Bart Burk Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) "We believe in One God eternally existing as three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."That is a common statement in Protestant articles of faith. Do you believe LDS scriptures affirm that statement since there is no use of the term consubstantial? Edited June 27, 2014 by Bart Burk 1
JLHPROF Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 "We believe in One God eternally existing as three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."That is a common statement in Protestant articles of faith. Do you believe LDS scriptures affirm that statement since there is no use of the term consubstantial? Yes and no. It really depends on the definition of the word "one". I believe the "three persons" part is correct. It's the "One God" that can be slippery to define. One in purpose, harmony, and even to some extent spirit. But not one identity split into three.
Guest Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 "We believe in One God eternally existing as three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."That is a common statement in Protestant articles of faith. Do you believe LDS scriptures affirm that statement since there is no use of the term consubstantial?They are one God as stated in John 17...so yes we do.
halconero Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 Yes, I could affirm it quite comfortably. The meaning of "One" might differ from Nicene Christianity, but other than that I have no issues.Personally I would describe my view of Godhead as a fluid henotheism, or perhaps monolatry. The more I study ancient scripture and its language, the less I can see myself ever adhering to a strict monotheism. El Elyon, El Elah, and Elohim, Hebrew titles for God, require an acknowledgement of the existence of multiple cosmic beings in order to function. The first mean "the Most High God," the second "God of the gods," and the last "gods" (though there is debate around this). Attempts to justify these by saying that these refer to the supreme powers or qualities of God, ignore the historical context in which they were formed, and are a modernization.Paul even refers to Satan as the god of this world. There is no reason to believe that he is describing anything but a cosmic being with tremendous power ruling over the wicked of the earth. Simply saying that such a description is merely hyperbole ignore the context in which Paul taught. So whatever your views on the Trinity, a historically correct reading of the New Testament jettisons the idea of there only being one god, as there are at least two (though Satan is not a god worthy of worship). 1
Bart Burk Posted June 27, 2014 Author Posted June 27, 2014 Yes and no. It really depends on the definition of the word "one". I believe the "three persons" part is correct. It's the "One God" that can be slippery to define. One in purpose, harmony, and even to some extent spirit. But not one identity split into three.Even in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity when the term consubstantial is used it wouldn't be appropriate to say the Godhead is one identity split into three. In the traditional understanding of the Godhead the Father, Son and Holy Ghost maintain their own personal identity. As far as "One God" being slippery to define that objection is easily overcome. Just don't define it. The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants don't define it when they say the Father, Son and Holy Ghost exist as One Eternal God or one God, infinite and eternal. We simply don't know enough about how the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one to go beyond what the scriptures teach since we haven't yet experienced that oneness completely.
Ahab Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 "We believe in One God eternally existing as three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."That is a common statement in Protestant articles of faith. Do you believe LDS scriptures affirm that statement since there is no use of the term consubstantial?Yes, as long as I'm interpreting that phrase with the understanding God has given to me to help me understand how that is true.
Bart Burk Posted June 27, 2014 Author Posted June 27, 2014 Yes, as long as I'm interpreting that phrase with the understanding God has given to me to help me understand how that is true.I'm really not asking how you interpret it. I'm asking if LDS scriptures affirm that statement.
JLHPROF Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 Even in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity when the term consubstantial is used it wouldn't be appropriate to say the Godhead is one identity split into three. In the traditional understanding of the Godhead the Father, Son and Holy Ghost maintain their own personal identity. As far as "One God" being slippery to define that objection is easily overcome. Just don't define it. The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants don't define it when they say the Father, Son and Holy Ghost exist as One Eternal God or one God, infinite and eternal. We simply don't know enough about how the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one to go beyond what the scriptures teach since we haven't yet experienced that oneness completely. Yeah, that's not in keeping with the spirit of Mormonism. We like answers to our mysteries whenever possible.I agree that we don't fully understand the "Oneness" contained within the Godhead. But if we remove the idea of God being one identity split between three personages, then the oneness has to be more symbolic. Either they are one being or they're not. If we believe they are separate beings, then the oneness has to mean something more like one in purpose, harmony, united etc.Kind of like when God said "If you are not one, you are not mine".
thesometimesaint Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 In LDS Theology God is a Title. So there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. They are all three Gods in their own right, but act as one Godhead. 1
Bart Burk Posted June 27, 2014 Author Posted June 27, 2014 In LDS Theology God is a Title. So there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. They are all three Gods in their own right, but act as one Godhead.Does the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants ever refer to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as three Gods? There must be a reason that Mormon scriptures use the term One God to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost beyond it just being a title. The term Godhead is never used in the uniquely Mormon scriptures though it is used a couple of times in the New Testament. I think you would be hard pressed to claim there is really a formal LDS theology anyway.
thesometimesaint Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) Does the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants ever refer to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as three Gods? There must be a reason that Mormon scriptures use the term One God to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost beyond it just being a title. The term Godhead is never used in the uniquely Mormon scriptures though it is used a couple of times in the New Testament. I think you would be hard pressed to claim there is really a formal LDS theology anyway. The LDS are not bound to just the Book of Mormon and the D&C, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. We use the term God in different ways. One is in reference to God, our Heavenly Father. He is the only person to whom we pray. Another is as God, the head of the Divine Counsel. Another is as the same species as us. Another is as a member of the Godhead which we always have been, and always be subject to. There are probably a few more I just can't think of any off the top of my head. That is a Ad Hominem argument. Hardly what I expected from you. As a future help don't rely of logical fallacies for your arguments. It doesn't help. Edited June 27, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Bart Burk Posted June 27, 2014 Author Posted June 27, 2014 The LDS are not bound to just the Book of Mormon and the D&C, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. We use the term God in different ways. One is in reference to God, our Heavenly Father. He is the only person to whom we pray. Another is as God, the head of the Divine Counsel. Another is as the same species as us. Another is as a member of the Godhead which we always have been, and always be subject to. There are probably a few more I just can't think of any off the top of my head. That is a Ad Hominem argument. Hardly what I expected from you. As a future help don't rely of logical fallacies for your arguments. It doesn't help.It seems to me your canonized scriptures would have the highest place in your beliefs. I often remember hearing President Harold B. Lee stating that Mormons should base all of their teachings on the scriptures and he was specifically referring to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Here's a good link: https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-harold-b-lee/chapter-7?lang=eng#12-35892_000_009 It is the business of those who are to teach His children to teach the principles of the gospel. We are not set apart to teach notions or guesses at truth. We are not set apart to teach philosophies or sciences of the world. We are set apart to teach the principles of the gospel as found in the four standard works—the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.As we think of that as our limitation, it is our privilege to know those truths and to have the most complete canon of scriptures known to the world. Only members of the Church have that great privilege.
thesometimesaint Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 It seems to me your canonized scriptures would have the highest place in your beliefs. I often remember hearing President Harold B. Lee stating that Mormons should base all of their teachings on the scriptures and he was specifically referring to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Here's a good link: https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-harold-b-lee/chapter-7?lang=eng#12-35892_000_009 The Bible is part of our canonized scriptures. We study it more than any other scriptures. That being said we are not closed canon Christians. We are open to more knowledge including new scriptures any time God wants us to. As a personal note I deeply value the scriptures, but they take a back seat to my revelations from God concerning myself, and my family.
Bart Burk Posted June 27, 2014 Author Posted June 27, 2014 The Bible is part of our canonized scriptures. We study it more than any other scriptures. That being said we are not closed canon Christians. We are open to more knowledge including new scriptures any time God wants us to. As a personal note I deeply value the scriptures, but they take a back seat to my revelations from God concerning myself, and my family.But your revelations aren't canon or accepted by the LDS Church.
Ahab Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 I'm really not asking how you interpret it. I'm asking if LDS scriptures affirm that statement.Then yes as long as I'm interpreting that phrase and LDS scriptures with the understanding God has given me to help me understand how that is true.It's that easy.
Bart Burk Posted June 27, 2014 Author Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) Then yes as long as I'm interpreting that phrase and LDS scriptures with the understanding God has given me to help me understand how that is true.It's that easy.Agreed. It is that easy. I have been impressed with Blake Ostler's discussion of this topic: http://www.smpt.org/docs/ostler_element1-1.html Edited June 27, 2014 by Bart Burk
Ahab Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 Agreed. It is that easy.I have been impressed with Blake Ostler's discussion of this topic:http://www.smpt.org/docs/ostler_element1-1.htmlGod isn't limited to the Godhead, though.God is a kind of being, and every person who is that kind of being is God. And that includes all of us who are the children of God, even now when we are not as perfect and glorious as our Father in heaven.
ERayR Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 "We believe in One God eternally existing as three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."That is a common statement in Protestant articles of faith. Do you believe LDS scriptures affirm that statement since there is no use of the term consubstantial? First do you understand God as object or as an office(calling). It has been my experience that this one thing is the source of majority of disagreement. My Protestant friends look upon God as being/object/person/thing with all encompassing powers. I look on God as being more like a First Presidency. If you take my Protestant friends view then I would say no.
thesometimesaint Posted June 28, 2014 Posted June 28, 2014 But your revelations aren't canon or accepted by the LDS Church. Never said they were. Each of us is to establish our own relationship with God. President Monson, good man that he is, has no authority in the leadership of my family. That is my responsibility. Nor does he have the authority in my career choices. where my wife and I choose to live. There is a host of things I alone am responsible for, but you get the idea. Now that I'm retired it was and now is a non-issue.
BCSpace Posted June 28, 2014 Posted June 28, 2014 That is a common statement in Protestant articles of faith. Do you believe LDS scriptures affirm that statement since there is no use of the term consubstantial? No. LDS worship (pray to) the Father. In another sense, the Three are One God because agree with and support each other. That is it. There is no sharing of substance or Persons nor is there a mixing of Personalities, etc. There is no scriptural support for the trinity if all LDS scriptures are true. 1
Bart Burk Posted June 28, 2014 Author Posted June 28, 2014 No. LDS worship (pray to) the Father. In another sense, the Three are One God because agree with and support each other. That is it. There is no sharing of substance or Persons nor is there a mixing of Personalities, etc. There is no scriptural support for the trinity if all LDS scriptures are true.The above statement specifically says they exist as three persons eternally as one God. It does not mention anything about substance or being. It seems to be in line with good Book of Mormon teaching on the Godhead. It does not even use the non-scriptural word Trinity.
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2014 Posted June 28, 2014 (edited) "We believe in One God eternally existing as three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."That is a common statement in Protestant articles of faith. Do you believe LDS scriptures affirm that statement since there is no use of the term consubstantial?I have not read the other answers. For us "God" refers to three separate persons united in purpose and thoughts, and their purpose is bringing to pass the exaltation of mankind. The Godhead is a "team", or a "family" by analogy. The term is a collective noun like team or family. The Godhead is one as a family is one, but imagine a perfectly unified family sharing the same goals perfectly. You ask one a question and they will all say the identical words as an answer. That is the sense in which they are unified. "Substance" and "Being" are non-definable terms. They have no meaning in this context as far as I am concerned. I know what an "oily substance" is, I know what a "metallic substance" is etc. but substance in itself is.... nothing. That use makes no sense. Same with being. Human being? yes. Alien being? Sure. Being in itself? Huh? How much does it weigh? What is it? Edited June 28, 2014 by mfbukowski 1
Bart Burk Posted June 28, 2014 Author Posted June 28, 2014 I have not read the other answers. For us "God" refers to three separate persons united in purpose and thoughts, and their purpose is bringing to pass the exaltation of mankind. The Godhead is a "team", or a "family" by analogy. The term is a collective noun like team or family. The Godhead is one as a family is one, but imagine a perfectly unified family sharing the same goals perfectly. You ask one a question and they will all say the identical words as an answer. That is the sense in which they are unified. "Substance" and "Being" are non-definable terms. They have no meaning in this context as far as I am concerned. I know what an "oily substance" is, I know what a "metallic substance" is etc. but substance in itself is.... nothing. That use makes no sense. Same with being. Human being? yes. Alien being? Sure. Being in itself? Huh? How much does it weigh? What is it?I agree the term substance or being is problematic. I have never received a good answer when I ask someone to define the term. I do think the Godhead's unity is a spiritual indwelling which goes beyond just being one in purpose. They experience something beyond what we experience though I expect that someday in God's presence we will experience it.
thesometimesaint Posted June 28, 2014 Posted June 28, 2014 I agree the term substance or being is problematic. I have never received a good answer when I ask someone to define the term. I do think the Godhead's unity is a spiritual indwelling which goes beyond just being one in purpose. They experience something beyond what we experience though I expect that someday in God's presence we will experience it. We are to become like them.
Bart Burk Posted June 28, 2014 Author Posted June 28, 2014 We are to become like them.And would not that involve a complete spiritual unity with them?
Recommended Posts