The Father And The Son

[Amillia]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 4 2005, 01:13 PM

Amillia, thanks for the long post. It reminded me of something -- specifically, the quote from D&C 35:

“I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one” (D&C 35:1–2).

Jesus and the Father are one; that Mormons have in common with traditional Trinitarians, and the traditionalists' accusation that we are tritheists -- that we believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be three separate gods -- is incorrect. They are separate personages, and are not one in substance, but they are nevertheless one God.

Where we go beyond the traditional Trinitarians lies in our belief that the followers of Christ may become one in Him in the exact same sense as as He is one with the Father. There are now three personages making up the Godhead. At the end of time there will be millions or billions or more personages, consisting of all the exalted individuals who have become one with Christ and, through Him, with the Father and Holy Spirit. (Hmm ... maybe that's why we use the term "Godhead" instead of "Trinity," a term which limits the number of component beings of the one God to three.)

Thus, our understanding of the Godhead fits seamlessly and necessarily with our doctrine of exaltation. If, in order to be one God, the personages of the Godhead had to be one in substance, we could not be exalted, or become one with God, since we are individuals and have our own substance separate from God's. (To believe otherwise would be to reject the doctrine of the resurrection, which teaches that the individual human body will literally be raised, perfected and glorified, not that the soul will be merged with a disembodied God, which has more in common with Eastern religions.)

Very good points PD! :)

[Jenda]

For some reason (probably because of the sub-title of the part about divine investature of authority), I thought it was going to talk about priesthood authority. But I realize now why it relates to the thread and why you suggested I read it.

Once I got past that first part that I didn't really agree with (and it is not a major disagreement), and a few small areas of LDS theology toward the end that I don't believe, the article was very good. Thanks for suggesting it.

So, Randy, what did you want to talk about with this article?

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 4 2005, 07:22 PM

For some reason (probably because of the sub-title of the part about divine investature of authority), I thought it was going to talk about priesthood authority. But I realize now why it relates to the thread and why you suggested I read it.

Once I got past that first part that I didn't really agree with (and it is not a major disagreement), and a few small areas of LDS theology toward the end that I don't believe, the article was very good. Thanks for suggesting it.

So, Randy, what did you want to talk about with this article?

Dawn,

Perhaps we can start with what it is you disagree with. If you would please...thx

rj

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 4 2005, 07:22 PM

For some reason (probably because of the sub-title of the part about divine investature of authority), I thought it was going to talk about priesthood authority. But I realize now why it relates to the thread and why you suggested I read it.

Once I got past that first part that I didn't really agree with (and it is not a major disagreement), and a few small areas of LDS theology toward the end that I don't believe, the article was very good. Thanks for suggesting it.

So, Randy, what did you want to talk about with this article?

Dawn,

Actually, upon further reflection I am thinking that it's a wonderful and good thing that you agree with the article in principle.

Maybe I misunderstood the original premise that started the other thread. I thought the idea was put forward that because the BoM speaks of God the Father and Jesus Christ "as if" they were one and the same being but in different forms...that you felt that was scriptural proof that the LDS concept of God and Christ as two separate glorified beings was therefore false.

I am glad that you see that those references in the BoM should in no way be interpreted to mean that.

LOL..did I put enough words in your mouth?? I have more if you like! LOL!

randy

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Feb 5 2005, 03:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Feb 5 2005, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 4 2005, 07:22 PM

For some reason (probably because of the sub-title of the part about divine investature of authority), I thought it was going to talk about priesthood authority.  But I realize now why it relates to the thread and why you suggested I read it.

Once I got past that first part that I didn't really agree with (and it is not a major disagreement), and a few small areas of LDS theology toward the end that I don't believe, the article was very good.  Thanks for suggesting it.

So, Randy, what did you want to talk about with this article?

Dawn,

Actually, upon further reflection I am thinking that it's a wonderful and good thing that you agree with the article in principle.

Maybe I misunderstood the original premise that started the other thread. I thought the idea was put forward that because the BoM speaks of God the Father and Jesus Christ "as if" they were one and the same being but in different forms...that you felt that was scriptural proof that the LDS concept of God and Christ as two separate glorified beings was therefore false.

I am glad that you see that those references in the BoM should in no way be interpreted to mean that.

LOL..did I put enough words in your mouth?? I have more if you like! LOL!

randy

First, as I said in the other thread, I lean toward modalism, and the scriptures in the BoM tend to foster that idea.

Jesus said to the Brother of Jared, "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son."

And in Mosiah, Abinidi was speaking and said, "I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people; and because he dwelleth in flesh, he shall be called the Son of God; and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son; the Father because he was conceived by the power of God, and the Son because of the flesh, thus becoming the Father and the Son; and they are one God, yea, the very eternal Father of heaven and earth"

Those (as well as many others) put together with the original wording in those verses in 1 Nephi that were changed early on just seems to cement that concept. I am not 100% convinced of this, though, so still cling to some traditional Trinitarian beliefs as well. However, with those scriptures that I quoted, as well as the original version of the first vision, it seems that the traditional LDS view comes from somewhere in left field (as it were.)

Second, as I said in the post you quoted, the things I don't necessarily agree with are not biggies. Like, I do believe that God created all the "primal elements" that were used to create the heavens and the earth (the article states that He didn't.)

What I had (and still do to a certain extent) a problem with is calling Jesus "Father". I have never believed that. To me, the Father was always the Father (and thus the God of the OT), and Jesus was always the Son. This is one of the things that started leading me down the path towards modalism (coupled with those scriptures I listed above.) Since I never viewed Jesus as "Father", when He said "I am the Father and the Son", there was only one way I could accept that. To have to change the meaning of the word from verse to verse is just too confusing, so I don't believe it is of God.

However, the article presents a fairly traditional Trinitarian view, on the whole (aside from a few references to LDS theology towards the end).