Vanhin

No worries. Thanks for clarifying. I'm not arguing about whether there was racism with the past prophets, apostles, etc... I don't doubt that there are some who exhibited at least mild racism. Though, I was pointing out that the quotes MarginOfError provided didn't make the case very well, and that there are far better examples of racism in the Church than that. It appears that he was trying to find the most racist comments made by some of the individuals I mention in an earlier post, like Harold B. Lee, to counter my point that others besides Kimball prayed about the issue. However, I'm not bothered at all about Lee's opposition to integration at BYU, under the circumstances, or Kimball's opposition to inter-racial marriage. I'm certainly not concerned about Benson's (and others) disdain for Communism - which I agree with, but that is another topic. Those beliefs do not make them any less prophets to me, or any less inspired, or any less receptive to the revelations of God concerning the matter of the priesthood ban. I am specifically saying the policy of withholding the priesthood appears to be the will of the Lord, because he allowed it for so long, and because a revelation was required to change the policy - even though other people of color deemed "non African" were allowed to receive the priesthood without specific revelation. And also because the Church has not repudiated the policy like they have other false doctrines, such as Adam-God. I'm saying what Dallin H. Oaks is saying in the following quotations that you have probably already seen while researching the topic. ...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it. ...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies. (Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.) I'm simply agreeing with him that the ban was a commandment/revelation (his words not mine), and that we do not know the reason for it. Regards, Vanhin

How can you tell? Vanhin

Okay, I have spent too much time on all this for one day. Gonna take a little break. Regards, Vanhin

It's not beyond reason to think that some of those groups would have been mistaken as people of African descent at first. But the intention of the policy was always to ban blacks of African descent from holding the priesthood, and no other people, and that's what it was until the ban was lifted by way of revelation. Regards, Vanhin

I don't understand the question. Mind clarifying what you mean for me? Thanks, Vanhin

And it would have been because of confusion about their lineage. The ban only affected blacks of African descent. Even though others were lumped into that category at first who should not have been, that was the intent of the ban, and it appears that as soon as they felt that a group of people were not black Africans, they allowed them to hold the priesthood. Yet, for the black Africans, a specific revelation was required, received, and canonized before they were allowed to receive the priesthood. Regards, Vanhin

But you're not considering his objection. The objection was that blacks were even allowed to attend BYU with whites. He objected to desegregating education, and his daughter was a straw man to make his case...much like you're using the straw man now. I am considering his objection. BYU is an LDS school. I suppose that one of the reasons young single members attend BYU is to increase their prospects of finding someone who would be able to marry them in the temple. I know I have personally known people who chose BYU for that reason. It seems to me he is concerned about inter-racial marriages between black and white members who meet at BYU because it would prevent them and their children from receiving the blessings of the priesthood. In the context of the times, when blacks of African descent could not hold the priesthood, it seems to me to be a logical concern. Him using his own granddaughter as an example is clearly not a straw man, but a glimpse into his reasoning. If the Church did not allow a certain lineage to hold the priesthood, then even I would have a problem with my own daughter marrying someone of that lineage. I worry about my children marrying outside of the Church, or being in situations where they might fall in love with someone unlikely to join the Church, for the same reason. I'm sure however, that just like me, President Lee, a righteous prophet of God, would love his granddaughter and her husband even if she married someone who could not receive the priesthood (or did not want the priesthood). A more reliable source than his daughter? No, I mean a more reliable source than a book that claims a friend of Lee's daughter claims that the daughter told her that her father had said something racist. That's dubious. The source you provided might be sufficient to support the notion that there was a girl who claimed such a thing, but it's not very reliable in supporting the truth of the claim that she made. A primary source, such as the daughter's journal describing the words of her father would be better. Fear mongering is the point. It was Benson's favorite trick. "THE COMMIES ARE COMING!" He wasn't being at all subtle about tying civil rights to the advancement of communism. Ergo, it was crucial to deny blacks rights so that communism could be kept in its proper place. In other words, Benson was employing a straw man. Actually, if you know anything about Benson at all, you would know that it is far more plausible that he was more concerned about the advancement of communism than denying rights to black Americans. Even so, it seems you are saying that those opposed to the civil rights movement in question are necessarily racists. Do you believe those opposed to the women's rights movement in America are necessarily male chauvinists, and that those opposed to gay rights are necessarily homophobes? No, I'm saying that it was commonly held in Brown's family that he wasn't invited back into the First Presidency because of political disagreements about civil rights. I see, then how is that relevant? You misattribute intention again. I merely posit plausibility that feelings on race delayed the lifting of the priesthood ban. Again? I wasn't aware that I had misattributed your intentions to begin with. I am asking you to clarify what you mean, so that I can attribute your intentions properly. I haven't tried very hard. I referred you to another source that does do a very good job of documenting the racial predjudices of the brethren of the era. So you're saying that it isn't racial bias as long as the bias is against one ethnicity? Bias is favoritism. If the policy favored the white race exclusively, then there would be a stronger case for bias. But since the intention of the policy was to ban blacks of African descent from holding the priesthood, yet other people of color could hold the priesthood before 1978, without special revelation, then it is clear to me that the will of the Lord is a more plausible explanation than racism, coupled with the other points that I have made. I suppose it is possible that the people behind the ban accepted all other races as superior over black Africans, enough to keep the priesthood from them, but that seems very unlikely to me. Was it the Lord's own timetable, or was it the Lord finally saying that the brethren had delayed long enough? You claim that I haven't demonstrated that personal biases delayed the lifting of the ban, but you haven't demonstrated that it couldn't possibly have been lifted earlier. Kind of puts us at an impasse, doesn't it? Oh, wow...kind of like how I was saying there are multiple plausible explanations. Weird how that happened. We are at an impasse, no doubt. I did demonstrate that prophets of the Lord had prayed about the matter before 1978. That is a fact. So, if the Lord wished to lift the ban earlier, he could have. I do not accept the possibility that the ban was in error, based on our current knowledge, and as it stands, statements made by the Church on the matter support my conclusion. There has not been any repudiation of the ban itself, only a repudiation of reasons given for it by those with limited understanding. Even the wording of the scripture that lifts the ban contains no hint that the policy was in error, which is no small thing. Regards, Vanhin

It is accurate and what you are saying only supports that. The ban has always been about blacks of African descent, but it was not always clear who all that constituted. The fact that they determined that others were allowed to receive the priesthood without a "revelation" only proves that point, and it proves that white racial bias was not at issue, since other people of color were ordained before 1978. Regards, Vanhin

We don't know. However, I believe I have demonstrated from a latter-day saint perspective that it was the will of the Lord by the following points. 1) I unequivocally accept Joseph Smith and all the presidents of the Church, together with the apostles who have remained in good standing up to now, as the Lord's authorized servants on matters of Church policy and doctrine. 2) I do not believe God would allow such a practice to persist for so long, especially considering the prayers and pleadings of many of the above servants of the Lord, if it was not his will. 3) I believe the lifting of the ban was authorized by revelation, and revelation alone, and that both eyewitness accounts of the revelation and the wording of Official Declaration 2 imply the Lord's acceptance of the ban, and that there was a "long-promised day" prescribed for when the ban was to be lifted - proving further that it was the Lord's will. For non-LDS who do not believe that our leaders are true prophets and apostles, my reasoning does very little - I'll admit that. No I don't mean that. I believe the Church would repudiate false doctrine as it has before. Yes, I believe he was. That is exactly the case I am making. Well, I do not have reasons for the ban, or explanations for all of those things. Without knowing from the Lord directly why he allowed the ban to persist, we can only speculate. Sure, I can understand that it is difficult to accept such a thing with such limited understanding at our disposal. However, I accept the priesthood ban, it's duration, and the subsequent revelation to lift the ban, as the will of the Lord, unless the Lord tells us otherwise through his chosen mouthpiece. Regards, Vanhin

Since blacks of African decent could not receive the priesthood and the associated temple blessings at that time, it's not surprising to me that he would not want his granddaughter to become engaged to one. As unfair as it appears, it seems a perfectly logical stance for him to have considering the circumstances. The second part of the quote seems dubious at best to me. I would like to see something from a more reliable source on that one before I accepted it as fact. I don't see the relevance of this quote. So, Benson, according to this quote, questioned the motives and powers behind the civil rights movement in the south, associating it with a communist plot. How is that relevant? And this quote is like the last one. Are you trying to say that those leaders in the Church who opposed the civil rights movement were necessarily racists? Are you trying to demonstrate that the Lord did not lift the priesthood ban before 1978, despite the prayers of the leaders of the Church, because they were racists? The leaders of the Church before Kimball might have been all out racists, or they might have discriminated against a specific race, but you have not made a very good case to show it. Besides, racial bias (which is another word for preference, or at worst supremacy) is not demonstrated by the ban to begin with, since it only affected those of a certain lineage. Every other race, be their skin color white, black, brown, or whatever, were allowed to receive the priesthood, but not blacks of African decent. Lastly, you have not demonstrated that the personal beliefs of the leaders of the Church concerning race can stay the hand of the Lord in this matter anyway. The 1978 revelation proves that despite Elder McConckie's views on race, and President Kimball's views on race and inter-racial marriage, the Lord was quite capable of revealing his will according to his own timetable. There were still many prominent leaders of the Church at that time whose views on race were quite inequitable towards blacks, but that didn't matter to the Lord. Regards, Vanhin

We also speak the same way, but we understand that what we are describing is the influence of the Holy Ghost. To latter-day saints, the Holy Ghost is a divine person of spirit, like the Savior was before he was born into mortality. There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter. (D&C 131:7-8) Because we claim that spirit is also matter, only more fine or pure, if we were to behold the Holy Ghost right now (with purer eyes), we would see that he is a Man, without a physical body. His spirit body has hands, arms, legs, feet, a head, and so forth, just like Jesus Christ did when He appeared to the brother of Jared before his mortal advent (See Ether 3). Our spirit bodies are also in the image and likeness of God, being his offspring. Our physical bodies resemble our spirits, only they have the shortcomings and blemishes of mortality. We don't think of spirits as intangible wisps that don't take up space in existence. :) I'm sure you have read it before but that Ether 3 reference is really interesting reading concerning our understanding of spirits. Regards, Vanhin

I also wanted to throw in a couple of quotations concerning the revelation that was received lifting the priesthood ban. I thought these were marvelous accounts worth sharing. As a historian I sought to learn the particulars and record them in my private diary. The following account is based on dozens of interviews with persons who talked with church officials after the revelation was announced. Although members of the Twelve and the First Presidency with whom I sought interviews felt they should not elaborate on what happened, I learned details from family members and friends to whom they had made comments. . . . Those in attendance said that as [President Kimball] began his earnest prayer, they suddenly realized that it was not Kimball's prayer, but the Lord speaking through him. A revelation was being declared. Kimball himself realized that the words were not his but the Lord's. During that prayer some of the Twelve -- at least two who have said so publicly -- were transported into a celestial atmosphere, saw a divine presence and the figures of former presidents of the church (portraits of whom were hanging on the walls around them) smiling to indicate their approval and sanction. . . . At the end of the heavenly manifestation Kimball, weeping for joy, confronted the church members, many of them also sobbing, and asked if they sustained this heavenly instruction. Embracing, all nodded vigorously and jubilantly their sanction. There had been a startling and commanding revelation from God -- an ineffable experience. Two of the apostles present described the experience as a "day of Pentecost" similar to the one in the Kirtland Temple on April 6, 1836, the day of its dedication. They saw a heavenly personage and heard heavenly music. To the temple-clothed members, the gathering, incredible and without compare, was the greatest single event of their lives. Those I talked with wept as they spoke of it. All were certain they had witnessed a revelation from God. (Leonard J. Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1998), 176-177) And this one from David B. Haight I would hope someday that our great-grandson Mark and others of our posterity would have similar spiritual experiences and that they would feel the spiritual power and influence of this gospel. I hope that Mark and others will have opportunities such as I had when I was in the temple when President Spencer W. Kimball received the revelation regarding the priesthood. I was the junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I was there. I was there with the outpouring of the Spirit in that room so strong that none of us could speak afterwards. We just left quietly to go back to the office. No one could say anything because of the powerful outpouring of the heavenly spiritual experience. But just a few hours after the announcement was made to the press, I was assigned to attend a stake conference in Detroit, Michigan. When my plane landed in Chicago, I noticed an edition of the Chicago Tribune on the newsstand. The headline in the paper said, "Mormons Give Blacks Priesthood." And the subheading said, "President Kimball Claims to Have Received a Revelation." I bought a copy of the newspaper. I stared at one word in that subheading: claims. It stood out to me just like it was in red neon. As I walked along the hallway to make my plane connection, I thought, Here I am now in Chicago walking through this busy airport, yet I was a witness to this revelation. I was there. I witnessed it. I felt that heavenly influence. I was part of it. Little did the editor of that newspaper realize the truth of that revelation when he wrote, "Claims to Have Received a Revelation." Little did he know, or the printer, or the man who put the ink on the press, or the one who delivered the newspaper -- little did any of them know that it was truly a revelation from God. Little did they know what I knew because I was a witness to it. (David B. Haight, "This Work Is True," Ensign (May 1996), 22.) Regards, Vanhin

Thanks for your answer. I don't think that is a very plausible scenario. There is a big difference between what a president of the Church does, speaks, and decides, and what becomes binding policy or doctrine in the Church. Brigham Young advanced at times different theories and doctrines that were not able to pass the process that would make them binding. One such example was Adam-God (See Church doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God - FAIRMormon). That example alone demonstrates that the brethren, even in Brigham Young's time, are not afraid to oppose him (or anyone else) on grounds of false doctrine. This Church has always been the Church of Jesus Christ, and not Joseph's or Brigham's. We sustain all the apostles as prophets seers and revelators, and for good reason. I didn't get a lot of feedback on my remarks earlier in this thread when I pointed out that the priesthood ban, although lifted, has not been repudiated by the Church, and neither was it repudiated by Elder Holland. On the contrary he appears to maintain the ban's validity, except he questions some of the reasons given, such as less than valiant spirits in the pre-mortal conflict and so forth. The event that led to the lifting of the ban was not a mere consensus. It was a revelation, and those present at the time, who have spoken about it, attest to the Spirit of the Lord being present when it was received. Naturally, the result was an addition to our canon (Official Declaration 2), which represents binding doctrine. It was the will of the Lord that the ban be lifted, after the many prayers of not just those in the Church at the time, but many generations before them. I recommend you read OD 2, again, if you haven't in a while. There is no hint of "mistake" in that canonized scripture. Check this excerpt out (the boldface is mine). Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance. He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. (Official Declaration 2) There is no doubt about that. It is a matter of recorded history that what you describe was a growing concern of the brethren. Official Declaration 2 says basically that in the first paragraph of the letter portion. However, the desire and prayers of presidents and apostles for the ban to be lifted long before 1978 is also a matter of recorded history. David O. McKay, for instance, told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but had not had the answer he sought." (See Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, chapter 20 working draft, 13.) Church Historian Leonard Arrington said that Harold B. Lee had also sought the will of the Lord on the matter and his only answer was "not yet". (See Newell G. Bringhurst, "The 'Missouri Thesis' Revisited: Early Mormonism, Slavery, and the Status of Black People," in Newel K. Bringhurst and Darron T. Smith, eds., Black and Mormon (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004), 13.) I accept the priesthood ban, it's duration, and the subsequent revelation to lift the ban, as the will of the Lord. Overwhelming evidence points to that, but I certainly see no reason to believe otherwise. I accept Joseph Smith through Thomas S. Monson as servants of the Lord, and I don't believe the Lord would have allowed such a practice to continue as long as it did, with so many people praying for it's change, had it not been His will. Sincerely, Vanhin

Come on y'all, chill out.

That's fine, I'll take whatever answer you are giving. Thanks, Vanhin

Gotcha. So, in such a scenario, is it also plausible in your mind that ten succeeding presidents of the Church, along with generations of apostles were not inspired enough, or had not enough courage collectively to rectify the mistake before 1978? Do you think that it was revelation that lifted the policy, or was it simply the fact that the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve of 1978 were finally able to have consensus on the matter where their predecessors had not been able to in the past? I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just curious about your point of view. Regards, Vanhin

Did I miss something? What decision did the prophet make without the Spirit? Are we just talking about the hypothetical - that the prophet can make uninspired decisions? Regards, Vanhin

For what it's worth, I cook with wine/beer and extracts, and I don't lose any sleep over it. But then again, maybe that's just the alcohol... Vanhin

I'm sure this thread will go every which way before it's over. I hope it doesn't, but Justice says it right. If Jehovah was able to be born into mortality, lay down his life, and then take it up again, and still be God before, during, and after his mortal experience, then I don't see how that would have been much of a feat for his Father. Regards, Vanhin

Agreed. Agreed here as well. Technically, the affirmation of "one essence" is quite compatible, in some sense, with the LDS view of the Godhead. It's the major other differences that make a big difference. The biggest one, I think, is that in non-LDS Christian thought, there is a very strong sense that there is a great ontological difference between ourselves and God, and hence that we aren't all the same fundamental kind of thing. There is more I want to address concerning your last sentence, but I will save it for my next point since it is related. I do want to thank you at this point for the respect you demonstrate in your language for us and our doctrine. I especially thank you for implying we are Christians by refererring to other Christians as "non-LDS Christians". A small thing I'm sure, but it means a lot to me. I think one roadblock to dialogue here is that, well, many other Christians just have no idea what is being meant when the word "literal" is used in this way. I would say that I, too, believe that God is the Father of our spirits. He is the creator of our spirits. But I don't think, "Ah, well, that's a metaphorical use of the word 'father' as opposed to a literal one." I would say that it's a different use of the word 'father' than when we speak of our earthly fathers being 'fathers', but I don't use a 'literal'/'metaphorical' spectrum for it. Likewise, apart from the Word becoming flesh, Trinitarians historically have believed that the Son is begotten by the Father. We believe that the Son timelessly derives his existence from the Father as a matter of metaphysical necessity, and all this within the essence of God. I don't take that as a less 'literal' use of the language of begetting than any carnal use. For this reason, I don't think the LDS emphasis on their beliefs being 'literal' is all that productive without further exposition of the exact content of what's being affirmed. What I mean is the following. The most intelligent type of being in existence is God, and God the Father is a glorified and immortal Man. Our scriptures, for example, call him "Man of Holiness" (Moses 7:35), and his Only Begotten Son is the "Son of Man" (Moses 6:57). So to put a finer point on it, we hold that we are the same type of being that He is, it's just that we are still developing, and are not nearly as progressed as he is - God being all powerful, and all knowing, among other perfect qualities. We believe that mankind existed in God's presence, as spirits, before taking mortal tabernacles. We are his offspring, and He knew us personally. He endowed us with personal agency (free will), and we are beings capable of acting for ourselves. We had not, of course, attained His glory, and neither could we without His help. Not only is the Father perfect in attributes and joy, but He also possesses an immortal glorified body of flesh and bone. The Father desires nothing more than to exalt his children to the same station and happiness that He enjoys. I cannot imagine a perfect God, who supposedly loves us perfectly, who would not wish to make us as He is. And surely He has the power to do it. Our Father provided a plan that would enable us to obtain bodies for ourselves and to learn by our own experience the difference between good and evil - and hopefully choose good. This mortal life, is a part of our Father's plan of happiness for us. Mortality is not without challenges, however. Because of our agency, we often act contrary to the will of the Father, and become unclean, and thus are not allowed back into His presence. Further, the bodies we receive are mortal and die, and so are not able to achieve bodies for ourselves permanently. Sin and death, prevent us from returning to God and attaining our full potential. Our all knowing and all wise Father, of course, knew this would be the case, and so he prepared a Savior for us. Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of our Father's children in the pre-mortal world, and was completely submissive to the Father's will and perfectly obedient from the very beginning. Our scriptures teach that the pre-mortal Jesus was "like unto God" (Abr. 3:24). The Father foreordained his Firstborn to Atone for the sins of mankind, and to bring about the resurrection of the dead. He made Christ the ruler of the Universe, and made him our Advocate with the Father. All things were created by Him, and thus our scriptures speak of Christ as the Eternal Father of heaven and earth. Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last; (Alma 11:38-39) We mean precisely that the father of Christ's physical body is Heavenly Father, who is the God of Heaven, and the Father of all the spirits of mankind, and his mortal mother was the virgin Mary. Thus He is the Only Begotten of all of Heavenly Father's children in the flesh. We believe that this was a miraculous conception, and that Mary was a virgin, yet we believe God was His father - literally. This allowed the Redeemer of mankind the power to give his life and to take it up again. Only a God could drink the bitter cup and suffer the punishments and the pains of all. He went below all things, and paid the price for our transgressions, which price is required by justice - thus providing mercy to all who would believe on His name and keep His commandments. He overcame the bonds of death for all who would ever be born, allowing them to appear with their resurrected bodies to be judged, the righteous unto eternal life and the wicked unto damnation. Amen! I see no (few?) substantial problems in your words there. I believe that Christ is Lord and God - though, I would qualify, not a Lord and God other than the Father - and that he created heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is. I believe that Christ was chosen before creation to be the redeemer of mankind, and that he shows us the way to be in communion with the Father as we were meant to be, and that he enabled this by making atonement for our sins and rising again so that we might share in his triumph. The day will come when Christ will judge us - and I would add that all those who have faith now, provided they hold true to the faith, have an assurance of a verdict in their favor on that day. And then all Christians will be made joint-heirs with Christ, and will be glorified and will reign with him over the whole of creation. No problems at all with what you wrote. The difference is probably in the details discussed above. I appreciate the conversation thus far. I'm interested in any further thoughts you have concerning what I wrote, or your own views of the matter. Regards, Vanhin

Sorry for the delay in my response. Thanks. I agree that paradox has a better ring to it, seeing that I too, as a latter-day saint, believe that both sides of the paradox are true. In other words, I truly do not believe there is a contradiction at play. That's okay I thought it was interesting reading nonetheless. :) I personally think that there is a greater difference between the Trinitarian and the LDS view of the Godhead than the subject of their oneness. In fact, I have seen these conversations ultimately come to an understanding here on these forums many times, with LDS conceding that the "of one nature" can be compatible with our view of the Godhead, and (perhaps) vice versa. What we claim, concerning our relationship with God, is perhaps a greater hurdle. Namely, I'm talking about our relationship as offspring of God. Latter-day saints believe that God the Father is literally the Father of the spirits of mankind, and that Jesus Christ is his Firstborn. Further we believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh - meaning He is the only one of us who's physical body was sired by God the Father, and was born miraculously to the virgin Mary. To be clear, we do not know the details of Christ's conception, but we believe the biblical record, that Mary was a virgin before and after his birth. It is our belief that the pre-mortal Christ is the Lord of the Universe, and that under the direction of the Father, He created all things in heaven and earth. We claim that Christ is the foreordained Redeemer of mankind, and that not only did He show us a perfect example of how to return to the Father, He made the return possible by Atoning for our sins and bringing about the resurrection of the dead. We believe that Christ will judge us on that great day, according to our words, thoughts, and actions, and that those who have accepted his teachings and been obedient to his commandments, will be made heirs and join-heirs with Christ, and rule and reign in the kingdoms of the Father. I consider Jesus Christ my Lord and my God, and in so doing I do not believe that I offend the Father, whom I also worship in His holy name. So, I think our literal kinship to God the Father, as the Father of our spirits, and our brotherhood to Jesus Christ, who is the Author of our salvation might be a greater hurdle than just the nature of their oneness. What do you think about all that? Regards, Vanhin

Jdbf, Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all that. Would you say that the primary reasoning for the concept of the Holy Trinity stems from the apparently obvious contradiction found in the Bible where it teaches that there is only one true God on the one hand, and on the other hand, it teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each a God? So, the doctrine of the Triune God attempts to settle the contradiction, and yet still have both sides of the contradiction be true. The glue that makes this concept seemingly work is the nature or essence shared by members of the Godhead - they being of the same exact nature are thus one God not three. This in the minds of Trinitarians is sufficient to maintain their monotheism. Is that a fair assessment? Regards, Vanhin

It is our doctrine that God the Father is a glorified Man with an immortal body of flesh and bone, and the Son also (D&C 130:22). However, we do not know very much about His mortal experience. So, like the matter of the priesthood ban, we are wise not to speculate until God provides further light and knowledge on the matter, though many have... Our scriptures do say the following about Him - By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them; (D&C 20:17) We do know, however, that we as his spirit offspring have the potential to become as He is (See Guide to the Scriptures: Exaltation) Also, you might be interested in the follow FairLDS article. Nature of God/Infinite regress of Gods - FAIRMormon Regards, Vanhin

Well, I do think that is it. He is saying just that - that He is God. Because we know Jesus is sinless - and therefore good. But he is not His Father and our (spirits) Father, whom he said to be greater than himself. That wouldn't make much sense. Regards, Vanhin

Good stuff my friend. Hey I am a latter-day saint who believes in the divinity of Christ. I have said as much many times. I worship the Father in His name, and I worship the Son as the Redeemer of mankind. Although clearly our doctrine is that Christ is subordinate to the Father. It is the Father's will that prevails. It is His will that Christ submitted to, and we must submit to His will to become one with them. The scriptures are plain on that. ...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17) I especially like the last paragraph you wrote. That is what Justin Martyr taught concerning the divinity of Christ. ...when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same." (Dialogue with Trypho, 128) A fire kindled from the source fire (God), does not diminish the source, which maintains it's size and glory, yet the offspring is wholly distinct fire and just as glorious. I think Justin would agree that the more fires that are kindled from the source, the more the source is glorified. He did say "many can be kindled" in the above quotation. But we'll have to wait to ask him for sure. We certainly believe such doctrine. Justin argued that the Father and the Son are numerically distinct, yet one in will, the Son being subordinate to the Father. I think his view on the nature of the Godhead is pretty close to ours. "There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56). And one more to top things off. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even [a?] God." (First Apology, 63) Regards, Vanhin