OK, I Am Confused. Do Mormons Believe In The Trinity?

[Religio71]

Religio71,
Perhaps you didn’t feel the need to worship Jesus Christ when you were LDS, but I feel very much inclined to worship Jesus as the Savior, the Redeemer of my soul, the Good Shepherd, the Light of the world, the Father of my spiritual rebirth, and the Liberator of the captives who are bound. If I were in His presence, I would fall down and kiss His feet with many tears of gratitude and love, and pray to Him just as though He were Heavenly Father, yet knowing He is the Son of God, our Perfect Advocate with the Father. I know He lives as well as I know anything I can touch and feel in this world. I worship Him with all of my heart and soul.

Why are there various LDS that say we should not pray to Jesus, but we should pray through Him, as the mediator? I have seen this in a number of places, including when I was LDS, that prayers should be addressed to God the Father, through, and not to Christ. I believe Elder McConkie, an Apostle, said that we should not pray to Christ.

"Elder Bruce R. McConkie clearly explained what our relationship with each member of the Godhead should be, pointing out that some misguided members of the Church may “begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed” with him. This is wrong, said Elder McConkie. We should pray directly to the Father, and he will answer our prayers as he sees fit. Elder McConkie also pointed out that we should maintain an attitude of reverence for all the members of the Godhead. (See “Our Relationship with the Lord,” in Brigham Young University 1981–82 Fireside and Devotional Speeches, Provo: Brigham Young University, 1982, pp. 97–103.) "

 

[Catholic20064]

Why are there various LDS that say we should not pray to Jesus, but we should pray through Him, as the mediator? I have seen this in a number of places, including when I was LDS, that prayers should be addressed to God the Father, through, and not to Christ. I believe Elder McConkie, an Apostle, said that we should not pray to Christ.

"Elder Bruce R. McConkie clearly explained what our relationship with each member of the Godhead should be, pointing out that some misguided members of the Church may “begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed” with him. This is wrong, said Elder McConkie. We should pray directly to the Father, and he will answer our prayers as he sees fit. Elder McConkie also pointed out that we should maintain an attitude of reverence for all the members of the Godhead. (See “Our Relationship with the Lord,” in Brigham Young University 1981–82 Fireside and Devotional Speeches, Provo: Brigham Young University, 1982, pp. 97–103.) "

And yet in the Book of Mormon we have people praying directly to Christ when he supposedly came to the Nephites. I guess in a way you are praying to Christ when you pray through him.

 

[Bill_Pick]

The LDS deny the Christian belief concerning Jesus. For them Christ is “a” god, just one of millions of such gods. Mormons do however, honor Him as being “first-born” of the many pre-existent spirits.

Since Mormons believe that mortal man can attain the same godhood that Jesus has, there is no radical difference between Jesus and man on this earth. The difference is rather one of timing and degree since Christ has already attained His godhood and progressed far along in it. The divinity of Jesus is not unique by LDS standards.

. Jesus was married to several women and the marriage feast at Cana in Galilee was His own wedding reception. This doctrine is not openly taught today, but it was very popular among Mormons during Brigham Young’s time and during the polygamy period. Why is it not being taught today?

 

[ParkerD]

Why are there various LDS that say we should not pray to Jesus, but we should pray through Him, as the mediator? I have seen this in a number of places, including when I was LDS, that prayers should be addressed to God the Father, through, and not to Christ. I believe Elder McConkie, an Apostle, said that we should not pray to Christ.

"Elder Bruce R. McConkie clearly explained what our relationship with each member of the Godhead should be, pointing out that some misguided members of the Church may “begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed” with him. This is wrong, said Elder McConkie. We should pray directly to the Father, and he will answer our prayers as he sees fit. Elder McConkie also pointed out that we should maintain an attitude of reverence for all the members of the Godhead. (See “Our Relationship with the Lord,” in Brigham Young University 1981–82 Fireside and Devotional Speeches, Provo: Brigham Young University, 1982, pp. 97–103.) "

Religio71,
Thanks for the question to clarify. The situations in the scriptures when people were in the presence of Jesus Christ personally, besides when He was on earth in His physical ministry, are not many, but the one in the Book of Mormon 3 Nephi is significant in that it describes the group as praying to Jesus Christ and He acknowledges their prayers as being fully righteous and acceptable.

The difference for a person today would be that if they pray to Jesus (not being in His physical presence) and are LDS, then they have for whatever reason come to have the feeling that they have a unique relationship with Him, and that can lead to trouble for that person because they may feel they are entitled to “special” revelations and thus could be more readily deceived by “false spirits” who seek to deceive the “very elect.”

The pattern of prayer for LDS is as much a protection from “false and deceptive spirits” as it is to claim the rightful and appropriate guidance of the Holy Ghost and of the spirit of Christ, through whose guidance those who listen and heed the promptings will not be deceived.

 

[Religio71]

And yet in the Book of Mormon we have people praying directly to Christ when he supposedly came to the Nephites. I guess in a way you are praying to Christ when you pray through him.

Yeah, in the same Ensign article I quoted above, they only prayed to Jesus because he was there. However the article then goes on to say that afterwards, the Nephites continued to only pray in the name of Christ, and not to Him. And of course an “Apostle” said it is wrong to pray to Jesus.

 

[Religio71]

sorry, here’s the reference article in The Ensign:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=44fed7630a27b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

 

[Finrock]

also, to add to the confusion that the LDS position on God has (even though they pretend that it is more logical than the traditional, Triune, God), LDS will sometimes say that yes, Jesus Christ is God, as he is part of the Godhead. Then other times they will say that the Father is the one God, as he is over Jesus Christ. This is evident in their emphasis on God the Father and his son, Jesus Christ. So which is it, is God the Father the supreme God, or is Jesus Christ equal to the Father? If he isn’t, how can we say that Jesus is God? Can we worship Jesus if he is God? LDS do not worship Jesus Christ, or pray to Him, even though apparently he is God according to them. They only pray to and worship the Father.

Good morning Religio71! I hope you are having a good day today.

Good questions and I agree that sometimes it is difficult to understand the different opinions and views of the Godhead that various people have. That’s why I think it is helpful and important to go to official sources to understand the doctrine. Sunstone posted the LDS orthodox view of the Godhead as given by the apostle Elder Holland. He accurately described the LDS position that we “…believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance” (Elder Holland). The LDS “Guide to the Scriptures” also speaks to the fact that the Godhead consist of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is true that we adhere to the biblical teaching of subordinationism. We believe that “Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with him” (Guide to the Scriptures). Had Jesus not always deferred to the Father in all things in His supreme example for us on how we should live our lives, we would probably think different about this issue. However, because we observe the commandments that Jesus gave to pray and to worship the Father in His name and because of the perfect unity that exist between the Father and the Son, it isn’t accurate to say that we do not worship Jesus (John 4:23; Matt. 6:6,9; Col. 1:3). Indeed, by worshiping the Father we are worshiping the Son. We worship Jesus as our Savior, our Redeemer, our Master, and as our God. He is the Creator. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is Jehovah, spoken of in the Old Testament. That is the Jesus we believe in and worship.

Thank you for your post and questions and for giving me the opportunity to perhaps clarify, understandably, some common misconceptions.

Be well, Religio71!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Catholic20064]

Good morning Religio71! I hope you are having a good day today.

Good questions and I agree that sometimes it is difficult to understand the different opinions and views of the Godhead that various people have. That’s why I think it is helpful and important to go to official sources to understand the doctrine. Sunstone posted the LDS orthodox view of the Godhead as given by the apostle Elder Holland. He accurately described the LDS position that we “…believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance” (Elder Holland). The LDS “Guide to the Scriptures” also speaks to the fact that the Godhead consist of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is true that we adhere to the biblical teaching of subordinationism. We believe that “Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with him” (Guide to the Scriptures). Had Jesus not always deferred to the Father in all things in His supreme example for us on how we should live our lives, we would probably think different about this issue. However, because we observe the commandments that Jesus gave to pray and to worship the Father in His name and because of the perfect unity that exist between the Father and the Son, it isn’t accurate to say that we do not worship Jesus (John 4:23; Matt. 6:6,9; Col. 1:3). Indeed, by worshiping the Father we are worshiping the Son. We worship Jesus as our Savior, our Redeemer, our Master, and as our God. He is the Creator. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is Jehovah, spoken of in the Old Testament. That is the Jesus we believe in and worship.

Thank you for your post and questions and for giving me the opportunity to perhaps clarify, understandably, some common misconceptions.

Be well, Religio71!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Subordinationism according to Wikipedia:

“Subordinationism is a doctrine in Christian theology which holds that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not merely relationally subordinate to God the Father, but also subordinate in nature and being. This implies a hierarchical view of the Trinity, and the inferiority of the Son and the Spirit.”

Now I know Wikipedia is not the best place to look for a definition, but it’s quick. And so the question I have for you – are the Son and the Spirit less than the Father in Nature and Being? My guess is that LDS would hold they are the same in nature and being while subordinating themselves to God in their relationship. So I’m trying to see if there is really a difference between how LDS see them as subordinate and how a Catholic might see them as subordinate. I don’t think a Catholic would argue they subordinate themselves to God the Father in their thoughts and actions, but Catholics would definitely argue they are not subordinate in their essence – they are equal in essence.

 

[ParkerD]

Subordinationism according to Wikipedia:

“Subordinationism is a doctrine in Christian theology which holds that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not merely relationally subordinate to God the Father, but also subordinate in nature and being. This implies a hierarchical view of the Trinity, and the inferiority of the Son and the Spirit.”

Now I know Wikipedia is not the best place to look for a definition, but it’s quick. And so the question I have for you – are the Son and the Spirit less than the Father in Nature and Being? My guess is that LDS would hold they are the same in nature and being while subordinating themselves to God in their relationship. So I’m trying to see if there is really a difference between how LDS see them as subordinate and how a Catholic might see them as subordinate. I don’t think a Catholic would argue they subordinate themselves to God the Father in their thoughts and actions, but Catholics would definitely argue they are not subordinate in their essence – they are equal in essence.

Catholic20064,
What I don’t understand with all this emphasis I have observed here in this forum on the idea of “subordination”, is what then does a person understand by the terms “omniscience” and “omnipotence”? To me, “omniscience” and “omnipotence” mean that if there is one or if there are three with these qualities, they will act in exactly and precisely the same way given a set of circumstances, because they are all-knowing and all-loving and all-powerful. They know exactly the same things in exactly the same way. One will decide exactly what the other one would decide, and in fact they know each others’ thoughts. Subordination is not in the picture. It is an illusory concept to apply to the Godhead. It is thinking in human terms, making an assumption that does not grasp the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

 

[Catholic20064]

Catholic20064,
What I don’t understand with all this emphasis I have observed here in this forum on the idea of “subordination”, is what then does a person understand by the terms “omniscience” and “omnipotence”? To me, “omniscience” and “omnipotence” mean that if there is one or if there are three with these qualities, they will act in exactly and precisely the same way given a set of circumstances, because they are all-knowing and all-loving and all-powerful. They know exactly the same things in exactly the same way. One will decide exactly what the other one would decide, and in fact they know each others’ thoughts. Subordination is not in the picture. It is an illusory concept to apply to the Godhead. It is thinking in human terms, making an assumption that does not grasp the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

I agree, but there are Mormons here who keep arguing that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father and that is the difference between Trinitarians and LDS. So you are arguing against the Mormons here, not me. I agree with what you have said.

 

[Sunstone]

Since we’ve swerved into discussing the Mormon concept of God, I thought I’d share an article on the subject from a well-informed Mormon. It’s called “Defining the Mormon Doctrine of Deity” and can be found here:

home.earthlink.net/~vanehale/resourcelibrary/id18.html

Those interested in Mormon “Binatarianism” need look no further than the 5th of the Lectures on Faith, which were part of the Mormon Doctrine & Covenants from 1835-1920.

I’ll also offer some sources regarding what Religio71 said in post #871. Joseph Smith’s understanding of the concept of God evolved over time. Those who are interested can find an article on the subject at:

home.earthlink.net/~vanehale/resourcelibrary/id16.html

As to Brigham Young teaching that Adam was God, there is no reasonable doubt that he did. In addition to the numerous, documented statements, there was a Mormon hymn in 1856 that referred to it and a “lecture at the veil” in the St. George temple.

I can provide the documented statements and pertinent hymn text on request.

I am also certain of Mormon opposition to Brigham Young’s Adam-God teaching, most famously by the Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt, but also by Mormon leaders such as Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, and George Q. Cannon. As Brigham Young himself once said, “I have known many times I have preached wrong but I asked the Father in the name of Jesus to take it from the minds of the people and I believe he always did drop the veil over it.” (Thomas Bullock minutes, May 8, 1854, LDS Church Historical Department)

Of his own Adam-God teaching, Brigham Young said:

“[The] subject… does not immediately concern yours or my welfare… I do not pretend to say the the items of doctrine and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know.” (October 8, 1854, Brigham Young Collection, HDC)

As an example of opposition to Brigham Young’s Adam-God teaching, I offer what Joseph F. Smith wrote on the matter in 1897:

"Prest. Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject [of Adam God]. What he said was not given as a revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church nor upon the consciences of any of the members thereof . . . It is thought, even if there is truth in it, that the bare mention made by Prest. Young, without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth, was unfortunate to say the least.

. . . While I am not authorized to sit in judgment upon Prest. Young, I am at liberty to test the truth of his words or utterences by the revealed and accepted word of God. Anything uttered by man which is contrary to the Divine law must fall, while that only which is in harmony with it can remain or stand." (Joseph F. Smith to A. Saxey, January 7, 1897, HDC)

I hope my comments, sources, and quotes will be received in the spirit that they’ve been sent–in a spirit of accuracy and understanding. I am certainly open to further questions and appreciate the sincerity of those engaging in this discussion.

 

[Jerusha]

Welcome back. You are a breath of fresh air.

 

[Finrock]

Catholic20064,
What I don’t understand with all this emphasis I have observed here in this forum on the idea of “subordination”, is what then does a person understand by the terms “omniscience” and “omnipotence”? To me, “omniscience” and “omnipotence” mean that if there is one or if there are three with these qualities, they will act in exactly and precisely the same way given a set of circumstances, because they are all-knowing and all-loving and all-powerful. They know exactly the same things in exactly the same way. One will decide exactly what the other one would decide, and in fact they know each others’ thoughts. Subordination is not in the picture. It is an illusory concept to apply to the Godhead. It is thinking in human terms, making an assumption that does not grasp the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

Hey ParkerD! How are you today? This Michigan weather is driving me nuts! One day its cold, the next day its warm. Anyways, I hope you are doing well.

There are a lot of things on this subject matter that I do not fully understand. For instance, I don’t fully understand what the Savior meant when he said, “…for my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). I am not absolutely certain what it means when in the scriptures we read that Jesus Christ which Christ is Greek meaning “the anointed”, was anointed and sent by the Father to deliver us from our sins (Luke 4:18). Or that Jesus was anointed by the Father with the Holy Ghost and with power (Acts 10:38). And further, I do not know for certain what it means when Jesus said, "[f]or as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself (John 5:26; 1 Cor. 11:3). However, to me this sounds like Jesus derived His calling and was directed by the Father to do the work that He did. In short, Jesus’ authority and power seems to have come from the Father (1 Cor. 15:28). I think in this sense, Jesus is subordinate to the Father, because His anointing has come under the direction and the power of the Father.

On one thing I am almost certain on is that Jesus in the pre-existance submitted to the Father’s will (Moses 4:2). He came to earth not to do the his own will, but to do the Father’s will (Luke 22:42; John 5:30; John 8:29). In order for what Jesus said to be meaningful, there had to be a real distinction between the acting agents. In other words, Jesus had to be capable of choosing contrary to the Father’s will. In this sense as well, I believe, Jesus subordinated His will to the Father’s will.

Of course, there is the distinction of Jesus’ pre-mortal life, his mortal life and his post-mortal life. I guess this is where some of my uncertainty comes in to play. What, if any, distinction is there to this question when considering Jesus’ recorded mortal words in the scriptures about His subordination to the Father and His station before earth life and now as a glorified being in Heaven?

If we consider the omniscience and the omnipotence of the Son it brings in to question the whole notion of free agents, who although choose to act in perfect unity, can act independently. Many philosophical dilemmas to overcome on the free agency part when speaking from an omniscience point-of-view, but that is neither here nor there. But, at least instrinsically, it doesn’t seem impossible for the Son to subject or to defer Himself to the Father, knowing His glory was derived from the Father, even when they are equal in every way. I guess I see Jesus’ subordination now as one of respect and honor given to the Father.

Anyways, the thoughts in this post may end up being broken and disjointed because I’ve come back to it on and off through-out the day as time allowed. If I don’t make sense in something, please allow me to try and clarify my meaning. Also, if you wish, please share your thoughts and perspectives on this subject matter. Lastly, just to make my intentions clear, I am not intending to take a dogmatic position here, but rather I am wanting to have an open dialogue to share ideas and thoughts.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Scriptorian]

Scriptorian, maybe this example can help.

H20 can be an example of this.

Now we know that H20 can be 3 different substances but infact have the exact same essence. How? Water,steam and ice appear to be 3 different substances altogether however they all carry 2 part hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. In other words their appearance are different but they have the same structure!

This is the same with the trinity, 1 god = 3 divine persons or h20 = 3 different substances.

Does that help?

See that is perfectly clear. Unfortunately, as Religio pointed out, it is also not an accurate analogy for the Catholic belief (though in my estimation, a better idea).

My thoughts were actually the same, though, when I read your post. Unlike water, God can be in his three different “states” at the same time according to Catholic dogma. Which really makes no sense whatsoever, but nevertheless is perpetuated as reasonable.

Also, scripturally, the three states/persons thing doesn’t work either. There are times when Jesus and the Holy Ghost are present at the same time. Also, there are scenes in which holy men see Jesus at the right hand of God. This could not be the case if they were only “allowed” to be one person at a time.

I like your answer better than the “official” Catechism, and I would give you a cookie if Religio would let me.

 

[cothrige]

See that is perfectly clear. Unfortunately, as Religio pointed out, it is also not an accurate analogy for the Catholic belief (though in my estimation, a better idea).

My thoughts were actually the same, though, when I read your post. Unlike water, God can be in his three different “states” at the same time according to Catholic dogma. Which really makes no sense whatsoever, but nevertheless is perpetuated as reasonable.

Also, scripturally, the three states/persons thing doesn’t work either. There are times when Jesus and the Holy Ghost are present at the same time. Also, there are scenes in which holy men see Jesus at the right hand of God. This could not be the case if they were only “allowed” to be one person at a time.

I like your answer better than the “official” Catechism, and I would give you a cookie if Religio would let me.

Of course, Scriptorian, it is impossible to use examples from nature to show the essence of God. It so happens that only God is God, and that means that nothing in nature is the same. That is why it is a mystery. When I see people on TV, experts btw, try to demonstrate or explain what string theory is like, or the space-time coninuum, or what quarks are I am reminded of hearing people try to explain what the Trinity is like. There is nothing which the mind can really embrace to make it clear what these things are like because we have no familiarity with anything similar. Does that mean it isn’t real? No, not really. I am sure much that is beyond human imagination is real, but it does make it hard to explain.

 

[Scriptorian]

Scriptorian, I don’t get how LDS come to the conclusion that we believe that God is completely incomprehensible. We believe that God is Triune, three distinct persons, of one substance, one God. Yes, we cannot fully understand the nature of God, because He is beyond anything that we know. However, we do know that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How is the Catechism entry confusing to you? How is God “eternally incomprehensible”, according to Jeff Lindsay, when He has been revealed in Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man (and not half God and half man, according to LDS Sunday School teachings).

We do not believe in three Gods. Do you? The one God is three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is only one Divine nature. That one nature (or Divine substance) is not divided amongst the three Persons. Each Person of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is fully Divine, fully God. Each Person literally is what the others are. The eternal nature of each Person is the same.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are completely separate from each other. Catholics do not believe in modalism. However, as much as they are distinct Persons, they all have the same eternal, divine, nature, as they are consubstantial, co-eternal.

That is basically what Catholics believe. It is in contrast to Mormons that believe that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. That Jesus Christ was the first born of many spirit children of the Father. That God the Father lived on an earth like Jesus did, and progressed. The first prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught that God the Father lived on another earth, and was not always God. Catholics believe that God has always existed, and never had a beginning, and does not have an end. He was always divine, and did not live on an earth.

I know most Catholics don’t believe in an incomprehensible God, just in an incomprehensible Catechism. I agree with you that modalism doesn’t work, but you have yet to explain an easy way to understand your doctrine.

Let me see if I can refine the question:

How is it possible for God to be three persons, the same substance, separate beings, one essence, completely spiritual, occasionally physical, unchangeable, and able to change into a human form at will (Jesus)?

If my vocabulary is correct (I am still learning your terms), do you not see the contradiction in these ideas?

---

Obviously, you find our ideas of God contradictory also. How can there be one true and living God if the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct beings and each one God in and of himself? Isn’t that borderline if not blatant polytheism?

Perhaps an analogy of my own, imperfect and inadequate as it might be…

God is like a royal family where princes grow up to be kings, but the king never dies. Every child born to to the King has royal blood and divine potential. But only the completely faithful receive a crown and a authority over the whole kingdom.

Jesus is both king and prince. He reigns over all creation, yet he does not replace his father because there is no death or succession in eternity. A command from Jesus is a command from the father. The word from Jesus is the word from his father. The authority is the same, but the Father will always be the Father. And just as a son can grow up to be like his father, Jesus has become a Father, too, having purchased us with his own blood. He is just like his father in every possible way, including his authority and kingdom.

So, God is title for the whole royal family that reigns in heaven. There is only one God, but several persons.

A question to conclude. Why is the Father called the Most High God unless there were other divine beings to which we could compare him?

 

[Catholic20064]

A question to conclude. Why is the Father called the Most High God unless there were other divine beings to which we could compare him?

If there were other real Gods mentioned in scripture I could see your point, but there aren’t. He is called Most High God simply to emphasize His majesty. There is no inference here that other Gods exist. If you called the king of a country the Most High King to demonstrate the majesty of that King it wouldn’t imply the country had other Kings.

 

[ParkerD]

Hey ParkerD! How are you today?
There are a lot of things on this subject matter that I do not fully understand. For instance, I don’t fully understand what the Savior meant when he said, “…for my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). I am not absolutely certain what it means when in the scriptures we read that Jesus Christ which Christ is Greek meaning “the anointed”, was anointed and sent by the Father to deliver us from our sins (Luke 4:18). Or that Jesus was anointed by the Father with the Holy Ghost and with power (Acts 10:38). And further, I do not know for certain what it means when Jesus said, "[f]or as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself (John 5:26; 1 Cor. 11:3). However, to me this sounds like Jesus derived His calling and was directed by the Father to do the work that He did. In short, Jesus’ authority and power seems to have come from the Father (1 Cor. 15:28). I think in this sense, Jesus is subordinate to the Father, because His anointing has come under the direction and the power of the Father.

On one thing I am almost certain on is that Jesus in the pre-existance submitted to the Father’s will (Moses 4:2). He came to earth not to do the his own will, but to do the Father’s will (Luke 22:42; John 5:30; John 8:29). In order for what Jesus said to be meaningful, there had to be a real distinction between the acting agents. In other words, Jesus had to be capable of choosing contrary to the Father’s will. In this sense as well, I believe, Jesus subordinated His will to the Father’s will.

Of course, there is the distinction of Jesus’ pre-mortal life, his mortal life and his post-mortal life. I guess this is where some of my uncertainty comes in to play. What, if any, distinction is there to this question when considering Jesus’ recorded mortal words in the scriptures about His subordination to the Father and His station before earth life and now as a glorified being in Heaven?

If we consider the omniscience and the omnipotence of the Son it brings in to question the whole notion of free agents, who although choose to act in perfect unity, can act independently. Many philosophical dilemmas to overcome on the free agency part when speaking from an omniscience point-of-view, but that is neither here nor there. But, at least instrinsically, it doesn’t seem impossible for the Son to subject or to defer Himself to the Father, knowing His glory was derived from the Father, even when they are equal in every way. I guess I see Jesus’ subordination now as one of respect and honor given to the Father.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Finrock,
Thanks for all you wrote, and all your posts here in this forum. We have wonderful weather, and I and my family are doing well, thanks.

My personal view is that Jesus’ words were always given in such a way as to be an example to us–He is the pre-eminent example, of course. His Father was God before He was God, so He would always consider that His Father is “greater” than He, but because they have the same omniscience, He knows perfectly what the best possible decision is in each and every situation.

When He said He wasn’t doing His own will, but the will of the Father, then I think He was exemplifying for us how we need to approach the crosses we have to bear in life and the personal dilemmas we may face. We cannot face them alone, nor should we think we can.

He was also expressing that the atonement was so extremely, catistrophically painful for even Him that He had to move away from His instinctive feeling that said in effect “I know the right thing because I have omniscience and I know My Father’s will” to the triumphant yet submissive feeling that said “The truth in My Father’s plan is that this excruciating atonement is the only way for me to be able to Redeem all of these His children whom I love so deeply and compassionately. There is no other way. I choose to do My Father’s will because I absolutely know it is the ONLY way to grant divine grace and mercy to all of these whom I love just as My Father loves them.” He could have chosen not to go through with it, but because of His perfection and omniscience He knew deep within His Spirit and His Mind that He had to go through with it.

Those who progress through His grace and power to a state where they are given a Urim and Thummim and from that see all things clearly, will always be mindful of His perfect example and His perfect love that will always be a beacon and the source of their own power and love. In that sense, they will be dependent upon Him and upon the Father and upon the Holy Ghost, but omniscience will mean that they have been granted access to all the knowledge in the universe as joint-heirs with Christ who gives them that access.

As a final thought, because Jesus had omniscience in the pre-mortal life and understood that His Father’s plan required a voluntary Redeemer and He was willing to be the Savior and Redeemer, He became the “Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world” when He accepted that role and submitted Himself to the one and only possible way for the Redemption of billions of souls. He was being submissive to truth, because He already knew all things and could foresee the wonderful outcome that bringing about His Father’s plan would provide in the universe. He knew in and of Himself–He didn’t need to be convinced by counsel. My personal feeling is that I love Him all the more knowing that His love was so all-encompassing even then, when we were so undeveloped and so reliant upon Him and upon our Father in Heaven.
Thanks for asking for the clarification.

 

[ParkerD]

Finrock,
I have thought that I should add more to my previous comments about the Savior.

I also think of Him as the perfect teacher and always perfectly humble. To convey those attributes, it seems logical to me that He would show the way as a teacher by not highlighting His own omniscience whenever He spoke. He would want us to observe that He was willing to follow His Father, so that we would be willing to follow His Father without hesitation or restraint.

He would want to show us that He was perfectly humble in His attitude and willingness to follow, so that we could sense what it is to be humble in our attitude and willingness to follow Him and to follow the Father. He was teaching us at every moment, and I sense that both He and the Father knew that this teaching method was the absolute best way for us to figure out how to follow them without ever having a false dichotomy of thinking, “I know what is best for myself and others because of my own knowledge.” Christ simply would not want to convey that, because to do so would be to set the wrong example for us.

 

[Religio71]

So, God is title for the whole royal family that reigns in heaven. ** There is only one God, but several persons.**

Yes, Catholics believe this. Like many have said, we believe that God is three separate Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They each are the one Divine Essence/Substance/the thing that makes God, God. My explanation of water approached this. “The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire”.