Question For Evangelicals On The Trinity

[cdowis]

OK, I will play. I think in one sense we are not absolutely perfect until after this life. However in LDS theology, when we take the sacrament we renew our covenants and thus are washed again.

I have never heard that expressed anywhere. Can you give us a reference, besides the obvious that we are renewing our covenant.

[cdowis]

There are several aspects of this doctine that I did not touch on.

For example, it is possible to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise in this life, where our covenants are justified, or "guaranteed", but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

In any case, it gives our answer to the question of the necessity of baptism, including work done in the temple. Christ told us on several occasions that we cannot enter the kingdom of God without baptism.

Now one can go to "heaven" without making these covenants through the power of the priesthood, of course. That is the Terrestial Kingdom. They live in the presence of Christ only. But, since many believe that the Father and Son are "one substance", I suppose it won't matter to them.

Edited August 5, 2011 by cdowis

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have never heard that expressed anywhere. Can you give us a reference, besides the obvious that we are renewing our covenant.

Hmmmm, I thought this was standard LDS theology. I thought sacrament was for renewing our baptismal covenants. ANd that we are indeed renewed just as we were at baptism. And thus "washed again".

Edited August 5, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Storm Rider]

Hmmmm, I thought this was standard LDS theology. I thought sacrament was for renewing our baptismal covenants. ANd that we are indeed renewed just as we were at baptism. And thus "washed again".

Agreed, it is standard. The purpose of weekly repentance is to stay pure, we then partake of the Sacrament to renew our covenants. Without repenting we are not prepared to fully partake of the Sacrament.

[zerinus]

Hmmmm, I thought this was standard LDS theology. I thought sacrament was for renewing our baptismal covenants. ANd that we are indeed renewed just as we were at baptism. And thus "washed again".

I don't think it works quite like that actually. If we sin, then we become unworthy to partake of the Sacrament, and we need to confess and repent until we become worthy. It is the process of repentance that makes us clean and worthy again. If we haven't sinned, then we have nothing to repent of, and partaking of the Sacrament cannot cleanse us of any sins if we haven't committed any.

Edited August 5, 2011 by zerinus

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't think it works quite like that actually. If we sin, then we become unworthy to partake of the Sacrament, and we need to confess and repent until we become worthy. It is the process of repentance that makes us clean and worthy again. If we haven't sinned, then we have nothing to repent of, and partaking of the Sacrament cannot cleanse us of any sins if we haven't committed any.

That is one way to look at it. Similarly what would be the point of baptism? We cannot be baptized until we repent. Yet we are told that baptism is for the remission of sins and that our sins are washed away at baptism. How could sins be washed away if we already repented of them?

[Rob Bowman]

How quickly everyone abandoned John 17 when it no longer fit the paradigm.

The claim was confidently made that Mormons believe John 17:20-23, and by implication that evangelicals don't. That is simply not true. When I asked for clarification as to when the oneness of which this passage speaks will be accomplished, no one paid any attention to John 17 and instead offered all sorts of theological ruminations that don't address what the text says.

John 17:20-23 is not about becoming gods in the celestial kingdom. It is not about what we can become after this life. It is about the unity that Jesus prayed that his disciples would exhibit in this mortal life so that, as Jesus explicitly, says, the world may observe our loving unity and know that the Father sent Jesus. If we have to wait until arriving at the celestial kingdom to attain the unity of which Jesus spoke, it won't help the world know anything about Jesus.

This oneness of which Jesus spoke in John 17 is not and cannot be the same oneness as when, for example, the Book of Mormon says that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God." Jesus was not praying that we may be one God just as he and the Father are one God. Therefore, if the Father and the Son are one God, this must mean something different (even if related in some way) to what Jesus means when he prays that we may be "one" so that the world may know that the Father sent him.

[zerinus]

How quickly everyone abandoned John 17 when it no longer fit the paradigm.

The claim was confidently made that Mormons believe John 17:20-23, and by implication that evangelicals don't. That is simply not true. When I asked for clarification as to when the oneness of which this passage speaks will be accomplished, no one paid any attention to John 17 and instead offered all sorts of theological ruminations that don't address what the text says.

John 17:20-23 is not about becoming gods in the celestial kingdom. It is not about what we can become after this life. It is about the unity that Jesus prayed that his disciples would exhibit in this mortal life so that, as Jesus explicitly, says, the world may observe our loving unity and know that the Father sent Jesus. If we have to wait until arriving at the celestial kingdom to attain the unity of which Jesus spoke, it won't help the world know anything about Jesus.

This oneness of which Jesus spoke in John 17 is not and cannot be the same oneness as when, for example, the Book of Mormon says that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God." Jesus was not praying that we may be one God just as he and the Father are one God. Therefore, if the Father and the Son are one God, this must mean something different (even if related in some way) to what Jesus means when he prays that we may be "one" so that the world may know that the Father sent him.

Don't try to change the subject. Just because other people want to diverge from the OP to unrelated topics, I suggest you don't try to use that as a cover to escape the thread of the discussion running from the PO. Please continue the discussion form post #24.

[zerinus]

That is one way to look at it. Similarly what would be the point of baptism? We cannot be baptized until we repent. Yet we are told that baptism is for the remission of sins and that our sins are washed away at baptism. How could sins be washed away if we already repented of them?

Baptism and the Sacrament are two different ordinances. Baptism is a one-off ordinance that happens once, and it is specifically "for the remission of sins". When we are baptized we acknowledge that we have sinned and have repented of them, and are accepting that ordinance as a sign of our faith and repentance. The Sacrament is not "for the remission of sins," like baptism is. We partake of the Sacrament when we haven't sinned. In fact, we are not supposed to partake of the Sacrament if we have sinned! The two ordinances are simply not comparable in that way. The Sacrament is specifically for the remembrance of Jesus, not for the remission of sins.

Edited August 5, 2011 by zerinus

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How quickly everyone abandoned John 17 when it no longer fit the paradigm.

Who abandoned it? This appears to be a red herring.

The claim was confidently made that Mormons believe John 17:20-23, and by implication that evangelicals don't. That is simply not true.

Sigh, the claim had to do more with the Trinity than any thing else. We are to be one as Jesus and God teh Father are one. Do you not see how that cuts the classic view of the creeds?

When I asked for clarification as to when the oneness of which this passage speaks will be accomplished, no one paid any attention to John 17 and instead offered all sorts of theological ruminations that don't address what the text says.

The question of "when the oneness" happens is totally irrelevant to the idea of what that oneness is. I am afraid (I am sorry but now I am in debate mode) that your postistion that "The Father and Son and HG are one being or one in essence" is not supported by the text. Are we all to become one in essence with the Father? Will we all become one God with the Father? The text tells us that we will become one with Christ as he is one with the Father.

John 17:20-23 is not about becoming gods in the celestial kingdom. It is not about what we can become after this life. It is about the unity that Jesus prayed that his disciples would exhibit in this mortal life so that, as Jesus explicitly, says, the world may observe our loving unity and know that the Father sent Jesus. If we have to wait until arriving at the celestial kingdom to attain the unity of which Jesus spoke, it won't help the world know anything about Jesus.

Actually this is not an "either or" as you posit. It is both. That is what I have tried to tell you but you ignored it. We are to be one with Christ in the exact same way Christ is one with the Father. What does that entail Rob?

This oneness of which Jesus spoke in John 17 is not and cannot be the same oneness as when, for example, the Book of Mormon says that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God." Jesus was not praying that we may be one God just as he and the Father are one God. Therefore, if the Father and the Son are one God, this must mean something different (even if related in some way) to what Jesus means when he prays that we may be "one" so that the world may know that the Father sent him.

See, this is exactly how you should be interpreting it, that we all should become one God with the Father. Your theology should demand that we should be One God with the Father as a God because the text tells us to be one with Christ as he is One with the Father. I see you have abandoned that line of thinking. As you should. Just finish connecting the dots.

The text does not ever say :"Therefore, if the Father and the Son are one God, this must mean something different" You are adding to the word. It does not mean that "We are to be one with Christ but not in a godly sense". The logical extension is that We are to be one with Christ just as he is one with teh Father. What does that mean to you? You have simply deflected this issue with an assertion that "Therefore, if the Father and the Son are one God, this must mean something different" It must mean something different because it totally undermines your position on the Trinity. But there is absolutely no denying what the text says. And I think this hoopla about "being perfect in one" is a total deflection.

Anyway Rob, I hope you have a great weekend and don't let that heat beat you to much.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Baptism and the Sacrament are two different ordinances. Baptism is a one-off ordinance that happens once, and it is specifically "for the remission of sins". When we are baptized we acknowledge that we have sinned and have repented of them, and are accepting that ordinance as a sign of our faith and repentance. The Sacrament is not "for the remission of sins," like baptism is. We partake of the Sacrament when we haven't sinned. In fact, we are not supposed to partake of the Sacrament if we have sinned! The two ordinances are simply not comparable in that way. The Sacrament is specifically for the remembrance of Jesus, not for the remission of sins.

I think you missed my point. Oh well. Does no one else see my point to Zerinus? Am I going insane here? Maybe? I am talking to myself now.

I think you totally skirted the issue I brought up. Forget about the Sacrament right now. If Baptism is for the remission of sins and we are washed away and spotless at the time of Baptism and we must repent and become worthy before baptism how does baptism wash away our sins if the already repented of them prior?

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Now if we bring back the Sacrament, this is what you claimed originally "If we sin, then we become unworthy to partake of the Sacrament, and we need to confess and repent until we become worthy. It is the process of repentance that makes us clean and worthy again. If we haven't sinned, then we have nothing to repent of, and partaking of the Sacrament cannot cleanse us of any sins if we haven't committed any."

Sacrament is a renewal of the baptismal covenant. In a certain sense it is just as if we had been baptized again. That is what it means to renew it. Our sins are washed away again just as they were at baptism. The actual act helps in this cleansing of our sins. Just as baptism washes away our sins. If you wish to have the last word and disagree with me I don't care. I will not be responding to you about this again.

[cdowis]

My position regarding interpretation of John 17 is very simple:

The historic Christian church has replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and scholars. I think that pretty much says it all.

(Of course, they say we are lead by a false prophet.)

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Don't try to change the subject. Just because other people want to diverge from the OP to unrelated topics, I suggest you don't try to use that as a cover to escape the thread of the discussion running from the PO. Please continue the discussion form post #24.

You posted in this thread on this "unrelated topic" yourself in post #17 and post #24. Your comment is unjustified, hypocritical, and offensive.

I have posted direct responses to you five times already in this thread (six counting this post). You keep claiming I haven't answered, that I am obfuscating, that I am trying to escape, etc. I've had enough of you. I'm running for cover and escaping from this verbal harassment. Feel free to crow.

[zerinus]

I think you missed my point. Oh well. Does no one else see my point to Zerinus? Am I going insane here? Maybe? I am talking to myself now.

I think you totally skirted the issue I brought up. Forget about the Sacrament right now. If Baptism is for the remission of sins and we are washed away and spotless at the time of Baptism and we must repent and become worthy before baptism how does baptism wash away our sins if the already repented of them prior?

In a sense it doesn't:

D&C 20

:

37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have

received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins,

shall be received by baptism into his church.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I just did!

Now if we bring back the Sacrament, this is what you claimed originally "If we sin, then we become unworthy to partake of the Sacrament, and we need to confess and repent until we become worthy. It is the process of repentance that makes us clean and worthy again. If we haven't sinned, then we have nothing to repent of, and partaking of the Sacrament cannot cleanse us of any sins if we haven't committed any."

Sacrament is a renewal of the baptismal covenant. In a certain sense it is just as if we had been baptized again. That is what it means to renew it. Our sins are washed away again just as they were at baptism. The actual act helps in this cleansing of our sins. Just as baptism washes away our sins. If you wish to have the last word and disagree with me I don't care. I will not be responding to you about this again.

If you don't intend to continue the discussion, why bother to reply at all? But since you have replied, that invites a reply from me, like it or not.

My answer to that is, why then is it that we are commanded not to partake of the Sacrament if we have sinned, until we repent? (D&C 46:4.)

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Who abandoned it [John 17:20-23]? This appears to be a red herring.

I said that because none of the responses actually did anything to connect those responses to the passage.

You wrote:

Sigh, the claim had to do more with the Trinity than any thing else. We are to be one as Jesus and God teh Father are one. Do you not see how that cuts the classic view of the creeds?

No, I don't, unless someone wishes to claim that we are to be one in every sense in which the Father and the Son are one. And you simply cannot make that claim. You know full well that we are not going to be "one God." Therefore, there is a sense in which the Father and the Son are one that does not and never will apply to us.

You wrote:

The question of "when the oneness" happens is totally irrelevant to the idea of what that oneness is. I am afraid (I am sorry but now I am in debate mode) that your postistion that "The Father and Son and HG are one being or one in essence" is not supported by the text. Are we all to become one in essence with the Father? Will we all become one God with the Father? The text tells us that we will become one with Christ as he is one with the Father.

Debate mode is fine; you are one of the most respectful Mormons in this forum even when you most strongly disagree with me.

Mola, I'm mystified how to make this clearer. If the oneness of John 17:20-23 is achievable by mortals, then it cannot refer to a oneness that the Father and the Son have by virtue of their exaltation to Godhood, because none of us will attain that exaltation while mortals. So if Jesus is praying for us to be one while mortal, he is not referring to a oneness that is attainable only by exalted beings.

When you ask rhetorically if we are to become one in essence with the Father or one God with the Father, you are making my point. We won't ever become one with God in those senses. Yet Mormon scriptures, even more explicitly than thre Bible, affirm that the Father, Son, and holy Ghost are one God. You don't understand this as one in essence, but no matter. Whatever you think it means, it is a oneness that we will not have with each other; we are not going to become one God. Therefore, there is a oneness of the Father and Son that we will not have, and John 17 simply cannot be used to negate this conclusion.

You wrote:

Actually this is not an "either or" as you posit. It is both. That is what I have tried to tell you but you ignored it. We are to be one with Christ in the exact same way Christ is one with the Father. What does that entail Rob?

Okay, maybe your debate mode has been ratcheted up an extra notch. I am not "ignoring" anything. If I missed something it was not deliberate.

Christ's disciples are to be one with each other, and with the Father and the Son, in some way that the Father and the Son were already one. But not in every way, or else we must conclude that Christ's disciples are to become one God, and that clearly is not correct. In the context of John 17, the unity that we are to share with the Father and the Son is the glory of their mutual love (17:20-26). When the world sees that Christ's disciples love one another as the Father and the Son love one another, the world will recognize that the Father sent the Son to bring us this glorious unity and love. This is the oneness that Jesus prayed for us to have. It is a unity that can be realized in this mortal life. It is a unity that can have its stated result, namely, to convince people in the world to believe in Christ.

You wrote:

See, this is exactly how you should be interpreting it, that we all should become one God with the Father. Your theology should demand that we should be One God with the Father as a God because the text tells us to be one with Christ as he is One with the Father. I see you have abandoned that line of thinking. As you should. Just finish connecting the dots.

The text does not ever say :"Therefore, if the Father and the Son are one God, this must mean something different" You are adding to the word. It does not mean that "We are to be one with Christ but not in a godly sense". The logical extension is that We are to be one with Christ just as he is one with teh Father. What does that mean to you? You have simply deflected this issue with an assertion that "Therefore, if the Father and the Son are one God, this must mean something different" It must mean something different because it totally undermines your position on the Trinity. But there is absolutely no denying what the text says. And I think this hoopla about "being perfect in one" is a total deflection.

Do you believe that the Father and the Son are "one God"? If so, then you have two choices. (a) We can also become "one God' with them and with each other. (b) John 17:20-23 does not mean that we will be one with the Father and the Son in every sense in which they are one.

If you do not believe that the Father and the Son are "one God," then, as Ricky Ricardo would say, you've got some 'splaining to do, since this is explicitly affirmed in the LDS scriptures.

[zerinus]

You posted in this thread on this "unrelated topic" yourself in post #17 and post #24. Your comment is unjustified, hypocritical, and offensive.

I have posted direct responses to you five times already in this thread (six counting this post). You keep claiming I haven't answered, that I am obfuscating, that I am trying to escape, etc. I've had enough of you. I'm running for cover and escaping from this verbal harassment. Feel free to crow.

LOL! I knew that was coming sooner or later. The question remains open:

Is Jehovah a Person? Yes or No? If No, why not?

[BCSpace]

Evangelicals define the Trinity as three Persons in one God. The “three Persons” are identified as the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. The question I have for the Evangelicals is this: Is the one God (that is composed of the “three Persons”) Himself/Itself a Person or not?

"God" is an abstraction in the trinity heresy. It's a concept belonging to the Three Persons, but itself is not a Person or a Being.

An analogy could be a married couple (the trinity): The husband and wife are the Persons (only two in the marriage analogy, obviously three in the trinity). The concept of marriage is God. The marriage license is perhaps the nearest trinitarian analogy to the LDS Priesthood; it gives the married couple power and authority to act and be benefited as a married couple.

[zerinus]

"God" is an abstraction in the trinity heresy. It's a concept belonging to the Three Persons, but itself is not a Person or a Being.

Well if that is what they believe, I would like them to come out in the open and say so unequivocally, because then I have a follow-up question to ask. You can't act as a substitute for them for that purpose unfortunately.

[BCSpace]

The more I think about it, the more I come to realize that trinitarians are closet atheists because God doesn't exist in any real way for them. It's just an abstraction.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have never heard that expressed anywhere. Can you give us a reference, besides the obvious that we are renewing our covenant.

Sorry I never gave you a reference.

Though the words "Washed" are not used, the idea that we gain forgiveness from the sacrament is.

http://lds.org/ensign/1989/05/the-beauty-and-importance-of-the-sacrament?lang=eng&query=sacrament+forgiveness

Do you remember the feeling you had when you were baptized—that sweet, clean feeling of a pure soul, having been forgiven, washed clean through the merits of the Savior? If we partake of the sacrament worthily, we can feel that way regularly, for we renew that covenant, which includes his forgiveness.

Here is another.

http://lds.org/ensign/2001/09/sacrament-meeting-and-the-sacrament?lang=eng&query=sacrament+forgiveness

When we partake of the sacrament with a sincere heart, with real intent, forsaking our sins, and renewing our commitment to God, the Lord provides a way whereby sins can be forgiven.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[zerinus]

How quickly everyone abandoned John 17 when it no longer fit the paradigm.

The claim was confidently made that Mormons believe John 17:20-23, and by implication that evangelicals don't. That is simply not true. When I asked for clarification as to when the oneness of which this passage speaks will be accomplished, no one paid any attention to John 17 and instead offered all sorts of theological ruminations that don't address what the text says.

John 17:20-23 is not about becoming gods in the celestial kingdom. It is not about what we can become after this life. It is about the unity that Jesus prayed that his disciples would exhibit in this mortal life so that, as Jesus explicitly, says, the world may observe our loving unity and know that the Father sent Jesus. If we have to wait until arriving at the celestial kingdom to attain the unity of which Jesus spoke, it won't help the world know anything about Jesus.

This oneness of which Jesus spoke in John 17 is not and cannot be the same oneness as when, for example, the Book of Mormon says that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God." Jesus was not praying that we may be one God just as he and the Father are one God. Therefore, if the Father and the Son are one God, this must mean something different (even if related in some way) to what Jesus means when he prays that we may be "one" so that the world may know that the Father sent him.

I answered that question for you in post #17 Jesus did not achieve perfection all at once, as Paul said, but by a gradual process until He was perfected.

John 17:20-23 is as follows:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That

they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us:

that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them;

that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 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.

My reading of that passage is that the unity that we are to receive with the Father and the Son is identical to the unity that the Father and the Son enjoy, no difference. But we cannot achieve it all at once, any more than Jesus did (in mortality). We have to progress towards it as He did. But when we achieve it to perfectness (in the resurrection, as Jesus did), then our union with them will be as perfect and complete as the union of the Father and the Son now is. That is how I understand those verses. You need to explain if you disagree.

Edited August 5, 2011 by zerinus

[Ahab]

The more I think about it, the more I come to realize that trinitarians are closet atheists because God doesn't exist in any real way for them. It's just an abstraction.

Atheists say they don't believe in any type of God, not even with God defined as the most supreme form of life in all of existence.

Trinitarians, like the ones you are thinking about, say they do believe in God but that God doesn't exist in space or time nor does that God have any shape or form.

There is a difference there, so I don't equate atheists with those types of Trinitarians.

And btw, we LDS are a kind of a Trinitarian, ourselves, and I don't believe in relinquishing the term "Trinitarian" to those who don't really know God.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The more I think about it, the more I come to realize that trinitarians are closet atheists because God doesn't exist in any real way for them. It's just an abstraction.

I reject such a notion. I think they view God as very real. Were the break down comes is that there is no way to explain their view in a logical manner, to me that is.

[zerinus]

No, I don't, unless someone wishes to claim that we are to be one in every sense in which the Father and the Son are one.

Yes, absolutely. That is my reading of John 17:20-23. See above.

And you simply cannot make that claim. You know full well that we are not going to be "one God." Therefore, there is a sense in which the Father and the Son are one that does not and never will apply to us.

That is not true, nor does it agree with John 17:20-23. Exaltation in Mormonism (as in early Christianity) means deification; and that means becoming gods, and hence “one with the Father and the son”.

Mola, I'm mystified how to make this clearer. If the oneness of John 17:20-23 is achievable by mortals, then it cannot refer to a oneness that the Father and the Son have by virtue of their exaltation to Godhood, because none of us will attain that exaltation while mortals.

We are not required to, any more than Jesus needed to. He progressed towards that perfection (in mortality), as Paul taught; and so will we.

So if Jesus is praying for us to be one while mortal, he is not referring to a oneness that is attainable only by exalted beings.

The process begins in mortality, and ends in the resurrection; as it did with Jesus. The only difference is that He did it a lot quicker than we will be able to. But the end result will be the same for all.

When you ask rhetorically if we are to become one in essence with the Father or one God with the Father, you are making my point. We won't ever become one with God in those senses.

Nobody is “one” in that sense. That is a false doctrine of Trinitarianism. The Father and the Son are not; therefore neither will we ever be or need to be.

Yet Mormon scriptures, even more explicitly than thre Bible, affirm that the Father, Son, and holy Ghost are one God. You don't understand this as one in essence, but no matter. Whatever you think it means, it is a oneness that we will not have with each other; we are not going to become one God. Therefore, there is a oneness of the Father and Son that we will not have, and John 17 simply cannot be used to negate this conclusion.

Sorry Rob, that is exactly what John 17 is saying. There is no room for misunderstanding there.

Christ's disciples are to be one with each other, and with the Father and the Son, in some way that the Father and the Son were already one.

Not true! John 17 says they will be “one” in every way that the Father and the Son are one!

But not in every way, or else we must conclude that Christ's disciples are to become one God, and that clearly is not correct.

Well, in a sense yes, since all true “Gods” are “one” with each other.

In the context of John 17, the unity that we are to share with the Father and the Son is the glory of their mutual love (17:20-26). When the world sees that Christ's disciples love one another as the Father and the Son love one another, the world will recognize that the Father sent the Son to bring us this glorious unity and love. This is the oneness that Jesus prayed for us to have. It is a unity that can be realized in this mortal life. It is a unity that can have its stated result, namely, to convince people in the world to believe in Christ.

That is something that you are force-reading into it. It is not how John 17 reads by itself.

Do you believe that the Father and the Son are "one God"? If so, then you have two choices. (a) We can also become "one God' with them and with each other. (b) John 17:20-23 does not mean that we will be one with the Father and the Son in every sense in which they are one.

Maybe there is a confusion here. The Father and the Son will always be above us in rank and station. We will still be worshipping them as our God (just as Jesus worshipped, and continues to worship the Father as His God), but that is a different thing from the union doctrine that we are now talking about. The Father and the Son will always be unique in that sense of the term; but the union part that we are now talking about is a different issue. That union will remain and be perfect in all respects, between us and them, just as it is between them already.

If you do not believe that the Father and the Son are "one God," then, as Ricky Ricardo would say, you've got some 'splaining to do, since this is explicitly affirmed in the LDS scriptures.

They are “one God,” as explained above.

Edited August 5, 2011 by zerinus

[cdowis]

For those who are interested, I will respond not by way of disputation but explanation and clarification.

Of course there is a special relationship between the Father and Son. He was the eldest Son, the Saviour, the one "whom (the Father) hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."

Now, in that context, we can become one with the Father in the same way that Christ and the Father are one -- perfect in one. Not "one substance", but by inheritance and responsibility. To receive all that the Father has.

Paul tells us that Christ is the heir of all things, and the disciples are joint-heirs with him. "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them". The name for this association with the Father is Patrimony, where the children can inherit, share in, and be responsible for the inheritance. Each family member is a joint-heir, and in this case, a joint-heir with Christ, receiving the same glory that the Father gave to the Son.

Each of these heirs can have a different duties, different "talents", but they are "one" in sharing responsibility for the family estate. The ten talent heir is no more responsible than the one talent heir. They share the inheritance equally. Christ explained this in several parables, especially the parable of the laborers who received the same reward, and the parable of the talents.

Finally Christ can stand in the stead of the Father, as if the Father himself were "signing the contract", so to speak, or holding the power of attorney. "If ye have seen me, you have seen the Father." But at other times he made a clear distinction between himself and the Father -- whether these teachings come from me or the Father, not my will but thine be done, after the resurrection he made it clear that he had not yet been with the Father. He came on assignment from the Father, under his instructions, and represented him as only the perfect Son could do so.

Edited August 5, 2011 by cdowis