Does The Book Of Mormon Clarify The Nature Of The Godhead

[3DOP]

This thread has gone off on a tangent that was unintended. I'm not making an argument for the trinity and I'm not really very interested in whether trinitarianism is logical or not.

It was specifically about whether the Book of Mormon offers clarity on the matter. Clarity in the way that the 1838 version of the first vision describes the godhead for example.

I've not seen anything yet.

 

Canard, I think you started an interesting thread. I hope your discussion doesn't get lost in all the same old Trinity stuff. I agree with you about what Sevenbak provided. I believe the Nicene Creed. Sevenbak shows that Jesus is God's Son. That God's Son prays to the Father. That God's Son ascended into heaven to be reunited with the Father. That God's Son obeyed the Father. That the gift of the Holy Ghost is given to the faithful. All of these are truths that we hold to and are revealed in "Former-day Revelation".

 

How does Latter-day Revelation speak to the question of whether the Three Persons have different natures? How do we learn that God is finite? There is one major reason why Orthodox and Catholic Christianity see that the Three Persons have one nature, being, or essence. If God is infinite, the nature of any Persons who are God have to be the same. There cannot be multiple infinite natures where one has something that the other doesn't. Right? We believe that God the Father has communicated His entire nature to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. One can see that each Person acts after a manner that is distinct to the Person. But it does not necessarily mean that they act differently because they have different natures. I would suggest that an important key to understanding the actions of the Persons of the Trinity has to do with their relationship to the Father, who is the source, fount, and origin of their own infinite Being.

 

If you don't follow that's okay. The point I would make is that if you can find a passage that teaches that God is finite, it could tend to undermine the Trinitarian belief. Remember we already know that Jesus was obedient to the Father and that the Holy Ghost is likewise a Servant. Obedience to One who gives you His own Being is not an act of an inferior, but of a grateful equal. This is how we understand that passage of St. Paul where we read that the Son, "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." We know that Jesus was weary, that He was hungry, that He died! But those limitations do not come from that nature that He received from the Father from all eternity. We would attribute His bodily weaknesses to the human nature He received from His Blessed Mother.

 

Anyway, I don't know if that helps. I am very interested to see what you guys could come up with from the Book of Mormon. 

 

And Sevenbak, I would expand on why I wasn't satisfied with the passages that you provided, but maybe before I should do that, you might explain what it is you think I have overlooked.

 

Thanks to you both for an interesting exercise (Where I can you let you guys do all the work!)

 

Rory

Edited January 16, 2015 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

We're all stuck with language, I get it.  My only point was that in our tradition it's believed that the experience of the divine is an experience of something beyond language, an experience independent of language, an experience that is a gift.  In the world, we can't experience anything like that.  That something from beyond breaks through and 'communicates' in a way that's without/beyond/outside/independent of language and concept.  This, of course, is impossible, except under this sole condition of divine communication.  The only proper response to the experience is silence since the experience is inexpressible. Sometimes Aquinas is mentioned in this context.  He wrote what he wrote and then had this same kind of experience, which made him state that everything he had written was dross.  After reporting that experience, he was done writing and trying to explain anything.  So much for scholasticism.  Really, I don't think we're saying anything different.  Direct experience of the spirit is required, what St. Seraphim of Sarov called 'acquiring the Holy Spirit'.  Only in our tradition, that experience, spirit communicating to spirit, is beyond language.

Perfect. Say no more no more is necessary.

OOPS there is more.

The reason for this is that Orthodox thought includes the idea...

Uh oh.  Reasons.  Ideas.  Language to get messed up on.  sigh.

 

....that each human being has a spiritual organ that simultaneously dwells in time and in eternity (the nous, also called the heart, eye of the soul, or spiritual center).  The Fall resulted in that darkening of that organ.  Purification is the process of cleansing that organ and, once accomplished, the Spirit comes and dwells there, communicating ineffably, without language.

That's a lot of language to explain communicating without language.

 

I've never experienced it myself, so for me it's just words, but that's what the Orthodox tradition teaches - that it's possible to have a direct experience that isn't mediated by language or concept. 

Yep, just words.  Sure you have.  Do you love your wife/girfriend/mother?  Can you put that into words?  NO experience is mediated by language.  You can't describe blue, or the sound of a trumpet can you?   Yes some experiences are stronger and more "divine" than others- but that is a difference in strength/importance, not a difference in quality.  No direct experience is expressible to anyone who has not already experienced it.  Hot, cold, red, love, seeing a hawk fly over a lake or experiencing a beautiful view.  Explain that to some martian alien who has no clue what you are talking about.  Better yet, program that experience so a computer "understands" it.  Can't be done.  It is a feature of conscious beings to even know what that means.

 

 

There is thus a difference between direct experience of the world and direct experience of the divine.  Only one such experience has this trans-linguistic character - the experience of the divine.  That experience is theosis.  It's transformative and is a gift.  Those in our tradition who claimed to have experienced it uniformly say that can't and won't attempt to describe it.  They just invite people to follow the path to acquire that experience for themselves. Whenever you see an Orthodox monk walking along praying the Psalms or the Jesus Prayer on his prayer rope; fasting; or working while praying; or speaking with visitors while praying, he's laboring to purify his nous and achieve this experience of theosis.  Yes, in our tradition it's believed you can be divinized - be a god - in this life.

Sounds like you are DEFINING "theosis" as the experience.

 

Yes, the divine can be experienced like that.  And yes it is achieved through practice and "seeking the spirit" and discipline- "purification".  No argument.  I think I have felt it a few times.  Maybe not.  By definition we are saying it cannot be defined. 

 

But I think the process of theosis only starts here.  Imagine being in that experience forever- that to me is "heaven"- but I still can imagine more.   I like the LDS explanation because it has NO LIMITS except those we accept for ourselves.

 

I do not accept any limits except those I have burdened myself with through sin.   I am working on removing all those limits.  Dunno if I will in this life, but I believe I will eventually.

[Bobbieaware]

The Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit. I presume made of "spiritual matter" whatever that is. We don't know yet. I will not get caught up in word games. How is that at all relevant?

There are many verses of scripture that say the Spirit of God can "enter" and "fill" many people simultaneously. In light of the statement by Joseph Smith that all spirit is matter, do you believe this Spirit (referenced above and in the verse below) is made of matter? If you believe this same Spirit is made of matter, what exactly do you think the scriptures mean when they say people are "filled with the Spirit?"

9 Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard. 3 Nephi 20:9

Edited January 16, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Spammer]

Perfect. Say no more no more is necessary.

OOPS there is more.

Uh oh. Reasons. Ideas. Language to get messed up on. sigh.

That's a lot of language to explain communicating without language.

Yep, just words. Sure you have. Do you love your wife/girfriend/mother? Can you put that into words? NO experience is mediated by language. You can't describe blue, or the sound of a trumpet can you? Yes some experiences are stronger and more "divine" than others- but that is a difference in strength/importance, not a difference in quality. No direct experience is expressible to anyone who has not already experienced it. Hot, cold, red, love, seeing a hawk fly over a lake or experiencing a beautiful view. Explain that to some martian alien who has no clue what you are talking about. Better yet, program that experience so a computer "understands" it. Can't be done. It is a feature of conscious beings to even know what that means.

Sounds like you are DEFINING "theosis" as the experience.

Yes, the divine can be experienced like that. And yes it is achieved through practice and "seeking the spirit" and discipline- "purification". No argument. I think I have felt it a few times. Maybe not. By definition we are saying it cannot be defined.

But I think the process of theosis only starts here. Imagine being in that experience forever- that to me is "heaven"- but I still can imagine more. I like the LDS explanation because it has NO LIMITS except those we accept for ourselves.

I do not accept any limits except those I have burdened myself with through sin. I am working on removing all those limits. Dunno if I will in this life, but I believe I will eventually.

Yes, what I described and the language I used is just a construct, just one attempt (the Orthodox attempt) to describe an experience that can't be described without language. The Orthodox tradition includes people who are purported to have had that experience and silence is typically the result, but language has been developed and adopted to attempt to express the inexpressible for those who are curious and need something concrete to grasp before they are willing to attempt to live according to the Way and that's the language used within Orthodoxy. It's the same for the LDS descriptions of experiences of the divine. We're on the same page, I think. It is all just words. At best, we can say 'I had an "experience"'. Once the nature and limitations of language are grasped, silence really is the best response, no? Just invite people to "taste and see that the Lord is good". That experience of theosis is just as you described - eternal communion with the divine, aka heaven.

I understand better what you're saying when you say all experience is unmediated by language. What I was getting at the issue of quality vs quantity. We Orthodox do say that experience of the divine is of a different quality. I have experienced the inexpressible as in your example of my love for my mom or the experience of "blue". I haven't experienced the divine, however, and in our tradition that is something of a different quality. That seems to be the heart of the matter and is what I was trying to express.

I would like to read W before I discuss further so you don't have to rehash anything. I'm starting him this weekend.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Spammer

[Ahab]

There are many verses of scripture that say the Spirit of God can "enter" and "fill" many people simultaneously. In light of the statement by Joseph Smith that all spirit is matter, do you believe this Spirit (referenced above and in the verse below) is made of matter? If you believe this same Spirit is made of matter, what exactly do you think the scriptures mean when they say people are "filled with the Spirit?"

9 Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard. 3 Nephi 20:9

I'll conjecture a little, since it hasn't been revealed yet generally.

Spirit matter could be like air particles that we, with our mortal eyes, don't usually see unless God helps us to see it. We have been told that spirit is akin to breath, like how God was said to have put the spirit of Adam into him by giving him breath, so something like air isn't too far off the mark. There is a lot of matter that we can't see with our mortal eyes, even with very powerful microscopes, and even when the Holy Spirit isn't in you, you still have your spirit in your mortal body and who knows who else is in there with you.

[Bobbieaware]

I'll conjecture a little, since it hasn't been revealed yet generally.

Spirit matter could be like air particles that we, with our mortal eyes, don't usually see unless God helps us to see it. We have been told that spirit is akin to breath, like how God was said to have put the spirit of Adam into him by giving him breath, so something like air isn't too far off the mark. There is a lot of matter that we can't see with our mortal eyes, even with very powerful microscopes, and even when the Holy Spirit isn't in you, you still have your spirit in your mortal body and who knows who else is in there with you.

If you don't believe the Spirit of God can dwell in us, what do you believe the verse of scripture I quoted from 3 Nephi means when it says all the Nephites present were "filled with the Spirit?"

[Ahab]

If you don't believe the Spirit of God can dwell in us, what do you believe the verse of scripture I quoted from 3 Nephi means when it says all the Nephites present were "filled with the Spirit?"

I believe the Holy Spirit, a "he", not an "it", can, and often does, in me, so you might want to ask somebody else.

[Bobbieaware]

I believe the Holy Spirit, a "he", not an "it", can, and often does, in me, so you might want to ask somebody else.

All of my LDS focused studies on the subject of the gift of the Holy Ghost have indicated that the personage of the Holy Ghost will rarely enter a man and dwell within him in the same way, for instance, that a fallen spirit possesses a human body. Rather, I have read that the Holy Ghost uses higher manifestations of the light of Christ (AKA the Spirit of Christ ) - the light and power of God that fills the immensity of space - as an intermediary spiritual force, And it is the light of Christ (a powerful spiritual force and not a he) that enters a man so that he can thereby be "filled with the Spirit?" In the verse from 3 Nephi 20 that I quoted, thousands of people were simultaneously " filled with the Spirit," so it couldn't have been the actual personage of the Holy Ghost that personally filled each of them at the same time.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I've not seen anything yet.

 

You won't see what you do not want to see. 

 

 

 Clarity in the way that the 1838 version of the first vision describes the godhead for example.

 

The 1838 account is not 100% unambiguous, it does not say two "beings" Moroni 9:26 is no different than the 1838 account. 

Your request is very challenging and unfair because the Trinity is "three distinct persons"

 

 

It was specifically about whether the Book of Mormon offers clarity on the matter. 

 

 

I quoted teachings not found in the New Testament, ask HOLY CATHOLIC, he will tell you that the scriptures I quoted are not consistent with the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

 

The Holy Ghost and Jesus are not the same being, trinitarians believe the Holy Ghost was not active when Jesus was on the Earth 

"But he [Jesus] truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink....Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard" 3 Nephi 20:7-9

 

One is clarified 

"And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one." (3 Nephi 28:10)

"And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one."(3 Nephi 19:23)

 

Jehovah is a man and a person, Jehovah is not three persons

"Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh" Ether 3:16  

 

God the Father and Jesus are not the same being 

"8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. 9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day. 10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. 11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read"  1 Ne1:8 -11

Edited January 17, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[mfbukowski]

There are many verses of scripture that say the Spirit of God can "enter" and "fill" many people simultaneously. In light of the statement by Joseph Smith that all spirit is matter, do you believe this Spirit (referenced above and in the verse below) is made of matter? If you believe this same Spirit is made of matter, what exactly do you think the scriptures mean when they say people are "filled with the Spirit?"

9 Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard. 3 Nephi 20:9

The Light of Christ is the intelligence of God and is made of "spiritual matter" which we do not yet understand.  Most likely it is some sort of plasma or some kind of energy source.  In principle it will eventually be discovered scientifically, I think.  It is the same sort of stuff which makes up our personal "spirits" I think.  We know that matter and energy are interchangeable- that is my understanding of what E=mc2 means.  When you turn on a light bulb, the generator at the power plant is "filling your home with light" though it is miles away- perhaps hundreds or thousands of miles away.   The sun "fills your home" with light and energy though it is millions of miles away.  We see the light from stars which are millions and millions and millions of miles away.  It takes years for the light to even reach us.  Those are analogies for how this all works.  Light itself is a tangible force like "spiritual matter".  So are radio waves.  We cannot see radio waves yet with short wave receivers we can pull in stations from half a world away.

 

But that is not a philosophical explanation which also works as far as I am concerned we will not bother with that right now- it's a bit more advanced.

 

Let's just keep it simple for now.

 

Suppose you get a phone call from far far away that "fills you with grief", though the person who is sending the message is far away.

 

That is another analogy.  If you can be filled with grief by a person half a world away, God can fill you with intelligence and joy wherever he is. 

 

He has a very good wireless connection. 

Edited January 17, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Yes, what I described and the language I used is just a construct, just one attempt (the Orthodox attempt) to describe an experience that can't be described without language. The Orthodox tradition includes people who are purported to have had that experience and silence is typically the result, but language has been developed and adopted to attempt to express the inexpressible for those who are curious and need something concrete to grasp before they are willing to attempt to live according to the Way and that's the language used within Orthodoxy. It's the same for the LDS descriptions of experiences of the divine. We're on the same page, I think. It is all just words. At best, we can say 'I had an "experience"'. Once the nature and limitations of language are grasped, silence really is the best response, no? Just invite people to "taste and see that the Lord is good". That experience of theosis is just as you described - eternal communion with the divine, aka heaven.

I understand better what you're saying when you say all experience is unmediated by language. What I was getting at the issue of quality vs quantity. We Orthodox do say that experience of the divine is of a different quality. I have experienced the inexpressible as in your example of my love for my mom or the experience of "blue". I haven't experienced the divine, however, and in our tradition that is something of a different quality. That seems to be the heart of the matter and is what I was trying to express.

I would like to read W before I discuss further so you don't have to rehash anything. I'm starting him this weekend.

Great.   Don't expect it to all gel at once- reading W is like working out- it is learning a new way to think, it is not a doctrine or theory.  It is almost like learning a new language.  But I think you are already half way there so it should be fairly easy to pick up.  You will know you "have it" when there are no more questions of a philosophical nature you cannot resolve.

 

That's when I gave up academic philosophy- when all my questions were answered by W's approach.   After you really get it, there is nothing more to say except to try and express it to others who don't see it yet.   Once you see nothing but linguistic confusion everywhere- and especially in places like this board- you will really understand W.

 

We Orthodox do say that experienceof the divine is of a different quality. I have experienced the inexpressible as in your example of my love for my mom or the experience of "blue". I haven't experienced the divine, however, and in our tradition that is something of a different quality. That seems to be the heart of the matter and is what I was trying to express.

Again, more words.  How do you get outside of language to know if it has a "different quality" or not?  What does "different quality" mean in this context?

 

But yes, I have felt love as a tangible, physical force coming from heaven as a warm shower filling me with light.  Liquid warm light.  Doesn't make sense but that is the best I can do.  I don't know if that is a "different quality" than what you are talking about but there it is.   I have seen grains of sand seem to grow big as boulders at the same time I have felt that warmth and felt myself melt away into the universe so that I was one of those grains of sand.  That makes no sense whatsoever but that is the best description I can offer.

 

Was that a "different quality"?   I don't know, and don't care.  Words fail.  These experiences are what they are but they changed me permanently.  I feel very similar feelings now whenever I enter the temple, during ceremonies there.  I feel that God is entering me physically and there is a tangible force that pierces the walls and the earth itself, as though I am part of the universe with no self left whatsoever.  I am in the room but not in the room.  Go figure.  I have not mentioned this here before, but I don't care any more.

 

Whatever that is, I want it in me forever.  That's about all I know.

[mfbukowski]

All of my LDS focused studies on the subject of the gift of the Holy Ghost have indicated that the personage of the Holy Ghost will rarely enter a man and dwell within him in the same way, for instance, that a fallen spirit possesses a human body. Rather, I have read that the Holy Ghost uses higher manifestations of the light of Christ (AKA the Spirit of Christ ) - the light and power of God that fills the immensity of space - as an intermediary spiritual force, And it is the light of Christ (a powerful spiritual force and not a he) that enters a man so that he can thereby be "filled with the Spirit?" In the verse from 3 Nephi 20 that I quoted, thousands of people were simultaneously " filled with the Spirit," so it couldn't have been the actual personage of the Holy Ghost that personally filled each of them at the same time.

D&C 93

 36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

 

 

The light of Christ is the intelligence of God, it is the means by which he knows all that happens and can "fill" our hearts.  The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit but the GIFT of the Holy Ghost  can use the light of Christ.

It is important for a teacher or a missionary or a parent to know that the Holy Ghost can work through the Light of Christ. A teacher of gospel truths is not planting something foreign or even new into an adult or a child. Rather, the missionary or teacher is making contact with the Spirit of Christ already there. The gospel will have a familiar “ring” to them. Then the teaching will come “to the convincing of [those who will listen] that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations” (Book of Mormon )

 

.The above is from a great article which explains it all.   I don't know why it took so long for someone to look it up.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/the-light-of-christ?lang=eng

[3DOP]

Hi Mormon Free Thinker. I hope you won't mind if I reply to some observations you made for canard. Thanks for your consideration of the reasons I offer for why I remain unpersuaded that the Book of Mormon clarifies truths that are obscure in the New Testament. It seems to me that if the passages you have provided are clear, you should be equally persuaded of your position by the New Testament.

 

Mormon Free Thinker

The Holy Ghost and Jesus are not the same being, trinitarians believe the Holy Ghost was not active when Jesus was on the Earth 

"But he [Jesus] truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink....Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard" 3 Nephi 20:7-9

 

3DOP

On the contrary. I have never heard a Trinitarian say that "the Holy Ghost was inactive when Jesus was on the Earth." If someone does so think, it is not because they are Trinitarian. It is an error that has nothing to do with Traditional Trinitarianism.  We think like Mormons presumably, that there was a greater manifestation of the activity of the Holy Ghost after He was sent at Pentecost. But we do not deny His presence and activity beginning with Creation, through the times covered in the Old Testament, and through the lifetime of Jesus Christ.

 

When the Blessed Mother of Christ heard the invitation of the Angel, it is recorded that he said to her in explanation of how she could bare a child: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; and therefore the Holy One to be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35) And when she went with haste to see her cousin, who was six months with child it is recorded that "She entered the house of Zachary and saluted Elizabeth. And it came to pass, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe in her womb leapt. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." (Luke 1:40, 41) 

 

Mormon Free Thinker

One is clarified 

"And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one." (3 Nephi 28:10)

"And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one."(3 Nephi 19:23)

 

3DOP

This passage seems reminiscent of John's Gospel in ch. 17:21-23:  "And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me."

 

Trinitarians believe that God is One in certain ways and that God is Three in certain ways. Firstly, I am not understanding how The oneness of Christ and the Father, or the oneness to which the beloved of God are invited precludes Trinitarian doctrine. Secondly, I do not see how the passages from 3 Nephi clarify anything that is not in John 17 and elsewhere in the New Testament. I do not believe it is Scripture, but I do not have any problem with the passages from 3 Nephi if I accepted it.

 

Mormon Free Thinker

Jehovah is a man and a person, Jehovah is not three persons

"Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh" Ether 3:16

 

3DOP

It would seem that you hold that Jesus is specifically Jehovah? Neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost can be identified as Jehovah? I would say that if I understand Ether correctly, that this would make us modify our view of the Old Testament, where we believe the voice and activity of Jehovah signifies the Godhead comprised of the Three. But I do not see why it would undo our beliefs about New Testament revelation. If someone were persuaded of Traditional Trinitarianism and the truth of the Book of Mormon, I think they could merely say that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is Jehovah in the Old Testament. Why would that be problematic?

 

Mormon Free Thinker

God the Father and Jesus are not the same being 

"8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. 9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day. 10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. 11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read"  1 Ne1:8 -11

 

3DOP

One doesn't need 1 Nephi to see that there is a distinction between the Father and the Son and the Spirit. The Creeds themselves refer to the different actions of the different Persons. In biology, we understand that offspring have limited differences with parents. Bears don't make ducks. In Genesis, it speaks of biological reproduction being, "after their kind". They don't have "the same being", but they make something in their own likeness that is so similar that we speak of it as, "after their kind". But then we hear that God has a Son? The Muslims won't even consider it. One can see why. For an infinite God to reproduce "after its kind" requires us to hold that the likeness that The Father has generously given to the Son and the Holy Ghost, is His own Likeness. They have it in fulness. To say that they are different beings would be to imply that there exists something ontologically lacking in one that is not possessed by another. This cannot be admitted. There can only be one such God.

 

If equality means infinity, there can only be one. I believe that is where we differ. I do not know if the Book of Mormon clarifies that God is finite. Obviously, I hold that the Scriptures in which I believe are compatible with the Sacred Tradition which says that God is infinite. (Just for the record, I do not agree with those who say that my Scriptures clearly teach the Traditional Trinity. I can not imagine that a guy in a vacuum reading the Bible would necessarily come up with what either of us believes.)  

 

I am not trying, even if it sounds like it, to argue that my position is correct. I am limiting myself to trying to explain why so far, I do not think the Latter-day revelation provided to this point clarifies what is not already in the New Testament. If the Book of Mormon passages prove to somebody that the Traditional Trinity is false, it seems like they can find the same "clarity" in the New Testament.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

Edited January 17, 2015 by 3DOP

[Bobbieaware]

The Light of Christ is the intelligence of God and is made of "spiritual matter" which we do not yet understand. Most likely it is some sort of plasma or some kind of energy source. In principle it will eventually be discovered scientifically, I think. It is the same sort of stuff which makes up our personal "spirits" I think. We know that matter and energy are interchangeable- that is my understanding of what E=mc2 means. When you turn on a light bulb, the generator at the power plant is "filling your home with light" though it is miles away- perhaps hundreds or thousands of miles away. The sun "fills your home" with light and energy though it is millions of miles away. We see the light from stars which are millions and millions and millions of miles away. It takes years for the light to even reach us. Those are analogies for how this all works. Light itself is a tangible force like "spiritual matter". So are radio waves. We cannot see radio waves yet with short wave receivers we can pull in stations from half a world away.

But that is not a philosophical explanation which also works as far as I am concerned we will not bother with that right now- it's a bit more advanced.

Let's just keep it simple for now.

Suppose you get a phone call from far far away that "fills you with grief", though the person who is sending the message is far away.

That is another analogy. If you can be filled with grief by a person half a world away, God can fill you with intelligence and joy wherever he is.

He has a very good wireless connection.

And so this brings us back to the original statement of mine that you said was ridiculous. But now I'll use your terminology and we'll see if you still think it's ridiculous:

"The intelligence of God is composed of spiritual matter. In the 93rd section of the Doctrine and Covenants this spiritual matter of divine intelligence is called the "light of truth" (or the Spirit of Truth), and this intelligent substance is eternal, not created or made. The scriptures teach us both God the Father and God the Son are each filled to infinite and eternal fullness with this substance called the light, or Spirit of truth ( whatsoever is light is spirit, D&C 84).

So then, since the Father and the Son are both filled to infinite and eternal fullness with the exact same holy substance called divine intelligence, or the light of truth, and since the very possession of an infinite and eternal fulness of this substance is what makes one God, we can therefore reasonably deduce that the Father and the Son are living embodiments of the same uncreated divine substance known as the Spirit of Truth.

Since all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole, and since truth cannot be divided against itself, it is for this reason that though the Father and the Son are two separate personages, yet they are one God, unified in all truth because each one is in possession of the fullness of the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Truth cannot be divided against itself. The Father dwells in the Son and the Son dwells in the Father simply because both are in full possession of precisely the same holy substance the scriptures call intelligence or the Spirit of Truth."

Edited January 17, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

And so this brings us back to the original statement of mine that you said was ridiculous. But now I'll use your terminology and we'll see if you still think it's ridiculous:

"The intelligence of God is composed of spiritual matter. In the 93rd section of the Doctrine and Covenants this spiritual matter of divine intelligence is called the "light of truth" (or the Spirit of Truth), and this intelligent substance is eternal, not created or made. The scriptures teach us both God the Father and God the Son are each filled to infinite and eternal fullness with this substance called the light, or Spirit of truth ( whatsoever is light is spirit, D&C 84).

So then, since the Father and the Son are both filled to infinite and eternal fullness with the exact same holy substance called divine intelligence, or the light of truth, and since the very possession of an infinite and eternal fulness of this substance is what makes one God, we can therefore reasonably deduce that the Father and the Son are living embodiments of the same uncreated divine substance known as the Spirit of Truth.

Since all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole, and since truth cannot be divided against itself, it is for this reason that though the Father and the Son are two separate personages, yet they are one God, unified in all truth because each one is in possession of the fullness of the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Truth cannot be divided against itself. The Father dwells in the Son and the Son dwells in the Father simply because both are in full possession of precisely the same holy substance the scriptures call intelligence or the Spirit of Truth."

Yep, still incorrect. I apologize for being uncharitable and using the word "ridiculous".

 

Although the three members of the Godhead are distinct personages, their Godhead is "one" in that all three are united in their thoughts, actions, and purpose, with each having a fulness of knowledge, truth, and power. Each is a God. This does not imply a mystical union of substance or personality. Joseph Smith taught: Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow-three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization anyhow. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for those that thou hast given me…that they may be one as we are."…I want to read the text to you myself-"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which thou hast given me out of the world,…that they all may be agreed," and all come to dwell in unity [TPJS, p. 372; cf. John 17:9-11, 20-21; also cf. WJS, p. 380].

The unity prayed for in John 17 provides a model for the LDS understanding of the unity of the Godhead-one that is achieved among distinct individuals by unity of purpose, through faith, and by divine will and action. Joseph Smith taught that the Godhead was united by an "everlasting covenant [that] was made between [these] three personages before the organization of this earth" relevant to their administration to its inhabitants (TPJS, p. 190). The prime purpose of the Godhead and of all those united with them is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39; Hinckley, p. 49-51).

I also am made of atoms protons and spiritual matter- whatever that is, so I am also made of the same "substance" as they are according to you, and I am hardly a member of the Godhead.

 

They are not "made of intelligence" nor are they "made of spirit".  Intelligence IS "made of spiritual matter" and my spirit too, we are told is made of "spiritual matter", but they are more than spiritual matter- they are tangible beings as tangible as we are.  Clearly when my spirit leaves there will still be the tangible matter left over to put in the ground, but my spirit and my "intelligence" will be gone (it's already on its way... )

 

God is not made of light.  You are throwing all those words together as if they all were interchangeable.  They are not.

 

A cup might be described as "full of" water, but the cup is not made of water or there would be nothing to fill.

Edited January 17, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

deleted

Edited January 17, 2015 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

post deleted because post to which response was made has been deleted.

Edited January 17, 2015 by 3DOP

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

  It is interesting how the Trinity was being taught in 555 BC in the Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 31:21 and was developed in 400-600 AD

[Tacenda]

Persist in posting? I never agreed to stay out of threads that you are involved with, although I had decided in this thread not to get involved with your usual hobbyhorses. You aren't even replying to what the original post was about. Canard complained about it once. I reply to his question, and you think I should leave? You are welcome to try to find another participant here who thinks I have distorted your faith, and I will exit the thread. I am bewildered.

Mark...I don't know how you could be thinking this way about me. I don't think anyone has ever sent me a post that seems crazier than what you have just sent me. I am in principle against negatively discussing your faith, and one of the reasons is that I find it to consistent. That doesn't mean I believe it. But I don't know of any absurdities to point out if I were so inclined. I think I learned something about Jesus as Jehovah from Mormon Free Thinker. Fine. It works for you guys. I wouldn't know how to begin to distort one of your beliefs so as to make it seem wrong. I would have to lie, right? Even if I was inclined to lie and I am not, I am totally convinced that distortions get exposed. I am sorry that you could think I would behave like that. I am sorry that you have that opinion of me. But it just shows me how out of touch you are with reality. You are confused, Mark.

Anyway...If you can find any damage I have done to your faith by means of distortion, by all means fix it.

Yours Truly,

Rory

You would be the last person to distort the LDS faith, and then you still wouldn't, can't see how MF would ever think that.

[Ham Clam]

  It is interesting how the Trinity was being taught in 555 BC in the Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 31:21 and was developed in 400-600 AD

 

 

 

... and as you continue to think ever so kindly of us.

[canard78]

Hi Mormon Free Thinker. I hope you won't mind if I reply to some observations you made for canard. Thanks for your consideration of the reasons I offer for why I remain unpersuaded that the Book of Mormon clarifies truths that are obscure in the New Testament. It seems to me that if the passages you have provided are clear, you should be equally persuaded of your position by the New Testament.

Mormon Free Thinker

The Holy Ghost and Jesus are not the same being, trinitarians believe the Holy Ghost was not active when Jesus was on the Earth

"But he [Jesus] truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink....Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard" 3 Nephi 20:7-9

3DOP

On the contrary. I have never heard a Trinitarian say that "the Holy Ghost was inactive when Jesus was on the Earth." If someone does so think, it is not because they are Trinitarian. It is an error that has nothing to do with Traditional Trinitarianism. We think like Mormons presumably, that there was a greater manifestation of the activity of the Holy Ghost after He was sent at Pentecost. But we do not deny His presence and activity beginning with Creation, through the times covered in the Old Testament, and through the lifetime of Jesus Christ.

When the Blessed Mother of Christ heard the invitation of the Angel, it is recorded that he said to her in explanation of how she could bare a child: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; and therefore the Holy One to be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35) And when she went with haste to see her cousin, who was six months with child it is recorded that "She entered the house of Zachary and saluted Elizabeth. And it came to pass, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe in her womb leapt. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." (Luke 1:40, 41)

Mormon Free Thinker

One is clarified

"And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one." (3 Nephi 28:10)

"And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one."(3 Nephi 19:23)

3DOP

This passage seems reminiscent of John's Gospel in ch. 17:21-23: "And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me."

Trinitarians believe that God is One in certain ways and that God is Three in certain ways. Firstly, I am not understanding how The oneness of Christ and the Father, or the oneness to which the beloved of God are invited precludes Trinitarian doctrine. Secondly, I do not see how the passages from 3 Nephi clarify anything that is not in John 17 and elsewhere in the New Testament. I do not believe it is Scripture, but I do not have any problem with the passages from 3 Nephi if I accepted it.

Mormon Free Thinker

Jehovah is a man and a person, Jehovah is not three persons

"Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh" Ether 3:16

3DOP

It would seem that you hold that Jesus is specifically Jehovah? Neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost can be identified as Jehovah? I would say that if I understand Ether correctly, that this would make us modify our view of the Old Testament, where we believe the voice and activity of Jehovah signifies the Godhead comprised of the Three. But I do not see why it would undo our beliefs about New Testament revelation. If someone were persuaded of Traditional Trinitarianism and the truth of the Book of Mormon, I think they could merely say that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is Jehovah in the Old Testament. Why would that be problematic?

Mormon Free Thinker

God the Father and Jesus are not the same being

"8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. 9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day. 10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. 11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read" 1 Ne1:8 -11

3DOP

One doesn't need 1 Nephi to see that there is a distinction between the Father and the Son and the Spirit. The Creeds themselves refer to the different actions of the different Persons. In biology, we understand that offspring have limited differences with parents. Bears don't make ducks. In Genesis, it speaks of biological reproduction being, "after their kind". They don't have "the same being", but they make something in their own likeness that is so similar that we speak of it as, "after their kind". But then we hear that God has a Son? The Muslims won't even consider it. One can see why. For an infinite God to reproduce "after its kind" requires us to hold that the likeness that The Father has generously given to the Son and the Holy Ghost, is His own Likeness. They have it in fulness. To say that they are different beings would be to imply that there exists something ontologically lacking in one that is not possessed by another. This cannot be admitted. There can only be one such God.

If equality means infinity, there can only be one. I believe that is where we differ. I do not know if the Book of Mormon clarifies that God is finite. Obviously, I hold that the Scriptures in which I believe are compatible with the Sacred Tradition which says that God is infinite. (Just for the record, I do not agree with those who say that my Scriptures clearly teach the Traditional Trinity. I can not imagine that a guy in a vacuum reading the Bible would necessarily come up with what either of us believes.)

I am not trying, even if it sounds like it, to argue that my position is correct. I am limiting myself to trying to explain why so far, I do not think the Latter-day revelation provided to this point clarifies what is not already in the New Testament. If the Book of Mormon passages prove to somebody that the Traditional Trinity is false, it seems like they can find the same "clarity" in the New Testament.

Regards,

Rory

Thanks for your excellent reply.

To the others (Ted, mfb) please stay on topic

[mfbukowski]

You would be the last person to distort the LDS faith, and then you still wouldn't, can't see how MF would ever think that.

Well that is not what I said, so whatever. Notice those are all his understanding of what I said, not what I said. I was trying to avoid that kind of reaction from him, so I deleted the post, but now we have the reaction without the post. He seems to take it all personally and then makes me the bad guy.

Oh well. He does not understand Mormonism but he thinks he does, and when he tells someone what we believe he gets it wrong.

That is what my objection was.

I don't care what Rory believes, God bless him.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for your excellent reply.

To the others (Ted, mfb) please stay on topic

That's ok, I'm out. I just thought it might be helpful to know what we actually believe about the Godhead to see if the BOM clarifies it or not. All I have seen here gets that part wrong, but if that is off topic, then so be it. Substance theology is not LDS theology. If that's what the BOM teaches, the beliefs have changed. That's what continuing revelation is for.

[mfbukowski]

... and as you continue to think ever so kindly of us.

Check out the link, folks. Thanks Ham.

[Bobbieaware]

That's ok, I'm out. I just thought it might be helpful to know what we actually believe about the Godhead to see if the BOM clarifies it or not. All I have seen here gets that part wrong, but if that is off topic, then so be it. Substance theology is not LDS theology. If that's what the BOM teaches, the beliefs have changed. That's what continuing revelation is for.

Just a final word on our disagreement and I'm out too: Now, just because both the Father and the Son possess an infinite and eternal fullness of an actual material/spiritual substance that LDS theology calls intelligence, or the Spirit of Truth, does not mean that by acknowledging this incontrovertible fact that there is a veering off into the so-called "substance theology." of the traditional Trinitarians.

Paradoxically, according to the perspective of LDS theology, the so-called "substance theology" of the Trinitarians isn't really a theology of substance at all. Isn't it true that whatever the Trinitarian theologian's might imagine the unifying "substance" of Trinity might be, they surely wouldn't imagine the "substance" that unifies the personages go the Godhead is actually something MATERIAL? Rathet, they must surely theorize that their unifying "substance" is "something" immaterial.

Therefore, there's no actual similarity to an LDS theology that declares intelligence, light, spirit and truth are all material substances, in the same sense that carbon is a substance, and a theology that denies God and spirit have materiality. These two opposing theological positions are so far away from each other that the traditional "substance theology" of Trinitarianism and the LDS theology of the material substance of all things (including all things spiritual) are so far apart that one need not fear the LDS position can even begin to be subsumed by the Trinitarian position, The two positions are multi-verses apart, and never the twain shall meet. So there should be now worry if a Latter-day Saint declares the Father and the Son are both in full possession of an uncreated spiritual SUBSTANCE called the Spirit of Truth.

Edited to add:

Just as the name God the Father means two very different things to Trinitarians than it does to we Mormons, so, too, the word substance means something very different to the Trinitarians than it does to us.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Bobbieaware