Mormons and the Trinity

[Catholic_Dude]

1. “Father” as Creator
   A second scriptural meaning of “Father” is that of Creator, e. g. in passages referring to any one of the Godhead as “The Father of the heavens and of the earth and all things that in them are”
   

    	   God is not  			the Father of the earth as one of the worlds in space, nor of the  			heavenly bodies in whole or in part, nor of the inanimate objects  			and the plants and the animals upon the earth, in the literal sense  			in which He is the Father of the spirits of mankind. Therefore,  			scriptures that refer to God in any way as the Father of the heavens  			and the earth are to be understood as signifying that God is the  			Maker, the Organizer, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.

I dont understand why this is even an issue. Why is God not the Creator in the sense He really made everything not merely “organized”?
With this meaning, as the context shows in every case, Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim, is called “the Father,” and even “the very eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (see passages before cited, and also Mosiah 16:15). With analogous meaning Jesus Christ is called “The Everlasting Father” (Isaiah 9:6; compare 2 Nephi 19:6). The descriptive titles “Everlasting” and “Eternal” in the foregoing texts are synonymous.
This is one of the parts that shocked me, “Jehovah is Jesus” and is separate from the Father “Elohim”?? As for the Isaiah 9 verse thats a misinterpretation which leads to modalism. That was spoken in the OT when the concept of Father and Son was not distinguished, Jesus clearly makes the distinction of He as the Son only. Those titles that are listed in Is9 are there to indicate prophecy of the child’s divinity.
That Jesus Christ, whom we also know as Jehovah, was the executive of the Father, Elohim, in the work of creation is set forth in the book “Jesus the Christ” Chapter 4. Jesus Christ, being the Creator, is consistently called the Father of heaven and earth in the sense explained above; and since His creations are of eternal quality He is very properly called the Eternal Father of heaven and earth.
So far this article has not put forth convincing or Bible based proof texts. I see confusing the terms “father”, modalism and separating the Godhead as well.
(I will get to the rest as soon as I can))

 

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude:

Ok, I found the time to post what I thought stood out in that article. First of all it talks about God not being the creator of the world but only the “organizer”?

The LDS belief is that God created from pre-existent material and that he didn’t create things out of nothing. There is no dichotomony between a creating and organizing in LDS thought, they are largely one and the some. It is incorrect to say not created, but only organized; rather it should be said creation via organization of pre-existent matter.

There are some (name removed by moderator)ortant proof-texts in Genesis 1, D&C 93, Abraham 3 that back this concept up. God doesn’t create the world out of nothing according to Genesis 1. Acording to LDS scriptures we had a prior existence as “intelligences” which were composed. Then God the Father created us as spirits, which are still material all the the matter is more “fine” than what we can detect in the physical universe. For a few definitions see spirit and intelligence at the LDS website.

I get rapidly bored about keeping discussion confined to LDS scriptures, although they serve an important role in defining what is binding LDS doctrine. The real fun discussion is how Keith Norman and Blake Ostler have really put on an impressive case that the Biblical authors, some ECFs, and contemporary Greek philosophy all believed in creation *ex materia *similiar to the LDS teachings and there was a clear departure from some of the other, later ECF’s. The case is clear enough that some non-LDS Christian scholars see a similiar late development of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) that LDS do.

God didnt create oxygen and hydrogen, etc?

LDS doctrine hasn’t really taken a stance on how basic the particles are that God had to work with. Matter can not be created or destroyed, but it can be thought of as energy. In physics we learn that about particle/energy wave duality of matter. So what I am saying is that instead of thinking about just primordial particles we should also think about primordial energy forms as possible material usable in a creation.

Many problems arise from this definition, eg
-the Son is inferior to the Father due to being a created object, this is what the JWs teach and undermines the divinity of the Son at the very core.

I am not as familiar with what the JW’s teach so I am not sure I follow. I agree that being spiritually created (out of pre-existent intelligence) makes the Son inferior to the Father is some sense. But now that I have reached adulthood, I do not feel all that inferior to my mortal father, even though he has had more experiences than I have. A mormonesque trait is to contemplate eternal things by looking at the way things work in our earthly families.

Unlike us Jesus, was already sufficiently advanced, an adult family member compared to those of us who still need to grow up. Create an analogy where being an adult means one is divine. On earth how is it determined if some one is an adult? For legal purposes sometimes it is defined as an age. But age doesn’t tell us if someone has sufficient mental capacity to be considered an adult. Ideally the decision of who can be considered an adult would be left to the most wise, intelligent, and perceptive adult among us who takes all the relevants facts and standards into consideration. I think a case can be made that Jesus is/was fully divine because such a determination was made by his Father. The Father shares his divinity with all those he deems worthy it.

I admit to just making the above analogy up. An alternative would be to survey LDS literature and see what they say about “divinity”. But then I run risk of being accused of giving a canned response, like I was in another recent conversation. So take it easy on me, this stuff hasn’t been critically thought through, and hence isn’t fool-proof

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

As a little aside from C-Dude’s post and the followup discussion.

As for Amgid’s link and the Proclamation on the Family. These articles are 2nd tier LDS doctrine that can be said to be official doctrine but not official, binding doctrine that has been accepted by common consent. Which means there is some wiggle room if someone like Amgid reads the LDS scriptures and develops an understanding of them that is independent of how the First Presidency exposits them for the benefit of the church. I think some LDS would get upset if these official statements were publically challenged in, say, a Sunday School setting, but message boards are a good place to explore alternative understandings.

Another aspect of 2nd tier doctrinal statement is how accessible they are to the average member and how much they have influenced the current set of teaching manuals. Not long ago the church re-published Amgid’s link, keeping it in circulation. The Proclamation on the Family is in heavy rotation these days, however I have seen some members take advantage of it not being canonized and make some mild criticisms from a feminist perspective.

I have also seen some First Presidency statements get overturned by later ones. Not that this concerns me, because different people can come to different understandings on matters of situational importance even if they are aided by inspiration. Inspiration improves our spiritual IQ anywhere from 1 to 100 points whereas it must take a million point boost to see things the way God does.

–fool

 

[amgid]

Brad Haas:

Does that mean LDS can ignore “The Family: A Proclamation To the World” if they disagree with it?

Now I never say that did I?

amgid

 

[amgid]

Hi, Catholic Dude

I am not going to get into a lengthy argument with you about that statement on the Father and the Son that you are now commenting on. That statement is self-explanatory. It attempts to justify itself. If you are not willing to accept the reasoning and the scriptural evidences it adduces to justify itself, you will not be convinced by anything I can tell you either.

You are now going off in a different track. You had originally asked me to comment on your post #15. I briefly commented on it, and then told you that there were too many topics in there to discuss in one post. I suggested that if you wanted to discuss any one of them, that you pick one topic at a time, and I will discuss them with you. You have completely ignored that, and instead jumped into this article, and loaded me up with a whole set of new topics each of which again requires a new thread to discuss. I don’t think that you are serious in wanting to discuss these things with me, otherwise you would not bite off more than you can chew. I think that all you want to do is to tell us that we are all wrong! Well, if you believe that we are all wrong, you are entitled to that opinion, and I respect your views; but if that is all you want to tell us, then there is nothing left for us to discuss.

amgid

 

[Brad_Haas]

Fool, does that mean LDS authorities’ teachings on contraception, abortion, and divorce are also not totally binding, etc.?

 

[majick275]

amgid:

You are wrong about that one. The statement itself doesn’t say it is a revelation. James R. Clark calls it a revelation. James R. Clark is the editor and compiler of the book: “Messages of the First Presidency,” who wrote the introductory note at the beginning of that statement. I would also remind you that that statement was issued around 90 years ago. Since than the expression “eternal progression” has gone out of favour, and it is hardly ever used in recent years in the teachings and sermons of the top leadership of the Church.

Wrong about that too. There is nothing in the statement that says that “God was once a man”. The rest of your post is just a silly rant, and doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to be able to reply to.

amgid

On the contrary, So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.

I’m sure you don’t want to reply. You can call this “second tier” or whatever but it comes from the combined first presidency and quorum of twelve apostles who were confirmed by common consent as prophets, seers and revelators. No “rant” just truth. We can get into much more if you want. Heber c kimball told us in JoD that the Holy Ghost is a son of God the Father just like Jesus. Of course since he doesn’t have abody this indicates he can’t be God. Jospeh Smith Jr. Tells in the teachings of the prophet Jospeh Smith that the Gods selected our heavenly father to be the God of our world. The current Temple Ceremony (a leftover from the LoF “binitarian” time) give us God the Father instructing Jesus to “organize” the world and such with Jesus then delegating various tasks to Adam and peter, james and John. No Holy Ghost. Hmmmm. Mormons and the Trinity… At least SPencer W. Kimball denounced Adam-God as False doctrine, But then since Brigham Young taught it that would make him a false prophet…

Wow the deception continues. Look at the Gsopel Principles lesson manual (used for teaching potential and new members in the LDS church). In 1978 it said men can become Gods like our heavenly father but in the 1998 version it says men can becom like our heavenly father. Gordon B. Hinkley doesn’t denounce what was “made known by divine revelation” he just tries to hide it. amgid you understand exactly what I was saying in my post and just what this “teaching” means. You know the doctrine you just painted yourself into a corner trying to deny it. I think we all see the truth here. Joseph Smith Jr. To Gordon B. Hinkley are a succession of false prophets furthering false doctrine just like the Bible told us.

 

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude:

-the Father doesnt have children in the sense humans do, that is a serious misunderstanding of the terms “Father” and “Son”.

. . .

Actually if you read that verse of Heb 12:9 carefully you will see there is a clear distinction of the term “father”

I agree that Hebrews 12 makes some clear distictions. You think it only makes 2 distinctions, I think it makes it makes 3, which I have discussed in my posts already.

1. 
   *]God is the Father of our spirits.
   *]Our earthly father is is such in regards to our physical bodies.
   *]God is conditionally our Father based on worthiness.
   
   You seem to want to use 3 to deny that 1 is literal. But I think it works out better to accept that 1 is literal and 3 is just using the concept of Father in the sense of obtaining an inheritance from our father. A worthy son can inherit all the divinity and character attributes of his Father, like (but not just like) an earthly son can grow up to be like his father if he makes the right choices. Even though there are 3 different senses of Father, contemplating one sense helps us think about the other senses. Some senses are automatic and literal, so we should feel good about ourselves, other senses show us that we have to be on our best behavior to take full advantage of our noble parentage.
   

   As for the part about “Our Father”, the Catholic Church notes an important distinction, it notes that Jesus never used the term “OUR Father” in a collective sense. He told people to pray starting with “Our Father”, but that was directed to them. He never spoke to people about “our” Father in the sense Jesus was no more or less a child of the Father than anyone else.

   I would like to see more support for this idea. I estimate that there are over 50 references to “my Father” spoken by Jesus. Granted that doesn’t have to mean, as LDS take it, that Jesus was a literal spirit creation of his Father.
   

   No place in the Bible does Jesus apply both titles to Himself. Thats not only a confusing, its a contradiction. At the least its modalism. And again a confusion in the terms “Father”, in this case it applies both concepts of “father” which is unfounded Biblically.

   The most direct statement are found in the Book of Mormon Eth 3:14 and Mos. 15:2 And you will note that the conditional “sons of God” aspect is more fully developed in LDS scriptures listed here. I think you are right that Jesus never directly calls himself “the Father” in the Bible, but he does spend some time in John 14 and 17 describing his close relationship. This is just one of those points that LDS scriptures shine additional light for those willing to accept it. I addressed the modalism accusation in an earlier post as well as wrote a few words about Jesus as the Son. I would be interested in your comments that post.
   
   –fool

 

[mormon_fool]

This is one of the parts that shocked me, “Jehovah is Jesus” and is separate from the Father “Elohim”?? As for the Isaiah 9 verse thats a misinterpretation which leads to modalism. That was spoken in the OT when the concept of Father and Son was not distinguished, Jesus clearly makes the distinction of He as the Son only. Those titles that are listed in Is9 are there to indicate prophecy of the child’s divinity.

I did a search on “Jesus is Jehovah” and I found the phrase used approvingly in some catholic sites like *This Rock, *but nothing authoritative. I am suprised that it suprises you. JWs do not believe it though. As for Isaiah not being able to distinguish between Father and the Son, I am going to have to respectfully disagree. Consider this technical analysis from the FARMS Review:

Jesus, who is Jehovah, or YHWH, is the son of El or Elohim, the presiding deity in the divine, heavenly council. YHWH is specifically designated the God of Israel, but Israel knows of other gods, including El. YHWH as Israel’s God is properly addressed or designated as “Father” by the Israelites. However, YHWH’s father, El, is also properly designated “Father” because he is, after all, the father of YHWH. This accounts for the Book of Mormon writers designating Jesus as “the Father,” but still allows for Jesus to have a separate father. The Old Testament backs up this assessment. As one Old Testament scholar describes: There were many in first-century Palestine who still retained a world-view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel in which there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king. It was as a manifestation of Yahweh, the Son of God, that Jesus was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah and Lord.51

This scholar goes on to clarify the reasons for this conclusion: All the texts in the Hebrew Bible distinguish clearly between the divine sons of Elohim/Elyon [one of which is Yahweh] and those human beings who are called sons of Yahweh. This must be significant. It must mean that the terms originated at a time when Yahweh was distinguished from . . . El/Elohim/Elyon. A large number of texts continue to distinguish between El Elyon and Yahweh, Father and Son. . . . By tracing these patterns through a great variety of material and over several centuries, Israel’s second God can be recovered.52

–fool

 

[majick275]

Just wanted to give references for my points:
regarding LDS teaching on the Holy Ghost:
Heber C. Kimball stated: “The Holy Ghost is a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our God” (Journal of Discourses, vol.5, p.179).

Eternal progression looking backward (God was once a man):
Heber C. Kimbal wrote: “We shall go back to our Father and God, who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this Father is connected with one still farther back, and so on” (Journal of Discourses, vol.5, p.19); “our God is a natural man…where did he get his knowledge from? From his father, just as we get our knowledge from our earthly parents” (Journal of Discourses, vol.8, p.211).

Orson Pratt wrote: “The Gods who dwell in heaven…were once in a fallen state…they were exalted also, from fallen men to celestial Gods” (The Seer, p.23); "our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; “He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another” (The Seer, p.132).

Milton R. Hunter wrote: “God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became a God” (The Gospel Through the Ages, p.104);“there was a time when the Deity was much less powerful than He is today…He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood. In other words, He became a God by absolute obedience…” (The Gospel Through the Ages, p.114-115).

Joseph Fielding Smith stated: “God is an exalted man…our Father in Heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man…The Prophet [Joseph Smith] taught that our Father had a Father and so on…promises are made to us that we may
become like him” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1, p.10-12).

Eternal progressionlooking forward (men can become Gods):
President and Prophet Spencer W. Kimball said “Man can transform himself, but he has in him the seeds of Godhood that can grow. He can lift himself by his very bootstraps” (Tribune, Sept. 18, 1974).

Gordon B. Hinckley states: “Well, they [men] can achieve to a godly status, yes, of course they can, eternal progression. We believe in the progression of the human soul. Ours is a forward-looking religion. It’s an upward-looking religion” (Public Broadcasting System; transcript dated July 18, 1997).
(Note the term "eternal progression still being used by current “prophet”)

regarding the deceptive “milk before meat” teaching of new/potential members:
** The 1978 edition reads: “We can become Gods like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation” (Gospel Principles, p.290, 1978);
* but the 1997 edition reads: “We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation” (Gospel Principles, p.302, 1997).
*

Here’s an interesting contradiction as we move from the BoM trinitarian teaching to the D&C version:
D&C 130:3 says, “The idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.” But in Alma 34:36, it says, “And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell.”

Joseph Smith Jr. teaching that God was “selected” to be our God:
Joseph Smith: “The doctrine of a plurality of Gods is prominent in the Bible. The heads of the Gods appointed our God for us…you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves…the same as all Gods have done before you” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.370-372, 346).

I still like amgids post though, that one really proves the case.

 

[mormon_fool]

Brad Haas:

Fool, does that mean LDS authorities’ teachings on contraception, abortion, and divorce are also not totally binding, etc.?

For contraception, I would say that the current LDS church stance is definitely non-binding. Contraception is discouraged, but the current LDS guideline on the matter in the Church Handbook of Instructions under the heading “Birth Control” is quite the opposite of “totally binding”:

“The decision as to how many chldren to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.”

I don’t have any official First Presidency or CHI in front of me, but I am aware of plenty anti-divorce rhetoric from past General Conferences. Much of those talks reason from scripture passages. However, the LDS church would only bring about displinary action in cases of divorce involving moral transgression. Again one gets the sense that the church teaches “correct principles and let them govern themselves”.

Abortion, I think is pretty much covered in D&C 59 rephrase of the ten commandments “Thou shalt not kill or do anything like it.” A person would be expected to repent if they are in violation of the way the LDS interprets this commandment in regards to abortion.

Funny how you picked 3 things that the RCC has “totally binding” views on. My explaining of the LDS church’s official position is bound to play against popular sentiments here. I feel like I am tight rope walking.

–fool

 

[Catholic_Dude]

amgid:

Yes, we do believe that the Father and the Son are two distinct personages, as described above. But I don’t see what issue you are raising here. If you are suggesting that this doctrine is unbiblical, then I would disagree. The Bible certainly teaches that the Father and the Son are two separate beings. It does not state that the Father has a tangible body as the Son does; but it does not contradict it either. So I don’t see what is the issue you are raising here.

So you agree the Bible does not say the Father has a human body. But what do you mean “it doesnt contradict it either”? I can think of passages that clearly dismiss that idea, one that comes to mind is when Paul talks about Jesus in Phil2:6ff
Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself… This passage indicates that Father never had a body, and only when the Son became man did such a thing happen.

Let me first say that these passages you are quoting from are not from canonized LDS scripture, and therefore do not express binding LDS doctrine.

What? I took these passages word for word, directly off the lds.com webpage, explicitly under the “Scriptures” section which is explicitly titled “GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES GOD, GODHEAD” which lists about 75 LDS Scripture proof texts.

I dont take this kind of stuff off of random webpages, I go directly to the source, in this case is all official LDS Scripture and section of authoritative teaching.

If this isnt binding then Im at a loss for words…what is binding then?

Well, the Bible does say that Jesus is the “firstborn of every creature” (Colossians 1:15); and the “beginning of the creation of God” (Revelation 3:14). I understand that to mean what it says.

The Bible says that God has only one Son. John says it many times:
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. -Jn1:14,18

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. -Jn3:16,18
As these and other passages indicate God has only one Son. The context of Col1:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
In this case the “firstborn of every creature” only means Jesus came before them. The Son is eternal, “he is before all things”. God created everything including humans and angels, and the Son is God.
As for the Rev3 quote that is not to mean Jesus was first created (or created at all), rahther Jesus is the “Alpha and Omega” (Rev1:8) the “beginning and end”, Jesus is the beginning of the creation in that He was the source, eg, “in the beginning God created”.

(ill get to the rest asap)

 

[mormon_fool]

I colored one of majick’s representations of LDS doctrine as merely speculation:

Further it teaches that the Father wasn’t always God.

after that majick responded:

I challenge your red part as speculation.

Not one to back away from a challenge I continued reading:

It was taught as doctrine by Joseph Smith. Jr.

Here is the relevant text which I would label green because at best JS’s are deductions made from scripture (esp. John 5:19) and at worst speculation. Some might claim that Joseph Smith is presenting revelation and we should consider it scripture, but since it was never cannonized by common consent, I don’t accept that view.

I will demonstrate that majick’s reading of the remarks below is not the only reading possible, hence should be regarded as speculation.

It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

This passage can not be used to support the idea that God the Father was ever not God. If the Father dwelt on an earth the way Jesus Christ himself did, then he was God while he was earth. Catholics and Mormons both believe that Jesus became incarnate without sacrificing his status as God. If Jesus can do it his Father can do it.

Saying God “was once a man like us” does not necessarily compromise his divinity. The same phrasing was used earlier in the sermon in regards to his present condition. “I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man” In Joseph Smith’s sermon it is simultaneously possible to be both God and man, God is an exhalted man!

Then we run into the quote that lends itself best to majick’s reading: “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea” In order for that to make sense with the rest of the sermon, let me rephase it. The personage we call God wasn’t always God like we imagine Him to be now because he dwelt on an earth as a man like Jesus did. So Joseph Smith was quite possibly refuting a false conception of God, not affirming that Father wasn’t always God.

I will propose a definition for God that means that there never was a point the Father was not God. God: 1) The being who created my spirit body. 2) Any being significantly sharing the powers of the God in 1), acting in a unison of purpose with Him, to the end of bringing about my salvation.

Since I identify God in 1) as a being and not a set of attributes reflecting a state of progression, then I can not go back and find a time when He was not God, because He has always existed. Likewise I do not have to believe there ever was a time Jesus was not God by definition 2. Still it would be nice to include attributes into the definition. Joseph Smith doesn’t define a set of attributes that needs to acquired as a necessary part of Godhood. And even if such a list exists, no can positively say that God the Father did not always possess that list of attributes. Regardless, we are certain he had all the necessary attributes by the time the “beginning” rolls around in Genesis.

The notion of infinite backwards regressions of Gods does create a some expectations, though. Good luck on finding any recent teaching manual that propagates this speculation. I have already posted my alternatives views and scripture based reasoning supporting God the Father as the First Father.

[cont]

 

[mormon_fool]

After my above response it is useful to compare my lines of argumentation with that of Stephen Robinson and Blake Ostler. Some snipets of Ostler’s argument, but found in full here:

• I believe that Latter-day Saints commonly believe that God the Father became God through a process of moral development and eternal progression to godhood. The corollary of this view is that there was a time before God the Father was a god or divine. Robinson correctly points out that no Mormon scripture supports this view; rather, it is an inference from noncanonical statements made by Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse and by President Lorenzo Snow.
• Thus, when the scriptures say that “God is from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God,” it means that the Godhead has always manifested all the essential properties of godhood (whatever they may be), but the individual divine persons may not always have possessed all the properties of godhood individually. In other words, there was a time when the Father took on himself mortality just as there was a time when the Son became mortal, but there was a Godhead before, during, and after that time.26
• This latter view seems to be more consistent with the scriptures to me. Moreover, it need not entail that the Father became God after an eternity of not having ever been divine, or that there was a time before which the Father was not divine.
  
  Ostler has come to solution that has a fair amount of overlap with mine. He is more concerned with establishing how God has always been divine, but takes a definite stance against the infinite regression of gods based on scripture passages about unchangeability. On that issue I side more with Robinson’s argument eternity means a finite amount of time and the Bible doesn’t tell us what happened before the beginning. In leaving regression as a possibility I had to propose a weak definition of God which skirts the divinity issue.

Between Ostler and I, I hope we have been able to show that any attempt to draw inferences from Joseph Smith’s teachings or Lorenzo Snow’s couplet involve a lot of speculation.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

regarding the deceptive “milk before meat” teaching of new/potential members:
** The 1978 edition reads: “We can become Gods like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation” (Gospel Principles, p.290, 1978);
* but the 1997 edition reads: “We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation” (Gospel Principles, p.302, 1997).
*

I am disapointed in your observation that removing redundancy in a new edition constitutes deception. You are literally making the LDS church a “offender for a word.” Yet you neglect that a few paragraphs later the blessings of exhaltation in the 1998 manual are enumerated, the 2nd of which is: “They will become gods.”

Here’s an interesting contradiction as we move from the BoM trinitarian teaching to the D&C version:
D&C 130:3 says, “The idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.” But in Alma 34:36, it says, “And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell.”

Or alternatively that one passage should be taken literally and the other figuratively. Even without the help of D&C 130, I would have never taken Alma 34 literally. There are too many cues in the text itself to do so.

–fool

 

[amgid]

Catholic Dude:

So you agree the Bible does not say the Father has a human body. But what do you mean “it doesnt contradict it either”? I can think of passages that clearly dismiss that idea, one that comes to mind is when Paul talks about Jesus in Phil2:6ff

Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself…

This passage indicates that Father never had a body, and only when the Son became man did such a thing happen.

I am more familiar with the KJV Bible, but I will take your quotes as they are. My reading of that is that Jesus condescended to come down to earth, and effectively “descend below all things,” and assume mortality in order to suffer and die for our sins. That is my understanding of the part of verse 7 which you have highlighted: “. . . being born in the likeness of man”. It cannot be concluded from this that God cannot have a physical body. He does possess such a body, but He is not a mortal being like us. He is glorified being and is not subject to death. This is also my understanding of the part of verse 8 which you have highlighted: “. . . found in human form”. It does not mean that God is not already in the human form. On the contrary, throughout the scriptures God is portrayed as being in the human form. Genesis states that God made man “in his own image,” which is in the human form; and in all the appearances of God to man recorded in the Bible, He has always appeared in the human form (Gen. 32:30; Ex. 23:33; Ex. 24:10; Isa. 6:1; Acts 7:56).

Let me first say that these passages you are quoting from are not from canonized LDS scripture, and therefore do not express binding LDS doctrine.

What? I took these passages word for word, directly off the lds.com webpage, explicitly under the “Scriptures” section which is explicitly titled “GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES GOD, GODHEAD” which lists about 75 LDS Scripture proof texts.

I dont take this kind of stuff off of random webpages, I go directly to the source, in this case is all official LDS Scripture and section of authoritative teaching.

If this isnt binding then Im at a loss for words…what is binding then?

I know you took them from the LDS Church website. But just because it is in the Church’s website, does not mean that it constitutes “binding LDS doctrine”. “Guide to the Scriptures” is not the same thing as the scriptures themselves. Those guides have been prepared to help Church members gain a better understanding of the scriptures, and they are useful for that purpose, and generally they can be trusted to teach sound doctrine; but when it comes to discussing serious gospel theology, I would rather go direct to the original source, rather than rely entirely on an indirect source of information. In the Catholic Church too you have many good Bible commentaries written by well informed and well intentioned people, which are helpful and have been approved by the your church. But you wouldn’t put the commentaries on a par with the Bible itself, would you? The same thing applies here.

Well, the Bible does say that Jesus is the “firstborn of every creature” (Colossians 1:15); and the “beginning of the creation of God” (Revelation 3:14). I understand that to mean what it says.

The Bible says that God has only one Son. John says it many times:

Snip/…

As these and other passages indicate God has only one Son.

In those scriptures you had quoted, “Only Begotten” means “only begotten in the flesh”. Jesus was unique among mankind in that He was born without a natural Father. That is what makes Him the “Only Begotten” of the Father. But that does not mean that God does not have any other sons. On the contrary, the Bible is replete with the idea that we are all the children of God. Examples are too many. Here are a few: Psalms. 82:6; Acts 17:29; Heb. 12:9. Jesus also commanded us to address God as our Father. I also came across this quote from you in post #119:

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

As for the part about “Our Father”, the Catholic Church notes an important distinction, it notes that Jesus never used the term “OUR Father” in a collective sense. He told people to pray starting with “Our Father”, but that was directed to them. He never spoke to people about “our” Father in the sense Jesus was no more or less a child of the Father than anyone else.

That is simply not true. That is exactly what Jesus wanted us to understand by “our Father”. Note the following scripture:

John 2:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
How else can you understand this, other than that our Father is the same as His Father and our God is the same as His God, in exactly the same relationship that they have together, and that we (including Him) are all brethren? Or how else can you understand this verse (which I had previously quoted in a post #102):

Hebrews 2:

11 For both he that sanctifieth {i.e. Jesus} and they who are sanctified {i.e. us} are all of one {i.e. share the same kinship or nature}: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Romans 8:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
My understanding of all these verses is that we are the children of God in the same way that Jesus is. There is no difference.

The context of Col1:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

In this case the “firstborn of every creature” only means Jesus came before them. The Son is eternal, “he is before all things”. God created everything including humans and angels, and the Son is God.

I believe in taking the scriptures at their face value, and understanding them with their most obvious meaning; rather than trying to wriggle my way out of that in order to square it with some traditional belief that I may have. You are free to interpret that scripture as you please. I can’t prevent you from doing that. All I can say is that that is not how I understand “firstborn of every creature”.

As for the Rev3 quote that is not to mean Jesus was first created (or created at all), rahther Jesus is the “Alpha and Omega” (Rev1:8) the “beginning and end”, Jesus is the beginning of the creation in that He was the source, eg, “in the beginning God created”.

The same answer as above. If the English language means anything, then that is not how I understand that expression. I can’t stop you from understanding it any way you want to. But to preserve my own sanity I have to say that that interpretation doesn’t make sense to me. I hope it does to you.

amgid

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(hopefully I will be up to speed after this post)

amgid:

The scriptures also say that we share the same kinship with Him:
Hebrews 2:
11 For both he that sanctifieth {i.e. Jesus} and they who are sanctified {i.e. us} are all of one {i.e. share the same kinship or nature}: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Romans 8:
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.So again I fail to see what it is you are objecting to here.

When you say we share the same kinship that can mean different things. In the Heb passage, you included the terms “kinship” and “nature” which I think there is a distinction. Jesus has a human nature just like us, but we dont have a divine. In the Heb passage you cite it goes onto say:“14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same” Heb 1 says about Jesus in relation to God the Father:“3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power” us humans clearly dont share this.
Also I dont believe “kinship” has the same definition as "nature’, when I read stuff like “sons of God” I understand it to mean adopted, not that we are no more or no less a “son” than Jesus.
In the Romans passage it is clear that is a conditional sonship, in v14 it says:“14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” only those who are led by the Spirit are “sons” indicating just because we exist from God’s creation doesnt mean we share in His kinship. In the passage you cite I underlined the “IF so be we suffer with him” indicating a conditional sonship.

As stated above, we do believe that the Trinity consists of three distinct and separate personages who are divine, and this is in harmony with that. I think that the identity of the Holy Ghost as a separate personage, as well as His divinity, is affirmed in the Bible, so I don’t see any problem with that.

I would like to see where it is “affirmed in the Bible”. I think more than anything here we have different definitions to things. You say “the Trininty is 3 distinct and separate persons who are divine” I would agree with that. But where does that mean that each person is a separate god? The Bible is clear there is one God. Thats why we recognize that Jesus had a divine nature not that he was a separate god.

You have given us these lengthy quotes, but you have not told us why it is that you object in then, or what is the basis of you objections to them. I cannot respond to it properly until I know that.

I underlined the following:
The present translation of John 1:18 and 1 Jn. 4:12 is misleading, for these say that no man has ever seen God.
Werent you the one who said to take the passages as plainly as they stand? The Bible says “18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
It goes onto say:
However, the scriptures state that there have been many who have seen him. The JST corrects these items to show that no sinful man has ever seen God
I would ask just what these Scriptures are. It also goes onto say the Father and Son personally visited Joseph, but I dont know of any Biblical precident of such an event.

The same here. If you can tell me what it is that you are objecting to in these passages, and why, I will try to answer it for you.

My objection is to claiming God is the “literal father”. The Father is not male or female, He doesnt have a body, He doesnt have sexual relations, not to mention if He is the literal father then who is the literal mother? A literal father as we know it has relations with a woman and contributes to the child’s genetics.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

mormon fool-

I agree that being spiritually created (out of pre-existent intelligence) makes the Son inferior to the Father is some sense. But now that I have reached adulthood, I do not feel all that inferior to my mortal father, even though he has had more experiences than I have. A mormonesque trait is to contemplate eternal things by looking at the way things work in our earthly families.

Its not about feeling inferior, what I mean is that saying the Father created the Son means the Son is less. JWs see Jesus as a creature, He is less than God but higher than any other creation. The result is either Jesus is not God or Jesus is a second God. Oh, now that I think of it this makes sense, JWs take the first approach while you take the second.
There are some comparisons that can be made with human family, but there is also stuff that cant be compared. eg God is eternal and doesnt change (eg not changed by aging like humans), that means we cant really compare the notion of you growing up to your father’s status. Basically what Im saying is that there is no way for the Son (if created) to reach the status of God the Father because the Father would be growing at the same rate as the Son resulting in perpetual inferiority.

Unlike us Jesus, was already sufficiently advanced, an adult family member compared to those of us who still need to grow up. Create an analogy where being an adult means one is divine. On earth how is it determined if some one is an adult? For legal purposes sometimes it is defined as an age. But age doesn’t tell us if someone has sufficient mental capacity to be considered an adult. Ideally the decision of who can be considered an adult would be left to the most wise, intelligent, and perceptive adult among us who takes all the relevants facts and standards into consideration. I think a case can be made that Jesus is/was fully divine because such a determination was made by his Father. The Father shares his divinity with all those he deems worthy it.

But the Father doesnt share the spotlight. If He would deem someone else worthy then He stops being almighty God because something else attains the same status. Worse yet that would make the creation equal to the creator which undermines the concept of God at the very core!
Also I dont know if you mean this, but if others can become just like Jesus/Father then how does it remain a “Trinity”?

I agree that Hebrews 12 makes some clear distictions. You think it only makes 2 distinctions, I think it makes it makes 3, which I have discussed in my posts already.

1. 
   *]God is the Father of our spirits.
   *]Our earthly father is is such in regards to our physical bodies.
   *]God is conditionally our Father based on worthiness.

1. 
   You seem to want to use 3 to deny that 1 is literal. But I think it works out better to accept that 1 is literal and 3 is just using the concept of Father in the sense of obtaining an inheritance from our father.
   

   A worthy son can inherit all the divinity and character attributes of his Father, like (but not just like) an earthly son can grow up to be like his father if he makes the right choices. Even though there are 3 different senses of Father, contemplating one sense helps us think about the other senses. Some senses are automatic and literal, so we should feel good about ourselves, other senses show us that we have to be on our best behavior to take full advantage of our noble parentage.

   I dont deny God creats our soul if thats what you mean by “spirits”, what I deny is the term “literal Father”. The way I hear that term indicates sexual relations and in the case of the Son means the Son was created. For the first half I agree with what you said about 3 types and that 1 and 2 are literal.
   
   As for a created object to inherit the status of the creator is where the problem is. In that case God stops being God.
   (cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont)

… Jesus never used the term “OUR Father” in a collective sense. …

I would like to see more support for this idea. I estimate that there are over 50 references to “my Father” spoken by Jesus. Granted that doesn’t have to mean, as LDS take it, that Jesus was a literal spirit creation of his Father.

I cant remember where I read it, Im pretty sure I read it in the Catechism of the CC but I looked and looked but cant find it.
The point is out of all the references to “my Father”, “your Father”, etc, Jesus never said “OUR Father” which is a very significant point. And your right, that “my Father” can be (and is) talking about a different form of relationship.

The most direct statement are found in the Book of Mormon Eth 3:14 and Mos. 15:2 And you will note that the conditional “sons of God” aspect is more fully developed in LDS scriptures listed here. I think you are right that Jesus never directly calls himself “the Father” in the Bible, but he does spend some time in John 14 and 17 describing his close relationship. This is just one of those points that LDS scriptures shine additional light for those willing to accept it. I addressed the modalism accusation in an earlier post as well as wrote a few words about Jesus as the Son. I would be interested in your comments that post.

I agree Jesus does talk about their close relationship in the Bible, thats where some important distinctions are pointed out, given that though, He never says He is the Father. I dont know of your modalism post so could you list it?

I did a search on “Jesus is Jehovah” and I found the phrase used approvingly in some catholic sites like This Rock, but nothing authoritative. I am suprised that it suprises you. JWs do not believe it though.

On that “This Rock” link it is Catholics dealing with JW’s, one point it says as a rebuttal to the JW’s is that “the title *Jehovah *is erroneous and was never used by the Jews”, it goes onto say that a huge mistranslation by the JW’s who replaced “Lord” with “Jehovah”:
In regard to Romans 10:13, the Greek word used is kurios, * which is translated Lord. * However, when this passage is read in context with the preceding verse, the Lord being spoken of is Jesus Christ. So if the Lord in Romans 10:13 is Jehovah, then Jesus is Jehovah.
What the author is saying is that if the JW’s want to say the term is “Jehovah” then (reading the verse in context) that means “Jesus is Jehovah” and is clearly damming to the JW position.

As for Isaiah not being able to distinguish between Father and the Son, I am going to have to respectfully disagree. Consider this technical analysis from the FARMS Review:

Jesus, who is Jehovah, or YHWH, is the son of El or Elohim, the presiding deity in the divine, heavenly council. YHWH is specifically designated the God of Israel, but Israel knows of other gods, including El. YHWH as Israel’s God is properly addressed or designated as “Father” by the Israelites. However, YHWH’s father, El, is also properly designated “Father” because he is, after all, the father of YHWH. This accounts for the Book of Mormon writers designating Jesus as “the Father,” but still allows for Jesus to have a separate father.

Sofar this is unfounded Biblically, nowhere is Jesus singled out as Jehovah and separate from the Father. The Jews did recognize YHWH (Jehovah) as their one and only God. I dont know of any references to “Israel knows of other god’s” except for the false gods. Noplace is “El” said to be “the father of YHWH”.

The Old Testament backs up this assessment.

What verses would those be?

As one Old Testament scholar describes:
(quote)
…

As for this “scholar”, I read it but I dont find it convincing at all, not to mention there are plenty of other “scholars” who would say just the opposite with plenty of support. I think we both can agree the term “scholar” is relative today and as we both know has been used against both of our groups.
That being said, I have heard some mentions that they did have different “official” titles for God over time which is interesting, but I dont know the extent to that nor any sort of Father/Son distinctions that comes out of that, or even if they recognized a “Son” (which Im pretty sure they didnt).