YHWH: Jesus to Mormons, the Father to other Christians

[zerinus]

I find Genesis and the Book of Abraham to have irreconcilable differences, therefore I needed to ask the question: which account is true and which account falls short?

I see no “irreconcilable differences”. You would be able to find plenty of such “irreconcilable differences” in the Bible, if you cared to look for them. Here is a couple for you to consider:

Matthew 27:44 tells us that both the two thieves that were crucified with Jesus railed against Him; but Luke 23:39-41 tells us that only one of them did, but the other did not. So which narrative is correct? They can’t both be right. One of them has to be right and the other wrong. Here is another example:

John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 tell us that no one has seen (or can see) God; but Genesis 32:30; Exodus 24:11; Judges 13:22; 2 Chronicles 18:18; Isaiah 6:1; Amos 9:1; Matthew 5:8; Acts 7:55-56; tell us that they can and have. So which one is true? They cant all be true. So the Bible must be wrong then, by your logic, because it is teaching contradictory doctrines. Well, if you cared to look for them, you would find plenty more.

Such doubts have kept me out of Mormonism, . . .

If you were honest with yourself, then such doubts should keep you from Christianity altogether, because the Bible is full of them. Is there a double standard here somewhere?

. . . but I found the answers I was seeking in the Catholic Church.

Funny, I could say the same thing about the absurdities of the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity. I have found the answer I was seeing in the LDS Church.

zerinus

 

[rmcmullan]

Nan S, those were very good references, especially in post #98, I think the light is slowly getting brighter for me. I’m getting mixed messages on whether or not the Father could have a body. I only wanted to know if the Trinity precluded it and I think you and others are sort of allowing it while stating that is not in the catecism.

At any rate, I think I understand the Catholic (and the mainline Protestant) version of the Trinity a lot better now, so thanks a lot everyone for your posts & references. Of course I’m still buying the Mormon version but they look a lot closer to me now. Well, except that eternal progression thing. But, as Alton Brown always says, “That’s another show!”

 

[Nan_S]

I see no “irreconcilable differences”. You would be able to find plenty of such “irreconcilable differences” in the Bible, if you cared to look for them. Here is a couple for you to consider:

If you were honest with yourself, then such doubts should keep you from Christianity altogether, because the Bible is full of them. Is there a double standard here somewhere?

Funny, I could say the same thing about the absurdities of the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity. I have found the answer I was seeing in the LDS Church.

zerinus

Hi, Z!

I have a large hardback book full of apparent contradictions in the bible, and the reconciliations thereof. It’s interesting reading.

I accept that you see harmony between the Bible and Mormon scriptures when I don’t, same as I see harmony in the Trinity when you don’t.

In the end, I would say it all comes down to this:

– Are we truly convinced that we are listening to the Word of God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and not our own self-centered hearts, and neither to the words of one who is rebelling against God? [Please don’t read this as if I am suggesting devout Mormons are in rebellion. I’m not. CCC Paragraph 847.]

and

Having accepted the Word of God as we understand it, are we demonstrating our faith to the best of our ability by doing as commanded?

When I am called for judgment, my greatest pleasure will be to stand there unashamed and answer “Yes” to both.

God Bless,
Nan

 

[Nan_S]

Nan S, those were very good references, especially in post #98, I think the light is slowly getting brighter for me. I’m getting mixed messages on whether or not the Father could have a body. I only wanted to know if the Trinity precluded it and I think you and others are sort of allowing it while stating that is not in the catecism.

At any rate, I think I understand the Catholic (and the mainline Protestant) version of the Trinity a lot better now, so thanks a lot everyone for your posts & references. Of course I’m still buying the Mormon version but they look a lot closer to me now. Well, except that eternal progression thing. But, as Alton Brown always says, “That’s another show!”

Glad to have been of help.

God Bless
Nan

 

[christianley]

Nan S, those were very good references, especially in post #98, I think the light is slowly getting brighter for me. I’m getting mixed messages on whether or not the Father could have a body. I only wanted to know if the Trinity precluded it and I think you and others are sort of allowing it while stating that is not in the catecism.

At any rate, I think I understand the Catholic (and the mainline Protestant) version of the Trinity a lot better now, so thanks a lot everyone for your posts & references. Of course I’m still buying the Mormon version but they look a lot closer to me now. Well, except that eternal progression thing. But, as Alton Brown always says, “That’s another show!”

You might want to read this:

smpt.org/member_resource/element/ostler_element1-1.html

My hope is that someday Mormons will throw all this stuff away about three Gods and join the rest of the Christian world at least in their belief in the one God.

 

[zerinus]

You might want to read this:

smpt.org/member_resource/element/ostler_element1-1.html

My hope is that someday Mormons will throw all this stuff away about three Gods and join the rest of the Christian world at least in their belief in the one God.

That would be apostasy twice over! The truth of the whole of Mormonism rests on the veracity of the First Vision. Did Joseph Smith in reality see in the First Vision “two personages,” one of whom pointing to the other said, “This is my beloved Son, hear him!”? If that is not true, then the whole thing falls to the ground, and there will be no Mormonism left at all. My testimony is that he did, and that is the one principle that Mormonism cannot compromise on. T. Ostler has no authority whatsoever to determine LDS doctrine. I had a look at his article, and it is even more confused (and confusing) than the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is. His scriptural analysis is full of holes and cracks. The Book of Mormon teachings on the Godhead is biblical; but it is NOT Trinitarian. The Bible does NOT teach the Trinity; and neither does the Book of Mormon. I do not dispute that there may be a deeper mystery hidden beneath doctrine of the Godhead which we may not have yet understood; but whatever that inner mystery is, it is NOT the Trinity of apostate Christendom; neither is it what T. Ostler is speculating that it might be. The truth of that will be given by the Lord in His own due time and way. It will not come through T. Ostler or any other unauthorized individual. And whatever it is, it will not be in conflict with the truth that has already been revealed.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

but it is the D&C teaching that really defines Mormonism. That is where things quickly became non-biblical with the binitarian views of Sidney Rigdon. That continued to the plurality of Gods by Joseph Smith. Current LDS Temple teachings reinforce this. The “first vision” view requires eternal progression at it’s core and THAT is where the big problems arise.

Placing human boundaries around God in a way not seen since Greek Mythology was the religion of the day. God has a body of flesh and bone is exactly that. That God was once a man and earned his exaltation and now has a plan for his literal offspring to do the same may seem very appealing to some BUT it isn’t true. That is the same lie that the serpent told Eve in the garden.

Think of the problems with that theory. Jesus didn’t have a body until he came to earth. That means he could not have been fully God until the resurrection. The Holy Ghost has no body and thus can’t be God until some undefined future event.(assuming he is even a “personage” which conflicts with the original D&C that still hasn’t been corrected) Further there is this “council in heaven” that implies that we “voted” on our plan of salvation and “selected” our savior. This has Peter, James and John along with Adam as every bit as significant as Jesus except for his atonement that we “voted” him to do. (as if there were options)

Now add to this the questions of “who was Heavenly Fathers savior” and you can quickly see the house of cards fall.

There is ONE God. He is the same God that has always been and always will be. There were no previous Gods, There are no other Gods and there will be no future Gods including us. Just the ONE God forever.

 

[christianley]

That would be apostasy twice over! The truth of the whole of Mormonism rests on the veracity of the First Vision. Did Joseph Smith in reality see in the First Vision “two personages,” one of whom pointing to the other said, “This is my beloved Son, hear him!”? If that is not true, then the whole thing falls to the ground, and there will be no Mormonism left at all. My testimony is that he did, and that is the one principle that Mormonism cannot compromise on. T. Ostler has no authority whatsoever to determine LDS doctrine. I had a look at his article, and it is even more confused (and confusing) than the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is. His scriptural analysis is full of holes and cracks. The Book of Mormon teachings on the Godhead is biblical; but it is NOT Trinitarian. The Bible does NOT teach the Trinity; and neither does the Book of Mormon. I do not dispute that there may be a deeper mystery hidden beneath doctrine of the Godhead which we may not have yet understood; but whatever that inner mystery is, it is NOT the Trinity of apostate Christendom; neither is it what T. Ostler is speculating that it might be. The truth of that will be given by the Lord in His own due time and way. It will not come through T. Ostler or any other unauthorized individual. And whatever it is, it will not be in conflict with the truth that has already been revealed.

zerinus

I don’t see a conflict between Joseph Smith’s First Vision and belief in the Trinity. If God the Father wanted to appear in bodily form to Joseph Smith, he could do it. I don’t think he did, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened. Three Gods definitely conflicts with the teaching of the Book of Mormon as Ostler notes. Even if the Father always maintained a body, the Trinity could still be valid. The point of the Trinity is that God has an eternal nature as God and is expressed in three persons who have always existed simultaneously and distinctly as the One God.

 

[zerinus]

I don’t see a conflict between Joseph Smith’s First Vision and belief in the Trinity. If God the Father wanted to appear in bodily form to Joseph Smith, he could do it. I don’t think he did, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened. . . . Even if the Father always maintained a body, the Trinity could still be valid. The point of the Trinity is that God has an eternal nature as God and is expressed in three persons who have always existed simultaneously and distinctly as the One God.

You do have a point there. The doctrine of the Trinity is so illogical and nonsensical that you can draw any other illogical and nonsensical conclusion you like from it, including, but not limited to, the conclusion that the Father is the cup of coffee you drink in the morning, and the Son is your cornflakes. I don’t dispute that.

Three Gods definitely conflicts with the teaching of the Book of Mormon as Ostler notes.

Three Gods conflicts neither with the Book of Mormon, nor for that matter with the Bible.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

Three Gods conflicts neither with the Book of Mormon, nor for that matter with the Bible.

zerinus

Then you are reading a different Book of Mormon than I read. Several times both the Book of Mormon and D&C make the claim that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One Eternal God. Declaring three Gods is against everything the Book of Mormon teaches on the subject. Of course it doesn’t make any difference what the Book of Mormon teaches since it is a 19th century creation of Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdrey and Joseph Smith without any basis as an ancient history of the Americas.

mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm#35

 

[Catholic_Guy]

That would be apostasy twice over! The truth of the whole of Mormonism rests on the veracity of the First Vision. Did Joseph Smith in reality see in the First Vision “two personages,” one of whom pointing to the other said, “This is my beloved Son, hear him!”? If that is not true, then the whole thing falls to the ground, and there will be no Mormonism left at all. My testimony is that he did, and that is the one principle that Mormonism cannot compromise on.
zerinus

Which version of the “First Vision” does the truth of the whole of Mormonism rest.

Take your pick;

1827 — Account of Joseph Smith, Sr., and Joseph Smith, Jr., given to Willard Chase, as related in his 1833 affidavit.

1827 — Account by Martin Harris given to Rev. John Clark, as published in his book Gleanings by the Way, printed in 1842, pp. 222-229.

1830 — Interview of Joseph Smith by Peter Bauder, recounted by Bauder in his book The Kingdom and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, printed in 1834, pp. 36-38.

1832 — Earliest known attempt at an ‘official’ recounting of the ‘First Vision, from History, 1832, Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp.2,3, in the handwriting of Joseph Smith.

1834-35 — Oliver Cowdery, with Joseph Smith’s help, published the first history of Mormonism in the LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Dec. 1834, vol.1, no.3

1835 — Account given by Joseph Smith to Joshua the Jewish minister, Joseph Smith Diary, Nov. 9, 1835.

1835 — Account given by Joseph Smith to Erastus Holmes on November 14, 1835, originally published in the Deseret News of Saturday May 29, 1852.

1838 — This account became the official version, now part of Mormon Scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History, 1:7-20. Though written in 1838, it was not published until 1842 in Times and Season, March 15, 1842, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 727-728, 748-749, 753.

1844 — Account in An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States, edited by Daniel Rupp. Joseph Smith wrote the chapter on Mormonism.

1859 — Interview with Martin Harris, Tiffany’s Monthly, 1859, New York: Published by Joel Tiffany, vol. v.—12, pp. 163-170.

In Christ,

Catholic Guy

 

[zerinus]

Then you are reading a different Book of Mormon than I read. Several times both the Book of Mormon and D&C make the claim that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One Eternal God.

Yes, one in mind, will, and purpose.

Declaring three Gods is against everything the Book of Mormon teaches on the subject.

There is one God who is supreme above all; but the Book of Mormon also teaches the separate identity of the members of the Godhead. For example, Nephi hears the voices of the Father and the Son separately; each affirming the truth of what he had heard (2 Nephi 31:11-15). When Jesus showed Himself to the Nephites after His resurrection, the Father testified of Him independently, before He descended from heaven among them (3 Nephi 11:7). Mormon informs us that when the Nephites were righteous, they were led not only by Jesus, but also by the Father; and the language used implies their independent identities (Mormon 5:17). Jesus is God; but the Bible also informs us that He is subordinate to the Father (John 14:28; 20:17). So in one sense of the term, there is only one God; and He is the one to whom all other beings, including those who are called gods, are subordinate. In another sense of the term, there is more than one God, provided we do not loose sight of the fact that they are all subject to the One being who is God above all.

Of course it doesn’t make any difference what the Book of Mormon teaches since it is a 19th century creation of Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdrey and Joseph Smith without any basis as an ancient history of the Americas.

That is a load of rubbish. You have been harping on about that ever since I have been reading your posts; without there being any substance to those claims.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

zerinus;1728183[COLOR="DarkRed":

So in one sense of the term, there is only one God; and He is the one to whom all other beings, including those who are called gods, are subordinate. In another sense of the term, there is more than one God, provided we do not loose sight of the fact that they are all subject to the One being who is God above all.

And who is that being who is God above all? It cannot be the Mormon “Heavenly Father”, because their was a time when he was not a god, but a mere mortal like you. He was the spirit child of an older god, and progressed through an earthly probation to godhood just as his father/god did. Every Mormon prophet from Joseph Smith to GBH has taught this doctrine.

So obviously, since the universe existed long before the heavenly father was a god, then the heavenly father could not have created it. Since the Mormon Jehovah was never a god until some time after the heavenly father progressed to godhood, Jehovah could not have created it either.

Either someone else created the universe, or as Mormonism teaches, no one created the universe - it is self-existent and eternal and all of the gods are products of the eternally existing matter of the universe. Therefore, your “god” could not be the “God above all”, since he wasn’t even around until rather late in the game.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

And who is that being who is God above all? It cannot be the Mormon “Heavenly Father”, because their was a time when he was not a god, but a mere mortal like you. He was the spirit child of an older god, and progressed through an earthly probation to godhood just as his father/god did. Every Mormon prophet from Joseph Smith to GBH has taught this doctrine.

So obviously, since the universe existed long before the heavenly father was a god, then the heavenly father could not have created it. Since the Mormon Jehovah was never a god until some time after the heavenly father progressed to godhood, Jehovah could not have created it either.

Either someone else created the universe, or as Mormonism teaches, no one created the universe - it is self-existent and eternal and all of the gods are products of the eternally existing matter of the universe. Therefore, your “god” could not be the “God above all”, since he wasn’t even around until rather late in the game.

Paul

There was never a time when God the Father was not God:

Moses 1:

3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless

---

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

There was never a time when God the Father was not God:

Moses 1:

3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless

---

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

zerinus

well let’s see what the mormon prophets said about this:

Joseph Smith got up in general conference on April 7, 1844 (two months before he died) and said:
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret. If the vail was rent to-day, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,–I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form–like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked, and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.”

interesting proclamation from the man who wrote those scriptures amgid quoted. He also went on to say:

“In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 349).

What about the next prophet? did he have further light and knowledge on this? Brigham Young said in general conference:

“He is our Father- the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being…It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being;…”

maybe the next mormon prophet can help us. John Taylor said:

*“In simple English, the Head brought forth the Gods, with the heavens and with the earth. The ‘Head’ must have meant the ‘living God,’ or Head God: Christ is our head. The term Elohim, plural of Elohah, or ale, is used alike in the first chapter of Genesis, for the creation, and the quotation of Satan. In the second chapter, and fourth verse, we have this remarkable history: ‘These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were brought forth; in the day that the Lord of the Gods made earth and heavens.’ The Hebrew reads so” *(Gospel Kingdom, pg 28).

Goodness it seems there is a pattern. Maybe more recent Apostles and prophets can help us understand:

*Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar that through which we are now passing *(Milton R. Hunter The Gospel Through the Ages, 1945, p 104).

*God is an exalted man. Some people are troubled over the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith … that our Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man… *( Joseph Fielding Smith Doctrines of Salvation 1:10, 1954)

Hmmm… well maybe we need to read a current lesson manual to understand:

Presidents of the Church, Student Manual, Religion 345, chapter 5, “Lorenzo Snow,” copyright 2003, p. 88.

[Subhead] He Received a Revelation About Man’s Divine Potential

• … the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noon-day, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me … As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.*

well then…maybe Mormons really do believe that God was once a man like us with his own god… Who then atoned for his sins?

 

[PaulDupre]

Z,
You’re conflict is not with me or with Christianity in general, but rather with your own prophets. Mormon prophets have consistently contradicted the standard works.

Either you have living prophets and your standard works are wrong, or your standard works are correct and your so-called prophets are frauds who have led the LDS Church into severe apostacy.

You cannot have it both ways.

Paul

 

[rmcmullan]

I almost forgot to tell this great joke! We used to tell it to each other when we were missionaries. Ready? It’s all about the Godhead/Trinity

Elder Brown: So there’s three three people in the Godhead, right? The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Elder Jones: Well that’s what we teach everyone but I don’t think the people believe it. I think they’re telling us that there’s five!

Elder Brown: Five!? I’ve never heard that before. Who are the five?

Elder Jones: Well there’s the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, as you said before. But there’s also the two women, Mary and Grace.

Elder Brown: I’ve never heard of them before. Where did you hear about them?

Elder Jones: Well you know Mary, she’s the Mother of God and I think the Catholics pray to Her. You’ve hear the Hail Mary.

Elder Brown: Okay, but what about Grace?

Elder Jones: She’s the one who saves all the born-agains!

Isn’t that a great joke? Huh, what’s that sound? It sounds like long knives being unsheathed…

 

[christianley]

Z,
You’re conflict is not with me or with Christianity in general, but rather with your own prophets. Mormon prophets have consistently contradicted the standard works.

Either you have living prophets and your standard works are wrong, or your standard works are correct and your so-called prophets are frauds who have led the LDS Church into severe apostacy.

You cannot have it both ways.

Paul

It would really be easy for Mormons to at least get closer to the Christian world by ending their references to Father, Son and Holy Ghost as three separate Gods. They could declare their scriptures teach that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one Eternal God and then just stop trying to explain how they are one God or how they are distinct. They could call it a mystery – I heard President Harold B. Lee declare in a priesthood session in 1972 or 1973 that Mormons should stop trying to resolve the mysteries and simply declare what the scriptures taught. Perhaps all of this talk of other gods before the present God could just cease. Maybe at that point the Catholic Church could start accepting their baptisms as valid again like it used to do.

 

[Allweather]

It would really be easy for Mormons to at least get closer to the Christian world by ending their references to Father, Son and Holy Ghost as three separate Gods. They could declare their scriptures teach that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one Eternal God and then just stop trying to explain how they are one God or how they are distinct. They could call it a mystery – I heard President Harold B. Lee declare in a priesthood session in 1972 or 1973 that Mormons should stop trying to resolve the mysteries and simply declare what the scriptures taught. Perhaps all of this talk of other gods before the present God could just cease. Maybe at that point the Catholic Church could start accepting their baptisms as valid again like it used to do.

But, doesn’t the separate gods in the trinity idea dovetail with their eternal progression theory? If they are related, then to de-emphasize one might affect the other. Not that Mormons have worried all that much about contradictions.

 

[rmcmullan]

It would really be easy for Mormons to at least get closer to the Christian world by ending their references to Father, Son and Holy Ghost as three separate Gods. They could declare their scriptures teach that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one Eternal God and then just stop trying to explain how they are one God or how they are distinct. They could call it a mystery – I heard President Harold B. Lee declare in a priesthood session in 1972 or 1973 that Mormons should stop trying to resolve the mysteries and simply declare what the scriptures taught. Perhaps all of this talk of other gods before the present God could just cease. Maybe at that point the Catholic Church could start accepting their baptisms as valid again like it used to do.

The eternal progression doctrine is something seperate and a rather minor point. It is not emphasized or actively taught. I have never seen a priesthood talk or sunday school lesson on it. I have never seen it appear anywhere in what we call the “curriculum”. Oddly, the people who bring it up the most seem to be the ones opposed to Mormon teachings. I’m not refuting it but trying to put it in a more realistic sort of perspective. Your suggestion that Mormons should simply declare the scriptures and stop trying to resolve the mysteries has largely been taken seriously by the church if not by individual members of forums.catholic-questions.org. And that’s okay, this forum has a somewhat different purpose.

SO here’s some of what the uniquely Mormon scriptures have to say regarding the One God:

2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; 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.

D&C 20:28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

It seems pretty bland to me. Majick275 has said pretty much the same thing but has provided a generous amount of quotes claiming that the teaching has changed. But most of his quotes come from secondary sources. He’s aimed in the right direction but I wouldn’t take any individual quotes he provides as authoratative. In a way, it’s very much to his credit that he is so well versed in Mormon history. I’ll bet he was an awesome seminary teacher. But your main point (I’m trying to stay focused!) that the eternal progression doctrine is a fairly unimportant point holds. It is not an idea that has been well-developed and subsequently, there’s been too much speculation.