500 Years After The Protestant Reformation

mfbukowski · December 30, 2017

9 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said:

Interesting how many LDS leaders believed the Trinity

1. Discourses of Brigham Young, p.30
The Holy Ghost, we believe, is one of the characters that form the Trinity, or the Godhead.

1. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.61
Now I repeat-the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, he constitutes the third person in the Trinity, the Godhead

1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.312
In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost-in other words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are separate and distinct personages. This is one distinguishing and, to some, disturbing doctrine of the Church.

1. James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.4, p.264
From these statements, and from many others that might be quoted, it is clear that Adam and Christ are two persons-not the same Person. It is erroneous doctrine to consider them one and the same person, for Jesus is the Christ, a member of the Trinity, the God-head, and to whom Adam, the father of the human family upon this earth, is amenable. Adam will have to account for his stewardship to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose blood atones for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam.
James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.6, p.236

1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.313
Surely this was not ventriloquism where Christ was speaking to and of himself. It was the Father introducing His Son. In this case, the members of the Holy Trinity manifested themselves, each in a different way, and each was distinct from the others. A similar event occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration when members of the Godhead were distinguished in the presence of Moses and Elias, and Peter, James, and John.

J. Reuben Clark Jr. Second Counselor to the LDS First Presidency speaking to diversified audience in the mid 1940s speaks of God in terms of the Trinity-God has revealed to us that he is the Father of all, and that he loves and cares forth righteous everywhere, and seeks ever to bring back the wayward to his ways. He has made known that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father, the Redeemer of the World, the First Fruits of the Resurrection. He has shown to us that as Jesus died, lay in the tomb, and was resurrected, so shall it be with every son and daughter of God. He has manifested to us that he is a person, that Christ is another person, and that the Holy Ghost is a third person, and that these make

the Trinity of the Godhead

Another explanation is found in Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose

Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fullness of the gospel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason:

General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28.

So what?

Philosophies of men mingled with scripture. These folks, like you, had no idea they were quoting Aristotle and Plato and wanted to be cool with Protestants.

And yes Joseph too as he "translated" the BOM which was actually received through revelation through the mind of Joseph using language and ideas as he understood the revelations.

Prophets are not infallible, which is proven by various comments they have made implying they ARE infallible.

But I do love the green crayon.

You should make it bigger and bolder again. That gives you more page space on the screen and pretty soon all you see is green crayon when you open the page.

Edited December 30, 2017 by mfbukowski

pogi · December 30, 2017

14 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

If you notice the Athanasion Creed teaches we will be judged by are works and also agrees that when Jesus said The Father was greater than him that it also agrees with the Creed. Check highlighted words, there is nothing in this Creed that disagrees with the Book of Mormon

For someone who claims to be sola scriptura and sola fide, you sure like to reference Catholic Creeds a lot. Perhaps that is why 52% of Protestants believe that they "need the guidance of church teaching and tradition in conjunction with the Bible", because they never could have come up with the idea of the trinity using sola scripture. The Creeds are considered authoritative statements from the Church to guide belief (well, there goes sola scriptura out the window!). Perhaps the Creeds (like the one you mentioned) are the reason why 52% of Protestants believe that both works and faith are necessary for salvation (there goes sola fide!).

To claim hold on both the Creeds and to the solas, is an obvious paradox. The solas are a paradox in and of themselves since they are extra Biblical church teachings and creeds. Show me where it says sola scriptura in the scriptures? To hold it as a creed is totally self-contradictory.

For as much as you rely on the Creeds and as little as you rely on the Bible, I think a better motto for you would be Sola Catholic Creed.

Edited December 30, 2017 by pogi

Josh Khinder · December 30, 2017

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You're very good at quoting things but not so great at understanding what you are quoting.

Please enlighten me

Josh Khinder · December 30, 2017

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So what?

Philosophies of men mingled with scripture. These folks, like you, had no idea they were quoting Aristotle and Plato and wanted to be cool with Protestants.

And yes Joseph too as he "translated" the BOM which was actually received through revelation through the mind of Joseph using language and ideas as he understood the revelations.

Prophets are not infallible, which is proven by various comments they have made implying they ARE infallible.

But I do love the green crayon.

You should make it bigger and bolder again. That gives you more page space on the screen and pretty soon all you see is green crayon when you open the page.

Are you saying these men weren't led by the Omniscient God

RevTestament · December 30, 2017

1 hour ago, Josh Khinder said:

I would say Isa 65 is a reference to Jehovah "Jesus" and not the Father

Exactly. How does an unchanging God inherit "my holy mountains?" BTW why is the Father also named Yahowah? What does that name mean?

Quote

Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions
Taken from the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith
Tenth President of Mormonism
A course Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums
1972-73

Lesson 6 page 39
It was Jesus who gave commandments to Adam after he was driven out of the Garden of Eden and who directed Enoch and Noah before the flood. It was Christ who named Abraham and made him that through his posterity all nations would be blessed. He, it was who called Moses to lead Isreal out of Egypt and who wrote with his fingers on the tables of stone. He had no body until he was born in Bethlehem

and the Creeds teach along with the Book of Mormon Jesus was Fatherless and Motherless since he was the self-existing God since he was God from Eternity

I agree that it was Christ who named Abraham, because Christ was the El Shaddai of the Elim. "Before Abraham I am."

Jesus was not Fatherless in the sense of having a spirit teacher who was His Father, El Elyon, the Most High Power. But yes, like Melchizedek, by inheriting an everlasting priesthood, Christ became without father and without mother. This priesthood was to grant Him the eternality of God the Father to become one with the Father, and eventually to be the Father from eternity - if you are one in spirit with the Father is this not so? To know all the Father knows, and be all the Father is from the very first? So yes to me that would be eternally God or El.

Quote

Mosiah 3:5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

Jesus didn't become the Son until 2017 years ago

Mosiah 15

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are defined as One Substance thru out the Book of Mormon since substance is a synonym for God and the mouth of 3 witnesses should testify to that in 2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44 and Mormon 7:7

Jesus was sent into the world as the Son, but the nature of being begotten is to have a beginning. I am not saying Jesus didn't exist before being begotten as the only begotten Son - I'm just saying that is the beginning of His being the only begotten Son of the Father. Your use of "one substance" is your own. It doesn't come from the Book of Mormon. I disagree that "substance" is a synonym for God. God is actually rooted in the German pagan name or title of Gott. It really has no scriptural meaning. Substance is just an amorphous, essentially meaningless word which allows Christians to attach almost any meaning to it. It too is without scriptural meaning. It comes from philosophical debate about God - not from God. As a matter of fact an earlier council condemned the use of homoousios (one substance) in relation to God, and excommunicated a bishop named Paul of Samosata for insisting on using it in relation to God. The oneness of God from scripture comes from the use of the Hebrew word echad which is often used to refer to a composite one such as man and wife being one/echad flesh. Yeshua and the Most High El are one/echad Yahowah according to scripture. Being a Father and Son also speaks to a spiritual oneness or bond - in this case it is covenant relationship. The BoM simply adopts the English understanding of the word God, but in the Hebrew it would be more concise to say they are one Yahowah Elohim. That has nothing to do with being one "substance" - whatever that means. They are one because the Son follows exactly what He has seen the Father do - including laying down His life for us. Thus, Yeshua inherited the name of the Father - Yahowah, Behold the nail, behold the hand. The Son knows the Father, and the Father knows the Son in a very intimate and close way. "One substance?" It misses all of that. It is a meaningless and useless term as far as I am concerned. It is filler invented to try to explain how the Father and Son are one. This is evident from the days of the Nicene Creed, which forgot to proclaim the Holy Spirit as being homoousios. Man had to include Him in their invention about 50 years later at the Council of Constantinople - you can't leave the faults of a man-made god exposed you know.

Robert F. Smith · December 30, 2017

2 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Joseph Fielding Smith admitted that Joseph Smith helped prepare these lectures: "Now the Prophet did know something about these Lectures on Faith, because he helped to prepare them, and he helped also to revise these lectures before they were published ..." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p. 195).

That was a pretty common assumption in its day, but we now know that it is untrue. Why? Because wordprint or sylometric analysis shows it to be false.

Reynolds, Noel B. “The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lectures on Faith.” Journal of Mormon History 32 (Fall 2005): 1–41.

Reynolds, Noel B. “The Authorship Debate concerning Lectures on Faith: Exhumation and Reburial.” In The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, 355–382. Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000.

Partridge, Elinore H. Characteristics of Joseph Smith’s Style and Notes on the Authorship of the Lectures on Faith. Task Papers in LDS History 14. Salt Lake City: History Division, Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976.

Phipps, Alan J. “The Lectures on Faith: An Authorship Study.” Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1977.

Robert F. Smith · December 30, 2017

1 hour ago, Josh Khinder said:

Are you saying these men weren't led by the Omniscient God

Even if God were omniscient (which he is not), that omniscience doesn't transfer to the fallible human beings he communicates with.

bluebell · December 30, 2017

1 hour ago, Josh Khinder said:

Please enlighten me

You keep trying to force the LDS use of the term Trinity (or 'one' in the BOM and other sources) into the mainstream Christian definition of the terms. That's neither valid or reasonable though. Just like how Mormons and Baptists may both use the word 'salvation', we don't define the term the same way, and the same can be said when it comes to Mormons and the Trinity. The words might be the same, but that really doesn't mean much when it comes to understanding the doctrine.

I like the words of the mainstream Christian scholar Davis who said this when talking about "the Mormon Trinity" (as he puts it)-

Let me now turn to the Mormon Trinity. It is clear that Mormons can affirm the seven propositions that make up the classical doctrine of the Trinity.

(1) The Father is God.
(2) The Son is God.
(3) The Holy Spirit is God.
(4) The Father is not the Son.
(5) The Son is not the Holy Spirit. (6) The Holy Spirit is not the Father (7) There is only one God.

This is perhaps the strongest point in favor of mainstream Christians accepting the LDS view of the Trinity as a viable theological option. But does their affirmation of (1) – (7) make Mormons into defenders of a Trinitarianism that ought to be acceptable to mainstream Christians? Unfortunately, I believe the answer is no. The problem, so it seems to me, is that Mormons have to interpret some of these propositions in ways that would not be acceptable to mainstream Christians. Whether Mormon subordinationist Christology amounts to an acceptable interpretation of (2), for example, is a question that I will not discuss here.6 The central problem, so it seems to me, is that Mormons do not affirm (7) in the right way.

I say this for two reasons. First, Mormons certainly do have a theory of the oneness of God; that God is one is clearly affirmed in the Mormon scriptures (e.g., III Nephi 11:27, 36; Mosiah 15:4). But I doubt that many advocates of classical Trinitarianism will judge this fact to be sufficient. This is clear not just from the tritheistic-sounding texts that can also be found in the Mormon scriptures, but from the conviction (as I just argued) that unity of purpose is not enough.

Note that Davis understands that when all of the verses in the BOM on God are taken in context and as a whole, the BOM does not support the mainstream definition of the Trinity.

Just because LDS prophets have used the word Trinity or our scriptures use the word 'one' that does not mean that we believe the doctrine of the Trinity as mainstream Christians believe it. Different groups of people define terms differently and it seems like you don't realize that (or worse, like you refuse to acknowledge that because it doesn't fit in with your agenda).

mfbukowski · December 31, 2017

2 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Are you saying these men weren't led by the Omniscient God

Of course they were- as much as is possible for mere mortals who do not communicate well with God who, as an Exalted Human knows far more than we as mortals are capable of knowing.

God does not take over someone's body and make their mouths work- that would be a violation of agency. He inspires us, we hear as best as we are capable, and write what we think he has told us.

How much does an embryo know compared to the most intelligent human who has ever lived- Christ perhaps? For all practical purposes, yes, that is "omniscient" but not in the sense you think it is.

The word like most Christian theology words cannot be defined. "Knows all things" ? What does that mean? What is a "thing" in that context? It's simple-minded language for teaching children.

Edited December 31, 2017 by mfbukowski

mfbukowski · December 31, 2017

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You keep trying to force the LDS use of the term Trinity (or 'one' in the BOM and other sources) into the mainstream Christian definition of the terms. That's neither valid or reasonable though. Just like how Mormons and Baptists may both use the word 'salvation', we don't define the term the same way, and the same can be said when it comes to Mormons and the Trinity. The words might be the same, but that really doesn't mean much when it comes to understanding the doctrine.

I like the words of the mainstream Christian scholar Davis who said this when talking about "the Mormon Trinity" (as he puts it)-

Let me now turn to the Mormon Trinity. It is clear that Mormons can affirm the seven propositions that make up the classical doctrine of the Trinity.

(1) The Father is God.
(2) The Son is God.
(3) The Holy Spirit is God.
(4) The Father is not the Son.
(5) The Son is not the Holy Spirit. (6) The Holy Spirit is not the Father (7) There is only one God.

This is perhaps the strongest point in favor of mainstream Christians accepting the LDS view of the Trinity as a viable theological option. But does their affirmation of (1) – (7) make Mormons into defenders of a Trinitarianism that ought to be acceptable to mainstream Christians? Unfortunately, I believe the answer is no. The problem, so it seems to me, is that Mormons have to interpret some of these propositions in ways that would not be acceptable to mainstream Christians. Whether Mormon subordinationist Christology amounts to an acceptable interpretation of (2), for example, is a question that I will not discuss here.6 The central problem, so it seems to me, is that Mormons do not affirm (7) in the right way.

I say this for two reasons. First, Mormons certainly do have a theory of the oneness of God; that God is one is clearly affirmed in the Mormon scriptures (e.g., III Nephi 11:27, 36; Mosiah 15:4). But I doubt that many advocates of classical Trinitarianism will judge this fact to be sufficient. This is clear not just from the tritheistic-sounding texts that can also be found in the Mormon scriptures, but from the conviction (as I just argued) that unity of purpose is not enough.

Note that Davis understands that when all of the verses in the BOM on God are taken in context and as a whole, the BOM does not support the mainstream definition of the Trinity.

Just because LDS prophets have used the word Trinity or our scriptures use the word 'one' that does not mean that we believe the doctrine of the Trinity as mainstream Christians believe it. Different groups of people define terms differently and it seems like you don't realize that (or worse, like you refuse to acknowledge that because it doesn't fit in with your agenda).

Doncha love it when non or anti-Mormons tell us what we believe?

I think a lot of the usages he quoted were specifically pitched to non-members so that they would understand what the "Godhead" means, in each sentence.

If they just used the Mormon jargon, no one but Mormons would understand the points they were making, and in all those, it seems they are making a point about something other than the God head but using the Godhead to make the point.

So that others would understand the point, they just used the word "Trinity" so that they could teach others. That doesn't mean they therefore affirm belief in the "Trinity" as others understand it.

Josh Khinder · December 31, 2017

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Exactly. How does an unchanging God inherit "my holy mountains?" BTW why is the Father also named Yahowah? What does that name mean?

I agree that it was Christ who named Abraham, because Christ was the El Shaddai of the Elim. "Before Abraham I am."

Jesus was not Fatherless in the sense of having a spirit teacher who was His Father, El Elyon, the Most High Power. But yes, like Melchizedek, by inheriting an everlasting priesthood, Christ became without father and without mother. This priesthood was to grant Him the eternality of God the Father to become one with the Father, and eventually to be the Father from eternity - if you are one in spirit with the Father is this not so? To know all the Father knows, and be all the Father is from the very first? So yes to me that would be eternally God or El.

Jesus was sent into the world as the Son, but the nature of being begotten is to have a beginning. I am not saying Jesus didn't exist before being begotten as the only begotten Son - I'm just saying that is the beginning of His being the only begotten Son of the Father. Your use of "one substance" is your own. It doesn't come from the Book of Mormon. I disagree that "substance" is a synonym for God. God is actually rooted in the German pagan name or title of Gott. It really has no scriptural meaning. Substance is just an amorphous, essentially meaningless word which allows Christians to attach almost any meaning to it. It too is without scriptural meaning. It comes from philosophical debate about God - not from God. As a matter of fact an earlier council condemned the use of homoousios (one substance) in relation to God, and excommunicated a bishop named Paul of Samosata for insisting on using it in relation to God. The oneness of God from scripture comes from the use of the Hebrew word echad which is often used to refer to a composite one such as man and wife being one/echad flesh. Yeshua and the Most High El are one/echad Yahowah according to scripture. Being a Father and Son also speaks to a spiritual oneness or bond - in this case it is covenant relationship. The BoM simply adopts the English understanding of the word God, but in the Hebrew it would be more concise to say they are one Yahowah Elohim. That has nothing to do with being one "substance" - whatever that means. They are one because the Son follows exactly what He has seen the Father do - including laying down His life for us. Thus, Yeshua inherited the name of the Father - Yahowah, Behold the nail, behold the hand. The Son knows the Father, and the Father knows the Son in a very intimate and close way. "One substance?" It misses all of that. It is a meaningless and useless term as far as I am concerned. It is filler invented to try to explain how the Father and Son are one. This is evident from the days of the Nicene Creed, which forgot to proclaim the Holy Spirit as being homoousios. Man had to include Him in their invention about 50 years later at the Council of Constantinople - you can't leave the faults of a man-made god exposed you know.

This speaker knows the name

http://youtu.be/sm1ikV7YB0M

Josh Khinder · December 31, 2017

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Doncha love it when non or anti-Mormons tell us what we believe?

I think a lot of the usages he quoted were specifically pitched to non-members so that they would understand what the "Godhead" means, in each sentence.

If they just used the Mormon jargon, no one but Mormons would understand the points they were making, and in all those, it seems they are making a point about something other than the God head but using the Godhead to make the point.

So that others would understand the point, they just used the word "Trinity" so that they could teach others. That doesn't mean they therefore affirm belief in the "Trinity" as others understand it.

You keep trying to force the LDS use of the term Trinity (or 'one' in the BOM and other sources) into the mainstream Christian definition of the terms. That's neither valid or reasonable though. Just like how Mormons and Baptists may both use the word 'salvation', we don't define the term the same way, and the same can be said when it comes to Mormons and the Trinity. The words might be the same, but that really doesn't mean much when it comes to understanding the doctrine.

I like the words of the mainstream Christian scholar Davis who said this when talking about "the Mormon Trinity" (as he puts it)-

Let me now turn to the Mormon Trinity. It is clear that Mormons can affirm the seven propositions that make up the classical doctrine of the Trinity.

(1) The Father is God.
(2) The Son is God.
(3) The Holy Spirit is God.
(4) The Father is not the Son.
(5) The Son is not the Holy Spirit. (6) The Holy Spirit is not the Father (7) There is only one God.

This is perhaps the strongest point in favor of mainstream Christians accepting the LDS view of the Trinity as a viable theological option. But does their affirmation of (1) – (7) make Mormons into defenders of a Trinitarianism that ought to be acceptable to mainstream Christians? Unfortunately, I believe the answer is no. The problem, so it seems to me, is that Mormons have to interpret some of these propositions in ways that would not be acceptable to mainstream Christians. Whether Mormon subordinationist Christology amounts to an acceptable interpretation of (2), for example, is a question that I will not discuss here.6 The central problem, so it seems to me, is that Mormons do not affirm (7) in the right way.

I say this for two reasons. First, Mormons certainly do have a theory of the oneness of God; that God is one is clearly affirmed in the Mormon scriptures (e.g., III Nephi 11:27, 36; Mosiah 15:4). But I doubt that many advocates of classical Trinitarianism will judge this fact to be sufficient. This is clear not just from the tritheistic-sounding texts that can also be found in the Mormon scriptures, but from the conviction (as I just argued) that unity of purpose is not enough.

Note that Davis understands that when all of the verses in the BOM on God are taken in context and as a whole, the BOM does not support the mainstream definition of the Trinity.

Just because LDS prophets have used the word Trinity or our scriptures use the word 'one' that does not mean that we believe the doctrine of the Trinity as mainstream Christians believe it. Different groups of people define terms differently and it seems like you don't realize that (or worse, like you refuse to acknowledge that because it doesn't fit in with your agenda).

The Athansion Creeds says the same thing in your list of 5, when it says not confounding the persons, which means mixing them up. Actually your list disagrees with Joseph Smith.

Luke 10:

23 All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it. JST

Mosiah 15

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Mosiah 16:

15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Alma 11:38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

Helaman 14:12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name.

Ether 3:14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

mfbukowski · December 31, 2017

4 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Interesting how many LDS leaders believed the Trinity

1. Discourses of Brigham Young, p.30
The Holy Ghost, we believe, is one of the characters that form the Trinity, or the Godhead.

1. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.61
Now I repeat-the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, he constitutes the third person in the Trinity, the Godhead

1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.312
In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost-in other words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are separate and distinct personages. This is one distinguishing and, to some, disturbing doctrine of the Church.

1. James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.4, p.264
From these statements, and from many others that might be quoted, it is clear that Adam and Christ are two persons-not the same Person. It is erroneous doctrine to consider them one and the same person, for Jesus is the Christ, a member of the Trinity, the God-head, and to whom Adam, the father of the human family upon this earth, is amenable. Adam will have to account for his stewardship to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose blood atones for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam.
James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.6, p.236

1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.313
Surely this was not ventriloquism where Christ was speaking to and of himself. It was the Father introducing His Son. In this case, the members of the Holy Trinity manifested themselves, each in a different way, and each was distinct from the others. A similar event occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration when members of the Godhead were distinguished in the presence of Moses and Elias, and Peter, James, and John.

J. Reuben Clark Jr. Second Counselor to the LDS First Presidency speaking to diversified audience in the mid 1940s speaks of God in terms of the Trinity-God has revealed to us that he is the Father of all, and that he loves and cares forth righteous everywhere, and seeks ever to bring back the wayward to his ways. He has made known that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father, the Redeemer of the World, the First Fruits of the Resurrection. He has shown to us that as Jesus died, lay in the tomb, and was resurrected, so shall it be with every son and daughter of God. He has manifested to us that he is a person, that Christ is another person, and that the Holy Ghost is a third person, and that these make

the Trinity of the Godhead

Another explanation is found in Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose

Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fullness of the gospel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason:

General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28.

These quotes are really ridiculous

If you look at each one it is clear they are not talking about the "Trinity" in a consubstantial Nicene sense. Not once.

Quote

1. Discourses of Brigham Young, p.30
The Holy Ghost, we believe, is one of the characters that form the Trinity, or the Godhead.

He's talking about the Holy Ghost being a PERSON in the Godhead. Not consubstantial with the Father, not the Trinity as understood.

Quote

1. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.61
Now I repeat-the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, he constitutes the third person in the Trinity, the Godhead

Same as above

Quote

1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.312
In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost-in other words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are separate and distinct personages. This is one distinguishing and, to some, disturbing doctrine of the Church.

OBVIOUSLY pointing NOT to the Trinity though he uses the word. If he was talking about the Trinity what would be disturbing???

Quote

1. James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.4, p.264
From these statements, and from many others that might be quoted, it is clear that Adam and Christ are two persons-not the same Person. It is erroneous doctrine to consider them one and the same person, for Jesus is the Christ, a member of the Trinity, the God-head, and to whom Adam, the father of the human family upon this earth, is amenable. Adam will have to account for his stewardship to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose blood atones for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam.
James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.6, p.236

Quote

1. Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p.313
Surely this was not ventriloquism where Christ was speaking to and of himself. It was the Father introducing His Son. In this case, the members of the Holy Trinity manifested themselves, each in a different way, and each was distinct from the others. A similar event occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration when members of the Godhead were distinguished in the presence of Moses and Elias, and Peter, James, and John.

Clearly separate persons not the Trinity but the Godhead

Quote

J. Reuben Clark Jr. Second Counselor to the LDS First Presidency speaking to diversified audience in the mid 1940s speaks of God in terms of the Trinity-God has revealed to us that he is the Father of all, and that he loves and cares forth righteous everywhere, and seeks ever to bring back the wayward to his ways. He has made known that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father, the Redeemer of the World, the First Fruits of the Resurrection. He has shown to us that as Jesus died, lay in the tomb, and was resurrected, so shall it be with every son and daughter of God. He has manifested to us that he is a person, that Christ is another person, and that the Holy Ghost is a third person, and that these make

the Trinity of the Godhead

Separate persons not the Trinity

The last quote from Penrose is out of context and a fragment and is in the same category https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1922a

If you read further on page 28, it is clear that he says the Holy Ghost is an "individiual, a personage of spirit"

In other words, you have intentionally misread each and every quote and simply searched for the word "Trinity" and quoted whatever popped up if it supported your argument or not

If it was not intentional it was out of the inability to read the context clearly

NONE of these teach the Nicene Trinity of allged "Christianity"The Creed says this

Quote

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Niceno–Constantinopolitan_Creed

Quote

Consubstantial (Latin: consubstantialis) is an adjective used in Latin Christian christology, coined by Tertullian in Against Hermogenes 44, used to translate the Greekterm homoousios. "Consubstantial" describes the relationship among the Divine persons of the Christian Trinity and connotes that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are "of one substance" in that the Son is "begotten" "before all ages" or "eternally" of the Father's own being, from which the Spirit also eternally "proceeds". In Latin languages it is the term for homoousism.

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

The Trinity was invented by Tertullian and is not biblical

Edited December 31, 2017 by mfbukowski

Josh Khinder · December 31, 2017

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course they were- as much as is possible for mere mortals who do not communicate well with God who, as an Exalted Human knows far more than we as mortals are capable of knowing.

God does not take over someone's body and make their mouths work- that would be a violation of agency. He inspires us, we hear as best as we are capable, and write what we think he has told us.

How much does an embryo know compared to the most intelligent human who has ever lived- Christ perhaps? For all practical purposes, yes, that is "omniscient" but not in the sense you think it is.

The word like most Christian theology words cannot be defined. "Knows all things" ? What does that mean? What is a "thing" in that context? It's simple-minded language for teaching children.

God speaks of the future as thou it was the past Romans 4:17

2 Nephi 9:20 O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it.

Josh Khinder · December 31, 2017

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

These quotes are really ridiculous

If you look at each one it is clear they are not talking about the "Trinity" in a consubstantial Nicene sense. Not once.

He's talking about the Holy Ghost being a PERSON in the Godhead. Not consubstantial with the Father, not the Trinity as understood.

Same as above

OBVIOUSLY pointing NOT to the Trinity though he uses the word. If he was talking about the Trinity what would be disturbing???

Clearly separate persons not the Trinity but the Godhead

Separate persons not the Trinity

The last quote from Penrose is out of context and a fragment and is in the same category

In other words, you have misread each and every quote and simply searched for the word "Trinity" and quoted whatever popped up if it supported your argument or not

NONE of these teach the Nicene Trinity of allged "Christianity"

Very clear the Trinity teach 1X1X1=1 three separate and distinct persons represent the ONE GOD

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

bluebell · December 31, 2017

19 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said:

The Athansion Creeds says the same thing in your list of 5, when it says not confounding the persons, which means mixing them up. Actually your list disagrees with Joseph Smith.

Luke 10:

23 All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it. JST

Mosiah 15

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Mosiah 16:

15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Alma 11:38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

Helaman 14:12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name.

Ether 3:14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

I didn’t create that list, a non Mormon created it as an explanation of what you have to believe to be a Trinitarian. He was explaining how Mormons cannot acurately be described as Trinitarians even though we do believe some similar things about the nature of God.

MiserereNobis · December 31, 2017

I'm not really understanding what Josh's point is here... is he trying to saying that Mormons are actually Trinitarians?

Maybe more green crayon will help me understand

bluebell · December 31, 2017

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not really understanding what Josh's point is here... is he trying to saying that Mormons are actually Trinitarians?

Maybe more green crayon will help me understand

That’s what he seems to be trying to say.

Josh Khinder · December 31, 2017

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn’t create that list, a non Mormon created it as an explanation of what you have to believe to be a Trinitarian. He was explaining how Mormons cannot acurately be described as Trinitarians even though we do believe some similar things about the nature of God.

I have the same list basically from a well known theologian

John Ankerberg

1. There is Only One God

2. The Father is God;

3. Jesus Christ, the Son, is God

4. The Holy Spirit is a Person, is eternal and is therefore God

5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons.

Notice that Traditional Christians believe only God is Eternal and nothing else

Mosiah 3:5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

Alma 11:

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Josh Khinder

Josh Khinder · December 31, 2017

16 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not really understanding what Josh's point is here... is he trying to saying that Mormons are actually Trinitarians?

Maybe more green crayon will help me understand

What I'm saying is The Book of Mormon was totally influenced and authored by a Trinitarian . Here are several experts defining the Trinity or Godhead, the Bible uses the term Godhead in Col 2:8 about Jesus

E. Calvin Beisner

God in Three Persons

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

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

The doctrine of the incarnation----- that the Son of God, the Word ( John 1:1 ) became man ( John ; Rom. 1:3 ) uniting in the single person of the Son two distinct and complete natures, diety and humanity.

The sinless of Christ---- that he lived as the perfect man to fulfill God’s plan for all humanity. ( Heb 2:6-18; 4:14, 15 )

The sacrificial death of Christ---- to atone for sins of all men ( 1 John 2:2; 1 Peter 2:; Matt 20:28; 1 Cor 6:20 )

The resurrection of Christ---- that after his death, Christ rose bodily from the grave, showing his triumph over sin and death, as the first fruit, and hence the promise, of resurrection to all who have faith in him ( 1 ; Rom 6:3-11 )

Salvation by Grace through Faith--- that justification before God, and hence salvation from punishment and life with God, are available only as a gift from God through faith in Jesus Christ ( John 14:6; 3:16 Acts 4:10; John 8:24 ) pp 19-20

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

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

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

Homoousios -God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being –Nature [ all Synonyms ]

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

One being. Three persons. In other words, one "what" and three "who"s. There is one being, God. There are three persons: God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The distinction is between being and person. One being, three persons. One what, three who's.

John Ankerberg

Page 104-105

1. There is Only One God

2. The Father is God;

3. Jesus Christ, the Son, is God

4. The Holy Spirit is a Person, is eternal and is therefore God

5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons.

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

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

1. (n.) The union of three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons as to individuality.

The coexistence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the unity of the Godhead (divine nature or essence). The doctrine of the trinity means that within the being and activity of the one God there are three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Although the word trinity does not appear in the Bible, the "trinitarian formula" is mentioned in the Great Commission (Matt 28:19) and in the benediction of the apostle Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians (2 Cor 13:14).

The doctrine of the Trinity in the godhead includes the three following particulars, viz. (a) There is only one God, one divine nature; (b) but in this divine nature there is the distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as three (subjects or persons); and (c) these three-have equally, and in common with one another, the nature and perfection of supreme divinity. It was the custom in former times for theologians to blend their own speculations and those of others with the statement of the Bible doctrine. It is customary now to exhibit first the simple doctrine of the Bible, and afterwards, in a separate part, the speculations of the learned respecting it.

Trinity

THE DOCTRINE OF THE UNITY OF GOD AS SUBSISTING IN THREE DISTINCT PERSONS. THIS WORD IS DERIVED FROM THE GR. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine.

The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: (1.) That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:29, 32; John 10:30). (2.) That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. (3.) That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. (4.) That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

Parsons Bible Dictionary

Trinity

The term by which is expressed the unity of three Persons in the one God. The Christian doctrine is: (1) That there is only one God, one divine nature and being. (2) This one divine Being is tripersonal, involving the distinctions of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (3) These three are joint partakers of the same nature and majesty of God. This doctrine is preeminently one of revelation. And although it brings before us one of the great mysteries of revelation and transcends finite comprehension, it is essential to the understanding of the Scriptures, and, as we shall see, has its great value and uses.

Unger Bible Dictionary

Trinity

The Christian understanding of God as triune. Trinity means that the one divine nature is a unity of three persons and that God is revealed as three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The ultimate basis for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity lies in the divine self-disclosure in Jesus, who as the Son revealed the Father and poured out the Holy Spirit. See also economic Trinity; immanent Trinity.

POCKET DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGICAL TERMS

By

Stanley J. Grenz

David Guretzki

Cherith Fee Nordling

Josh Khinder · December 31, 2017

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That’s what he seems to be trying to say.

Mormons are not Trinitarians since they teach three separate and distinct persons represent the ONE GOD , While Mormons teach 3 separate persons represent 3 gods. The teaching of 3 gods is contrary to the Book of Mormon which agrees with the Trinity .

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods," (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370)

The Godhead consists of the three distinct personages and three gods.. The Father Son and Holy Spirit. The Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bones, while the Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit. Robert Millet A Different Jesus page 198

The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).

mfbukowski · December 31, 2017

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not really understanding what Josh's point is here... is he trying to saying that Mormons are actually Trinitarians?

Maybe more green crayon will help me understand

He appears to be unable to follow the argument. But yes if he said it bigger I am sure we would acknowledge his brilliance.

RevTestament · December 31, 2017

4 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

This speaker knows the name

http://youtu.be/sm1ikV7YB0M

If I am going to spend 6 minutes singing to Him, I am at least going to get His name right. Yahweh is a meaningless word. It is a combination of the consonants of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH and the vowels from adon used to hide His name from correct pronunciation. This speaker further doesn't know what the name means. No Hebrew speaker believes the name means "I am." It doesn't mean the self-sufficient one. The name does not carry the idea of self-sufficiency. It is a declaration. It is saying I am life/breath/the word. If you believe on me, you will have life, is what it is saying. It is not saying I don't need you to have life. That is a selfish idea that is not incorporated in our Savior.

The speaker also confuses El and Eloah. Elim is the plural of El. Elohim is the plural of Eloah. They are different. El means the Power. Eloah means more like the Power or firmness of the stone. Elohim means something like the family/house of immovable stone/rock. It is not really a personal name. When used it is referring to the house of El, which we are invited into as Elohim. Thus, thousands of times YHWH says to us I am YHWH your Elohim - I am the Life/Word of your house/family of immovable force/power.

If one is going to throw these words around, they should really learn what they mean first. When Yeshua invites us into the house of "God" he is inviting us into the house of Elohim or in LDS parlance to be "gods." This has always upset traditional Christians, but that is in essence what having a room in the house of God means - to be Elohim or the family of Eloah as part of His immovable ones of testimony. Christ has said it from the days He walked with us. Yet, men still do not understand. They are lost behind meaningless translations such as Lord and 'God.'

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not really understanding what Josh's point is here... is he trying to saying that Mormons are actually Trinitarians?

Maybe more green crayon will help me understand

I believe Josh is trying to convince us that the BoM is a trinitarian book because it says the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit are one God. He doesn't seem to get that LDS leaders have used the word trinity to speak to the three of the Godhead, but they don't intend to carry with it all the traditional doctrine of the trinity that word carries with it. It is for that reason that I avoid the use of the word. Further, our Savior Yeshua, made it clear that the Jews were Elohim per John and Psalms 82 - that seems to include more than 3.... Persons such as Josh believe they understand the Godhead, when they totally do not understand at all - no offense to him - I was once in his shoes. I had to learn the nature of the Godhead from scratch essentially - with a little help from Joseph Smith - because man has totally confabulated it with terms such as "substance" etc.

Josh's speaker may actually get that Yeshua is El Shaddai, but I am sure he doesn't get that that is not the Father as the creeds infer. The Father is not El Shaddai, "the Almighty Power." but is El Elyon, the Most High Power. El Shaddai means more like the Power who weans from the breast.... and I believe refers to Christ who weans us from the milk of the gospel to the meat of the oracles of God. Sadly, man has totally confabulated these names and concepts. Yeshua is the Son of the Most High per Luke. The Most High is not one of His titles. Yeshua is not El Elyon, the Most High Power, and there the doctrine of the trinity begins to scripturally unravel. Christ is one of the El of the Elohim, but as El Shaddai - something the Jews did not understand - and that is understandable given that Christ had not yet come and clarified that point. I am not really blaming them. It is something that was slowly being taught - revealed through the prophets as time passed - and revealed by Christ Himself. It is this that the Jews thought was blasphemy because their anti-idolatry campaign had also stamped out the full import of what YHWH had said to them over the ages. El Gibbor is a title that Christ inherits per Isaiah 9:6, and it does essentially mean the Mighty/Almighty Power/God. I am not trying to take that title away from Christ. I am just trying to show the truth of the Godhead, because in that truth lies the truth of the restored gospel, and the faults of the trinitarian doctrines. God has decided the time has come for man to learn those truths. Every time this happens there is an upheaval because men do not accept change well. I cannot help that. I can only reveal the truths I have found. I am sure man will fight over them for some decades to come.

I think most like you do not try to call LDS trinitarians because they understand what that term incorporates, which LDS do not accept. I don't really mind being called "trinitarian," but just wish to make it clear that I do not accept all the meanings and terms associated with that title over the ages. Hopefully, my little diatribe will help clarify that for Josh... I do believe there are three at the head of the Elohim, and that these three are "one" within the Hebrew meaning of the word echad, but that is about where my agreement with trinitarianism stops....

Josh Khinder · December 31, 2017

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

If I am going to spend 6 minutes singing to Him, I am at least going to get His name right. Yahweh is a meaningless word. It is a combination of the consonants of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH and the vowels from adon used to hide His name from correct pronunciation. This speaker further doesn't know what the name means. No Hebrew speaker believes the name means "I am." It doesn't mean the self-sufficient one. The name does not carry the idea of self-sufficiency. It is a declaration. It is saying I am life/breath/the word. If you believe on me, you will have life, is what it is saying. It is not saying I don't need you to have life. That is a selfish idea that is not incorporated in our Savior.

The speaker also confuses El and Eloah. Elim is the plural of El. Elohim is the plural of Eloah. They are different. El means the Power. Eloah means more like the Power or firmness of the stone. Elohim means something like the family/house of immovable stone/rock. It is not really a personal name. When used it is referring to the house of El, which we are invited into as Elohim. Thus, thousands of times YHWH says to us I am YHWH your Elohim - I am the Life/Word of your house/family of immovable force/power.

If one is going to throw these words around, they should really learn what they mean first. When Yeshua invites us into the house of "God" he is inviting us into the house of Elohim or in LDS parlance to be "gods." This has always upset traditional Christians, but that is in essence what having a room in the house of God means - to be Elohim or the family of Eloah as part of His immovable ones of testimony. Christ has said it from the days He walked with us. Yet, men still do not understand. They are lost behind meaningless translations such as Lord and 'God.'

I believe Josh is trying to convince us that the BoM is a trinitarian book because it says the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit are one God. He doesn't seem to get that LDS leaders have used the word trinity to speak to the three of the Godhead, but they don't intend to carry with it all the traditional doctrine of the trinity that word carries with it. It is for that reason that I avoid the use of the word. Further, our Savior Yeshua, made it clear that the Jews were Elohim per John and Psalms 82 - that seems to include more than 3.... Persons such as Josh believe they understand the Godhead, when they totally do not understand at all - no offense to him - I was once in his shoes. I had to learn the nature of the Godhead from scratch essentially - with a little help from Joseph Smith - because man has totally confabulated it with terms such as "substance" etc.

Josh's speaker may actually get that Yeshua is El Shaddai, but I am sure he doesn't get that that is not the Father as the creeds infer. The Father is not El Shaddai, "the Almighty Power." but is El Elyon, the Most High Power. El Shaddai means more like the Power who weans from the breast.... and I believe refers to Christ who weans us from the milk of the gospel to the meat of the oracles of God. Sadly, man has totally confabulated these names and concepts. Yeshua is the Son of the Most High per Luke. The Most High is not one of His titles. Yeshua is not El Elyon, the Most High Power, and there the doctrine of the trinity begins to scripturally unravel. Christ is one of the El of the Elohim, but as El Shaddai - something the Jews did not understand - and that is understandable given that Christ had not yet come and clarified that point. I am not really blaming them. It is something that was slowly being taught - revealed through the prophets as time passed - and revealed by Christ Himself. It is this that the Jews thought was blasphemy because their anti-idolatry campaign had also stamped out the full import of what YHWH had said to them over the ages. El Gibbor is a title that Christ inherits per Isaiah 9:6, and it does essentially mean the Mighty/Almighty Power/God. I am not trying to take that title away from Christ. I am just trying to show the truth of the Godhead, because in that truth lies the truth of the restored gospel, and the faults of the trinitarian doctrines. God has decided the time has come for man to learn those truths. Every time this happens there is an upheaval because men do not accept change well. I cannot help that. I can only reveal the truths I have found. I am sure man will fight over them for some decades to come.

I think most like you do not try to call LDS trinitarians because they understand what that term incorporates, which LDS do not accept. I don't really mind being called "trinitarian," but just wish to make it clear that I do not accept all the meanings and terms associated with that title over the ages. Hopefully, my little diatribe will help clarify that for Josh... I do believe there are three at the head of the Elohim, and that these three are "one" within the Hebrew meaning of the word echad, but that is about where my agreement with trinitarianism stops....

Psalm 82:1-2: “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.”**.

Psalm 82:6-8: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.”

Here, in this passage, God calls these human judges “gods” because they were making life and death decisions for people, yet in an unjust manner. So, rather than proclaim that they were indeed “gods,” He announces judgment up on them by saying that they would “die” like the men that they were; thus, proving that they were false gods and that He alone is the only true God Who will arise and “judge the earth.” So we see that far from teaching that men can be exalted as “gods,” this passage actually teaches the opposite; that anyone who tries to exalt himself to the position of “god” will perish. Remember how Lucifer perished? He wanted to be “like” God in every way:

Isaiah 14:12-14: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”

Not only did Lucifer fall from glory through this lie, but he used this very same lie of becoming “as gods” to convince Adam and Eve to sin (Genesis 3:5). This resulted in the judgment of death being passed upon all mankind. (Romans 5:12; 6:23).

Why did Jesus quote Psalm 82:6 to the Pharisees to support His claims of being God? Was Jesus trying to say that they had no right to judge His claim to Deity because other human judges were also called “gods”? Let’s examine the context:

John 10:30-39: “I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand.”

Was Jesus aligning Himself with the deity claims of these false human judges? No, He was not. His claims to Deity far exceeded the wicked judges who were acting as false “gods.” In mentioning them, Jesus contrasted His Deity as the one true God against them and the Pharisees who were acting JUST like these wicked judges when they were judging the true Son of God of blasphemy. By quoting Psalm 82 where God proclaimed the judgment of “death” upon these wicked false “gods,” Jesus was reminding the Pharisees of the serious consequences of their judgment of Him, stating that what these judges thought they were as gods, He was in reality, the one true God. This is why the Jews responded by trying to stone Him twice for blasphemy according to their law in Leviticus 24:16 that commands the stoning of people who claim the attributes of Deity.

Both John 10:34 and Psalm 82:6 say: “Ye are gods?” Do you believe you are a “god” right now? If not, how can these verses apply to you? Do you think these wicked Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking were real “gods” at the very moment that he said “Ye are gods?” How could they qualify to be real “gods” when they were trying to kill Jesus for blasphemy? Did you know that Lucifer was kicked out of Heaven for trying “exalt” himself to be “like” God (Isaiah 14:12-14, KJV)?

Since it is obvious by the context that the Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking were not real “gods,” can you see why Christians do not believe that these verses are teaching that men are “gods in embryo”? Rather, these wicked Pharisees were being called “gods” in a mockery way in order to prove that they were false gods who would die like the mere mortal judges of Psalm 82:7!

Scripture is clear that there is only one true God as the following verses proclaim:

1 John 5:20: “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”

John 17:3: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

James Talmage, a Mormon Apostle, said Psalm 82:6 is not about becoming gods.

"In Psalm 82:6, judges invested by divine appointment are called 'gods.' To this scripture the Savior referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomon's Porch. Judges so authorized officiated as the representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title 'gods.' Compare the similar appellation applied to Moses (Exo. 4:16; 7:1). Jesus Christ possessed divine authorization, not through the word of God transmitted to Him by man, but as an inherent attribute. The inconsistency of calling human judges 'gods,' and of ascribing blasphemy to the Christ who called Himself the Son of God, would have been apparent to the Jews but for their sin-darkened minds." (James Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 501). -- Mormons often quote Psalm 82:6 which Jesus quoted in John 10:30-34 to show that we can become gods. Rather than them believing the truth from a Christian, perhaps they will believe it from their own apostle.

... Psalm 82:1, 6, where ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel.

They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah.

Similarly, Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh. (see Exodus 4:16)

Isaiah 44:8: “…Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.”

Calm · December 31, 2017

"As with any biblical text, correct interpretation is necessary to understand the text. In this particular case, the Old Testament text, with its original intent is, on the surface far removed from its application by Jesus in the New Testament. The interpretive model used by Talmage cannot be faulted – he used the best scholarship of his day. He taught correct gospel principles using it. Scholarship now presents a radically different understanding of the text. When we understand properly the Old Testament account, we see how Jesus applies those concepts to his own doctrinal exposition on what it means to be god, and a son of God. This new understanding not only reinforces the doctrines which Talmage taught, it defines them much more explicitly. We must recognize that scriptural studies are fluid–we are constantly learning new ways to read and understand the scriptures. In this specific case, the lesson is very significant. The Father sanctified the Son, and sent him into the world to deliver God’s word. The Father has given those who believe the Word to the Son, and once we are his, no power can take us from him. We then are sanctified by the Son, and also become the sons of God, along with everything that this entails.

As part of this discussion, many scholars also suggest that the oneness with God that Jesus claims here, cannot be seen in the same light as the oneness described in the intercessory prayer, where Jesus prays that his disciples “may be one, even as we are one”35. Neyrey comments that “Jesus claims far more than mere moral unity with God, which was the aim of every Israelite”, yet, the aim of Jesus is much greater. He wishes to see in every individual this same oneness that far exceeds a mere moral unity that was looked for."

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/reconsidering-psalms-826

Edited December 31, 2017 by Calm

Sign In

500 Years After The Protestant Reformation

Recommended Posts

mfbukowski

pogi

Josh Khinder

Josh Khinder

RevTestament

Robert F. Smith

Robert F. Smith

bluebell

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

Josh Khinder

Josh Khinder

mfbukowski

Josh Khinder

Josh Khinder

bluebell

MiserereNobis

bluebell

Josh Khinder

Josh Khinder

Josh Khinder

mfbukowski

RevTestament

Josh Khinder

Calm

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse