LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

[RebeccaJ]

Oh yes, of course we marvel. The issue here is whether who God is is reflected in natural theology (which was 1holy’s assertion).

God created us a rational beings, able to reason. Of course God is reflected in what is rational and reasonable. He is the Creator of both.

 

[1holycatholic]

Oh yes, of course we marvel. The issue here is whether who God is is reflected in natural theology (which was 1holy’s assertion).

If you hold the Bible is the Word of God, then it’s God’s assertion as well.

 

[1holycatholic]

You are relying on your definitions of “person” and “being”, which may not be the same as the definitions of others (again, anyone familiar with the development of “ousia” and “hypostasis”, and even today’s modern English use of “person” and “being”, would know this). Your examples are modeled after your own definitions, which are simply not universal. Sheed refers to “being” as “nature”, therefore my supposed equating of “person” with “being” as an example of modalism wouldn’t work (and Mormonism wouldn’t be teaching “three beings”=“three natures”, since we clearly believe that there is only one divine nature, and we are all of that nature). That is the issue that you cannot see, and why the premise of your argument fails.

It seems as if you are unfamiliar with the divine council within the Bible (and Israelite religion), as discussed by historians and other scholars. Perhaps you should do more reading on that issue, as I directed hosemonkey to do.

The funny thing about that list of verses is that not a single one shows that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are “one Being” (what is “being” referring to? nature? they are one nature, according to Sheed? Mormons would agree with such a definition, as mentioned above). The section on the Unity of God does not address how God is one. Latter-day Saints believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in purpose, and are referred to as “one God” in our latter-day scriptures. Such a statement does not necessitate a oneness of “being” (whatever that refers to, depending on the theologian, time period, etc), which is the question at hand. Interestingly, he quotes 1 Cor 8:6, which I have already mentioned. It states that the “one God” is the Father, and Jesus is the “one Lord”.

Sorry, not a single verse in that list address “three persons in one being”.

There is only one God, you shall not worship false gods (any other “god” besides the one God are by definition false.).
Jesus is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is God.

It’s not spelled out exactly the way you want it, but it’s undeniably there.

Since you brought up Frank Sheed, read chapters four, five and six of Theology for Beginners.

 

[wwilligan]

Thank you for your post on LDS. I remember fondly when young men on their mission came to our home when our children were young and we enjoyed a family home evening.

Regarding you statement about LDS and the Catholic faith I am puzzled. I thought that LDS was not a christian religion because they did not believe that Jesus Christ was the second person of the Blessed Trinity and in His one personality are two natures, divine and human, united to each other. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man. Jesus said “I and the Father are one… He who as seen Me has seen the Father.” St John’s gospel says, “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ) and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

Am I mistaked in this regarding the beliefs of LDS?

 

[1holycatholic]

Thank you for your post on LDS. I remember fondly when young men on their mission came to our home when our children were young and we enjoyed a family home evening.

Regarding you statement about LDS and the Catholic faith I am puzzled. I thought that LDS was not a christian religion because they did not believe that Jesus Christ was the second person of the Blessed Trinity and in His one personality are two natures, divine and human, united to each other. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man. Jesus said “I and the Father are one… He who as seen Me has seen the Father.” St John’s gospel says, “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ) and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

Am I mistaked in this regarding the beliefs of LDS?

Trying to pin down LDS doctrine is like nailing jello to the wall.

 

[SirThomasMore]

The true God is the only God (according to God). He is unchanging (according to God).

The LDS god is one of many, many gods…in fact, there is a council of gods. (according to Joe)

The LDS god is very changing…he was once a sinful man who changed into god. (according to Joe)

 

[1holycatholic]

The true God is the only God (according to God). He is unchanging (according to God).

The LDS god is one of many, many gods…in fact, there is a council of gods. (according to Joe)

The LDS god is very changing…he was once a sinful man who changed into god. (according to Joe)

But God can’t change because change implies imperfection and God is perfect.

Another crushing blow to Mormonism’s multiple gods piffle.

 

[Caprica]

There is only one God, you shall not worship false gods (any other “god” besides the one God are by definition false.).
Jesus is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is God.

It’s not spelled out exactly the way you want it, but it’s undeniably there.

As already mentioned, the above does not address the issue of being. Latter-day Saints will always say (as it is found in our scriptures) that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are “one God”. The question is, how are they “one God”. That is the issue that you aren’t providing Biblical support for (your link did not address a oneness of being, whatever that means, depending on the theologian and time period). 1 Cor 8:6 refers to the Father as the “one God”, while John 1:1 refers to the Son as “God”. This is consistent with LDS theology.

Since you brought up Frank Sheed, read chapters four, five and six of Theology for Beginners.

That’s okay, I’ve already read his more in depth “Theology and Sanity”, hence why I’ve repeatedly brought up his use of “nature” instead of “being” (or as an equivalent for “being”), and that if this is the oneness of the divine Persons, then Latter-day Saints would have no problem with this, since we believe that we are all of the same divine nature, as children of God. Unfortunately, other theologians attempt to extrapolate “being” into something else, in their attempt to “prove” that having a plurality of divine Persons can somehow be considered monotheism, when it’s clear that that does not work.

Your assertion of LDS theology teaching a multiplicity of divine beings, and therefore fails natural theology, does not work when using Sheed’s definition, since we accept that there is only one divine nature, and we are all of the same nature as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

 

[Caprica]

Thank you for your post on LDS. I remember fondly when young men on their mission came to our home when our children were young and we enjoyed a family home evening.

Regarding you statement about LDS and the Catholic faith I am puzzled. I thought that LDS was not a christian religion because they did not believe that Jesus Christ was the second person of the Blessed Trinity and in His one personality are two natures, divine and human, united to each other. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man. Jesus said “I and the Father are one… He who as seen Me has seen the Father.” St John’s gospel says, “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ) and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

Am I mistaked in this regarding the beliefs of LDS?

Latter-day Saints agree that Jesus and the Father are “one”. The question is, how are they “one”? Latter-day Saints believe that this is a oneness of purpose. They are perfectly united in will, purpose, intent, love, etc.

Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus is God (we are also okay with saying “a God”). We tend to not refer to the “Trinity”, but say that He is a member of the “Godhead”. He is Jehovah (Yahweh), and it is only through His Atonement that we can return to the presence of God the Father. We most certainly believe that Jesus was in the beginning with God (our Latter-day scriptures expand on this as well).

 

[Caprica]

The true God is the only God (according to God). He is unchanging (according to God).

The LDS god is one of many, many gods…in fact, there is a council of gods. (according to Joe)

You mean, also according to Biblical scholars and Ancient Near Eastern/pre-exilic Judaism historians? The divine council is clearly found within the Bible, and the DSS has only added to our understanding of such passages (especially Deuteronomy 32).

The LDS god is very changing…he was once a sinful man who changed into god. (according to Joe)

Oh yes, we’ve heard your tired assertion before. Perhaps you should read this short article to this common assertion that LDS believe in a “changing God”:

lightplanet.com/response/answers/godchange.htm

The funny thing is, critics don’t realize that the same condemnation they use of God changing His mind in LDS theology also applies to Old Testament–>New Testament (the most frequent assertion by critics is that God no longer uses prophets). Obviously LDS agree with the Bible on what it says about God not changing. The question is, what is unchanging about God?

 

[Caprica]

But God can’t change because change implies imperfection and God is perfect.

Another crushing blow to Mormonism’s multiple gods piffle.

See my post to SirThomasMore. You haven’t stated what exactly about God doesn’t change.

 

[SirThomasMore]

You mean, also according to Biblical scholars and Ancient Near Eastern/pre-exilic Judaism historians? The divine council is clearly found within the Bible, and the DSS has only added to our understanding of such passages (especially Deuteronomy 32).

 

[Caprica]

There is ONE God…not the millions you believe exist. God does not lie, despite your assertions that He does.

It seems that you are not familiar with the divine council within the Bible, and what Biblical scholars and Ancient Near Eastern scholars have to say about it (especially with the discovery of the DSS and Ugaritic texts), especially on Psalm 82, Deut 32, Psalm 89, etc. That’s okay, perhaps one day you will be.

God said he never changes. I do not rely on Light Planet articles. Your God was once a sinful man. That says all true Christians need to know

Um…he was never a sinful man.

Sorry, you can’t address the clear contradiction in your arguments about LDS theology having a God that supposedly changes while not addressing similar issues in the Biblical record (especially going from Old Testament to New Testament). So, first you need to define what exactly about God is unchanging, since you seem confused on that issue. Was God (the Son) adding a human nature (noting of course that we all agree that Jesus did not sin) to Himself a change or not? If not, then what is it about God that does not change?

 

[jdwood983]

1. The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consists of the entirety of the teachings that have been severally accepted by the Church as a body.
2. These teachings are found in their authoritative form only in the following sources:

• The Holy Bible;
• The Book of Mormon;
• The Doctrine and Covenants;
• The Pearl of Great Price. These four volumes are collectively referred to as “the Scriptures” or “the Standard Works of the Church;” and
• Joint statements of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve.

Galatians 1:6-9
6 I am astonished that you are so promptly turning away from the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are going over to a different gospel-
7 not that it is another gospel; except that there are trouble-makers among you who are seeking to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we ourselves or an angel from heaven preaches to you a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let God’s curse be on him.
9 I repeat again what we declared before: anyone who preaches to you a gospel other than the one you were first given is to be under God’s curse.

 

[1holycatholic]

See my post to SirThomasMore. You haven’t stated what exactly about God doesn’t change.

God is immutable and atemporal. Nothing about God changes.

Why the problem with the word being? It’s like you’re trying to Bill Clinton your way out of a painful truth.

 

[Caprica]

God is immutable and atemporal. Nothing about God changes.

So when we went from the Old Testament to the New Testament, there were no changes in anything God did? The oft quoted Hebrews 1:1–2 doesn’t indicate any changes in the way God interacts with His people? Sorry, you have to be specific as to what about God doesn’t change, since Hebrews 1:1-2 is one example of how your blanket statement does not work.

Why the problem with the word being? It’s like you’re trying to Bill Clinton your way out of a painful truth.

How odd of you to quote a definition that includes this-“3 : a living thing; especially : person”.

Then there’s this-“2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing”. As mentioned awhile ago, in Trinitarianism, the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeds. These are qualities unique to each. Therefore, using this definition, we have three beings. This again shows what I’ve been saying all along, and that your definition of “being” may not match the definition used by others.

But again, you have yet to address the diversity of definitions on what “being” is referring to (an issue that can be found in the days of Nicaea), and how that leads to a LDS belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as “three beings”, from your definition of the word.

 

[SirThomasMore]

It seems that you are not familiar with the divine council within the Bible, and what Biblical scholars and Ancient Near Eastern scholars have to say about it (especially with the discovery of the DSS and Ugaritic texts), especially on Psalm 82, Deut 32, Psalm 89, etc. That’s okay, perhaps one day you will be.

 

[1holycatholic]

So when we went from the Old Testament to the New Testament, there were no changes in anything God did? The oft quoted Hebrews 1:1–2 doesn’t indicate any changes in the way God interacts with His people? Sorry, you have to be specific as to what about God doesn’t change, since Hebrews 1:1-2 is one example of how your blanket statement does not work.

I’ll be specific. God is immutable. God has no potential. There is no change in God.

Hebrews 1:1-2 doesn’t say God changes. Malachi 3:6 explicitly says He doesn’t change, as does James 1:17 etc…

How odd of you to quote a definition that includes this-“3 : a living thing; especially : person”.

Then there’s this-“2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing”. As mentioned awhile ago, in Trinitarianism, the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeds. These are qualities unique to each. Therefore, using this definition, we have three beings. This again shows what I’ve been saying all along, and that your definition of “being” may not match the definition used by others.

But again, you have yet to address the diversity of definitions on what “being” is referring to (an issue that can be found in the days of Nicaea), and how that leads to a LDS belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as “three beings”, from your definition of the word.

It’s not odd at all. I have two dogs at home, that’s three beings but only one person. I’ve already explained it, but you refuse to accept it. I understand why. It shatters the false doctrines of Mormonism into little pieces.

P.S. God is eternally the Father, eternally the Son, and eternally the Holy Spirit. If you’re going to cite the Nicene Creed, do it properly: the Son is “eternally begotten” and “one in Being with the Father.”

 

[dianaiad]

I’ll be specific. God is immutable. God has no potential. There is no change in God.

Hebrews 1:1-2 doesn’t say God changes. Malachi 3:6 explicitly says He doesn’t change, as does James 1:17 etc…

It’s not odd at all. I have two dogs at home, that’s three beings but only one person. I’ve already explained it, but you refuse to accept it. I understand why. It shatters the false doctrines of Mormonism into little pieces.

P.S. God is eternally the Father, eternally the Son, and eternally the Holy Spirit. If you’re going to cite the Nicene Creed, do it properly: the Son is “eternally begotten” and “one in Being with the Father.”

Everybody is talking past each other here. 1holycatholic, you see the points that Caprica brings up, the differences between the ‘persons’ (or is it 'beings?" whichever) of the One God and the obvious changes in the way He has dealt with His people (instructions for one group vs. instructions for another, say…or when Christ restricted the teaching of the gospel to the Jews, then opening it up to everybody) as ‘not changes,’ and ‘not differences,’ because of course, God is One God and unchanging…therefore these things do not represent differences and 'changes."

Can you see why Caprica…and I, actually…have a PROBLEM with this? WE look at things that obviously ARE differences, and ‘changes’ at least in policy, if not character, and can’t see why you can’t see.

AT the same time, you are coming from a position where you can’t see why WE can’t see that these things do not represent changes and/or differences. Being as solidly on Caprica’s side of the issue as I am, here, I can’t be as objective about this discussion as I should be, but even I can see that until we all come to an agreed upon definition of ‘change’ and ‘difference,’ we are going to talk past each other until the Second Coming…at which time, of course, you will have to admit that we were right all along.

Diana

 

[SirThomasMore]

Everybody is talking past each other here. 1holycatholic, you see the points that Caprica brings up, the differences between the ‘persons’ (or is it 'beings?" whichever) of the One God and the obvious changes in the way He has dealt with His people (instructions for one group vs. instructions for another, say…or when Christ restricted the teaching of the gospel to the Jews, then opening it up to everybody) as ‘not changes,’ and ‘not differences,’ because of course, God is One God and unchanging…therefore these things do not represent differences and 'changes."

Can you see why Caprica…and I, actually…have a PROBLEM with this? WE look at things that obviously ARE differences, and ‘changes’ at least in policy, if not character, and can’t see why you can’t see.

AT the same time, you are coming from a position where you can’t see why WE can’t see that these things do not represent changes and/or differences. Being as solidly on Caprica’s side of the issue as I am, here, I can’t be as objective about this discussion as I should be, but even I can see that until we all come to an agreed upon definition of ‘change’ and ‘difference,’ we are going to talk past each other until the Second Coming…at which time, of course, you will have to admit that we were right all along.

Diana

it all defelcts from the main issue: We believe is an unchanging God. he has always been God. You believe in a god who at some point in time, was just like us, a sinful human.

That is simply heresy