Heavenly Mother, Exaltation, And The Oneness Of The Godhead

[wenglund]

In his recent blog entry responding to Ben Witherington, Bill Hamblin states that "Mormons believe that the Trinity is of one will." This leads me to ask some questions. I really don't know just how Mormons might answer.

First, where does Heavenly Mother fit into this explanation of the Trinity? I understand that she is not a member of the Godhead according to LDS doctrine. But wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that she, as an exalted being and the wife of Heavenly Father, would be "one will" with Heavenly Father? If so, would not her "oneness" with the Father be the same as the oneness that defines the unity of the Godhead? And if so, why isn't she by definition then a member of the Godhead?

"Oneness" is an attribute of godliness (deification). It, therefore, is an attribute of the Godhead (which is comprised of godliness), though it (oneness or godliness) isn't restricted to the Godhead. Since mother in heaven is presumably godly, and has been deified as a goddess, then she is "of one will" with the Godhead, though not a member of the Godhead.

Thanks. -Wade Englund-

Edited August 30, 2012 by wenglund

[CV75]

"Oneness" is an attribute of godliness (deification). It, therefore, is an attribute of the Godhead (which is comprised of godliness), though it (oneness or godliness) isn't restricted to the Godhead. Since mother in heaven is presumably godly, and has been deified as a goddess, then she is "of one will" with the Godhead, though not a member of the Godhead.

Thanks. -Wade Englund-

This also speaks to the use of the definiitons of the term "Godhead" as a condition ("godliness") and as an organizational unit / governing council ("the Godhead").

We can be one with God, through grace, in our "godliness" or in "Godliness" but are not one in membership with "the" Godhead consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Heavenly Mother of course is one with God in Godliness and also in some other Godhead unit, or one that has not yet been specifically articulated in scriptural text.

[wenglund]

We can be one with God, through grace, in our "godliness" or in "Godliness" but are not one in membership with "the" Godhead consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Exactly.

However, not everyone is prepared or meant to understand this at this time. So, we will likely continue to get these kinds of questions and objections raised by Rob.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 31, 2012 by wenglund

[Vookman]

I sort of look at the whole Mother in Heaven question the way the original Hebrews did. She was there. She was divine. She was God's wife, but she did not determine the course, commandments or doctrine of Israel, even though they revered her. She was not considered one of the active guardians of the world, as God's son Yahweh was (Deut 32:7-9). But they revered her, some even worshipped her, but she was not considered "in charge".

At least, that is what archaeology tell us, which is pretty close to LDS doctrine, and miles from Trinitarians.

[wenglund]

[delete dup]

Edited August 31, 2012 by wenglund

[EastPark06]

In his recent blog entry responding to Ben Witherington, Bill Hamblin states that "Mormons believe that the Trinity is of one will." This leads me to ask some questions. I really don't know just how Mormons might answer.

First, where does Heavenly Mother fit into this explanation of the Trinity? I understand that she is not a member of the Godhead according to LDS doctrine. But wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that she, as an exalted being and the wife of Heavenly Father, would be "one will" with Heavenly Father? If so, would not her "oneness" with the Father be the same as the oneness that defines the unity of the Godhead? And if so, why isn't she by definition then a member of the Godhead?

For that matter, I am having trouble putting the following claims together:

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead.

2. The Godhead is one in the sense that its members are of one will with each other.

3. Exalted humans can never become members of the Godhead.

4. Exalted humans can become one with the Father and the Son, in just the same way as the Father and the Son are one with each other.

Since the Father and the Son are members of the Godhead (from #1), claims #3 and #4 appear to conflict with each other. This apparent incoherence is confirmed by claim #2, since the point of that claim seems to be that humans can attain the same oneness of will with each other and with the Father and the Son that the members of the Godhead have with each other.

Its important to note that although it is true that the members of the Godhead are one in purpose, it does not mean that all those that are also unified in that same purpose MUST be a member of the Godhead as well. I think of the Godhead as a calling, much like was described in the Stake Presidency example.

[Vance]

First, where does Heavenly Mother fit into this explanation of the Trinity?

She doesn't.

I understand that she is not a member of the Godhead according to LDS doctrine.

True.

But wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that she, as an exalted being and the wife of Heavenly Father, would be "one will" with Heavenly Father?

Yes.

If so, would not her "oneness" with the Father be the same as the oneness that defines the unity of the Godhead?

The unity of the Godhead is more than the unity that Heavenly Mother has with Heavenly Father.

And if so, why isn't she by definition then a member of the Godhead?

Answered.

For that matter, I am having trouble putting the following claims together:

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead.

True.

2. The Godhead is one in the sense that its members are of one will with each other.

That is one sense that they are one.

3. Exalted humans can never become members of the Godhead.

True.

4. Exalted humans can become one with the Father and the Son, in just the same way as the Father and the Son are one with each other.

True.

Since the Father and the Son are members of the Godhead (from #1), claims #3 and #4 appear to conflict with each other.

Only to the unenlightened mind.

This apparent incoherence is confirmed by claim #2, since the point of that claim seems to be that humans can attain the same oneness of will with each other and with the Father and the Son that the members of the Godhead have with each other.

Faulty logic.

[Grundelwalken]

"One" is one.

Don't let this guy confuse you by dividing one into a hundred different segments. It says we will be ONE and that is what it means. One this way and one that way? That is not ONE.

Read John 17- it says ONE. That's it.

He can't even explain how his Trinity is "One" and now he is trying to confuse you into explaining and slicing and dicing what he cannot explain himself.

Just ignore it.

MFB, thanks for this. I get so frustrated when Rob comes here, trolling for 'converts' and distorting beliefs. Everyone needs to take a step back and let him have his fun in hopes he might just go away. MW

[mfbukowski]

MFB, thanks for this. I get so frustrated when Rob comes here, trolling for 'converts' and distorting beliefs. Everyone needs to take a step back and let him have his fun in hopes he might just go away. MW

No, he isn't trolling for converts- he is trolling for ways he can criticize us more efficiently and improve his website. It is quite clear to me. He will probably CFR me for this- that is the usual pattern.

[jwhitlock]

No, he isn't trolling for converts- he is trolling for ways he can criticize us more efficiently and improve his website. It is quite clear to me. He will probably CFR me for this- that is the usual pattern.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

[Rob Bowman]

Hmm. On the one hand, if I don't read LDS apologetic literature, discuss Mormon claims and beliefs with Mormons on forums like this one, and publish material critical of Mormonism, you will condemn me for failing to do due diligence in engaging what Mormons say they believe and the reasons Mormons give in support of their beliefs.

On the other hand, if I do read LDS apologetic literature, discuss Mormon claims and beliefs with Mormons on forums like this one, and publish material critical of Mormonism that engages what Mormons say they believe and the reasons they give in support of their beliefs, you will condemn me for doing this due diligence only so that my criticisms of Mormonism will be improved.

Obviously, nothing I do can possibly please you, short of shutting up.

Don't hold your breath.

[mfbukowski]

Hmm. On the one hand, if I don't read LDS apologetic literature, discuss Mormon claims and beliefs with Mormons on forums like this one, and publish material critical of Mormonism, you will condemn me for failing to do due diligence in engaging what Mormons say they believe and the reasons Mormons give in support of their beliefs.

On the other hand, if I do read LDS apologetic literature, discuss Mormon claims and beliefs with Mormons on forums like this one, and publish material critical of Mormonism that engages what Mormons say they believe and the reasons they give in support of their beliefs, you will condemn me for doing this due diligence only so that my criticisms of Mormonism will be improved.

Obviously, nothing I do can possibly please you, short of shutting up.

Don't hold your breath.

The common denominator is clearly "publishing material critical to Mormonism" which means of course you do not even pretend to have an open mind.

Either way you see it, you are here to get material to continuing publishing material critical to Mormonism, which is precisely what I said your motivation was.

Thanks for making it so abundantly clear in so few words.

And no, I am not holding my breath.

Hey, everybody has to make a living.

Edited August 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Now we don't even have to guess about it. He has said it very clearly. Making a fair minded assessment is not even part of his goal.

[Rob Bowman]

Bukowski wrote:

The common denominator is clearly "publishing material critical to Mormonism" which means of course you do not even pretend to have an open mind.

Now we don't even have to guess about it. He has said it very clearly. Making a fair minded assessment is not even part of his goal.

In other words, if anyone dares to criticize anything about Mormonism, a priori he cannot possibly have an open mind or be making a fair-minded assessment, or even be trying to be open-minded or fair-minded. He must be closed-minded and prejudiced.

That claim about all critics is not exactly open-minded or fair-minded, is it?

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski wrote:

In other words, if anyone dares to criticize anything about Mormonism, a priori he cannot possibly have an open mind or be making a fair-minded assessment, or even be trying to be open-minded or fair-minded. He must be closed-minded and prejudiced.

That claim about all critics is not exactly open-minded or fair-minded, is it?

LOL you are actually pretty funny- you know?

That bomb is a smoke bomb but anyone can see right through it. For one thing- it was not even about "all critics"- it just shows how you distort everything! You are really showing your true colors today!!

Read what I actually said and what you actually said. YOU said that you only had two options- criticizing Mormonism with research (effectively) or criticizing Mormonism without research and thus you couldn't win.

The option of NOT criticizing Mormonism wasn't even stated.

And while we are tossing CFR's around, CFR that I said ANYTHING about "all critics". Produce the reference or retract it.