Lds View Of Godhead / Trinity

3DOP · June 22, 2015

I think we as Mormons have strong ground to stand on. For starters, the term "monotheism" isn't even Biblical either, so who cares who wins that gold ribbon.

Let me reiterate this point, with the verses that support the LDS view of Biblical/Scriptural "Oneness":

Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh".Do you believe that when a man and a woman marry ... they become the same being/person, one in metaphysical substance? Of course not. There are more...Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soulRom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mindGal. 3:28 ye are all one in ChristPhilip. 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.

So, if you ask a Mormon, "in what sense is Jesus Christ 'one' with God the Father?"

Answer: In the same sense that multiple persons are called to be "one" EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE TEXT, which is not a literal metaphysical oneness of being.

I am always amazed anytime someone makes the claim that LDS views on this are "unBiblical". Um , no. It is the most Biblical view on this, if anyone cares about textual consistency that is.

Sp0ckrates wrote: But the passage also doesn't say there isn't one God in three persons, and I don't recall any Trinitarian using it as proof of the doctrine.

Of course Trinitarians avoid the use of this passage ... it throws a huge wrench in the middle of the idea that God the Father and Jesus are supposedly literally a single Being ... along with all the other passages I mentioned above, but this is a bigger wrench.

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

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2)
Sp0ckrates wrote: Notice that Paul says the Godhead dwells in Christ. So I'm confused when you say Christ dwells in the Godhead.

The term Godhead is found three times in the King James Version. Acts, Romans and this one. The verses refer to "God" or “deity” or “divine nature”, however, different Greek words are used in each of these verses.
In Acts 17, the word translated to Godhead is theion, a word used by the Greeks to denote “God” in general, with no reference to a particular deity and no reference to a particular member of the Godhead.
In Romans 1, Paul explains that nobody in humanity lives up to God's divine standard, and says that all should understand by creation that God exists. “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”. Here, Godhead is theiotés. Paul’s point here is that the natural world reveals the divine nature of God.
Col 2:9 states, “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The word for “Godhead” here is theotés although translating it as "Deity" is probably a better fit, and many translations do translate this word that way. The point is that Jesus embodies all (“the fulness”) of God.

So, let me turn a question back to the Trinitarians... if the nature of God/Deity includes literal omnipresence, or literally three persons in one substance/being ... then how can the fulness of Deity dwell in a single person with a local presence (ie, not omnipresent, not "Triune")?

-Stephen

Edited June 22, 2015 by 3DOP

3DOP · June 22, 2015

It seems like as the years go by, it gets more and more complicated trying to post. As I approach my golden years, I presume it will be entirely confusing. Please ignore my last "post". No more cutting and pasting. Okay.

I'll try again.

ERayR · June 22, 2015

It seems like as the years go by, it gets more and more complicated trying to post. As I approach my golden years, I presume it will be entirely confusing. Please ignore my last "post". No more cutting and pasting. Okay.

I'll try again.

It sometimes seems that the only way our golden years are golden is that it takes all our gold to get through them.

Getting old ain't for wimps.

3DOP · June 22, 2015

I think we as Mormons have strong ground to stand on. For starters, the term "monotheism" isn't even Biblical either, so who cares who wins that gold ribbon.

Let me reiterate this point, with the verses that support the LDS view of Biblical/Scriptural "Oneness":

Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh".
Do you believe that when a man and a woman marry ... they become the same being/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.

So, if you ask a Mormon, "in what sense is Jesus Christ 'one' with God the Father?"

Answer: In the same sense that multiple persons are called to be "one" EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE TEXT, which is not a literal metaphysical oneness of being.

I am always amazed anytime someone makes the claim that LDS views on this are "unBiblical". Um , no. It is the most Biblical view on this, if anyone cares about textual consistency that is.

Sp0ckrates wrote: But the passage also doesn't say there isn't one God in three persons, and I don't recall any Trinitarian using it as proof of the doctrine.

Of course Trinitarians avoid the use of this passage ... it throws a huge wrench in the middle of the idea that God the Father and Jesus are supposedly literally a single Being ... along with all the other passages I mentioned above, but this is a bigger wrench.

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

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2)
Sp0ckrates wrote: Notice that Paul says the Godhead dwells in Christ. So I'm confused when you say Christ dwells in the Godhead.

The term Godhead is found three times in the King James Version. Acts, Romans and this one. The verses refer to "God" or “deity” or “divine nature”, however, different Greek words are used in each of these verses.
In Acts 17, the word translated to Godhead is theion, a word used by the Greeks to denote “God” in general, with no reference to a particular deity and no reference to a particular member of the Godhead.
In Romans 1, Paul explains that nobody in humanity lives up to God's divine standard, and says that all should understand by creation that God exists. “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”. Here, Godhead is theiotés. Paul’s point here is that the natural world reveals the divine nature of God.
Col 2:9 states, “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The word for “Godhead” here is theotés although translating it as "Deity" is probably a better fit, and many translations do translate this word that way. The point is that Jesus embodies all (“the fulness”) of God.

So, let me turn a question back to the Trinitarians... if the nature of God/Deity includes literal omnipresence, or literally three persons in one substance/being ... then how can the fulness of Deity dwell in a single person with a local presence (ie, not omnipresent, not "Triune")?

-Stephen

Wow...it let me cut and paste your question.

Stephen

So, let me turn a question back to the Trinitarians... if the nature of God/Deity includes literal omnipresence, or literally three persons in one substance/being ... then how can the fulness of Deity dwell in a single person with a local presence (ie, not omnipresent, not "Triune")?

3DOP

I am Catholic. I do not speak for non-Catholic Trinitarians. I do not know what you mean by literal omnipresence. Presumably, you think it means absolute, or 100%? I think it is revealed that God is everywhere. I do not know if it is "literal". I certainly do not know how He accomplishes it.

Allow me to speculate that if there is a place in the universe where God's influence or knowledge or love or wisdom is excluded, then it would disprove "omnipresence". Fortunately for my position, I cannot think of what location that might be.

Certainly I can be allowed to believe in degrees of presence? As an example, I hold that Jesus "sits at the right hand of God". I do not think Jesus' physical body is omnipresent. I would agree that the physical presence of the human body of Jesus Christ is limited. But does that imply there is not some literal sense in which He is other places. Surely, either of us can quote Scriptures which show that some forms of being "present" (whether literal or not) are non-physical.

As to your question about "substance" and "being", or the synonyms nature and essence, are you acknowledging that the words even have any meaning? (Be aware that some of your party vehemently deny that there is any meaning). Anyway if you are among those LDS who acknowledge that any of these words have any meaning to you, let me know your definitions to see if we can talk about the same things. If possible, I will be pleased to continue the discussion with you. Thank you very much for your well thought out reply.

God bless,

Rory

Edited June 22, 2015 by 3DOP

3DOP · June 22, 2015

It sometimes seems that the only way our golden years are golden is that it takes all our gold to get through them.

Getting old ain't for wimps.

Heheh. for sure. But God knows what he is doing. I am sure you accept that part of the plan as I do. It takes so much more strength to be old. But as your days, so shall your strength be! (somewhere in the Pentateuch)

Take care ERay. God love you.

R

Edited June 22, 2015 by 3DOP

stephenpurdy · June 23, 2015

Premises
1. A person is a being
2. Three persons are three beings

I have to agree with these Premises.

A single person is a single being, and three persons are three beings. To claim otherwise is just redefining terms (i.e. playing word games).

3DOP wrote: I do not know what you mean by literal omnipresence. Presumably, you think it means absolute, or 100%? I think it is revealed that God is everywhere. I do not know if it is "literal". I certainly do not know how He accomplishes it. Allow me to speculate that if there is a place in the universe where God's influence or knowledge or love or wisdom is excluded, then it would disprove "omnipresence". Fortunately for my position, I cannot think of what location that might be.

If you believe that God is omnipresent by means of God's influence, knowledge and power, then that is not really "literally" omnipresent. What I mean by "literal omnipresent" is the idea that God is a spirit essence which is literally everywhere.

3DOP wrote: As to your question about "substance" and "being", or the synonyms nature and essence, are you acknowledging that the words even have any meaning? (Be aware that some of your party vehemently deny that there is any meaning). Anyway if you are among those LDS who acknowledge that any of these words have any meaning to you, let me know your definitions to see if we can talk about the same things.

Well, IF you say that there is "one divine nature" , then we can agree with you. The area where we may disagree is that multiple persons, indeed multiple beings can possess this divine nature.

-Stephen

Edited June 23, 2015 by stephenpurdy

TheSkepticChristian · June 23, 2015

I have to agree with these Premises.

A single person is a single being, and three persons are three beings. To claim otherwise is just redefining terms (i.e. playing word games).

Excellent point

stephenpurdy · June 27, 2015

Excellent point

I think that historically, it is pretty clear what happened. The Greek (and then Roman) elite and philosophers had abandoned the Greek mythical gods and goddesses for centuries. They had developed theology into what is known as “Greek philosophical monotheism”, which was this “unmoved mover” (primum movens) which was the single substance that is responsible for the creation of the cosmos. This allowed an easier transition by saying that the “Trinity” is the same “single substance” that the philosophers considered as the “unmoved mover”.

Describing to the audience a similar philosphical God to what they were already familiar with made this new form of Christian teaching more palatable to the culture at that time... However, it forced Christians to claim that three distinct people (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) were really a single being/substance.

-Stephen

P.S.

The Father and the Son

A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son.p1?lang=eng

Edited June 27, 2015 by stephenpurdy

mfbukowski · June 27, 2015

It sometimes seems that the only way our golden years are golden is that it takes all our gold to get through them.

Getting old ain't for wimps.

For a while it beats the alternative, but one can get to the point where even that seems doubtful

mfbukowski · June 27, 2015

I have to agree with these Premises.

A single person is a single being, and three persons are three beings. To claim otherwise is just redefining terms
(i.e. playing word games).
[\quote]
Allow me to point out that that is what you have just done here.
Is a single dog a being?
An amoeba?
What is NOT a "being"? There is no definition here, just an arbitrary statement that A=A

Edited June 27, 2015 by mfbukowski

mfbukowski · June 27, 2015

I have to agree with these Premises.

A single person is a single being, and three persons are three beings. To claim otherwise is just redefining terms
(i.e. playing word games).
[\quote]

Allow me to point out that that is what you have just done here.

Is a single dog a being?
An amoeba?
What is NOT a "being"? There is no definition here, just an arbitrary statement that A=A

mfbukowski · June 27, 2015

Tried to fix it, I give up

stephenpurdy · July 1, 2015

I have to agree with these Premises.

A single person is a single being, and three persons are three beings. To claim otherwise is just redefining terms
(i.e. playing word games).
[\quote]
Allow me to point out that that is what you have just done here.
Is a single dog a being?
An amoeba?
What is NOT a "being"? There is no definition here, just an arbitrary statement that A=A

A person has a single consciousness. A being has a single consciousness.

A) Person

B) Being

A = B

Or at least, a person is a kind of being.

-Stephen

Edited July 1, 2015 by stephenpurdy

Alma 11:44 · July 1, 2015

Doesn't Alma 11:44 teach all three persons of the Godhead in Genesis chapter 1 were Fatherless and Motherless ?

Alma 11:44 · July 1, 2015

http://i.imgur.com/HmLQXiL.jpg

Doesn't Alma 11:44 teach all three persons of the Godhead in Genesis chapter 1 were Fatherless and Motherless ?

Alma 11:44 · July 2, 2015

If you put it as one Godhead consisting of three persons I'd be OK with that.

Isn't that exactly the teaching of the Trinity ?

E. Calvin Beisner

God in Three Persons

The Christian Church throughout history has found in order to remain faithful to the teachings of the New Testament regarding the person and work of Christ, it had to affirm at least the following doctrines:

The doctrine of the Trinity----that in the nature of the One True God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each fully God, Coequal and Coeternal

When we have said these three things, then—that there is but one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person—we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness.

We may condense this into a somewhat shorter statement, one which is more precise: In the nature of the God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ( or substance ) of the one true God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit p 24

“The Nicene Creed, then, with centuries of theological discussion and controversy behind it, still teaches of the Trinity as the New Testament does: that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while distinct from each other personally, are the same God” p 153

. we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assemble the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.

first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being [ all Synonyms ]

Alan · July 2, 2015

My view of God has changed over the years.

I now tend to believe that Jehovah is the father, and Jesus is Jehovah.

Therefore, Jesus is both father and son. This concurs with the Book of Mormon.

Beyond that, I get confused.

mfbukowski · July 2, 2015

Synonyms which describe nothing.

mfbukowski · July 2, 2015

My view of God has changed over the years.
I now tend to believe that Jehovah is the father, and Jesus is Jehovah.
Therefore, Jesus is both father and son. This concurs with the Book of Mormon.
Beyond that, I get confused.

Aren't most adult males fathers and sons?

Alma 11:44 · July 2, 2015

Aren't most adult males fathers and sons?

The Athanasion Creed says it's wrong to Confound the persons means not mixing them up, The Father isn't the Son, the Son isn't the Father etc.

yes we as humans can be both but God the Father was never a son and Jesus was never GOD the FATHER.

Substance is a synonym for Godhead the same as Essence being or God

mfbukowski · July 2, 2015

The Athanasion Creed says it's wrong to Confound the persons means not mixing them up, The Father isn't the Son, the Son isn't the Father etc.yes we as humans can be both but God the Father was never a son and Jesus was never GOD the FATHER.Substance is a synonym for Godhead the same as Essence being or God

Sorry, you will never understand my point. Have a good life.

Alma 11:44 · July 2, 2015

Sorry, you will never understand my point. Have a good life.

I understand your point, you want to make god to the level of humans and humans to the level of god.

Isa 40 says your completely off in your thinking

12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? 13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding? 15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. 16 And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. 17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.

18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? 19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. 20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved. 21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. 24 Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. 25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

Calm · July 2, 2015

Substance is a synonym for Godhead the same as Essence being or God

No, it is not...at least not in LDS doctrine or in the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

It may be in some creedal Christians' formulations of their beliefs.

Have you read the links I posted yet?

Kevin Christensen · July 2, 2015

I understand your point, you want to make god to the level of humans and humans to the level of god.
Isa 40 says your completely off in your thinking
12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? 13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding? 15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. 16 And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. 17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? 19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. 20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved. 21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. 24 Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. 25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

The use of that particular Isaiah reference in that particular way also turns out to have telling significance, though perhaps, not as intended.

See Barker's The Older Testament, the chapters on the Second Isaiah. As well as The Great Angel overall.

I put a glimpse here:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=7

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Alma 11:44 · July 2, 2015

The use of that particular Isaiah reference in that particular way also turns out to have telling significance, though perhaps, not as intended.
See Barker's The Older Testament, the chapters on the Second Isaiah. As well as The Great Angel overall.
I put a glimpse here:
http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=7
FWIW
Kevin Christensen
Canonsburgh, PA

Your link starts with Isa 41 not 40

Sign In

Lds View Of Godhead / Trinity

Recommended Posts

3DOP

3DOP

ERayR

3DOP

3DOP

stephenpurdy

TheSkepticChristian

stephenpurdy

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

stephenpurdy

Alma 11:44

Alma 11:44

Alma 11:44

Alan

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

Alma 11:44

mfbukowski

Alma 11:44

Calm

Kevin Christensen

Alma 11:44

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content

Personal Reflections on a Regular Christian's Views on the Trinity Doctrine. 1 2

Great Adam-God Discussion 1 2 3 4 14

The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation 1 2 3 4 32

I'm Not Worried If I Meet God And I'm Wrong On The Trinity 1 2

What's Up With The Trinity 1 2 3 4 14

Activity

Browse