What does the Godhead really mean?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours 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 first of all, these doctrines represent corruptions of the truth which Joseph restored

You do not seem to understand that we treasure these ancient beliefs as evidence that indeed Joseph was on the right track

I am sure you will start sprinkling holy water at this assertion and holding up a crucifix, but the fact is, you do not understand Mormonism.

We treasure all these sources.  In fact Joseph re-wrote may erroneous portions of the bible, and we regard those modifications as scripture.  In short, your assertions show no understanding of our beliefs.  That means your views, insterad of attacking our views,  actually reinforce them

Why do you accept the bible at all?  Because many others do?

Indeed the concept of a "First Cause" was shown to be faulty by Hume in the 17th century.  As a protestant, why do you accept Catholic theology?

Tell me please what "substance" is which allegedly unifies the trinity.  What does that word mean, and what kind of substance do you believe it is?

An oily substance, a sandy substance, what kind of substance?  "Substance" on its own describes nothing.

Edited February 15, 2016 by mfbukowski

[jayman]

mfbukowski,

I just checked out your blog "Theomorphic Man." I like your tagline..."If God is a Man, Humanism becomes Theology."

I once chatted with a former Mormon who is now a fully initiated advocate of Thelema, Aleister Crowley's philosophy. I asked him to share with me his religion's deepest, most secret, secret. He told me: "Man is God."  Fascinating, isn't it.

[Storm Rider]

41 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. 

 

Jayman, there is a very, very broad difference between what churches teach and what their respective members believe or think.  If you think I am wrong, start asking open-ended questions.  It will be an instructional time for you.  

As an aside, within the Latter Day Saint movement the Community of Christ is Trinitarian. 

[Calm]

Quote

[Trinitarian] Christians point to God and say, "That is the First Cause."

And when someone asked what was the cause of God?

Edited February 15, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jayman said:

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? 

Please do not tell us what we believe if you expect us to not tell you what you believe.

[RevTestament]

3 hours 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. 
 

Hello John,

Glad to know you. While I can empathize with much of what you say about LDS theology, you yourself note that most of what concerns you is not in the scriptures - even the standard works.

You say: "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." This is true. Many of these concepts are not found in the scriptures. I have struggled with this issue mine own self, because I do not agree with the polygamy makes one exalted phase, which is where most of these concepts you are concerned with came from. That is not taught in a single verse of any of the standard works.

Isaiah 29:24

24 They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.

By what? By the Book of Mormon. 

Quote

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 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. 

I would say that although the LDS Church has not understood it, there is a first cause. It is taught by the Torah. It is taught by Adam being "the father of all." D&C. Just like temporally there is a father of all, spiritually there is a Father of all. So although you hop on BY here as teaching nonsense, he had a point. So when Jesus shall be called our Father per Isa 9:6, what does that make El Elyon the Most High El? Will He still be the Father? Did He "create" another God? However, I am in agreement with your concern that God is not God because He has an "eternal wife," unless you believe that to be us. How many virgins does Christ hope will come to the wedding? Here is how we are born spiritually: " 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." 

This doesn't have anything to do with being born by sex. It has to do with being born spiritually. 

Doctrine and Covenants 29:35

35 Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual.

So I guess, one question for you would be can you live in the Church even though you disagree with some of what has been taught? The principles of exaltation in the standard works are true even if they have been misunderstood. Does someone misinterpreting make the scriptures untrue? Or make the Church untrue? If you look at whatever church you are in, and Protestant and Catholic history I think you will eventually have to admit that they misinterpreted things since the time of Christ? Why would God allow that? I think the answer lies in His word:

Proverbs 25:2

2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Do you honestly believe those 325 or so bishops of the Nicene council searched out this matter, and that we shouldn't need to? I put my faith in the words of the prophets and apostles of the Bible as the true messengers over bishops at the Nicene council.

[jayman]

JLHPROF,

If there is no First Cause, there is no effect. None. There is nothing. You are advocating for an effect without a cause.

Quote

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.

I am okay with a Restoration of continuing light and knowledge. I am not okay with error being passed off as truth. If error can be passed off as truth, we don't have any confidence in the "truth" we currently possess.

Quote

new theology with any consistency

Who said there is any consistency? If you take the Mormon apostolic record (all of it, not just the correlated version of it) you will see that there is little consistency at all. These men have been all over the board! Even down to today. Uchtdorf's redefinition of "after all we can do" refuted decades worth of talks by Oaks, et al.

[jayman]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Please do not tell us what we believe if you expect us to not tell you what you believe.

Sorry, I'll do better. But can you answer the question? In what way exactly is Jesus God?

[jayman]

Quote

So I guess, one question for you would be can you live in the Church even though you disagree with some of what has been taught? The principles of exaltation in the standard works are true even if they have been misunderstood. Does someone misinterpreting make the scriptures untrue? Or make the Church untrue? If you look at whatever church you are in, and Protestant and Catholic history I think you will eventually have to admit that they misinterpreted things since the time of Christ? Why would God allow that?

You make some good, thoughtful points. You ask me if I can live in the Church even though I disagree with some of what has been taught. You seem to suggest that I am right to disagree with some of what has been taught. If so...my question is this: considering the church claims to be the sole route to exaltation, and considering it has not always taught true exalting doctrine, why would I want to trust my eternal life to it?

[Calm]

Then what is the cause that God was the effect of and if there was no cause, then how can he exist given your claim (no cause, no effect).

[Guest]

On February 14, 2016 at 0:26 PM, 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/

You are re-posting anti-Mormon drivel about what they believe we teach and then the anti-Mormon response. Elder Holland and other members know what we teach and we teach Biblical, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants view upon the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. The document that came from the Nicene Creed in (or someone around this time) AD 325. That is not what scriptures teach about God, well not entirely. 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, jayman said:

Sorry, I'll do better. But can you answer the question? In what way exactly is Jesus God?

I'll give it a whirl. Jesus is YHWH Elohim with the Father per Gen 3:22. 

What is Elohim? Jesus is Elohim per

Hebrews 1:8
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Psalms 45:6
6 Thy throne, O God/Elohim, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
What is YHWH?
I believe these to be telling questions, but questions most Christians don't grapple with. 
In the Tanakh (Deut and Ps 82) you have YHWH telling men they are elohim. 
I believe Elohim to be the house/family of God.  So "I am YHWH your Elohim" becomes something like I am the life/breath/word of your family/house of immovable forces....
Jesus is the Son of the Most High which title is El Elyon. Is Jesus El Elyon? Luke says He is the Son of the Most High. I pose to you that trinitarianism horribly confuses these things which go to the heart of the nature of "God." 
Jesus is not the Father per trinitiarianism, and per the same theology God is "immutable." Therefore, per trinitarianism the Son can never be the Father, and the Son will never realize nor inherit His name as the Eternal Father per Isa 9:6. How is the Son ever to sit on His throne of glory in the regeneration?
Jesus is the Father in the sense that He was His legal agent - He was authorized to teach us of the Father.
Hence He said "I can do nothing of myself but that which I have seen the Father do, for whatsoever things the Father doeth, the Son doeth likewise."
Did He do everything He had seen the Father do? "For the time shortly cometh that I will show you plainly of the Father." What was He talking about here John?
If you understand that perhaps you will understand the consistent statement made until Hinkley that is that "As man is, so God once was, and as God is so can man become." How is Christ God? He followed the Father even as He teaches us to follow Him. 
Even Athanasius understood that Christ came that man might become God. Look it up in the Catholic catechism.... and I am no fan of Athanasius. Now Christians would never say that because they no longer understand the Way of Christ. I believe D&C says no different in promising that we can become "gods." It is saying we can become Elohim or the house of God. "In my Father's house are many rooms, I go to prepare a place for you." 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, jayman said:

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. 

Jesus is God as much as the Father is.  Both have achieved Godhood.  "God" is a plural noun denoting one who has achieved the title of God,  The three are one in the sense a  Family is "one " in purpose when they cooperate.  Fathers always preside over Sons.  And there can be gradations in Godhood.  Pagan greek philosophy may tell you otherwise.

I would caution you from attempting to tell us what we believe- that is the short road to major errors.  You know nothing about what we believe but what anti-Mormons have taught you.  

And of course Paul was right.  He is fully God.  Perhaps you might understand the word as a "title".  Christ has achieved the title of "God" and is as much God as the Father.

But of course we have not even started talking about the Holy Ghost

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, jayman said:

You make some good, thoughtful points. You ask me if I can live in the Church even though I disagree with some of what has been taught. You seem to suggest that I am right to disagree with some of what has been taught.

My personal guess is that no one with the possible exception of my wife  believes everything that has been said by all the general authorities. Clearly some of it is personal opinion...some is evident from Joseph Smith himself. I am not going to tell you what to believe. My hope is you will depend on the Holy Spirit for that. I know what I believe, and no that does not always comport with what all the GAs have said, and I am prepared to accept what judgment God has for me about that. But I don't believe I am guilty of telling God His nature like I believe the Niceans did. I have not told you anything that is not in the scriptures...if you are following the scriptures, can you go wrong? Can God find fault in you?

2 hours ago, jayman said:

 If so...my question is this: considering the church claims to be the sole route to exaltation, and considering it has not always taught true exalting doctrine, why would I want to trust my eternal life to it?

Men are imperfect wherever you go. Do you believe that if you don't believe exactly like Martin Luther or John Calvin that your eternal salvation is endangered? Doesn't Christ teach that everyone who believes on Him and repents shall be saved or receive life? If I don't believe exactly like BY that God married Mary is Christ going to withdraw His promise of life to me? I think not. We will all be judged according to our understanding and our works. Just don't get deceived about important things like not having to follow the commandments, popular OSAS theology, which teaches drunks they don't need to stop drinking and driving, etc. Things pertaining to belief only aren't necessarily dispositive, unless they are teaching not to believe on Christ, etc That is how is my salvation going to change if I believe God has a body and made us in His image or not? Do those who don't believe this not get to be saved? If not, why not? I believe this type of question goes to exaltation and not "salvation" as that is referred to in the scriptures. My question to you would be, if you don't believe LDS scriptures, why worry about exaltation? Isn't salvation good enough for traditional Christians?

Edited February 16, 2016 by RevTestament

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, jayman said:

Well, most of these other groups do not consider Jesus to be God.

So you are saying Trinitarians do not believe Jesus is God?  Three persons and one God and all that?? So they do not accept the Nicene Creed??  

The whole purpose of the theory of trinitarianism is to somehow illogically make three persons one God.  This really requires an explanation

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, jayman said:

mfbukowski,

I just checked out your blog "Theomorphic Man." I like your tagline..."If God is a Man, Humanism becomes Theology."

I once chatted with a former Mormon who is now a fully initiated advocate of Thelema, Aleister Crowley's philosophy. I asked him to share with me his religion's deepest, most secret, secret. He told me: "Man is God."  Fascinating, isn't it.

It is more than fascinating.  Of course I caught the sneer.

It actually makes sense, as opposed to greek pagan beliefs in Substance.  

I probably know who you are talking about - he posts here as well.  There are many apostate versions of the true gospel.

[longview]

9 hours 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. 

Welcome to MormonDialogue.

9 hours ago, jayman said:

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 agree with you that the Bible never says "in substance."  That was pulled out of thin air.  Entirely baseless and unjustifiable.  I don't know which "Nicene Creed" of whichever church you subscribe to but I really don't care.  Have you carefully read the "Great Intercessory Prayer" given by our Lord Jesus?  It clearly defines and drives home the point of what it means for Jesus to be ONE with Heavenly Father, for Jesus to be ONE with His 12 Apostles, for Jesus and the Apostles to be ONE with the believers (body of Christ or the Church).  ONE means to have UNITY of love and/or UNITY of PURPOSE.  John chapter 17 is very unambiguous.  Read the verses and correlate them with each other.

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them (members of the Church) also which shall believe on me through their word;
 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they (ordinary Church members) also may be one in us (the Godhead): that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

9 hours ago, jayman said:

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.

You think you understand Mormon doctrines and concepts but you REALLY don't.  Other posters in this thread have also commented on your lack of understanding.  You need to be careful NOT to overcomplicate Mormonism.  You need to do your homework first.

9 hours ago, jayman said:

One of the most controversial ideas expressed in the Proclamation was the idea that gender is an essential aspect of our eternal identity.

Not really controversial.  We are very comfortable with the idea of God being exalted Man.  After all, we truly ARE in the IMAGE of God.  Please do not conflate the imaginations of Thomas Burgoyne with Mormonism.

9 hours ago, jayman said:

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.

I disagree.  3rd Nephi chapters clearly show Jesus' distinct personhood apart from His Father in Heaven.  So does D&C 76.

[why me]

On 14.2.2016 at 0:06 AM, 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.

 

Reading this makes me a little suspicious. The lds church encourages people to have a personal relationship with both heavenly father and with jesus christ. I have seen nothing on the contrary to this. However, this blooger does fit a common pattern of people claiming that mormons workship a different jesus and god. But do mormons do? From my personal observation and from what members say, it seems that many during fast and testimony do speak of such a relationship. And are mormons encouraged to see their heavenly father as a heavenly parent? And christ as their brother. One can not get more personal than treating christ as a brother and god as a father.

So, if mormons do have a different jesus and a different god, it only becomes a matter of seeing both as members of their spiritual family and as such they can be treated in a very personal way. Not to mention a heavenly mother....who I am certain will welcome mormons home upon death with open arms. Such is a concept of a very personal family relationship.

Edited February 16, 2016 by why me

[RevTestament]

34 minutes ago, longview said:

I agree with you that the Bible never says "in substance."  That was pulled out of thin air.  Entirely baseless and unjustifiable.

I just wanna add that, it wasn't totally pulled out of the air. It was actually stolen from the gnostics! This is a Ripley's believe it or not. 

In fact a prior council of Antioch in 268, excommunicated a bishop for teaching the homoousios(one substance) of the Father and the Son - this was about 55 years before the Nicaean Council, which turns around and declares the homoousios of the Father and the Son...(but left out the Holy Spirit, who they had to add in 50 years later at the council of Constantinople.)

But the Catholics excuse this saying: " It must be regarded as certain that the council which condemned Paul rejected the term homoousios; but naturally only in a false sense used by Paul; not, it seems because he meant by it an unity of Hypostasis in the Trinity (so St. Hilary), but because he intended by it a common substance out of which both Father and Son proceeded, or which it divided between them, — so St. Basil and St. Athanasius; but the question is not clear. The objectors to the Nicene doctrine in the fourth century made copious use of this disapproval of the Nicene word by a famous council. "

If anyone wants convoluted doctrine, just study to be a Catholic priest.....

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, why me said:

Reading this makes me a little suspicious. The lds church encourages people to have a personal relationship with both heavenly father and with jesus christ. I have seen nothing on the contrary to this. However, this blooger does fit a common pattern of people claiming that mormons workship a different jesus and god. But do mormons do? From my personal observation and from what members say, it seems that many during fast and testimony do speak of such a relationship. And are mormons encouraged to see their heavenly father as a heavenly parent? And christ as their brother. One can not get more personal than treating christ as a brother and god as a father.

So, if mormons do have a different jesus and a different god, it only becomes a matter of seeing both as members of their spiritual family and as such they can be treated in a very personal way. Not to mention a heavenly mother....who I am certain will welcome mormons home upon death with open arms. Such is a concept of a very personal family relationship.

I seriously doubt that whole story. He seems to have no knowledge of Mormon doctrine whatsoever.

[why me]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I seriously doubt that whole story. He seems to have no knowledge of Mormon doctrine whatsoever.

True. And yet, some people actually believe what he said or use it to disparage the church with their own analysis of agreement as we have just seen. What to do?

Edited February 16, 2016 by why me

[jayman]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I seriously doubt that whole story. He seems to have no knowledge of Mormon doctrine whatsoever.

I was a member in good standing until I was 38 years old. I served a mission to Japan, married in temple, kids, and I was serving as an Elder's Quorum President when I left the church. Four years of seminary. Read the Book of Mormon several times through. At least 9 times. You can doubt my resume all you want. The LDS church failed to bring me to Christ. The LDS Church only has the power to bring someone to itself. In the temple, you do not covenant to give all to God. You covenant to give all to the Church.

You may tell me I do not understand Mormon doctrine, but some of you here are also telling me that even the General Authorities are not fully teaching correct doctrine, that you don't agree with Holland and that BY "flubbed it.". So, what gives?

Who, exactly, can adequately represent correct Mormon doctrine?

[jayman]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I seriously doubt that whole story. He seems to have no knowledge of Mormon doctrine whatsoever.

Don't worry mfbukowski....I didn't sin. Is it really so hard to believe that someone could possibly leave the church because they actually don't believe it?

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, longview said:

Welcome to MormonDialogue.

I agree with you that the Bible never says "in substance."  That was pulled out of thin air.  Entirely baseless and unjustifiable.  I don't know which "Nicene Creed" of whichever church you subscribe to but I really don't care.  Have you carefully read the "Great Intercessory Prayer" given by our Lord Jesus?  It clearly defines and drives home the point of what it means for Jesus to be ONE with Heavenly Father, for Jesus to be ONE with His 12 Apostles, for Jesus and the Apostles to be ONE with the believers (body of Christ or the Church).  ONE means to have UNITY of love and/or UNITY of PURPOSE.  John chapter 17 is very unambiguous.  Read the verses and correlate them with each other.

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them (members of the Church) also which shall believe on me through their word;
 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they (ordinary Church members) also may be one in us (the Godhead): that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

 

There is so much more to say when speaking of the unity of the LDS Godhead and the unity of the Godhead with the saints. I often wonder why when speaking of the unity of the LDS Godhead so many Latter-day Saints seem to miss or neglect mentioning the obvious? Though, like Pavlov's dog, LDS apologists have almost universally recoiled in revulsion at what I'm about to say, nevertheless what I'm about to set forth is undeniably true. But to set the stage for my remarks, I will first quote the immortal words of the Apostle Paul:

 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another diverskinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12)

So here's the point: While it's true there is a unity of purpose that exists between each of the three members of the Godhead, and a similar unity of purpose that exists between the Godhead and the sanctified saints, even so, in LDS theology there is an actual substance that enables that unity of purpose to exist; and without that shared substance there could exist no unity of purpose within the LDS Godhead. You see, each member of the Godhead is filled to eternal fullness with the uncreated Spirit of divine intelligence and truth, and without that shared Spirit (remember the prophet Joseph Smith taught us the Spirit is an actual material substance) there could be no divine unity between the members of the Godhead, no unity of purpose between the Godhead and the saints, and no unity of purpose among the saimts. So on this very specific point of LDS theology (divine unity), the theological concept that separates the Latter-day Saints and the Trinitarians is not whether or not there is an actual unifying divine substance, because there most certainly  is, but the parting of the ways is found in the fact that Latter-day Saints define what the unifying divine substance actually is (the Spirit), while the Trinitarians do not define what the substance is because they believe it's an incomprehensible mystery. The parting of the ways is further defined by the fact the Latter-day Saints believe the unifying divine substance  is material, while the Trinitarians believe anything pertaining to the divine nature is immaterial.

But before you and anyone else here rejects out of hand the concept of an LDS version of a unifying divine substance (I'm wary because of past experience with this subject on this board), I have a question for you: Do you believe Christ could have successfully functioned in his role as Savior without first receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost?

 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, jayman said:

I was a member in good standing until I was 38 years old. I served a mission to Japan, married in temple, kids, and I was serving as an Elder's Quorum President when I left the church. Four years of seminary. Read the Book of Mormon several times through. At least 9 times. You can doubt my resume all you want. The LDS church failed to bring me to Christ. The LDS Church only has the power to bring someone to itself. In the temple, you do not covenant to give all to God. You covenant to give all to the Church.

You may tell me I do not understand Mormon doctrine, but some of you here are also telling me that even the General Authorities are not fully teaching correct doctrine, that you don't agree with Holland and that BY "flubbed it.". So, what gives?

Who, exactly, can adequately represent correct Mormon doctrine?

Hi again Jayman. Note I didn't say BY was wrong. This is what I said: " 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." What I am saying here is that it seems to me (but I could be wrong) that BY was trying to teach the begotten nature of the Son, which I believe is a spiritual begottenness. If he was trying to do this, he flubbed it, because he only seems to speak of his temporal begottenness ... "he was begotten naturally" kind of stuff. I am saying well, yeah that is true in the sense that he came out of a womb like everybody else. I don't know that BY was necessarily speaking of conception, so I don't want to put words in his mouth. What I am saying is that the Church has not really taught why or how Jesus is the Begotten Son of the Father, so in this sense if BY was trying to do that yeah, he flubbed it. However, I can't say that what He said is wrong.... just to set the record clear here. I do disagree with BY on some things he said, but also with JS. JS said something like "59 years should wind up the scene." Well, I believe that is obviously his opinion and is wrong....obviously. Here we are 175 years later, and Jesus has not returned. Do I believe JS said this as a revelation, or that JS was giving us the words of the Lord? No, the Lord doesn't speak that way. JS was merely giving his opinion at a table and someone recorded it because the issue is a big one. So, just to be blunt, I believe a lot of statements which get thrown around are mere opinion, and everyone is essentially wasting their breath debating it. Sometimes people just can't resist giving their opinion on things that pertain to the oracles which they don't really know but just feel is right. The nature of God pertains to oracles. 

"Who, exactly, can adequately represent correct Mormon doctrine?" My advise is to obtain a full understanding of the scriptures, and to pray about them. If you are ready to receive the answers, the Holy Spirit will confirm it. I think it important to note that God reveals some things "precept upon precept" so He won't tell men until they are ready. This doesn't mean they are patient, or that they resist giving their best advice. I don't expect perfection from leaders. I expect what is given as scripture is right, and everything else goes through my interpretation filter. Does it conflict with scripture? Does the HS confirm it? That is how I have always done things. That is what led me to this church, and I believe that is a proper way to continue to follow. What I am telling you is that I don't believe you have to believe everything every GA has ever said to be a member in good standing in the Lord's Church. A lot of it just doesn't really pertain to my salvation at all, in the sense that I don't believe believing it or not is going to change my salvation one way or the other. So why get upset about it, and leave the church? I believe JS was a prophet despite being a man with faults and sins, and sometimes disobedient. And I believe the scriptures are true. I believe the ordinances are true. I know this is His true church even if men don't always get things right, and need for Him to correct them from time to time.....
You say you read the Book of Mormon 8 times... did you ever feel the confirming spirit that it was true? I've heard one fella who said while investigating he literally heard a voice repeat "it is true, it is true" yet when he got into the church and discovered something which bothered him, and seemed conflicting, etc he left. If the spirit confirms something is true is it possible that other men get it wrong? If so, am I allowing the faults of other men to keep me from truly becoming like Christ? There are the questions you should perhaps be asking instead of yours.

Cheers