Wrapping My Head Around The Godhead

[Sp0ckrates]

Was your son once "in" you and your wife?

Can you see that these distinctions are merely different ways of seeing? Is a pyramid a square or a triangle? If seen from the bottom it is one, and seen from the side it is another. There is no ONE "true" way of seeing a pyramid, they are all just different points of view.

Do you know about the blind man and the elephant?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

So would you say Paul is using the word Godhead in a different way then someone who will say, "There are three gods in one Godhead"?

[Sp0ckrates]

Why do I think it is clear he does not want to learn at all but to entrap with sophistries?

Anyone else think so?

Hi, MFB. From what I see, Sophists were evil and cared nothing for discovering the truth. They only cared about winning debates. For fun they would take one side in a debate and win the argument then they'd take the opposite side in a debate and win that argument, too. They were the antagonists of Ancient Greek philosophers. Socrates said of them:

For the [sophist] when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is this: That whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself!

(Phaedo)

I don't see myself as being like the Sophists he describes, but do you? Edited June 18, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

I notice that, for whatever reason, you don't actually engage in repartee. Do you fear actual discussion? You know, someone makes a statement, you react, etc. Then they react. Response, Rejoinder. Etc. On the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board.

Yes, thanks for asking. It's called the Socratic Method. I've come to hate debate. When I was younger, I won a lot of arguments, but never really won the truth.

Now I'm all about learning what people believe and why they believe. I'm trying to see if why they believe are good reasons why I should believe, too. So I'm doing the same here as I've done at Catholic, Protestant, Atheist and other forums. I'm really trying to give full consideration of each kind of belief to see which one is right for me.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

Paul is saying that Jesus Christ has full-fledged godness (Gottheit). Well, so do the other members of the Gottheit.

So then, would you say Paul is using the word Godhead in a different way than a Mormon who tells me, "There are three gods in the Godhead"?

[Sp0ckrates]

Genetically as well as in your thoughts, your father is in you. And since the day you came into his life, you are in his thoughts.

Yes, I can see that. But let me be sure I understand. Are you saying Paul is saying the Godhead is in Christ, something like the way genes or shared beliefs are in Christ?

If so, then isn't he using the word Godhead in a different way than Momons commonly use it? For don't Mormons say Christ is in the Godhead, instead of the Godhead is in Christ?

Edited June 18, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

Christ clears up any ambiguity a few verses later. After saying, "verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," some of his disciples were deeply troubled by the seemingly bizarre saying:

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? (John 6)

But the Lord then proceeds to explain the true meaning of his dark saying when he says:

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6)

So the Lord was using powerful metaphorical language to deeply impress upon the human mind that one's whole duty is to totally internalize Christ IN A SPIRITUAL SENSE. The actual eating of his physical body would prophet them absolutely nothing.

I find these words spoken before the last supper are also ambiguous. I mean, consider what Jesus says, here:

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

(John 6)

Other translations use more modern language: "For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink." Catholics tell me Jesus' flesh and blood is not symbolic food. It's as he says real food. But Protestants also have a plausible argument for eating and drinking being a metaphor for believing. Me? I don't know what view is true. But this is a topic for another discussion.

So I suppose I'm at an advantage. Being non-partisan when it comes to religion I can appreciate opposing points of view. I suppose if religion were politics, you would call me neither a Democrat not a Republican, but an Independent.

The downside to being Independent is I have no church to call my own, and my need to belong remains unfulfilled. But I still have hope that will change.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Calm]

Is it OK for this newbie to ask? Is God the Mother another way of referring to the Holy Ghost, or is she another?

Now if you had read the GP manual, you would have no need to ask this question. . I promise it is painless and you can probably finish in 3 hrs or less even if you check the scripture cites.

For who God the Mother is.....

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-2-our-heavenly-family?lang=eng

Though some speculate she may have the role of Holy Spirit, doctrinally it has been taught the HS is male, see chapter 7

Edited June 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[Sp0ckrates]

Yes, in this context Paul is not attempting to describe the Godhead, but the divinity of the Christ. Said another way, when we see Jesus then we see the Father.

OK, so if the word Godhead is always used in a different way in the Bible than Mormons use it, then is there no biblical evidence to support the Mormon belief? Or are there biblical passages that support the belief, even though the word Godhead is not used?

[Calm]

To understand the Mother's relationship to the Father, we don't know much but in some ways mortal life is a reflection of their bond.

"“The scope and field open to me as a woman as revealed in LDS doctrine is the highest and most empowering idea that I can wrap my mind around,” Sister Eubank said. “There is nothing like it in any other faith tradition. There is nothing else I know of that talks about our identity, purpose, and infinite artistry that’s available to us in this unique way.”

Sister Eubank said the doctrine of the Church presents a unique understanding of the self. “We always existed as intelligences that can’t be created or made,” she said. As spirit children, “we chose to ally ourselves with Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, who could put us on the road to exaltation. …

“As a woman, you have certain roles and responsibilities that have to do with binding, connecting, bridging, gluing,” she said.

Another role, Sister Eubank said, is that of being a daughter. “I have divine parents, and so that means that I belong to the household of God.”

Yet another role she identified is that of sister, defining who one is in relation to Jesus Christ. “I am under covenant to Christ, that I’ll choose Him, that I’ll try to be like Him, that I’ll do His works, that I’ll be filled with His Spirit.

“I also have the opportunity to be a wife,” she said. “This opportunity to be bound together in a marriage relationship and sealed up unto the everlasting covenant I’ll call the divine pair.” She explained that being part of a “divine pair” entails integrating one’s intelligence and spiritual attributes with those of another."

https://www.lds.org/church/news/this-is-a-womans-church-says-fairconference-speaker?lang=eng&query=%22heavenly+mother%22

God the Father and God the Mother are the Divine Pair we hope our own relationships will become through exaltation.

[Bobbieaware]

I find these words spoken before the last supper are also ambiguous. I mean, consider what Jesus says, here:

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

(John 6)

Other translations use more modern language: "For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink." Catholics tell me Jesus' flesh and blood is not symbolic food. It's as he says real food. But Protestants also have a plausible argument for eating and drinking being a metaphor for believing. Me? I don't know what view is true. But this is a topic for another discussion.

So I suppose I'm at an advantage. Being non-partisan when it comes to religion I can appreciate opposing points of view. I suppose if religion were politics, you would call me neither a Democrat not a Republican, but an Independent.

The downside to being Independent is I have no church to call my own, and my need to belong remains unfulfilled. But I still have hope that will change.

Without revelation, one is doomed to be found among those who are forever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. That's the big downside. Paul warned the saints men will never be able to find God by learning alone, without the revelatory manifestations of the Spirit. So if Paul's right, and unless things change, those who attempt to find God by learning are going to be in for a very long ride until the day comes (the day of judgment) when the inescapable truth will stare each of us in the face.

[Calm]

I think John 14 is clear that it can be interpreted to match just fine with our understanding.

What is it that Jesus taught was the sign of abiding in God and what wasn't?

" 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

 19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

 22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

 25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

 27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

 28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

 29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

 30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

 31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence."

[Calm]

If you haven't already, the EoM article can help:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Godhead

[Calm]

While not canonised, this might be helpful for some nuances though it probably contains speculation as older texts often do, plus some of the biblical scholarship will be out of date of course.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45464/45464-h/45464-h.htm

"There are some expressions of scripture to consider which speak of the "oneness" of God. Speaking of the question which agitated the early Christian Church about eating meats which had been offered to idols, Paul says: "We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one."[A] Moreover, Jesus himself made this strange remark—that is, strange until one understands it: "I and my Father are one;" and so much one are they that he said: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. * * * Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me." Consequently our philosophers, especially those who lived when the present Christian creeds concerning God were forming, thought that by some legerdemain or other they must make the three Gods—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost—just one person—one being; and therefore they set their wits at work to perform the operation.

[Footnote A: I Cor. 8:4.]

[Footnote B: John 14.]

Let us seek out some reasonable explanation of the language used. I refer again to the passage I just quoted from the writings of Paul with reference to there being "none other God but one." Immediately following what I read on that point comes this language:

For though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be Gods many, and Lords many). But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.[A]

[Footnote A: I Cor. 8:4-6.]

Now I begin to understand. "To us," that is, pertaining to us, "there is but one God." Just as to the English subject there is but one sovereign, so "to us" there is but one God. But that no more denies the existence of other Gods than the fact that to the Englishman there is but one sovereign denies the existence of other rulers over other lands. While declaring that "to us there is but one God," the passage also plainly says that there "be Gods many and Lords many," and it is a mere assumption of the sectarian ministers that reference is made only to heathen gods.

Again, we shall find help in the following passage in the 14th chapter of John:

At that day ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Observe this last scripture, I pray you. "I in you," and "ye in me," as well as Jesus being in the Father. This oneness existing between God the Father and God the Son can amount to nothing more than this: that Jesus was conscious of the indwelling presence of the Spirit of the Father within him, hence he spoke of himself and his Father as being one, and the Father within him doing the works. But mark you, not only are the disciples to know that the Father is in him, that is, in Christ, and that Jesus is in the Father, but the disciples also are to be in Jesus. In what way? Jesus himself has furnished the explanation. When the solemn hour of his trial drew near, and the bitter cup was to be drained to the very dregs, Jesus sought God in secret prayer, and in the course of that prayer he asked for strength of the Father, not only for himself, but for his disciples also. He said:

And now I am no more in the world, but these [referring to his disciples] are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.[A]

[Footnote A: John 17.]

Now I begin to see this mystery of "oneness." What does he mean when he prays that the disciples that God had given him should be one, as he and the Father are one? Think of it a moment, and while you are doing so I will read you this:

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one: as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.[A]

[Footnote A: John 17.]

Does that mean that the persons of all these disciples, whose resurrection and individual immortality he must have foreknown, shall all be merged into one person, and then that one fused into him, or he into that one, and then the Father consolidated into the oneness of the mass? No; a thousand times, no, to such a proposition as that. But as Jesus found the indwelling Spirit of God within himself, so he would have that same Spirit indwelling in his disciples, as well as in those who should believe on him through their testimony, in all time to come; and in this way become of one mind, actuated by one will. It must have been thoughts such as these that prompted Paul to say to the Ephesians:

For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his spirit in the inner man: that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in him, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.[A]

[Footnote A: Eph. 8:14-19.]

So then, this oneness is not a oneness of persons, not a oneness of individuals, but a oneness of mind, of knowledge, of wisdom, of purpose, of will, that all might be uplifted and partake of the divine nature, until God shall be all in all. This is the explanation of the mystery of the oneness both of the Godhead and of the disciples for which Jesus prayed."

Edited June 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[Sp0ckrates]

Now if you had read the GP manual, you would have no need to ask this question. . I promise it is painless and you can probably finish in 3 hrs or less even if you check the scripture cites.

For who God the Mother is.....

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-2-our-heavenly-family?lang=eng

Though some speculate she may have the role of Holy Spirit, doctrinally it has been taught the HS is male, see chapter 7

Fascinating! I suppose that means God the Mother remains behind the scenes. We are not to have contact with her and she is not to contact us. For when we pray, we do not pray to the Mother, but to the Father. And when we pray, we do not pray in the Mother's name, but in Jesus' name. And when we pray, we do not pray through the Mother, but through the Holy Ghost. (Did I describe the Mormon concert of prayer correctly?) Edited June 18, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

Without revelation, one is doomed to be found among those who are forever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. That's the big downside. Paul warned the saints men will never be able to find God by learning alone, without the revelatory manifestations of the Spirit. So if Paul's right, and unless things change, those who attempt to find God by learning are going to be in for a very long ride until the day comes (the day of judgment) when the inescapable truth will stare each of us in the face.

Thanks Bobbieaware. I hope I'm unlike the Greeks who always wanted to hear more of what Paul said but never believed what he said. My guess is that they were more interested in entertainment than truth, and I have hope that God will see my desire for the truth and reveal it to me. Please tell me what you believe the best way to receive God's revelation is.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[CV75]

Yes, I can see that. But let me be sure I understand. Are you saying Paul is saying the Godhead is in Christ, something like the way genes or shared beliefs are in Christ?

If so, then isn't he using the word Godhead in a different way than Momons commonly use it? For don't Mormons say Christ is in the Godhead, instead of the Godhead is in Christ?

Of course "Godhead' means a number of things.

 

The fulness – with one (1) letter “l”*-- of the Godhead (as an organizational unit) dwells, as far as we are concerned, in the physical (resurrected) Christ in that He is an essential part of that Unit. This Unit would have no relevance to us if He were not a part of it or if it were not comprised with Him as a member, since there would be no link between “us” and God.

 

The fulness of the Godhead (as in the condition of Deity) also dwells bodily in Christ in that the Father has given Him all the things that make Him Who He Is (John 16:15; 3:35; 5:26; 6:27, 39), at least sufficient for our salvation and His eternal glory.

 

In addition, the fullness of the Godhead (as in divine nature) dwells in Christ bodily in the way that 2 Peter 1:1-8 describes.

 

All these meanings of the Godhead refer to and are in consequence of the various relationships the Son has with the Father. There is an extensive list of scriptural references about the in the footnote for “fulness” in Colossians 2:9.

 

* https://books.google.com/books?id=SoVHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=what+is+fulness+with+one+l?&source=bl&ots=9x7jbChu3h&sig=fTWNlu05t6ZTvEXKb8zRF635Wy0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAmoVChMItfTck8eZxgIVB2itCh3Guw5P#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20fulness%20with%20one%20l%3F&f=false

[Calm]

Fascinating! I suppose that means God the Mother remains behind the scenes. We are not to have contact with her and she is not to contact us. For when we pray, we do not pray to the Mother, but to the Father. And when we pray, we do not pray in the Mother's name, but in Jesus' name. And when we pray, we do not pray through the Mother, but through the Holy Ghost. (Did I describe the Mormon concert of prayer correctly?)

Yes....though she may have contact with us in mortality we are not aware of yet.

This is one area we are waiting for further revelation on.

Edited June 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[Nofear]

Fascinating! I suppose that means God the Mother remains behind the scenes. We are not to have contact with her and she is not to contact us. For when we pray, we do not pray to the Mother, but to the Father. And when we pray, we do not pray in the Mother's name, but in Jesus' name. And when we pray, we do not pray through the Mother, but through the Holy Ghost. (Did I describe the Mormon concert of prayer correctly?)

We have very little revealed about the nature of Heavenly Mother. While we do not address her specifically I am quite comfortable with the concept of her being aware of, concerned with, and responsive to my pray in the same same way Heavenly Father is. He is not privy to knowledge she is not.

Protestants and Catholics have enough of a problem with the LDS view of Godhead. I personally suspect (that is, it's my own opinion) that part of the reason the Church hasn't more openly embraced the doctrine of Heavenly Mother is that it would be yet another stumbling block to the world accepting the restored gospel. That will change with time.

 

[Storm Rider]

OK, so if the word Godhead is always used in a different way in the Bible than Mormons use it, then is there no biblical evidence to support the Mormon belief? Or are there biblical passages that support the belief, even though the word Godhead is not used?

 

First, a more accurate statement is Col 2:9 does not use the term Godhead to prove the three members of the Godhead, but rather the fullness of divinity being in Jesus the Christ.  You are making a huge leap of logic that there is no Biblical evidence for LDS teachings and belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

 

I am still not clear what it is you are trying to understand.  Do you have problems with the term Godhead?  Or are you concerned about something else?

 

I don't have an issue if someone wants to use another label for God the Father, his Son, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost.  If you want to call it Trinity that works for me.  If you want to call it Grand Pubba, that works too.  The issue is more about communicating and gaining an understanding of a specific teaching.  

 

Based upon your comments I don't think there is a need to explain per scripture the veracity of the teaching of what we call the Godhead.  The NT is full of teachings of all three members of the Godhead as is the Book of Mormon and other scripture.  

[Sp0ckrates]

I think John 14 is clear that it can be interpreted to match just fine with our understanding.

What is it that Jesus taught was the sign of abiding in God and what wasn't?

" 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence."

I love Jesus words here and elsewhere in John. Forgive me for being blind, but how does this show there are three gods in one Godhead? I guess I'm looking for a passage of the Bible that isn't ambiguous. You know, one that leaves no doubt there is not only one God. Maybe I'm asking for something that isn't there?

[Calm]

Nor will one understand LDS beliefs relying on the Bible alone.

Has this been pointed out yet from the EoM?

"Christ is also Father in that he spiritually received all that the Father has. "I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one-the Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world" (D&C 93:3-4)."

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Jesus_Christ,_Fatherhood_and_Sonship_of

[Bobbieaware]

Fascinating! I suppose that means God the Mother remains behind the scenes. We are not to have contact with her and she is not to contact us. For when we pray, we do not pray to the Mother, but to the Father. And when we pray, we do not pray in the Mother's name, but in Jesus' name. And when we pray, we do not pray through the Mother, but through the Holy Ghost. (Did I describe the Mormon concert of prayer correctly?)

For faithful Latter-day Saints who have been around long enough to be "in the know," its obvious there is much to learn and know about our heavenly mother and her role as an eternal priestess and queen of heaven. Some members are pressuring the leaders of the church to reveal more about heavenly mother's role now, but the leaders have not responded to that pressure. I believe the Lord will reveal more about her sacred role to us when the time is right. I personally believe the theological principles pertaining to heavenly mother constitue a major portion of the "mysteries of the gospel" (Paul's strong meat) that can only be fully revealed when the saints are worthy and have attained enough spiritual maturity to be able to digest the "greater things" the Book of Mormon promises will be revealed at the appropriate time.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

I love Jesus words here and elsewhere in John. Forgive me for being blind, but how does this show there are three gods in one Godhead? I guess I'm looking for a passage of the Bible that isn't ambiguous. You know, one that leaves no doubt there is not only one God. Maybe I'm asking for something that isn't there?

I was pointing out how if one assumes Jesus uses "in me", etc. consisntly throughout the passage, the interpretation that he is referring to a spiritual relationship of shared attributes such as knowledge, will, etc is reasonable.

Are you asking for a demonstration of the plurality of Gods?

[mfbukowski]

So would you say Paul is using the word Godhead in a different way then someone who will say, "There are three gods in one Godhead"?

No I would not say that.

 

You take everything literally and I think frankly that that is a major error.  You need to think poetically as well.  When Shakespeare says "Juliette is the sun" he is not saying that light comes out of her and she is a big burning ball of gases.  He is saying that she is the center of Romeo's universe.

 

So yes, one is IN a family, but the family IS in you as well.

 

Your family, your beliefs, your background, what you like about them and what you dislike about them- your whole personal history, why you are on this quest- all your experiences in life have brought you to this point.

 

Your experiences with your family are IN you.  You cannot escape them.  They mold you into what you are.  You ARE your family.

 

And I know that capitals scare you and you think you are being attacked because I use capitals for emphasis.  That is all they are.   I am not attacking you.

 

So in a real way, your family is IN you, metaphorically speaking.  On another way of seeing it, you are IN your family.  You are in your family and your family is in you.

 

That is the same way that Jesus is IN the Godhead and the Godhead is IN him.

 

You are a manifestation of your family- your parents, your siblings, your ancestors.  You look like them.  Perhaps you talk like them.  You have the same accent as they do, you speak their language literally and figuratively.

 

So modalism takes all this literally and says that "Jesus is a manifestation (mode/ expression) of God"  Yes in a sense that is true, in the same sense that you are a manifestation of your family.  But the problem is taking that statement literally.

 

So what is confusing you is the fact that all language is metaphor.  All language is is symbols.  The word "chair" IS NOT a thing you sit in.  The word is not the thing.

 

It is as if words represent ideas, but they do so imperfectly.  You quoted Plato (pretending to be Socrates) to make that point yourself.

 

Honestly you need to look at this.  Words are confusing you, and you are tied to words and take them literally.   That is why you appear to be debating, because you take one word and do not look at the idea, but look at five different meanings of the word.

 

That is the wrong path.  See all words as metaphors and look to the concept beyond them and do not get hung up on the words.

[Bobbieaware]

Thanks Bobbieaware. I hope I'm unlike the Greeks who always wanted to hear more of what Paul said but never believed what he said. My guess is that they were more interested in entertainment than truth, and I have hope that God will see my desire for the truth and reveal it to me. Please tell me what you believe the best way to receive God's revelation is.

Read, ponder and study the Book of Mormon from cover to cover. If you follow though on this process with faith, humility and a sincere desire to know eternal truth you will receive spiritual impressions (revelation) all along as you continue to read. Then when you get to the last chapter follow through on "Moroni's challenge" wherein he promises the reader they can know by revelation from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true. That will get the ball rolling.