Observations from a quick read of the BoM

[AnthonyB]

Finally got my hands on a BoM, I got some Missio’s to meet me in the city. Had a pleasant chat, one of them was a "pakeha" (european kiwi), so at least I felt he had some understanding of me as an aussie and my background.

Firstly some minor observation, like is there a Modern English translation? I was raised on NIV and TEV and verily I findest KJV language "greatlyeth" vexatious to my "mindeth". What is it with "wo" being misspelt, is that an Americanism or an LDS’ism.

I finished my initial read through in 2 days and made notes as I passed through on things that struck me. Other than the stories being fabulous (in the original meaning of that word), there is much that I found familiar. It supported a number of my personal theological leanings with much clearer emphasis. Moroni 8 for instance rejects infant baptism, supports age of accountability and that all infants are automatically in the kingdom. It certainly feels much more like Scripture then the Qu’ran did, or that may be due to the numerous almost identical passages from the bible in it.

However I can’t help but feel that LDS digress some way from the BoM. You of course will say that is a result of continuing revelation. A less charitable view might be that your movement apostatised form the truth revealed to it. I will describe some of places where I feel the BoM diverges from current LDS beliefs. I’m sure you have reasonable thoughts/responses on these issues so please don’t be offended, just take them as the observation of a traditional Christian reading the BoM for the first time.

Oneness of God

Testimony of three witnesses

And the honour be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God.

Introduction and 2 Nephi 26:12

….JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERTNAL GOD…. (Not "a" or "one of" but "the", which reads to me that there is only one eternal God)

2 Nephi 31:21 …Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end…"

Mosiah 15:4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth

I found no mention of God only being one in purpose, or of there being three (or more) Gods.

Creation of ALL things

Mosiah 4:9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

Mosiah 5:15 …that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent,….of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all.

Now I may grant that the English translation of the Hebrew word "create" in Genesis may allow for an error in translation and could possibly include concepts other then ex-nihilo creation. However given the history and nearly universal semantic understanding of the word "create" in English when referring to acts of God, it is very unfortunate of Joseph Smith to use that word, if he meant to convey the modern LDS understanding of it. Re-shape, transform, re-mould or a host of other words if used in place of "create" would have alleviated the misunderstanding. Furthermore even if I entertain the idea of transformation rather than outright creation then it is "all things" that are transformed. This leaves little room for anything not to be effected by that act. Which in my mind at least runs counter to the eternal progression ideas of the possibility of other Gods and realms before this one.

Then are there some more minor issues….

• The church has a different name to the LDS one Moroni 6:4
• Sacrament (communion) done using wine not water Moroni 6:6
• Charismatic gifts still should exist Moroni 10:8-17 (I haven’t heard of tongues and interpretation there of, occurring much in LDS meetings)
• Warning against "fine sanctuaries" 2 Nephi 28:13 (LDS temple look very fine indeed but I’ll grant you aren’t generally burdening the poor about them)
• Universal salvation is denounced and that people should fear and tremble about salvation Alma 1:4 (I can’t help feel that given how hard it appears to not be included in at least one of the divisions of heaven that there isn’t really that much "fear and trembling" caused following an LDS presentation of the gospel.)

I also have a number of questions, which I will pose over the next few weeks, once I've reread the passages to make sure I'm just not missing something.

Like from in Mosiah 18:12-17, where did Alma get his priesthood authority to baptize? It appears to have come directly from God and the BoM emphasis is more about making sure you have true authority from God for priesthood authority not describing or mandating how that authority is obtained.

Edited March 25, 2009 by AnthonyB

[Wingnut]

Firstly some minor observation, like is there a Modern English translation? I was raised on NIV and TEV and verily I findest KJV language "greatlyeth" vexatious to my "mindeth". What is it with "wo" being misspelt, is that an Americanism or an LDS’ism.

There is no officially sanctioned modern translation. There may possibly be one published by someone outside the Church, but none that I'm aware of.

Regarding "wo": it's a variation.

Oneness of God

Testimony of three witnesses

And the honour be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God.

Introduction and 2 Nephi 26:12

….JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERTNAL GOD…. (Not "a" or "one of" but "the", which reads to me that there is only one eternal God)

2 Nephi 31:21 …Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end…"

Mosiah 15:4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth

I found no mention of God only being one in purpose, or of there being three (or more) Gods.

If you search this site carefully, I'm sure you'll find an abundance of threads addressing this issue.

• The church has a different name to the LDS one Moroni 6:4

Please refer to Doctrine and Covenants 115:4, as well as LDS.org - Ensign Article - Thus Shall My Church Be Called. You may also note that the line you refer to in Moroni is not capitalized, not indicating a proper name.

• Sacrament (communion) done using wine not water Moroni 6:6

Here I refer you to Doctrine and Covenants 27:2.

• Charismatic gifts still should exist Moroni 10:8-17 (I haven’t heard of tongues and interpretation there of, occurring much in LDS meetings)

Gifts of the Spirit are given for the betterment of others, not for the sake of solely having and showing them. If you've never heard of the gifts of tongues or interpretation of tongues among the LDS, perhaps you should read up on our missionary program.

Like from in Mosiah 18:12-17, where did Alma get his priesthood authority to baptize? It appears to have come directly from God and the BoM emphasis is more about making sure you have true authority from God for priesthood authority not describing or mandating how that authority is obtained.

This is a question I have had for many years as well, about Alma. However, I've decided that it's not something that directly affects my salvation, nor is it something on which I choose to focus my energies. I have enough to worry about with just me and my family.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think the Communities of Christ (an offshoot of our church) (of course, they'd tell you that we are an offshoot of them, so take that as you will!) puts out a version of the Book of Mormon with updated language.

Alma was formerly a priest of the king Noah. Noah's priests were successors to the (presumably) righteous priests under Noah's predecessor, Limhi; so there may have been some kind of priesthood line of authority there that the Lord recognized as valid.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Faded]

PART I:

Quite the long post there Anthony. Will respond to some key points. By all means, ask further questions about anything that seems out of place.

What is it with "wo" being misspelt, is that an Americanism or an LDS’ism.

The establishemnt of exact and correct spelling for words is relatively new. It was not well established in Joseph Smith's time. Woe and Wo were two acceptable spellings of the same word.

wo (wō) Pronunciation Key

n. Archaic

Variant of woe.

1. grievous distress, affliction, or trouble: His woe was almost beyond description.

2. an affliction: She suffered a fall, among her other woes.

It certainly feels much more like Scripture then the Qu’ran did, or that may be due to the numerous almost identical passages from the bible in it.

One would not expect the Word of God to differ much from the Word of God. There is much content and clarification that is contained within the Book of Mormon that is not as well defined or explained in the Bible, and vice versa. If it all seems very familiar, consider that it's coming from the same source. It goes without saying that God speaks to all his people in the same fashion.

Oneness of God

Testimony of three witnesses

And the honour be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God.

Introduction and 2 Nephi 26:12

….JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERTNAL GOD…. (Not "a" or "one of" but "the", which reads to me that there is only one eternal God)

2 Nephi 31:21 …Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end…"

Mosiah 15:4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth

I found no mention of God only being one in purpose, or of there being three (or more) Gods.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God. We beleive the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. We do not conveniently ignore all Biblical and Book of Mormon passages that say, "I and the Father are one," or "one Eternal God" etc. This is how it was presented to mankind all along, so we can hardly expect God to change how he words things. We believe that they are one Eternal God without end, etc, etc, etc. The difference is that we don't take that to mean the same thing as you might be accustomed to. "One in purpose" really doesn't do the reality justice, but it's the best words we have to explain. You are viewing these passages through the lens of the Trinitarian Doctrine. We read it through the lens of the Godhead Doctrine. These two theological viewpoints are a lot more similar than the adherents of each side are often willing to admit.

Both hold that for the fullness of God's works to to be achieved, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all indispensable. All play a their role in the salvation and redemption of mankind. The term, "God" can be used to refer to all three, or at times to refer to God the Father or to refer to Jesus Christ. Every Trinitarian conclusion and belief is accepted by Latter Day Saints right up to the critical point of divergence in doctrinal understanding: "of one substance." All conclusions and understand that comes after "of one substance" are not accepted by Latter Day Saints. This phrase is not to be found anywhere in the Bible, nor the Book of Mormon, nor in any modern revelation describing God. Without a doubt there is a connection that binds the three persons of the Godhead together so completely that it is beyond our comprehension to understand it fully. Trinitarians say that it must logically mean "one in substance" but neither God, nor his prophets nor the word of God ever said any such thing.

Due to constant outside criticism for our rejection of the Trinitarian description of God, there is something of a blind spot in the perceptions of most Latter Day Saints. But having to argue that we don't believe in the Trinitarian doctrine, some of what we DO believe in gets somewhat blurred, more specifically the critical importance of the oneness of God the Father, God Jesus Christ and God the Holy Spirit. Understandable but tragically unfortunate.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Faded

[Faded]

PART II:

Creation of ALL things

Understandable point of confusion. Okay, here's what I'm finding on that word:

cre⋅ate

   /kriˈeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kree-eyt] Show IPA verb, -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing, adjective

–verb (used with object)

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

OR

1. To bring into being; to form out of nothing; to cause to exist.

There are two options. Create is to make something out of something or to make something out of nothing. The usage of "create" as "something out of nothing" is steeped in long-standing European theological tradition of course. The trouble is that "create out of nothing" is a definition that is unique to God in usage. All other usage of the word must of necessity reference "making something out of something." So you can read those passages either way. I'm more of the opinion that it's less important to comprehend how God did it and just accept that He did it. Did he originate the material from which the universe came into being? Yes, I think he did. Does that mean He created it all from nothing? No, that would not necessarily have to be true. Going much beyond that wanders into extra-dimensional theory and things like that. All very mentally incomprehensible, dealing with infinities layered upon infinities upon ever more infinities.

From the LDS point of view, I think this would once again involve "reading the scriptures through the lens of what you have been taught." Let's just agree on the important thing here. God created everything, both in the heavens and the Earth.

Then are there some more minor issues….

* The church has a different name to the LDS one Moroni 6:4

The Church is referred to as the Church of Christ and the Church of the Firstborn and the Church of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints throughout the revelations received by Joseph Smith. Chalk it up to different words being used to describe the same thing, emphasizing different important elements of the Church. The legal and official name of our denomination is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Church of Jesus Christ because it is His Church. Of Latter Day Saints to help make the distinction between the current and ancient organizations of the same body.

* Sacrament (communion) done using wine not water Moroni 6:6

Still valid. If a congregation wanted to use wine or grape juice or any other thing, they could. There is no specific teaching that water is the only acceptable material. Here is what we do have on the matter:

Doctrine and Covenants 27:2-4

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;

4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

So since it didn't matter what was used, water came into general usage rather than wine. It is worth noting that the Sacrament is an automatic exception for the Word of Wisdom. If it is used for the Sacrament, wine is just fine.

* Charismatic gifts still should exist Moroni 10:8-17 (I haven’t heard of tongues and interpretation there of, occurring much in LDS meetings)

They do exist within our religion. They not an "every Sunday" type of thing. We know that the gift of tongues points to two different things.

1.) The gift of speaking and understanding foreign languages. The use is obvious: So every nation may have the word of God in their own tongue/language.

2.) The "unknown tongue." The first case of speech in this form was by Brigham Young. Joseph Smith then clarified that it was a true gift and that it was the orginal language of Adam, which existed before the corruption of human languages at the Tower of Babel, etc. We understand it to be a purer, more Godly language. I have known several people in the Church who have experiences with this version of the gift of tongues. Personally, I have not.

* Warning against "fine sanctuaries" 2 Nephi 28:13 (LDS temple look very fine indeed but I’ll grant you aren’t generally burdening the poor about them)

The best that we as a people of God have to offer goes into goes into God's house. But they are more functional than elaborately luxurious. They are beautiful, but not decked out mansions of the rich and the famous. There is no hot tub, sauna, indoor tennis courts, multi-million dollar art Van Gogh paintings, solid gold altars, etc. Edited March 26, 2009 by Faded

[Faded]

* Universal salvation is denounced and that people should fear and tremble about salvation Alma 1:4 (I can’t help feel that given how hard it appears to not be included in at least one of the divisions of heaven that there isn’t really that much "fear and trembling" caused following an LDS presentation of the gospel.)

The Kingdoms of Glory is better understood if we start from the foundation you are more accustomed to. The division of the saved and the damned, heaven and hell, etc. Rather than trying to view the Kingdoms of Glory as condradictory, try to understand it as "filling in the blanks." Do you know what heaven will look like and how it will be organized? You might have a vague idea, but for the most part, you probably don't because you wouldn't be able to comprehend it. Neither would I. The Kingdoms of Glory fit within that foundation and are not contradictory to it. I will explain.

Firstly, we do not believe in universal salvation. All will be redeemed from death, but that is as far as universal redeption in LDS doctrine goes. No Latter Day Saint would say, "there is nothing to fear." We have a lot of reason to fear the punishment of God and the suffering in Hell that you are already familiar with:

Doctrine and Covenants 19

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the commandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;

14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

Okay, so it's long.

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

So what we have is a bit more clarification on Hell. Yes there is a Hell. It is a very real part of LDS doctrine. It is the punishment of God unto the wicked. It is terrible beyond description. We do not know how bad it is. We haven't the slightest clue how terrible it is. It was bad enough that God Jesus Christ wanted to opt out of the experience. So for someone to get to the Telestial Kingdom, they have to go through unspeakable agony and Hell to get there. You wouldn't say that suffering in the same fashion as Jesus Christ did is "nothing to worry about" right?

The additional information to add to your understanding of Heaven and Hell would be as follows:

1.) In most cases, Hell is just as bad as you always thought it was, possibly even worse. But it has a finite duration.

2.) So what comes after Hell? A lesser kingdom of of glory and happiness, that's what.

3.) Just because the person inherits a lesser kingdom of glory, we should remember: Anything less than exaltation and eternal life (I.E. The Celestial Kingdom) is sad. It is a failure. It's disappointing. It means that the individual got less than they could have and they don't have the option to change their fate.

[AnthonyB]

Faded

A longer reply to my very long post!

There is no shortage of threads on the nature of God, I have had this discussion before. (So I’ll try not to labour the point but I probably will) I feel that the one-ness of God should be among the first things said about God, it is something that God has revealed repeatedly. I feel LDS tend to place a higher emphasis on the three persons and only under duress get round to talking about the one-ness of God and then limit it ways I just don’t see God doing in Scripture.

I think there are two different but slightly different things traditional Christians say about the Godhead and they actually have slightly different nuances.

One in substance/essence

What does it mean to be one in substance? Any two "Mars" bars share the same substance or essence. Although they are two objects they are essentially made of the same material, their characteristics and nature are the same. They both fit into what we think of when we think about a "Mars" bar. Any two people share the same substance/essence that is not saying they are the same people but that their essential characteristics are same, they are both people. An embryo, foetus, baby, child, teenager and adult also share one substance or essence. That is they share a common underlying reality that they are all people.

This idea was developed against Arianism, which placed Father God and Jesus into differing categories denying that they shared one substance\essence. The main essential difference between the Father and Jesus to Arians was that Father God was an uncreated being, whereas Jesus was a created being (along with humanity and angles.)

Although LDS change some fundamental concepts about both Father God and Jesus, you actually end up with them both being of one substance/essence as each other. In fact by your changes to the nature of God, from my perspective you actually believe that all of mankind and angels share the same essence substance as God. Unless I have fundamentally misunderstood what you believe, I think a better answer for LDS is not to deny "one in essence/substance" but to say "the Father and Jesus are one in essence\substance along with all of us"

This point is also the sticking point for me (and I think most Traditional Christians) with the LDS ideas on "godhood progression". I really struggle to believe that I am one in essence with God and therefore no matter how far I may be glorified or take on his nature, I cannot ever share in the oneness of essence that the three person of the Godhood do.

One being

I’ll grant that God in Scripture never uses the word "being" to describe himself, so I’m not that fussed to defend it. (I’m not from a creedal tradition) God not using "being" however equally applies to trinitarian one being or the LDS three beings. However since God repeatedly refers to Himself as one God but never says He is three gods, if I’m forced to use the word "being" I’ll use "one being".

Sacrement

Over the years I’ve had wine, grape juice, Ribeena(black currant juice), cordial, so that is really a minor issue for me.

Hell et al

Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense.

The issues of Alma and how God may bestow priesthood authority is one of the issues I will re-read and try to understand better.

Edited March 27, 2009 by AnthonyB
spelling

[Faded]

I think that most debates between Trinitarians and Latter Day Saints look like this:

Latter Day Saint argues Godhead vs Unitarianism.

Trinitarian argues Trinity vs Arianism.

Neither side realizes they're fighting the wrong fight because they typically completely misunderstand the other side's doctrine. Neither side realizes how similar their beliefs actually are.

The short explanation (yes I will spare you any more diatribes), of Alma and the priesthood is this. Lehi had it when he left Jerusalem. He passed it to Nephi. Nephi passed it on from there. Alma was a direct descendant of Nephi (the first one) so it stands to reason that the priesthood ordination he received when he became a priest was valid. But the validity of that authority was inconsequential without the approval of God. So essentially, Alma received his authority to act in the name of God in both ways. Covers all the bases of our fifth article of faith:

5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Faded

[Jasmin]

I am still in shock that you read the BOM in 2 days. Wow. Congrats! I think I am too thorough.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I'd just like to quickly add three small points following on from what other people have said.

Firstly regarding the name of the church being different to that in Moroni's day. We are now in the latter days. The church today is a restoration of the primitive church. Moroni did not live in the latter days. Ours is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because we are the latter day saints. Latter day saints could not exist prior to the latter days so the church in Moroni's day could not have had the same title.

Secondly, creation. I create a painting, or a meal or even a post on a message board. All three are created in vastly different ways and yet creation is used to describe them. The painting and the message come perhaps purely from my imagination and yet they would not exist if it were not for the canvas, the paint, the brushes; the computer, my keyboard, the internet. Both involve physical and non physical elements. I'm not sure about the meal, that's possibly mostly physical but I did have to spend time thinking and planning it firstso again it has a non-physical aspect.

Thirdly, the nature of the Godhead. Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are all one God. They are all individual beings which is evident from the Biblical acount of Jesus praying to his father and then saying he would send the Holy Spirit in his place when he returned to be with his father. So how can they be one? Cetainly not in the sense that they are all the same person, but President Monson is our President. He is one person. he is referred to as President Monson. Henry B.Eyring is his first counsellor. He is referred to as President Eyring. Dieter M. Uchtdorf is his second counsellor. He is referred to as President Uchtdorf. so they are all called 'President' but they are quite clearly not all the same person, and yet they are all the same First Presidency. That is how I see the Godhead. They are all God but quite clealry not all the same individual, but because they are divine they are far more united than we mere mortals (even the Church's First Presidency) could hope to be.

[Dale]

I am Community of Christ and we do have a 1966 Revised Authorized Version of the Book of Mormon with slightly modernized language. But we also have a popular 1908 edition which retains traditional language.

Our church and the LDS started out as one church, but split after about 15 years. We have been on different doctrinal and historical tracks since that time. I have no objection to my church being considered an offshoot of the LDS Church.

With Book of Mormon and the Trinity i see absence of it clearly teaching the meaning behind the latin word persona. Those who wrote the creeds had to explain how the persons of God were not to be confused with Gods as they were one God. So what they did was to say the persons of God were not like three separate men, but instead they had in mind the three persons an actor plays in a play. But without either the Book of Mormon, or Bible having that idea of persons in mind the idea of the Trinity is not strict mono-theism as Jews and Moslem's see it. The idea of three distinct centers of consciousness withing God sounds close to the idea of Gods as the persons of an actor are dumb apart from the actors personality being pretended persons.

Now my church has a Trinitarian view of the Book of Mormon. But i think the book if the persons of God are aware of each other like three men could just be disguising unorthodoxy using mono-theistic terminology from Judaism. The Book of Mormon does teach of the distinctions between the persons of God, but i see some ambiguity in the text that does not resolve the difficulty the persons of God pose for harmonizing it with strict mono-theism. Us Trinitarians resolve the problem through the latin word persona whether the meaning is unambiguously found in scripture, or not.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Dale

[Misshalfway]

With regards to the Godhead.....

In LDS theology, the first vision is the most reliable descriptor of God and Jesus....as they were two separate, male, glorified beings who appeared to Joseph Smith that day in 1820. You can argue the nature of God all day, but if you saw what Joseph saw that day, and if they spoke one referring to the other as his son, the debate would be laid to rest.

You may also want to read Doctrine and Covenants section 130: 22

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans; the son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

[Tarnished]

Creation of ALL things

Mosiah 4:9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

Mosiah 5:15 …that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent,….of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all.

Now I may grant that the English translation of the Hebrew word "create" in Genesis may allow for an error in translation and could possibly include concepts other then ex-nihilo creation. However given the history and nearly universal semantic understanding of the word "create" in English when referring to acts of God, it is very unfortunate of Joseph Smith to use that word, if he meant to convey the modern LDS understanding of it. Re-shape, transform, re-mould or a host of other words if used in place of "create" would have alleviated the misunderstanding. Furthermore even if I entertain the idea of transformation rather than outright creation then it is "all things" that are transformed. This leaves little room for anything not to be effected by that act. Which in my mind at least runs counter to the eternal progression ideas of the possibility of other Gods and realms before this one.

I would like to add to the discussion regarding this as I think part of what you asked has not been addressed. From what I am reading, and correct me if I am wrong, you are reading "God created all things" as "God has created all things and thus other Gods or realms prior to this current God and realm are impossible as God has created everything himself.

I think what we must consider is that God is an eternal God and as we do not truly have a concept of eternity we thus really can not comprehend what an eternal God would mean.

Being an eternal being he can range through time in ways we really can not comprehend. Consider the different dimensions of space and time. We currently live in a 3rd dimensional world; however there have been proven to be many more dimensions than this. I would think that God would be able to move through all of those dimensions, most of which we can not even comprehend.

Our belief on previous Gods also relies on our belief of the separation of The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost. We believe that they are separate beings who are one in spirit. Christ has said that he has done nothing except he saw his father do it. This would mean that Heavenly Father went through a similar experience to what Christ has gone through. This does not mean that Christ is not eternal, as I alluded to before I do not think that we can really define the term “eternal” and accurately understand it.

Though not all of these beliefs are found in the Book of Mormon they are found in the Doctrine and Covenants which is additional revelations from God. And seeing as they came from God I do not see them as straying from his gospel at all.

[Just_A_Guy]

With regards to the Godhead.....

You may also want to read Doctrine and Covenants section 130: 22

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans; the son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

FWIW (and slightly off-topic) there are is a slight problem with that particular passage of scripture. D&C 130:22 is based on Orson Hyde's recollection of Joseph Smith's teaching; but both Willard Richards and William Clayton transcribed the remarks differently: according to them, the personage of the Holy Ghost can not, under any circumstances, "dwell in us". See here.

At any rate, I'm not sure the CoC ever accepted D&C 130 as scripture.

[Faded]

At any rate, I'm not sure the CoC ever accepted D&C 130 as scripture.

From my brief scan-through of the RLDS (at the time) Doctrine and Covenants, their D&C goes up to about section 107. From there, it diverges and adds a number of sections from their prophets that are obviously not in our D&C. So no they don't have our section 130 in their version.

Still, the fact that Joseph Smith taught that the Trinity was a false doctrine is clear enough. It's a matter of historical record and he was consistent on this point. The fact that they accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet of God on the one hand, and accept the Trinity on the other is one of those things I've always wanted to have one of them explain to me.

The first vision would be great at disproving Unitarianism or Modalism, but it doesn't really work when it comes to the Trinity. The Trinity accepts two completely contradictory truths to be true at the same time. God is three. God is one. Because the believer in the Trinity understands them to be three separate and distinct people, then the experience of Joseph Smith would not directly disprove the Trinity with absolute certainty. But he did teach that the concept was a false doctrine throughout his life.

[AnthonyB]

Faded,

It is isn't just God is 1 and God is 3. It is God is 1 "ousia" and God is 3 "hypostases".

"Ousia" is fairly easy it is translated into Latin as substantia and essentia and thence into English as substance and essence.

"Hypostasis" is more difficult because it was original used by early Christian authors as being equivalent to "Ousia". The common latin word used for it is "substantia". I think its use in the dual nature union of Jesus (the "hypostatic" union might throw light on what they meant by it.

Dale,

I know you really like the "persona" explanation, but most trinitarians don't seem to veiw God as three persona's but as three persons. If they had meant persona then the greek word "prosopon" would have made much more sense.

All,

One possible explanation for the two words (IMHO) might be....

Ousia - meaning inner reality of essence.

Hypostasis -meaning perception or observed nature

So you get...God has one real underlieing essence but that there are three observable or perceived natures. So when LDS say they percieve in scripture or revelation three beings, they are only relating to the observable or perceived nature of God not the underlieing reality of God's oneness.

[Faded]

Faded,

It is isn't just God is 1 and God is 3. It is God is 1 "ousia" and God is 3 "hypostases".

"Ousia" is fairly easy it is translated into Latin as substantia and essentia and thence into English as substance and essence.

"Hypostasis" is more difficult because it was original used by early Christian authors as being equivalent to "Ousia". The common latin word used for it is "substantia". I think its use in the dual nature union of Jesus (the "hypostatic" union might throw light on what they meant by it.

Dale,

I know you really like the "persona" explanation, but most trinitarians don't seem to veiw God as three persona's but as three persons. If they had meant persona then the greek word "prosopon" would have made much more sense.

All,

One possible explanation for the two words (IMHO) might be....

Ousia - meaning inner reality of essence.

Hypostasis -meaning perception or observed nature

So you get...God has one real underlying essence but that there are three observable or perceived natures. So when LDS say they perceive in scripture or revelation three beings, they are only relating to the observable or perceived nature of God not the underlying reality of God's oneness.

I'd say we could start yet another thread on the Trinity vs the Godhead, but I'm scared of the idea. Always ends badly though.

If you say "God is one" and leave it at that, you're a Unitarian. If you say "God is three" and leave it at that, then you believe in the Godhead. These are two, no nonsense simple approaches to the nature of God. They say what they mean and they mean what they say. There's no room for confusion.

Now you can dress it up any way you like, but what the Trinity really boils down to is exactly what I said. "God is three and God is one." Trinitarians reject Unitarianism as well as the Godhead. So from the Trinitarian point of view, God is neither and both. How you describe that apparent logical contradiction is the really tricky part. It's made even more difficult by the existence of the other two doctrines. If you proclaim too strongly that "God is one" then you're going to come across as a Unitarian. If you focus on the "God is three" aspect then people will think you believe in the Godhead. So the Trinity rests somewhere in between the two options, and is incredibly confusing as a result. Centuries of theology and work have gone into trying to explain how the two contradictory statements about God can coexist in the same being. And there's no easy way of doing so. It all gets very mysterious and confusing. And many Trinitarians will tell you all of this is clear proof that it's true.

It often puzzles me that the Council of Nicaea chose this option for describing God, but I suppose they felt that Arianism was the only alternative. Arianism is certainly a worse option than the Trinity, IMHO.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Faded

[Tarnished]

Truthfully the whole matter of the Godhead vs. the Trinity in the LDS view comes down to this: Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate beings. And they spoke to him separately. When you have evidence such as that how can an LDS believer consider the Godhead to be one in body? Knowing that they appeared to Joseph Smith as separate beings it would be ludicrous for an LDS believer to believe in the Trinity. And it clarifies the scriptures about being one as being one in spirit, because if they appear to people as separate beings then they can not be one being.

Even the Bible shows them appearing as three separate beings, when Christ is baptized a voice is heard from heaven, and the Holy Spirit descends as a dove. Three separate beings.

Because other Christians do not believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith we obviously do not expect them to believe as we do. Proving it through the scriptures is mainly for the benefit of non-LDS Christians. Arguing over words that imperfect men invented and their meaning can go on forever as each side has different interpretations. As we have seen with the Bible there are so many conflicting views that can understandably be taken from the same text.

[Misshalfway]

FWIW (and slightly off-topic) there are is a slight problem with that particular passage of scripture. D&C 130:22 is based on Orson Hyde's recollection of Joseph Smith's teaching; but both Willard Richards and William Clayton transcribed the remarks differently: according to them, the personage of the Holy Ghost can not, under any circumstances, "dwell in us". See here.

At any rate, I'm not sure the CoC ever accepted D&C 130 as scripture.

Excellent clarification. Thank you. It is important to understand that the HG can only be in one place at one time, but that his influence can be felt inside of us. It would be an interesting thing to understand more of how the HG's influence can be felt and how that translates into light....the very light that shines from our being.

[utcowboy]

Faded,

It is isn't just God is 1 and God is 3. It is God is 1 "ousia" and God is 3 "hypostases".

"Ousia" is fairly easy it is translated into Latin as substantia and essentia and thence into English as substance and essence.

"Hypostasis" is more difficult because it was original used by early Christian authors as being equivalent to "Ousia". The common latin word used for it is "substantia". I think its use in the dual nature union of Jesus (the "hypostatic" union might throw light on what they meant by it.

Dale,

I know you really like the "persona" explanation, but most trinitarians don't seem to veiw God as three persona's but as three persons. If they had meant persona then the greek word "prosopon" would have made much more sense.

All,

One possible explanation for the two words (IMHO) might be....

Ousia - meaning inner reality of essence.

Hypostasis -meaning perception or observed nature

So you get...God has one real underlieing essence but that there are three observable or perceived natures. So when LDS say they percieve in scripture or revelation three beings, they are only relating to the observable or perceived nature of God not the underlieing reality of God's oneness.

So if I'm reading this right you are saying that God is one is Spirit but three seperate entitys or beings? That they are one in their desire for us and the completion of their plan, yet appear to us as three seperate individuals? Did I read that right?

[AnthonyB]

utcowboy,

No that is not what I was saying.

The guys who wrote the creeds were fairly immersed in the greek philosophical world and therefore veiwed scripture through that framework. You have to have read about the Greek ideas on "universals" and "particulars" from a platonic veiw point. "Particulars" are the objects we percieve. "Universals" are the "form" or underlieing idea of things. Three people you know are particulars, whereas the idea of personhood is the universal.

Where it gets tricky is that to Plato, the universal are the reality. The particulars, the things we actually percieve are not real. (That seems odd to us but it is part of their worldveiw) So three objects he saw weren't real in the same sense that the generic form or universal objects. Three cats you might see aren't real cats, rather it is the concept of "cat" that we form that is actually real.

If you've followed that so far, you can then apply it to the words that were used in formulating the creeds. Ousia could be seen as the universal about God, the underlieing "godness" of God. Hypostasis is the particular or percieved nature of God of which there are three.

Just as you could see three particular cups but not the universal "cup" and in Platonic thinking it is the universal "cup" that is in fact real not the three observable objects. So we percieve three gods but it is not the percieved three Gods that is real but the underlieing "universal" nature of God that is real.

Hmm I think I did a really bad job in expressing that but it is kind of mind bending in the first place. If you can spare the time to look up platonic views on universals and particulars you might get what I'm trying to say.

[utcowboy]

Thanks for trying to clear that up, I guess I will have to try to increase my education in this area. :)