Discussion Regarding God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost

[Teancum18]

PrisonChaplin said something in the welcome threads that really got me thinking about starting a brainstorming discussion about the God Head (I'm just going to refer to it as that since I'm LDS). But for all intents and purposes, however other members from different faiths refer to it is still precisely what I want to discuss here. This is what PC said.

IMHO, the Trinity, the LDS Godhead, the modalism of Oneness Pentecostals or "Jesus Only-ism," and even the Subordinationism (Jesus is a god, but not the God) of the Jehovah's Witnesses are all easy to understand on a surface level. All of them can become complicated when explaining the beliefs to critics.

Now, I'm sure this goes without any necessity to mention because PC is an all-time favorite on lds.net/forums, but I will still say it out of respect: I am not quoting him to put him on the spot or attack him. On the contrary, he poses a really good point and I want to discuss it.

I'm still not entirely sure where I want to go with this thread, but I definitely want it to be one that discuses the complexity of the God Head (or Trinity, ect as others will refer to it). Scriptures, doctrine, personal opinions- all are fair game as contributions that may lead to this discussion (LDS people, please remember Alma 12:9)

I definitely want questions asked, ideas challenged, new ideas posed; all in an attempt to find common ground between all faiths as to the nature of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

One last thing, if you read this thread and think it's stupid, please don't just ignore it. Work with it. Help me find ways to make this a good discussion. There are some very intelligent people on this forum site, and I want to see what all of us putting our heads together can accomplish in regards to finding a common-ground belief of the God Head.

:::EDIT::: Thank you to the person who moved this thread for me.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Teancum18

[Hemidakota]

You will never find a common ground for those who have the knowledge of the Godhead. A common bond is only formed when others have reached that pinnacle of life in receiving the PERFECT KNOWLEDGE.

[jimuk]

Hi Teancum18.

First i would like to repeat what has been said so many times before, and that is this "Our father is not a god of confusion" nothing he has had written in the scriptures was meant to confuse us.

I am a firm believer in that the scriptures are there for learned and unlearned alike, so what you see is what you get, no " Hmm it says this but i think it means this" well not in my unlearned searching for the truths, which heavenly father has made plain in the Holy bible and in book of Mormon.

If it says that Our heavenly father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three seperate beings in one godhead, then that is the way it is, otherwise Heavenly father would indeed be a god of confusion.

If you agree that the scriptures are for everyone, then there is no way they would be there to cause us to recoil at what would be such confusion on the subject, it is not a game of wits, knowledge, or "i know the bible more than you, because i was lucky enough to be able to go to bible college".

It is lovely to me to know what the Godhead is, it is such a simple thing, and yes it should be a simple thing, something for every person on this earth to cherish and love without confusion.

This is my addition to the great debate lol.

Edited January 15, 2009 by jimuk

[Sergg]

When I was a latter-day-saint, Blake Ostler's Volumes on the Problem of God, Agape, helped a lot to rise the level of thought a little. A shame, that its great volume on the Godhead came out by the time I stopped believing, lol.

[applepansy]

The following is what I posted in response to PC's reply to my question.

I agree to a point. Things of the spirit are only as complicated as we make them. I know from personal experience that if I seek to know my Heavenly Father, He will teach me who He is. The accuracy of the teachings about the nature of God can only be answered by one source, which is God Himself.

What I know is that God is my literal Father in Heaven, the Father of my Spirit. I have felt his loving arms around me at difficult times in my life when I've gone to him in prayer.

Knowing what I know, it is difficult for me to understand a contrary viewpoint to the nature of God. I want to understand how others feel and what they believe, but I have felt Heavenly Father and Christ in my life as separate beings with bodies of flesh and bone. I have witnessed the influence of the Holy Ghost in my life and on one occassion felt him leave me as I walked into another faith's church for the funeral of a friend's mother.

No matter how hard I try, I just can't wrap my head around these other viewpoints.

Thank you prisonchaplain for trying to explain.

applepansy

[Guest tomk]

Regarding the Godhead.

They each serve distinct roles.

Heavenly Father is the Author of the Plan of Salvation.

Under Heavenly Father's direction, Jesus Christ administers the Plan to each one of us. Christ only speaks and does that which Heavenly Father gives Him to say and do. Christ acted as a Proxy for the Father. Father was the only one who could save us. But He coud not die, having an Exalted body that could not die. But His Son could be clothd in flesh. His Son could die. So the Son submitted to the Father's will, and through His instrumentality, the Atonement was brought to pass.

The Holy Ghost is the Messenger of the Godhead. He testifies of the Father and the Son. He conveys to our hearts and minds their words.

[Dove]

I think of the great intercessory prayer(s) given by the Saviour in the New Testament (and briefly in the Book of Mormon), where he talks about being "one" with the Father and the Spirit, and making all of us "one" with Him and the Father, and the Spirit. To me, these are some of the most beautiful passages of scripture~they further illustrate the humble purposes of the Father and Son in the plan of salvation~that all of us may become as "one."

I have felt the power of the Holy Spirit strongly in my life, who has communicated to me the love of my Heavenly Father. I honestly struggle the most with understanding the atonement, or more precisely, knowing what the atonement was and how it applies to my life. However, because of my diabetes, I have had strong witnesses as to the atonement when I've faced those heart felt questions concerning life and death.

I know God lives, that He loves me, that there is an atonement, and that because of this life does continue beyond the grave. I know this life, for me, is one big learning experience about loving myself and others. That it has eternal consequences.

It makes sense to me that there is a Godhead made up of three members. I suppose this is because of my LDS upbringing; but, it rings true to me....

Edited January 16, 2009 by Dove
typos

[interalia]

Hi Teancum18.

First i would like to repeat what has been said so many times before, and that is this "Our father is not a god of confusion" nothing he has had written in the scriptures was meant to confuse us.

I am a firm believer in that the scriptures are there for learned and unlearned alike, so what you see is what you get, no " Hmm it says this but i think it means this" well not in my unlearned searching for the truths, which heavenly father has made plain in the Holy bible and in book of Mormon.

If it says that Our heavenly father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three seperate beings in one godhead, then that is the way it is, otherwise Heavenly father would indeed be a god of confusion.

If you agree that the scriptures are for everyone, then there is no way they would be there to cause us to recoil at what would be such confusion on the subject, it is not a game of wits, knowledge, or "i know the bible more than you, because i was lucky enough to be able to go to bible college".

It is lovely to me to know what the Godhead is, it is such a simple thing, and yes it should be a simple thing, something for every person on this earth to cherish and love without confusion.

This is my addition to the great debate lol.

I know the idea that God is not a God of confusion is a popular missionary line to convince people that God is very similar to us and not some amorphus, incomprehensible spirit that somehow exists everywhere at once, but this line's validity kind of peters out once you begin to delve into the nature of God through the scriptures and latter day revelation.

The scriptures, we have to understand then, are not always literal. The problem with taking the scriptures literally (especially if you use KJV or one of the newer versions of the Bible written off of it or with its biases) is that "God is a spirit" John 4:24. Now the LDS have a way of explaining this, but what average reader (non-member) knows this?

We have our own interesting questions with related to our Godhead. For instance, if to fulfill our eternal joy we need a body, what is up with the Holy Ghost? We also learn that we could only progress so far in the premortal worlds because we needed to have experiences with our physical body, yet somehow Jesus was able to be God without ever having experience with a body (granted we know he would eventually need one, but he didn't NEED one to progress to a point to being a God first). In addition, the brother of Jared saw that the Lord had a body of "Flesh and bones" yet at this point, Jehovah didn't have such. If one says he merely LOOKED like a human, then this is not out of harmony with many Christian's idea of God/Trinity. And I won't get into the idea of the role of Heavenly Mother - that just compounds things further.

To close, I do not believe in the Trinity believing it to be a man made compromise to help explain some elements in the scriptures that were not understood due to the apostasy, but we cannot say that our idea of God is more valid based on its understandability, merely it is more valid because it was revealed by God.

[Justice]

I agree. Interpretation is everything. It is a fact that the words can be interprested many different ways. The proof is that so many different denominations understand most verses of scripture differently.

The one driving thought that I'd like to add to this conversation is for those who think God has always existed. I know the scriptures say God is eternal, but that can be interpreted as saying He dwells in eternity, meaning not in time. Here are some issues that need to be addressed if God has always existed:

1. What does "In the beginning" mean in the Bible? If God has always existed and man has not always existed, then why did God decide to "create man" all of a sudden? Wouldn't an eternity be enough time for someone who has all knowledge to reason that "creating man" was what He wanted to do?

2. If man (us) has always existed forever also, then that means men aren't created, and there can never be another man created or he did not exist forever.

3. What exactly is promised in exaltaton? What does Christ mean when He said we will be given all that the Father has?

To say that God has existed forever is the same thing as saying that man has existed forever. It cannot mean that any one being has existed forever, but that the race or species of man has existed forever. The power that man uses to govern and procreate has always existed. Man can procreate, or perpetuate his species. The perfecting and exalting of man is the work of all who are glorified and perfected. This has been going on forever. If we become glorified and perfected through Christ, then we too can participate in the glorifying and perfecting of man.

To say God is different than a man is like saying a man is different than a child. With this understanding it is obvious why God cares about us so much and why we can trust Him completely.

[prisonchaplain]

Hi Teancum18.

First i would like to repeat what has been said so many times before, and that is this "Our father is not a god of confusion" nothing he has had written in the scriptures was meant to confuse us.

If you agree that the scriptures are for everyone, then there is no way they would be there to cause us to recoil at what would be such confusion on the subject, it is not a game of wits, knowledge, or "i know the bible more than you, because i was lucky enough to be able to go to bible college".

It is lovely to me to know what the Godhead is, it is such a simple thing, and yes it should be a simple thing, something for every person on this earth to cherish and love without confusion.

This is my addition to the great debate lol.

I'm just not sure why the LDS Godhead is so much simpler than the Trinity. The key difference is whether God is essentially one or three. The confusion increases in light of Deut. 6:4, which clearly says that God is one.

Yes...I know there are answers to these questions...but those answers are not so simple or intuitive--especially sans LDS Scriptures and revelations. So, imho, if "the simplest explanation of God" wins, perhaps it's the Jehovah's Witnesses. After all, the clearly only have one God, the Father. I happen to believe denying Christ's deity is heresy--but theirs is the simplest.

[Justice]

I think the simplest explanation is that what is happening now is what has always happened. There has been no change in thinking or a better way devised for God to perpetuate or procreate.

Children are born. They are loved by Heavenly Parents. They are given a chance to be perfected and enjoy the kind of life we are meant to live.

That means that God does not try to confuse us by calling us children, and by telling us He is our Father.

That means we can learn about things we cannot see by learning about things we can see.

IMO that's the way a Being of infinite knowledge and wisdom, incapable of deception, would reveal Himself.

[Guest tomk]

They are one ... in purpose. Not one substance.

These articles state our beliefs quite clearly:

The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent

My Words . . . Never Cease?"

[Sergg]

They are one ... in purpose. Not one substance.

]"

The thing is, that 'purpose' does not in itself constitute or produce 'godliness' and 'sovereignity'. The 'Godhead' concept(one rather Mormon) can be taken to mean various things. Either its meaning is that of a 'structure'(of organization of roles), or is that of a joint status (of recognized power), or is that of an actuality of excercise of power (both joining potentiality and actuality; a power shared), or a nature or substantia (ouosia*; this the mainstream notion), or a relation that engenders power and is fueled by agape(Ostler's notion), or a status aqcuired on the basis of sharing one same characteristic or substance: that of divinity itself(cappadocian fathers).

Do they share love, divinity, power, status, relation, nature? Mormons believe (not all the same) they share everything except nature(and hence, are still individual substances), but even while sharing that belief, mormon theology and 'doctrinal fashions' have undergone serious changes. For, even in the present(lets not even go much back!), for many mormons, even power is not completely or equally shared, or status. There is a tension within mormon theology. By one side we have the original Smith-Pratts tradition, that takes (typical 1800's) Christ to be fully God, and fully authoritarian(equal rights and sovereignity with Elohim), fueled by such texts such as the words and epiphany of Christ the Creator of Men(no mention of an Elohim there...) in Ether. And some revealing hymns at church that show him as Ruler-alongside-Father. Or those texts of 3 Nephi which clearly show Christ commanding the disciples to pray and does not stop them from praying to Him(not to the Father), whereas he would pray to the father.'Father' and 'Son' being merely titles suggesting difference and filial relationship rather than power/knowledge differences. On the other side we have the tradition of late-Smith-Young, which (and prevailed) takes the Father to be 'The' Head of the Godhead (beat that irony! a 'Head' within a god-Head) and the most reverence-owed-to Being. This mounted on the texts of most severe biblical monarchism, specially book-of-mormon references to the old testament, and hymns that show Christ as a messenger of lesser divinity or at least, supervised by a Father. One mormon theologian which insisted on this was McConkie. And he was succesful.

Even today, in most wards there are radically diferent members who group silently into two sides: those taking the Father to be the only true God, while Christ is but a gifted and now-reveared-by-us child of supreme power soon-to-inherit- everything, and those others who take Christ as an epiphany of the Father himself, taking christ as the example of how heavenly 'generation' differs from that terrestrial in that the relation between fathers and sons can be homologized and united in such a way that such difference makes no sense, for both share equally all glory and reverence. This, of course, a vital matter for many who insist that(contrary to early church practice...) Christ cannot be praised ('for he cannot also be prayed to') when obvious instances of praising equally appear in hymns, or be taken as He-who-listens-to-the-prayer-and-answers-it for only the Father listens and the Son is commanded to act(biblical notion).

The proper problem arises from the notion of Christ as commanded* by the Father. This language(old-world metaphors for certain relations otherwise impossible to represent) is but obscure to many.

This however, does not become any more clear at the Temple endowments and 'teachings'. It only gets even more complicated. When having my endowments at NY, I remember I talked to Richard Bushman (I had read two of his books on Smith) after getting out of my first session. I asked him concerning the possible 'making-sense-out-of' of some scenes i had seen there that contradicted(or suspiciously added) traditional or cannonical light. Even him, an acclaimed scholar on these matters, agreed with me, that the exact thing we were discussing(which out of respect i wont say here -many regard it as 'holy'), was but metaphor and non-doctrinal. Its purpose pointed elsewhere.

So the way I see it, there is no way to really* and seriosuly* defend a 'One-Official-Ever-Concived-Revealed-Believed by leaders-textual' interpretation of the mormon Godhead. But that is not a weakness of mormon thought. It is, precisely, its strenght. It's downside, however, is its 'non-sided' and uneasyness at teaching; for such ambivalence (though fruitful, compared to Main-stream-Christianity's fixed dogmas) produces development but evaporates great apologetics for the actual beliefs of the 'Whole' of the mormon spectre. If there exists such a 'whole'.

The mormon notion of the Godhead beats others by much. But philosophically speaking, is of no use if nobody ever makes it a polished and not-so-obscure idea. Other notions of the christian god, do have polished and ready-to-use arguments and studies on them, but lack the movility and profund historical and ethical value of the 'obscure' and 'pagan' regarded belief of the mormons.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Sergg

[prisonchaplain]

Justice, throughout the history of humanity, the God or gods worshipped have sometimes procreated (especially polytheistic religions). However, monotheism has generally posited that God is perfect, and therefore outside of time. As such, he is neither birthed, nor would he give birth. I'm not sure it's simpler to say that God progresses and gives birth...but I suppose the concept is one we can more easily relate to.

[Guest tomk]

I was simply stating the LDS position.

If you disagree, take it up with Elder Holland

[applepansy]

Sergg,

Wow! You totally lost me. The nature of God as taught by God Himself through personal revelation is just not that complicated. I have never been in a ward like the one you describe. And what in the world is a "proper problem"?

applepansy

[Justice]

...and not just relate to easier, but it's who we are.

How would a 1 month old baby attempt to explain who its parents are? In many ways I think that's what we're trying to do here.

It's enough for it to know who it's parents are, and that it must rely on them for life. As it gets older and can understand more, the parent will teach it more.

God has only revealed that He is our Father in Heaven, that He sent His Only Begotten Son in the flesh into the world to redeem us, and that we need to follow His Son and repent when we don't. I'm sure there is much more, but we can't even get these simple things right.

There is no way the god of the trinity can be our parent, or our father. We cannot be his offspring. Unless you feel He meant that He is a father like an artist is to a painting, or a sculptor is to a sculture? Then, he will only love us until he makes something better? Surely He is capable of making something that will obey Him. He has done it with everything else but man.

The question may still be asked of God, "Who is man that thou art mindful of him?"

He created this world for us; He gave us dominion over it... just like a parent would do. He must be a glorified, perfected man who is trying to perfect His children! Why else would He bother with such disobedience? Why else would He devise a plan to save man that includes sending His Only Begotten Son to suffer an eternal suffering?

To me, in the trinitarian view of god we are but an ant farm. We are not like him; we can never be like him; we do not have any potential other than what is granted, and that makes him not a parent or father. That makes us just like the elephant, horse, and kangaroo... just a creation.

Yes? No?

[Teancum18]

This is fantastic! I'm loving this! Thank you everyone. I actually feel like I am back at the Council of Nicea (hopefully everyone gets the insinuation there).

The thing is, that 'purpose' does not in itself constitute or produce 'godliness' and 'sovereignity'. The 'Godhead' concept(one rather Mormon) can be taken to mean various things. Either its meaning is that of a 'structure'(of organization of roles), or is that of a joint status (of recognized power), or is that of an actuality of excercise of power (both joining potentiality and actuality; a power shared), or a nature or substantia (ouosia*; this the mainstream notion), or a relation that engenders power and is fueled by agape(Ostler's notion), or a status aqcuired on the basis of sharing one same characteristic or substance: that of divinity itself(cappadocian fathers).

Actually, it's very clearly defined in numerous accounts.

Do they share love, divinity, power, status, relation, nature? Mormons believe (not all the same) they share everything except nature(and hence, are still individual substances), but even while sharing that belief, mormon theology and 'doctrinal fashions' have undergone serious changes. For, even in the present(lets not even go much back!), for many mormons, even power is not completely or equally shared, or status. There is a tension within mormon theology. By one side we have the original Smith-Pratts tradition, that takes (typical 1800's) Christ to be fully God, and fully authoritarian(equal rights and sovereignity with Elohim), fueled by such texts such as the words and epiphany of Christ the Creator of Men(no mention of an Elohim there...) in Ether. And some revealing hymns at church that show him as Ruler-alongside-Father. Or those texts of 3 Nephi which clearly show Christ commanding the disciples to pray and does not stop them from praying to Him(not to the Father), whereas he would pray to the father.'Father' and 'Son' being merely titles suggesting difference and filial relationship rather than power/knowledge differences. On the other side we have the tradition of late-Smith-Young, which (and prevailed) takes the Father to be 'The' Head of the Godhead (beat that irony! a 'Head' within a god-Head) and the most reverence-owed-to Being. This mounted on the texts of most severe biblical monarchism, specially book-of-mormon references to the old testament, and hymns that show Christ as a messenger of lesser divinity or at least, supervised by a Father. One mormon theologian which insisted on this was McConkie. And he was succesful.

This is precisely why Joseph Smith needed to be approached by both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. In the early 1800's, the religious growth in the new America was abundant and overwhelming. In all of His infinite wisdom, Heavenly Father had to appear to Joseph Smith with His beloved son on His right-hand side.

Now bear in mind, back then, no one had even conceived the notion of the two being separate beings. I would be inclined to believe that if Joseph Smith wanted to make that story up, he would have done it according to the popular belief of the time. The account would have gone as follows: "Joseph, I am God; hear me roar!"

So for Joseph Smith to give the account he did is truly one aspect that signifcantly adds to the validity of the story. Could Joseph Smith had made the whole thing up and conceived the story from his own imagination? Possibly. At the age of 14 with a third grade education? Highly unlikely (especially considering the fact that children back in those days were discouraged to think for themselves and were punished greatly when they did). And even if he did come up with all of that on his own, would he have gone through tarring and feathering, beatings, incarceration, and ultimately death; all for a fantasy he made up? Absolutely not!

Fortunately for Joseph, he wasn't the first to have this experience. May I remind you all of Stephen seeing Jesus on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-57); the voice that John the Baptisit heard when he doused Chris in the river Jordan, "Behold my beloved Son..." (Matthew 3:16-17); Paul's epistle to Timothy regarding the mediation between God and man, and how another man was needed, he being Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). Above all, why would blasphemy against the Holy Ghost be the only unforgivable sin, but not blasphemy against God or Christ if they were the same person? (Matthew 12:31-32)

All scriptures in the Bible that argue God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are the same being are subject to interpretation. However, actual eye-witness accounts of visually seeing two different beings is not subjective or open to interpretation. They are exactly what they are: eye-witnesses.

Don't forget John 8:16-18.

Even today, in most wards there are radically diferent members who group silently into two sides: those taking the Father to be the only true God, while Christ is but a gifted and now-reveared-by-us child of supreme power soon-to-inherit- everything, and those others who take Christ as an epiphany of the Father himself, taking christ as the example of how heavenly 'generation' differs from that terrestrial in that the relation between fathers and sons can be homologized and united in such a way that such difference makes no sense, for both share equally all glory and reverence. This, of course, a vital matter for many who insist that(contrary to early church practice...) Christ cannot be praised ('for he cannot also be prayed to') when obvious instances of praising equally appear in hymns, or be taken as He-who-listens-to-the-prayer-and-answers-it for only the Father listens and the Son is commanded to act(biblical notion).

The proper problem arises from the notion of Christ as commanded* by the Father. This language(old-world metaphors for certain relations otherwise impossible to represent) is but obscure to many.

Some very interesting points were posed here. It actually proves that Christ cannot be the same as God the Father. How can a being be prayed to if He is refered to by one title, but not by another. New rule for Teancum18! Everyone on this site may only talk to me if, and ONLY IF, they refer to me as Teancum18. If you refer to me by my real name, I won't answer or even read what you right. You see, I have an identity complex. I'm not sure if I'm one person or three. So to clarify the matter for the time being, you must refer to me as Teancum18 if you wish to talk to me.

This however, does not become any more clear at the Temple endowments and 'teachings'. It only gets even more complicated. When having my endowments at NY, I remember I talked to Richard Bushman (I had read two of his books on Smith) after getting out of my first session. I asked him concerning the possible 'making-sense-out-of' of some scenes i had seen there that contradicted(or suspiciously added) traditional or cannonical light. Even him, an acclaimed scholar on these matters, agreed with me, that the exact thing we were discussing(which out of respect i wont say here -many regard it as 'holy'), was but metaphor and non-doctrinal. Its purpose pointed elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe this story actually happened. I don't like the way I felt when I read this part, and the feeling holds true now as I reflect on it. I'm very sorry, I don't mean to accuse you, but I must be honest; I just don't get a good feeling about it.

So the way I see it, there is no way to really* and seriosuly* defend a 'One-Official-Ever-Concived-Revealed-Believed by leaders-textual' interpretation of the mormon Godhead. But that is not a weakness of mormon thought. It is, precisely, its strenght. It's downside, however, is its 'non-sided' and uneasyness at teaching; for such ambivalence (though fruitful, compared to Main-stream-Christianity's fixed dogmas) produces development but evaporates great apologetics for the actual beliefs of the 'Whole' of the mormon spectre. If there exists such a 'whole'.

The mormon notion of the Godhead beats others by much. But philosophically speaking, is of no use if nobody ever makes it a polished and not-so-obscure idea. Other notions of the christian god, do have polished and ready-to-use arguments and studies on them, but lack the movility and profund historical and ethical value of the 'obscure' and 'pagan' regarded belief of the mormons.

You are absolutely right. That's why there are over 50k missionaries in the world. In regard to the publications out there regarding the Trinity, many of them don't really talk about the Trinity, but rather poor, inadequate ways in which it was conceived. (I almost didn't say that after all the ways WiseMagic12312 was verbally ravaged for mentioning it, but I felt I had to.)

I hope you don't feel attacked, Sergg. I am actually trying to make sense of your doctoral-level writing by attempting to carry a conversation with it; whether for or against. I hope you can see that.

Justice, throughout the history of humanity, the God or gods worshipped have sometimes procreated (especially polytheistic religions). However, monotheism has generally posited that God is perfect, and therefore outside of time. As such, he is neither birthed, nor would he give birth. I'm not sure it's simpler to say that God progresses and gives birth...but I suppose the concept is one we can more easily relate to.

Wait, wasn't Christ conceived in the womb of Mary and given birth to? How can traditional monotheistic beliefs hold true to the notion of a God that was not birthed? Wait! Before you respond with, "That was just the body he had on this Earth," let me say this. Acts 1:11 testifies that the same "Christ shall come again in like manner as ye have seen him go." So if He is in the same temporal body at His second coming, that He was given at the time of birth, wouldn't that constitute a being that is made of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39), meaning that he was given birth to?

Sergg,

Wow! You totally lost me. The nature of God as taught by God Himself through personal revelation is just not that complicated. I have never been in a ward like the one you describe. And what in the world is a "proper problem"?

applepansy

I second that notion.

...and not just relate to easier, but it's who we are.

How would a 1 month old baby attempt to explain who its parents are? In many ways I think that's what we're trying to do here.

It's enough for it to know who it's parents are, and that it must rely on them for life. As it gets older and can understand more, the parent will teach it more.

God has only revealed that He is our Father in Heaven, that He sent His Only Begotten Son in the flesh into the world to redeem us, and that we need to follow His Son and repent when we don't. I'm sure there is much more, but we can't even get these simple things right.

There is no way the god of the trinity can be our parent, or our father. We cannot be his offspring. Unless you feel He meant that He is a father like an artist is to a painting, or a sculptor is to a sculture? Then, he will only love us until he makes something better? Surely He is capable of making something that will obey Him. He has done it with everything else but man.

The question may still be asked of God, "Who is man that thou art mindful of him?"

He created this world for us; He gave us dominion over it... just like a parent would do. He must be a glorified, perfected man who is trying to perfect His children! Why else would He bother with such disobedience? Why else would He devise a plan to save man that includes sending His Only Begotten Son to suffer an eternal suffering?

To me, in the trinitarian view of god we are but an ant farm. We are not like him; we can never be like him; we do not have any potential other than what is granted, and that makes him not a parent or father. That makes us just like the elephant, horse, and kangaroo... just a creation.

Yes? No?

Exactly! Since I am created in God's image, I am multple people in one! That's precisely why everyone on these forums are no longer allowed to speak to me unless they call me by Teancum18, and no other name. I don't mean to be rude, I just don't want to create any confusion.

I really like where all this is going. I wasn't hopeful at first about this thread based on the first couple of posts; for all intents and purposes, those people were right. However, I'm glad it still took off.

I would like to see more points of the LDS God Head challenged by LDS people and non-LDS people.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Teancum18

[japacific]

Do Mormons consider themselves monotheistic or polytheistic?

[Teancum18]

Do Mormons consider themselves monotheistic or polytheistic?

Monotheistic in that we worship one God, the Eternal Father; His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Polytheistic in that we believe that there are other Gods, just as Christ said so Himself in the New Testament, and Paul taught in his epistles.

For all intents and purposes, we are polytheistic when it comes to our beliefs. However, we are very monotheistic when it comes to our worship.

[japacific]

I meant with just the god head - Isn't that three different gods?

[Teancum18]

Perhaps. In my opinion, it's still monotheistic for two major reasons: 1) We worship God the Father as the God of our world. Jesus Christ is the Savior, but still did the will of the Father, therefore worshiping the Father in Christ. Christ Himself says that He gives all the glory unto the Father. The Holy Ghost just bears record of the Father. 2) The god head was decreed by Heavenly Father. So we are only doing what He has commanded us to do. It wasn't Christ or the Holy Ghost that established or declared the god head, but only the Father. So we are still doing what only He has commanded us to you.

Does that make sense?

[japacific]

It makes sense that you have one god that is more important than the others, but just the fact that there are three gods there, and probably countless gods before them, (ie our grandfather in heaven, our great grandfather in heaven) and I suppose that the mother in heaven is also a god?

[Teancum18]

It makes sense that you have one god that is more important than the others, but just the fact that there are three gods there, and probably countless gods before them, (ie our grandfather in heaven, our great grandfather in heaven) and I suppose that the mother in heaven is also a god?

Well, Christ did say in the New Testament that we are Gods. And He was quoting Himself from the Old Testament.

[Sergg]

So let me try to be simpler.

Teancum;

1)Joseph Smith did not hold only one notion of the Godhead throughout his whole(shortlived) prophet-life. That is fact, not speculation. Nor does it point to him being a contradictory 'liar'. It only points to making clear that later developments in Church doctrine(for there have been such*) respond to the very problematic, difficult and often ambiguous treatment of Smith with the traditional notions of the Godhead. If you want, we can point to letters, accounts, scriptures, testimonies, and so on that corroborate this(but it would detract us from real analysis on less obvious facts).

2) The account of my endowments at NY happened. Whether you feel good about it or not. The conversation was an inspirational one for me. Bushman was a Patriarch at that time. You can write to him if you want. I am being honest and taking that situation as an example*. That most Temple content is merely figurative can be proved by many exegetical ways. But you would have to let me bring its contents up, and I am sure you will have trouble with it. So as long as it remains a 'no-attempt-at-analysis' to you, lets keep my story at that (but dont insist on it being somewhat untrue because I will insist on truly proving it...)...

3) It is clear, from a bare and not even applied gaze at Church history, that its doctrines concerning the Godhead have indeed varied. Not in many ways, just in two which up to now hold a tension between them. If you do not notice the contradictory tension they arise, then you live too submerged in them as to notice when two members actually 'agree' but are talking, deeply, of two oposed looks at the relations bewteen members of the Godhead. One holds Father Elohim to be the True God (power distributor, glory distributor, truth distributor, etc...) and Jehova and Holy Ghost(or may I say Michael...) as lesser divinities. The other holds Christ as Truly God , worthy of PRAISE, not mere reverence, of SHOUT, of MUSIC, of VENERATION, not merely of 'admiration' ar his death.

3)Thing is, missionaries do not know much(or anything at all) about theology. Dont get me wrong, I am not diminishing (for I do nto care) their 'labor' or their 'endowment'. I am just saying, that right here right now, I am trying to make points as to historical and theological understandings of the Church which no missionary would be able to fully respond to nor responsably 'making it go away' with manuals. There are no manuals for the serious questions of theological debate within mormon discourse. Only prayer; guess what? Right here right now, I am trying to convey points and push further a conversations, not to 'get in thh eright track' by praying for there is none.

Prisionchaplain;

Hi its been so long!

The answer is no. The mormon Church considers itself Monotheist because they explain they worship One Group of Divinities, Father, Son, Spirit. But that does not answer the question, for the criteria as to whether a religion is monotheistic cant be so gratuitous or unexplained. What definitions, notions, concepts of 'individual', 'substance', 'group', 'power', 'relation', etc., is what we are exacting from thinking mormons, not ready made(unsufficient manual responses).

On the other hand, it is not quite right what you hold to be 'monotheistic' religions. If indeed, that may be its definition in any theological, historical, or language dictionary, its historical truth and representation do not hold fast to such erratical description. To mention any book at all, say, Armstrong's A History of God, or Kirsch's The God against the Gods, or Eliade's or Campbell's, etc. You would get the right impression(thesis!) that monotheistic religions grew gradualy out of monarchists pantheons. Whereas much 'pagan' religions do use the conceptions of generation within their explanations of divinity, the very hebrews and muslims at their archaic attempts(and even for longer periods...) believed in a consort of YHWH, or ALAH. Its rapid development to a rough monotheism led it to be forgotten (hidden , say), but ir was there, and it explains the wildest contradictory intuitions and wirtters of the Old testament itself. We have been fed with an image of the Bible origins. It was a wrong ans misled representation.

Truth is, most 'pagan' religions ultimately believed in a sort of Ultimate Cause (Caos for the greeks, Nut for the egyptians, etc.) but such gods went out of cultic practice by the mesolithic period and the axial age. But they remained in representations. The fact that they believed that Ultimate Causes came also in pairs (Goddess/God) doesnt affect their monarchist theism. It is only later that lesser divinities become even more important and powerful than the former. They also become more personalistic. The hebrew concept of YHWH is a much later development within the religions of the Near East. It responds wonderfully to those who preceded Him. But analysis of biblical borrowings from other traditions(lets not say stealing...) and its obscure and complicated(often also anacronistic) 'put together' and edition in the 600-500 b.c.e. needs another topic.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Sergg