What's Up With The Trinity

[Logan Alexander]

Well there you go then.

 

You know better than I do.  Have a good evening.  All those folks think the 8th article of faith is inconsistent then, I guess. Golly I don't know why they are still members do you?

 

I guess you converted them, right?

 

Learn something new every day.

 

Most LDS I know don't find it inconsistent because they do not believe the biblical authors to contradict themselves. Its not the 8th article itself I find contradictory, but holding to the 8th article and a particular understanding of scripture: an understanding that holds that the authors of the bible, in their original intent, contradicted themselves (an understanding of scripture that one post above was advocating). Honestly hoping I do not give off the vibe of straw manning here; if my experience with LDS does not prove the norm, I am definitely open to that. That is what I meant by saying that I found you unique; simply that LDS have usually taught me otherwise.

[mfbukowski]

It appears that the work was to be a revelatory experience, through which Joseph would come to an understanding of things that he had not previously known. This is also demonstrated in Doctrine and Covenants 76:15–18, which tells us that in the process of the translation of John 5:29 the great vision of the degrees of glory was received by the Prophet.

In a similar manner many of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants were received, and these revelations came forth out of a background gained from the Prophet’s translation of the Bible; for example, Doctrine and Covenants 74, 76, 77, 86, 91, and parts of many other sections. [D&C 74; D&C 76; D&C 77; D&C 86; D&C 91]

Likewise, the book of Moses and the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew contained in the Pearl of Great Price are excerpts from the translation of the Bible.

It is significant that most of the doctrinal revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants were received during the three years the Prophet was working with the Bible. It is possible that the greatest value of the new translation has come in this manner rather than from the corrections within the pages of the Bible.

What clarification and new light does the new translation offer? I have observed 3,400 verses in which it differs from the King James Version, many of which throw greater light upon the teachings of Jesus and the apostles

 

. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/12/joseph-smiths-inspired-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng

That was from a 15 second search on lds.org for "bible mistranslations"

Edited July 10, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

All translations are interpretations.

[teddyaware]

It is a description of the Incarnation. Put in context of our liturgy, these are the scripture readings for the Feast of the Presentation.

Reading 1 MAL 3:1-4

Responsorial Psalm PS 24:7, 8, 9, 10

Reading 2 HEB 2:14-18

Gospel LK 2:22-40

And a homily by Pope John Paul II.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19970202_en.html

I should have been more specific with my question.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Hebrews 2)

 

I was actually wondering more about the phrase in bold italic. The words 'partakers' and 'partaker' appear a combined total of 30 times in the New Testament (the word 'partake' does not appear). Not including the example above, in all 29 instances when the words 'partakers' or 'partaker' appear in the New Testament (there are no instances of any variant of the word 'partake' in the Old Testament), the partaker or partakers referred to are free agent human beings who are about to make decisions or already have made decisions to take part in doing something they have not done before. I reiterate -- in each of these 29 others cases the partaker or partakers are human beings endowed with intelligence who make a choice (the word partake means to make a conscious decision to "join in").

 

In our quote above, Christ, as a preexistent spirit, made a conscious decision to do something -- partake of flesh and blood -- that He had not as yet ever done before; and we are also told He made that decision because "the children" referred to earlier in the verse were partakers of flesh and blood before He was. I assume that according to Catholic doctrine, out of all the 30 Bible verses that feature the words partakers or partaker, Hebrews 2:14 would be the instance where those who were partakers in something did not make that choice to partake of their own volition. Interestingly, the author refers to "the children" being partakers, with Christ "likewise" following in their action (how could Christ choose to do "likewise" if flesh and blood was thrust upon the human race without choice?). Please observe that our verse does not say nonentities are partakers of flesh and blood but that "the children" are partakers.

 

To the Latter-day Saints, the children referred to in this verse are clearly the preexisting literal spirit offspring of God. One cannot partake in or of something without making a conscious decision to do so. As I said, every Biblical instance of someone partaking in or of something involves intelligent human free agents making  conscious choices. Christ's spirit brothers and sisters made the choice to leave the precincts of heaven and take upon themselves flesh and blood, and Christ himself "likewise" (i.e. in similar manner by making a conscious choice) did the same.  

 

You will interpret this verse differently, but be aware that in your interpretation you will be ignoring the clear precedent of pattern of meaning for the words partakers and partaker plainly demonstrated in the 29 other verses.  

Edited July 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[Ran]

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Hebrews 2)

The Greek text of Hebrews 2:14 presents two different Greek terms in two different tenses. 

 

"partakers" — κεκοινώνηκεν (perfect)

"took part" — μετέσχεν (aorist)

 

We'll have to determine just what these differences signify in Hebrews 2:14.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All translations are interpretations.

Yup and that is the key to understanding MFB's posts.

[thesometimesaint]

Most LDS I know don't find it inconsistent because they do not believe the biblical authors to contradict themselves. Its not the 8th article itself I find contradictory, but holding to the 8th article and a particular understanding of scripture: an understanding that holds that the authors of the bible, in their original intent, contradicted themselves (an understanding of scripture that one post above was advocating). Honestly hoping I do not give off the vibe of straw manning here; if my experience with LDS does not prove the norm, I am definitely open to that. That is what I meant by saying that I found you unique; simply that LDS have usually taught me otherwise.

 

We are not Scriptural literalists.

[mfbukowski]

The Greek text of Hebrews 2:14 presents two different Greek terms in two different tenses. 

 

"partakers" — κεκοινώνηκεν (perfect)

"took part" — μετέσχεν (aorist)

 

We'll have to determine just what these differences signify in Hebrews 2:14.

IF we agree that the words belong there in the first place.  Joseph might well have decided otherwise.  There is no point in fussing about bible translations when Joseph re-wrote it at will.

[mfbukowski]

In all my dealings with mormons, from BYU professors to bishops to laymen, to the quorem of the 70 - no one has ever used the 8th article of faith in regards to "interpreting." I have unanimously heard it used as a reference to bible translation, much like what we see in the follett discourse where joseph deals not with interpretational issues but translational issues  (yes i know there are canon issues I am just using it as an example of what I think Joseph himself meant, as seems evident from something he did in his life). At least I myself find you unique in this regard.

Just for the record to make it clear that I am in no way "unique in this regard", I will go ahead and post major portions from an article in Ensign to prove that what I was saying is what the church teaches.  We debate internally whether or not we have any "doctrine", but there is no question that what is in Ensign is "what the church teaches".  It IS the main publication of the church.  (I have added underlining)

 

Note particularly the bolded portion which directly addresses the meaning of the 8th article of faith

 

Joseph Smith’s Inspired Translation of the Bible

It is generally known by members of the Church that the Prophet Joseph Smith made what he called a “new translation” of the Bible. What is not so generally known is why the translation was made, how it was made, and what its usefulness is and has been in the Church.

The Prophet’s main work of revising, correcting, or translating the Bible was done during the three-year period from June 1830 to July 1833. During this time he and his scribes went through the Old and New Testaments of the King James Version and produced nearly 500 pages of manuscript, containing thousands of variant readings and new passages that clarify and enhance the message of the Bible. The eighth Article of Faith declares that “we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. …” The translation of the Bible by Joseph Smith shows much of what is meant by that statement.

Joseph the Prophet always referred to his work with the Bible as the new translation, and by that name it was known in the early years of the Church. In its printed and published form it was called the Inspired Version, but in recent years it has become common practice to refer to it as the inspired revision, or inspired translation.

We should be appreciative of the great spiritual heritage and source of inspiration that has come to us through the Bible, yet readers the world over have recognized for many years that the Bible has not come to us in its original purity and plainness. (See 1 Ne. 13:21–28, 32; Moses 1:40–41.)

The Prophet Joseph noticed also that the angel Moroni quoted some passages that differed from those found in our present King James Version. (JS—H 1:36–40.) Later, in explaining how he felt about the Bible, the Prophet said: “From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.” (Documentary History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 245.)

He also declared: “I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.” (DHC, vol. 6, p. 57.)

The thoughtful reader of the Bible soon observes that there are many passages that are vague and hard to understand and that seem to be incomplete. Some passages also appear to be contradictory. We understand that there are not so many things in the King James Version of the Bible that are incorrect, but rather, because of faulty transmission and missing parts, that which remains is often unclear and devoid of its full meaning. Joseph Smith’s work with the Bible restores some of the missing parts and causes what we have to be more meaningful.

Through Joseph Smith, the great prophet of the restoration, the Lord has restored to the earth the ancient priesthood, the ancient gospel, and the ancient church as it existed in the days of the prophets and apostles. Through him also, ancient records such as the Book of Mormon and the book of Abraham have been brought forth so that mankind may read and profit thereby. In like manner, in the new translation of the Bible, the Prophet Joseph has given us a clearer and a plainer record of the Old and the New Testaments.

Joseph Smith did not take it upon himself to revise and translate the Bible; he was commanded and appointed by the Lord to do the work. ....

 

It is evident that the Prophet himself regarded his work of translating the Bible to be divinely inspired and an important part of his ministry, for on December 1, 1831, at Hiram, Ohio, he recorded this statement in his journal:

“I resumed the translation of the Scriptures, and continued to labor in this branch of my calling with Elder Sidney Rigdon as my scribe. …” (DHC, vol. 1, p. 238.)

It appears that the work was to be a revelatory experience, through which Joseph would come to an understanding of things that he had not previously known. This is also demonstrated in Doctrine and Covenants 76:15–18, which tells us that in the process of the translation of John 5:29 the great vision of the degrees of glory was received by the Prophet.

In a similar manner many of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants were received, and these revelations came forth out of a background gained from the Prophet’s translation of the Bible; for example, Doctrine and Covenants 74, 76, 77, 86, 91, and parts of many other sections. [D&C 74; D&C 76; D&C 77; D&C 86; D&C 91]

Likewise, the book of Moses and the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew contained in the Pearl of Great Price are excerpts from the translation of the Bible.

It is significant that most of the doctrinal revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants were received during the three years the Prophet was working with the Bible. It is possible that the greatest value of the new translation has come in this manner rather than from the corrections within the pages of the Bible.

What clarification and new light does the new translation offer? I have observed 3,400 verses in which it differs from the King James Version, many of which throw greater light upon the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. For example:

King James Version, Mark 9:43–44: “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

New translation, Mark 9:40–41: “Therefore, if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; or if thy brother offend thee and confess not and forsake not, he shall be cut off. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go into hell.

“For it is better for thee to enter into life without thy brother, than for thee and thy brother to be cast into hell; into the fire that never shall be quenched, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

The instruction to “take up his cross, and follow me” is a familiar phrase to Bible readers, but how does one “take up” his cross?

King James Version, Matthew 16:24–25: “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.”

New translation, Matthew 16:25–28: “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me.

“And now for a man to take up his cross, is to deny himself all ungodliness, and every worldly lust, and keep my commandments.

“Break not my commandments for to save your lives; for whosoever will save his life in this world, shall lose it in the world to come.

“And whosoever will lose his life in this world, for my sake, shall find it in the world to come.” The New Testament contains several accounts of Paul’s vision while on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:7 says that Paul’s companions at the time also heard a voice, while Acts 22:9 states that they saw a light but heard not the voice. The new translation corrects the account in Acts 9:7 and gives us the understanding that Paul heard the voice of the Lord but that his companions did not. They did, however, see the light.

Students interested in Paul’s life and teachings will be intrigued with the changes made in the new translation about his instructions on marriage. He has often been quoted, and even misrepresented, concerning his supposedly negative attitude about marriage. (See 1 Cor. 7.) In the new translation these utterances are placed in a context of missionary work so that restrictions of marriage are temporary, and his instructions sound much the same as those of a Latter-day Saint mission president today.

Chapter 14 of Genesis, in the King James Version [Gen. 14], contains a brief account of Abraham and Melchizedek; but the new translation of this chapter adds 400 words about the greatness of Melchizedek, giving events of his life and ministry.

In the King James Version, Hebrews 7:1–3 strangely suggests that Melchizedek was a man without father or mother or lineage. This was corrected by the Prophet to say that it was the priesthood of Melchizedek, not the man, that was without lineage. This is certainly an improvement and draws the distinction between the Aaronic Priesthood, which in Old Testament times came down only through the lineage of Aaron, and the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is not confined to a precise lineage.

The Prophet also censored the Song of Solomon by declaring that it was not inspired scripture.¹

It is evident from the manuscripts prepared by the Prophet and his scribes, and also from the statements by the Prophet himself, that he did not correct all of the passages that could be corrected in the Bible. Hence, the new translation is not finished. It is not a perfect Bible....

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/12/joseph-smiths-inspired-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng

 

Clearly this was a major revision, even though it is called a "translation".

Edited July 10, 2014 by mfbukowski

[saemo]

I should have been more specific with my question.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Hebrews 2)

 

I was actually wondering more about the phrase in bold italic. The words 'partakers' and 'partaker' appear a combined total of 30 times in the New Testament (the word 'partake' does not appear). Not including the example above, in all 29 instances when the words 'partakers' or 'partaker' appear in the New Testament (there are no instances of any variant of the word 'partake' in the Old Testament), the partaker or partakers referred to are free agent human beings who are about to make decisions or already have made decisions to take part in doing something they have not done before. I reiterate -- in each of these 29 others cases the partaker or partakers are human beings endowed with intelligence who make a choice (the word partake means to make a conscious decision to "join in").

 

 

Partaker has multiple meanings. One which is, to have the same characteristic, or, have something of the same nature. So you and I are partakers of flesh and blood, which is characteristic or the nature of our humanity. Jesus is God, who became Incarnate, which means He took part in our nature of flesh and blood.

 

 

 

In our quote above, Christ, as a preexistent spirit, made a conscious decision to do something -- partake of flesh and blood -- that He had not as yet ever done before; and we are also told He made that decision because "the children" referred to earlier in the verse were partakers of flesh and blood before He was. I assume that according to Catholic doctrine, out of all the 30 Bible verses that feature the words partakers or partaker, Hebrews 2:14 would be the instance where those who were partakers in something did not make that choice to partake of their own volition. Interestingly, the author refers to "the children" being partakers, with Christ "likewise" following in their action (how could Christ choose to do "likewise" if flesh and blood was thrust upon the human race without choice?). Please observe that our verse does not say nonentities are partakers of flesh and blood but that "the children" are partakers.

 

A straw man. As we believe we are partakers of flesh and blood, in the definition of, that is our nature.

 

 

 

To the Latter-day Saints, the children referred to in this verse are clearly the preexisting literal spirit offspring of God. One cannot partake in or of something without making a conscious decision to do so.

 

Of course you can. You are a partaker of your parent's traits, such as eye or hair color. Do you believe you assented to that, at sometime? I don't. There is nothing in these verses that says anything about human spirits preexisting. You have to insert those ideas, ad lib.

 

 

 

As I said, every Biblical instance of someone partaking in or of something involves intelligent human free agents making  conscious choices. Christ's spirit brothers and sisters made the choice to leave the precincts of heaven and take upon themselves flesh and blood, and Christ himself "likewise" (i.e. in similar manner by making a conscious choice) did the same.  

 

You will interpret this verse differently, but be aware that in your interpretation you will be ignoring the clear precedent of pattern of meaning for the words partakers and partaker plainly demonstrated in the 29 other verses.

 

Well, you have to ignore the clear precedence and teaching that we are made and that Jesus is the ONLY begotten. Wiggling around ONLY by adding the words "of the flesh" that exist no where in Sacred Scripture or Tradition, isn't the way to understand scripture, IMO.

Edited July 10, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

The Greek text of Hebrews 2:14 presents two different Greek terms in two different tenses. 

 

"partakers" — κεκοινώνηκεν (perfect)

"took part" — μετέσχεν (aorist)

 

We'll have to determine just what these differences signify in Hebrews 2:14.

The Latin Vulgate uses, respectively, communicaverunt and participavit, the whole verse being: quia ergo pueri communicaverunt sanguini et carni et ipse similiter participavit hisdem ut per mortem destrueret eum qui habebat mortis imperium id est diabolum. In English (from Google Translator): Since the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise shared in their humanity so that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the devil.

The latin communicaverunt, signifying partaking in a communal form, while the Latin participavit, signifying participating in our communion (of humanity).

In any translation, it has Eucharistic significance, which the author of Hebrews is well aware.

[teddyaware]

Partaker has multiple meanings. One which is, to have the same characteristic, or, have something of the same nature. So you and I are partakers of flesh and blood, which is characteristic or the nature of our humanity. Jesus is God, who became Incarnate, which means He took part in our nature of flesh and blood.

 

A straw man. As we believe we are partakers of flesh and blood, in the definition of, that is our nature. Of course you can. You are a partaker of your parent's traits, such as eye or hair color. Do you believe you assented to that, at sometime? I don't. There is nothing in these verses that says anything about human spirits preexisting. You have to insert those ideas, ad lib.

 

Well, you have to ignore the clear precedence and teaching that we are made and that Jesus is the ONLY begotten. Wiggling around ONLY by adding the words "of the flesh" that exist no where in Sacred Scripture or Tradition, isn't the way to understand scripture, IMO.

You ignore the most important element of my post. The undeniable fact is that -- not counting Hebrews 2:14 -- all 29 other instances in the New Testament where there are those who partake in or of something, in each and every instance a conscious decision is made by intelligent human free agents to partake. In the instance of Hebrews 2:14, it is the "children" who do the partaking or the "joining in." If your understanding is correct, then this verse is the only verse in the entire Bible where the partakers do not make a conscious choice to partake.

Edited July 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[saemo]

You ignore the most important element of my post. The undeniable fact is that -- not counting Hebrews 2:14 -- all 29 other instances in the New Testament where there are those who partake in or of something, in each and every instance a conscious decision is made by an intelligent human free agents to partake. In the instance of Hebrews 2:14, it is the "children" who do the partaking or the "joining in." If your understanding is correct, then this verse is the only verse in the entire Bible where partakers do not make the choice to partake.

I didn't ignore it, just considering how LDS interpret scripture, I don't take your word for it. I also don't agree that "precedence" matters, what matters is what the author is conveying, in the context of the entire Revelation of Jesus Christ. You and I understand that Revelation very differently.

Edited July 10, 2014 by saemo

[teddyaware]

I didn't ignore it, just considering how LDS interpret scripture, I don't take your word for it. I also don't agree that "precedence" matters, what matters is what the author is conveying, in the context of the entire Revelation of Jesus Christ. You and I understand that Revelation very differently.

Then as I said previously, you can go ahead and continue to believe God the Father is not the literal Father of your spirit and find joy in that belief; and I will continue to believe He is the literal Father of my spirit, and that insofar as my spirit is concerned (not my earthly body) I have inherited his divine nature, and that through the atonement of Christ my latent divine nature can be summoned forth and magnified. In this marvelous, all-surpasing knowledge I will find joy as well . As they say, to each his (or her) own.

All the best to you...

Edited July 12, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

I hope David and Logan have not left the discussion.

[Storm Rider]

Then as I said previously, you can go ahead and continue to believe God the Father is not the literal Father of your spirit and find joy in that belief; and I will continue to believe He is the literal Father of my spirit, and that insofar as my spirit is concerned (not my earthly body) I have inherited his divine nature, and that through the atonement of Christ my latent divine nature can be summoned forth and magnified. In this marvelous, all-surpasing knowledge I will find joy as well . As they say, to each his (or her) own.

All the best to you...

 

Just as an aside, in my understanding of things I am not comfortable with the statement, "...He is the literal Father of my spirit,...".  I realize that many members use this type of terminology, but it may create more problems with nonmembers than necessary.  I am not sure we have been given any understanding of what the creative process of spirits really is.  I am far more comfortable with the statement, "we are the children of our Father in Heaven".    

 

This does not diminish in any way my/our belief that we were created so that we might return to him; that we have been provided through the creation of our spirits the seeds of divinity.  When I ponder this glorious truth it makes me think that it is through our spirits that the Light of Christ is given to all of God's children.  This whole concept is an overwhelming thought.  

Edited July 12, 2014 by Storm Rider

[teddyaware]

Just as an aside, in my understanding of things I am not comfortable with the statement, "...He is the literal Father of my spirit,...".  I realize that many members use this type of terminology, but it may create more problems with nonmembers than necessary.  I am not sure we have been given any understanding of what the creative process of spirits really is.  I am far more comfortable with the statement, "we are the children of our Father in Heaven".    

 

This does not diminish in any way my/our belief that we were created so that we might return to him; that we have been provided through the creation of our spirits the seeds of divinity.  When I ponder this glorious truth it makes me think that it is through our spirits that the Light of Christ is given to all of God's children.  This whole concept is an overwhelming thought.

I understand where you're coming from in the counsel to be cautious as to how one disseminates advanced doctrine to those who are unprepared and would likely choke on strong meat. Nevertheless, in my usage of the expression "literal Father of my spirit" I take my cue from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in the 1916 Doctrinal Exposition on the Father and the Son:

"Scriptures embodying the ordinary signification—literally that of Parent—are too numerous and specific to require citation. The purport of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title “Elohim,” is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of the spirits of the human race."

I also take my cue from the many statements made throughout the years by the General Authorities of the Church, who without hesitation or ambiguity declare that we are the literal offspring of God the Father. The quote below is from Tad R. Callister's "Our Identity and Destiny:"

First, our identity. There is a sentiment among many in the world that we are the spirit creations of God, just as a building is the creation of its architect or a painting the creation of its painter or an invention the creation of its inventor. The scriptures teach, however, a much different doctrine. They teach that we are the literal spirit offspring, or children, of God our Father. The difference is monumental in its consequence because our identity determines in large measure our destiny. For example, can a mere creation ever become like its creator? Can a building ever become an architect? A painting a painter? Or an invention an inventor? If not, then those who believe we are creations of God, rather than His spirit offspring, reach the inevitable conclusion that we do not have the capacity to become like our creator, God. In essence, their doctrine of identity has defined and dictated a diminished destiny.

On the other hand, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe that we are the spirit offspring of God with inherited spiritual traits that give us the divine potential to become like our parent, God the Father.

Edited July 12, 2014 by teddyaware

[Storm Rider]

I understand where you're coming from in the counsel to be cautious as to how one  disseminates advanced doctrine to those who are unprepared and would likely choke on strong meat. Nevertheless, in my usage of the expression "literal Father of my spirit" I take my cue from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in the 1916 Doctrinal Exposition on the Father and the Son:

"Scriptures embodying the ordinary signification—literally that of Parent—are too numerous and specific to require citation. The purport of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title “Elohim,” is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of the spirits of the human race."

I also take my cue from the many statements made throughout the years by the General Authorities of the Church who without hesitation or ambiguity declare that we are the literal offspring of God the Father. The quote below is from Tad R. Callister's "Our Identity and Destiny:"

First, our identity. There is a sentiment among many in the world that we are the spirit creations of God, just as a building is the creation of its architect or a painting the creation of its painter or an invention the creation of its inventor. The scriptures teach, however, a much different doctrine. They teach that we are the literal spirit offspring, or children, of God our Father. The difference is monumental in its consequence because our identity determines in large measure our destiny. For example, can a mere creation ever become like its creator? Can a building ever become an architect? A painting a painter? Or an invention an inventor? If not, then those who believe we are creations of God, rather than His spirit offspring, reach the inevitable conclusion that we do not have the capacity to become like our creator, God. In essence, their doctrine of identity has defined and dictated a diminished destiny.

On the other hand, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe that we are the spirit offspring of God with inherited spiritual traits that give us the divine potential to become like our parent, God the Father.

 

I have no disagreement with the doctrine you presented above; I particularly appreciate the very last sentence.  I am only addressing semantics.  I don't know what literal spirit offspring of God means.  In what way is it literal?  My issue is that we have no teaching on what it means and thus we have some members who naturally assume something that might be absolutely wrong; it is an assumption rather than a truth.  

 

The fact that some leaders have used the terminology does not make it the best way to state the simple truths of the gospel.  I can talk with a Catholic or Protestant and they will use created/creature and children of God, but have a very diminished understanding to that statement as you have mentioned above.  They focus on the creature side of things rather than the child side of things.  I always teach or clarify what I mean, which is the last sentence you stated.  

 

This is a minor issue and it is only a preference on description rather than a misunderstanding of doctrine.

[teddyaware]

I have no disagreement with the doctrine you presented above; I particularly appreciate the very last sentence.  I am only addressing semantics.  I don't know what literal spirit offspring of God means.  In what way is it literal?  My issue is that we have no teaching on what it means and thus we have some members who naturally assume something that might be absolutely wrong; it is an assumption rather than a truth.  

 

The fact that some leaders have used the terminology does not make it the best way to state the simple truths of the gospel.  I can talk with a Catholic or Protestant and they will use created/creature and children of God, but have a very diminished understanding to that statement as you have mentioned above.  They focus on the creature side of things rather than the child side of things.  I always teach or clarify what I mean, which is the last sentence you stated.  

 

This is a minor issue and it is only a preference on description rather than a misunderstanding of doctrine.

I fully appreciate your point.

But for what it's worth, here's a glimpse into how my thought processes work on this point: Men and women, even in this very imperfect state of existence, have been blessed with the means and ability to bring children into the world through the process of procreation. So to Yours Truly it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that when exalted and eternally sealed husbands and wives receive their perfected celestial bodies in the resurrection, they will not be sterile beings raised from the dead in the likeness of anatomically incorrect Barbie Dolls.

Edited July 12, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

I fully appreciate your point.

But for what it's worth, here's a glimpse into how my thought processes work this point: Men and women, even in this very imperfect state of existence, have been blessed with the means and ability to bring children into the world through the process of procreation. So to Yours Truly it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that when exalted and eternally sealed husbands and wives receive their perfected celestial bodies in the resurrection, they will not be sterile beings raised from the dead in the likeness of anatomically incorrect Barbie Dolls.

It make reason stare.

[Bowtiemenace]

I don't actually know all that much about archaeology, early Christianity etc, although I'm getting into it, but it seems like there's pretty much a consensus among non-evangelical scholars that the Jews worshiped one God, but believed in many Gods, (were monistic) from what I've read. Most all the other ancient religions were polytheistic (noncontroversially so,) the divine council of Gods is an ancient myth, and creation ex nihlo appears to be a more modern fabrication (the Egyptians believed in the Universe being formed form a primordial soup. Maybe i'm wrong on that however.

 

I will, however, attack on a front that I know very well. The Logical front. This is one of the reasons the church has always made so much sense to me, King Follet discourse.

Now as we know the argument from design is faulty, unless you allow for a God that created God, and a God that created him, basically infinitely. If the Universe is too complex and "fine tuned" for life then, God must be more complex to have created the Universe, and given that, God must also have a designer, who was at least at one point more complex than God. (Even then it is somewhat faulty) You can make the assertion that God is infinite and eternal (but that is an assertion) and I could just as well make that assertion about the Universe or Multi-verse. Aquinas has this problem with his argument as well. God must also have a cause. What these philosophers rely on is the Kalam argument, which doesn't work. A great video on this (and on why Aquinas is NOT supported by modern cosmology can be seen here. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE

 

So given this, if the Universe is singular then it appears to have been fine tuned (I think the most recent estimate of the probability for our current fine tuned state naturalistically was 1/10²⁰⁰). By the the way, that's more particles than would be in two Universes (exactly our size.) its very improbable. If our universe comes from God, God must have come from another God and this must go on infinitely.

 

Also lets suppose that there are an infinite number of universes as multi-verse theory suggests. An easy argument would be this.

 

1. in any infinite system, every possible occurrence, no matter how improbable, has occurred an infinite number of times.

2. God is defined as a being of maximum, all, or infinite knowledge (whichever greater is possible.)

3. We at some point might be able to evolve to become Gods by technological advancement and evolutionary changes without the existence of other Gods.

4. It is at least possible to reach a maximum amount, if not all or infinite knowledge.

5. Therefore, a being of maximum, all, or infinite knowledge exists no matter how improbable.

6. Therefore God as defined exists.

 

Either way you have an infinite regression of Gods and both are decent arguments.

 

I'd like to ask you why you don't believe in the existence of multiple Gods (or that we can become them.) Shouldn't our rapid technological innovations in the past few years at least open your mind to that possibility? We've reached an exponential point in intellectual growth. We're learning how to discover better! Machines find the laws of the Universe now. Take Eureqa for instance. http://www.nutonian.com/. Eureqa is even better at it than we are. 

 

Anyways, it always seemed very reasonable from a rational standpoint to me. Hope this promotes some thought!

[Ran]

What these philosophers rely on is the Kalam argument, which doesn't work. A great video on this (and on why Aquinas is NOT supported by modern cosmology can be seen here. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE

 

 

"By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist" (Thomas Aquinas, ST I.46.2, emphasis added). Aquinas accepted, on the basis of faith, that the world began to exist. But he did not think that reason could show that the world began to exist. 

 

The Kalam argument's second premise that the world began to exist, on the other hand, is proposed as demonstrable by reason. Hence, the defenders of this argument, like William Lane Craig, attempt to prove this premise by arguing for the impossibility of an actual infinite and the impossibility of forming an actual infinite by successive addition, besides appealing to the empirical evidence for the expansion of the universe and the second law of thermodynamics.

it's unclear, therefore, why you've placed Aquinas and the Kalam argument side by side—he didn't make that argument—or why you think that that video is relevant to any of Aquinas' arguments.

[mfbukowski]

I don't actually know all that much about archaeology, early Christianity etc, although I'm getting into it, but it seems like there's pretty much a consensus among non-evangelical scholars that the Jews worshiped one God, but believed in many Gods, (were monistic) from what I've read. Most all the other ancient religions were polytheistic (noncontroversially so,) the divine council of Gods is an ancient myth, and creation ex nihlo appears to be a more modern fabrication (the Egyptians believed in the Universe being formed form a primordial soup. Maybe i'm wrong on that however.

 

I will, however, attack on a front that I know very well. The Logical front. This is one of the reasons the church has always made so much sense to me, King Follet discourse.

Now as we know the argument from design is faulty, unless you allow for a God that created God, and a God that created him, basically infinitely. If the Universe is too complex and "fine tuned" for life then, God must be more complex to have created the Universe, and given that, God must also have a designer, who was at least at one point more complex than God. (Even then it is somewhat faulty) You can make the assertion that God is infinite and eternal (but that is an assertion) and I could just as well make that assertion about the Universe or Multi-verse. Aquinas has this problem with his argument as well. God must also have a cause. What these philosophers rely on is the Kalam argument, which doesn't work. A great video on this (and on why Aquinas is NOT supported by modern cosmology can be seen here. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE

 

So given this, if the Universe is singular then it appears to have been fine tuned (I think the most recent estimate of the probability for our current fine tuned state naturalistically was 1/10²⁰⁰). By the the way, that's more particles than would be in two Universes (exactly our size.) its very improbable. If our universe comes from God, God must have come from another God and this must go on infinitely.

 

Also lets suppose that there are an infinite number of universes as multi-verse theory suggests. An easy argument would be this.

 

1. in any infinite system, every possible occurrence, no matter how improbable, has occurred an infinite number of times.

2. God is defined as a being of maximum, all, or infinite knowledge (whichever greater is possible.)

3. We at some point might be able to evolve to become Gods by technological advancement and evolutionary changes without the existence of other Gods.

4. It is at least possible to reach a maximum amount, if not all or infinite knowledge.

5. Therefore, a being of maximum, all, or infinite knowledge exists no matter how improbable.

6. Therefore God as defined exists.

 

Either way you have an infinite regression of Gods and both are decent arguments.

 

I'd like to ask you why you don't believe in the existence of multiple Gods (or that we can become them.) Shouldn't our rapid technological innovations in the past few years at least open your mind to that possibility? We've reached an exponential point in intellectual growth. We're learning how to discover better! Machines find the laws of the Universe now. Take Eureqa for instance. http://www.nutonian.com/. Eureqa is even better at it than we are. 

 

Anyways, it always seemed very reasonable from a rational standpoint to me. Hope this promotes some thought!

I appreciate your post, but it relies on logical assumptions that I do not accept.

It would take a full recap of the history of philosophy to tell you how and why I disagree with it, but we are speaking very different languages philosophically speaking.

Guys like William Lane Craig and variants of the Kalam argument in my opinion come straight out of Scholastic metaphysics which gives me hives.

[Darren10]

Logan Alexander post #22;

 

Yet at the same time Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all fully the one God of Jewish monotheism.

MONOtheism is at issue here. When does the Bible, Old Testament / New testament ever use "mono" to describe the ones of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? You may answer that using the Greek or Hebrew texts. What I am seeking for is when does the Bible ever use the term "one" in a strict numeric sense to describe the ones of the three divine persons?

Follow up question: in what context does the Bible use "one" in an explicit numeric sense to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It is my proposition that Mormonism is biblical monotheism whereas Trinitarian monotheism, as per the Trinitarian creeds, are of the worldly / philosophical understanding of monotheism.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Logan Alexander #31;

It is not that case that "the father is just the highest god" because LDS heavenly father had a father before him, who had a father before him, who had a father before him, etc. (possibly ad infinitum). Please see Joseph Smith's "King's Follet Discourse" which heavily implies this (among many other issues). This at least puts LDS heavenly father in the same ontological category of the other father who created him, if not in a lesser category. The issue is that in scripture, God is actually put into a unique category of his own because he created all things.

There is no reason whatsoever for any Mormon to believe the doctrines found within the King Follett Discourse. While I believe their is truth to it, I place no faith whatsoever in any doctrine that teaches God the Father had a God, who had a God, who had a God, etc. All doctrines supported and sustained by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, from the old Testament, to the New testament, to the Book of Mormon, to the book of Abraham, to the temple doctrines the creation the eternities, the creation of all things begins with the Father.

[Note: I could say, "you obviously have not done your research and are confused. reading about the nature of LDS history and LDS doctrine would do you well..." but that would be elitist superiority and frankly I'd appreciate it if you did not insert such a superlative scientia of yourself upon others here. Thanks.]

As for dividing the substance, from a historical Trinitarian viewpoint, you are correct, that is exactly what the LDS would be doing by saying that Jesus the Son and God the Father are separate and distinct Gods. However, no such phenomena happens via an LDS doctrinal perspective.

What historic Trinitarians call "substance" the LDS would call intelligence. the ontological understanding of intelligence for the LDS is that it is eternal. The LDS, which I'm sure you know, rejects creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) and rather supports creation ex material (creation out of materials / substance). Regarding the intelligence:

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

(snip)

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

Abraham 3: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/3?lang=eng

According to these passages, the Father is among the intelligence but is the greatest of all. Among all the intelligence there was one like God who with God created the world. This intelligence is explicitly understood to be Jesus Christ. Supporting scriptures of this doctrine are "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Mathew 5:48); "...for my Father is greater than I." (John 14: 8 ); "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only [mono] true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3); "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." (John 17:21)

Regarding the passages in John 17, Christ declares the Father *alone* is the one true God and it is the LDS view that Jesus has always, pre-mortally and mortally, and, of course, eternally, carried out the will of the Father in perfection, thus He was "like unto God", He became our perfect example, and through His perfection we too may be made perfect like unto the Father. Thus in His prayer life eternal includes for us to know Jesus Christ for He and He alone is the only way to the Father. And to the LDS there is no "dividing of substance" despite the fact that clearly all believers, as per Christ's own prayer to the Father all may be one with the Father *as* Jesus Christ is one with the Father. "Dividing of substance" is most definitely extra biblical declaratives which the Bible makes no obligation for its readers to believe.

In the LDS view, we are NOT a "different species" than God. We are the same species. The difference lies within God is perfect, holy, exalted, and we are not. The purpose of this life, as exemplified in Christ's prayer, is to become one with the Father through Him. Why are humans so blessed to have that opportunity? Why not any other of God's infinite creations? (We'll leave angels out of this for now). It is because we humans are sons and daughters of the Most High God. None other may claim such a thing (again, we'll leave out angels in this discussion, at least for now). We cannot be of a different species for God is our Father thus our origins and ultimate potential are eternal. Two outstanding LDS articles regarding this are as follows: "Ye Really Are Gods": A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John (http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1461&index=14) and the original article which Heiser countered, ""Ye Are Gods": Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind" (http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1091&index=17)

Edited July 15, 2014 by Darren10