Jesus Christ as the Father

[David T]

Joseph Smith seemed to change the way he thought of the nature of God through the years of his life and it seems apparent in his writings. We can believe this at least to an extent without being critical of Joseph Smith or his calling.

Of course he did, and of course we can. I was never under the belief that prophets received a pure knowledge (and understanding) of everything right from the get-go.Scriptures are "given unto [the Lord's] servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding." (D&C 1:24). Personally, I think it took Joseph's entire lifetime to understand the full significance of all (and who) that he experienced, was shown and was told in his First Vision. The Restoration is still going on. It didn't end in 1820, or 1830, or even in 1844.

[Molloch]

The reason for this "common misunderstanding" is that you all claim that they are numerically one but that there are 3 individual beings. Remember that 1+1+1=1 but it doesnt it equal 3. The 3 make up the God head. And that God Head can and is worshipped as One God. But each one is a God. It is not us that is confused for we do not derive our doctrine from greek philosophies and a counsel of men that try to make sense of things that are not even in the bible. Such as one substance. We look to prophets that are inspired and called by God just as Moses was.

Do you believe god is omnipresent?

[Honorentheos]

While it may make sense to the average modern LDS reader to see the modern LDS Godhead in the quotes provided by Zee, it is absolutely anachronistic to do so.

Break it down into a timeline, looking at the various first vision accounts along with what was being taught about the Godhead at that time only.

- The BOM quotes are the earliest references we can place on this timeline. Especially if one takes into account those passages that were changed in 1837, such as this one Zee provided -

1 Nephi 13:40

1830 edition - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior ... "

Current reading - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior ..."

- This piece from 1830 that became part of Section 20 of the D&C is not clearly modern LDS in theology -

"Wherefore, the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son, as it is written in those scriptures which have been given of him.

22 He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.

23 He was crucified, died, and rose again the third day;

24 And ascended into heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the Father, to reign with almighty power according to the will of the Father

The language being used at this time is very similar, sometimes even verbatim, to that used in traditional christianity as evidenced in the Apostles Creed.

- The 1832 First Vision account, on it's own, is more consistent with a pedestrian understanding of the Trinity than it is with modern LDS theology.

- Zee also quoted from the 1832 Star, who's wording is very consistent with the 1832 account of the First Vision as well as a more traditional view of the Godhead.

If one takes the Lectures on Faith from 1835 along with the 1835 as very direct wording that shows by then the church was teaching a separation of a Father of spirit and a Son of flesh and bone, with the Holy Ghost as a non-being of substance.

Lecture Fifth

There is a clear evolution in the thinking. It takes projecting a modern understanding backwards onto the past statements to even attempt to "lick and stick" the shadow of this line of reasons back on to the body of the evidence.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Do you believe god is omnipresent?

I believe his presence is

[Molloch]

I believe his presence is

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In what way is God's presence different than God Himself?

If I knew that I would probably be taken up into heaven before I could tell anyone.

The God We Believe

The human mind, cannot conceive

Of the God, that we believe.

Any attept to thus define,

Occurs within the frenzied mind!

But, the human heart can conceive

Of the God, that we believe.

For only there, can we see

The secrets of eternity.

William E Lee

[coolrok7]

The reason for this "common misunderstanding" is that you all claim that they are numerically one but that there are 3 individual beings. Remember that 1+1+1=1 but it doesnt it equal 3. The 3 make up the God head. And that God Head can and is worshipped as One God. But each one is a God. It is not us that is confused for we do not derive our doctrine from greek philosophies and a counsel of men that try to make sense of things that are not even in the bible. Such as one substance. We look to prophets that are inspired and called by God just as Moses was.

The essence of the "one substance" statement in the Nicene creed is that their nature is spirit (the stuff of God so to speak). The greek behind the underlined statement has to do with a signet ring that is impressed into wax as an imprint (or the nature of God stamped so to speak in the flesh):

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: (Colossians 2:8-10)

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. (Hebrews 1:1-4)

Our stuff is physical with a spirit in which at death our spirit separates from our physical form (returns to dust until the resurrection in which it will be a glorified body like Jesus had after He was rised from the dead). God is spirit or a spirit.

Mormons are not bothered by the phrase "very God (the term from the "abominable creed" appears in the BofM) of very God, begotten not made" which was used to defend the Deity of Christ before becoming a man in addition to His Divine nature as God. Jesus didn't become a god as in Mormonism, He already was God:

And also that ye may believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, which ye shall have among you; and also that the Jews, the covenant people of the Lord, shall have other witness besides him whom they saw and heard, that Jesus, whom they slew, was the very Christ and the very God. (Mormon 3:21)

The term "very" is not in the Greek at John 7:26:

But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?

Arius of Alexandria was teaching that once, the being of Jesus as a spiritual in His nature did not exist until he was born from the womb of the virgin Mary.

It's not 1+1+1=1, it's 1x1x1=1. The baptismal formula is in the name of the one God as in Matthew 28 and Jesus' quoting of the Hebrew Schema from Deuteronomy in Matthew 12:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying,

[Vance]

Do you believe god is omnipresent?

No!

I believe what Jesus taught concerning the matter.

Here are just a few references.

Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.

[Vance]

John 1:1-3 does not say Jesus is a god as Witnesses claim in their NWT. Jesus commanded us to watch out for false prophets who come in Jesus' name.The King James version (the official Mormon version) translates it as Jesus, the Word, is God (not the Father or the Holy Spirit):

This has been discussed many times here.

John 1:1 Clearly and plainly declares the divinity (godhood) of "the Word" (Christ). It also clearly and plainly (in the Greek) separates "the God" (the Father) from "the Word" (Christ).

So then,

1+1 does NOT = 1

Unless you are saying that 1 of something + 1 of something = 1 of something else.

[David T]

In what way is God's presence different than God Himself?

In the same way High Council members represent and stand in for the presence and will of the Stake Presidency. They do what the Stake Presidency would do if it made sense for them to physically travel all over the Stake all day, every day. While there are some things only a personal visit of the Stake Presidency can accomplish, much of their administrative and teaching duties are delegated to the High Council, who return and report back to the SP.

High Council -> Stake Presidency as

Holy Ghost -> God the Father

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you believe god is omnipresent?

Not in the sense that he is physically every were at one time. Perhaps He is simply aware of what goes on in the universe at any given time.

[MDalby]

Let me take a look at your document...

In the mean time, we don't need to get in a debate about whether those scriptures define the Trinity. I know where you are coming from. I've been reading the Book of Mormon for many years and am familiar with both sides of this debate. Keep in mind that you consider the Trinity concept to be corrupt and the Mormon concept to be of God. With that view, there is no reason to continue the debate. Let's go our separate ways. I just want to point out that Joseph Smith seemed to change the way he thought of the nature of God through the years of his life and it seems apparent in his writings. We can believe this at least to an extent without being critical of Joseph Smith or his calling.

Zee.

Thanks Zee.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's not 1+1+1=1, it's 1x1x1=1. The baptismal formula is in the name of the one God as in Matthew 28 and Jesus' quoting of the Hebrew Schema from Deuteronomy in Matthew 12:

YOu cannot logically make a case that God is multiplying himself by one. 1x1x1 is only used to show that if you have one and you mutiply it by one it still equals one. This is a logical absurtity when talking about the number that are in a group. If there are 3 people in my family and there is only one family does that mean that there is only one person, because I can now use 1x1x1=1 per you. That is exactly what you are trying to do here. It is absurd.

And before you get into the whole "were not talking about your family but God" you need to realise that we are talking about groups the people belong to. One of which is the God head that 3 people (distinct persons (that is traditional christian langauge)) belong to that particular group. IOW it would be a red herring to argue this.

[zeezrom]

In what way is God's presence different than God Himself?

Now that is an interesting question to ponder. We may do well to think about that for some time. I know I would because I'm a little slow when it comes to considering and understanding the character of God.

[Vance]

Mormons are not bothered by the phrase "very God (the term from the "abominable creed" appears in the BofM) of very God, begotten not made" which was used to defend the Deity of Christ before becoming a man in addition to His Divine nature as God. Jesus didn't become a god as in Mormonism, He already was God:

From the Creed of Nicene,

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made . . . "

And from the Book of Mormon,

Morm. 3:21 And also that ye may believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, which ye shall have among you; and also that the Jews, the covenant people of the Lord, shall have other witness besides him whom they saw and heard, that Jesus, whom they slew, was the very Christ and the very God.

And from the Bible,

1 Thes. 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And again from the Book of Mormon,

1 Ne. 19:7 For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other words

[zeezrom]

Of course he did, and of course we can. I was never under the belief that prophets received a pure knowledge (and understanding) of everything right from the get-go.

Would some people consider it critical of Joseph Smith and his calling if I said I felt that he started his work on this earth with a view of God that is similar to that of the Lutheran/Catholic world? Like you said, he did not receive a pure knowledge from the get-go.

I would not think this to be critical but I do find it interesting since I never before realized this about his writings/teachings. Granted, you and I may differ on the extent to which we believe Joseph contributed to his writings from his own abilities but that is beside the point.

[Molloch]

No!

I believe what Jesus taught concerning the matter.

Here are just a few references.

Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.

[Vance]

You know vance, if those verses said something along the lines of IN HEAVEN ONLY That might actually prove your point.

Do you believe that God is in Hell?

Edited to add,

What do you think the average listener would conclude from these teaching of Jesus?

[Vance]

You know vance, if those verses said something along the lines of IN HEAVEN ONLY That might actually prove your point.

Well I have these,

John 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not THE FATHER WHICH HATH SENT HIM.

[Molloch]

Do you believe that God is in Hell?

Edited to add,

What do you think the average listener would conclude from these teaching of Jesus?

I don't know vance, I guess that depends on if you think psalm 139 8 is literal or not.

[mapman]

The trinity is an excellent example of doublethink. It reminds me of this quote from 1984:

"You are a slow learner, Winston," said O'Brien gently.

"How can I help it?" he blubbered. "How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."

"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder, Winston. It is not easy to become sane."

Except in this case it is 1+1+1=1.

[Vance]

I don't know vance, I guess that depends on if you think psalm 139 8 is literal or not.

Well, if I thought that David (the adulterous murderer) was speaking by the Spirit rather than by a guilty conscience then I might think it was literal.

Edited to add,

Besides, I thought you guys believed that hell is the separation FROM God. Am I wrong?

[MDalby]

I just don't get the traditional Christian concept of God... To me their attempts to explain the godhead is truly "incomprehensible."

Now here's a theological argument between a traditional Christian (TC) and a biblical Christian (LDS):

TC: The Trinity consists of three parallel lines, which touch each other.

LDS: If they touch each other, they're not parallel.

TC: Nevertheless, they are parallel, and they touch. They touch at every point.

LDS: If they touch at every point, they're the same line. Not three.

TC: They touch at every point, yet there are three.

LDS: That doesn't make any sense. Lines can't be different yet the same, parallel yet intersecting. The words stop having any meaning when you say such things.

TC: That's because you have a finite, mortal mind, which cannot comprehend the nature of geometry.

LDS: That's just crazy. The Trinity is three lines, completely distinct, perfectly parallel, so they go infinitely in the same direction. That's simple, it's clear, and it's true. In fact, we've seen the lines.

TC: That's blasphemy! You can never see the lines! They're only imaginary!

LDS: Your lines are imaginary. The lines we've seen are real.

TC: Then you are not Geometers!

And that's where the discussion always ends.

(Orson Scott Card)

MD

[Molloch]

The trinity is an excellent example of doublethink. It reminds me of this quote from 1984:

"You are a slow learner, Winston," said O'Brien gently.

"How can I help it?" he blubbered. "How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."

"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder, Winston. It is not easy to become sane."

Except in this case it is 1+1+1=1.

Is this 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals 1 thing in a pamphlet or something? You're the third person in this thread alone to say that.

[Vance]

Is this 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals 1 thing in a pamphlet or something?

No, it is just a mathematical expression representing the doctrine of the trinity.

You're the third person in this thread alone to say that.

What? Didn't you get the memo?

This is today's talking point. Don't try to change the topic or it will confuse us.