What does the Godhead really mean?

[mfbukowski]

I'm out

Don't feed the troll.

[why me]

16 hours 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?

I think that eveyone has their own stories to tell. It more or less becomes a personal thing. However, the lds church does encourage a personal relationship with the savior. It certainly does not discourage it. And I think that that is the point. Of course, you or the blogger may not have found it in the lds church. But that doesn't mean that it does not exist for all to have.

[why me]

11 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Leaving the church is the worst sin of all.

Not really. However, seeking to destroy it may be right up there. But then was it any different in the early church at the time of paul? I am sure that some joined and left and began to persecute the early church. Was it a sin to do so?

[Tacenda]

Why Me,  I don't ever recall it said in those words though, it seems to be avoided, but that's just me I guess.

[Meadowchik]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Maybe the issue is that you have taken something that you believe is true for you (that the LDS church failed you) and have projected it onto everyone else (the church only has power to bring someone to itself).  At it's heart it's a very self-centered ideology (if it's true for me, it must be true for everyone else, if it's not true for me it can't be true for anyone else.  You have set yourself up as the standard that everyone else must be measured against).

The problem with your statement is that you have no authority to speak on behalf of members of the church.  Neither do you have the knowledge to state something like that as a fact.  

And lastly, church members covenant to give everything to the kingdom of God, which we believe the church represents on the earth at this time. Given your past experience with the church, you should know that and be able to describe our beliefs accurately.

That first paragraph is a very human and quite common mistake, I'm afraid. Yet it absolutely must be corrected for an individual to respect others as also individuals, not to mention love them as also children of God.

Our own experiences may properly be the last word for us, respectively,  but they aren't the last word for anyone else. They may guide our empathy and understanding but they cannot represent reality for another person.

[jayman]

I misspoke (miswrote?) about kids of gay parents getting disciplined by the church. That was wrong, and I was in error. What I was trying to get at was that being in a same-sex marriage requires a mandatory disciplinary council now. However,...I am quite confident that I was correct about forcible rape NOT requiring a disciplinary council. The bishop MAY take action, but unlike with the sin of apostasy, the bishop isn't necessarily required to. This is the wording of the Church Handbook of Instructions. Here is a link with the wording: link removed

Scroll through it.

Apostasy, including same-sex marriage? Council is Mandatory

Serious Transgression, like spousal abuse, sexual abuse, forcible rape? ...Council MAY BE required.

 

Priorities......

 

[longview]

1 hour ago, jayman said:

Serious Transgression, like spousal abuse, sexual abuse, forcible rape? ...Council MAY BE required.

Just like anti-mormons, you take a little piece and grossly distort the big picture.  If there was a crime committed, then the offender is subjected to the police powers of the state.  The Church has no desire to engage in enforcement of civil laws.  The Church only need to deal with ecclesiastical matters and to offer counseling.   The Bishop most likely will go to visit with the accused (or meet in the Bishop's office) to make an assessment.  If the offender confesses to the Bishop, then discipline will be imposed without having to hold a council.  If he persists in denying the charge, then I would think the Church will wait on the outcome of the civil process and hold a disciplinary council if needed.  Many options that require the judgement of the Bishop and/or the Stake President.

These are my impressions.  I have not gone to the trouble of reading the handbook.  If I made mistakes, go ahead and flame me.

[Bernard Gui]

Jayman... you entered the discussion wanting a definitive statement on the Godhead...

 

Quote

 

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.

 

Here is an authoritative statement about the Godhead including your assertion that Godhood=sexuality as you requested. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng. 

Edited February 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/17/2016 at 4:10 PM, jayman said:

I misspoke (miswrote?) about kids of gay parents getting disciplined by the church. That was wrong, and I was in error. What I was trying to get at was that being in a same-sex marriage requires a mandatory disciplinary council now. However,...I am quite confident that I was correct about forcible rape NOT requiring a disciplinary council. The bishop MAY take action, but unlike with the sin of apostasy, the bishop isn't necessarily required to. This is the wording of the Church Handbook of Instructions. Here is a link with the wording: http://www.scribd.com/doc/288685756/Changes-to-LDS-Hand

Scroll through it.

Apostasy, including same-sex marriage? Council is Mandatory

Serious Transgression, like spousal abuse, sexual abuse, forcible rape? ...Council MAY BE required.

 

Having served as a bishop, in numerous bishoprics and stake high councils, and as a stake executive secretary and a ward clerk for several bishops, I cannot imagine a scenario in which a member who is convicted of spouse abuse, sexual abuse, or forcible rape

would not have a disciplinary council. Your implication is offensive and disingenuous.

[jayman]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Having served as a bishop, in numerous bishoprics and stake high councils, and as a stake executive secretary and a ward clerk for several bishops, I cannot imagine a scenario in which a member who is convicted of spouse abuse, sexual abuse, or forcible rape

would not have a disciplinary council. Your implication is offensive and disingenuous.

I am not saying that most bishops will neglect to hold a disciplinary council. I am saying that according to the language of the Handbook, they are not mandated to hold a council. So, don't be offended. 

And while you, from personal experience, can't imagine that someone convicted of these crimes wouldn't be disciplined, it doesn't therefore follow that all are. There are plenty of stories of cover-up. There are plenty of stories where these abusers are not disciplined at all. 

[Bernard Gui]

50 minutes ago, jayman said:

I am not saying that most bishops will neglect to hold a disciplinary council. I am saying that according to the language of the Handbook, they are not mandated to hold a council. So, don't be offended. 

And while you, from personal experience, can't imagine that someone convicted of these crimes wouldn't be disciplined, it doesn't therefore follow that all are. There are plenty of stories of cover-up. There are plenty of stories where these abusers are not disciplined at all. 

"Most" bishops would hold a disciplinary council implies some would not. That implication is disingenuous and offensive.

But, it appears your plentiful third-hand anecdotes are superior to my pitiful personal anecdotes, so I humbly bow in your general direction.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

"Most" bishops would hold a disciplinary council implies some would not. That implication is disingenuous and offensive.

But, it appears your plentiful third-hand anecdotes are superior to my pitiful personal anecdotes, so I humbly bow in your general direction.

Facing which way?

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Jayman... you entered the discussion wanting a definitive statement on the Godhead...

 

Here is an authoritative statement about the Godhead including your assertion that Godhood=sexuality as you requested. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng. 

Yes, we seem to gone far away from any true interest in the LDS view of the Godhead, and degenerated into a debate about the possibility that a council for a raper may not be held(because possibly the person may humbly repent, and the victim may have forgiven him, or other ameliorating circumstances allowed for by the language of the manual.) I'm not Tacenda, but I believe the thread needs to get back on track, so thank you for your efforts in this regard. It was really Consig who was responsible for derailing the thread IMHO. I for one will not participate in the derailment. If anyone else wants to discuss the subject matter of the thread, now's their chance. Perhaps John still has valid questions on the Godhede as he puts it - it really doesn't matter too much to me either way. It does not change my testimony concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And I don't know why it should or would. There are plenty of scriptures in the Bible which teach us that the Son is not the same spirit, consciousness, nor person as the Father. As Jesus indicates from John 17, that does not exclude them from being one YHWH Elohim.

[Tacenda]

I was hoping the thread wouldn't turn into what it has, I guess there is room to believe that Godhead can mean three personages.  I was also hoping that Jayman could stick around and discuss without anti Mormonism stuff.  But I'm not far from the tree on that sometimes too.  But really thought we could stay focused better on the subject at hand.  I'm not too good with contributing, more a learner rather than a teacher, though I did sub 5th grade today, I'm just a glorified babysitter.  And I don't want to do that here!  Class, CLASS, CLASS!  SHUT UP!!! 

Proceed onward if there are any more points to make, if not, MODS are welcome to lock this thread.   

[jayman]

Alright...the thread got off track. Let's get back to the original point. Trinitarianism requires a belief in three statements:

1. There is one God.

2. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are God.

3. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not the same person.

Those are not my statements. That is the work of a Stephen Bullivant who apparently teaches a course in the Trinity at some Theological Seminary somewhere...I don't feel like getting up to hunt down the book right now.

If you deny the first statement, you have Tri-theism. If you deny the second statement, you have Arianism. If you deny the third statement, you have Modalism/Sabellianism. Again...this is Bullivant's work.

Mormonism is definitely NOT Modalism. And often when ill-informed Mormons are attacking Trinitarianism, they are often attacking Modalism unawares.

But Mormonism does have a bit of Arianism in it. A lot, actually. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (you can find this at BYU.edu) openly declares Mormon theology to be "subordinationist," meaning the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. Arianism is subordinationist, too. In Arianism, Jesus is only God in some honorific sense. He is not fully God in the same way the Father is God. This is very much the position of the JWs also. Jesus is not the One God Jehovah. He is Michael the Archangel.

I can understand how Mormons may feel that they can recite each of the three statements above in good faith, but if one understands the deep theology that underpins each statement, particularly the first and the second one, it would become harder for Mormons to embrace these.

I just want to point out one more time that while the Bible says that Jesus and the Father are one, it never qualifies that statement with "in substance" or "in purpose." Mormons will point to other scriptures to back up their "in purpose" belief. Trinitarians will point to other scriptures to back up their "in substance" belief. Both interpretations can be pulled from the Bible, but I think it is only reasonable to agree that neither interpretation is explicitly stated by the Bible.

[jayman]

Mormons can embrace the first statement most fully when they think of Godhood as a high office in the Priesthood, and not as the title of a single entity.

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, jayman said:

But Mormonism does have a bit of Arianism in it. A lot, actually. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (you can find this at BYU.edu) openly declares Mormon theology to be "subordinationist," meaning the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. Arianism is subordinationist, too. In Arianism, Jesus is only God in some honorific sense. He is not fully God in the same way the Father is God..

So?  This is true.

Put whatever "ism" label you like on it.

 

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, jayman said:

Mormons can embrace the first statement most fully when they think of Godhood as a high office in the Priesthood, and not as the title of a single entity.

Whatever Mormons need to embrace, you should at least try to understand the doctrinal exposition of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve at https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng

[jayman]

 

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So?  This is true.

Put whatever "ism" label you like on it.

 

Subordinationism isn't true. Jesus became subordinate to the Father during the incarnation. But in the intercessory prayer, he prays asking the Father to now glorify him with the same glory that he shared with the Father in the beginning. The Father and the Son are equally God. The Son only became subordinate when he took on flesh. But when he worked out the Atonement, he was going to return to the same co-equal glory he shared with the Father before.

[jayman]

I do understand the doctrinal exposition. I don't agree with much of it. And it has some internal problems. For instance, in the section that shows how Jesus can be called the Father of those who abide in his doctrine, it cites huge chunks of the Intercessory Prayer, which never says that Christ is the Father to those who abide in his glory. It has to then cite the D&C in order to fully back up the statement.

It should be no surprise that Mormon doctrines find support in Mormon scriptures.

This doctrinal exposition was needed to string together scattered scriptures in order to craft what comes awfully close to looking like a creed that spells out the nature of God, because apparently it wasn't self-evident in the scriptures. But when Christianity did the same thing and came up with the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, it is someone a mark of apostate religion.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, jayman said:

 

Subordinationism isn't true. Jesus became subordinate to the Father during the incarnation. But in the intercessory prayer, he prays asking the Father to now glorify him with the same glory that he shared with the Father in the beginning. The Father and the Son are equally God. The Son only became subordinate when he took on flesh. But when he worked out the Atonement, he was going to return to the same co-equal glory he shared with the Father before.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, jayman said:

I do understand the doctrinal exposition. I don't agree with much of it. And it has some internal problems. For instance, in the section that shows how Jesus can be called the Father of those who abide in his doctrine, it cites huge chunks of the Intercessory Prayer, which never says that Christ is the Father to those who abide in his glory. It has to then cite the D&C in order to fully back up the statement.

It should be no surprise that Mormon doctrines find support in Mormon scriptures.

This doctrinal exposition was needed to string together scattered scriptures in order to craft what comes awfully close to looking like a creed that spells out the nature of God, because apparently it wasn't self-evident in the scriptures. But when Christianity did the same thing and came up with the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, it is someone a mark of apostate religion.

I doubt very much that you were even aware of the Exposition before I pointed it out to you. It would take much more than the cursory glance you have given it to understand it. 

What on earth does this mean? "It should be no surprise that Mormon doctrines find support in Mormon scriptures?" Goodness gracious. Why are you here, then?

Edited February 18, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I doubt very much that you were even aware of the Exposition before I pointed it out to you. It would take much more than the cursory glance you have given it to understand it. 

What on earth does this mean? "It should be no surprise that Mormon doctrines find support in Mormon scriptures?" Goodness gracious. Why are you here, then?

Well...that would be because I brought up his blog.  I'm still all ears if he has more to say.  But feel that every faith out there has it's own philosophies.  If it's not going to hurt the LDS by having these, I don't see the harm in their believing what they want.  I wonder if there is scripture anywhere that says someone is condemned for believing one way and not exactly like the Bible.    

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, jayman said:

Alright...the thread got off track. Let's get back to the original point. Trinitarianism requires a belief in three statements:

1. There is one God.

2. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are God.

3. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not the same person.

Those are not my statements. That is the work of a Stephen Bullivant who apparently teaches a course in the Trinity at some Theological Seminary somewhere...I don't feel like getting up to hunt down the book right now.

If you deny the first statement, you have Tri-theism. If you deny the second statement, you have Arianism. If you deny the third statement, you have Modalism/Sabellianism. Again...this is Bullivant's work.

Mormonism is definitely NOT Modalism. And often when ill-informed Mormons are attacking Trinitarianism, they are often attacking Modalism unawares.

But Mormonism does have a bit of Arianism in it. A lot, actually. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (you can find this at BYU.edu) openly declares Mormon theology to be "subordinationist," meaning the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. Arianism is subordinationist, too. In Arianism, Jesus is only God in some honorific sense. He is not fully God in the same way the Father is God. This is very much the position of the JWs also. Jesus is not the One God Jehovah. He is Michael the Archangel.

I can understand how Mormons may feel that they can recite each of the three statements above in good faith, but if one understands the deep theology that underpins each statement, particularly the first and the second one, it would become harder for Mormons to embrace these.

I just want to point out one more time that while the Bible says that Jesus and the Father are one, it never qualifies that statement with "in substance" or "in purpose." Mormons will point to other scriptures to back up their "in purpose" belief. Trinitarians will point to other scriptures to back up their "in substance" belief. Both interpretations can be pulled from the Bible, but I think it is only reasonable to agree that neither interpretation is explicitly stated by the Bible.

I agree with those 3 statements, yet you I'm sure will tell me that I am not trinitarian because I am a professing LDS Christian. I do not claim that I am a trinitarian because I disagree with the doctrines of the Trinity. I do NOT believe Christ was begotten before all worlds/age or was eternally begotten. I believe that he was begotten in time as the scriptures say: "Thou art my Son; This day I have begotten thee." Further, I reject the "co-equal" label foisted upon the Father and Son by trinitarians. They flatly ignore the many statements of the Son that bely there attempts to stuff in a man-made doctrine here. Jesus said "the Father is greater than I." The scriptures say Jesus is His servant. Not that the Father is Jesus' servant. The very title of the Father, El Elyon, the Most High El simply tells us the trinitarian doctrine is wrong. I can go on and on. The Father tells His Servant all things before they transpire, because the Son is not omnipotent by Himself. As an LDS I also reject the "subordinationist" label you are foisting on us because the Son is not "eternally subordinate." LDS doctrine teaches that the Son is in a state of progression. Isa 9:6 teaches that He shall be called the Everlasting Father. At that point He will have inherited all His Father has, His holy mountains, His government, and his titles, and will no longer be subordinate. 

I will post a little something I came up with to try to outline the many problems I see with the doctrines of the Trinity as compared to what God says in the scriptures:

 

..................................................Bible vs Roman Creeds/Trinitarianism

Invites men to come freely (godly love)...................................Use of fear, compulsion, & persecution (adversary)
Bible - Covenant with God, Isaiah 61:6-8.........................................Roman Creeds - words from where?
"man shall live by every word of God" Luke 4:4.................... promulgated under the maximum priest of Roman gods 
Rome is the Beast of Daniel 7:19-20 ................................(pontifex = builder of the way/roads) Pontifex Maximus office 
and Rev 13, Rev 17 Woman on beast ...............................of Constantine and later Bishop of Rome (Roman Church)
Mystery, Babylon 1 Peter 5:13, Rev 17:5................................Babylon was beast of Dan 7:4 and head of image Dan 2

Apostles and Christians had no .................................................................. none 33 A.D - 325 A.D.
creeds for 3 centuries and were persecuted .............................approx 325 Nicea 1st Creed -required by Roman law ............................................................................................to be read in churches - persecution stops

Elohim - a plural Hebrew noun ex. Family .....................Deity(Latin) - a singular "god" idea/word from Rome & Greece 
Gen 1:26 "And Eloheim said let US..............................................Rome is beast of Dan 7:19-20, Dan 2 kingdom of iron
make man in OUR image." (includes Father & Son).........................Greece is beast of Dan 7:6, Dan 2 kingdom of brass
God created the world through Jesus Christ Eph 3:9......................Persia is beast of Dan 7:5, Dan 2 kingdom of silver
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Babylon is beast of Dan 7:4, Dan 2 head of gold

Godhead Acts 17:29 KJV, Col 2:9, Ps 82:1..........................Trinity - coined by Tertullian who also said the Son had a ........................................................................................beginning - sorry Trins
https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng.......................... ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian

"The Father and I are one"
Father - Most High(El Elyon) - Psalms 47:2-3, Psalms 110:1, Acts 7:55...................Father "co-equal, one substance,

............................................................. .........................................................one being" the Almighty

Son - Holy One of Israel - Isaiah 54:5 KJV, Acts 13:35....................Son "co-equal, co-substantial, one being"
Son of the Most High, servant - Isaiah 42:1, 6, 8, .................................... Son of the Almighty God 
"Enough Breast" (El Shaddai) - Rev 1:8, 4:8, Jn 8:58, Gen 17:1 ...................per Apostles Creed and others
"The Father is greater than I."
"Who hath seen me, hath seen the Father."
"Whatsoever the Father doeth the Son doeth likewise." "I am the way." Jn 14:6
Inheritor - now on right hand, but will sit in Father's stead & be called Father .......... immutable - Son forever ................................................................................................Platonic/Aristotlian(Greece again) concept
Isaiah 9:6, "inheritor of my mountains" Isaiah 65:9; Heb 1:4.......................but already "co-equal"; denies ...........................................................................................................inheritance; enemy to Christ
Under the Hebraic law, the firstborn or begotten inherited all his father had.

only begotten .................................................. ........................325 creed - "begotten before all worlds"
Heb 7:28 Oath of the Father - .........................................................under Bishop of Rome as Pontifex maximus
"Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." ............................... became "eternally begotten"

John 15:16 Pray/ask the Father in the name of Jesus Christ .......................... Pray to Son or Mary

Holy Ghost ...................................................................................... Holy Ghost - not declared
Matt 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, ...... co-substantial in Nicean Creed - oops!
it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, .............Constantinople 381 A.D.- ................................................................................................declared as co-equal & one substance
it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come............... with the Son

...............................................................................................................(blasphemy against HG?)

Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Descended upon Jesus in form of dove in River Jordan ...............sprinkle sinless infants with "holy water" salted ...............................................................................................like in pagan roman holy water

Prophets/Apostles/Bishops, etc.....................................vicarius filii dei (666) in Donation of Constantine until ruled

........................................................................................a fake (fallible?)
. . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .tiaras destroyed by Napoleon
Jesus: "call no man Father" Matt 23:9....................................."pope" from popa or literally daddy, father; "holy father"
John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: .............. dark ages, inquisitions, crusades against "heretics"
for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. ...........who made claim to Jesus' name
"You shall know them by their fruits" Matt 7:15-16

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.......Truth suppression, fabrications John 8:44
Gen 3:3,22.......................................................................................Gen 3:1,4,5
Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution[restoration] of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Josh 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, ... but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
"The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints." Ephesians 1:18.
AMEN

Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

The Matt 28:20 Church

Copyright RevelationTestament.net - license granted for one copy

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by RevTestament

[jayman]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I doubt very much that you were even aware of the Exposition before I pointed it out to you. It would take much more than the cursory glance you have given it to understand it. 

What on earth does this mean? "It should be no surprise that Mormon doctrines find support in Mormon scriptures?" Goodness gracious. Why are you here, then?

You guys really do nothing for your credibility when you say things like this. I remember first being exposed to the exposition back in 1997. I am here because someone took my ideas which I was expressing in my own playground and posted them here. Others began to discuss them, I found out about it, and decided to come along, too.