The Trinity

[Maureen]

...Now if we consider the requested rephrasing "three beings, one God" I think that's a perfectly reasonable request. The problem is, it doesn't differentiate between the Trinity and the Godhead. That phrase is also a good summary description of the Godhead. So any reader might incorrectly assume we believe in the same thing. I'm all in favor of accuracy, but how would you suggest solving that dilemma?

Well for one thing your rephrasing is still not correct. God is the being, so as I said before the correct phrasing would be "three persons in one God". There is only one divine being (God) but there are 3 distinct persons that makeup the Godhead. And for non-LDS Christians Godhead and Trinity can be used synonymously.

M.

[jaiotu]

my experience, it can be explained, but never understood.

I would submit that anything that can be explained can also be undertood. However, just because something can be explained or understood does not, by default, make it correct. You already have a pretty good understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. You just reject that the conclussions make logical sense.

Edited September 11, 2010 by jaiotu

[Faded]

Well for one thing your rephrasing is still not correct. God is the being, so as I said before the correct phrasing would be "three persons in one God". There is only one divine being (God) but there are 3 distinct persons that makeup the Godhead. And for non-LDS Christians Godhead and Trinity can be used synonymously.

M.

LOL, see jaiotu's post right above yours. You two need to get on the same page, LOL.

[Maureen]

...As the link points out, they make the assumption that the plural word Elohim is supposed to be singular based upon adjectives and verbs....

They make the assumption? I don't think so. All languages have their own syntactic rules; I think it's fair to say that to truly understand any written language you must follow those rules.

M.

[Maureen]

...Here's my suggestion for a replacement of the text on Mormonwiki:

"Mormon beliefs regarding the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost bare similarities and differences to the traditional Christian concept of the Holy Trinity. Mormon's generally agree that the Nicene Council was correct when it identified that the Bible teaches that Father was God, the Son was God and the Holy Ghost was also God. However, Mormons would tend to agree with each other that, without the aid of divine revelation, the council was in error when it attempted to use reason to solve the apparent contradition of the Bible also teaching that there is only one God. The resulting solution was the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity which teaches three divine beings united together as one God. In contrast, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are accurately expressed in the LDS doctrine of the Godhead."

Yes. This is a bit more verbose, but it does accurately express what Trinitarians believe while properly placing the Trinitarian belief in a frame of reference which makes it accessible to the LDS reader.

Hi jaiotu, in Post 131 you wrote:

...The mormonwiki article should be edited to state, ""Mormon doctrine does not state a belief in the Trinity (three persons in one being)"

I agree with the phrasing in Post 131, with using the word persons, but I disagree with your latest suggestion, you changed it to beings.

M.

[jaiotu]

Hi jaiotu, in Post 131 you wrote:

I agree with the phrasing in Post 131, with using the word persons, but I disagree with your latest suggestion, you changed it to beings.

M.

Agreed. Further illustration of why precision of language is necessary on this subject.

Edited September 11, 2010 by jaiotu

[jaiotu]

LOL, see jaiotu's post right above yours. You two need to get on the same page, LOL.

If you are referring to the difference between "Trinity" and "Godhead" you're wrong. I think Maureen and I are, in fact, on the same page. In my prior post, I referred to the "LDS doctrine of the Godhead." This is different from the non-LDS Christian doctrine of the Godhead. For Non-LDS Christians the terms "Godhead" and "Trinity" are essentially interchangable.

See:

Godhead (Christianity) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

Godhead (Latter Day Saints) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same word. Different meanings.

Edited September 11, 2010 by jaiotu

[Faded]

If you are referring to the difference between "Trinity" and "Godhead" you're wrong. I think Maureen and I are, in fact, on the same page.

Actually I was referring to the usage of "three beings in One God" vs "three persons in One God." Just ribbing the two of you a bit, I know that the two of you are agreed in your understanding of the Trinity. No intent to offend either of you.

It's always struck me as very interesting -- it's a very thorny path to tread when talking about the Trinity because correct wording is very important to its adherents.

Whether you phrase it "three persons in One God" or "three beings in One God" -- either way, you're not really distinguishing the Trinity from the LDS idea of the Godhead. Your more knowledgeable Latter Day Saints know that the word that gets translated into "God" is the same word used to refer to the Godhead and that the word denotes plurality. "Three beings in one Godhead" and "Three persons in one Godhead" would accurately describe LDS belief, and the tendency in is to assume/insert "Godhead" where "God" is obviously referencing all three members. So the dilemma remains: How do you explain the Trinity in a fairly brief statement and make the distinction between the Trinity and the LDS Godhead obvious? It seems that there must be a better way to explain it.

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps if we clarify that the Trinity stands alone as God, and is distinct from his creation (all else) that helps. The LDS Godhead permits henotheism at best (worship of one god among many), and polytheism at worst (from a monotheistic perspective). After all, one of the greatest draws of LDS teaching is also one of the most non-traditional--the belief that humanity is literally the offspring of God. Maureen has stated this elsewhere...the doctrine of the Trinity is best understood at this site in tandem with the doctrine of humanity.

[Therauh]

I don't see why its so hard for some to believe we are the children of God, he calls us children often enough.Before I ever met a missionary this verse made me think I came from Heaven since I have the ability to go there.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

And

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

He's literally my Father so I can't find anything being incorrect about being literally his child.I don't think LDS doctrine teaches it so much as it just confirms normal doctrine.

I've never even seen anything written by LDS that even mentions these two verses yet although these verses said it all to me.

[prisonchaplain]

I don't see why its so hard for some to believe we are the children of God, he calls us children often enough.Before I ever met a missionary this verse made me think I came from Heaven since I have the ability to go there.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

And

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

He's literally my Father so I can't find anything being incorrect about being literally his child.I don't think LDS doctrine teaches it so much as it just confirms normal doctrine.

I've never even seen anything written by LDS that even mentions these two verses yet although these verses said it all to me.

6000 years of Judeo-Christian teaching is that God is absolutely alone in his nature. We are his creation. That makes us his children. Genesis 1-2 shows us to be his crowning achievement.

To suggest that we are not God's creation, but rather that we too have an eternal premortal existence...and that we share God's actual nature--that we are the same species--this is theological innovation. Such teaching contradicts all we've known, and how we have always understood the Bible and human nature. Over 2 billion Christians today would be astounded and shocked by such a claim. If they know their religion, they would also be mortified. To say that humanity is the same species as God is either "restored truth" or horrible error.

Without speaking to who is actually right, I'd simply suggest that a cursory glance at commonly held teaching in both Jewish and Christian circles would show you that it's not some of us that find the idea that we are literal children of God hard to believe--it's the overwhelming consensus of Christianity and Judaism. Islam too, I imagine.

[Therauh]

I understand what your saying but many of these are those who also crucified Jesus for saying the same thing right?

Edited September 12, 2010 by Therauh

[Maureen]

I understand but what your saying but many of these are those who also crucified Jesus for saying the same thing right?

Jesus did not admit that he was a literal son of God, he admitted that he was God.

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” (John 8:58) (NET Bible)

M.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Maureen

[Therauh]

He called him Father and said he couldn't do anything but what the Father showed him.

He mediates for us to Father.

Sits at the right hand of God

He is God, Father exalted him and deemed him worthy of same Glory.

These are things written too

All these things mean nothing cause he acted before mortal life also?

Edited September 12, 2010 by Therauh

[prisonchaplain]

I understand what your saying but many of these are those who also crucified Jesus for saying the same thing right?

True enough. You asked why it's hard for us to accept. The status quo is always the default position. Those that argue for innovation bare a burden of proof. In religion, that burden is huge.

Jesus succeeded fabulously. His followers now number over 100-fold those who keep to the pre-Christian worship of Yahweh. Whether the innovation Joseph Smith brought will likewise succeed remains an open question.

[Therauh]

Yes he did :)

Now if we would all just start doing like he said and be like our Father following his example we'd probably be getting somewhere faster.

[Faded]

Perhaps if we clarify that the Trinity stands alone as God, and is distinct from his creation (all else) that helps. The LDS Godhead permits henotheism at best (worship of one god among many), and polytheism at worst (from a monotheistic perspective). After all, one of the greatest draws of LDS teaching is also one of the most non-traditional--the belief that humanity is literally the offspring of God. Maureen has stated this elsewhere...the doctrine of the Trinity is best understood at this site in tandem with the doctrine of humanity.

Both the Latter Day Saint and the Nicene Trinitarian are both condemned as "polytheists" by your Unitarian Jewish and Muslim believers. Fair to say that the Latter Day Saint viewpoint is a move further towards the polytheistic, but the very Triune nature of God that we both accept in separates us both from pure monotheism in the strictest sense. Interestingly enough, the plural nature of the Hebrew word "Elohim" is used by LDS and Nicean apologists alike to demonstrate the plural nature of God as factual and perfectly legitimate.

Ultimately, both viewpoints are conclusions that can be drawn from the scriptural records. I tend to favor the opinion that the Bible is overwhelmingly in favor of our viewpoint if properly understood -- but I can also accept that this is due to my own doctrinal bias. I see the same bias phenomenon with those raised with the teaching of the Trinity. What I'm getting at is that the Biblical wording in and of itself is not helpful for distinguishing one from the other. Most of the preferred wording for either tries to stay ... well, Biblical sounding. What does seem to occur to me is this: The more Biblical the description, the less it draws any distinction between us.

While explaining God's relationship to humankind is helpful, it doesn't offer any short answers. But perhaps you're on the right track. "Latter Day Saints believe that God is literally our Father in Heaven. Trinitarians believe God's Father/Child relationship with humankind is only metaphorical. Latter Day Saints believe that each of us is eternally existent and while infinitely inferior, Latter Day Saints believe that we are of the same species or category of being as God the Father. Trinitarians believe that the Triune God is a being apart from all creation, completely different from humankind and all other creations. LDS teachings state that if you saw God the Father, you would see a perfected and exalted man of incomprehensible glory and light -- two arms, two legs, two hands, two feet, two eyes, etc. In the Trinitarian view, God the Father has no actual body nor form, but can appear in any form he chooses."

It's a start. It's also very long and doomed to grow longer and longer the more you explain. A bit of a sticking point would be the fact that Jesus Christ does still have a human-appearing body of flesh and bones if I understand the Trinitarian view correctly. Does this make him superior to the other two -- because he possesses three natures to the Father and the Holy Spirit's only possessing one? Or does it make him inferior? I would guess you would say that it makes him neither superior nor inferior. Either way, it makes Christ very different and distinct from the other two. I'm making a concerted effort to not make this another Trinity debate (if I can help it), but I don't understand how a disembodied Father can be fit into the context of fifth chapter of John (among other passages.) But our purpose is to understand rather than debate. John 5 and similar passages might be something you could PM me on so I can sort how it works in Trinitarian thinking.

[Faded]

True enough. You asked why it's hard for us to accept. The status quo is always the default position. Those that argue for innovation bare a burden of proof. In religion, that burden is huge.

Jesus succeeded fabulously. His followers now number over 100-fold those who keep to the pre-Christian worship of Yahweh. Whether the innovation Joseph Smith brought will likewise succeed remains an open question.

I don't quite follow how Jesus of Nazareth actually proved the Scribes and Pharisees wrong per se. Jesus was a great innovator in religious observance, yet the only proof that His mission was a mission of truth was for the listener to hearken to the whisperings of the Holy Spirit and ultimately to ask God if it was truth. From the Jews point of view, Jesus is just another prophet and miracle-worker sent from God, and they believe that his disciples corrupted his words and turned him into a God after his death. What proof did Christ and His Apostles offer them against such these lies passed on by their fathers?

What proof did any of the prophets and apostles offer those they taught that they were sent from God other than telling the people that they were sent from God?

Proving and measuring truth by size. growth and popularity does not really prove a religion true nor false. By current growth, you could make a very compelling argument that Islam is the truest religion on earth. I could be mistaken, but I believe that Islam is growing faster than Christianity right now. Is that proof that their message is true?

It is interesting to me that against an uphill battle of religious bigotry, mass-distribution of misinformation about our beliefs, of the constant resistance, our religion has grown as much as it has. Our growth in such a short period of time is nothing short of remarkable. But we are not the fastest growing religion in the world today -- and the fact that we are not does not invalidate our message by any means.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is exactly what you'd expect it to be if we use Christ and the apostles as a measuring stick: Unpopular with traditional religions of our day, sometimes teaching things that contradict long-held practices and teachings. Unconventional and even controversial when compared to the old religions and traditions. Trying to be diplomatic, but stepping on toes in spite of their best efforts. That sounds exactly like the Church of the Apostles and Christ to me.

Ultimately what I'm saying is that "maintaining the status quo" is exactly why the Jews failed to recognize the Messiah when he came to them. Is the status quo really the best course?

Edited September 12, 2010 by Faded

[prisonchaplain]

Both the Latter Day Saint and the Nicene Trinitarian are both condemned as "polytheists" by your Unitarian Jewish and Muslim believers. Fair to say that the Latter Day Saint viewpoint is a move further towards the polytheistic, but the very Triune nature of God that we both accept in separates us both from pure monotheism in the strictest sense. Interestingly enough, the plural nature of the Hebrew word "Elohim" is used by LDS and Nicean apologists alike to demonstrate the plural nature of God as factual and perfectly legitimate.

You are correct that Jews and Muslims perceive trinitarian teaching to be polytheistic. My point was that they agree with trinitarians about God being totally distinct from his creation. That my theological opponents agree with me on a matter can be somewhat impressive--especially since it was Jews who composed the Old Testament portion of our scriptures. Additionally, I would suggest that Islam has a love/hate relationship with Christian teaching. They consider our doctrine polytheistic, and yet count us as "people of the book."

Ultimately, both viewpoints are conclusions that can be drawn from the scriptural records. I tend to favor the opinion that the Bible is overwhelmingly in favor of our viewpoint if properly understood -- but I can also accept that this is due to my own doctrinal bias. I see the same bias phenomenon with those raised with the teaching of the Trinity. What I'm getting at is that the Biblical wording in and of itself is not helpful for distinguishing one from the other. Most of the preferred wording for either tries to stay ... well, Biblical sounding. What does seem to occur to me is this: The more Biblical the description, the less it draws any distinction between us.

God's prophets and teachers have, with remarkable consistency, declared God to be separate from his creation. Concerning Jesus it is true that presupposition could lead one to a relative amount of comfort with either position...that is, if one could be comfortable with an apparent break from monotheism. Trinitarians cannot, and so insist that trinitarianism is monotheism. We continue to insist on one God and one essence. Smaller groups have broken off into modalism (Jesus is God, revealed as three manifestations, but really as one person), or subordinationism (Jesus is perhaps an angel, a god, but not Yahweh). LDS stand alone in going the other direction, by saying Jesus is absolutely distinct from the Father, and yet by insisting we are all eternal and of the same stuff as God.

While explaining God's relationship to humankind is helpful, it doesn't offer any short answers. But perhaps you're on the right track. "Latter Day Saints believe that God is literally our Father in Heaven. Trinitarians believe God's Father/Child relationship with humankind is only metaphorical. Latter Day Saints believe that each of us is eternally existent and while infinitely inferior, Latter Day Saints believe that we are of the same species or category of being as God the Father. Trinitarians believe that the Triune God is a being apart from all creation, completely different from humankind and all other creations. LDS teachings state that if you saw God the Father, you would see a perfected and exalted man of incomprehensible glory and light -- two arms, two legs, two hands, two feet, two eyes, etc. In the Trinitarian view, God the Father has no actual body nor form, but can appear in any form he chooses."

It's a start. It's also very long and doomed to grow longer and longer the more you explain. A bit of a sticking point would be the fact that Jesus Christ does still have a human-appearing body of flesh and bones if I understand the Trinitarian view correctly. Does this make him superior to the other two -- because he possesses three natures to the Father and the Holy Spirit's only possessing one? Or does it make him inferior? I would guess you would say that it makes him neither superior nor inferior. Either way, it makes Christ very different and distinct from the other two. I'm making a concerted effort to not make this another Trinity debate (if I can help it), but I don't understand how a disembodied Father can be fit into the context of fifth chapter of John (among other passages.) But our purpose is to understand rather than debate. John 5 and similar passages might be something you could PM me on so I can sort how it works in Trinitarian thinking.

The short answer on Jesus is that He is co-equal with the Father and the Spirit. That he has an exalted body is a signal of his eternal sacrifice, but cannot change who he is. The Father is deferred to by the Spirit and the Son because of his role as Father, not because of evolutionary advancement or improvement.

As for John 5, simply post your questions with text...let's keep this a free flowing discussion. Maureen and the others may have insights I don't.

[Faded]

God's prophets and teachers have, with remarkable consistency, declared God to be separate from his creation.

Depending upon what is meant by "separate from his creation" we might agree or we might not. Is God above all things in the Universe? Yes, He certainly is. Separate? I think it's obvious that he must be. But every passage of scripture that I'm aware of declares got to be above his creation. I don't recall the word "separate" being used.

Concerning Jesus it is true that presupposition could lead one to a relative amount of comfort with either position...that is, if one could be comfortable with an apparent break from monotheism. Trinitarians cannot, and so insist that trinitarianism is monotheism. We continue to insist on one God and one essence. Smaller groups have broken off into modalism (Jesus is God, revealed as three manifestations, but really as one person), or subordinationism (Jesus is perhaps an angel, a god, but not Yahweh).

I'm sure you already know but for the benefit of other readers, Latter Day Saints have always maintained that Yaweh or Jehovah and Jesus Christ are one and the same. His Father is not Jehovah but stands above him in precedence. God commands Jesus Christ, and Christ speaks to mankind. God the Father stands aside and leaves the guiding and directing of the people of the earth to His Son. Under the direction from the Father Jehovah spoke to humankind before His earthly ministry, and thus Jesus Christ is the God who spoke to mankind in Old Testament days. Under the direction of His Father, Christ came to earth ... etc.

LDS stand alone in going the other direction, by saying Jesus is absolutely distinct from the Father, and yet by insisting we are all eternal and of the same stuff as God.

We might say that overemphasizing their separateness is missing the point. The three are interconnected and stand united in every way. It goes far beyond human comprehension because their unity and oneness are a thing of the infinite. Emphasis of their existence as separate persons and beings -- this doctrinal stance is the piece of the puzzle that comes under constant attack by traditionalists in Christendom, and because we have to constantly defend this one aspect of our belief about God, the separateness of God becomes more pronounced in the minds of many. This is unfortunate because one of the most important messages that the Godhead has been trying get to through to mankind for all of history is how one and unified they truly are.

Arianism and some of the Gnostics came to the same general conclusion as we do about the Godhead, so it's not 100% correct to say that we are completely unique. Arians and Gnostics drew a lot of incorrect conclusions after concluding that "they are three separate and distinct beings." Those further conclusions make a terrible mess of things.

I'm beginning to see where you and Maureen are coming from on one point. Truth be told, when going from Traditional Christian doctrine to that of the Latter Day Saints, the Godhead does not change in power and status at all. The more significant change this: God remains equal in power, glory, authority, etc. Humans become something greater though. I suppose this is why many Christians seem to mistakenly think we define God as less powerful and great than they think He is. By teaching that we are literally His children whose destiny is to become what he is now, the reaction is, "You're diminishing God." when we really aren't.

So I what we find is this: While the logistical details about God are different when comparing Nicene Trinity to LDS Godhead, the biggest difference comes down to this: Going from Trinity to Godhead, God 's status remains the same, but humankind becomes something greater. Going from Godhead to Trinity, God's status remains the same, but humankind becomes something less.

The short answer on Jesus is that He is co-equal with the Father and the Spirit. That he has an exalted body is a signal of his eternal sacrifice, but cannot change who he is. The Father is deferred to by the Spirit and the Son because of his role as Father, not because of evolutionary advancement or improvement.

It is an interesting concept within Nicean Trinitarian thought. The Trinity is compose of three persons, Father who is a Spirit, the Holy Ghost who is a Spirit, and Jesus Christ who is body, soul and Spirit. Trinity = Same + Same + Different. Edited September 13, 2010 by Faded

[Faded]

Addressing John chapter 5 separately:

As for John 5, simply post your questions with text...let's keep this a free flowing discussion. Maureen and the others may have insights I don't.

The dilemma I'm seeing for the Nicean position is something that is best said in John 5 but also referenced in numerous other parts of the 4 gospels create: Jesus repeatedly says "I have done and will do nothing except that which I saw my Father do before me." How can Christ be doing what He saw God the Father do beforehand if God the Father does not have and presumably never did have a body? What can it all add up to other than that the Father lived a mortal life, gained a body and did the same work of atonement and salvation that Jesus Christ did here on this earth?

John 5:17-27

"17 My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

19 The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth:

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man."

My reading of this passage tells me this: Jesus Christ is telling us that God the Father showed Jesus his own mortal life. In that mortal life, God the Father's mortal ministry and mission was the same as Christ's here on this earth. It does not say where the Father's mortal life took place of course, and it leaves many unanswered questions, but as any Latter Day Saint would say, "That's why we have modern revelation." Since we have few details about God the Father's mortal life beyond what Jesus said on the matter, we don't focus on it much. We focus on the mortal life of Jesus Christ because that is where salvation comes from for us. What we do know is that it was not on this world that God the Father lived his life as a mortal and a Savior and Messiah. Logically it couldn't have been in this Universe either. We don't go to any great efforts to theorize further because we don't have many details. It is not revealed because it's not important for us to know anything further on the matter. So it's not something that is going to be taught in your typical Sunday School lesson.

What is the Trinitarian take on these verses though? As I said, I don't like creating a debate of things, nor is that my intention. But I do know that the Nicean Trinitarian has a work-around for "created in our image, after our likeness." in Genesis. So I have to assume the same is true for John chapter 5. What is Christ saying in this passage?

[prisonchaplain]

When trinitarians say God is separate from creation we mean that God made the whole world and all that is material, not out of himself, but out of nothing.

The LDS idea of Jesus as Jehovah seems to hint at a subordinationism that would make us trinitarians uncomfortable. While we agree that the Father is in the ultimate position of authority, we also contend that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "co-equal." A rendancy crafted to make the point, I suppose.

The LDS Godhead may be a unity of infinite magnitude, but what troubles trinitarians is that the belief in three separate beings seems to allow for polytheism. It was mentioned earlier that Jews and Muslims accuse trinitarians of polytheism. We grant the difficulty, insist we remain committed to one God absolutely, and say that the "three persons, one God" is a mystery. Allowing for three separate beings seems, to us, to absolutely cross that line--to abandon monotheism altogether. Some LDS scholars, such as Blomberg, contend that LDS remain monotheist by saying that the three separate beings are the one Godhead, and that the Godhead is the one God. I've encountered more that one label LDS belief a henotheist (the worship of one god, though there may be others). A few even embrace polytheism, saying that trinitarian monotheism is part of the apostasy.

BTW, this is a fine discussion, and I thank you for engaging in it, Faded.

[prisonchaplain]

The short answer to John 5 is that I've always simply read that to mean Christ is claiming the authority to do what he does and say what he says. The context in this passages is some teachers of the law asking Jesus why his disciples violate the Sabbath. Jesus is explaining his authority--that the Father approves of all he does, and would do likewise.

There is no discussion of premortal existence here, so no need to draw conclusions about the Father having a body or literally doing what Jesus is here doing. Rather, Christ is claiming to have the approval of his Father.

That said, I could understand why LDS would take the added scriptures they have and look back at this passage and see more.

[Soninme]

BTW, this is a fine discussion, and I thank you for engaging in it, Faded.

I agree. Thanks.

I'm sure you already know but for the benefit of other readers, Latter Day Saints have always maintained that Yaweh or Jehovah and Jesus Christ are one and the same. His Father is not Jehovah but stands above him in precedence. God commands Jesus Christ, and Christ speaks to mankind. God the Father stands aside and leaves the guiding and directing of the people of the earth to His Son. Under the direction from the Father Jehovah spoke to humankind before His earthly ministry, and thus Jesus Christ is the God who spoke to mankind in Old Testament days. Under the direction of His Father, Christ came to earth ... etc.

Just to clarify, does this mean there was no direct contact (physical or verbal) between the Father and humankind in the OT?

We might say that overemphasizing their separateness is missing the point. The three are interconnected and stand united in every way. It goes far beyond human comprehension because their unity and oneness are a thing of the infinite. Emphasis of their existence as separate persons and beings -- this doctrinal stance is the piece of the puzzle that comes under constant attack by traditionalists in Christendom, and because we have to constantly defend this one aspect of our belief about God, the separateness of God becomes more pronounced in the minds of many. This is unfortunate because one of the most important messages that the Godhead has been trying get to through to mankind for all of history is how one and unified they truly are.

My understanding of LDS teaching is that Heavenly Father and Mother produced (created) all spirits which include Jesus, you and me. We are all literal brothers and sisters. If that is truly the case then Jesus is a creation and not the creator of all things. (John 1:3) (Col 1:16-17) Remember the sceptics question of "who created God".

Therefore there would be a point in the past when the Godhead was not. Their "unity and oneness" are not infinite. Also, what of the Holy Spirit?

John 5:17-27

"17 My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

19 The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth:

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man."

My reading of this passage tells me this: Jesus Christ is telling us that God the Father showed Jesus his own mortal life. In that mortal life, God the Father's mortal ministry and mission was the same as Christ's here on this earth. It does not say where the Father's mortal life took place of course, and it leaves many unanswered questions, but as any Latter Day Saint would say, "That's why we have modern revelation." Since we have few details about God the Father's mortal life beyond what Jesus said on the matter, we don't focus on it much. We focus on the mortal life of Jesus Christ because that is where salvation comes from for us. What we do know is that it was not on this world that God the Father lived his life as a mortal and a Savior and Messiah. Logically it couldn't have been in this Universe either. We don't go to any great efforts to theorize further because we don't have many details. It is not revealed because it's not important for us to know anything further on the matter. So it's not something that is going to be taught in your typical Sunday School lesson.

Not trying to argue but I just don't see Jesus telling us of a premortal life of the Father here.

What is the Trinitarian take on these verses though? As I said, I don't like creating a debate of things, nor is that my intention. But I do know that the Nicean Trinitarian has a work-around for "created in our image, after our likeness." in Genesis. So I have to assume the same is true for John chapter 5. What is Christ saying in this passage?

My take on John 5:17-27 is clearly answered in verse 18, that for some reason you didn't quote. John 5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Jesus is showing His listeners that He isn't another Being of God in competition with or a lesser god inferior to the Father but rather He is one with the Father and not off doing His own thing, so to speak. Who else can likewise do what the Father does except One that is equal in power to the Father? Jesus is worthy of the same honor as the Father, in fact not honoring Jesus as Who He claims to be is not honoring the Father at all.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Soninme

[Therauh]

Slightly off topic but...might be some food for thought considering some things that have been said.

Has anyone ever pondered what were going to do in that room that Jesus has made for us in the mansion of his Father? Since I can't ponder it, it must be better than a universe of my own right???