What does the Godhead really mean?

[Tacenda]

Do Elder Holland and the rest of the members have it wrong?  

https://deadtothelaw.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/the-unsaved-god-hollands-2016-ensign-article-about-the-godhead/

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Do Elder Holland and the rest of the members have it wrong?  

https://deadtothelaw.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/the-unsaved-god-hollands-2016-ensign-article-about-the-godhead/

Nope.
The writer of that article is suffering from our previously discussed false concept of Christ, probably due to those evangelical notions that keep creeping in.

He says "I am concerned that the doctrines of the LDS church do indeed present “a different Jesus"

They do and he is.  This is not a problem.  Their Jesus fictional.

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Do Elder Holland and the rest of the members have it wrong?  

https://deadtothelaw.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/the-unsaved-god-hollands-2016-ensign-article-about-the-godhead/

Elder Holland published an article on the "nature of God"? Really? What is that supposed to mean? God's nature? Do any other beings have "natures"? Maybe this needs to be defined according to LDS nomenclature?

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Elder Holland published an article on the "nature of God"? Really? What is that supposed to mean? God's nature? Do any other beings have "natures"? Maybe this needs to be defined according to LDS nomenclature?

Human's have a nature (hence the reason that people say things like 'it's just human nature', etc.).  Human nature is "the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humans."

The nature of God is generally defined as "the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of God."

Edited February 14, 2016 by bluebell

[3DOP]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Human's have a nature (hence the reason that people say things like 'it's just human nature', etc.).  Human nature is "the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of humans."

The nature of God is generally defined as "the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of God."

Yup. Agreed.

But when I have tried to argue that there is such a thing as characteristics or traits of a being that constitute a nature, by way of explaining the Catholic view of the Godhead, I have been told it is meaningless. If I am not mistaken, mfbukowski could admit that the footprint of Aquinas extends beyond the Catholic faith, and that Latter-day Saints need to stop using the outdated expressions that Elder Holland used. Maybe not? Maybe I misunderstand mfbukowski. He will probably clarify. But however much I disagree with his principles, I think he is consistent, and would admit that if it is a mistake for Catholics to speak of the nature of different beings, the same must apply to LDS. I have tried many times to explain what you just said with regard to what constitutes nature, as being that which essentially, or substantially, identifies a thing, usually God, only to be informed that it doesn't make any sense. Nature, Essence, and substance mean nothing. It just seems like Elder Holland is using my language, not LDS language, as I have been taught here at MD&DB.

Unless I am severely deficient in my recollections, the MD&DB archives will be helpful if I need them, to establish my modest proposition, which is that Elder Holland is using language more compatible with outdated Catholic, than progressive LDS thought. If I am correct, Elder Holland's reflections cannot be helpful to an answer to "What does the Godhead really mean?"

 

3DOP

 

Edited February 14, 2016 by 3DOP

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Yup. Agreed.

But when I have tried to argue that there is such a thing as characteristics or traits of a being that constitute a nature, by way of explaining the Catholic view of the Godhead, I have been told it is meaningless. If I am not mistaken, mfbukowski could admit that the footprint of Aquinas extends beyond the Catholic faith, and that Latter-day Saints need to stop using the outdated expressions that Elder Holland used. Maybe not? Maybe I misunderstand mfbukowski. I am sure he will clarify. Surely if it is a mistake for Catholics to speak of the nature of different beings, the same would apply to LDS? I have tried many times to explain what you just said with regard to what constitutes nature, as being that which essentially, or substantially, identifies a thing, usually God, only to be informed that it doesn't make any sense. Nature, Essence, and substance mean nothing. It just seems like Elder Holland is using my language, not LDS language as I have been taught here.

Unless I am severely deficient in my recollections, the MD&DB archives will be helpful if I need them, to establish my modest proposition, which is that Elder Holland is using language more compatible with outdated Catholic, than progressive LDS thought.

 

I can't really speak on your conversations with Mfb or others about the Catholic teaching on the Trinity, but talking about God's nature is very very much a part of the LDS vocabulary.  If you look up 'divine nature' on lds.org you'll get 22 pages of hits.  I can even link you to some LDS songs geared to the youth that use the term if you are interested.  

[3DOP]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can't really speak on your conversations with Mfb or others about the Catholic teaching on the Trinity, but talking about God's nature is very very much a part of the LDS vocabulary.  If you look up 'divine nature' on lds.org you'll get 22 pages of hits.  I can even link you to some LDS songs geared to the youth that use the term if you are interested.  

I believe you bluebell.

As I suggested, the footprint of Aquinas extends beyond the Catholic faith...I would further suggest that this is because "Aquinas' footprint" is more about common sense regarding "reality", as objective truth existing outside of our perceptions. Those who agree with this view of truth might speak of the "nature" of a being.

However, this would seem to be opposed to modern philosophy, which explains that "reality" only exists subjectively, interiorly. If I understand what I have been told, if modern philosophy is correct, Catholicism is false, or at least safely set aside. On the other hand, LDS claims are better supported by abandoning this old way of thinking. My point is that it seems to have found its way into Elder Holland's discussion of the Godhead. If it is okay for Elder Holland, it is okay for Pope Whoever, or the Council of Blank.

bukowski, I beg you not to speak about how you did not mean to offend me. I am not offended. Nor have I intended to offend you here. Please correct any misconceptions you think I may have. In my opinion, and I think in yours too, much LDS thought is couched in terms that is unfortunate from the view of your philosophy. This is not to say you are wrong in your estimation of the best way for Mormons to think, but it is to ask that if you will be critical of Catholics for speaking like Catholics, then you should be more critical of Mormons who speak like Catholics. 

Edited February 14, 2016 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Oh sheesh...embarrassed...this is an evangelical article that I had skimmed? What is up with that Tacenda? You tricked me! No. I was happy to see what I thought was an inconsistency. Nothing for it but to admit I am...or was wrong about Elder Holland and the article. I think my points about LDS and philosophy are valid, and I have been waiting for an opportunity to make them, but unfortunately I was over-anxious and my mistake will overshadow any meaningful discussion that could be had about that for now. My position is not illustrated as well by the article as I had imagined in my zealous eagerness. Oh well.

Sheepish Regards and Apologies,

3DOP

Edited February 14, 2016 by 3DOP

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Oh sheesh...embarrassed...this is an evangelical article that I had skimmed? What is up with that Tacenda? You tricked me! No. I was happy to see what I thought was an inconsistency. Nothing for it but to admit I am...or was wrong about Elder Holland and the article. I think my points about LDS and philosophy are valid, and I have been waiting for an opportunity to make them, but unfortunately I was over-anxious and my mistake will overshadow any meaningful discussion that could be had about that for now. My position is not illustrated as well by the article as I had imagined in my zealous eagerness. Oh well.

Sheepish Regards and Apologies,

3DOP

READ THIS FIRST

My name is John Cline. I was raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I participated in all the usual Mormon activities, including a full-time mission, temple marriage, and various leadership callings.

The content of this blog investigates history and doctrine. It is written from the point-of-view of one who has left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ unmediated by any earthly institution. Having failed to find such a relationship with Christ in the Church, I am now looking back to figure out why. The material here is challenging. If you are not in a place to question what you believe, I encourage you to delete this page and move on.

If you are interested in a challenge, read on.

I consider the message in the Bible to be accurate and sufficient. I believe that church is the combined body of all believers in Jesus Christ, regardless of denomination, and is not represented on earth by one organization. I believe Christians can be found scattered throughout the various denominations. And I believe Christians can be found outside the various denominations. I believe the concept of the Trinity comes the closest to reconciling the various descriptions of God found in the Bible, but I do not believe the Trinitarian doctrine fully encapsulates the complete magnificence of God. Trinitarianism is, as C.S. Lewis explained, only a map. To experience God, one must put down the map and gaze upon the awesome landscape itself. God will make himself known to us. It is his promise.

Me:  3DOP, I've no idea if he's EV now, but he was LDS.  I just want to know if he's right, he brings up some good points.

 

[Tacenda]

A few quotes from the blog:

These are all good examples of the erroneous understanding of the word. But why should this matter. I know for sure that Holland is not the author of this redefinition. It is the commonly accepted definition of “Godhead” within Mormonism. But it is simply wrong. It is important to understand this because the word is a very important one, especially as it is used in Colossians. Jesus is the bodily manifestation of all the fullness of the Godhead, meaning the divine nature. Christ is the bodily manifestation of this. Why is not the Father the bodily manifestation of the divine nature? He too has a body, doesn’t he? Joseph Smith saw the physical body of the Father, right?

Elder Holland spends much of his time in this article refuting the Christian concept of the Trinity because it is confusing, and advocating for the LDS version of the Godhead, which apparently matches the Biblical message better than does the Trinity. Yet, Mormons continue to be surprised when the rest of the Christian world refuses to acknowledge the LDS Church’s status as a Christian denomination. It is argued that Mormons just have a slightly different view of Christian doctrine, and….besides….Christians aren’t all united on some of these points of doctrine, either.

This is an incorrect representation of the real situation in Christianity. The Christian world, from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy to Protestantism agrees wholeheartedly on the nature of God and Jesus Christ. There is no disagreement here. They may disagree on other points, but there is agreement on God’s nature and the divinity of Jesus Christ, because the Bible makes it very clear. So when Elder Holland declares that Jesus Christ “worked out his own salvation,” he parts roads not just in a superficial way, but in a fundamental way, with the rest of the Christian world.

 

Edited February 14, 2016 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

http://www.gospelway.com/god/persons_godhead.php

This article speaks about the idea of God being one or three persons though.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Do Elder Holland and the rest of the members have it wrong?  

https://deadtothelaw.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/the-unsaved-god-hollands-2016-ensign-article-about-the-godhead/

We have members of godhood (divine nature) just as we have members of priesthood. Godhood and priesthood among mortals are dependent upon the eternal, exalted Godhood and Priesthood operating in heaven. The three members of this exalted group who relate to us in this world to establish our salvation in heaven through the Gospel of Jesus Christ are the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It is in their name the exalting covenants are made. So yes, Their Godhood appropriately constitutes our Godhead and They lead us in the divine nature.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Oh sheesh...embarrassed...this is an evangelical article that I had skimmed? What is up with that Tacenda? You tricked me! No. I was happy to see what I thought was an inconsistency. Nothing for it but to admit I am...or was wrong about Elder Holland and the article. I think my points about LDS and philosophy are valid, and I have been waiting for an opportunity to make them, but unfortunately I was over-anxious and my mistake will overshadow any meaningful discussion that could be had about that for now. My position is not illustrated as well by the article as I had imagined in my zealous eagerness. Oh well.

Sheepish Regards and Apologies,

3DOP

We have all been there!

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Do Elder Holland and the rest of the members have it wrong?  

https://deadtothelaw.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/the-unsaved-god-hollands-2016-ensign-article-about-the-godhead/

Joseph revised the bible. We believe the Bible as long as it has been transmitted to us correctly. It has not. The entire idea of a restoration indicates that there were errors which needed to be corrected. This view of the Trinity is one of those.

[longview]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This view of the Trinity is one of those.

Yes.  Constantine appropriated this "doctrine" from a minority of bishops.  He was comfortably ensconced in polytheistic paganism.  Therefore he was attracted to this and used his power of the state to promote it.

Tacenda, your friend John Cline has drifted into Trinitarianism.  For me, I will side firmly with the Biblical description of the Godhead (notwithstanding Cline's attempts to quibble on his definition of the Godhead).   To me, Trinitarianism is schizophrenic.  The LDS Godhead is much more straightforward.  The Bible has repeatedly emphasized the distinct personhood of each member of the Godhead.

[RevTestament]

On 2/14/2016 at 2:06 PM, Tacenda said:

READ THIS FIRST

My name is John Cline. I was raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I participated in all the usual Mormon activities, including a full-time mission, temple marriage, and various leadership callings.

The content of this blog investigates history and doctrine. It is written from the point-of-view of one who has left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ unmediated by any earthly institution. Having failed to find such a relationship with Christ in the Church, I am now looking back to figure out why. The material here is challenging. If you are not in a place to question what you believe, I encourage you to delete this page and move on.

If you are interested in a challenge, read on.

I consider the message in the Bible to be accurate and sufficient. I believe that church is the combined body of all believers in Jesus Christ, regardless of denomination, and is not represented on earth by one organization. I believe Christians can be found scattered throughout the various denominations. And I believe Christians can be found outside the various denominations. I believe the concept of the Trinity comes the closest to reconciling the various descriptions of God found in the Bible, but I do not believe the Trinitarian doctrine fully encapsulates the complete magnificence of God. Trinitarianism is, as C.S. Lewis explained, only a map. To experience God, one must put down the map and gaze upon the awesome landscape itself. God will make himself known to us. It is his promise.

Me:  3DOP, I've no idea if he's EV now, but he was LDS.  I just want to know if he's right, he brings up some good points.

 

Hi Tacenda,

I would like to respond to the issues you've brought up. I have spent my whole life attempting to understand God  I believe I can safely say it is a challenge. 

I left the Baptist Church as a boy because it accepted the doctrines of the trinity, and some other corollary things, which I believe did not fully comport with the Bible. I joined the Church of Jesus Christ when I was 13 - I started investigating when I was 12. I just really felt the spirit bring me to this church. I say this despite the Lord speaking to me while I was in the Baptist Church. He has spoken to me since as well. One thing I can say for the Baptist Church is that they tried to give me a good foundation in the Bible, but the Bible seemed to contradict some of what they believed.

The subject of the nature of God is not something I can fully cover in this post, but I am going to try to summarize a few points I have learned about the issues Mr Cline brings up. 

First, as the title of the article indicates Elder Holland did use the phrase "worked out his own salvation" in his conclusion. Here is my personal take from what I know. Jesus is our Savior. He was sinless on this earth, and therefore did not need saving. What exactly was He being saved from and who was doing it? I believe Elder Holland does not have a full understanding of the scriptures on this point. I believe these issues deal with the oracles of God, and that the church has only understood the oracles in bits and pieces. I may be the only person on this earth with my exact view, but I will speak it anyway. The NT teaches that Jesus was raised again. See Acts 13 which uses anistemi Ieosus anistemi in the Greek which literally means Jesus(Ieosus) raised again with anistemi used twice. According to the KJV, Jesus says of himself I will be raised again several times, although modern English versions translate it differently. I believe this goes to the begotten nature of Christ, which is something the Church has not tried to teach since the days of BY - who basically flubbed it. BY tried to teach a temporal concept of the begotten nature of Christ, and spoke of His being begotten "naturally" etc. Well from a temporal standpoint, yeah He was begotten from Mary's womb, but this is not what made Christ the only begotten of the Father. Christ was YHWH (see Gen 3:22) and was the only begotten Son before He was sent into the world - there are numerous scriptures in the Bible and the BoM which support this as well.  Indeed, this debate arose in the early church and was the impetus for the formation of the Nicene Creed by a minority of the bishops of the Church - the 325 bishops which appeared at Nicea were not a majority of the approx 1200 in the Roman Empire or the hundreds more to the east of the empire. The church at Rome essentially engineered the idea of "ecumenical councils" which were the only councils it would accept, but that is another story. The point I am trying to make is that the begotten nature of the Son was decided by MEN, and is not embodied by the creeds as it is taught by the scriptures - why is this important? Mr Cline himself brings up this scripture because he wishes to imply that the LDS church has graven the nature of God, but I pose that traditional Christianity is guilty of that:

Acts: 17:29. “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” 

The Nicene Creed ruled that Christ was begotten "before all worlds/ages(aeons)." Further, that whoever disagreed was anathema, and was to be kicked out of the Church. (This is what they got for having a state sponsored church ie sponsored by the Roman state) This is not scriptural, and is an example of the many ways the "Orthodox" church engravened the Godhead. The scriptures say Christ was begotten when the another said unto Him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." Does that really sound like Christ was begotten as the Son before all worlds or time? The truth is they didn't want to believe the truth. They didn't want to believe that Jesus was "made perfect" and "made so much higher than the angels" as Hebrews says. They wanted to teach their understanding of Christ. The doctrine of the Trinity did not readily spring forth from the scriptures - there were several early ideas about these topics rendered by the various leaders and scholars in the church including Tertullian who was the supposed "father of Latin Orthodoxy." He wrote that there was time when the Son was not.  The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is immutable, but this is contrary to everything the scriptures teach about Christ. That He came as the Father's servant - that He is the Father's only inheritor (Isa 42, 65) - that He is not the Father, but shall be called the Father (Isa 9:6), that he "inherited His name" - that he was "made perfect." Etc. So the question arises does Christ change? Yes, although His righteousness and promises do not change, he does - He is exalted, and to be exalted further onto His Father's throne. He is our "fellow" according to the scriptures. He is our brother returned to save us as the begotten/adopted Son of the Father.
Mr Cline says:

Quote

The way this verse is translated, it appears that “Godhead” is being used as a noun. But in the original Greek, it is the adjective theion. It is referring to the quality of divinity that is in God’s nature. It would be correct to translate this verse as follows: “…we ought not to think that the divine nature is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.”

In this verse, Paul is speaking to people who were worshipping cult statues of their deities that were fashioned from gold or silver or stone. He was telling them that if we who are not made of gold or stone are God’s offspring, why would we relate God’s nature to gold or stone?

Romans 1:20. “For 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 it is being used properly as a noun, for in the original Greek (theiotes), it is also used as a noun. It is talking again about God’s nature. It means “divinity, divine nature.”

And finally in Colossians 2:9. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

This verse is talking about Jesus, saying that in him dwells all the fulness of the divine nature. The Greek word here is once again a noun which means “divinity, divine nature.”

Why is it important to try to get an idea what the original Greek means? Because the words were first written down in Greek. The Greek reflects what Luke and Paul truly meant to say. But even so, I think it is clear even from the English translations that Godhead is not referring to a group of divine beings, but is referring to the divine nature, or divinity, of these beings. However, what you will notice in Holland’s articles is that “Godhead” is frequently used again and again in a way that is not in keeping with its proper definition. Holland’s definition is actually a redefinition. In the following quote, you can see a clear example of him misusing the word (underlining added):

“It is not happenstance that the first article of our faith is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Articles of Faith 1:1). The message is clear for all who teach the gospel. There is no point in going on to the other truths we believe if we haven’t fixed in our minds and in the minds of those we teach the preeminent role of the Godhead in our doctrine and in our eternal destiny. We are to know these Divine Beings in every way we can. We are to love Them, draw near to Them, obey Them, and try to be like Them.”

I say it really doesn't matter too much exactly how "Godhead" is defined - whether it is referring to a group or simply divine nature. There are enough other scriptures which clearly show that Christ is not the same spirit as the Father. He is one spirit spiritually in the sense of obedience, etc, but His spirit has its own will, etc, which He submits to the Father's. To try to make him the same "person" or soul as the Father is simply unscriptural, but is what Trinitarians have tried to do for the last 1700 years. According to Isa 42:1 the soul of the Father delights in His servant.

Mr Cline then goes on to try to use Jesus' words in John 4 that the Father is spirit to try to teach us that the Father cannot have a separate body from Christ. Christ was simply teaching that the Father is a spiritual being and as such the law should be understood spiritually, and not in some rote obedience. We aren't saved by sacrificing animals. If He is the "Father of spirits" what exactly are we? Are we spirit or body? Christ went on to say that "no man has seen His shape at any time...." What shape? Do spirits have a "shape?" If not, how come He told Moses no one can see me and live? Exodus. I have no problem believing that the nature of God is spirit, but this doesn't mean He doesn't abide in the resurrected shape of a man like Christ. Did Christ's body raise itself? Or did He raise it with His spirit?

I don't disagree with Elder Holland, and indeed He is teaching the heart of the issue here - that we should try to be like Him and "them." However, I don't agree with the way Mr Cline interprets Elder Holland and perhaps the way Elder Holland intended his statement that Christ "worked out his own salvation." Christ is the only person ever born on this world with eternal life. He didn't need salvation. Did he ever work out His own salvation? I believe yes He did. It happened when He was begotten, but that wasn't on this earth. On this earth He was sent as the only begotten of the Father. The idea of traditional Chrisitianity that this creation is the only creation ever made, and is the last creation of God, is simple error - it is incomplete. Yet, if you try to show them that God says He will create a new heaven and a new earth, they don't believe that they will live on this new earth. They only accept it as a figure of speech since they believe they are going to live in heaven forever, even when He makes a new heaven...

In short I pose that traditional Christianity misses the deepest things of the gospel, and that Christ taught us the way to the Father. Traditional Christianity is at first base, and hopes that Christ will come to bat to bring them home. But Christ is the coach. He hopes we will all do what He taught so that we can come back home. He taught us how to hit the curve balls of the devil. Sometimes we fail, but He has sent many prophets that were able to hit that ball at various times because they learned from Coach. 

Edited February 15, 2016 by RevTestament

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Elder Holland published an article on the "nature of God"? Really? What is that supposed to mean? God's nature? Do any other beings have "natures"? Maybe this needs to be defined according to LDS nomenclature?

To clarify I have no problem speaking of "God's nature" in the proper context.  It is important to understand what God's nature is, or what characteristics we believe God has.

That is what the word "nature" - in this context- means.  As has been said the nature of God is to be God, the nature of man is to be man, the nature of a dog is to be a dog etc.

It certainly makes sense to speak of a "dog's nature" in describing a dog as a pack animal with a great sense of smell, "man's best friend", faithful and loyal, etc.  That is an explanation of the character of what it is to be a dog.  We can also speak of God's nature as being essentially human, yet infinitely glorified, possessing a body, infinitely wise and powerful, etc.

What I object to is speaking of a thing's "nature" as a thing in itself.  A thing's nature is a bundle of characteristics we use to describe the thing, it is not like an independent entity.

Speaking of the savior's "two natures" makes no sense- I find it weird to even say he has "one nature".  What he is is what he is, and that is his nature.  

So it is not about "LDS terminology" though I certainly agree that LDS tend to use sectarian terminology, to our disadvantage, and indeed General Authorities also use sectarian terminology, and I would love it if that could change.  It will, we are less than 200 years old and yet a baby church.

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Yup. Agreed.

But when I have tried to argue that there is such a thing as characteristics or traits of a being that constitute a nature, by way of explaining the Catholic view of the Godhead, I have been told it is meaningless. If I am not mistaken, mfbukowski could admit that the footprint of Aquinas extends beyond the Catholic faith, and that Latter-day Saints need to stop using the outdated expressions that Elder Holland used. Maybe not? Maybe I misunderstand mfbukowski. He will probably clarify. But however much I disagree with his principles, I think he is consistent, and would admit that if it is a mistake for Catholics to speak of the nature of different beings, the same must apply to LDS. I have tried many times to explain what you just said with regard to what constitutes nature, as being that which essentially, or substantially, identifies a thing, usually God, only to be informed that it doesn't make any sense. Nature, Essence, and substance mean nothing. It just seems like Elder Holland is using my language, not LDS language, as I have been taught here at MD&DB.

Unless I am severely deficient in my recollections, the MD&DB archives will be helpful if I need them, to establish my modest proposition, which is that Elder Holland is using language more compatible with outdated Catholic, than progressive LDS thought. If I am correct, Elder Holland's reflections cannot be helpful to an answer to "What does the Godhead really mean?"

 

3DOP

 

"A nature" divorced from a description of a person or thing is meaningless- or that is my contention. Describing a thing's "nature" is entirely different.

It creates a constructed "thing" out of a bundle of characteristics.  It is a category mistake, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

I don't recall if Elder Holland used it that way or not, but if he did, I would say he made the same mistake I criticized. 

We do not have "a nature" in the sense of a thing we carry around with us independent of who we are.  No entity can have "two natures"- that makes a "nature" independent of the entity.  Perhaps a person or an entity has characteristics of other entities but that does not mean it has two natures

A platypus has webbed feet and a beak like a duck but it has fur like an otter.  That does not mean it has the nature of an otter and a duck, it just still means it has the nature of a platypus which combines characteristcs commonly found in other animals.

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by mfbukowski

[jayman]

I am John Cline, the author of the essay to which Tacenda has linked. I was pleasantly surprised to see it show up over here and a discussion following it. 

Longview: you say that "the LDS Godhead is much more straightforward." Please explain to me just how straightforward it is. You may argue that the Trinitarian doctrine of a God that is "one in substance" is erroneous because the Bible never says "in substance." I will also point out to you that the Bible also does not say "one in purpose" either. Both "in substance" and "in purpose" are ways of describing exactly what the Bible means when it says "God is one." But the Bible never qualifies that statement. 

I find the LDS concept of God more confusing than the Trinitarian concept of God. In Mormon theology, God is God by virtue of the fact that He has an eternal wife. No wife....no exaltation. God is God because He has gender and He uses his gender to procreate. Sex is at the core of Mormon theology. This is alchemy, the alchemical marriage. This is the Occult. That is what it ultimately all comes down to. To read more about how occultic teachings about sexuality are peppered all through Mormon doctrine, read this post I wrote several months ago: https://deadtothelaw.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/sacramental-sexuality/#more-100

Here is an excerpt: 

Quote

 

In Kabbalah, sexuality is seen as a way of bringing about this reunification. In a book titled God in Your Body: Mindfulness and Embodied Spiritual Practice, Jay Michaelson, the author, discusses sexuality in Kabbalistic terms. You will see in this passage not only the ideas about spiritual sexual union, but also the Mormon concepts of opposition in all things and the importance of the physical body. Read on:

“…sexual union embodies, actualizes, and reflects the fundamental dynamics of cosmic and even theological processes… For the Zohar, the masterpiece of Kabbalah, God, creation, the balance of energies in the world – all are understood through the prism of the union of opposites, a union reflective of and expressed in sexuality. … Human agency, including sexuality, is an essential part of this process: the process of God itself. We are not meant to return to God by leaving the body behind… Rather, the Zohar says we are meant to imitate God, who creates, manifests into separation, and unites the separate back into One. For the Zohar and other texts, sexual union reenacts the union of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies; the union of Heaven and Earth; holiness and presence.”

I am not sure if Elder Holland is aware of it, but the ideas he expresses in that little book I found at my friend’s house taps into the same concepts.

“Sexual intimacy is not only a symbolic union between a man and a woman–the uniting of their very souls–but it is also symbolic of a union between mortals and deity, between otherwise ordinary and fallible humans uniting for a rare and special moment with God himself and all the powers by which he gives life in this wide universe of ours…

“. . .sexual union is also, in its own profound way, a very real sacrament of the highest order, a union not only of a man and a woman but very much the union of that man and woman with God. Indeed, if our definition of sacrament is that act of claiming and sharing and exercising God’s own inestimable power, then I know of virtually no other divine privilege so routinely given to us all–women or men, ordained or unordained, Latter-day Saint or non-Latter-day Saint–than the miraculous and majestic power of transmitting life, the unspeakable, unfathomable, unbroken power of procreation. . . .” – Jeffrey R. Holland, from Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments.

 

Also: 

Quote

 

In 1995, the LDS Church released the Proclamation to the World which nearly canonized essential doctrine pertaining to gender, the family, and sexuality. One of the most controversial ideas expressed in the Proclamation was the idea that gender is an essential aspect of our eternal identity. The traditional roles of men and women in family relations were re-asserted, and a strong warning was given to those who violate covenants of chastity, and who fail to fulfill family obligations. It states “…the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

Thomas Burgoyne’s occultic book The Light of Egypt contains the same content. In Part 1, Section 1, Chapter IV: The Mysteries of Sex, Burgoyne compares the male and female natures in a typically esoteric style. The male nature is wisdom, restlessness, eternally pursuing, aggressive. The female nature is love, contentment, ever seeking to enfold, gentle, yielding. Together, the male becomes pliable, and is “led a willing captive by her subtle power and resources.” From the combination of the two is born “the ‘Spiral,’ the motion of life and symbol of eternal progression (italics added).”

In Part One, Section III, Chapter V of The Light of Egypt, Burgoyne describes the powerful nature of the reunited male and female souls using language that should be very familiar. “There is nothing impossible to the reunited souls. They become, by Divine Right, the King and Queen, co-equal and co-eternal rulers over all the elements in Nature. Their will, in the Astral world, is law.”

 

In Mormon theology, there is no First Cause. There is only an endless and infinite regression of Gods back into the eternal past. Who or what started it all? Mormons can't tell you that. They have no answer. Christians point to God and say, "That is the First Cause."

It says in the Psalms that God is FROM everlasting TO everlasting. Even Moroni 8:18 says that God is unchangeable FROM all eternity TO all eternity. But along comes Joseph Smith in 1844 who says, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God FROM all eternity. I will refute that idea...." 

Joseph Smith threw his own Book of Mormon under the bus in order to introduce Kabbalistic concepts of God into Mormon theology. Brigham Young then later claimed that Joseph Smith had taught them that Adam was God the Father. This is very similar to the Kabbalistic idea of Adam-Kadmon. It is interesting to note that when Joseph Smith was coming out with these new ideas, he was studying Hebrew with a Jewish convert named Alexander Neibaur, who had in his possession a book called the Zohar, the classic Kabbalistic masterpiece. (Hugh Nibley is a direct descendant from Neibaur.)

The Mormon conception of God evolved over time. It is not found in the Book of Mormon. It is not found in the Lectures on Faith, which were originally the "doctrine" part of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Mormon concept of God is not found in Christianity, but it is not unique, either. Snippets and pieces of Mormon theology can be found in the Occult: Kabbalah, Freemasonry, Hermeticism, Alchemy, etc. You cannot underestimate the influence that these occultic traditions had on Joseph Smith's doctrine. 
 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, jayman said:

I am John Cline, the author of the essay to which Tacenda has linked. I was pleasantly surprised to see it show up over here and a discussion following it. 

Longview: you say that "the LDS Godhead is much more straightforward." Please explain to me just how straightforward it is. You may argue that the Trinitarian doctrine of a God that is "one in substance" is erroneous because the Bible never says "in substance." I will also point out to you that the Bible also does not say "one in purpose" either. Both "in substance" and "in purpose" are ways of describing exactly what the Bible means when it says "God is one." But the Bible never qualifies that statement. 

I find the LDS concept of God more confusing than the Trinitarian concept of God. In Mormon theology, God is God by virtue of the fact that He has an eternal wife. No wife....no exaltation. God is God because He has gender and He uses his gender to procreate. Sex is at the core of Mormon theology. This is alchemy, the alchemical marriage. This is the Occult. That is what it ultimately all comes down to. To read more about how occultic teachings about sexuality are peppered all through Mormon doctrine, read this post I wrote several months ago: https://deadtothelaw.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/sacramental-sexuality/#more-100

Here is an excerpt: 

Also: 

In Mormon theology, there is no First Cause. There is only an endless and infinite regression of Gods back into the eternal past. Who or what started it all? Mormons can't tell you that. They have no answer. Christians point to God and say, "That is the First Cause."

It says in the Psalms that God is FROM everlasting TO everlasting. Even Moroni 8:18 says that God is unchangeable FROM all eternity TO all eternity. But along comes Joseph Smith in 1844 who says, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God FROM all eternity. I will refute that idea...." 

Joseph Smith threw his own Book of Mormon under the bus in order to introduce Kabbalistic concepts of God into Mormon theology. Brigham Young then later claimed that Joseph Smith had taught them that Adam was God the Father. This is very similar to the Kabbalistic idea of Adam-Kadmon. It is interesting to note that when Joseph Smith was coming out with these new ideas, he was studying Hebrew with a Jewish convert named Alexander Neibaur, who had in his possession a book called the Zohar, the classic Kabbalistic masterpiece. (Hugh Nibley is a direct descendant from Neibaur.)

The Mormon conception of God evolved over time. It is not found in the Book of Mormon. It is not found in the Lectures on Faith, which were originally the "doctrine" part of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Mormon concept of God is not found in Christianity, but it is not unique, either. Snippets and pieces of Mormon theology can be found in the Occult: Kabbalah, Freemasonry, Hermeticism, Alchemy, etc. You cannot underestimate the influence that these occultic traditions had on Joseph Smith's doctrine. 
 

Well welcome!

Thank you for your input.  I'm not much of a scriptorian (is this word only used by LDS?  Why is it being underlined as if spelled wrong?) I learn through others better, in order to understand.    

[Storm Rider]

22 hours ago, Tacenda said:

A few quotes from the blog:

These are all good examples of the erroneous understanding of the word. But why should this matter. I know for sure that Holland is not the author of this redefinition. It is the commonly accepted definition of “Godhead” within Mormonism. But it is simply wrong. It is important to understand this because the word is a very important one, especially as it is used in Colossians. Jesus is the bodily manifestation of all the fullness of the Godhead, meaning the divine nature. Christ is the bodily manifestation of this. Why is not the Father the bodily manifestation of the divine nature? He too has a body, doesn’t he? Joseph Smith saw the physical body of the Father, right?

Elder Holland spends much of his time in this article refuting the Christian concept of the Trinity because it is confusing, and advocating for the LDS version of the Godhead, which apparently matches the Biblical message better than does the Trinity. Yet, Mormons continue to be surprised when the rest of the Christian world refuses to acknowledge the LDS Church’s status as a Christian denomination. It is argued that Mormons just have a slightly different view of Christian doctrine, and….besides….Christians aren’t all united on some of these points of doctrine, either.

This is an incorrect representation of the real situation in Christianity. The Christian world, from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy to Protestantism agrees wholeheartedly on the nature of God and Jesus Christ. There is no disagreement here. They may disagree on other points, but there is agreement on God’s nature and the divinity of Jesus Christ, because the Bible makes it very clear. So when Elder Holland declares that Jesus Christ “worked out his own salvation,” he parts roads not just in a superficial way, but in a fundamental way, with the rest of the Christian world.

 

Yeah, not so much.  All you have to do is talk with a few different Christians and you get anything from the Trinity to strict monotheism.  It is certainly not a unified Christianity and then the Mormons.  

I find the statement that Jesus "worked out his own salvation" to be a colossal DUH.  It is a DUH because Jesus was God the Son and could not have lost his salvation; it is a DUH because Jesus lived as mortal man and was tempted as all other mortals.  If living is not working I don't know what is.  Context is everything in these types of conversations because the concept of the Trinity is, as the Bible Answer used to repeat all the time, "it cannot be comprehended but apprehended.  I never like the statement unless you end it just after the word comprehend.  

Of all that I have studied the teachings on the Godhead by the Church of Jesus Christ makes the most sense to me.  However, I will say that we as members will find much truth and enlightening teachings in other churches, primarily Catholic and Orthodox. 

[jayman]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Yeah, not so much.  All you have to do is talk with a few different Christians and you get anything from the Trinity to strict monotheism.  It is certainly not a unified Christianity and then the Mormons.  

Storm Rider...all the Christian denominations I listed are all Trinitarians. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Baptist, Adventists, etc. All Trinitarian.

Non-Trinitarians Christians? Unitarians, Christadelphians, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter-day Saints, Cooneyites, Members Church of God International, Oneness Pentecostalism, Swedenborgianism, etc. 

Mainstream Christianity is by and large Trinitarian. 

 

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, jayman said:

Storm Rider...all the Christian denominations I listed are all Trinitarians. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Baptist, Adventists, etc. All Trinitarian.

Non-Trinitarians Christians? Unitarians, Christadelphians, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter-day Saints, Cooneyites, Members Church of God International, Oneness Pentecostalism, Swedenborgianism, etc. 

Mainstream Christianity is by and large Trinitarian. 

 

So?

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, jayman said:

In Mormon theology, there is no First Cause. There is only an endless and infinite regression of Gods back into the eternal past. Who or what started it all? Mormons can't tell you that. They have no answer. Christians point to God and say, "That is the First Cause."

Correct - why would you expect something with no beginning to have a first cause?

It says in the Psalms that God is FROM everlasting TO everlasting. Even Moroni 8:18 says that God is unchangeable FROM all eternity TO all eternity. But along comes Joseph Smith in 1844 who says, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God FROM all eternity. I will refute that idea...." 

These have been discussed and explained here many times.  The definition and usage of eternity isn't consistent for a reason and Moroni 8 is taken out of context to prove something other than was meant.

The Mormon conception of God evolved over time. It is not found in the Book of Mormon. It is not found in the Lectures on Faith, which were originally the "doctrine" part of the Doctrine and Covenants. 

True.  Restoration of continuing light and knowledge.  Why on earth would you expect Joseph to have a perfect knowledge of everything eternal in 1835?  Of course he still had more to learn, and God had more to reveal.

The Mormon concept of God is not found in Christianity, but it is not unique, either. Snippets and pieces of Mormon theology can be found in the Occult: Kabbalah, Freemasonry, Hermeticism, Alchemy, etc. You cannot underestimate the influence that these occultic traditions had on Joseph Smith's doctrine. 

The Mormon concept of God is not found in post-Nicene Christianity.  But elements of Mormon theology are scattered throughout so many cultures and religions since the dawn of time it would have been impossible for Joseph Smith to put them altogether and coalesce them into a new theology with any consistency.  Mormonism is the thread that binds.
 

 

[jayman]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So?

Well, most of these other groups do not consider Jesus to be God. And in reality, neither do Mormons. In what way, precisely is Jesus fully God in Mormonism? Mormons teach that Jesus is God, but in what way? How exactly? 

Those who are in the Terrestrial Kingdom enjoy the presence of the Son, but not the fulness of the Father, because they could not abide the fulness of the Father. The fact that they can, however, abide the presence of the Son suggests that the Son Himself does not possess the fulness of the Father. So, Jesus, whatever He is, is not fully God. 

But Paul said the fulness of the divine nature is in Christ Jesus in bodily form.