator and creature (even if the Father always existed in the same state of being he has now).  This point God is an exalted human and we can become essentially as he is while maintaining the relationship of Father and child) is official revelation of a longstanding nature in my view and has canon to support it (D&C 130:22, D&C 132:19-20).

I alluded to the difference in how Latter-day Saints view our relationship to God (in that we are the same kind of being as God) in the post I just made, above.

Edited June 28 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

On 6/23/2026 at 8:06 PM, 3DOP said:

My problem comes if because of a non-canonical exhortation, the Restored Church claims evidence of apostasy in the early church because, without the KFD (!), the early church developed beliefs about the Godhead which are close to what early LDS believed before the KFD.

I've posted this before, but this is relevant again....

I highly doubt that the early Christians had all the same things revealed to them that Joseph Smith did, or that all of the things that were revealed to the original twelve apostles were taught widely throughout the church.  But Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195) come close to implying some of the things Joseph Smith taught in the KFD in this statement:

"How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?  Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created?  How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?  For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee. "  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 39 - but read Chapter 38 for full context.)

Obviously Irenaeus is speaking about men becoming gods here, but what if what he says in the bolded portion is a universal truth?

[InCognitus]

On 6/16/2026 at 9:07 AM, theplains said:

On 6/14/2026 at 6:30 PM, InCognitus said:

So your Bible only has those 15 verses in it?  And that’s the only scripture that you can’t go beyond?  You do realize that the Bible has more than 15 verses in it, right?

Proof texting a modern belief back into the Bible is a common tactic.  But you really need to take the Bible in its textual and historical context.

And do you think Philo, Justin Martyr, Origen, and Lactantius, who lived in that ancient time and culture, had no clue about what the Jewish and Christian belief was on this topic?

 

Right. The scriptures harmonize with its entirety.

Which is exactly why you can’t take Deuteronomy 4:35, Deuteronomy 4:39, Deuteronomy 6:4, 2 Samuel 7:22, 1 Kings 8:60, Nehemiah 9:6, Isaiah 43:10–11, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 44:8, Isaiah 45:5–6, Isaiah 45:21–22, and Isaiah 46:9 out of context.

On 6/16/2026 at 9:07 AM, theplains said:

There is nothing to indicate God is not God from all eternity

Right, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God is God from all eternity.  We’ve discussed that before several times.  See my post on 07/09/2022, 07/25/2022, 08/10/2022, 10/30/2022, 11/12/2022, 11/16/2022, 11/21/2022, 11/27/2022, 12/24/2022, 07/17/2023, 12/15/2024, 01/05/2025, 01/25/2025, and 09/28/2025, and probably several other posts as well.

[GoCeltics]

On 6/27/2026 at 12:39 PM, 3DOP said:

As a non-LDS, can you see how they can get away from the King Follett Discourse?

-------off topic:

Out of curiosity, since you bring it up, in what century did your church begin to believe that the minister of baptism need not be ordained?

The only way they can distance themselves from the King Follett discourse is by claiming that Joseph Smith misrepresented the nature of God. According to his view, God was once a man who progressed to divinity. Rather, He has always been God from everlasting to everlasting. I also discovered another sermon, often called the Sermon in the Grove, that reinforced these teachings. I found this information on Mormonism Research Ministry. In essence, he is leading people to worship a different God.

I'm unsure when my church branch was established. Unlike the Catholic or Anglican traditions, we don't formally ordain individuals. Instead, members are vetted for positions of authority, but I believe any layperson can baptize a non-believer after they profess faith in Christ.

[InCognitus]

51 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

According to his view, God was once a man who progressed to divinity.

Read the King Follet discourse carefully.  According to Joseph Smith's view, God was God (divine) before he was once a man, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to lay down his life and take it up again as he says he did in that discourse (the same as Jesus Christ did).

[3DOP]

On 6/27/2026 at 3:28 PM, Calm said:

While there may be some Saints who are intentionally moving closer to classical theology, I think for most who study such it is a matter of following scriptural counsel to “seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and faith”.  I wonder how many look on it as moving closer as opposed to finding truths to add to our knowledge.  Not saying the gap isn’t closing at this point, but “inch closer” makes it sound intentional and if that is the understanding, I think it will end in disappointment as movement may be as likely to move away as well, imo. 

I see the huge gap as based on the Father as an exalted man (no matter what he originally existed as) and humanity as the same species as he is, no unbridgeable gap of any sort between creator and creature (even if the Father always existed in the same state of being he has now added:  and we have not).  This point God is an exalted human and we can become essentially as he is while maintaining the relationship of Father and child) is official revelation of a longstanding nature in my view and has canon to support it (D&C 130:22, D&C 132:19-20).

 

Calm. Hi.

I tried to reply to this yesterday. 

Oh Calm, I would have thought that the process would be natural as you describe. I see I gave the opposite impression. Allow me to retract the "inch closer" clause which seemed to be the culprit.

Until I read your second paragraph I was beginning to believe that there is nothing in the Standard Works which would prevent an LDS in good standing from professing faith in the Trinity, properly understood, of the Council of Nicea. Since becoming Catholic I have not studied much that is either pro-LDS or anti-LDS. You probably remember our friend David Waltz from years ago. He is still reading your stuff. He called me up Saturday and wanted to talk about some new book about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Was it written by the actor who played MacGyver on TV years ago? Anyway, I talked about this thread to Dave. He still maintains that LDS could subscribe to the Nicene Creed, compatibly with Latter-day Revelation. I will take your word for it calm that this would be impossible. I am ever hopeful and optimistic, but accept your word of caution. 

I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to get him to take a peek at the thread, hoping that he might repeat his claims from years ago. I would not know where to begin.

God bless you.

3DOP  

Edited June 29 by 3DOP

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Allow me to retract the "inch closer" clause which seemed to be the culprit.

I think I am overaware of language on this topic because there are so many accusations we are trying to hide who we really are and trying to appear more mainstream when I see it as just maturing in awareness of language and implications and likely potential inferences and becoming more precise overall in how language is used, identifying speculation and personal interpretation as such and generally trying to remove some of that at least from official publications like manuals.   I think it can still come out in talks from the pulpit among general authorities and officers as those tend to be less vetted than manuals, less a group effort and more individual, so individuality bleeds through, intentional or not.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Calm. Hi.

I tried to reply to this yesterday. 

Oh Calm, I would have thought that the process would be natural as you describe. I see I gave the opposite impression. Allow me to retract the "inch closer" clause which seemed to be the culprit.

Until I read your second paragraph I was beginning to believe that there is nothing in the Standard Works which would prevent an LDS in good standing from professing faith in the Trinity, properly understood, of the Council of Nicea. Since becoming Catholic I have not studied much that is either pro-LDS or anti-LDS. You probably remember our friend David Waltz from years ago. He is still reading your stuff. He called me up Saturday and wanted to talk about some new book about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Was it written by the actor who played MacGyver on TV years ago? Anyway, I talked about this thread to Dave. He still maintains that LDS could subscribe to the Nicene Creed, compatibly with Latter-day Revelation. I will take your word for it calm that this would be impossible. I am ever hopeful and optimistic, but accept your word of caution. 

I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to get him to take a peek at the thread, hoping that he might repeat his claims from years ago. I would not know where to begin.

God bless you.

3DOP  

I miss David, thanks for mentioning him and give him my love next time you connect with him.  Those were good times.  So are these, but those are especially tender memories because being able to connect through talking about belief was all so new to me, so different than before where no one was interested in sharing their own, just asking questions of me…and not many of those  .  So much new to learn and I just had to reach out to grab it.  Now it takes a bit more work to dig deeper into the details.  Plus moderating chats could be quite amusing.  

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Until I read your second paragraph I was beginning to believe that there is nothing in the Standard Works which would prevent an LDS in good standing from professing faith in the Trinity, properly understood, of the Council of Nicea. Since becoming Catholic I have not studied much that is either pro-LDS or anti-LDS. You probably remember our friend David Waltz from years ago. He is still reading your stuff. He called me up Saturday and wanted to talk about some new book about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Was it written by the actor who played MacGyver on TV years ago? Anyway, I talked about this thread to Dave. He still maintains that LDS could subscribe to the Nicene Creed, compatibly with Latter-day Revelation. I will take your word for it calm that this would be impossible. I am ever hopeful and optimistic, but accept your word of caution.

I think the main problem that Latter-day Saints have with the Nicene creed is with how the word "homoousious" is understood today to mean "one being", but I think Latter-day Saints might accept the way the word was originally explained to the council.

In the Letter of Eusebius Pamphilus to the Church of Cesarea, Eusebius wrote about how the term "homoousious" was explained to the council:

Quote

   When this form was dictated by the prelates, their expressions "of the substance of the Father," and "consubstantial [homoousion] with the Father," were not suffered to pass without examination.  Hence, therefore, several questions arose, and answers were made, and the sense of these terms was carefully considered.  They admitted that the words "of the substance" signified that the Son was of the Father, but not a part of the Father.  We thought it well to assent to this explanation, as conveying the pious doctrine, that the Son was of the Father; but not, however, a part of the Father.  We therefore agreed to this opinion; nor did we reject the word consubstantial [homoousion], having in view the promotion of peace, and being anxious to avoid a departure from the right belief.  For the same reason, we approved also the words "begotten, not made," since the word made, they said, was common to the other creatures which were made by the Son, and to which he has nothing similar; and that therefore he is not made like those who were created by himself, but is of a more excellent substance than any created being.  The divine oracles inform us, that he was of the Father, by a mode of generation, which can neither be conceived nor expressed by any created intelligence.

   The question whether the Son is consubstantial [homoousion] with the Father being thus examined, it was agreed that this was not to be understood according to the manner of material things, nor that of mortal beings, since it could be neither by division, nor abscission, nor by a change of the paternal essence and power, since the unbegotten nature of the Father is foreign from all these things.  But by the expression {consubstantial [homoousion] with the Father" nothing else is intended, than that the Son of God has no similitude with created beings, but resembles in all things the Father only, by whom he was begotten, and that he is of no other substance or essence than that of the Father.  The proposition being thus explained, we thought that we might justly accede to it; since we knew that some of the most learned and distinguished of the ancient bishops and writers had made use of the term consubstantial, in treating of the divinity of the Father and the Son.  (Letter of Eusebius Pamphilus to the Church of Cesarea, Translated by Isaac Boyle)

Latter-day Saints would agree that the Son (Jesus Christ) is Divine in the same way the Father is Divine.  If the "same substance" ("homoousious") is intended to mean that they both are Divine beings, then we have no problem with that definition.  I also think this understanding is more compatible with the earliest Christian views of the relationship between the Father and Son, in that they referred to Jesus as "another God" or the "second God" as was discussed in this thread earlier.  But I don't know of many modern Christians who view it that way, because the modern ideas about monotheism seem to require the "one being" meaning.

In 2020, Daniel C. Peterson wrote an article for The Interpreter Foundation titled, Notes on Mormonism and the Trinity.  You might find it interesting.

Here are a couple of quotes:

"Latter-day Saints indisputably reject the solution to the trinitarian problem associated with standard readings of Nicea. But their rejection of mainstream Nicene orthodoxy does not necessarily place them in opposition to the project it represents. Nor, as has become more and more evident, does it leave them isolated and alone."

And he says something similar to what I said above:

"Prior to the fourth century, phrases such as 'of one substance' and 'of the same substance' seem, at least in the minds even of some of those who approved the creed, to have indicated a generic similarity, meaning something like 'the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class.' The point may have been simply that Jesus, like the Father, is divine—a concept that Latter-day Saints fully endorse."

[Teancum]

On 6/26/2026 at 11:22 AM, theplains said:

Why did you leave the LDS faith?

Well it is a long story. I am still a member. I just do not attend. But after years of doing hobby apologetics I came to the point where I found some many of our apologetic defensed poorly argued and just seemed to be attempts to create plausibility, as one apologists that used to frequent this board used to say. And also to buoy up shaky testimonies of already believers. So yea, I concluded that Joseph Smith was what he claimed, not did he have the supernatural experiences that he claimed. It seems clear that the BoM is a product of the 19th century.  Basically I could no longer give witness that the church is what its founders and leaders claim it to be.

[3DOP]

14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think the main problem that Latter-day Saints have with the Nicene creed is with how the word "homoousious" is understood today to mean "one being", but I think Latter-day Saints might accept the way the word was originally explained to the council.

In the Letter of Eusebius Pamphilus to the Church of Cesarea, Eusebius wrote about how the term "homoousious" was explained to the council:

Latter-day Saints would agree that the Son (Jesus Christ) is Divine in the same way the Father is Divine.  If the "same substance" ("homoousious") is intended to mean that they both are Divine beings, then we have no problem with that definition.  I also think this understanding is more compatible with the earliest Christian views of the relationship between the Father and Son, in that they referred to Jesus as "another God" or the "second God" as was discussed in this thread earlier.  But I don't know of many modern Christians who view it that way, because the modern ideas about monotheism seem to require the "one being" meaning.

In 2020, Daniel C. Peterson wrote an article for The Interpreter Foundation titled, Notes on Mormonism and the Trinity.  You might find it interesting.

Here are a couple of quotes:

"Latter-day Saints indisputably reject the solution to the trinitarian problem associated with standard readings of Nicea. But their rejection of mainstream Nicene orthodoxy does not necessarily place them in opposition to the project it represents. Nor, as has become more and more evident, does it leave them isolated and alone."

And he says something similar to what I said above:

"Prior to the fourth century, phrases such as 'of one substance' and 'of the same substance' seem, at least in the minds even of some of those who approved the creed, to have indicated a generic similarity, meaning something like 'the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class.' The point may have been simply that Jesus, like the Father, is divine—a concept that Latter-day Saints fully endorse.

It seems that according to Dr. Peterson, the words of the Council can be understood in a way that is compatible with LDS teaching. 

You quoted and bolded what Eusebius explained as the ideas that the Council intended to convey by the word homoousion as "nothing else is intended, than that the Son of God has no similitude with created beings, but resembles in all things the Father only, by whom he was begotten, and that he is of no other substance or essence than that of the Father." 

The Council held that the Father is uncreated and that the Son received the uncreated nature of the Father. It would make sense that this was the "project it [the council] represents", since its purpose was to oppose an heresy which had arisen which taught that the Son of the Father's divine nature was created. Euesebius' description isn't concerned with the nature of the Son after the Incarnation. But that question will be raised later. 

Nicea was in 325 AD. After another century and a quarter the Council of Chalcedon will speak of Christ's created human nature at the Incarnation. Incidentally, that council uses that same word of infamy, homoousion, to describe how Christ has the same one being, or substance as any other human being. First came attacks on the one divine nature followed by attacks on the one human nature of Christ.

"...with one accord we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in human nature, truly God and truly the same with a rational soul and a body truly man, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, consubstantial with us according to human nature..."

---The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Thirtieth Edition, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, Mo., (1957), p.60, (The Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.)

I am sure we will find an impasse at some point. But I believe that we can move beyond homoousion and both of these councils.    

Edited June 30 by 3DOP

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

It seems that according to Dr. Peterson, the words of the Council can be understood in a way that is compatible with LDS teaching. 

Yes, and I have heard or read other Latter-day Saint scholars say similar things, I just couldn't remember where I read or heard it (I hate when that happens).  I listen to podcasts or YouTube videos when I'm travelling or sometimes during my morning walk, and read a lot of different sources, and as time goes by it all becomes a blur unless I take notes right after hearing or reading it.

One of them (I think) was this one from the LDS Perspectives Podcast from 2019:  Episode 112: The Council of Nicaea and Its Creed with Lincoln H. Blumell.  I thought they used to have a transcript of this, but I don't see one so I can't tell if this is one that I was thinking of without listening to it again.  Maybe I'll listen to this again on my morning walk tomorrow.

[GoCeltics]

On 6/29/2026 at 10:43 AM, InCognitus said:

According to Joseph Smith's view, God was God (divine) before he was once a man

“In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.”

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

“In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.”

This of course does not change the fact of what I said, which was, "According to Joseph Smith's view, God was God (divine) before he was once a man."

God is eternally the Most High God who once was a man and he became our God, just as Joseph Smith taught in that same sermon:

"The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 6, King Follett Discourse,  p. 354)

[3DOP]

On 6/29/2026 at 6:15 PM, Calm said:

I miss David, thanks for mentioning him and give him my love next time you connect with him.  Those were good times.  So are these, but those are especially tender memories because being able to connect through talking about belief was all so new to me, so different than before where no one was interested in sharing their own, just asking questions of me…and not many of those  .  So much new to learn and I just had to reach out to grab it.  Now it takes a bit more work to dig deeper into the details.  Plus moderating chats could be quite amusing.  

I might just read him what you wrote and try to make him feel bad for never popping in!