LDS Godhead...or Trinity?

[tkdnick]

I posted this in another forum that turned out to be too crazy to get responses in. So I thought I would start a new one. If we could please stick to only this topic, that would be great! Here’s just a quick look at the “scripture” references I found in the Book of Mormon. All these came from scriptures.lds.org I’m just wondering how LDS explain these…

2 Nephi 31:21
21. And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away•; and there is bnone• other way nor cname given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the ddoctrine• of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the eFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is fone• God, without end. Amen.

Mosiah 15:3-5
3. The Father, abecause• he was bconceived• by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4. And they are aone• God, yea, the very bEternal• cFather• of heaven and of earth
5. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God
continued…

 

[tkdnick]

…continued** **

Alma 11:38-39
38. Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39. And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very aEternal• Father of heaven and of earth, and ball• things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

Alma 11:44
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 every thing shall be arestored• 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 bFather, and the Holy Spirit, which is cone• Eternal God, to be djudged• according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

 

[Tmaque]

I’m surprised the LDS church hasn’t changed those passages to more closely reflect their current theology. The 1830 Book Of Mormon refers to Mary many times as “The Mother of God”. This was later changed to “the mother of the Son of God”. It’s obvious to any reasonable person that the Book of Mormon and LDS theology evolved and continues to do so.

I’m sure the average Mormon would say that the passages that refer to “one God” refer to the “Godhead”. The verse in Alma however is pretty damaging to their claim of 3 seperate gods who are “one” in purpose. I’m sure at some future date the church leadership will change that passage in “the most perfect book ever produced” to match current teaching. That will add to the dozens of doctrinal changes to the Book of Mormon. The book Joseph Smith got right from God. At least the Koran doesn’t change all the time.

 

[tkdnick]

Tmaque:

The 1830 Book Of Mormon refers to Mary many times as “The Mother of God”. This was later changed to “the mother of the Son of God”.

I just got a copy of the 1830 BoM. Haven’t had a chance to look at it, but I have heard several times of this change.

 

[St.James]

Tmaque:

I’m surprised the LDS church hasn’t changed those passages to more closely reflect their current theology. The 1830 Book Of Mormon refers to Mary many times as “The Mother of God”. This was later changed to “the mother of the Son of God”. It’s obvious to any reasonable person that the Book of Mormon and LDS theology evolved and continues to do so.

LDS theology is very fluid and it is in large part due to the many contradictions and historical errors contained in the original teachings of Joseph Smith. He obviously underestimated the difficulty of the task of grafting Freemasonry and his own “prophesies,” with Christianity into a coherant package.

The one problem that comes to mind here is the LDS teaching that God physically copulated with Mary resulting in the conception of Christ.

The obvious problem is that if Mary is the mother of God, then, according to LDS teaching, God had physical intercourse with His mother–an error that few sensible people would buy into.

 

[St.James]

However, that still leaves the problem that according to LDS, God physically copulated with his daughter, Mary.

The story is ill concieved, hence the constant changes.

 

[tkdnick]

St. James:

However, that still leaves the problem that according to LDS, God physically copulated with his daughter, Mary.

The story is ill concieved, hence the constant changes.

There’s another thread here where several LDS members have strongly denied the existence of LDS doctrine that states that God had sex with Mary.

 

[PaulDupre]

tkdnick:

There’s another thread here where several LDS members have strongly denied the existence of LDS doctrine that states that God had sex with Mary.

And where I and others posted solid proof that Mormon leaders have always taught that he did.
God bless you,
Paul

 

[tkdnick]

PaulDupre:

And where I and others posted solid proof that Mormon leaders have always taught that he did.
God bless you,
Paul

I know, but they say it’s not true, and I’m not up for arguing it with them on these threads. I have my beliefs and they have theirs regarding this topic. No amount of “proof” is going to change their admission.

 

[Benadam]

The mormon concept of revelation is fundamentally different than the Catholic concept of it.

Catholics identify revelation as having two forms basicly. Public and private. public revelation ended with the apostle John and is once and for all closed. Private revelation continues but there is no more needed for salvation but what has already been made public.

Mormons believe that revelation from God was not meant to be closed but due to corruption it was and in our day is opened again through Joseph Smith and his successors. Furthermore they differ from Catholics in that whatever their current prophet utters is as sacred as sacred scripture and can contradict, cancel out , or change in any way whatever a predecessor may have uttered. To them God is revealing a new word for our modern times to fit the needs of his people.

These differences in how revelation from God is recieved in man are one of the reasons mormons can accept beliefs that to mainstream christians violate fundamental principles and doctrins.

 

[Tmaque]

Benadam:

Mormons believe that revelation from God was not meant to be closed but due to corruption it was and in our day is opened again through Joseph Smith and his successors. Furthermore they differ from Catholics in that whatever their current prophet utters is as sacred as sacred scripture and can contradict, cancel out , or change in any way whatever a predecessor may have uttered. To them God is revealing a new word for our modern times to fit the needs of his people.

These differences in how revelation from God is recieved in man are one of the reasons mormons can accept beliefs that to mainstream christians violate fundamental principles and doctrins.

One man’s “corruption” is another man’s “revelation”. Once you start down the “revelation can change any doctrine” path you lose all objectivity and you’re left with nothing. That’s why Mormons have “testimonies” based on a feeling they get. There’s nothing else for them to base their faith on!

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

I posted this in another forum that turned out to be too crazy to get responses in. So I thought I would start a new one. If we could please stick to only this topic, that would be great! Here’s just a quick look at the “scripture” references I found in the Book of Mormon. All these came from scriptures.lds.org I’m just wondering how LDS explain these…

As a LDS person I accept all of these scriptures at face value. It is not like we are polytheistic or anything . These passages provide the needed context as to whom the term God refers to. God and Son of God can be used interchangeably at times, so I don’t mind where Joseph Smith switched the terms around in only 5 places to clarify. That’s his job to clarify past misunderstandings.

I am sorry to see this thread got so off topic against your specific request. Seems to me that certain posters are far more fixiated on a certain topic then the mormon leaders–they say are saving us from-- ever were.

 

[Tmaque]

mormon fool:
As a LDS person I accept all of these scriptures at face value. It is not like we are polytheistic or anything . These passages provide the needed context as to whom the term God refers to. God and Son of God can be used interchangeably at times, so I don’t mind where Joseph Smith switched the terms around in only 5 places to clarify. That’s his job to clarify past misunderstandings.

I am sorry to see this thread got so off topic against your specific request. Seems to me that certain posters are far more fixiated on a certain topic then the mormon leaders–they say are saving us from-- ever were.

Alma 11:38-39
38. Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39. And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very aEternal• Father of heaven and of earth, and ball• things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

This can hardly be misunderstood… Clearly, the author is saying that Jesus and the Father are the EXACT SAME PERSON. This is not switching terms or interchanging terms. This passage is in direct opposition to current LDS theology. How can anyone say otherwise?

 

[Benadam]

Tmaque:

Alma 11:38-39
38. Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39. And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very aEternal• Father of heaven and of earth, and ball• things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

This can hardly be misunderstood… Clearly, the author is saying that Jesus and the Father are the EXACT SAME PERSON. This is not switching terms or interchanging terms. This passage is in direct opposition to current LDS theology. How can anyone say otherwise?

I don’t know if when you say ‘person’ you really mean ‘being’ because the Father expresses a seperate personage. That’s a personal assessment based on discussions with mormon friends.

What they have taught me is that the Father was a human who worked out his own salvation and was given his own planet to be god of. the rest is history. this view of the trinity doesn’t reveal the eternal nature of God.

I would appreciate a mormon teaching on the eternal nature of the Godhead.

 

[Tmaque]

Benadam:

I don’t know if when you say ‘person’ you really mean ‘being’ because the Father expresses a seperate personage. That’s a personal assessment based on discussions with mormon friends.

What they have taught me is that the Father was a human who worked out his own salvation and was given his own planet to be god of. the rest is history. this view of the trinity doesn’t reveal the eternal nature of God.

I would appreciate a mormon teaching on the eternal nature of the Godhead.

I’m talking specifically about the verse in Alma and how it doesn’t agree with Mormon theology. I know what contemporary Mormon doctrine is.

The Mormon Godhead has no “eternal” nature. How can something have not existed at some point and still be eternal? If God was once a man that means he was created, so at some point he did not exist so he cannot be eternal. The Mormon view of God is that he was created by some other God, who was created by some other God…ad infinitum. No Mormon has ever given me a satisfactory answer to who the first God was or even if they believe in such a being. The first God would be the only real God in my mind. That’s what makes Mormonism seem like a religious version of a science fiction story.

 

[Benadam]

Tmaque:

Alma 11:38-39
38. Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39. And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very aEternal• Father of heaven and of earth, and ball• things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

This can hardly be misunderstood… Clearly, the author is saying that Jesus and the Father are the EXACT SAME PERSON. This is not switching terms or interchanging terms. This passage is in direct opposition to current LDS theology. How can anyone say otherwise?

I agree with you though, because the word ‘very’ is inserted this passage implies that there is no seperation of personage between the Father and Son. The Father according to catholic theology is first and last only in relation to man and through His ‘first’ begotten Son. Otherwise there is no first in a state of existence that claims " I always was"

 

[Benadam]

Tmaque:

I’m talking specifically about the verse in Alma and how it doesn’t agree with Mormon theology. I know what contemporary Mormon doctrine is.

The Mormon Godhead has no “eternal” nature. How can something have not existed at some point and still be eternal? If God was once a man that means he was created, so at some point he did not exist so he cannot be eternal. The Mormon view of God is that he was created by some other God, who was created by some other God…ad infinitum. No Mormon has ever given me a satisfactory answer to who the first God was or even if they believe in such a being. The first God would be the only real God in my mind. That’s what makes Mormonism seem like a religious version of a science fiction story.

The first God would be the only real God in my mind.

I agree, I haven’t been exposed to any mormon theology that reveals God as Creator of all that is and claims " I always was"
Mormon theology seems to avoid answering that question.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:
As a LDS person I accept all of these scriptures at face value. It is not like we are polytheistic or anything . These passages provide the needed context as to whom the term God refers to. God and Son of God can be used interchangeably at times, so I don’t mind where Joseph Smith switched the terms around in only 5 places to clarify. That’s his job to clarify past misunderstandings.

I am sorry to see this thread got so off topic against your specific request. Seems to me that certain posters are far more fixiated on a certain topic then the mormon leaders–they say are saving us from-- ever were.
Thanks for sticking to the topic!

The quote from Alma that tmaque used (and I posted earlier) seems to be in direct conflict with your beliefs. Isn’t it true that you believe Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit (Ghost) are three separate persons? And yet in Alma we read that Jesus Christ IS God the Father. How does that leave us with three separate persons? How does that work with the Godhead?

 

[tkdnick]

Just thought I’d add another post to bring this back to the top of the forums because I have yet to see an LDS give an adequate answer to this.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Just thought I’d add another post to bring this back to the top of the forums because I have yet to see an LDS give an adequate answer to this.

Did you not see my earlier post about interchangeable titles? In LDS theology titles such as “the Eternal Father” can be shared, but not substance.