James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

[David Waltz]

Hi Billy,

You posted:

>> I did not think I was "pleading" in my comments.>>

Me: I was referring to Trinitarians in general.

>>This is what I believe

1. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons (most evident at Christ's baptism)

2. Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God

3. There is only one God>>

Me: The above is a logical contradiction, as is the following --

1. Billy, David, and Lynn are three distinct persons.

2. Billy, is human, David is human, and Lynn is human.

3. There is only one human.

>>But what I believe about God is not really what this thread is about. This thread is about Mormonism and polytheism.>>

Me: I disagree; until one settles upon a clear, unequivocal definition of â??monotheismâ?, then it is impossible to define â??polytheismâ?.

Grace and peace,

David

[Teancum]

Scholarship does not speak officially for the Mormon Church. Most people at our level here understand the things espoused by the Mormon Church's leadership contained in the writings I quoted from. They don't deal with scholarship. They declare what is to be believed. Just like the pope does for the RCC.

Nor do you speak for the Mormon Church. Nor does your presentation of selective Mormon sources most of which are out dated and or obscure. Cease and desist.

[Brade]

The problem with the word "polytheist" is that Billy has found a definition that throws an "or" statement in it "believe in or worship." We do believe in more that one God, heck, even the Early Christians called Christ the Second God, but Billy will eventually throw out part of the "or" statement and start saying the we worship more than one God and being an antagonist of the Church, he will feel perfectly justified in doing so. I even bet that he is doing this out of love for us.

Yes, but, as a Mormon I believe in more than one god and I worship more than one individual that has the status of god. I just don't see what we gain by fighting against the term "polytheism." I suppose we can make ourselves look more like our Christian brothers if we try to establish ourselves as strict monotheists but it's my perception that, among other things, that was something Joseph Smith was fighting against. Sure, we can do some fancy work with the idea of a godhead but that just skirts the issue.

The question is, is there more than one individual in the universe with the status of godhood? The answer, so far as I can tell as a Mormon, is pretty clearly "yes." That answer right there is sufficient for us to be called polytheists. However I believe we, at least I certainly consider myself in this regard, are also polytheists in a worshipful sense. That's because, in the most basic sense of what worship means, we worship Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Both of those individuals have the stutus of godhood.

Now, I think there's some question as to whether standard trinitarian Christians are monotheist or polytheist. But, there seems to be no question at all that Mormons are polytheists through and through. What's distressing to me is that we don't want to be. But, as I read it, our teachings our pretty plainly polytheistic and if that is in fact the truth, I see no reason why we should want to be something other than what we are, so to speak.

Furthermore, the fact that plolytheism has a bad taste to it among most western societies is a pretty petty and trivial reason to try to make ourselves out to be monotheists when the truth of the matter, meaning the truth of what the universe is like, is that there is more than one god and we ought to worship at least two of them.

[Cold Steel]

I believe in one God, thus I am a monotheist.

I thought you were a Christian.

So who is the God you believe in? As Christians, we believe that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all gods; they also are God. In the gospels, all the references to God was to the Father. LDS doctrine is exactly the doctrine of the New Testament. Stephen said he saw Jesus on the right hand of God. If there is only ONE God as you say, then are we to understand that Jesus isn't God (after all, God said He knew of no others)? If he saw the Father, and the Son, and saw the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, why didn't he just say he saw God? But he didn't. He saw Jesus on the right hand of "God."

The only explanation is: 1) Jesus wasn't God, or a part of God, since he was on the "right hand" of God, which means that he was standing to the right of the Father. And 2) that the Father is a God and that the Son also is a God, and that they are united in all things.

You can play all the word games you wish, but you must either continue in a state of denial or admit the obvious.

If Jesus becomes as the Father, and we become as Jesus, we all become part of the royal family of God. If we become as God, and if we're given dominion in time and space, as the Father has, then we, too, will be part of the cosmic oneness that constitutes God, which has no beginning and no end.

[Billy]

Hi Billy,

You posted:

>> I did not think I was "pleading" in my comments.>>

Me: I was referring to Trinitarians in general.

>>This is what I believe

1. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons (most evident at Christ's baptism)

2. Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God

3. There is only one God>>

Me: The above is a logical contradiction, as is the following --

1. Billy, David, and Lynn are three distinct persons.

2. Billy, is human, David is human, and Lynn is human.

3. There is only one human.

>>But what I believe about God is not really what this thread is about. This thread is about Mormonism and polytheism.>>

They may seems like contradictions to you and me, but Gods ways and understandings are higher than ours, and they may not be contradictions to Him.

You could of as easily set up a model like the one below

1. David is made up of three distinct entities--Body, Soul, and Spirit

2. Davis's Body is David, David's Soul is David, and David's Spirit is David

3. There is only one David

Also Quantum mechanics may also seem contradictory on the surface.

"Notable amongst these principles are both a dual wave-like and particle-like behavior of matter and radiation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Me: I disagree; until one settles upon a clear, unequivocal definition of â??monotheismâ?, then it is impossible to define â??polytheismâ?.

Grace and peace,

That is why I usually do not use the Trinity model as a distinctive between LDS and Christianity, because I understand the LDS perspective of three separate Gods who are one in purpose (LDS idea). Whether or not you believe that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate Gods who are one in purpose, or ONE God, the LDS model is distinctive between itself and mainstream Christianity. You believe that God the Father had a father who is a God, and you believe that you can become a God. This is in stark contrast to mainstream ideas.

I disagree with your statement above about definitions because ANY way that you define monotheism, LDS are still polytheist. The definition that you put forward may change YOUR label of MY beliefs, but it will not change the label of YOUR beliefs by anyones definition.

[3DOP]

WALTZ

until one settles upon a clear, unequivocal definition of â??monotheismâ?, then it is impossible to define â??polytheismâ?.

DOP

As a Trinitarian Catholic, accepting the Nicene Creed I claim to be monotheistic. But I cannot contend that my monotheism is as perfect as that of a Jew or Moslem. There is a reason why Catholics and other Christians are accused of polytheism. I can not care what label is attached to my faith except with regard to whether another might be scandalized. But that is mostly beyond my control. The only thing of importance as a Trinitarian, is whether my "polytheism lite" is compatible with the monotheism as revealed by God before and after Christ. In my opinion, the revelations given through Christ and the apostles make it necessary for the post-apostolic believer to re-interpret the strict monotheistic Jewish understanding of the Old Testament, in favor of a creed/interpretation that open us up to the charge of being polytheistic. I care much for maintaining the Tradition of Christ and His Apostles. It bothers me none if Jews and Muslims can claim to be more strictly monotheistic than us. Would a Jew or Moslem be able to write, as John Henry Newman in one of his hymns: "I firmly believe that God is Three and God is One"? Certainly not.

I think it is fair for the non-Christian to point out that our monotheism is not the same as theirs. But if Christ revealed a watered-down monotheism, then I believe in a watered-down monotheism. I do not have a relationship with monotheism. Monotheism is not my Creator, Saviour, or Lord. I do not worship monotheism. I do not even capitalize monotheism. If I must become an infidel, denying the substantial divinity of the Son of God, as well as the Holy Ghost who proceeds from the Father and the Son in order to be monotheistic, then I am a polytheist by such a definition.

3DOP

[3DOP]

My point in making the preceeding post is to show that strict monotheism was probably thrown out the window with the revelation of Christ anyway. The Christians set the precedent for watering down monotheism and we have always been accused of polytheism. It has been mostly like water off a duck's back as it should be. Who are these who disbelieve Christ to make us worry about what we believe?

I am not Mormon because I am something else, but it is false for us to suppose that Restored Christianity should be careful to maintain OUR standards of monotheism. They are wrong in my opinion, but it needs to be because a resoration wasn't necessary, or because of another possible problem that I do not care to uncover. If they are not strict monotheists, neither are we. If I ever could be persuaded to believe that LDS Christianity is a true restoration, why would I think that apostate traditional Christianity's standard of monotheism would be correct? Just as Christ changed the boundaries on monotheism, might not "Restored Christianity"? Since they have revelation which expands on that of traditional Christianity, it is futile to try to connect the dots to conclude that this group has to be wrong because they are less monotheistic than we are.

James White isn't just beating a dead horse, he is beating a horse that was never in the race to begin with.

[urroner]

Rory and David, I really envy your abilities to state what you believe in well worded posts. In fact, I envy most of the "echumakated" types around here. They are able to express themselves and their opinions in ways that I never can with mine. I guess it's because you all read so much and remember it.

As a request, I need some help here. I need some help on definitions. I have started several threads asking for definitions of terms so when someone says X, we know what he means by X.

1. Monotheism: There is only one God.
   
2. Henotheism: Though there is more than one God, one chooses to worship only one.
   
3. Polytheism: There is more than one God, and they are all worshipped. (I realize that this is different from the previous definition. That definition said that polytheism is the belief in the existence of multiple gods or their worship. The problem I have with the latter definition is when the word "polytheism" is used, then, from what I have observed, the phrase "belief in the existence of multiple gods" it is automatically changed to "worship of multiple gods." If "belief in the existence of" was equated with "acknowledgment of" then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I don't believe that many critics of the Church do that equating, rather I feel that they equate "belief in the existence of" with "worship of.")
   
4. Autotheos : I have did a short search on the web for this and I still don't understand this.
   
5. Social Trinity: Three separate beings who form the Trinity, but their relationship is one of love and each having distinct centers of consciousness.
   
6. Monolatrism: The recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity.
   
7. Kathenotheism: The worship of one god at a time.
   

Are there any more "isms" that we need to know and are there any corrections to any of the above definitions?

[jwhitlock]

Yes, but, as a Mormon I believe in more than one god and I worship more than one individual that has the status of god. I just don't see what we gain by fighting against the term "polytheism." I suppose we can make ourselves look more like our Christian brothers if we try to establish ourselves as strict monotheists but it's my perception that, among other things, that was something Joseph Smith was fighting against. Sure, we can do some fancy work with the idea of a godhead but that just skirts the issue.

The question is, is there more than one individual in the universe with the status of godhood? The answer, so far as I can tell as a Mormon, is pretty clearly "yes." That answer right there is sufficient for us to be called polytheists. However I believe we, at least I certainly consider myself in this regard, are also polytheists in a worshipful sense. That's because, in the most basic sense of what worship means, we worship Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Both of those individuals have the stutus of godhood.

Now, I think there's some question as to whether standard trinitarian Christians are monotheist or polytheist. But, there seems to be no question at all that Mormons are polytheists through and through. What's distressing to me is that we don't want to be. But, as I read it, our teachings our pretty plainly polytheistic and if that is in fact the truth, I see no reason why we should want to be something other than what we are, so to speak.

Furthermore, the fact that plolytheism has a bad taste to it among most western societies is a pretty petty and trivial reason to try to make ourselves out to be monotheists when the truth of the matter, meaning the truth of what the universe is like, is that there is more than one god and we ought to worship at least two of them.

Perhaps a little more background is in order here.

Part of understanding what the problem with the term "polytheist" is, is understanding those who are trying to label us as polytheists. Billy's questions are instructive about where he is headed; he does not limit the debate to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but also includes questions about God's Father and whether we ourselves can become gods. He does not make any particular differentiation between speculative doctrine and official doctrine, nor does he differentiate between gods (small 'g') and Gods (capital 'G').

Given that worship is a significant part of what polytheists do, the tactic of anti-Mormons is to group gods, Gods, and speculative Gods together as one, apply the term "polytheist" to anyone who subscribes to the existence of all those gods, and then move on to the claim that we dilute and corrupt the true worship of the One God by being polytheists. This is because we obviously must worship all of these gods in some sense because we are, after all, polytheists.

It's the old bait and switch trick of trying to get a label to stick, and then using that label to further denigrate your opponent.

Until I dug a little bit deeper into the motivations of being labeled "polytheist", I also wasn't too concerned about it. However, now that I have a better understanding of the motivations of those who want to label us as such, I prefer a more accurate term that better describes LDS theology as it relates to the Godhead. Urroner is making a good effort to define what that term might be.

Then again, maybe it's all just my experiences with anti-Mormons. When I see someone like James White making a big deal about a term as it relates to Mormonism, all kinds of red flags go up. There's always an ulterior motivation for such efforts, and that motivation usually doesn't include wanting to understand Mormonism better, or be more accurate in how it is described.

[Billy]

Perhaps a little more background is in order here.

Part of understanding what the problem with the term "polytheist" is, is understanding those who are trying to label us as polytheists. Billy's questions are instructive about where he is headed; he does not limit the debate to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but also includes questions about God's Father and whether we ourselves can become gods. He does not make any particular differentiation between speculative doctrine and official doctrine, nor does he differentiate between gods (small 'g') and Gods (capital 'G').

Given that worship is a significant part of what polytheists do, the tactic of anti-Mormons is to group gods, Gods, and speculative Gods together as one, apply the term "polytheist" to anyone who subscribes to the existence of all those gods, and then move on to the claim that we dilute and corrupt the true worship of the One God by being polytheists. This is because we obviously must worship all of these gods in some sense because we are, after all, polytheists.

Incorrect again. My goodness

I have never stated that you worship anyone besides God the Father, that is something that you accuse me of doing, but I have pointed out to you on a number of occasions that what you accuse me of is not true. I did put in the definition from Merriam-Webster in one of my posts that stated "polytheism is the belief in OR worship of more than one God". By this definition it does not require worship to be considered a polytheist, only belief in more than one God. My comments have been very clear that you only worship God the Father.

Is the fact that God the Father lived as a man on another planet a speculative doctrine? Or is the fact that we can become Gods (or gods as you prefer) a speculative doctrine?

You are really just putting up a smoke screen, trying to deny what you truly believe. I simply ask why are you doing this? You believe in many Gods (or gods), by definition this makes you a polytheist. This is true even if you only worship one, i.e. God the Father.

[jerryp48]

You believe in many Gods (or gods), by definition this makes you a polytheist. This is true even if you only worship one, i.e. God the Father.

No Billy we don't 'believe in' we believe that they exist. Words have meaning.

[urroner]

Too many people equate "belief in" and "believe in" with "worship of" when it comes to religion.

[Bill Hamblin]

You are really just putting up a smoke screen, trying to deny what you truly believe. I simply ask why are you doing this? You believe in many Gods (or gods), by definition this makes you a polytheist. This is true even if you only worship one, i.e. God the Father.

You mean like Paul in 1 Cor 8:5-6 (NRSV)?

Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earthâ??as in fact there are many gods and many lordsâ??yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Is Paul a polytheist? If not, why are LDS?

[cksalmon]

Me: So you believe that there is only one person who is God? If not, if you believe that more than one person is God, then you must radically redefine what belief in one God means; and if you allow yourself to do so, then you should really allow Mormons like Jeffrey Holland, Bruce R. McConkie, Dr. Paulsen, Blake Ostler, et al. to do the same.

Grace and peace,

David

Hi David--

The underlined portion above strikes me as either quite wrong or quite unfortunately worded.

Would you hold that, for example, affirming the Symbolum Quicunque entails a radical redefinition of "belief in one God," in "orthodox" Christian terms?

Perhaps you're merely positing that NT Christian trinitarianism is very different than OT Jewish monotheism. But that's hardly a controversial point, so I suspect you might mean something more.

Curious.

Best.

cks

[Cold Steel]

I did put in the definition from Merriam-Webster in one of my posts that stated "polytheism is the belief in OR worship of more than one God". By this definition it does not require worship to be considered a polytheist, only belief in more than one God.

Do you not believe in more than one God? I notice you're very carefully avoiding stating your own views here. Either you believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit are Gods or you don't. The New Testament is full of references to Jesus and to God as separate entities. How do you explain this? Christians believe in the divinity of the Son, and that He is, in fact, Jehovah, the Great I AM. The LDS openly say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all Gods and that they are one God. We also state that man has the opportunity to join in that Oneness.

If we're polytheists because of that, you're a polytheist right along with us because you believe in three sentient beings of power and glory. And if you say you're not a polytheist, then you remove yourself from the ancient Christians. In fact, the only Christians who are true monotheists are the modalists. They believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all different manifestations of the same God, like ice, steam and water. The second you admit that each is an individual Being, you are a polytheist. Praying to saints and angels don't strengthen your case, either.

[Jeff K.]

So while Christ was on earth those who believed in him were polytheists? His apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane were polytheists since he was praying to... well he wasn't praying to himself now was he?

[jwhitlock]

No Billy we don't 'believe in' we believe that they exist. Words have meaning.

A little slip, there, by Billy, which gives some insight into his real motivations.

[jwhitlock]

I have never stated that you worship anyone besides God the Father, that is something that you accuse me of doing, but I have pointed out to you on a number of occasions that what you accuse me of is not true. I did put in the definition from Merriam-Webster in one of my posts that stated "polytheism is the belief in OR worship of more than one God". By this definition it does not require worship to be considered a polytheist, only belief in more than one God. My comments have been very clear that you only worship God the Father.

Again, you try to paint polytheism in the broadest sense possible - dismissing the very real "worship" aspect of polytheism as irrelevant...

Is the fact that God the Father lived as a man on another planet a speculative doctrine? Or is the fact that we can become Gods (or gods as you prefer) a speculative doctrine?

You are really just putting up a smoke screen, trying to deny what you truly believe. I simply ask why are you doing this? You believe in many Gods (or gods), by definition this makes you a polytheist. This is true even if you only worship one, i.e. God the Father.

And then, as noted, you set the stage for labeling "polytheistic" Mormonism as the "belief in" - or, dare we say, "worship" - of Gods outside of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

You really are trying hard to make the polytheism label stick. It's also quite disingenuous. I would suggest that you quite trying to dismiss the worship aspect of polytheism and acknowledge that it's a significant part of what polytheism really is, especially from its historical connotations. Attempting to concentrate on only a part of the definition of polytheism in attempts to label Mormonism isn't a valid methodology for understanding what we really believe.

Again, I would suggest - if you really want to understand us, instead of labeling us - that you pick a more appropriate term that describes LDS theology, rather than telling us what we believe.

[urroner]

On the Trinity:

Is the Trinity composed of three separate beings?

If so, are they able to act independently of each other?

Is Christ subordinate to the Father and if he is, if God is fully God, how can Christ be fully God and still subject to someone who is fully God?

Are all the members of the Trinity omnipotent?

If so, does the Son have the ability to go against the will of the Father?

[pcarthew]

On 12-29-08, James White posted an anti-Mormon video on YouTube:

Four days later, he posted the same video on his AOMIN site:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3058

Within the first minute of his diatribe, James states:

â??Mormonism is the most polytheistic religion that I have ever encounteredâ?¦â?

Yet, the LDS apostle, Jeffrey R. Holland, in the October 2007 GC address that James is critiquing, states:

There are many serious problems with Jamesâ?? video; but, for the moment, I would like to address the issue of whether or not Latter-day Saints are polytheistsâ??as such, I am looking forward to your responses.

Grace and peace,

James White is a tool. He teaches during his his dribble session that we place no emphasis on the cross of Calvary(he could not be further from the truth), and seems to be very flippant when speaking of the Garden of Gethsemane (almost mocking the idea that we find it such a sacred part of the atonement). How could anyone who knows anything about being christian listen to such puffed up arrogance. He is an unbridled fool. Yet another from the "christian" world who is trying to show how Christ like he can be by twisting truth and speaking lies cloaked in so called "christian intellectualism"!!!

The erroneous assumption that James White makes, is that he is an expert, not only on the mind and will of God but also and expert in the field of Mormon Doctrine and History. He also implies that he knows knows exactly what Jesus looks like (by mocking the LDS representation of Jesus in the film clip), what else would you expect from such a self professed authority on "Christianity"!

[Billy]

You mean like Paul in 1 Cor 8:5-6 (NRSV)?

Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earthâ??as in fact there are many gods and many lordsâ??yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Is Paul a polytheist? If not, why are LDS?

So you are basically stating that you are polytheistic in the sense that you believe in many Gods "Just like Paul"?

Anyway lets look at it in the ESV

1 Corinthians 8

4Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one."

5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earthâ??as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"â??

6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

If you read this chapter Paul is discussing food sacrificed to idols/false gods or as Paul calls them so-called gods. Verse 4 Paul clearly states that there is one God. Verse 5 he mentions the false Gods, as he calls them "b] so-called gods in heaven or on earthâ??as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords". But to make it clear that there is only one God in addition to noting it in verse 4, he restates it in verse 6 "yet for us there is one God". But Bill you already knew that, didn't you?

[Billy]

Billy states,

You believe in many Gods (or gods), by definition this makes you a polytheist. This is true even if you only worship one, i.e. God the Father.

Jerryp48 replies,

No Billy we don't 'believe in' we believe that they exist. Words have meaning.

OK, so you believe that many Gods exist but you "don't believe in them". Let me ask you a question then.

God the Father is a God

God the Son is a God

God the Holy Spirit is a God

These three Gods are 3 separate and distinct Gods (but one in purpose)

Which of the Gods above don't you "believe in"?

Do you only believe in one of the three Gods?

[Billy]

So while Christ was on earth those who believed in him were polytheists? His apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane were polytheists since he was praying to... well he wasn't praying to himself now was he?

Your understanding of the Trinity is a Modalistic view, which is not a correct understanding of the Trinity. Google Modalism.

If you believe that God changes forms, like an actor changes costumes, then this is in essence the modalistic view. This is easily refuted by the fact you noted above, "is Christ praying to himself", obviously not. Also at Christ's baptism, you have three distinct persons, Christ getting baptized, God the Fathers voice from heaven, and the Holy spirit coming down like a dove.

[Billy]

Again, you try to paint polytheism in the broadest sense possible - dismissing the very real "worship" aspect of polytheism as irrelevant...

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Because you keep bringing up the fact that it takes more than "belief in" more than one God to make you a polytheist, rather you say you have to worship more than God (or god as you prefer).

Do you worship one God or more than one God?

If you said one God, which one do you worship, God the Father, God the Son, OR God the Holy Spirit?

[David Waltz]

Hi Lynn,

You posted:

>>On the Trinity:

Is the Trinity composed of three separate beings?>>

Me: Depends on how you interpret the word â??beingâ?; if you follow Boethiusâ?? quite famous description of the term â??personâ? (as many important Trinitarians have), then yes, the Trinity is composed of three separate â??beingsâ? (i.e. real, concrete persons).

[Wherefore if person belongs to substances alone, and these rational, and if every substance is a nature, and exists not in universals but in individuals, we have found the definition of person: â??The individual substance of a rational nature.â? (Boethius, Contra Eutychen, III â?? from the Loeb Classical Library, Boethius â?? The Theological Tractates & The Consolation of Philosophy, p. 85 â?? translated by Stewart, Radn & Tester.).]

>>If so, are they able to act independently of each other?>>

Me: In a certain sense, yes. It was the Son of God alone who came to Earth in the 1st century to atone for the sins of mankind, etc, etc.

>>Is Christ subordinate to the Father and if he is, if God is fully God, how can Christ be fully God and still subject to someone who is fully God?>>

Me: Christ is fully God (as the BoM clearly states), and is subordinate the Father (as the Bible clearly states). The Father, Son and Holy Ghost all share in ONE DIVINE NATUREâ??all members of the human race share in ONE HUMAN NATURE; yet I am subordinate to numerous other humans who share that one nature.

>>Are all the members of the Trinity omnipotent?>>

Me: Yes. Later today, the Lord willing, I am going to type of some quotes from B.H. Roberts which are quite clear on this.

>>If so, does the Son have the ability to go against the will of the Father?>>

Me: No, for the wills of the 3 members of the Godhead are perfectly united.

Grace and peace,

David