brotherofJared

Hopefully, you will note that before the three are defined as one, there is one who is called God who is infinite and eternal. There IS A God and then there are three beings who ARE ONE God. @Traveler gave an excellent example of divine investiture of the supreme being and his vassals. In this sense, any one of the three is the same as the one God in heaven who is infinite and eternal... Certainly, there all three of them together would constitute the same authority as the one God mentioned in verse 17.

Like I said, until we have a better term to define the coexistence of Gods other than polytheism, we are stuck with that word. I really didn't want to get into this kind of discussion. My intent was to address if it was really important based on the lack of empirical evidence. Was it acceptable for Ammon to accept King Lamoni's understanding of what God is without correcting him and telling him, no the Great Spirit isn't God, that's a bogus pagan belief? We accept the terms we have and recognize that what we are calling things may not match what others call it, but for now, it's the best we've got. When a Christian who is trying to understand what we believe finds out that we believe that God the Father of Jesus Christ is a separate being from Christ who is also embodied in flesh and bone, that is going to cause problems regardless of whether you want to call it polytheism or monotheism.

I think when we talk to our brothers and sisters who don't believe or even know LDS doctrine, we need to tell them exactly what we believe. And I disagree with you. Limited to present language terms, we are polytheists.

It seems to me that in order for us to ignore the current semantic discussion, we'd have to invent a new term to define our doctrine. Until that time comes, we are forced to use the language we currently have. Question: Are there not many gods in heaven? If so, and we believe that there are, then we are polytheistic. Are there not three gods in the Godhead? If so, and we believe that the Godhead is invested in our salvation, we are polytheistic. I haven't read all of your post so I don't know. Perhaps you don't think that we believe that the Father is a God and that Jesus Christ is a God too. But we do and we believe that they are two individual Gods, separate from each other.

Conversion comes through the Holy Ghost regardless of who the person believes is God. A Muslim who prays to Allah 5 times a day can be just as equally saved as the Christian who prays and preaches the word from the Bible. There is no wrong way to worship. But our worship is significantly enhanced when we know who we worship and why we worship him. I believe anyone can come to know Christ through the Holy Ghost. Any Christian can experience the same joy that we profess to enjoy because the Holy Ghost works from within us. And, God, not being a respecter of persons, will answer, help find and open doors to anyone who seeks, knocks or asks in faith, believing. He will even empower them to do good and be good, as good as they understand that they need to be. The only person I'm aware of who might stand condemned is the person who, in the face of such knowledge and hope, seeks to gratify his carnal nature. It is not what we believe that makes the difference, it is what we do with what we believe that does.

That's the way I understood your question. But, in your example, three in unity, is basically the same as we believe. Since there isn't any physical evidence that any of us can find out on our own we must rely on our faith in what we are taught, even if what we are taught is wrong. Therefore, if a modalist believes one way and a polytheist believes another way, that when he prays to God the Father, he is not praying to Jesus Christ, though I think it is not wrong that both may hear the prayer. How can it be serious error for doing what you believe based on one's faith - as long as it is in harmony with what the Bible teaches, namely the two great commandments?

We do baptisms for the dead because without baptism, no one can see the kingdom of God. Embracing God and his gospel comes first. Otherwise, even with the baptism administered, they are not likely to accept it.

I'm to asking you to defend your belief in the one God (Trinity concept). The question originally was, what difference does it make? You claimed it was serious error to believe such. I don't even care how serious. What I want to know is what difference it makes. I think that's a valid question because it certainly doesn't bother me that you believe that they are physically the same being. So, if you can pretend, for a moment, that we believe that Jesus is physically separated from his Father and that both beings are Gods, let's discuss what difference it makes that we believe as we do and you believe as you do. Please don't defend monotheism vs polytheism. There's no point in it. I'm simply curious why you think it matters. Just for the record. I think it makes no difference at all. Eventually, we're all going to find out the truth. But if God is going to condemn us because we didn't know, then that's on God because he didn't make it clear.

We are not monotheistic and that is not our doctrine. The Godhead is three gods, three beings who are one in purpose. I don't know what others believe on this board, but no one, that I know of, has ever claimed that we are monotheists in the strictest sense. Anyone who tries to make that claim is either unaware of his blunder or is trying to find common ground between the beliefs of other Christian teachings and our teachings. We believe that God, The Father, has a body of flesh and bone just as Jesus has a body of flesh and bone. Both are resurrected beings.

That's a subtle nuance of polytheism, yes. We don't believe "in" them. We just believe they are there, most have nothing to do with us, but there are three that have a lot to do with us. Believing "in" the Son, as God, is very important because without that no one can be saved. Sorry for the many replies. I don't know how to quote several parts into a single reply.

Even in LDS thinking, God reveals himself in different ways. My point is that God, himself, has not revealed his physical being to very many people, and most likely, not to you or to me. The idea of his physical being and whether there be one God or many gods is taught, not proven and not seen. We believe based on our faith in what we are taught. The difference between us and other Christians is that we believe that God revealed his physical being alongside his Son to Joseph Smith revealing the true nature of God and that there are, indeed, gods. God reveals truth through the Holy Ghost, but seldom reveals himself. That's a phrase you use, but I don't think you mean "God reveals himself", literally.

Well, that helps, but you assume that he revealed himself as one. The problem that was presented in this thread was basically that there is no proof of your statement. You believe he revealed himself as one being. The way I read the Bible is that God revealed that there are many gods, but one that we worship. Neither belief can be proven. When we worship, we worship as Jesus taught - who, when He taught, taught us to worship, not himself, but to worship his Father who is God. If Jesus is also God, then are there not many gods? But the problem here is why is it wrong if we worship according to our understanding? If our understanding is correct, our understanding can be increased. If it is wrong, it will do nothing by chase it's tail. In other words, the problem is, the wrong way is limiting, but the wrong way can always be corrected unless one is not willing to let go of what is wrong. I know of no scripture where God condemns anyone for being wrong about what they believe. It's not what we believe that condemns us. It is what we do that condemns us. The problem with belief is if what we believe excuses us from our actions or enables us to act in ways that are against God's teachings. Does believing that the Godhead consists of three beings who are each God cause us to act in ways that are against God's teachings? If you think that it does, please explain.

The challenge is to explain what you mean by affirming that God is one, but that we should all worship in spirit. I don't see how one relates to the other. I don't even know what you mean by worship in spirit, but how does that have anything to do with monotheism? I have my understanding of the Godhead, which I believe is an organization of three beings. I don't believe that one in purpose can be misconstrued to mean monotheism.

Embrace the "difficulty" or "mystery". Well, two of the three here are being led into serious error, so it seems that we should at least get this right. "LDS" hold to the definition that Paul gave to the Corinthians. "to us, there is but one God, the Father...". That statement was made in reference to many gods and it specifically called out Jesus as Lord out of many lords. I believe that would be the Biblical middle ground. Funny thing is, I don't think all members of our church understand that and, from experience, I've learned that not very many people like to be corrected. This is my understanding of what we believe... we worship one God, the Father. It is to Him that Jesus Christ leads us to and directs us to, if we follow him. Jesus is also God. If it was not so, He could not bring us to His Father. The Godhead is one in unity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are each separate individual Gods in the Godhead. We do not single out any other member of the Godhead to receive special attention. I'm sure we will when we are in the presence of one of them and rightly so, But Christ, according to the Bible, directed our worship, not to himself, but to His Father and our Father, His God, and our God.

This is the way I've been given to understand the Trinitarian doctrine. God is three persons and one being. This allows God, the Son, to pray to God the Father as a different person. In order to make this happen, theologically, there has to be a definition of what a being is that is separate from what a person is. The dictionary doesn't help in matters of theology. Personally, I think it's just a play on words which basically amounts to just saying it's a mystery that we can't explain and don't understand, but that's the way it is. What do you mean by "leads to serious error"? It seems to me, that it would be worth being able to explain it if one believed God would not lead us into serious error.

This still isn't answering the question.

Again, another statement that is clouded as to its real meaning. Basically, this says that God will punish people who, based on the argument at hand, ignorantly worship three beings instead of one and when he does punish them, it will be in a just way.

Obviously, God doesn't reveal Himself to all people the same way. How does one know the Spirit has witnessed to him(? you capitalized the word) "accurately"? My understanding is that when Christians other us say "accurately", they mean, "the way IT was witnessed to me".

Again, if God is invisible, then what difference does it make? The Bible makes a pretty good argument for three beings in the Godhead. If one worships as Jesus taught, what difference would it make if those who worshiped Him understood him to be three beings or one being?

This statement makes no sense to me at all. I'm not sure how it answers the question, what difference does it make?

Where do the scriptures say that Jesus must leave so the Holy Ghost could come? (that was the question I was trying to ask originally).

Well, it appears that no one understands it well enough to explain it. I understand the marriage covenant. That's pretty straight forward. I believe being born in the covenant entitles the children to the same blessings that the parents have through the parents, so I assume that being sealed does the same thing in that regard. A temple marriage should be unbroken and dependable. I believe it is the ideal model of what a family should have... a father and mother who works together for the salvation of their children as well as their own. But the sealing is also genealogical, connecting the family of Adam to the family of God, parents to children down through all the generations of time. This latter sealing cannot be broken even by divorce. It is the same as blood relations. The natural parents of a child will always be the parents of that child regardless of whether or not they stay married. Divorce makes this extremely complicated and thus it is not ideal. For example, I have two stepchildren. I am not biologically related to either even though they refer to me as one of their parents. Having them sealed to me would effectively make me their parent spiritually which, I'm guessing, is as effective as a biological connection. My confusion and concern was about what happens when that spiritual connection is broken between husband and wife. From my statement, it appears that it would be the same as a biological connection between natural parents and children after divorce. They are both still the parents of the children even though the parents are not together. That being said, the children could obtain a new set of spiritual parents, if, for example, the wife married another man in the temple and had the children sealed to them. That would be discomforting. This, of course, complicates matters even more. I think it best to follow Pres Oaks' recommendation that we lean not unto our own understanding. For now, I'm happy with inaction pending further light and knowledge.

Drawing a connection between the parable of the electron and the light and your statement, I would suggest that doctrine is the electron. Doctrine is the correct application of the laws of God. In the same way, understanding how an electron works, if we understand it correctly, would help us understand why the light didn't go on when we flipped the switch. However, since the results of what we do, including sin, is not immediate, we can't troubleshoot the end result (life or damnation) of our actions until it is too late. So we have to trust the doctrine and not waste our time in trial and error trying to understand how the principle of God's laws work.

This makes me wonder why anyone still goes to this church. Everyone sins. I have to disagree. Sin is not the cause of people leaving the church. I think they leave the church because they had a question and didn't get an answer that satisfied them. People remain active in church as long as their questions do not become the focus of their satisfaction. There are a lot of questions that cannot be answered right now. Most people who face these questions and stay are willing to accept that we don't have all the answers and will wait for a brighter day. Some people just ignore their questions and some people make their questions a hill they are willing to die over. It seems that once a person is confronted with the dilemma of a void instead of an answer, the wound festers and gets infected so that after a time, all the person can see is all that is wrong or is perceived to be wrong with the church. But there are some who leave because they can do better outside the church than they can inside the church, I mean money-wise. There is the lure of instant popularity among a group of people who are very hungry for dirty laundry. I was listening to one disaffected member who spent a good deal of time explaining to these hungry listeners about how he cheated on his wife because the Holy Ghost told him too. I had to wonder how far these people were willing to go to get their dirt. He was very popular even though he wasn't a person who I would think was trustworthy.

I've never even heard of Mormon Stories outside of the book series published by Deseret.