Lds View Of Godhead / Trinity

[stephenpurdy]

Consider Hebrews chapter 1.

Hebrews 1 does not teach what most of the Christian world would like it to say (it does not teach the Trinity as most Christians understand it.) The chapter starts in the present and goes back in time describing Jesus and His relationship with God the Father. The chronology of Christ's appointment, incarnation and then resurrection and return to the right hand of the Father is given. 

 

The first scene, chronologically (verse 9), shows God the Father seeing the superior qualities of Jesus amongst the other "sons of God" or among the "morning stars" ­ Remember that Christ is called the "Bright Morning Star", an angelic title, but with superior qualities. (see Rev 22:16 and 2Pet.1:19 (see also Job 38:7 for another reference to the many "sons of God")

9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;

Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You

With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.
 

You see here that God (the God of Jesus) chose and anointed Jesus from among his "companions" (sometimes translated "fellows") ... his fellow angels and peers. Why was he chosen above the others? According to the verse we read, it was because Jesus loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.

We see in Hebrews chapter 1 that God the Father elevated this perfect angel to the status of "God", and to have the status of godhood forever.  Being spiritually perfect, Jesus deserved this title from before the foundation of the world.

8 But to the Son, He (God the Father) says:

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;

A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
 

As Jesus is elevated to the status of Deity, the Father gives the scepter/throne of the Father's kingdom to the Son, and it will be the Son's Kingdom forever.

7 And of the angels He says:  Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire.

The other angels are subject to Jesus. Elsewhere in the New Testament we see that Jesus was chosen by God the Father to organize the hosts of heaven, creating powers, thrones, principalities and so forth (see 1 Col 1:16) which rule these angelic hosts. Jesus was placed at the head of the hosts of heaven and became God's right hand; His Word. Jesus was also to be the Creator of the physical Universe as we know it (Heaven and Earth).  This is mentioned in verse 2 of this chapter (later in the chronology). Now verse 6...

6 But when He [the Father] brings the firstborn [Christ] into the world, He says:

Let all the angels of God worship Him.
 

Here we see this title of "firstborn" and how the firstborn was brought into the world in a unique and special way. Christ was considered to be "preeminent" among the other "sons of God". The first born son (especially in Hebrew culture) denotes authority and inheritance. And being that Jesus was elevated to Deity and preeminence above the others, He merits worship.  Again verse 6:

6 But when He brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

Let all the angels of God worship Him.

Please note above that Jesus was already the "Firstborn" before he was "brought" into the world.

In the Bible, Jesus has two titles of "sonship" in relation to God the Father 1) Firstbegotten and 2) Only begotten. These two titles have distinct significance.

The fact that Jesus was "first" indicates that there was a second, third, fourth, (i.e. others). The others were the sons of God / sons of the morning referenced in verses 6-­9.

Jesus was Firstborn (verse 6) according to the spirit amongst the sons of God (sons of the morning), and the Only Begotten Son in the Flesh amongst humanity. His birth into humanity as the Only Begotten Son is described in verse 5.

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: You are My Son, Today I have begotten You?

And again: I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son?
 

In one sense Jesus is not unique as a son of god, as there were others.  In that sense he is the "Firstborn", as there were other spirits who were foreordained to enter mortality and then return as resurrected beings to the presence of God.  As part of his chosen mission and inheritance, Jesus was also to be the Firstborn from the dead (ie resurrection).  All others will be resurrected as well.  However, NONE of the other sons of God were sons according to the flesh, as Jesus was.  In this way, Jesus was unique, the "Only Begotten" of the Father.

 

So in review, we have learned that Jesus was the Firstborn in the spirit, and He was chosen from among the "companions/fellows/sons of God" (verse 6-­9). but he was the ONLY son of God that was born of God again, this time in the flesh as the Messiah. Hence, the Only Begotten Son of God. Now verse 4.

4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

How did Jesus obtain the name and title of God? He "obtained" it by INHERITANCE, by being elevated from among the other sons of God to a higher position! Please note that Hebrews chapter 1 teaches that Jesus was "chosen/anointed" and that Jesus "obtained" the "more excellent name".  However, it is clearly well deserved. As the only perfect spirit, Christ had no flaws and therefore could unite His will perfectly with God's, thus he "became better than the angels" becoming "one" with God. Now read verses 2 and 3 understanding the CONTEXT as it was intended:

 

2 [God the Father] has in these last days spoken to us by His Son,

 

whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

 

3 who being the brightness of His glory and the

express image of His substance, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by

Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
 

 

Thus Jesus Christ, an exalted angel/son, who was "appointed" to be "heir of all things" and to be known as Jehovah in the Old Testament, and who now sits again on the right hand of the "Most High God" (also as Deity).

That is how subordinationism was taught in the New Testament and understood within the Apostles' New Testament Church. This was long before the changes in doctrine which occurred in the mid to second century A.D. and then solidified in Nicea and creeds which describe the Father and Son to be "coequal" or "Trinity", and other terms/ideas not found in scripture.

Again, please note that Christ is the "IMAGE of the Father's substance" as opposed to being the "same substance" or "one essence" or "single substance/essence" as many Trinitarians claim.

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

Problems with the Trinity

 

One of the many problems I find with “the Trinity”  and the defense of it is that it depends on changing the meaning/definition of words depending on the conversation at hand.  Furthermore it depends on absolutely changing the meanings of words as they were originally used in the Biblical text.  For example, a “person” in the Godhead is not really a person because normally if you have two "persons", then those persons are individual beings.  In the Trinity, "persons" are combined into as single being.

 

Often at the end of this discussion, I usually get the answer, "Well, it is a 'mystery' or 'it is beyond our comprehension'".  While on the one hand they are saying that the Trinity is "unknowable", on the other hand they write books, create forums, and argue about it ... then they say that anybody who disagrees with their view is a "heretic".

In the Bible, being "one" is never meant to be a literal single substance.  Yet when applying it to the members of the Godhead, Trinitarians change the meaning of "oneness".  Husband and wife are meant to be “one” according to the Bible.  You do not claim them to be “separate” / “twain”, but instead they are “one” according to Jesus.  This is Biblical phrasing and word usage.  The same is true in John 17 as the disciples were told to be “one” with Jesus “even as [Jesus] is one with the Father”.  It was never meant that they should be understood as a “single metaphysical substance”. 

 

Here are some of the verses that support the LDS view of Biblical/Scriptural "Oneness":

I already mentioned:    Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh".

Again, do you believe that when a man and a woman marry ... they become the same person, one in metaphysical substance? Of course not.  There are more...

Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul

Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ

2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind

Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ

Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together

 

The most significant one, however, was previously mentioned.  Much of John chapter 17 describes this "oneness":

 

John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."

 

The reason why this is significant, is because Trinitarians want to claim that the "oneness" that the Father and Son has is this "oneness of substance and being".  However, here Christ says that we are to be "one" with God in the same sense that Jesus is "one" with the Father.  It totally destroys the Trinity argument that "oneness" referring to members of the Trinity is different than the "oneness" everywhere else in the text.

 

Now, I mentioned in my last post that, before the physical creation of the Universe, Jesus Christ was the "firstborn" among the sons of God.  He was called the "Bright Morning Star" among the "morning stars" (i.e. the "sons of the morning").  Due to the superiority of Jesus, he was "appointed" and "anointed" from among his "fellows" by God the Father to be the Creator of the Universe, to be Preeminent amongst the hosts of heaven, to be the God of the Hebrews, and to be born as the Only Begotten Son of God and the Savior of mankind, and since he was preeminent among these "companions", He was also to be the firstfruit/firstborn in the resurrection.  While the the members of the Godhead are considered to be "one" God, the Son is subordinate to the Father, and "inherits" from the Father, and is "given authority" from the Father.  This again makes it more obvious that "oneness" that they have is being "one" in the Biblical sense, not in the literal and metaphysical sense as described by Trinitarian creeds because if they are the same being/substance, then this substance would not be "choosing" itself, inheriting from itself, giving authority to itself, etc.

When confronted by the fact that the Bible teaches these things, Trinitarians usually then go to passages in the Old Testament whereby Jehovah/Yahweh was comparing Himself to the false idols/gods that were being worshiped at the time, and they must ignore the context.  They attempt to apply that language of comparison to false idols to the relationship within the Godhead, which obviously results in contradictions.   For example, a common quote is the often repeated phrase from Yahweh, "There is no God beside me".

 

Now, for starters, this is a Hebrew idiom which declares "superiority" over others; it does not strictly mean that no others exist.  For example, in her pride, Babylon "sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me" (Isaiah 47).  Babylon in this phrase is not claiming to be the only city or nation in existence.  Babylon is claiming to be superior to the other cities/nations.  (See also Isaiah 47:10).  The meaning of the phrases "none else besides" or "no other" is not literally meant to be a claim of exclusivity in existence.

 

This is not the only problem with using "There is no other god beside me" as a proof text for a single substance God.  LDS will often point out that the Son prays to the Father.  Is God praying to itself?  Jesus says, "I have not ascended to the Father ... to your God and my God."  Jesus, who is God/Deity has a God ... apparently a God who is above him.  Indeed, the Son said, "the Father is greater than I".  Well trained Trinitarians will tell you that when relating between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, "there is a subject to object distinction".  That means that the persons of the Trinity are distinct.  The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, etc.  So, when Jesus Christ refers to "Me" or "I", this "Me" or "I" is not the Father.  It is true that they are not the same person; it is true that there is a subject to object distinction when the members of the Godhead refer to each other.

 

So, let's play the game for a moment and ignore the context of false idols in these Old Testament texts where God says there is no other besides me,  and let's ignore that these phrases are use of a Hebrew figure of speech that is not meant to be taken literally.  Instead, let's pretend that "There is no God besides me" is also meant to apply Universally, and even into the context of members of the Godhead.  In that case, if Jesus is saying it, then is Jesus saying that there is no Father?  If the Father is saying it, is He saying that there is no Holy Spirit or Son?    Clearly the meaning does not apply outside of the false/idols discussion, because, for example, in the context of Jesus Christ standing on the right hand of the Father, the Son of God would never say, "There is no God besides me".  

 

So, how should we understand that the members of the Godhead are "one"?  Here is how one prominent Mormon put it: 

Latter-day Saints, like other Christians and New Testament writers, affirm that there is a plurality of divine persons. Yet, at the same time, we witness (as our scriptures repeatedly declare) that "the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God." Given the plurality of divine persons, how can there be but one God? In at least three ways: (1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such. (2) There is only one God the Father or fount of divinity. (3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.

 

I believe that this kind of thinking is closer to the Biblical view than the view espoused by mainstream Christianity and commonly called "the Trinity".

 

-Stephen

Edited June 5, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

Nicean Creed

 

I mentioned this in the other thread and I am serious when I say it.  There were opposing interpretations in Christianity concerning this subject after the apostles died. 

 

Previously I wrote:

 

On one side, you had people arguing that Jesus Christ and God the Father were two separate beings, the Son was begotten/created by the Father.

On the other side, you had essentially modalists, who said that it was a single being/substance.

Emperor Constantine wanted to consolidate power at the head of this new Christian empire, so he ordered the ecclesiastic leaders to meet together at the council of Nicea and essentially forced them to hash it all out.

 

Note: The American Academic Encyclopedia states: "Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."

In order to appease both sides of the argument, the Trinity dogma was born as a compromise. Instead of Jesus being "begotten" as normally understood, they claimed that he was "Eternally Begotten" , meaning that from eternity past to eternity future, the Son is being constantly emanated from or issued forth from the Father. This was an entirely new/novel concept. And oh, while yes they are separate and distinct "persons" (they redefined the meaning of "person"), they described that it really is a single being/substance after all (modeled after the well accepted Greek philosophical concept of Plato/Aristotle's "unmoved mover" god in order to make it more palatable to the Roman culture).

 

There was no revelation from God on how to understand the relationship between the members of the Godhead.  And the subject was obscured by the doctrine of "Ex Nihilo creation", which I plan to explain in more detail here:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65449-the-nature-and-relationship-of-god-and-creation/

 

However, let me summarize how Ex Nihilo influenced the Nicean Creed.  Ex Nihilo arose in the mid-Second Century A.D.  The idea is this:  with the Greek philosophical monotheism of the "unmoved mover", only a single substance moved everything else and that is how the universe came to exist as it does today.  With Ex Nihilo, only a single substance is "uncreated / eternal", and that single Being/Substance is God, and it created everything else "out of nothing". 

 

So, at the Council of Nicea they had to argue whether they believed that Jesus Christ was in that single substance OR was Jesus Christ created "out of nothing" by God the Father?  The problem is that the doctrine of Ex Nihilo is false, and thus they had created a false dichotomy.

 

Anyways, the controversy between both parties took place concerning the concept of substance, which was a topic somewhat foreign to the New Testament itself.  In some ways the debate was a continuation of the greek philosophicale dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance.   Is it a sameness of essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons?

 

LDS reject the doctrine of Ex Nihilo creation.  The core of Christ's being (the essence of his spirit, which is sometimes called his "intelligence") has always existed from eternity past.  Yet at the same time, it is also understood that Christ was "begotten". 

 

-stephen

[Maedros]

I grew up Pentecostal and I always asked my parents who Jesus was praying to on the cross if he is God - where was the Father and the Holy Ghost when he was in mortality; did they separate from him and if so where were they - if he is the father and the son and they are with him and in him then what was the point of praying to yourself - to teach us? What do we learn from that exactly? That god is the author of confusion - well the god of the christian world is a god of confusion - the founder of that faith is Lucifer, the enemy of all righteousness and truth. All the atrocities that were perpetrated by Christianity from the time of those councils including the persecution of the latter-day saints and the persecution of many in the world today have their root in the secret combinations that founded that religion. I actually prefer Mormon to christian - I feel that the cause of the Christians is not christian but anti-Christ - I try not to identify myself with Christianity because I don't serve the same God as them - the god of the Christian world is mythological. He is a supernatural being with three heads and one body who can shape shift and is a spirit with no form - he has neither body parts nor passions and the believe in him is entirely dependent on the councils who decided who and what he is what he has said. The entire doctrine of the christian world was founded in those councils - with the latter-day saints it was founded on the testimony of Joseph Smith. I believe Joseph and the God that he revealed who has shape and form and from whose loins I descend, such simple and yet profound doctrine.

[Rivers]

The trinity doctrine is confusing but it serves the function of allowing The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to exist while still keeping Christianity monotheistic. Except the Jews and Muslims aren't buying it.

The trinity is actually a lot closer to What Mormons believe than a lot of Mormons realize. The trinity teaches that Father, Son, and HG are distinct from each other yet all three are God. This is precisely what Mormons believe about the Godhead. It's the belief of them being one substance in which we disagree. And Mormons have a much simpler statement of belief concerning the Godhead:

We believe in God the eternal father and in his son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Rivers

[stephenpurdy]

The trinity is actually a lot closer to What Mormons believe than a lot of Mormons realize. The trinity teaches that Father, Son, and HG are distinct from each other yet all three are God. This is precisely what Mormons believe about the Godhead. It's the belief of them being one substance in which we disagree. And Mormons have a much simpler statement of belief concerning the Godhead:

 

 

Exactly.  They believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are a "single substance/being".  While we believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct beings, who are "one" in harmony of will, purpose, mission, etc. 

 

We believe that a "oneness" and "perichoresis" exists among 3 beings, each of whom are fully "Deity" in and of themselves individually.  If this were not so, Jesus could not be considered to have "the fulness of Deity" as the scriptures claim.

For in Christ the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, (Col 2:9)

I believe that Trinitarians and Modalists contradict the scriptures because they claim that the fulness of Deity must be referring to all three members of the Godhead together as an immutable, incomprehensible and omnipresent essence.  Logically this means that the fulness of Deity cannot exist within Jesus bodily.  If the true nature of God is, for example, literal omnipresence, then the fulness of Deity cannot dwell in a finite location, "a tabernacle of clay".  Fortunately, we do not have to believe in the literal omnipresence of God, because the scriptures do not teach it. 

 

With literal omnipresence or a single substance, it makes no sense for Jesus to claim, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. (John 20:17).  If they are a single substance, then there would never be any separation between the Father and the Son in any sense. (Which also contradicts Christ's words, "my God my God, why hast thou forsaken me").   Likewise, if God the Father is literally omnipresent, then Christ would not have to "ascend" to anywhere in order to be in the presence of a spirit essence that is already everywhere.  Here is what Brigham Young wisely spoke on this matter:

 

"The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; ... God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness (DBY, 22- 24).

 

(This view provided by Brigham is much more consistent with scripture.  For example, when Jesus was baptized, there was a voice from Heaven (a single location) who was the Father speaking.  The Son was in the water with John the Baptist.    The Holy Spirit descended from Heaven.   None of them were a "unique omnipresent form" that Christians imagine God's nature to be.)

 

Furthermore, in Hebrews 1 we read:

"[Jesus Christ] Who being the brightness of his [the Father's] glory, and the express image of his [the Father's] person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high"

What does the passage really say?  It does not say that they are the same person (hypostasis).  Nor does it say that they are the same "ousia".  It says that Christ is the "IMAGE" of the Father's person/hypostasis.  The same idea was portrayed of Adam when he had his son Seth.

"When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth."  (Gen 5:3)

According to the Bible, if someone is the "image" of someone else, it neither implies literal oneness of being or literal oneness of substance.  When it comes to this passage, Christ is not only in the image of the Father, but this particular term refers to being an "exact copy".  This means that the resurrected being of Jesus Christ has the very same nature as the Father, and he is the same kind of being in every respect.  That is why Jesus says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9).   This does not mean that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same person, or even the same being.  He is saying that there is no difference between seeing God the Son or seeing God the Father.  The Son is even doing the same things the Father has done.

 

So Rivers, the LDS view of God is different than the Trinity, not only concerning the "single substance" but also the nature of Deity, particularly the nature of God the Father, which to us, was revealed through Jesus Christ in every sense.  When Christ asked the disciples to touch his hands, see his resurrected body, watch him eat, etc.  He was demonstrating to the disciples exactly what the completed picture of the nature of Deity truly is.  We believe that, and other Christians do not.

 

-stephen

Edited June 6, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[longview]

The trinity doctrine is confusing but it serves the function of allowing The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to exist while still keeping Christianity monotheistic. Except the Jews and Muslims aren't buying it.

The trinity is actually a lot closer to What Mormons believe than a lot of Mormons realize. The trinity teaches that Father, Son, and HG are distinct from each other yet all three are God. This is precisely what Mormons believe about the Godhead. It's the belief of them being one substance in which we disagree. And Mormons have a much simpler statement of belief concerning the Godhead:

We believe in God the eternal father and in his son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.

Disagree.

 

Other churches do not understand the concept of the Godhead.  Mormons understand it very well.  The First Presidency consists of three persons but they are NOT co-equal.  One holds all the keys and two others are assistants and subordinate.  Similarly the bishopric and the Stake Presidency and all other presidencies function the same way.  All are patterned after the supreme body called the Godhead.  Therefore there is no other Godhead besides this Godhead (at least for this creation or Eternal Round).

[stephenpurdy]

Other churches do not understand the concept of the Godhead.  Mormons understand it very well.  The First Presidency consists of three persons but they are NOT co-equal.  One holds all the keys and two others are assistants and subordinate.  Similarly the bishopric and the Stake Presidency and all other presidencies function the same way.  All are patterned after the supreme body called the Godhead.  Therefore there is no other Godhead besides this Godhead (at least for this creation or Eternal Round).

 

I will say this:  The whole "social trinitarian" movement represents a shift towards the LDS view, but not quite all the way there.  The description of "three centers of consciousness" is relatively new, and is a far superior interpretation of the Biblical text than has been previously held by Christians following the acceptance of the creeds.

 

However, the Trinitarian view of what God is by nature still separates us.  To them, God the Father and the Holy Spirit (and prior to his incarnation, Jesus as well I suppose) are a single omnipresent spirit substance rather than actual "persons" as we would normally understand "persons".

 

That is why they will often cite in isolation the phrases in the Bible that say, "No man has seen God".  Because in their mind, the very nature of God is "invisible". 

 

On the other hand, we view the term often translated as "invisible" to mean "not seen".  Much like a star in the distant end of the Universe is "not seen".  It is separated from us, which is why we cannot see it.

 

As for those verses that say man cannot see God, I see it this way.  No man has comprehended the fulness of the glory of God the Father.  The experience of Moses indicates this in the description of his experience recorded in the Pearl of Great Price.  Also ....

- - - -  - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"no man has seen God at any time", refers to the "natural man".

As the Blue Letter Bible commentary states:  "Scripture speaks of two different types of people ”the natural man and the spiritual man. What is the difference between the two?"

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). 

"Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God," refers to a future redeemed, justified, and sanctified man.  They shall see God.

- - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

So far, the only man who has seen God the Father in the sense of comprehending all of his glory, is Jesus Christ.

 

-Stephen

[mikegriffith1]

When I was investigating the Church as a 19-year-old young man, the LDS doctrine of the trinity struck me as eminently logical and compelling. The more I read the Bible, the more evidence I see of the LDS view of the godhead. Ditto for the Book of Mormon.

 

Once a person understands the ancient concept of oneness/being "one" and what it meant to be an "agent" for someone else, the scriptural case for the LDS view of the godhead becomes even more compelling.

[Dgal]

The one compelling argument against the LDS godhead was that Jesus, as a Jew, would not have taught more than one god or a god head. He was a Jew. One God and one God alone.

He would not have taught that there was three separate beings, 3 separate gods. Nor would he have taught that we humans could become gods.

 

That idea is NOT Jewish teaching. He was a Jew.

[stephenpurdy]

The one compelling argument against the LDS godhead was that Jesus, as a Jew, would not have taught more than one god or a god head. He was a Jew. One God and one God alone.

He would not have taught that there was three separate beings, 3 separate gods. Nor would he have taught that we humans could become gods.

 

That idea is NOT Jewish teaching. He was a Jew.

 

 

Jesus was constantly telling the Jews that their "Jewish teachings" were not correct.  Jesus would say things like, "Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures, '....."

 

Of course they had read the scriptures, but they did not understand them.  They often misinterpret the scriptures.

 

The same is true today.

 

-Stephen

[Dgal]

Jesus was constantly telling the Jews that their "Jewish teachings" were not correct.  Jesus would say things like, "Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures, '....."

 

Of course they had read the scriptures, but they did not understand them.  They often misinterpret the scriptures.

 

The same is true today.

 

-Stephen

 

There is part of the challenge. Both Jews and Trinitarian Christians are monotheistic. Muslims as well.  Mormons are, by accurate definition, henotheistic

 

It's why we keep getting "Mormons are not Christians" tossed our way. Our theology is certainly not monotheistic.

Unless the vast majority of the monotheistic world begins to see the Bible as teaching henotheism, our theology will continue to be rejected.

[JLHPROF]

The one compelling argument against the LDS godhead was that Jesus, as a Jew, would not have taught more than one god or a god head. He was a Jew. One God and one God alone.

He would not have taught that there was three separate beings, 3 separate gods. Nor would he have taught that we humans could become gods.

 

That idea is NOT Jewish teaching. He was a Jew.

 

The Jews were not always the strict monotheists they are painted as being.

Edited June 7, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Dgal]

The Jews were not always the strict monotheists they are painted as being.

This is new to new. Please explain.

[Anakin7]

      Godhead is the True explanation use of conveying the Doctrine of The Members of The LDS Church/Faith. A more scholarly Title Term I use is that we are - True Kingdom/ Anchien/t Monarch/ Eastern/ Economic/ Socia/l Godheadeans/ Trinitarians.

 

     In His Debt/Grace

             Anakin7

Edited June 8, 2015 by Anakin7

[JLHPROF]

This is new to new. Please explain.

 

I'm no expert.   There are those here who are much more familiar with ancient history than I am.

But the progression from polytheistic to monotheistic is agreed on by many historians.

Even Wikipedia talks about it, although I am sure there are better sources out there.

[stephenpurdy]

There is part of the challenge. Both Jews and Trinitarian Christians are monotheistic. Muslims as well.  Mormons are, by accurate definition, henotheistic

 

It's why we keep getting "Mormons are not Christians" tossed our way. Our theology is certainly not monotheistic.

Unless the vast majority of the monotheistic world begins to see the Bible as teaching henotheism, our theology will continue to be rejected.

 

There are terms here that require much more explanation.  "Monotheism", "Henotheism", "Polytheism" are not actually terms defined in scripture (they are not even used in scripture).  These are terms that developed later to try to describe different religious beliefs.     

 

My understanding of “polytheism” is a system of worship whereby one worships a different being depending on what they are looking for.  If you want help with your crops, you worship that god.  If you want help with war, you worship another god.  Etc.  

On the other hand, Mormons will say they “worship God the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit.”  They will also say that even though each of these persons are distinct individual beings, “these three are one God.”  However, as we have discussed, the LDS position is that being “one” is not meant to be taken as a literal “metaphysical oneness of being”.

 

Perhaps you can call it "monotheism" because we are directing worship to the Father (as Jesus taught we should do) or perhaps you can call it "monotheism" because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is "one God.

 

Perhaps you can call it "Henotheism" because while we say that multiple beings of Deity exist, we only worship the Father.

 

Perhaps you can call it "Polytheism" or "Tritheism" because we worship the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are each distinct beings.  Or perhaps "polytheism" because in the mind of the LDS, there is a Divine Mother there.

 

I try not to get too caught up with the "Mono" vs "poly" vs "tri" debate.  non-LDS sometimes just want to call us polytheists because there is stigma associated with that label.  When it comes down to it , well, it doesn't matter what term you want to call it.   It is what it is.  It is true.

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

I wanted, on this thread, to more clearly define what Joseph Smith taught, particularly in the King Follett discourse.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Joseph said, that (like Jesus) God the Father is an exalted man in form and appearance, "If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another."

Keep in mind that Joseph was not teaching that we, as humans are the same as God the Father in all respects. (Except Jesus).   The idea that God was "a man like us" is understood by LDS to be true in a general sense. (I.E. the same sense that Jesus Christ was "a man like us" and "the journey we are going through" and "entering mortality" in the same sense that Jesus went through all of the trials that we go through.)

What led Joseph to this kind of reasoning and what made him ask God these kinds of questions?  For starters, Joseph Smith had a vision where he saw God.  He saw a personage, and later (recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants) he learned that God had the form of a human body which was "flesh and bone". So, the question that later developed  was, "How did God get a body?" Joseph answered, in the whole context of the King Follett sermon, that Jesus was following in the same path that God the Father had accomplished.
 

One of the scriptures that Joseph is referenced is John 5:19:

"I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

 

and

 

1 Corinthians 1:
24 Then cometh the end, when (Jesus) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

and

 

John Chapter 5 verse 24-26, which states:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself"

Based on that scripture, Joseph Smith says this in the King Follett discourse:

"Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again."

So, in this clear context of resurrection found in the New Testament, the scriptures speak of God the Father having "life in himself" , which in John chapter 5 means a resurrected body.

Also, Joseph's discourse says:

"What did Jesus do?   ,

 

"Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself."

 

So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children."

 

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

Now, LDS theology includes the idea that God the Father is the God of many earths and many worlds : "worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; ... there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man."

"What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom,

It seems that each kindgom has many  (innumerable) "worlds". 

 

I have been asked, on occasion, do LDS believe that you will have the same position as God the Father?  The answer, I think, is "no". 

 

There is a deeper and more detailed discussion/debate concerning whether or not there is ultimately a difference between "gods by grace" and "Gods by nature".

In my mind, the most consistent interpretation based on the information we have is this: That Jesus Christ would become the "God the Father" of a new creation (possibly a new universe or inflated aspect of the universe) and he would be at the head of the "heavenly host" , who are "gods". Thus making him the "God of gods" and "Lord of lords" or "the Most High God" of the new universe. Or as Joseph taught, the "Head of the gods". (We would still have the same relationship with God the Father of our universe.) Again, our Christ would be "the Father" of the new universe (Note that the Book of Mormon calls Christ "the Father" when we are "born again" through Jesus, and in this sense, Jesus would always be considered "the Father" of our becoming "partakers of the divine nature".)  We would be "one" with Him in this endeavor. All of these exalted would share involvement in the spiritual creation - intelligences into spiritual bodies, who are the spiritual children of "Elohim" (plural).

Among the spiritual children of Elohim would be a perfectly and naturally divine spirit, who would be the new "Christ" of the new creation, and would then enact the physical creation, place spirits into bodies on an earth, and say "man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil" etc. etc. This seems consistent with LDS scripture to me, because God the Father is the Father of "worlds without number".

Granted, this includes speculation on my part, and there are complications and implications. For example, it could potentially mean that God the Father of this Universe is not actually the father of every spirit, at least not directly; but instead, spirits may be created from other couples but the exalted host's Christ is their Father - when they were spiritually born again, so is ultimately the Father of all in that creation.   Not that there would be much of a difference (at least not to me), but that would be one of the implications to this theory which people may have difficulty with.

 

-Stephen

[Sp0ckrates]

Hi, all. I think I should like to try to defend the concept of God being a Trinity--not because I know the idea is true, but because I am familiar with how others defend it and would like to see if the defense will hold up against intelligent Christians like yourselves.

I think my playing (pardon the expression) devil's advocate might make for an interesting exercise in how to best reason with someone who is not Mormon.

If anyone is interested in having such a conversation with me, please let me know.

[Sp0ckrates]

But even if no one is interested in a moch debate, I would like to try to understand the Mormon belief. Will someone briefly explain it to me?

[JLHPROF]

Hi, all. I think I should like to try to defend the concept of God being a Trinity--not because I know the idea is true, but because I am familiar with how others defend it and would like to see if the defense will hold up against intelligent Christians like yourselves.

I think my playing (pardon the expression) devil's advocate might make for an interesting exercise in how to best reason with someone who is not Mormon.

If anyone is interested in having such a conversation with me, please let me know.

 

But even if no one is interested in a moch debate, I would like to try to understand the Mormon belief. Will someone briefly explain it to me?

 

Please, not again.

You can read this thread - http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63727-dear-evangelical-friends-can-a-mormon-be-a-christian/

It has EVERY possible argument ever for/against trinitarian beliefs.

It hit 163 pages, covered basically every angle (twice) before being closed, and convinced nobody of anything.

[Sp0ckrates]

Please, not again.

You can read this thread - http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63727-dear-evangelical-friends-can-a-mormon-be-a-christian/

It has EVERY possible argument ever for/against trinitarian beliefs.

It hit 163 pages, covered basically every angle (twice) before being closed, and convinced nobody of anything.

No problem. Thanks.

[Flyonthewall]

Basically, as I see it, and others can refine it to their liking, when the scriptures say the Lord is "one" or there is "one" Lord, you can replace the word "one" with "united" or "in unity with"... Not that there is "one being".

We each believe there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - each are separate individuals.

LDS use the term "being" as an entity that is or was alive. A person is a "being". An animal is a "being". A fish is a "being", a bird is a "being". We can put descriptors in front such as "human" being but that does not change the premise.

LDS say there are 3 that are unified in function, purpose, and testimony.

When Jesus taught that He and His Father are "one" - we understand that they are united or in unity with each other.

Jesus also taught that we could be one with Him as He and His Father are one. We believe this is to be in unity with them as they are in unity with each other.

This does not work in the Trinitarian belief. Oh, yes, they will tell you it does, but not without contradictions in terms.

To me, I can agree with the concept of the Trinity to a point, then it simply breaks down into contradictions and becomes chaotic.

Three persons cannot be one being. They can be of one heart and one mind but they are still 3 different and separate beings.

It seems to me that some have to attribute to God fantastical, mythological, magical qualities that defy logic and reason, to drive home the point that God is nothing like us... when in fact God created us in His likeness and image.

We are children of the Most High and as such we can be like Him... but there is a huge gap of where we are and where He is. It will take us an eternity of learning, and refining, and becoming, to be like Him.

This earth life is one step in that process.

Since this can ramble on in so many different directions I will stop here.

[bluebell]

The trinity doctrine is confusing but it serves the function of allowing The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to exist while still keeping Christianity monotheistic. Except the Jews and Muslims aren't buying it.

The trinity is actually a lot closer to What Mormons believe than a lot of Mormons realize. The trinity teaches that Father, Son, and HG are distinct from each other yet all three are God. This is precisely what Mormons believe about the Godhead. It's the belief of them being one substance in which we disagree. And Mormons have a much simpler statement of belief concerning the Godhead:

We believe in God the eternal father and in his son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.

 

We also disbelieve in the co-equal part because we believe that the Son is subordinate to the Father.  But you have explained it perfectly as to why the doctrine of the trinity exists (from an LDS perspective) and how similar it is to the LDS concept of the Godhead.