What's the LDS POV when going through this part of Isaiah?

[USU78]

From the Trinitarian perspective, God exists as three persons that are one in substance. Not that they have the same kind of substance, but that they are one in substance- this is the difference between homoiousios and homoousios. Nicea, 325.

Thank you for explaining this. Can you direct me to some sort of reference that is comparable to the one I made with "Nicea, 325"? Something like "D&C, page and paragraph"? Unless there's a different resource I should look at. Anything that lets me see when and where this LDS POV was formed and became official doctrine would be great. Thanks!

May I suggest a reread of John 17:20-23? That would be a source we both recognize and accept:

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are bone: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

In at least one sense, the King Follett Discourse is a midrash on the Master's Yom Kippur prayer.

I realize it's not as different from Trinitarianism as it could be, and there are a lot of descriptions of God that are quite a bit further away from what was defined at Nicea. However, I also think there are at least a half-dozen explanations that are more similar than what you've got that were formally declared as heresy, and while nothing that was exactly like the LDS idea went before any of the ecumenical councils, I don't think it would have stood a chance.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

USU "We don't think all that much of those there councils and the wars that ensued therefrom . . . and recognize that the iconoclasts and the Vandals would have agreed with us, even though they get bad press these days" 78

[Calm]

From the manual The Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith:

Joseph Smith taught the following in April 1843, later re-

corded in Doctrine and Covenants 130:22:

[volgadon]

Names of philosophers? And what was it that happened to Philo?

Philo died. Many years ago. =) I was refering to Philo's views that although gentiles falsely worship beings they have themselves created, one shouldn't speak evil of those gods because they share the same title as the true god.

Names? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Xenophanes...

[volgadon]

Judah Goldin has the following to say in an article entitled

[TAO]

From the Trinitarian perspective, God exists as three persons that are one in substance. Not that they have the same kind of substance, but that they are one in substance- this is the difference between homoiousios and homoousios. Nicea, 325.

Substance is such a vague word, that it is. It does not have clear meaning. It does not say whether it means spirit, or glory, for the answers are different. This is why so many people struggle with defining trinitarianism. That's why we as LDS prefer to use other words over substance - because they portray better what is meant.

Thank you for explaining this. Can you direct me to some sort of reference that is comparable to the one I made with "Nicea, 325"? Something like "D&C, page and paragraph"? Unless there's a different resource I should look at. Anything that lets me see when and where this LDS POV was formed and became official doctrine would be great. Thanks!

To be quite honest, nobody knows when it became doctrine - not all things were revealed at the beginning that were known beforehand by Joseph. We know that he knew about it as of 1843 (D&C 130:22), but he very well could have possibly known such before hand. I do not know if Joseph knew at the first vision that the Father had a physical body or not (they are rather similar until you actually try to touch it), but by 1843, it appears he did.

Ok, thanks for that explanation.

No prob =).

"in the law"? In Judaic terms, "the law" is synonymous with "the Torah." Is that what you meant?

I mean the words of the book, and the words of their prophets, as they had at the time... some things have been taken out, I think.

Long as you're not monotheistic, I can't imagine that God would be inherent to one person. Thanks for your explanation. However, in more common usage, "God" is a title for anything or anyone that you want to call "God," regardless of whether you worship it or not. Thus, if you call someone "God," our understanding is that you call him/it "God" because you believe he/it is a God. We don't care if you worship it or not- if you call it a God, you do so because you think it's a God.

If there is any kind of misunderstanding, I would suggest that you not refer to people or things as "God" if you don't really believe you're talking about something that is a "God." On the other hand, if you do believe something or someone is in fact a God, go ahead and refer to him/it as "God." Then your words will match your beliefs and everyone will know exactly what you mean.

I already do this ;-).

Thanks again for your explanations. I realize it's not as different from Trinitarianism as it could be, and there are a lot of descriptions of God that are quite a bit further away from what was defined at Nicea. However, I also think there are at least a half-dozen explanations that are more similar than what you've got that were formally declared as heresy, and while nothing that was exactly like the LDS idea went before any of the ecumenical councils, I don't think it would have stood a chance.

Thus why we believe the Nicean Council choice wasn't inspired by God - that is that the part that was inspired by God wasn't picked (there were several ideologies presented at Nicea, and there was not universal agreement on their statement), and the church would be corrupted from what Christ's intended meaning was.

Again, substance, I think, would be the point of major debate. If substance means glory - then LDS are Trinitarian. If substance means soul - then LDS are not. It's a weird way it works, that it is XD.

But, again, as USU says, being Trinitarian doesn't really matter to us - we shall go wherever the Lord God wills us go, whether it be together, with others, or alone, on a path not crowded.

[rongo]

Isaiah 40-46 need to be taken together as an organic whole. Isaiah is railing against the idolatry that had crept in to Israelite religion via syncretism, and is not commenting on the concept of whether God had a father, etc. In chapter 40, he asks the oft-repeated central question to idolatrous Israel:

"To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One"

and compares "the Holy One" to the clumsy gods men fashion to worship:

19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains.

20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved.

Immediately following one of the "money quotes" people use to try to show that Isaiah was contradicting Mormon theology (Isaiah 44:8: "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any"), Isaiah launches forth into a lengthy expansion on this description of syncretic idolatry:

9 They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.

10 Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?

11 Behold, all his fellows shall be ashamed: and the workmen, they are of men: let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; yet they shall fear, and they shall be ashamed together.

12 The smith with the tongs both worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of his arms: yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth: he drinketh no water, and is faint.

13 The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.

14 He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it.

15 Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.

16 He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:

17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.

In this context, such emphases as "I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" (or the couple of "no god beside me" passages) are clearly meant to distinguish God from the dumb, useless idols made of wood, stone, metal, etc. Chapter 46 contains outright mockery of specific idolatrous gods ("Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth, their idols were upon the beasts, and upon the cattle: your carriages were heavy loaden; they are a burden to the weary beast. They stoop, they bow down together, they could not deliver the burden, but themselves are gone into captivity") before asking "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?" After this pot shot at Bel, chapter 46's "contradictory to Mormonism" proof-text is nestled squarely in the context of contemporary idolatry:

6 They lavish gold out of the bag, and weigh silver in the balance, and hire a goldsmith; and he maketh it a god: they fall down, yea, they worship.

7 They bear him upon the shoulder, they carry him, and set him in his place, and he standeth; from his place shall he not remove: yea, one shall cry unto him, yet can he not answer, nor save him out of his trouble.

8 Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors.

9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me

----------

People who want to use these handful of Deutero-Isaiah passages against Mormonism need to commit to the claim that Isaiah was directly and specifically referring 2700 years ago to the future rise of the Great Mormon Heresy. Since they are functionally uncomfortable with the concept of predictive prophecy in actual practice, when pinned down, I have found that they are loathe to go this far out on the limb. In other words, are these critics actually claiming that Isaiah was addressing the Great Mormon Heresy (what critics mean is the concept of God having a father, etc.), or was he addressing idolatry in contemporary Israel at that time?

[Vance]

From the Trinitarian perspective, God exists as three persons that are one in substance.

Well, THAT isn't found in the Bible.

Not that they have the same kind of substance, but that they are one in substance- this is the difference between homoiousios and homoousios. Nicea, 325.

And THAT isn't found in the Bible either.

And, THREE persons in ONE being isn't strictly monotheism either.

Thanks again for your explanations. I realize it's not as different from Trinitarianism as it could be, and there are a lot of descriptions of God that are quite a bit further away from what was defined at Nicea.

The LDS concept is more of a social trinity, three separate and distinct divine beings united in purpose, love and perfection.

However, I also think there are at least a half-dozen explanations that are more similar than what you've got that were formally declared as heresy, and while nothing that was exactly like the LDS idea went before any of the ecumenical councils, I don't think it would have stood a chance.

And I should care because?

It is rather clear that those councils weren't guided by revelation from God but by politics and the Hellenised philosophies of men.

[Magyar]

Sadly, the OP seems to be an attempt to dress up a familiar old anti-Mormon proof-text, a misunderstanding of Isaiah, in new clothes. Nothing new to see here, folks.

[Vance]

Sadly, the OP seems to be an attempt to dress up a familiar old anti-Mormon proof-text, a misunderstanding of Isaiah, in new clothes. Nothing new to see here, folks.

It does have that, "I have a sincere question; why are you Mormons heretics because you disagree with my interpretation of _____, which is the ONLY possible interpretation?" flavor to it.

[USU78]

It does have that, "I have a sincere question; why are you Mormons heretics because you disagree with my interpretation of _____, which is the ONLY possible interpretation?" flavor to it.

There's this as well: Just what does the handle mean? Not that the actual discussion hasn't been relatively friendly. We've got to give the OP points for that.

[LDS Guy 1986]

But then that changed. In kind of a big way. YHWH did make it unmistakably, undeniably, indisputably crystal clear that not only is He the only God that His people should worship, but He is the only God that exists. When God did that, Judaism became strictly monotheistic because YHWH made it so. Ever since God did that, Jews no longer turned to other gods and worshiped them. How could they?

Yeah, um the books of the various OT prophets are all telling how the Jews are going to be afflicted and scattered and there nation destroyed because the followed other Gods after the things you speak of were revealed to them. So they didn't become monotheistic since they still continued to follow after other Gods and even rejected the Son of God foretold to them when he walked the Earth.

I do agree that some time after the OT Judah leaves its the roots of the Bible and adopts Monotheism, the Old Testament is Henotheistic though. It continuously says there is not Gods before me, not there is not gods except me, again implying that there is other gods out there but that they are not the One True God Elohim or his son Jehovah (or Yahweh). When this change happens and why, I don't think anyone really knows. Maybe some Jewish travelers heard the same Greek philosophy that Constantine and the RCC used to say there is only one God, and started preaching that before the time of Christ.

The changes from the truth of the scriptures is not truth though, the scriptures are truth.