S
StevenFrancis
Guest
No. They do not believe the concept of trinity shared by Catholocism, Lutherans, Anglican Communion, Baptists, etc.
- Status
A
appaloosablue
Guest
I am a creature CREATED by God, I would never presume that in the life after this one that I would be a god. I cannot be a god because of the nature of being created. God was not created He always was and always will be.
If the errors in the BOM were from Joseph Smith then who has presumed to change them with the LDS Church? If the translations were from God don’t you think that God would have made sure they were correct before giving them to the world?
S
sweetnay
Guest
Well put Paul. ParkerD your “sincere” well wishes have become tiresome,condescending and duplicitous at best. They betray the underlying arrogance held by many lds-sub consciously or not. You truly demonstrate the difference between the belief of being an adopted child of God and a belief in becoming a god. Of course-in a more subtle way, with a smile,beneath a smooth veneer…
S
Scriptorian
Guest
Perhaps the difficulty is in the translation. From the Hebrew, there are several titles for God in holy writ. The most well-known title as used in the Old Testament is Jehovah, or Yahweh. Jehovah is translated as “God.” Another title is Elohim, which literally translated means “God,” “Gods,” or “Head of the Gods.” However, in the English Bible it is only translated as “God.”Well, now you know.
I am not suggesting that perfect unity, as you are presenting it, is impossible to imagine, or that such cannot exist or does not exist. I actually believe that God is perfectly united just as you say, only more so. What I am saying is that this unity as you present it, regardless of how perfect, cannot explain how one can use the singular term God when referring collectively to the LDS Godhead. And, though of course I disagree with you about whether Jesus was praying to himself, this being a basic misunderstanding of Trinitarian dogma, I don’t think it addresses this issue. If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three entirely distinct beings, united even perfectly in purpose and will, one simply cannot call them collectively God.
In the Trinity there are three persons, but they are united not just in purpose or will but in being, and therefore they are one God. There are not three beings, but only one being. While the Trinitarian Dogma itself may be open to dispute, as you would do with your interpretation of that particular verse, it does still answer the question of how we can speak of God, in the singular, while referring to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit collectively. The LDS position, as I understand it, is very different. It rejects any unity in being, which is the only thing making that terminology possible, and yet somehow LDS still speak of the Godhead collectively using the singular word God. I believe this is a self-contradicting position. Either there is one being, God, or more than one being, Gods. Taken as it stands, and given the usage of the term God for the LDS Godhead, there is only one possible understanding of your position. That would be that, while there is no unity in being in the Godhead, the unity in purpose and will among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is so perfect that it means they have unity in being. I just don’t think that approach is tenable.
Now, without getting bogged down in a Hebrew lesson, we believe that Elohim is God the Father and Jehovah is God the Son. Elohim, however, can be both a singular and a plural word. The “-im” suffix is usually reserved for plurality as in “cherubim.”
Here is a more complete Hebrew lesson if you are interested.
W
why_me
Guest
The lds have solved part of the mystery by claiming distinct beings. They are one in purpose.
W
why_me
Guest
This is true. But mormons live a very christian life and have love for Jesus, Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost.
W
why_me
Guest
That’s right. This is why I can understand the 11 witnesses that signed the statement to the book of mormon.
E
Erich
Guest
It’s not up to any one of us to define what it means to be a Christian. That’s already been done for us; most especially in the first four ecumenical councils.
So, the “essential definition” of Christianity has to include at least the following:
First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325)
• To this council we owe The Creed (Symbolum) of Nicaea
• Against Arius – “The Logos (Word) is a creature, the perfect created model of all creation”
• Define the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios) – “The Logos is of the same substance as the Father.”
• Fixing of the date for keeping Easter (against the Quartodecimans).
Second Ecumenical Council: Constantinople I (381)
• The First General Council of Constantinople was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.
• To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.
Third Ecumenical Council: Ephesus (431)
• Against Nestorianism – “The one who was born and died is not the same as the one who created and governs.” I.e. two persons.
• Defined the true personal unity of Christ, I.e. 1 person, who is divine.
• Declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos) against Nestorius
Fourth Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451)
• Against Monophysitism – Christ is out of 2 natures but no longer in 2 natures, now having only a divine nature, I.e. Christ is not truly human.
• Defined the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ against Eutyches, who was excommunicated.
From They Just Won’t Go Away:
S
Scriptorian
Guest
That is the biggest load of theological gobblygook I have ever come across. It’s like saying 1+1+1 = 3 but it doesn’t really equal three, it equals one except when it equals three. But don’t try to understand it, it’s incomprehensible.
…WHAT?!
A
appaloosablue
Guest
Do you think we ought presume to understand everything about God? We are His created beings and there ARE mysteries that we as humans cannot understand.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
That’s a good explanation, but ridiculous doctrine. Sorry.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
Are you saying that the doctrine of the trinity is not supposed to be understood?
P
PaulDupre
Guest
I must admit that your god is easier to understand than the One True God. But that’s because your god is just a man with a man’s perspectives and a man’s “needs”, so of course he’s easier to understand.
A
appaloosablue
Guest
No, I am saying that there are somethings that we cannot understand fully. We can understand it to a human degree. Just as, for example, we cannot understand how God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing. We understand that He did it but we do not understand how. We, believe by faith in the Trinity, but we cannot fully comprehend it.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
So the doctrine of the trinity is not supposed to be fully understood?
C
cothrige
Guest
On another post you responded to one person’s comments on the Trinity by saying:
And yet you are here defending the same practice by the LDS in an even more hard to understand manner. In the Trinity, incomprehensible as it may be, there is no doubt about how many beings are involved. God is one being, and therefore there is only one God. The LDS specifically deny any unity in being, and therefore proclaim the LDS Godhead to be three separate and distinct beings. Three beings, though, are not three Gods somehow. How exactly is that anything but “1+1+1 = 3 but it doesn’t really equal three, it equals one except when it equals three”? If the Trinity can be accused of this there is simply no possible escape for your own dogma. This seems a clear case of being hoist with your own petar.
Also, I don’t follow your recourse to Hebrew in using the term God. Are you saying that you use the word in reference to Elohim and so God can be seen as plural still? I don’t agree. God in English is singular, and not plural like Elohim. Additionally, the issue was not LDS using the title God when speaking of Elohim, which you admit is God the Father, but the entire Godhead and so there is no equivalence at all. In the context of reference to God the Father there is no contention. That is common usage. It is the practice of speaking of three entirely separate and distinct beings by the singular title God which I think is dubious. I just don’t see how three beings can be one being, without being one in being.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
Are you married? Do you have a family?
Try reading these scriptures for guidance:
“One-ness” is actually not a foreign concept in scriptural language. Even in English.
I know you may have trouble understanding the Hebrew, and I am sorry if it was confusing. Other languages can be. Thus the difficulty in translating the Bible in the first place.
C
cothrige
Guest
Yes, one-ness as you say is not foreign to English. However, even married couples who are one flesh are still a couple in English. They always are. If you see a married couple, regardless of how perfect their unity in purpose, you could not say “Look at that human over there…” meaning both of them. They are two beings, and therefore you must say humans. Multiple beings equals plural words.
And you are still left with the problem of your objection to the alleged unity in the Trinity. You have objected to that, even though the Trinity is defined as one being, and yet you seem comfortable referring to three separate beings as if they were one. I have no problem with levels of unity, or the purported perfect unity of purpose and will in the LDS Godhead. However, I really don’t see why LDS don’t use the term Gods when referring to that Godhead, rather than God. It seems an inconsistency.
I will admit that I may have misunderstood your point regarding Hebrew. But, it did seem to me that you were using the plurality of the word Elohim as the keystone to your view, and given that we were discussing the use of the word God to refer collectively to the entirety of the LDS Godhead, not just Elohim who would be one third of that party, I just don’t see how it really applies. Then there is the fact that Hebrew would seem somewhat less than germane. God, as a word, is not somehow drawn directly from the Hebrew at all, much less Elohim. I would think if you meant to speak of Elohim you would perhaps just say Elohim, or perhaps just Father or some such. I really cannot see how the etymology of the word Elohim has any real impact on the meaning or usage of the English word God at this point, and if it did, I can’t see how it does in the case of the entire LDS Godhead.
M
mormonboy
Guest
That is understandable. I also have received a strong witness, not only manifest in prayer, but in everything the church has to offer. Some points of doctrine cannot be understood by man only because God reveals truths on his timetable, not on ours’.
One major fear I have is knowing the church is true can bring us down if we do not follow it’s teachings. There is no denial of a witness once received verbally, if you did that would be denying the Holy Ghost, which is the biggest sin… Once someone doesn’t follow their witness and do righteous acts, they are denying the H.G. in a sense. You aren’t saying you deny him straight up per say, but we deny his promptings in such a case. Something like that just makes me want to obey God’s precepts even more…
M
mormonboy
Guest
I can see where you are coming from… I never said anything about becoming a God even though it is no secret I do have that in my belief system.
Just out of curiosity, what do you believe is our purpose in the this life and the next? I assume you believe in a heaven and a hell… What does that serve as?
Is the Bible from God? I know with a surety the Bible is inspired of God just as the Book of Mormon is… Has the Bible been altered? In fact, how many versions of the Bible are there currently? I can name a lot. Religions have twisted the meaning of phrases from the Bible to have the make it what they want it to be… Most of the edits of the B.O.M. have been in adding an index and cross-references for help.
- Status