Hello. I was wondering if anyone,preferably a Mormon, could tell me if your faith agrees with the following statements:
I am a Mormon, I usually say I am a LDS.
Yes, one God. The Bible says this of course, but LDS scripture beyond the Bible says this as well:
From the Book of Mormon:
2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is theway; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. 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.
From the Doctrine and Covenants:
D&C 20:28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.
From the Pearl of Great Price (specifically the Book of Moses):
Moses 1:20 And it came to pass that Moses began to fear exceedingly; and as he began to fear, he saw the bitterness of hell. Nevertheless, calling upon God, he received strength, and he commanded, saying: Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only will I worship, which is the God of glory.
He is composed of three seperate persons
On first blush I like most LDS would say absolutely.
On some future day I believe I will better understand how the term: “gods” refers to “The Father, the Son, [the Holy Spirit], and those who receive the adoption. But if you are talking about God, then three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
These persons share the same essence
Here is where you will lose 99% of LDS and generally lose me as well.
If when you say “same essence” you mean that Father and Son possess the “same essence,” are “consubstantial” IN THE SAME WAY that Catholics claim that Jesus Christ and I possess the “same essence” and are “consubstantial.” Then yes, I can absolutely confirm that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial; they share the same essence. However, if you intend to confer something beyond this particular use of consubstantial (homoousian), then I generally refuse to follow. In addition to this, let me say that as I understand God / theology, to say that God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are consubstantial in the way I am comfortable claiming it is to really say very little at all. The Son being Homoousian with the Father was the touchstone upon which the Arians were excluded from communion for denying the divinity of God the Son. I doubt the Arians felt such was fair, but that is not really at stake here. While I understand well what Eusebius of Caesarea (the historian and celebrated by modern Catholics, not Eusebius of Nicomedia the one who baptized Constantine, but not celebrated by modern Catholics) meant when he said homoousian and I can affirm what Eusebius of Caesarea meant when he said Father and Son were consubstantial (homoousian), I find if of little value. I say this because I do not think homoousian has to do with “divinity as such” and thus when I affirm Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousian I am really not saying what you think I might be saying even when you recognize I mean it in the “generic” (like Eusebius of Caesarea) not “nominal” (like Augustine) sense.
Each is uncreated and eternal.
Again in a simple way I could say yes here as well. This might involve even more multiplications of words than the previous yes did.
Let me acknowledge however that there is a prevalent view in the CoJCoLDS that I respect but do not hold. It is not something we talk about in church or even Sunday School, but it is part of our history and I think my position of rejecting it is (among those who know about it in the first place which is actually probably less than 25%) in the minority.
Many LDS believe that God the Father had a Father and thus in some sense God the Father was not always divine. This is not IMO supportable from our scriptures and I came to reject it as I came to understand it so I really spent very little time “on the fence.” Of course, I do not view this as pernicious as you might and thus I respect those who hold this view (and as I was writing this, I came to realize it is a minority that even know this was ever taught, but among the minority that know most accept it as true and I do not).
Still even those that hold this view must acknowledge that God the Father and God the Son are eternal. They did not come into being at some point in history.
If not, could you please explain how your beliefs are similar to and different from mainstream Christianity?
Your brother in Christ,
DeusExMachina
I hope I put in enough explanations to both clarify and muddy the question. It is really not as simple as the LDS with their black hats believing 100 ridiculous things before breakfast and the rest of Christianity in their white hats following faith and reason to the promised land. And truth be told we all believe God was born of a virgin and died for sins He never committed because somehow such an atonement needed to be wrought.
Charity, TOm
If the Mormon Church is presenting this belief as doctrine, then I hope they explain the doctrine rather than simply assert it then fade into the background. But I am afraid (not literally, of course) that there is no cogent defense of this kind of tripartite human beings – although it provides an attractive symmetry for being created “in the image of God”; and there are religions (e.g., Christian Israelite) that divide the human being into three parts – body, soul, and spirit.