Mormons and the Trinity

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude:

mormon fool-
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.

Not necessarily. The analogy is not so much a race where the Father gets a headstart and his children try to catch up. It is more like the Father is throwing out a rope trying to pull His children up. Recall Abraham 3:19 and Joseph Smith’s commentary on it.

God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.

Children of Father become like God when they receive of His fullness. God radiates light, truth and intelligence which can be embraced by worthy sons and daughters grace upon grace as they participate in the divine nature. The status of the Father stays above those who He shares his fullness with. D&C 93 in its entirety is a must read to get this concept down. It has caused some LDS writers to say the Father is the fount of all divinity. See also the Blake Ostler paper that used to be at the Notre Dame website.

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.

I think what you mean here is God wouldn’t stand for any competive rival having the same set of attributes. However one of His attributes is love, so any of his spirit children that advanced that far would agree to share and not compete, while respecting their Creator.

Also I dont know if you mean this, but if others can become just like Jesus/Father then how does it remain a “Trinity”?

It remains a Trinity because the Trinity has a special relationship together and unique past history, When other beings share in a “fullness” they will do so worshipfully appreciating where that “fullness” comes from.

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.

I didn’t mean to imply that degree of literalness. By spirit I mean that God created (but not out of nothing) our (and Jesus’s) spirit way before we were born on earth. Jesus is the Only Begotten because of the circumstances of his earthly conception.

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)

Your assertion baffles me and doesn’t handle the clear implications of what it means to be a joint-heir with Christ.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

quote=Catholic Dude
I dont know of your modalism post so could you list it?

[/quote]

I posted 5 links addressing it in post #93, wrote up my analysis in post #110, and gave yet another link in the last post.

Thanks for your clarification about the This Rock article. I didn’t bother reading it, but I think it is rather a common Christian assumption to equate Jesus with Jehovah. The amount of proof-texts that can be used to show that the NT folks interpretted Jesus as Jehovah is pretty staggering. For example Jesus says “Before Abraham was, I AM” in John 8:58, but told Moses what to call him in ex 3:14 “I AM”. Later in Ex 6:3 the same visitor calls himself “Jehovah” or Yahweh. The Catholic Encyclopedia covers some of this same ground although they don’t note the significance of the passage in John.

Nevertheless I will grant that Jehovah as used in the the OT may not specifically refer to Jesus even though many NT passages make the connection. Indeed using NT evidence seems to indicate the title is applied to multiple persons. David Waltz recently summarized:

Further, ] is correct in stating that Paul believed Jesus was Yahweh/Jehovah; however, Paul also clearly believed that God the Father was Yahweh/Jehovah. I would like to recommend an excellent book on this very subject: David B. Capes’ Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology (1992). In this book he comments on Yahweh passages (in the OT) quoted by Paul, thirteen in total, and concludes that 6 refer to the Father, and 7 to the Son.

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.

But not consistently. The popular religion of Israel was sometimes polytheistic. The Bible shows us that in the time King Josiah a major reform was undertaken. The winners get to write scriptures and Josiah’s group were monotheistic, but they left in Deut. 32:8-9.

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”.

Actually Deut. 32:8-9 does have El as the father of YHWH see here:

When the Most High[El Elyon] parcelled out the nations, when he dispersed all mankind, he laid down the boundaries of every people according to the number of the sons of God; but the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] share was his own people, Jacob was his allotted portion. (Deuteronomy 32:8–9 New English Bible)

Interestly enough both Eusebius and the Psuedo-Clementine Recognitions equate Jehovah with Christ and the Most High with the Father.

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 agree that scholars are divided on some of the concepts I have brought up. There has been some good discussion on the FAIR boards about where the battle lines are drawn. While not proof of the Mormon position it is refreshing to have some independent non-LDS Christian scholar(s) provide insight relevant to the Book of Mormon theology.

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).

I think there were some distinctions between Father and son, but they were highly blurred. The forerunners of the Logos doctrine and gnostics seem to have developed from strands of prior Israelite thought that was less than strictly monotheistic.

–fool

 

[amgid]

Thank you Catholic for your replies. After reading your posts, I came to the conclusion that you may be sincere in your beliefs, but at the same time you just want to argue rather than engage in a serious discussion. I will therefore not be spending a lot of time replying to your posts; or my replies will be very selective. I will only pick out those parts of your posts which I think require a response, and ignore the rest. If other LDS want to pick up the thread and reply to them, they are free to do so. As I read through your posts, I came across the following passages that require a response:

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.

And I had also given you plenty of other scriptures teaching that (1) we are indeed the sons (and daughters) of God, and (2) that Jesus intended us to understand that God was our Father in the same way that He was His Father. Ignoring all those and picking up selectively just the passages that you think proves your point shows lack of sincerity in discussion.

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.”

Yes, and I had also given you plenty of scriptures showing that many people had seen God throughout sacred history, and observed Him to be in the human form. You have just ignored them.

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.

I had given you enough such scriptural examples, but you have conveniently ignored them.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

Thank you Catholic for your replies. After reading your posts, I came to the conclusion that you may be sincere in your beliefs, but at the same time you just want to argue rather than engage in a serious discussion.

Aren’t you the one that said you come here because it’s fun?

amgid:

I will therefore not be spending a lot of time replying to your posts; or my replies will be very selective. I will only pick out those parts of your posts which I think require a response, and ignore the rest. If other LDS want to pick up the thread and reply to them, they are free to do so.

Well now that you gave us such convincing evidence of the LDS chruch teaching false doctrine, I would think so. How’s that study of eternal progression going?

amgid:

And I had also given you plenty of other scriptures teaching that (1) we are indeed the sons (and daughters) of God, and (2) that Jesus intended us to understand that God was our Father in the same way that He was His Father. Ignoring all those and picking up selectively just the passages that you think proves your point shows lack of sincerity in discussion.

and this all goes back to the false doctrine of eternal progression that teaches that God was once a man, a mortal man like us having to “earn” his salvation. (a false doctrine itself) We are not literal offspring, we are creations.

amgid:

Yes, and I had also given you plenty of scriptures showing that many people had seen God throughout sacred history, and observed Him to be in the human form. You have just ignored them.

I had given you enough such scriptural examples, but you have conveniently ignored them.

amgid

Well God can appear in any form he wants. He came in the flesh as Jesus Christ. The LDS church taught for many years that God the Father was a personage of spirit. (Even after the supposed “first vision”) God is not a resurected being as is taught in LDS doctrine. He is and always has been the only God in existence.

Moromons do not believe in the Trinity. They don’t even believe in God as an eternally divine being without begining or end. They believe in an endless series of men who (having obtained “further light and knowledge”) “worked out their salvation”, obtained exaltation and became Gods. They have literal offspring and populate planets with them and the process repeats in cyclical fashion. That is false doctrine. WE believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are ONE GOD, always and forever. WE are his creations.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

mormon fool-

Children of Father become like God when they receive of His fullness. God radiates light, truth and intelligence which can be embraced by worthy sons and daughters grace upon grace as they participate in the divine nature. The status of the Father stays above those who He shares his fullness with. D&C 93 in its entirety is a must read to get this concept down. It has caused some LDS writers to say the Father is the fount of all divinity. See also the Blake Ostler paper that used to be at the Notre Dame website.

So you do indicate the Father stays “above” those whom He created, in this case the Father’s status is unattainable.

I read through DC93 and couldnt really follow it, the first half seemed to be about eternal progression and the last is dealing with specific men as examples. I think I agree with the first 11 verses, but 12 is where a problem starts:Scriptures And I, John, saw that he [the Son] received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;
Scriptures
Scriptures And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
Scriptures
Scriptures And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.
12 document.write(drawVerse(13,156867)); 13 document.write(drawVerse(14,156868)); 14 If I understand this right, this and the next few verses are dealing with eternal progression. It seems to be saying that Jesus is called the “Son” simply beacuse he hadnt attained the status of the Father yet, so where does this lead…does the “Son” stay a “Son” after he receives the “fullness”? This doctrine 93 sounds a lot like John 1, but what about “the Word was God”? If the Word was God then how is it lacking the fulness?

As for the Blake Ostler paper, that was a nice read. Im not an expert on the Trinity but I am interested into looking at this paper. Starting with paragraph 13 which is a summary of the privious paragraphs it says:13. Thus, Mormon scriptures have been accused of playing on both sides of the road [ie accepting modalism and later polytheism] on this issue and falling into heresy on each side. Classical Christianity claims to adopt the middle of the road view which seems to be incoherent. Thus, on either side of the spectrum we have coherent views that are heresy and the middle view, trying to have it both ways, is literally unbelievable because it does not make a coherent claim. Now it is true that many people who take the middle position construe the classical view as holding that each of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are God and yet there are not Gods but one. This view has often been dignified with the terms ‘paradox’ or ‘mystery’. But it appears to me there is nothing really paradoxical or mysterious about this claim that in God there both are and are not three persons. Unless we are willing to give up the most basic law of logic, the law of non-contradiction, then this middle view does not really constitute a claim at all because it simply denies what it also affirms. Thus, the middle view is neither a mystery nor a paradox but a logical mess and ought simply to be rejected.
I think the biggest error in this conclusion is that it makes a case for cold hard logic as the sole grouds to reject the Trinity…however he ends up ignoring the otherhalf of the equation…divine revelation, in this case the Scriptures. We both agree there is stuff that is revealed that defies cold hard logic, eg miracles. Also he misunderstands the concept of “mystery” as put out by “Classical Christians”, that term means we take logic provides without excluding the truths of Scripture and dont let our human “logic” trump the divine revealed truths.
I dont have the time to read the rest of the report but I hope to asap.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I didn’t mean to imply that degree of literalness. By spirit I mean that God created (but not out of nothing) our (and Jesus’s) spirit way before we were born on earth. Jesus is the Only Begotten because of the circumstances of his earthly conception.

How do you mean the term “literal Father”?
Also do you have more info on your understanding of “only begotten”, ie why and how?

Your assertion baffles me and doesn’t handle the clear implications of what it means to be a joint-heir with Christ.

When I read “heir” in the Bible I dont see that as co-ruler or equal status, but rather heirs to Heaven and eternal life. The Bible talks about only Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father (which doesnt have to mean literally ‘right hand’) which does indicate a status which we wont share. 13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?-Heb1

7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.-Ti3
For a created object to become co-ruler or same status as the creator undermines the creator’s status.

I posted 5 links addressing it in post #93, wrote up my analysis in post #110, and gave yet another link in the last post.

I will try to get to those links even though it looks like a lot of reading. From the few things I have gotten to read (eg your posts and the first few paragraphs of Blake Ostler paper) I wouldnt consider mormons modalists because they do make a point to distinguish each “person” as distinct, but Im still in the air on what if anything to classify it as.

But not consistently. The popular religion of Israel was sometimes polytheistic. The Bible shows us that in the time King Josiah a major reform was undertaken. The winners get to write scriptures and Josiah’s group were monotheistic, but they left in Deut. 32:8-9.

I have never heard such a thing before, what passages would these be? Also the idea that “winners” write Scripture seems to clash with the idea that truth is not relative, also that usually the Scripture writers were not the “winners”, eg the prophets/apostles who got murdered/mistreated.

Actually Deut. 32:8-9 does have El as the father of YHWH see here:

When the Most High[El Elyon] parcelled out the nations, when he dispersed all mankind, he laid down the boundaries of every people according to the number of the sons of God; but the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] share was his own people, Jacob was his allotted portion. (Deuteronomy 32:8–9 New English Bible)

I will read that link in full asap, also I will ask some Jews what they think. Also note that “Jehovah” is an incorrect rendering of the name YHWH so Im not sure why its still listed that way.

Interestly enough both Eusebius and the Psuedo-Clementine Recognitions equate Jehovah with Christ and the Most High with the Father.

I would be interested to read more on this, Im guessing the above link covers it.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Catholic Dude:

Here is what I have from one of my old threads:I found this, scriptures.lds.org/gsg/gdgdhd

The Father and the Son personally visited Joseph Smith

in the Sacred Grove, in the spring of 1820, near Manchester, New York, in the opening of the dispensation of the fulness of times (JS-H 1: 11-20).

Just wantedd to ask about this part earlier in the thread. Personally meaning a vision, are we speaking like the burning bush or they stopped in?? I will agree that no man can see God, thus why Christ went through all the trouble.

Besides I have problems believing Christ lies, He said He would come back, not stop in beforehand for a walk in a garden.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

Moromons do not believe in the Trinity.

I think I have rasied some issues with this type of summary of LDS beliefs already

First it is wrong to say Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity unless the “Orthodox Trinity” is meant with its underlying assumption of creation ex nihilo. There are other versions and possibilities for the Trinity that LDS do believe in. I think saying that LDS don’t believe in the Trinity can give people the wrong impression that LDS reject New Testament passages on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This isn’t the case at all.

They don’t even believe in God as an eternally divine being without begining or end.

Because of these prominent counter-examples of mormon thought I have already discussed (Ostler, Robinson, Bickmore, and Paulsen), I would rephrase it as: Mormons believe that God has always existed and is without beginning or end. While LDS affirm scripture passages that seem to demonstrate God has been divine from the beginning or for eternity, some reason that He may not have been divine before the beginning (to accomodate non-canonical and not-in-current-lesson-manuals teachings about the possibility of God the Father having a Father).

They believe in an endless series of men who (having obtained “further light and knowledge”) “worked out their salvation”, obtained exaltation and became Gods.

LDS believe men have the potential to obtain exhaltation and become gods (having obtained “further light and knowledge”) and “worked out their salvation”. Some LDS might follow non-canonical, not in any recent teaching cycle, speculation that there have been an endless series of such men in the past.

They have literal offspring and populate planets with them and the process repeats in cyclical fashion.

LDS believe exhaltation brings with it the blessing of “eternal increase” a scriptural phrase usually associated with the creation of new spirit offspring. Some mormons might speculate about where these offspring will experience a mortality similiar to their own. Some mormons have articulated that God the Father is the fount of all divinity, therefore these offspring will worship the Father as God instead; leaving open whether the pattern completely repeats itself or not.

That is false doctrine.

Mormons respect majick’s right to pass judgement on what he thinks is LDS doctrine.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Kitty Chan:

Just wantedd to ask about this part earlier in the thread. Personally meaning a vision, are we speaking like the burning bush or they stopped in?? I will agree that no man can see God, thus why Christ went through all the trouble.

I think the closest example of Joseph Smith’s vision in the one Stephen had in Acts 7:55-56. Unfortunately Stephen died. I will suggest a way around John’s statement that no man can see God and live is that God is powerful enough to preserve someone’s life by transfiguring them while appearing to them. We see something like this happening with Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration as they see Jesus in all his Glory.

Besides I have problems believing Christ lies,

And here I thought I was the only one.

He said He would come back, not stop in beforehand for a walk in a garden.

I think you are referring to the angels in ACTS 1:11 who tell them that Christ will come back in the showy manner in which he had just ascended. While Christ will come back that way in a public manner, that doesn’t preclude him from making private appearances to the likes of Paul, Stephen, and Joseph Smith.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude:

mormon fool-Scriptures
It seems to be saying that Jesus is called the “Son” simply beacuse he hadnt attained the status of the Father yet,

That is a slight extrapolation from the text. Let us just leave it at one reason for the Son being called the Son is that didn’t have the fullness at first. I regard at “first” to be the time when John first met Jesus in mortality. I take it to mean that Jesus passed through a veil of forgetfulness, like the rest of us, and so, for a time did not remember his pre-mortal existence. As he grew in stature to adulthood, little by little he learned about his divinity and gradually recovered the glory he had with the Father in pre-mortality.

Jesus also might be called the Son for other reasons not mentioned in this text. As in a Son of a Father, referring to the Father’s role in both the creation of Jesus spirit from pre-existing intelligence and Jesus’s mortal conception.

so where does this lead…does the “Son” stay a “Son” after he receives the “fullness”?

He is still called the Son to remind people of his role in bringing about salvation and to help define his relationship in the Godhead.

This doctrine 93 sounds a lot like John 1, but what about “the Word was God”? If the Word was God then how is it lacking the fulness?

See if you can follow me here. Jesus did enjoy the fullness before his mortality, but by coming to earth he initially had to sacrifice it for a higher purpose. Through his sinlessness and successfully passing through trials, Jesus got the fullness back as an example of how others can progress to obtain a fullness.

I think the biggest error in this conclusion is that it makes a case for cold hard logic as the sole grouds to reject the Trinity…
I agree Ostler is a little too tough on the traditional Trinity, I wouldn’t let it bother you because it doesn’t look like he is trying to understand it in this article. What is important is how he handles accusations that Mormons are modalist and argues that the LDS God is always divine.

How do you mean the term “literal Father”?
Also do you have more info on your understanding of “only begotten”, ie why and how?

By literal Father I mean that he created our spirit bodies. By “Only Begotten” I believe term refers exclusively to Jesus. I think it definitely commemorates that Jesus did not have a mortal Father when he came to Earth but a Heavenly one. I also suspect the term helps set Christ off as the first spiritual creation of his Father.

When I read “heir” in the Bible I dont see that as co-ruler or equal status, but rather heirs to Heaven and eternal life. The Bible talks about only Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father (which doesnt have to mean literally ‘right hand’) which does indicate a status which we wont share.

When I think of “heir” I think less in terms of co-ruler and more in terms of sub-ruler. Jesus gets to be at the right hand, but other exhalted children will be close by and will enjoy similiar rights and privileges that Jesus does.

For a created object to become co-ruler or same status as the creator undermines the creator’s status.

That might be one way of looking at it. Another way would find it selfish not to share or a lack of power if a God can’t raise someone up to His level.

I have never heard such a thing before, what passages would these be?

Welcome to the Documentary Hypothesis and the Deuteronomist. Singling out passages would be tough for me, but the ones I have in mind are suppossedly from deutero-Isaiah in Is. 43 and 44 that read very monotheistically.

Also the idea that “winners” write Scripture seems to clash with the idea that truth is not relative, also that usually the Scripture writers were not the “winners”, eg the prophets/apostles who got murdered/mistreated.

It isn’t so much that truth is relative, it is more that different groups have different ways of expressing it. For example the New Testament does a better job distinguishing between Christ and God the Father (as you have pointed out already). One could say that one group has had more revealed to them than another group. Or that groups had different things revealed to them. There is also a tendency to mix revealed truth with human wisdom. Often we see different groups having the same original deposit of faith develop differently. The winners win by attracting the most resilient followers who will keep their inspired writing in circulation from generation to generation.

–fool

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

I think I have rasied some issues with this type of summary of LDS beliefs already

First it is wrong to say Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity unless the “Orthodox Trinity” is meant with its underlying assumption of creation ex nihilo. There are other versions and possibilities for the Trinity that LDS do believe in. I think saying that LDS don’t believe in the Trinity can give people the wrong impression that LDS reject New Testament passages on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This isn’t the case at all.

Let’s get specific. The Father, son and Holy Spirit is one God. That is Trinitarian. LDS doctrine can claim “one in purpose” but it would be a huge stretch to state that is a beleif in the Trinity. Further, it has been shown that LDS have not always taught even that much. I do not allow for LDS doctrinal development on this because they claim Jospeh Smith Jr. literally saw God in the person and spoke with him. They claim to know the nature of God by divine revelation and have shown a pattern of specific question and answer format in their proprietary “revelations”. (D&C) I would bring up the nature of God himself as well but that is better addressed further down.
mormon fool:

Because of these prominent counter-examples of mormon thought I have already discussed (Ostler, Robinson, Bickmore, and Paulsen), I would rephrase it as: Mormons believe that God has always existed and is without beginning or end. While LDS affirm scripture passages that seem to demonstrate God has been divine from the beginning or for eternity, some reason that He may not have been divine before the beginning (to accomodate non-canonical and not-in-current-lesson-manuals teachings about the possibility of God the Father having a Father).

at the risk of ad hominem, “who are Ostler, Robinson, et al”? (rhetorical question) They do not speak for the LDS church or the RCC and thus are of limited value in this discussion. (I admit that there is academic merit in considering the words of those who have studied any subject) I think though that these examples pale in comparison to written addresses from the first presidency and quorum of twelve apostles to the CoJCoLDS which have never been “overturned” by subsequent LDS leaders that are very specific on this. I see no way to get around the fact that LDS leaders have stated in no uncertain terms that God was once a man like us. That he had a God who was his literal father and that he is now a resurected and glorified being who has ACHIEVED his exaltation. That we, like Jesus and Satan are his literal offspring and that we MAY achieve our own exaltation and have literal offspring ourselves who will populate a world of our own someday. That this “system” has always been in existence and always will be. The belief that all beings, divine or not, have always EXISTED (as intelligences then spirit children then mortal beings then angels, Gods, etc.) does not serve to show an eternal God. It shows he always existed but not that he was always God. I would point out the D&C penchant for making terms such as “everlasting to everlasting” relativley meaningless since they do NOT mean “always”.
mormon fool:

LDS believe men have the potential to obtain exhaltation and become gods (having obtained “further light and knowledge”) and “worked out their salvation”. Some LDS might follow non-canonical, not in any recent teaching cycle, speculation that there have been an endless series of such men in the past.

water it down all you want but we know that many crucial elements of exaltation are “non-canonical, not in any recent teaching cycle”. (Temple ordinances certainly) I think the current Gospel Doctrine manual does in fact promote the doctrine of eternal progression as contained in the LDS publication that amgid provided us on this thread. I’m sure many LDS wave it off as speculation and many quite frankly choose not to think about such things. It doesn’t change the fact that LDS prophets have claimed that this eternal truth made known by divine revelation. If you want to say that previous LDS “prophets” taught false doctrine and/or led the LDS church in false practices then I agree. I don’t think that bodes well for the authenticity of Gordon B. Hinkley as a prophet. I would also make note of the fact that unlike Adam-God (which was firmly denounced by Spencer W. Kimball) the doctrine of eternal progression has never been “overturned”. The closest would be Gordon B. Hinkley stating that he didn’t know if it was taught or emphasized and that we don’t know much about it.

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

LDS believe exhaltation brings with it the blessing of “eternal increase” a scriptural phrase usually associated with the creation of new spirit offspring. Some mormons might speculate about where these offspring will experience a mortality similiar to their own. Some mormons have articulated that God the Father is the fount of all divinity, therefore these offspring will worship the Father as God instead; leaving open whether the pattern completely repeats itself or not.

Please reread amgids reference on this. The first presidency and quorum af twelve apostles is more than “some mormons”. We have seen numerous examples in the teachings of LDS “prophets” that are very specific in this. No speculation needed. It has been claimed by the leadershiop of the LDS church that God was a man and that he had a God himself. Parents too. I think the question was decisively answered in that publication.
mormon fool:

Mormons respect majick’s right to pass judgement on what he thinks is LDS doctrine.

–fool

It’s not so much waht I “think” is LDS doctrine it is what the first presidency of the CoJCoLDS and the quorum of twelve apostles have publicly stated in writing is LDS doctrine. I certainly judge that as false. Do you disagree? (on wether that is false doctrine AND if that is LDS doctrine)

 

[amgid]

mormon fool:

Nevertheless I will grant that Jehovah as used in the the OT may not specifically refer to Jesus even though many NT passages make the connection. Indeed using NT evidence seems to indicate the title is applied to multiple persons.

I had a lengthy discussion with a JW once about this on another discussion board a couple of years ago; and came to the conclusion that the OT references to Jesus being Jehovah are pretty overwhelming—although the NT text (and sometimes LDS scripture) is required to establish the connection. Here are the highlights. In all of these verses of course LORD is a translation for Jehovah:

And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD {Jehovah} said unto me, cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I {Jehovah/Jesus} was priced at of them. . . . (Zechariah 11:12-13.)
Cf Matthew 27:9.

In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I {LORD/Jehovah} will seek to destroy all nations that shall come against Jerusalem. And I {LORD/Jehovah} will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me {Jehovah} whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him . . . (Zechariah 12:8-10.)
Cf John 19:37; D&C 45:51.

Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his {LORD/Jehovah’s} feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in twain in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west… (Zechariah 14:3-4.)

And the LORD shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall be one LORD, and his name one. (Zechariah 14: 9-10.)
Cf D&C 45:47-53.

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise up unto David a righteous branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgement and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD {Jehovah} OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Jeremiah 23:5-6.)
amgid

 

[majick275]

There is no “jehovah” as an individual name. Yahweh, Adonai, Elohim. These are all ways to simply say GOD. Remember what God told Moses when asked what his name was. I AM! These are all different ways of either saying that or “Lord”. There is one God and he is not a being like us. He is God. The idea of a common name like we have on earth does not seem very biblical.
Some ways that God is designated in the Bible include:
El-Elyon, “The Most High God”,
Jehovah-Jirah, “The Lord will provide”,
Jehovah-Shalom, “The Lord of Peace”,
El-Shaddai, “The Almighty God”.
Elohim. This is a general Hebrew term for Deity that designates God as our Creator and the object of all true worship.
When the name Jehovah (or Yahweh, as modern scholars believe it should be written) is used in the Hebrew text, it is written as “LORD” in our English Bibles. Notice that all the letters are capitalized. In some instances Jehovah is also written as “GOD.”
Adonai. When this word is used in the Hebrew text of Scripture, it is written as “Lord” in the King James Bible. Notice that it is spelled with a capital “L” and lower case “ord.” It means “Sovereign,” or “Master,” and emphasizes the Lordship of God.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Let’s get specific. The Father, son and Holy Spirit is one God. That is Trinitarian.

LDS doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God:

2 Nephi 31:

21 . . . And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

3 Nephi 11:

27 . . . for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

3 Nephi 20:

35 . . . and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of the Father; and the Father and I are one.

3 Nephi 28:

10 . . . and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;

Mormon 7:

7 . . . to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, . . .

D&C 20:

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

D&C 50:

43 And the Father and I are one. I am in the Father and the Father in me; and inasmuch as ye have received me, ye are in me and I in you.

D&C 93:

3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one–

LDS doctrine can claim “one in purpose”

And so does the Bible.

The rest of your post is a load of nonsense, and is designed to confuse the issue, and obfuscate the debate, and bamboozle the unwary, and pull wooll over people’s eyes, and does not deserve a reply.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

LDS doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God:

2 Nephi 31:

21 . . . And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

3 Nephi 11:

27 . . . for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

3 Nephi 20:

35 . . . and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of the Father; and the Father and I are one.

3 Nephi 28:

10 . . . and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;

Mormon 7:

7 . . . to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, . . .

D&C 20:

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

D&C 50:

43 And the Father and I are one. I am in the Father and the Father in me; and inasmuch as ye have received me, ye are in me and I in you.

D&C 93:

3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one–
And so does the Bible.

Which is interesting since it contradicts the so many other “scriptures” that tell us that (or have told us in the past) that there is only the Father and the Son (Lectures on Faith) or that they are seperate beings (JS-History) or the vast amount of LDS teaching that Jesus is the LITERAL son of God which means there was a time when there was only God the Father. What about the Holy Ghost being the Son of God? (Heber C. Kimball JoD) Is Jesus ever prayed to in by LDS? What about the Holy Spirit? is the Holy Spirit ever invoked by LDS outside of baptism?

amgid:

The rest of your post is a load of nonsense, and is designed to confuse the issue, and obfuscate the debate, and bamboozle the unwary, and pull wooll over people’s eyes, and does not deserve a reply.

amgid

LOL that’s rich coming from you who tried so hard to deny that Eternal Progression isn’t LDS doctrine. Look, The LDS church has always taught that God was once a man and that we have a heavenly mother too. That we were a literal family in the pre-existence who voted on the plan of salvation and “elected” our brother Jesus to be our saviour. read chapter 2 of the current Gospel Principles lesson manual. It’s online at LDS.org you might also look at teachings of the presidents of the church: Brigham Young. Chapter 13 is titled “Preparing for Eternal Progression”.
The other items in my post were not “gobbledy-gook”. They were linguistic facts. There are multiple words in the Bible used to describe God. To mistake those are personal names for different individuals is incorrect.

I’ll agree with every one of your attempts to prove that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God though.

 

[majick275]

You should look at chapter 47 of Gospel Principles while your at LDS.org. It contains this quote:

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).

You should read that whole chapter to get the correct context. This lesson manual is designed for teaching new members. Gotta do the milk before meat when teaching that eternal progression you know.

I just don’t see that type of doctrine being compatible with the Trinity. The Father, Son and holy Spirit are one God. The ONLY God, ever.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

There is no “jehovah” as an individual name. Yahweh, Adonai, Elohim. These are all ways to simply say GOD. Remember what God told Moses when asked what his name was. I AM! These are all different ways of either saying that or “Lord”. There is one God and he is not a being like us. He is God. The idea of a common name like we have on earth does not seem very biblical.
Some ways that God is designated in the Bible include:
El-Elyon, “The Most High God”,
Jehovah-Jirah, “The Lord will provide”,
Jehovah-Shalom, “The Lord of Peace”,
El-Shaddai, “The Almighty God”.
Elohim. This is a general Hebrew term for Deity that designates God as our Creator and the object of all true worship.
When the name Jehovah (or Yahweh, as modern scholars believe it should be written) is used in the Hebrew text, it is written as “LORD” in our English Bibles. Notice that all the letters are capitalized. In some instances Jehovah is also written as “GOD.”
Adonai. When this word is used in the Hebrew text of Scripture, it is written as “Lord” in the King James Bible. Notice that it is spelled with a capital “L” and lower case “ord.” It means “Sovereign,” or “Master,” and emphasizes the Lordship of God.

So are you saying that Jesus is not Jehovah?

amgid

 

[majick275]

I’m saying it’s not that simple. Jesus IS God therefore it is entirely okay to refer to him as Jehovah, or Lord or I AM or Yahweh or God. The Trinity is consubstantial, co-equal and completely without begining or end. Therefore Jesus IS the father and also the Spirit, yet he is also very much Jesus and possessed of dual nature. Fully man AND Fully God.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

mormon fool:

I think the closest example of Joseph Smith’s vision in the one Stephen had in Acts 7:55-56. Unfortunately Stephen died. I will suggest a way around John’s statement that no man can see God and live is that God is powerful enough to preserve someone’s life by transfiguring them while appearing to them. We see something like this happening with Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration as they see Jesus in all his Glory.
I think you are referring to the angels in ACTS 1:11 who tell them that Christ will come back in the showy manner in which he had just ascended. While Christ will come back that way in a public manner, that doesn’t preclude him from making private appearances to the likes of Paul, Stephen, and Joseph Smith.

–fool

thank you for your answer. I wasnt thinking of the angels I was thinking of when Jesus said Himself “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I WILL COME AGAIN, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” John 14:3

Maybe it might be showy but I think He deserves it,

I think He made appearances but it wasnt Him returning. I just cant reconcile how we can jump over history to Joeseph Smith and forget all the potentials inbetween. Mind you there hasnt been a lack of visions maybe thats what Joesph had, that I could accept. But still if Jesus is perfect and makes no mistakes then why jump over time and rewrite the bible?

Surely there was darker times before Joesph that deserved amendments if God was going to amend things, the whole permise just doesnt make sense.