Who Is The Biblical God?

[bubbachen]

Fellow Pilgrims, I've been watching this board for years and find that I'm in need of your help, I need the thoughts of the whole diverse lot of you guys.  I stopped attending the LDS church about two months ago because, as I told my children, Daddy needs more Jesus.  My youth consisted of Baptist and Methodist churches, and I joined the LDS church in undergraduate school after having fought against it.  I joined based on my interpretation of the New Testament and the LDS doctrine of God.  This was about 19 years ago, and it was only 1-1/2 years ago that I was emotionally able to open up and read the BOM.  And I believed the best I could.  A lot of influences have been floating through my head: George MacDonald, N.T. Wright, Tim Keller, Karl Barth, Dan Peterson and the folks at Interpreter, FARMS.  There is much to sift through, but one primary issue stands out.

 

So it's all come down to this: whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone?  I don't trust the creeds and I don't trust "modern day revelation" or modern claims of authority.  I don't trust my feelings, necessarily.  What is most biblical, A or B?  Or are there other possibilities?

 

A)  Holy Trinity.  One God in three Persons, coequal, cosubstantial, incomprehensible.  In my opinion, no good evidence for the concept of the trinity can be found in a plain, straight forward reading of the Bible.

 

B) Elohim, Yahweh, Wisdom (Holy Spirit) as distinct and separate members of the Godhead.  The Old Testament, and new, is riddled with references to El Elyon as the Most High God and Yahweh as the Son of El Elyon.  Stephen's vision refers to this idea.  In 1 Corinthians 15, God put all things under Jesus' feet, excepting God Himself, and at the end, Jesus will himself submit to God.  All the demons call Jesus Son of the Most High God. Margaret Barker's research suggests this.  Modern archaeology supports the idea that Israel worshiped Yahweh as their patron god while El Elyon was above Yahweh.  

 

I think B is the best answer, but then why do I feel I need to go elsewhere to find my Lord? When I told my bishop that Jesus is everything to me, he answered Jesus isn't everything, that His purpose is to take us to the Father, who is found in the Temple and its rites. The true goal is the Father, not Christ.  So I feel I have to leave the Lord that I know, whom I love, so that I can "progress", I just can't do it.  But scripture points that way.  

 

Any and all thoughts are well appreciated.  

 

 

 

 

[Calm]

So it's all come down to this: whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone? I don't trust the creeds and I don't trust "modern day revelation" or modern claims of authority. I don't trust my feelings, necessarily. What is most biblical, A or B? Or are there other possibilities?

 

Why do you trust the Bible?

 

I think you need to determine what standards allow you to trust before discussing what is out there to trust.

 

The Father is what is desirable in Christ and Christ is what is desirable in the Father if they are both one.  You don't need to separate them, imo.  Come unto Christ is coming unto the Father.  Seeking out our Father will lead us to his Son.

[Calm]

http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/faith-in-jesus-christ/articles/come-unto-christ

[JLHPROF]

Fellow Pilgrims, I've been watching this board for years and find that I'm in need of your help, I need the thoughts of the whole diverse lot of you guys.  I stopped attending the LDS church about two months ago because, as I told my children, Daddy needs more Jesus.  My youth consisted of Baptist and Methodist churches, and I joined the LDS church in undergraduate school after having fought against it.  I joined based on my interpretation of the New Testament and the LDS doctrine of God.  This was about 19 years ago, and it was only 1-1/2 years ago that I was emotionally able to open up and read the BOM.  And I believed the best I could.  A lot of influences have been floating through my head: George MacDonald, N.T. Wright, Tim Keller, Karl Barth, Dan Peterson and the folks at Interpreter, FARMS.  There is much to sift through, but one primary issue stands out.

 

So it's all come down to this: whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone?  I don't trust the creeds and I don't trust "modern day revelation" or modern claims of authority.  I don't trust my feelings, necessarily.  What is most biblical, A or B?  Or are there other possibilities?

 

A)  Holy Trinity.  One God in three Persons, coequal, cosubstantial, incomprehensible.  In my opinion, no good evidence for the concept of the trinity can be found in a plain, straight forward reading of the Bible.

 

B) Elohim, Yahweh, Wisdom (Holy Spirit) as distinct and separate members of the Godhead.  The Old Testament, and new, is riddled with references to El Elyon as the Most High God and Yahweh as the Son of El Elyon.  Stephen's vision refers to this idea.  In 1 Corinthians 15, God put all things under Jesus' feet, excepting God Himself, and at the end, Jesus will himself submit to God.  All the demons call Jesus Son of the Most High God. Margaret Barker's research suggests this.  Modern archaeology supports the idea that Israel worshiped Yahweh as their patron god while El Elyon was above Yahweh.  

 

I think B is the best answer, but then why do I feel I need to go elsewhere to find my Lord? When I told my bishop that Jesus is everything to me, he answered Jesus isn't everything, that His purpose is to take us to the Father, who is found in the Temple and its rites. The true goal is the Father, not Christ.  So I feel I have to leave the Lord that I know, whom I love, so that I can "progress", I just can't do it.  But scripture points that way.  

 

Any and all thoughts are well appreciated.  

 

I believe that when it comes to the Bible, we see what we are looking for, not what is actually there.  That is the real issue with needing modern revelation and the translation proviso used in the Church.

Any evangelical Christian can show Biblical scriptures and interpret them to support the Trinity.  Any reasonably competent Mormon can use Biblical scriptures and interpret them to support a separate Godhead.

 

I would like to know where you get the notion that we need to worship Christ more.  Christ himself told us to worship the Father.  We acknowledge our absolute dependence on Christ and his atonement.  We acknowledge his membership in the Godhead and his ascension to Godhood.  Christ should be everything to you, but he was sent to do the will of his Father, and told us that none is good but the Father.

I think the Mormon version of the Godhead is best represented in the Bible, but that's how I've been trained to read and interpret it.  Any EV would do so differently.  What you (and we all) sometimes need to do is turn off our traditions and try to see what was actually being said.  And then pray that we understand correctly.

[BCSpace]

When I told my bishop that Jesus is everything to me, he answered Jesus isn't everything, that His purpose is to take us to the Father, who is found in the Temple and its rites. The true goal is the Father, not Christ.  So I feel I have to leave the Lord that I know, whom I love, so that I can "progress", I just can't do it.  But scripture points that way.

 

The Bishop is right.  However, Jesus is also with the Father and we are destined, like Jesus, to sit down in his Father's throne. Revelation 3:21

 

Also, the Three are not only distinct Persons, but they are distinct Gods, Jesus and the Holy Ghost being subordinate to the Father.  Relative to the Law of Moses Jews, Jehovah (Jesus) is the only God created for therm to worship.  But now Jesus has fulfilled that law and has given us the Gospel which leads to the Father.

Edited October 17, 2013 by BCSpace

[Glenn101]

Maybe you can go back to the Bible and read how Jesus feels about His Father. The Gospel of John is a good place to start. I have a few excerpts, but I think it would be good to read more for context.

 

"John 17:3
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


John 10:29
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.


Matthew 12:50
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.


John 15:1
1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.


John 5:43
43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."

 

Jesus was here doing His Father's will. The two are one in purpose and will. We cannot truly worship the one without the other.

 

I think that is the key to a Christ centered life.

 

Glenn

[Palerider]

 

Fellow Pilgrims, I've been watching this board for years and find that I'm in need of your help, I need the thoughts of the whole diverse lot of you guys.  I stopped attending the LDS church about two months ago because, as I told my children, Daddy needs more Jesus.  My youth consisted of Baptist and Methodist churches, and I joined the LDS church in undergraduate school after having fought against it.  I joined based on my interpretation of the New Testament and the LDS doctrine of God.  This was about 19 years ago, and it was only 1-1/2 years ago that I was emotionally able to open up and read the BOM.  And I believed the best I could.  A lot of influences have been floating through my head: George MacDonald, N.T. Wright, Tim Keller, Karl Barth, Dan Peterson and the folks at Interpreter, FARMS.  There is much to sift through, but one primary issue stands out.

 

So it's all come down to this: whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone?  I don't trust the creeds and I don't trust "modern day revelation" or modern claims of authority.  I don't trust my feelings, necessarily.  What is most biblical, A or B?  Or are there other possibilities?

 

A)  Holy Trinity.  One God in three Persons, coequal, cosubstantial, incomprehensible.  In my opinion, no good evidence for the concept of the trinity can be found in a plain, straight forward reading of the Bible.

 

B) Elohim, Yahweh, Wisdom (Holy Spirit) as distinct and separate members of the Godhead.  The Old Testament, and new, is riddled with references to El Elyon as the Most High God and Yahweh as the Son of El Elyon.  Stephen's vision refers to this idea.  In 1 Corinthians 15, God put all things under Jesus' feet, excepting God Himself, and at the end, Jesus will himself submit to God.  All the demons call Jesus Son of the Most High God. Margaret Barker's research suggests this.  Modern archaeology supports the idea that Israel worshiped Yahweh as their patron god while El Elyon was above Yahweh.  

 

I think B is the best answer, but then why do I feel I need to go elsewhere to find my Lord? When I told my bishop that Jesus is everything to me, he answered Jesus isn't everything, that His purpose is to take us to the Father, who is found in the Temple and its rites. The true goal is the Father, not Christ.  So I feel I have to leave the Lord that I know, whom I love, so that I can "progress", I just can't do it.  But scripture points that way.  

 

Any and all thoughts are well appreciated.

I'm sure most here will disagree with me but when the Savior says there is one mediator between God and man, I think we should take that at face value.

The LDS faith (whether they want to admit it or not) are essentially placing themselves (the leadership along with their temple "ordinances") between man and Christ or God, take your pick.

The scriptures say that God the Father "draws" men to himself and that the avenue is Christ. "No man comes to the Father except by me".

In other words, the Father draws us to himself and he does so through Christ. So it doesn't surprise me that you feel like you "need more Jesus". The best way to know the Father is by studying the Son, who perfectly represents Him. "If you have seen me you have seen the Father".

[JLHPROF]

 I'm sure most here will disagree with me but when the Savior says there is one mediator between God and man, I think we should take that at face value.

The LDS faith (whether they want to admit it or not) are essentially placing themselves (the leadership along with their temple "ordinances") between man and Christ or God, take your pick.

The scriptures say that God the Father "draws" men to himself and that the avenue is Christ. "No man comes to the Father except by me".

In other words, the Father draws us to himself and he does so through Christ. So it doesn't surprise me that you feel like you "need more Jesus". The best way to know the Father is by studying the Son, who perfectly represents Him. "If you have seen me you have seen the Father".

 

This represents the biggest flaw I see in EV thinking...we don't need ordinances, we don't need prophets, we just have to go through Christ to get to God.  But what does that actually mean - going through Christ.  It's not simply accepting him as Lord and believing on his name because "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matt 7:21.

 

Christ tells us HOW to get to the Father through him, which is by keeping his commandments and surprise surprise, that includes ordinances:

At the very least we have Baptism, Sacraments, Administering to the Sick, and Washings - all commanded by Christ as part of his Father's will, and only those that "doeth the will of my Father" shall enter the Kingdom.

 

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..." Matthew 28:19-20

 

"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet." John 13:14

 

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Luke 22:19-20

 

"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." Matthew 10:8

[Cobalt-70]

Fellow Pilgrims, I've been watching this board for years and find that I'm in need of your help, I need the thoughts of the whole diverse lot of you guys.  I stopped attending the LDS church about two months ago because, as I told my children, Daddy needs more Jesus.  My youth consisted of Baptist and Methodist churches, and I joined the LDS church in undergraduate school after having fought against it.  I joined based on my interpretation of the New Testament and the LDS doctrine of God.  This was about 19 years ago, and it was only 1-1/2 years ago that I was emotionally able to open up and read the BOM.  And I believed the best I could.  A lot of influences have been floating through my head: George MacDonald, N.T. Wright, Tim Keller, Karl Barth, Dan Peterson and the folks at Interpreter, FARMS.  There is much to sift through, but one primary issue stands out.

 

So it's all come down to this: whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone?  I don't trust the creeds and I don't trust "modern day revelation" or modern claims of authority.  I don't trust my feelings, necessarily.  What is most biblical, A or B?  Or are there other possibilities?

 

A)  Holy Trinity.  One God in three Persons, coequal, cosubstantial, incomprehensible.  In my opinion, no good evidence for the concept of the trinity can be found in a plain, straight forward reading of the Bible.

 

B) Elohim, Yahweh, Wisdom (Holy Spirit) as distinct and separate members of the Godhead.  The Old Testament, and new, is riddled with references to El Elyon as the Most High God and Yahweh as the Son of El Elyon.  Stephen's vision refers to this idea.  In 1 Corinthians 15, God put all things under Jesus' feet, excepting God Himself, and at the end, Jesus will himself submit to God.  All the demons call Jesus Son of the Most High God. Margaret Barker's research suggests this.  Modern archaeology supports the idea that Israel worshiped Yahweh as their patron god while El Elyon was above Yahweh.  

 

I think B is the best answer, but then why do I feel I need to go elsewhere to find my Lord? When I told my bishop that Jesus is everything to me, he answered Jesus isn't everything, that His purpose is to take us to the Father, who is found in the Temple and its rites. The true goal is the Father, not Christ.  So I feel I have to leave the Lord that I know, whom I love, so that I can "progress", I just can't do it.  But scripture points that way.  

 

Any and all thoughts are well appreciated.  

 

From a historical and literary perspective, you are right that B is more biblically correct. But that doesn't necessarily make it the best answer. I don't think you need to go outside of Mormonism to explore a range of possibilities here. The Book of Mormon clearly favors A. But somehow Joseph Smith in his later years intuited something closer to B. But there is no reason why you need to choose either A or B. Choose the mythology that works best for you, and realize that there is more likely than not a place for that mythology somewhere within historical Mormonism. You don't necessarily have to listen to your bishop because he's not God, and he's not even a theologian or bible scholar.

[Stone holm]

I thought this thread was going to be slightly different in that normally in the mainline denominations you indicated there is a tendency to think of the God of the Old Testament being God theFather and the God of the New Testament as The Lord Jesus Christ because the personality projected by the two testaments are so different. However, if you realize that the OT is somewhat corrupted and you look at it through the lens of the B of M. The personality projected becomes more consistent and you come to the conclusion, I think that Christ and His Father are essentially the same...not physically which would be absurd, but in doctrine, attitude, and love.

[The Nehor]

The Father is the destination. Jesus is the path spanning all the way from hell to the Father. The Holy Ghost is the guy who tells you which way is the right way on said path so you don't have to feel stupid stopping and asking other people endlessly for directions.

[Jazzdreamer]

I would like to sort of combine a and b. this is how it was taught to me.

We believe in the holy trinity but the mormon definition differs from that of the lets say catholic definition.

Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three different and distinct beings. Personally, that's always been my viewpoint, even before I was mormon.

Now these three are also referred to as the godhead, why? Because whatever one does would not go against the other. This also makes sense.

So physically they are different and distinct beings but in the way they think, they are one, they are connected. I think the bible shows that pretty well.

[BCSpace]

I would recommend not using the word "trinity" at all in the LDS context as it implies acceptance of that doctrine.  Doesn't matter to me if an apostle does it, I think better results come from not doing it.

[Jazzdreamer]

I would recommend not using the word "trinity" at all in the LDS context as it implies acceptance of that doctrine. Doesn't matter to me if an apostle does it, I think better results come from not doing it.

I used it because it was in an LDS approved book. I believe the book was Jesus the Christ.

[Mudcat]

So it's all come down to this: whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone?  I don't trust the creeds and I don't trust "modern day revelation" or modern claims of authority.  I don't trust my feelings, necessarily.  What is most biblical, A or B?  Or are there other possibilities?

 

 

I would like to ask, that if you don't trust any  of the things you seem to not trust. Then what trust do you place in those you don't know at all?

 

I think you'd do better to trust your own feelings and perceptions of things than any other persons.

 

If your looking for a Biblical answer, I think Matthew 6:33  would be appropriate.

 

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

Edited October 18, 2013 by Mudcat

[Calm]

I used it because it was in an LDS approved book. I believe the book was Jesus the Christ.

Social Trinitarianism works just fine.

[EllenMaksoud]

Fellow Pilgrims, I've been watching this board for years and find that I'm in need of your help, I need the thoughts of the whole diverse lot of you guys.  I stopped attending the LDS church about two months ago because, as I told my children, Daddy needs more Jesus.  My youth consisted of Baptist and Methodist churches, and I joined the LDS church in undergraduate school after having fought against it.  I joined based on my interpretation of the New Testament and the LDS doctrine of God.  This was about 19 years ago, and it was only 1-1/2 years ago that I was emotionally able to open up and read the BOM.  And I believed the best I could.  A lot of influences have been floating through my head: George MacDonald, N.T. Wright, Tim Keller, Karl Barth, Dan Peterson and the folks at Interpreter, FARMS.  There is much to sift through, but one primary issue stands out.

 

So it's all come down to this: whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone?  I don't trust the creeds and I don't trust "modern day revelation" or modern claims of authority.  I don't trust my feelings, necessarily.  What is most biblical, A or B?  Or are there other possibilities?

 

A)  Holy Trinity.  One God in three Persons, coequal, cosubstantial, incomprehensible.  In my opinion, no good evidence for the concept of the trinity can be found in a plain, straight forward reading of the Bible.

 

B) Elohim, Yahweh, Wisdom (Holy Spirit) as distinct and separate members of the Godhead.  The Old Testament, and new, is riddled with references to El Elyon as the Most High God and Yahweh as the Son of El Elyon.  Stephen's vision refers to this idea.  In 1 Corinthians 15, God put all things under Jesus' feet, excepting God Himself, and at the end, Jesus will himself submit to God.  All the demons call Jesus Son of the Most High God. Margaret Barker's research suggests this.  Modern archaeology supports the idea that Israel worshiped Yahweh as their patron god while El Elyon was above Yahweh.  

 

I think B is the best answer, but then why do I feel I need to go elsewhere to find my Lord? When I told my bishop that Jesus is everything to me, he answered Jesus isn't everything, that His purpose is to take us to the Father, who is found in the Temple and its rites. The true goal is the Father, not Christ.  So I feel I have to leave the Lord that I know, whom I love, so that I can "progress", I just can't do it.  But scripture points that way.  

 

Any and all thoughts are well appreciated.  

I am reading your thread on one screen and making my comments on another, so what I say may seem a bit disjointed.

 

It took you 17 1/2 years to read the Bom?

 

In my estimation, there is one God. I don't agree with the trinity. There is God, and then there is something that goes on that we can't quite explain that some call the holy spirit. Others don't try to define it. Some say the Holy Spirit is an Angel.

 

As far as Jesus Christ is concerned, he is real, but he is not God, and not the God of the Old Testament. I have heard some dispensationalists say that the Priest Melchizedek was Jesus Christ. Well, what ever.

 

If you go to the 10 commandments, God is the one and only true supreme God. The first commandment is the reason I have issue with the lyrics to "If I could hie to Kolob". "Find out the generation where Gods begin to be". You know what, it is just a song, not part of doctrine. There is One supreme God.

 

To be clear, I am not endowed. This idea that God is in the Temple, well, I'm not convinced.

[mfbukowski]

There is no rational basis to accept the bible or anything in it as a religiously "correct" book any more than the Zoroastrian Avesta or Hindu scriptures. 

 

Why do you believe that Jesus died for your sins any more or less than that the god Ganesha has the head of an elephant?

 

There is only one reason to accept the bible at all- and that is if God testifies to your spirit that it is "true".  And guess what?  He can also tell you that the Book of Mormon is just as "true" as the bible, or your belief that Jesus died for your sins.

 

Lots of scriptures are old and lots are historical- that has nothing to do with whether or not the truths they teach are of God.  How do you know satan did not write the bible?

 

There is only one way to know- and that is to pray to God for personal revelation for the truth of all of it.  Without that, the bible is no better than Greek mythology.

Edited October 18, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I am reading your thread on one screen and making my comments on another, so what I say may seem a bit disjointed.

 

It took you 17 1/2 years to read the Bom?

 

In my estimation, there is one God. I don't agree with the trinity. There is God, and then there is something that goes on that we can't quite explain that some call the holy spirit. Others don't try to define it. Some say the Holy Spirit is an Angel.

 

As far as Jesus Christ is concerned, he is real, but he is not God, and not the God of the Old Testament. I have heard some dispensationalists say that the Priest Melchizedek was Jesus Christ. Well, what ever.

 

If you go to the 10 commandments, God is the one and only true supreme God. The first commandment is the reason I have issue with the lyrics to "If I could hie to Kolob". "Find out the generation where Gods begin to be". You know what, it is just a song, not part of doctrine. There is One supreme God.

 

To be clear, I am not endowed. This idea that God is in the Temple, well, I'm not convinced.

To repeat:

 

This idea that God is in the Temple, well, I'm not convinced.

 

That is fine for now.  I think you have some basic doctrine to learn before you worry about that.

[danieldemol]

So it's all come down to this: whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone? I don't trust the creeds and I don't trust "modern day revelation" or modern claims of authority. I don't trust my feelings, necessarily. What is most biblical, A or B? Or are there other possibilities?

A) Holy Trinity. One God in three Persons, coequal, cosubstantial, incomprehensible. In my opinion, no good evidence for the concept of the trinity can be found in a plain, straight forward reading of the Bible.

B) Elohim, Yahweh, Wisdom (Holy Spirit) as distinct and separate members of the Godhead. The Old Testament, and new, is riddled with references to El Elyon as the Most High God and Yahweh as the Son of El Elyon. Stephen's vision refers to this idea. In 1 Corinthians 15, God put all things under Jesus' feet, excepting God Himself, and at the end, Jesus will himself submit to God. All the demons call Jesus Son of the Most High God. Margaret Barker's research suggests this. Modern archaeology supports the idea that Israel worshiped Yahweh as their patron god while El Elyon was above Yahweh.

I think B is the best answer, but then why do I feel I need to go elsewhere to find my Lord? When I told my bishop that Jesus is everything to me, he answered Jesus isn't everything, that His purpose is to take us to the Father, who is found in the Temple and its rites. The true goal is the Father, not Christ. So I feel I have to leave the Lord that I know, whom I love, so that I can "progress", I just can't do it. But scripture points that way.

Any and all thoughts are well appreciated.

Here is another thought for the faithful soul seeking to consider all the possibilities with justice, invoking the grace of the Holy Spirit;

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-27.html

[thesometimesaint]

Fellow Pilgrims, I've been watching this board for years and find that I'm in need of your help, I need the thoughts of the whole diverse lot of you guys.  I stopped attending the LDS church about two months ago because, as I told my children, Daddy needs more Jesus.  My youth consisted of Baptist and Methodist churches, and I joined the LDS church in undergraduate school after having fought against it.  I joined based on my interpretation of the New Testament and the LDS doctrine of God.  This was about 19 years ago, and it was only 1-1/2 years ago that I was emotionally able to open up and read the BOM.  And I believed the best I could.  A lot of influences have been floating through my head: George MacDonald, N.T. Wright, Tim Keller, Karl Barth, Dan Peterson and the folks at Interpreter, FARMS.  There is much to sift through, but one primary issue stands out.

 

So it's all come down to this: whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone?  I don't trust the creeds and I don't trust "modern day revelation" or modern claims of authority.  I don't trust my feelings, necessarily.  What is most biblical, A or B?  Or are there other possibilities?

 

A)  Holy Trinity.  One God in three Persons, coequal, cosubstantial, incomprehensible.  In my opinion, no good evidence for the concept of the trinity can be found in a plain, straight forward reading of the Bible.

 

B) Elohim, Yahweh, Wisdom (Holy Spirit) as distinct and separate members of the Godhead.  The Old Testament, and new, is riddled with references to El Elyon as the Most High God and Yahweh as the Son of El Elyon.  Stephen's vision refers to this idea.  In 1 Corinthians 15, God put all things under Jesus' feet, excepting God Himself, and at the end, Jesus will himself submit to God.  All the demons call Jesus Son of the Most High God. Margaret Barker's research suggests this.  Modern archaeology supports the idea that Israel worshiped Yahweh as their patron god while El Elyon was above Yahweh.  

 

I think B is the best answer, but then why do I feel I need to go elsewhere to find my Lord? When I told my bishop that Jesus is everything to me, he answered Jesus isn't everything, that His purpose is to take us to the Father, who is found in the Temple and its rites. The true goal is the Father, not Christ.  So I feel I have to leave the Lord that I know, whom I love, so that I can "progress", I just can't do it.  But scripture points that way.  

 

Any and all thoughts are well appreciated.  

 

You either trust your feelings and/or you trust an authority. Without either one no faith is possible.

 

I would choose (B) as closest to LDS Theology.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Fellow Pilgrims, I've been watching this board for years and find that I'm in need of your help, I need the thoughts of the whole diverse lot of you guys. I stopped attending the LDS church about two months ago because, as I told my children, Daddy needs more Jesus. My youth consisted of Baptist and Methodist churches, and I joined the LDS church in undergraduate school after having fought against it. I joined based on my interpretation of the New Testament and the LDS doctrine of God. This was about 19 years ago, and it was only 1-1/2 years ago that I was emotionally able to open up and read the BOM. And I believed the best I could. A lot of influences have been floating through my head: George MacDonald, N.T. Wright, Tim Keller, Karl Barth, Dan Peterson and the folks at Interpreter, FARMS. There is much to sift through, but one primary issue stands out.

So it's all come down to this: whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone? I don't trust the creeds and I don't trust "modern day revelation" or modern claims of authority. I don't trust my feelings, necessarily. What is most biblical, A or B? Or are there other possibilities?

A) Holy Trinity. One God in three Persons, coequal, cosubstantial, incomprehensible. In my opinion, no good evidence for the concept of the trinity can be found in a plain, straight forward reading of the Bible.

B) Elohim, Yahweh, Wisdom (Holy Spirit) as distinct and separate members of the Godhead. The Old Testament, and new, is riddled with references to El Elyon as the Most High God and Yahweh as the Son of El Elyon. Stephen's vision refers to this idea. In 1 Corinthians 15, God put all things under Jesus' feet, excepting God Himself, and at the end, Jesus will himself submit to God. All the demons call Jesus Son of the Most High God. Margaret Barker's research suggests this. Modern archaeology supports the idea that Israel worshiped Yahweh as their patron god while El Elyon was above Yahweh.

I think B is the best answer, but then why do I feel I need to go elsewhere to find my Lord? When I told my bishop that Jesus is everything to me, he answered Jesus isn't everything, that His purpose is to take us to the Father, who is found in the Temple and its rites. The true goal is the Father, not Christ. So I feel I have to leave the Lord that I know, whom I love, so that I can "progress", I just can't do it. But scripture points that way.

Any and all thoughts are well appreciated.

Jesus Christ is the God of the OT, the NT, the BoM, the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price, with very few exceptions. We speak often of Heavenly Father, because Christ came to glorify him...not Church. No Temple or no building we own has any other name of Jesus Christ. You have left for a lack of understanding, there is "Jesus" in every meeting, every prayer, every talk and every doctrine. You will not find more of him anywhere...you will just here his name maybe as much as in our Church, but couched in false doctrine. Let me leave you with a scripture quote from the BoM...(from memory) "...we talk of Christ, we preach of Christ, and we write according to our prophecy that our children might know what source they may look to for their salvation" (forgive any errors).

As for not reding the BoM, you will find Jesus form page 1 to page 531. But if you are leaving for "more Jesus" you are leaving for the wrong reasons. Also you could have just left, but I think you came here to post this because you are struggling with the decision. I hope this helps.

Edit to add: If you live in Georgia, come attend with me a few times...if you are male, otherwise I need you to bring your spouse.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[longview]

Cobalt-70, on 17 Oct 2013 - 4:58 PM, said:

From a historical and literary perspective, you are right that B is more biblically correct. But that doesn't necessarily make it the best answer. I don't think you need to go outside of Mormonism to explore a range of possibilities here. The Book of Mormon clearly favors A. But somehow Joseph Smith in his later years intuited something closer to B. But there is no reason why you need to choose either A or B. Choose the mythology that works best for you, and realize that there is more likely than not a place for that mythology somewhere within historical Mormonism. You don't necessarily have to listen to your bishop because he's not God, and he's not even a theologian or bible scholar.

 

Your statement:  "The Book of Mormon clearly favors A." is blatantly false.  3rd Nephi in the Book of Mormon is very explicit on how Jesus is teaching the people how pray to the Father.  Just as John chapter 17 shows the testimony of Jesus in clearly distinguishing Himself from His Father and giving all honor and glory to His Father.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why do you trust the Bible?

 

I think you need to determine what standards allow you to trust before discussing what is out there to trust.

 

The Father is what is desirable in Christ and Christ is what is desirable in the Father if they are both one.  You don't need to separate them, imo.  Come unto Christ is coming unto the Father.  Seeking out our Father will lead us to his Son.

And we will sit on Christ's throne has he has sat on the Father's.  But it is important to note that they are 2 separate and disctinct persons.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

The LDS faith (whether they want to admit it or not) are essentially placing themselves (the leadership along with their temple "ordinances") between man and Christ or God, take your pick.

 

That is such horse crap and you know it.