Christological question

[mfbukowski]

Hmmm, this creates significant inconsistencies within our previous discussion because you then either did not accept the Big Bang as valid or do not accept that in that singularity there was no such thing as "matter" as we understand it. And individual identity within a singularity becomes very, very problematic. At best. All of which may be one's belief, but they fail to be as modern as you argue the Aristotilian view is compared with the modern view as well. Very steady state Newtonian, IMO. Singularities do not exist in Newtonian physics for a reason. Actually, to be fair, they only exist under relativity without being understandable, too. They're more than a bit odd.

Well I am not a physicist, so perhaps I do not understand all the issues. But I have learned that most of the time that someone says "either this or that", they are not taking into account a thousand other possibilities. As I recall the fudge factor here was "matter as we understand it". That understanding can be very limited

In all fairness, MFB, I think you would be one of the few here who should see the subjective, if real, nature of this relationship between your understanding of God under LDS theology and another's understanding of God under another theological view. I have made many, many an attempt to point out odd inconsistencies in the nature of the LDS God regarding justice, his commitment to agency, etc., on this board that have hit a flat wall of non-understanding.

Not sure what you mean. And did you discuss these "odd inconsistencies" with me? And occasionally, I have noted a bit of the "sportsman" in you at least as much as you have seen him in me as well. The line between dialogue and debate is very fine, and ego often blows the distinction away completely.

[Honorentheos]

Well I am not a physicist, so perhaps I do not understand all the issues. But I have learned that most of the time that someone says "either this or that", they are not taking into account a thousand other possibilities. As I recall the fudge factor here was "matter as we understand it". That understanding can be very limited

Shadows on the wall, Plato?

Not sure what you mean. And did you discuss these "odd inconsistencies" with me? And occasionally, I have noted a bit of the "sportsman" in you at least as much as you have seen him in me as well. The line between dialogue and debate is very fine, and ego often blows the distinction away completely.

Why would we do it if it weren't "fun"? or at least a way to blow off some steam. It's sport to everyone, really. Some just take it too seriously.

[Sargon]

"Nature" as in "human nature" is another of those words imo that means practically nothing, and in a theological context it illuminates nothing.

I mean what activity exactly is "against" human nature? We have as a race been guilty of the most horrendous crimes and on the other hand, of incredible selfless sacrifices.

I suppose flying like a bird is against our natures, but we do our best anyway by making airplanes. If it is imaginable, evil or good, someone somewhere will try it and probably eventually achieve it. Specifically, because this is the way we are, if anything is our "nature", it is the tendency to overcome our natural limits.

For that reason, I think at the bottom of it, we all want to be gods. So much for "fully human" being the opposite of "divine".

Harkening back to the debates of the early centuries of Christianity, the underlying assumption which drove ideas like the hypostatic union is that the "nature" of God is that he somehow cannot experience change. In contrast, human "nature" is to experience change. I'm sure this isn't news to you. Here is a snippet from Roger Olson:

In the deep background of the clash between Arius and Alexander over the nature of the Logos lay Greek philosophy. It is something both had in common, even if they applied it differently. Both sides of the conflict simply assumed that divinity is ontologically perfect in such a way that any change at all is impossible for it and improper to attribute to it. Thus God, being divine and therefore absolutely perfect, cannot experience change because to change is always to change either for the better or the worse, and in either case God would not be God if he could change.

Absolute static perfection

[Henzelli]

So many replies while I've been gone.....

From Thursday to today without internet at my parents' where we had lots of food and were quite thankful my dad is still with us. Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving.

Now, onward to the topic at hand!

In reading all of the replies that have been posted, I don't want to sit down and argue every little point (that would be a huge commitment of time) especially because I agree with so much of what's been said, and some that I don't necessarily agree with, I at least find profoundly insightful.

Anyway, it appears that the ongoing LDS/Trinitiarian view had started to go in circles until Honorentheos and Sargon showed up. I think the reason for this is that the LDS view and the Catholic view are based on assumptions that we really cannot prove, and that is that the LDS Church assumes everything in existence is material, and Catholics place God outside the material universe and say He is without matter (Catholics who argue otherwise are actually in heresy, as I've seen it suggested elsewhere that "maybe" God is material).

Until one separates his own assumptions (which I did several times to show that I could understand the LDS viewpoint without accepting it), the debate remains circular because we are arguing from two different positions.

As to an earlier post by Sargon concerning the "canonization of Modalism," Modalism was actually never canonized, and is actually one of the worst of all Christological heresies because of its fundamental denial of the Trinity, which was canonized long before the Modalists were finally censured and suppressed. Unless I misread your post, in which case, ignore my correction.

And look into string theory. I think it takes it beyond quarks.

I agree. String theory is one of those things I'm currently delving deeply into, though the problem of comparing strings to quarks is that quarks are also theoretical at the moment, and from what I've read on quarks (which isn't as extensive as my reading on string theory, so I could be wrong on this point) if quarks were to be proven true, they actually provide the materialist substratum necessary to disprove string theory, whereas if string theory is finally nailed down as consistent enough to be taken as a scientific law instead of simply a theory, it presupposes quarks and actually creates an inconsistency that would deny the existence of quarks altogether. But then again, string theory treats time as a spatial dimension and physicists looking at quarks tend not to think that way. In either event, I like the implication that string theory, ultimately, allows for the LDS materialist view of God to be as valid as the Trinitarian view, because, in the tenth dimension, both universes exist simultaneously.

[mfbukowski]

So let's just move to the 10th dimension where Catholics and Mormons agree. Ok with me!

Does this mean that we will all agree in the afterlife, when all this linguistic confusion is behind us?

[mfbukowski]

Harkening back to the debates of the early centuries of Christianity, the underlying assumption which drove ideas like the hypostatic union is that the "nature" of God is that he somehow cannot experience change. In contrast, human "nature" is to experience change. I'm sure this isn't news to you. Here is a snippet from Roger Olson:

Yep, change is the big deal. I was just discussing this somewhere- the treads start to blur after a while. Too bad history did not favor Heraclitus over Plato. Perhaps we would not even be discussing this problem because it wouldn't exist.

I wonder what the world would be like if the library at Alexandria had not been destroyed. There is a great novel in there somewhere.

I think there is a central contradiction there which I would love to go back and debate with Augustine or someone. How can an unchangeable God hear and answer prayer? If he cannot change, he cannot interact with his children. The very existence of the bible demonstrates that he does indeed give revelation, and numerous examples show that he does hear and answer prayer. I wonder how he can do that without changing?

Edit: I found that other thread. I think it was a good one. Just follow this where it leads to the other thread:

Neoplatonism inserted that whole "eternal, unchanging" nature of God thing instead of a progressive, growing, interactive, organic relationship with God.

Edit 2: Honorentheos: And I am still not following you about the allegory of the cave. If you follow the link to the above quote, you will see what I think of Plato.

[Sargon]

As to an earlier post by Sargon concerning the "canonization of Modalism," Modalism was actually never canonized, and is actually one of the worst of all Christological heresies because of its fundamental denial of the Trinity, which was canonized long before the Modalists were finally censured and suppressed. Unless I misread your post, in which case, ignore my correction.

I think you may have misread my post a bit, but my wording wasn't totally clear. Due to the fact that the term "homoousia" is so ambiguous, Modalist bishops present at the Council of Nice such as Marcellus of Ancyra were very pleased by the choice to make homoousia the key word in the creed. In fact, Marcellus apparently was one of the main proponents of using that word during the debates at Nice.

My point was that the creed published by the Council of Nice in 325 unwittingly made modalism an orthodox belief. The authors of the creed were primarily concerned with stamping out Arianism (which they failed at doing), and so they were willing to tolerate a little modalism if that was the price.

Thanks.

Sargon

[Honorentheos]

Edit 2: Honorentheos: And I am still not following you about the allegory of the cave. If you follow the link to the above quote, you will see what I think of Plato.

Oh, I know. I was just ribbing you a bit given your statement about our understanding being limited. While not an exact parallel to platonic thought, it was a bit abstract enough to be worth pushing on one of the buttons I know you have. All in fun, of course.

[Honorentheos]

I think there is a central contradiction there which I would love to go back and debate with Augustine or someone. How can an unchangeable God hear and answer prayer? If he cannot change, he cannot interact with his children. The very existence of the bible demonstrates that he does indeed give revelation, and numerous examples show that he does hear and answer prayer. I wonder how he can do that without changing?

While this is not my personal belief, I pointed out something about this in that other thread where we discussed how change is the very thing that makes the physical God of LDS theology impossible if he is also to be eternal.

That being that this relationship gives some odd backing to why a single "God" would need to be trinitarian as to be eternal, which requires being immaterial the "Father" in this view would be the abstract being you question above. Yet, as the relational "aspect" of this being Christ as the Son becomes the manifestation of this being that actually can relate and existing within time as a being and the spirit, as a relational influence also is a non-material aspect of this otherwise eternal, non-relational being that through these two manifestations is able to interact and relate to beings within time.

There is a bit that goes into this, and I am indifferent to it as a description of anything other than a possible explanation. But convoluted as it is, it does manage to take into account the fact that a God similar to that proposed in Christianity can not be both material and eternal within our current understanding of time/physics.

[Stargazer]

In reading your article, and then reading the comment you posted just now, I came to the realization that the separation between the divinity/humanity of Christ that seems apparent in the Mormon idea of deity was condemned in the fifth century as Nestorianism. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches condemn Nestorianism, and I believe this is a primary reason that the Catholic Church ceased recognizing Mormon baptism as valid, and eventually declared Mormons as being outside the community of Christ (vis-a-vis, the Catholic Church says that most Protestant Churches and Eastern Churches have an element of truth, and so salvation is almost assured for them, but for Mormons and Pentecostals and Seventh Day Adventists that deny the Trinitarian God, salvation is pretty much nixed for most).

On the other hand, I read the article on Nestorianism you linked to and found that I disagreed that we could referred to as Nestorians. I cannot separate Christ the human from Christ the God. They were the same person, when He was the God of the Old Testament, when He was the (im)mortal incarnated Jesus, and now when He is a resurrected God.

The Catholics have us as outliers solely, I believe, on the Trinity.

[Stargazer]

I find that this thread has been the single most insightful and fascinating bit of respectful and thorough thought-sparring to have occurred here on this board in recent memory. Well, my memory at least.

I will confess to a fair amount of skimming of this material. But one thing that hit me in particular was 3DOP and Henzelli essentially congratulating each other over how precise and accurate their philosophical expressions have hewn to the line of true doctrine. And therein lies the rub. It is as if somehow describing God as precisely as possible could lead to salvation. This is a very satisfying pastime in some circles, I presume. But ...

I fear that I agree with what I got from mbufkowski, which is that all of this philosophical rhetoric consists only of terms of art constructed for the purpose of describing idealized divine beings, at least according to those who seek to tie the universe and all of creation up into a neat little package. I do not see that this describes anything at all, least of which anything that bears actually on reality. Or on God.

I know who God is. I am quite certain that none of the philosophical rhetoric (as pretty as it is) describe Him at all.

Nevertheless, please don't let this be a wet blanket to the discussion. I imagine that new heights of rhetorical precision can yet be reached with all the intellect that is on display!

[mfbukowski]

While this is not my personal belief, I pointed out something about this in that other thread where we discussed how change is the very thing that makes the physical God of LDS theology impossible if he is also to be eternal.

That being that this relationship gives some odd backing to why a single "God" would need to be trinitarian as to be eternal, which requires being immaterial the "Father" in this view would be the abstract being you question above. Yet, as the relational "aspect" of this being Christ as the Son becomes the manifestation of this being that actually can relate and existing within time as a being and the spirit, as a relational influence also is a non-material aspect of this otherwise eternal, non-relational being that through these two manifestations is able to interact and relate to beings within time.

There is a bit that goes into this, and I am indifferent to it as a description of anything other than a possible explanation. But convoluted as it is, it does manage to take into account the fact that a God similar to that proposed in Christianity can not be both material and eternal within our current understanding of time/physics.

Well as I see it, there are two possibilities, and surprise surprise, they involve linguistic problems.

It all depends on what you mean by "eternal", doesn't it? Many here would say that God is not "eternal" in the sense that he has not always been God, but was "once" a man etc. Of course that was "before" this universe and the big bang if such is even intelligible.

So I think that this interpretation may get around your objection even on your own terms.

On the other hand, your notion of "eternal matter" as being impossible I think also has problems depending on the definition of "eternal", as well as the fact that science is always changing. Your notion of what is scientifically possible now might change. Another way of putting this is to say that God can do anything he likes.

Also if we look at the term "eternal" as relative to this universe, relative the this big bang as opposed to the possibility of multiple universes and multiple big bangs, I think your objection disappears.

If eternity is a measure of time, was there a time before time?

That would mean that time began with the big bang and matter is just as eternal or not eternal as this universe is. So is eternity a measure of time or not? Take your pick.

The issue really doesn't bother me, frankly because I think there are so many ways to do the logic.

Of course I could be wrong, but I am not seeing it.

As I said earlier, there really are seldom "either-or's". It all depends on how you define the terms.

[mfbukowski]

I know who God is. I am quite certain that none of the philosophical rhetoric (as pretty as it is) describe Him at all.

After all is said, it is what cannot be said that is important!

[Cold Steel]

The concept of "God" in LDS theology is fairly simple.

When the Earth was created, the Father created it through the instrumentality of the Son. When Adam and Eve transgressed, mankind fell and death entered the world. The Father, not able to look upon sin with any degree of allowance, no longer was able to "walk and talk" with his creation. Thus, when Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden, the Son (known also as "Jehovah" or the "God of Israel") became man's intercessor with God. Thus, when Moses spoke to God face to face, it was Jehovah to whom he spoke.

Later, Jehovah was born into the world as Jesus. When he visited the ancient Americans, he identified himself as "the God of Israel" and "the God of the entire Earth."

But man was not immediately reconciled to the Father. The Son remains the intercessor until he completes his work and makes a final report of his stewardship. At Adam-ondi-Ahman, he will receive all the keys of authority that have been handed down since the days of Adam and will receive the stewardship of all those from Adam to the present. Thus he will reign through the Millennium and, at the end thereof, when all have been resurrected and redeemed to the extent they can be, he will deliver up his stewardship to the Father.

Jesus is the Father of our salvation and the Father of creation. He is not, however, the Father of our spirits, nor is he simply another manifestation of his own Father, the name of whom we don't know. Many assume his name is Elohim, but this is simply one of many titles, and Jesus addresses him simply as Father. Being part of the holy triumvirate, he can and does speak for the Father using the divine investiture of authority, by which the prophets also speak for the Son. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in the same manner that the apostles are one. All speak with the same voice and with the same authority.

There are those within the church who have visited the spirit world, and they almost unanimously report that while some have seen the Son, that the Father is not present nor assessable. Many report that there are temples there, even as they are upon the Earth, and that the temples there and on Earth are linked.

.

[Henzelli]

It all depends on what you mean by "eternal", doesn't it? Many here would say that God is not "eternal" in the sense that he has not always been God, but was "once" a man etc. Of course that was "before" this universe and the big bang if such is even intelligible.

So I think that this interpretation may get around your objection even on your own terms.

On the other hand, your notion of "eternal matter" as being impossible I think also has problems depending on the definition of "eternal", as well as the fact that science is always changing. Your notion of what is scientifically possible now might change. Another way of putting this is to say that God can do anything he likes.

Actually, that is one of the big rubs of science, too. The first law of (thermodynamics? is that what it is?) states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only change form. Meaning, matter can turn into energy and vice versa, but neither can be created from nothing or be destroyed into nothing. And if you look at the universe materialistically, it requires that all matter and all energy has in fact existed forever (and there is no abstraction here--I mean to say that science fundamentally supports an eternal universe that has always existed and will always exist). Whether there was a big bang or not is irrelevant. But scientists have just as much problem with an eternal universe as they do with a universe that was created out of nothing, so they introduce the concept of the singularity as the source of the big bang, and badda-bing badda boom they have an answer similar to pouring water into a klein bottle.

But it's also a confounding question for creationists. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, then how did God do it? If God exists outside the box of the universe, then we can assume that He did it because He is God and God is all-powerful (imagine King Kong tearing the Chrysler building down instead of being killed on it and then laughing uproariously in triumph). But if God is all-powerful and beyond and outside the physical universe, then we cannot put limitation upon Him, vis-a-vis, the formless, immaterial God that does not answer to the laws of physics or even quantum physics. However, if we limit our "forever" to the point A on the timeline in which the Big Bang happened to point B on the timeline in which we either end in a hot collapse or a cold death, then we can have a materialistic view of God with a body and with physical limitation that was able to construct the universe we know without violating the laws of physics and thermodynamics. He doesn't have to be all-powerful because he is simply a higher being than we are. We are still struggling to understand how these laws work and interact. He has already figured out how to make them do things he wants them to do.

Both views do allow for an timeline that has no beginning and no end, with a physical universe always present because beyond each successive layer of "God" there is another "God" that created the former's universe on and on and on for an infinite amount of layers if you subscribe to the materialist view. If you subscribe to the non-materialist, formless view of God, then you indeed retain an infinitely long time line because God existed prior to the existence of anything material. So you can measure time from the beginning of the material universe, but you understand that there was something before that in the person of God who is immeasurable from this immaterial viewpoint.

[3DOP]

Henzelli

From Thursday to today without internet at my parents' where we had lots of food and were quite thankful my dad is still with us. Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving.

3DOP

Good for you. Very good. We had our first Thanksgiving without dad.

Are you aware we have been congratulating each other on other things? I barely remember what I have said here. It seems like forever since I have been on the internet. Anyway...I hope you're still around so I can pat you on the back for adhering to a precise formula about God that saves us!

Hey Stargazer...

I'll look things over. I should begin to have some time again. I am sure I said something that triggered the idea that I think I know what you have to believe about God to be saved. I plead guilty to misleading you about what I really believe, and I'll try to find what it was I said. (You can highlight it if you like!)

Peace and love, and all things good to everybody...

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Actually, that is one of the big rubs of science, too. The first law of (thermodynamics? is that what it is?) states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only change form. Meaning, matter can turn into energy and vice versa, but neither can be created from nothing or be destroyed into nothing. And if you look at the universe materialistically, it requires that all matter and all energy has in fact existed forever (and there is no abstraction here--I mean to say that science fundamentally supports an eternal universe that has always existed and will always exist). Whether there was a big bang or not is irrelevant. But scientists have just as much problem with an eternal universe as they do with a universe that was created out of nothing, so they introduce the concept of the singularity as the source of the big bang, and badda-bing badda boom they have an answer similar to pouring water into a klein bottle.

But it's also a confounding question for creationists. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, then how did God do it? If God exists outside the box of the universe, then we can assume that He did it because He is God and God is all-powerful (imagine King Kong tearing the Chrysler building down instead of being killed on it and then laughing uproariously in triumph). But if God is all-powerful and beyond and outside the physical universe, then we cannot put limitation upon Him, vis-a-vis, the formless, immaterial God that does not answer to the laws of physics or even quantum physics. However, if we limit our "forever" to the point A on the timeline in which the Big Bang happened to point B on the timeline in which we either end in a hot collapse or a cold death, then we can have a materialistic view of God with a body and with physical limitation that was able to construct the universe we know without violating the laws of physics and thermodynamics. He doesn't have to be all-powerful because he is simply a higher being than we are. We are still struggling to understand how these laws work and interact. He has already figured out how to make them do things he wants them to do.

Both views do allow for an timeline that has no beginning and no end, with a physical universe always present because beyond each successive layer of "God" there is another "God" that created the former's universe on and on and on for an infinite amount of layers if you subscribe to the materialist view. If you subscribe to the non-materialist, formless view of God, then you indeed retain an infinitely long time line because God existed prior to the existence of anything material. So you can measure time from the beginning of the material universe, but you understand that there was something before that in the person of God who is immeasurable from this immaterial viewpoint.

There are major paradoxes here. How could there be a timeline before there was time?

The problem is that language cannot do it justice. That's why we mostly leave it alone. If you don't understand it somewhat intuitively and try to be logical about it, the paradoxes get in the way.

So honestly, that's what I meant when I initially said "you have to think like a Mormon". It is both true that God is eternal, and in another sense that he is not.

As has been said, I guess you have to get to the 10th dimension to make the logic work. But let me say that (I know this was not your intention) this post strikes me as pretty irreverent.

One view which negates your position in this post I think is the idea that matter eventually collapses into a black hole, then explodes again. Thus you have a "matter cycle" which is eternal in most people's sense of eternal. Matter explodes, condenses, eventually stops expanding, contracts into a black hole and explodes again.

The LDS pov can comfortably handle this possibility where others cannot.

The other thing that bothers me about the classic Creedal Christian pov, is what did God do for an eternity reflecting on his own perfection for an eternity before he decided to create the earth?

Why did he create it in the first place, since he didn't need to?

I remember my Catechism answer, and it just doesn't do it for me. It's amazing what you can remember if you memorize it at the age of 7.

[3DOP]

Stargazer

I will confess to a fair amount of skimming of this material. But one thing that hit me in particular was 3DOP and Henzelli essentially congratulating each other over how precise and accurate their philosophical expressions have hewn to the line of true doctrine. And therein lies the rub. It is as if somehow describing God as precisely as possible could lead to salvation.

3DOP

If I haven't yet, I now take exception to being said to congratulate Henzelli "over how precise and accurate their philosophical expressions have hewn to the line of true doctrine." That is precisely what I did NOT NOT NOT congratulate Henzelli about.

I was congratulating him for his tone. I was congratulating him for his respect for things not Catholic. I was at the same time trying to respectfully inform hinm that he did NOT accurately represent Catholic doctrine in regard to the Hypostatic Union. You have confessed to skimming. I am glad that you got the impression that I feel an affinity for Henzelli. But I carefully couched my compliments for what is most important (love) around a rebuke for what is less important (doctrine). He took it as I thought he would, with good grace, and seemed to concede the doctrinal point.

Hi and welcome. I heartily approve of the way you have respectfully inquired about LDS beliefs without compromising your own or denigrating theirs. This is not always and easy balance to maintain. To the hard part, I do not propose myself as a spokesman for Catholic dogma, but it seems to me like there is room for confusion among our LDS friends by the way you describe the Hypostatic Union. If one were not careful it could almost read as though the hypostatic union consisted not of the union of the human and divine nature in Christ, a creation which came into being at the moment of conception, but instead the eternal union of the Blessed Trinity.

---3DOP, to Henzelli, this thread, post #17

But I am delighted Stargazer, that you would use the word essentially, in essentially the way it is used by the Catholic Church in her doctrinal definitions.

[justdreamin]

Ok. I actually posted this on another forum, because I know the Mormon members that frequent it are rather knowledgeable in their faith, but I want a multitude of sources to help corroborate any answer I might get. So I'm reposting the question here.

As per my understanding, Mormonism teaches that Jesus as the Son is a fundamentally separate being from God as the Father as opposed to the Trinitarian formula where God and Christ are the same being in different persons (a la the hypostatic union).

(If I'm wrong on my understanding of Mormon Christology, call me out on it and help explain it to me. I'm confused about it and this question only feeds my confusion.)

If this is a correct interpretation of Mormon Christology, how does this reconcile with 3 Nephi 11:1-14, but specifically verse 14?

My understanding of this text is as follows:

There is a multitude of the people of Nephi and suddenly a voice calls out (that I take to be God as the Father) announcing the arrival of His "Beloved Son" (identified later as Jesus Christ, 3 Nephi 11: 10 "Behold I am Jesus Christ").

Jesus identifies himself referencing OT prophecy and NT prophecy (verses 10-11), causing the multitude to "(fall) to the earth" (verse 12).

(No problem so far. Patrilineal relationship between God as the Father and Christ as the Son)

And then the part that I have issue with: verses 13 and 14:

"And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying: 14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world."

If I read this passage correctly, verse 14 in particular explicitly equates Jesus (the speaker) as being of the same being and person as God, which would seem to imply the hypostatic union of the Trinitarian formula, which is denied by Mormon theologians in explaining Mormon Christology so far as I have managed to gather from my own research.

As I said, this passage in particular confuses me. If it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of Mormon Christology, please correct me. Otherwise, please explain? Thanks!

I am wondering if anyone is interested in getting back to the beginning of this thread where Henzelli is interested in some description of the Godhead in the BoM as being Trinitarian in nature.

I included a link to an article in one of my early posts, page one i think, that infers a progressive or evolutionary Godhead. Joseph's initial writings from 1829 to about 1833 seemed very Trinitarian and from there, translating the Bible and from revelations in the D&C he expounded on his view of the role of Christ and expounded on Heaven and the Celestial kingdom et al until right before his death when he introduced officially the believe in plurality of Gods.

I don't know if the BoM is true or not, but I do think that it was written by Joseph Smith from his mind, whether revealed or not, and because of this we can see the confusion Joseph had early on with who God was or at least a descripion of Him. Of course I have to concede there are many other scriptures in the BoM which seem to confound the Trinitarian view. Henzelli offered a few examples of both I think.

Does anyone who is a TBM share this same opinion of a progressive Godhead, or does that fall into a gray area? Could the Jaredites or Lehi's group believed in the Trinity as it seems to be described, when they were pre Christ populations?

[redwave]

A being and a personage really are the same thing. God is a role or a position.

i beg to differ. no i don't. i don't beg for truth. i ask. God is God. thou shalt have no other gods b 4 me. kapeesh?...u struck a cord. God is our creator, or saviour, or life if you have faith. you seem with that statement to discredit Him. i take offense to this. He the begining and the end. the author of the faith. u come across as saying u are above Him. or at least another brick in the wall.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

i beg to differ. no i don't. i don't beg for truth. i ask. God is God. thou shalt have no other gods b 4 me. kapeesh?...u struck a cord. God is our creator, or saviour, or life if you have faith. you seem with that statement to discredit Him. i take offense to this. He the begining and the end. the author of the faith. u come across as saying u are above Him. or at least another brick in the wall.

How on earth did you get that from what he said? Good grief.

[mfbukowski]

Does anyone who is a TBM share this same opinion of a progressive Godhead, or does that fall into a gray area? Could the Jaredites or Lehi's group believed in the Trinity as it seems to be described, when they were pre Christ populations?

Not sure what you mean by a "progressive Godhead"

We believe in eternal progression which is the idea that we can become like our Father after an eternity of working on our own perfection, but he will still be our Father. We will not be equal to him, but will be more like him; he progresses also through our progression. His "work" is to bring us to be like him, and as we do, his glory increases too.

[justdreamin]

Not sure what you mean by a "progressive Godhead"

We believe in eternal progression which is the idea that we can become like our Father after an eternity of working on our own perfection, but he will still be our Father. We will not be equal to him, but will be more like him; he progresses also through our progression. His "work" is to bring us to be like him, and as we do, his glory increases too.

What I mean is not that God progresses (I understand that) but that the doctrine about who God is or who the Godhead is, was progressive. If you read Henzelli's OP he quotes a few verses from the BoM which make the Godhead sound very much Trinitarian. I have been asked before how we reconcile some of the "3 in 1" type statements from parts of the BoM and from Joseph Smith's pre 1834 writings (original), and it's only been recently that I think understand the difference, at the very core, of what differentiates LDS Godhead doctrine from Catholic and Protestant Godhead doctrine. I'm just wondering if it's ever talked about in church or amongst those who are interested in digging a little deeper. I know that, for me, it makes the question of whether we (LDS) are Christian or not, much more understandable.

[mfbukowski]

So the question is if the doctrine developed from a more traditional creedal Christian view.

That has been discussed here before, and you may be able to find some threads discussing that using the search features.

But the statements in the Book of Mormon, of course, are completely doctrinal since they are in the standard works. I think what most creedal Christians who accuse us of polytheism do not understand is that they are also "polytheists" as much as we are, (which is really not at all )if you want to look at it that way.

I mean there are three persons in one God. Any way you look at it, it is going to be confusing unless you have a perspective like ours. The language is the problem as usual. How can three persons be one God? Just as we have it- they are unified in purpose. "God" is a title, like "First Presidency".

Ask a Moslem if he thinks Christians are polytheists. Ask a Jewish person if Christians are polytheists. Jesus is God, and the Father is God, the Holy Ghost is God. Sounds like at least three Gods to me if you want to look at it that way. But what is true is that there are three PERSONS in one God or "Godhead".

[justdreamin]

Thank you, and I will use the search to see what others have said. I appreciate your comments very much!