YHWH: Jesus to Mormons, the Father to other Christians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nan_S
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(continued)

BUT then Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith had some new ideas and we got this:

*…We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There are two personages…they are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle…And he being The only begotten of The Father…possessing The same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit…Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead? A. Two: the Father and the Son. *(1835 D&C, Lecture Fifth of Faith, 5:1-2, pp. 52-53, 55, First edition)

and before we “jettison” the lectures on faith as “non-canonical” let’s look at what current LDS D&C says about them in the explanatory introduction:

Beginning with the 1835 edition a series of seven theological lessons was also included; these were titled the “Lectures on Faith.” These had been prepared for use in the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1834-1835. Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church. So we see the lectures as NOT being erroneous or denounced or anything like it just “unofficial” through what appears to be a minor technicality that curiously still hasn’t been addressed. (why haven’t the lectures been presented to the whole church?) This is easily proven false anyway as the lectures were part of canonized scripture until 1921 when they were removed WITHOUT the vote of the church. SO many general conferences went by where the church affirmed that the D&C (including the LoF) was the word of the lord.

Now one wonders how this seeming confusion can be when Joseph Smith supposedly met with the father and son in person. (note the absence of the holy spirit from the “first vision”)

After that the whole eternal progression thing that you can look up for yourself at www.lds.org came about with a plurality of Gods. Of course Mormons still have problematic scriptures as they haven’t changed ALL of the contradictions. They still have scriptures saying One God that appear to conflict with scriptures claiming many gods:

D&C 121:28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be bone God or many gods, they shall be manifest.

32* According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest.*

and we are left with the seeming coverup of the LoF statements that were taught by JOSEPH SMITH in the “school of prophets” about a 2 person godhead with the holy spirit as the shared mind.

Mormons don’t seem to know who/what the Holy Spirit is and don’t seem to have been very consistent with their definition of the godhead.

Doesn’t this go to show that they cannot be led by true prophets who speak directly with god and get specific answers to specific questions as claimed in the D&C?

this is a false church with fake scriptures fabricated by false prophets that is perpetrating a fraud. STOP!!!

Come worship and pray to the father, son and holy spirit which is the ONE true God.
 
majick275 said:
MOST IMPORTANT AND CLEAR!!!
Mosiah 15: 1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
*5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people. *
Click to expand...
Majick,

Your other quotes from Mormon scriptures are very trinitarian in wording, and may have been intended to speak of a triune God when originally written. But I rather suspect our modern-day Mormon friends would say they mean Father, Son and Spirit are united in one purpose while remaining two separate beings and a spirit which eminates from the two.

As to the one I quoted above, it is not a Mormon trinitarian proof at all. My copies of the BoM introduce Mosiah Chapter 15 with the comments: “Why Jesus Christ is called the Father and the Son” (1978 edition) and “How Christ is both the Father and the Son” (1989 edition).

So it comes out like this:
2 And because he [Jesus] dwelleth in flesh he [Jesus] shall be called the Son of God [Elohim], and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father [Elohim], being [Jesus] the Father and [Jesus] the Son—
3 [Jesus] The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God [Elohim]; and [Jesus] the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the [Jesus] Father and [Jesus] Son—
*4 And they [Jesus-Father and Jesus-Son] are one God [but separate from Elohim], yea, the very Eternal Jesus] Father of heaven and of earth. *

[Book of Abraham 3:24, And there stood one among them {Jesus} that was like unto God {Elohim}, and he {Jesus} said unto those that were with him {Jesus}: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell.]

Whew!

Nan
 
oh I’m quite aware of the “creative” interpretation put on it in recent times. The Mormon prophets (prior to 1921) obviously taught somethings different. Joseph Smith taught something really different.
 
The Mormon holy ghost has really grown. He has gone from an ethereal ‘shared mind’ (not a person at all) to a spirit-child of heavenly father with a spirit-body who has been promoted to godhood - all in just a few generations of “prophets”.

Wow,
Paul
 
PaulDupre said:
The Mormon holy ghost has really grown. He has gone from an ethereal ‘shared mind’ (not a person at all) to a spirit-child of heavenly father with a spirit-body who has been promoted to godhood - all in just a few generations of “prophets”.

Wow,
Paul
Click to expand...
What also is quite confusing is Joseph Smith’s teachings (in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith) that the Holy Ghost will eventually gain/earn a body if he is faithful in his current mission. I could fish for the exact page reference, but I’m busy tonight. Sorry, guys. This is rather difficult to rectify with the typical Mopologist response that the Holy Ghost is ‘spirit’ and ‘spirit’ in this sense is a refined, purified form of matter.

It still doesn’t make sense to me how the Mormon-version of Christ and the Holy Ghost attained godhood without tarrying through and enduring to the end like the rest of Mormonism’s spiritual children, namely us.
 
Nan_S said:
I LOVE this!!! How basic - how to the point! I get all wrapped up in what the Trinity IS, but didn’t think of comparing the Trinity to what it IS NOT.

“A dog is zero persons in one being.” 👍

Slam-dunk. TYVM. I mean it.

Nan
Click to expand...
You’re very welcome.
Paul
 
Well I thought about this overnight. Thanks for all the comments, Nan S your reply to Magic275 was about what I would have said if I had replied to it. No, it was better. But I really don’t want to pursue that right now. I am trying to understand the Trinity the way a Catholic would understand it and not having much luck. I could be the only one in the crowd who doesn’t get it, I know but the problem is I can understand the Mormon explanation so easily.

Time for paraphrasing. If I understand it, Jesus praying to the Father or standing besides the Father, etc. are possible because they are three distinct personages. One being. Like the parts of an egg making a complete egg or the three fingers of a hand making a hand.

The more I think about it, the more I realise I haven’t been persuaded in the least. I keep getting hung up on the hand and the egg. They are all incomplete without their parts and the finger (white, shell & yolk) serve a greater purpose together. Okay, they’re just analogies and all anologies break down eventually. Are the Father, Son & HG incomplete without each other? Or is their purpose incomplete? What is the purpose of the One Being?

At this point I would have to go Mormon on you and say that it was to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. For me this works: the Father as the Father, the Son as the Redeemer and the HG as the truth bringer. But then you end up with the three persons being one being with the same purpose which is the Mormon doctrine. I really can’t detect the Trinitarian purpose for the One being except to refute the charge of polytheism but that sounds too cynical to be right.
 
From my Catholic point of view, the flaw in your reasoning isn’t that you are having trouble conceptualizing the Trinity. We ALL have trouble with that. God is too big for any man to grasp; we are like ants trying to understand the reality of a man. Can’t be done.

No, the flaw is that you are apparently missing the point that any theology that breaks God into separate beings is in error. The Hebrews received a revelation from God which specifically expressed his oneness, especially apart from the polytheistic false religions common among other peoples. Christianity develops out of the Hebrew religion. You can’t go from One God to Multiple Gods without also going away from the Hebrew God. Any interpretation of Jesus’ sayings that arrives at multiple, distinct, separate gods is intrinsically wrong, because it disregards what was known before it. On the face of the language used, it at times does appear to a Bible reader that there ARE multiple gods at work. That is why the theology has to be developed carefully, always holding to the fact of the revelation of God to the Hebrews, God who is the same today, yesterday, and foreever.

Moreover, you are assuming that Jesus, the Apostles, the Church, from the very beginning, all who expressed and believed in One God, were in error, while the multiple god idea which ultimately developed within Mormonism is correct. That is certainly a leap of faith! And one which doesn’t square with history or plain common sense.

I would suggest you stop struggling, in your apparent need to understand the nature of God. In the end, yours or my understanding of the nature of God is relatively unimportant. We know what God wants us to do. He wants us united as one in the Body of Christ, following the commandments, and most importantly the Greatest Commandment, which is to love one another.
 
rmcmullan said:
Well I thought about this overnight. Thanks for all the comments, Nan S your reply to Magic275 was about what I would have said if I had replied to it. No, it was better. But I really don’t want to pursue that right now. I am trying to understand the Trinity the way a Catholic would understand it and not having much luck. I could be the only one in the crowd who doesn’t get it, I know but the problem is I can understand the Mormon explanation so easily.

Time for paraphrasing. If I understand it, Jesus praying to the Father or standing besides the Father, etc. are possible because they are three distinct personages. One being. Like the parts of an egg making a complete egg or the three fingers of a hand making a hand.

The more I think about it, the more I realise I haven’t been persuaded in the least. I keep getting hung up on the hand and the egg. They are all incomplete without their parts and the finger (white, shell & yolk) serve a greater purpose together. Okay, they’re just analogies and all anologies break down eventually. Are the Father, Son & HG incomplete without each other? Or is their purpose incomplete? What is the purpose of the One Being?

At this point I would have to go Mormon on you and say that it was to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. For me this works: the Father as the Father, the Son as the Redeemer and the HG as the truth bringer. But then you end up with the three persons being one being with the same purpose which is the Mormon doctrine. I really can’t detect the Trinitarian purpose for the One being except to refute the charge of polytheism but that sounds too cynical to be right.
Click to expand...
The Trinity is a matter of faith based on the Biblical witness of Jesus. The Bible makes it plain there is only one God and also plainly states that Jesus is God. It also makes clear Jesus is distinct from the Father. We are in reality forced to believe in the Trinity if we are to make any sense of the Biblical witness. That doesn’t mean we will ever understand it. The only alternative is to call Jesus a false prophet.

The Mormon view of the Godhead is only problematic because it gives the Father a body and because it says that the Father received is body by being born of a previous God. It also denies that God created the universe and insists the universe created God. If the Mormons simply had a misunderstanding of the Trinity I could have some sympathy for them, but their doctrine goes way beyond that and strips God of his rightful place as the ultimate creator. That is simply blasphemous.
 
Allweather, that just makes it seem all the more an insulator against a charge of polythesim. You don’t want to say Jesus was not God and but claim He is as part of the Trinity. Likewise for the Father and Holy Ghost. But there can’t be three Gods. It goes back to Karin’s graphic. They’re not Gods except as part of a Trinity. But the actual properties of this Trinity other than as collecter are unknown.

If you want to claim that it’s hard to understand and that I’m getting all wrapped up over something that’s not so important, I can accept that. It’s true that eventually you have to accept somethings, hoping to find some answers or understanding later.
 
christianley said:
The Mormon view of the Godhead is only problematic because it gives the Father a body and because it says that the Father received is body by being born of a previous God.
Click to expand...
Really? Does that mean we agree that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct beings, one in purpose? And that they form One God? If you can agree to that, then my mind can be at rest. I don’t care so much about the body thing.
 
rmcmullan said:
Allweather, that just makes it seem all the more an insulator against a charge of polythesim. You don’t want to say Jesus was not God and but claim He is as part of the Trinity. Likewise for the Father and Holy Ghost. But there can’t be three Gods. It goes back to Karin’s graphic. They’re not Gods except as part of a Trinity. But the actual properties of this Trinity other than as collecter are unknown.

If you want to claim that it’s hard to understand and that I’m getting all wrapped up over something that’s not so important, I can accept that. It’s true that eventually you have to accept somethings, hoping to find some answers or understanding later.
Click to expand...
In my graphic I was trying to show you that all three (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) where God, they are the same God (Singular)
Just like water can be found in three forms (liquid, gas, solid) all of the three forms are still water. God can be in three forms(Father, Son & Holy Spirit) but they are all still the same GOD (singular-one)
 
rmcmullan said:
Really? Does that mean we agree that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct beings, one in purpose? And that they form One God? If you can agree to that, then my mind can be at rest. I don’t care so much about the body thing.
Click to expand...
No. I believe they are three distinct persons who are one nature, purpose, etc. They co-exist eternally as one God. Mormons destroy the whole thing by claiming God is only one of a line of Gods who have been created out of the universe.

I do not see why Mormons insist on using the term “beings” instead of “persons”. I often think that to Mormons beings and persons mean the same thing. It is also wrong to claim they are three separate Gods as Mormons do. There simply is no place in the Bible where it allows God to be two or three or six or an infinite number of Gods as Mormons claim.
 
Well, one more question, then, see if I’m in the ballpark.

Does the Catholic Trinity preclude the Father from having a body?
 
rmcmullan said:
Well, one more question, then, see if I’m in the ballpark.

Does the Catholic Trinity preclude the Father from having a body?
Click to expand...
Bear with me, I am researching the source documents for a specific reference for you on this one. However, the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is the only one of the three who is God Incarnate (embodied in flesh; given a bodily, especially a human, form).

In the meantime, here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the Trinity. If you click on the website link, you can see the footnotes and sources documents for the quotes in the paragraphs. Catechism of the Catholic Church

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity.” The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e., by nature one God.” In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215): “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” “Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” The divine Unity is Triune.

***255 ***The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: “In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.” Indeed “everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.” “Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son.”

***258 ***The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons. For as the Trinity has only one and the same nature, so too does it have only one and the same operation: “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle.” However each divine person performs the common work according to his unique personal property. Thus the Church confesses, following the New Testament, “one God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are.” It is above all the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit that show forth the properties of the divine persons.
 
rmcmullan said:
Well, one more question, then, see if I’m in the ballpark.

Does the Catholic Trinity preclude the Father from having a body?
Click to expand...
The Father can have a body if he wants one, but Catholics believe God is Spirit and the Father does not have a body. Could he temporarily take a body – I suppose he could. The Nicene Creed does not address the issue of the Father having a body. Its main concern is the nature and divinity of Christ as completely one with the Father in every way.

Mormons could probably declare the Trinity if they wanted to without denying Joseph Smith’s First Vision. What they would need to do is the unique divinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost and their eternal nature as God. Unfortunately, Mormons deny this. This happened when they declared God did not create the universe and that indeed God was a creation of the universe.
 
Does the Catholic Trinity preclude the Father from having a body?
Click to expand...
God the Father has no body of flesh, although before Jesus was born of Mary, God sometimes appeared as a man or in another physical form so as to be comprehensible to us. He appeared to Abraham as a man in Genesis Chapter 18, as a disembodied hand in Daniel Chapter 5, as a burning bush in Exodus Chapter 3, and as one who is sitting on a throne in Isaiah Chapter 6 and Revelation Chapter 4. [Yes, I know that Mormons disagree with Catholics and believe YHWH of the burning bush was Jesus.] More often, though, the Father appears to men simply as a voice or a dream-vision.

Catechism of the Catholic Church Table of Contents

Regarding God the Father specific page in CCC

370 In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.

Regarding Jesus, whom we also call The Word, who is the only one of the three ever described as being incarnate, that is, made flesh: specific page in CCC

Why Did the Word Become Flesh?

***456 ***With the Nicene Creed, we answer by confessing: “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.”

***457 ***The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”… (more at web-link above)

***458 ***The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God’s love… (more)

***459 ***The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness… (more)

***460 ***The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”… (more)

***461 *Taking up St. John’s expression, “The Word became flesh,” the Church calls “Incarnation” the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it… (more)

Finally, in summary, the Catholic Church says that Jesus, and only Jesus, is the only one of the three persons of God to have a body of flesh:

***464 ***The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.

Paragraphs 465-468 then go on to discuss these heresies.

Hope this helps.

Nan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top