LDS Faith Monotheistic?

[Snow]

ruthie - You must be lying. You were never taught such a thing in seminary, unless you can provide hard evidence. No, it is not true. It was never taught. You are foolish to think so. *rolls eyes*

Wow - strong talk; grammatical gibberish, but strong talk.

Sorry ruthie, but, you just made my point again. Snow has been mistaken to say this was not taught. I have never argued that it was taught as doctrine. I have clearly stated, as you just did, that it was taught in Sunday school for me, as you got it in seminary. But, Snow does not seem to understand that just because we can not provide hard proof that it was taught, does not mean that it never was. I believe you, for one. It seems like this is not an uncommon thing to be taught or discussed.

Even after I proved that you were wrong - that I was talking about widespread teaching - not some random guy someone once knew, you persist.

I'll ask again, why, when a half dozen times I posted "widespread" teaching, did not claim that I never said so?

Was it a case of dishonesty or that you don't care enough to be accurate?

Still waiting for you to post that lesson plan (can't and won't)

[Gatorman]

Sure thing Snow. I thanked Connie for that link. Here is the lesson.

LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Exaltation

Now, an apology will be accepted from you when you realize that this lesson can very easily have been taught to many of us here and potentially widespread to follow the logic that, if Heavenly Father lived a life, had a Heavenly Father, and had to follow the same path we are on, which includes worshiping our Heavenly Father...And, that the children we will have when we are gods will worship us, as we worship Heavenly Father...Then, Heavenly Father worshiped his Heavenly Father as our children will worship us. And, that is one logical conclusion from that lesson that can easily be reached.

Wow - strong talk; grammatical gibberish, but strong talk.

Even after I proved that you were wrong - that I was talking about widespread teaching - not some random guy someone once knew, you persist.

I'll ask again, why, when a half dozen times I posted "widespread" teaching, did not claim that I never said so?

Was it a case of dishonesty or that you don't care enough to be accurate?

Still waiting for you to post that lesson plan (can't and won't)

Edited August 24, 2009 by Gatorman

[lattelady]

Snow, Mark 12:29. "Jesus answered, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord Our God is one Lord."

[Snow]

Snow, Mark 12:29. "Jesus answered, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord Our God is one Lord."

Yes - That's a very strong Mormon belief in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Are you going to respond to my post?

[lattelady]

Snow, I'll post more later, but I have to tend to my family--can't spend all day on the computer...

Just being totally honest about Augustine and the other men you've mentioned and quoted--I don't study them or live by them. I live by the Word of God. No need to be shocked or appalled that I don't ascribe to their teachings--yep, I've heard of 'em. Nope, I know nothing of what they teach. Jesus said that if someone comes teaching a gospel other than what He taught, let that person be accursed. I follow the teachings of Christ.

[Snow]

Sure thing Snow. I thanked Connie for that link. Here is the lesson.

LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Exaltation

Now, an apology will be accepted from you when you realize that this lesson can very easily have been taught to many of us here and potentially widespread to follow the logic that, if Heavenly Father lived a life, had a Heavenly Father, and had to follow the same path we are on, which includes worshiping our Heavenly Father...And, that the children we will have when we are gods will worship us, as we worship Heavenly Father...Then, Heavenly Father worshiped his Heavenly Father as our children will worship us. And, that is one logical conclusion from that lesson that can easily be reached.

The trouble with your posting style is that it assumes that people are idiots and cannot read.

That link says nothing about God worshipping His God, a fact you will now prove by not being able to quote any part that says so.

I never post anything that is dishonest. I call upon you to adopt the same ethic.

[Snow]

Snow, I'll post more later, but I have to tend to my family--can't spend all day on the computer...

Just being totally honest about Augustine and the other men you've mentioned and quoted--I don't study them or live by them. I live by the Word of God. No need to be shocked or appalled that I don't ascribe to their teachings--yep, I've heard of 'em. Nope, I know nothing of what they teach. Jesus said that if someone comes teaching a gospel other than what He taught, let that person be accursed. I follow the teachings of Christ.

By your own admission you know nothing or very little about the teachings and beliefs of the early Christian Church and Fathers and yet you say that they weren't Christian. That's bizarre.

Still waiting for you to post something from what Christ taught that contradicts the concept of theosis. I understand that you are busy but you took time to post was the author or authors of Isaiah said (which is not topical). How long does it take to post a correct reference?

[Gatorman]

But, like me, you do post mistakenly. I apologize if I have posted in error.

Now, I believe I did point out that it was a logic trail. No, I will not find a single statement in there that says, QUOTE Heavenly Father Worshipped His Heavenly Father. ENDQUOTE

You have me there Snow. Instead, I stated that faith and logic leads to one possible conclusion being that, if Heavenly Father was like Jesus Christ, if we can become 'God' of our own world, everlasting to everlasting, as the D&C sections at the bottom of the lesson state, that Heavenly Father also had to walk the ladder we are now walking, then, if we can repeat the cycle, so Heavenly Father may be repeating the cycle. But, the lesson also points out point blank, the exact nature will not be known.

Now, what has been proven?

1 - There is a lesson that discusses in the neighborhood of the topic at hand.

2 - Many of us were taught, possibly during this lesson, that Heavenly Father worshipped his Heavenly Father.

What has not been proven, either way?

1 - That the leadership of the church specifically wants it taught that Heavenly Father worshipped a Heavenly Father of his own.

2 - That it is correct or mistaken to teach such

So, thank you Snow. And, thank you Connie for finding the lesson. Seeing the sylabbus makes it easier to remember that day and parts of the discussion. I am grateful for the refresher. So, the fact remains, I, and others, were taught this as part of a Gospel lesson based on faithful conclusions of material provided by the church.

The trouble with your posting style is that it assumes that people are idiots and cannot read.

That link says nothing about God worshipping His God, a fact you will now prove by not being able to quote any part that says so.

I never post anything that is dishonest. I call upon you to adopt the same ethic.

[Snow]

Then it's agreed. One my speculate, infer along a logic trail, and arrive at a conclusion that is not LDS doctrine, nor formally taught by the Church, nor, apparently, found in any Church materials; and some people have done just that and said so to other people.

I could have told you that 46 pages ago, but that was not the issue.

[Gatorman]

No Snow, you are mistaken or being dishonest. What I stated quite simply was that there was not a quote. However, the words in the manual are not the only 'materials' used for lessons. Teachers are given to their own revelations and understanding of the material to be able to teach and expound on what is given. Or, do you not agree with that? Do you not agree that our Sunday school teachers are given the gift of guidance and revelation to be able to teach the courses and material provided. Is such revelation strictly limited to exactly what is written on the page? Shoot, if that is the case, we can shorten church. Cause, I GUARANTEE that I can teach almost every Sunday School or Priesthood lesson in less than 30 minutes if all I am allowed to use is the printed material and I am not allowed to have my own insight into the lesson for the purpose of teaching my understanding. Having been a Sunday School teacher, I know for a FACT That I was given such keys and such a gift as part of my calling. That is UNDEBATEABLE. The point remains, neither position is proveable. You can not prove it is NOT true that Heavenly Father worshipped a Heavenly Father of his own. There is no evidence to support such a statement.

Then it's agreed. One my speculate, infer along a logic trail, and arrive at a conclusion that is not LDS doctrine, nor formally taught by the Church, nor, apparently, found in any Church materials; and some people have done just that and said so to other people.

I could have told you that 46 pages ago, but that was not the issue.

[Snow]

No Snow, you are mistaken or being dishonest. What I stated quite simply was that there was not a quote. However, the words in the manual are not the only 'materials' used for lessons. Teachers are given to their own revelations and understanding of the material to be able to teach and expound on what is given. Or, do you not agree with that? Do you not agree that our Sunday school teachers are given the gift of guidance and revelation to be able to teach the courses and material provided. Is such revelation strictly limited to exactly what is written on the page? Shoot, if that is the case, we can shorten church. Cause, I GUARANTEE that I can teach almost every Sunday School or Priesthood lesson in less than 30 minutes if all I am allowed to use is the printed material and I am not allowed to have my own insight into the lesson for the purpose of teaching my understanding. Having been a Sunday School teacher, I know for a FACT That I was given such keys and such a gift as part of my calling. That is UNDEBATEABLE. The point remains, neither position is proveable. You can not prove it is NOT true that Heavenly Father worshipped a Heavenly Father of his own. There is no evidence to support such a statement.

I just chuckle and chuckle whenever you post. Seriously, what is someone supposed to do with what you say?

You now want me to buy that God has supernaturally revealed to your teachers that God worships His God and your evidence is that you claim that you have been called as a SS teacher - but that the Prophet Gordon B. Hinckely informs us that he doesn't even know much about, not what you claim, but the more basic concept that God was once mortal? Is that a real post?

[pam]

All right guys..What happened to the apology and what happened to moving on? Also what happened to putting someone on ignore?

[Dr T]

Hi Doc,

And the Nicene Creed is not a biblical concept and is one that I reject, also.

Several of the early Christian Fathers believed this concept, including Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Tertullian, etc. And they believed it to be biblical (Paul wrote on man being equal with God through Christ on several occasions, "heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ." If we are "joint-heirs" with Christ, and Christ is God, what does that make us?

The Secret Book of Enoch has Enoch ascend through the levels of heaven to God's throne. There, he is dressed in white, given a new name (Metatron the Archangel), and sat upon God's throne as a symbol that he has God's power and authority. The concept of humans becoming gods through Christ and under God the Father is very prevalent in early Christianity and Judaism.

Thanks Ram,

Sorry, I forgot I responded to your post then I had to find it. I understand that you reject the Trinity brother, being One God in three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost that does not include "One in purpose" is what I'd figure you'd reject. I got that already. The understanding of the Trinity being laid out in the Bible IS biblical as that's where it came from. It keeps saying One God yet, calls all three persons God so that makes sense and laid out in the Bible. As far as your quote about what Paul said about being joint heirs and your interpretation that it means something beyond us being joint heirs and goes on to say that it means that we will be gods is heretical imo and really unbiblical sir. To come to that conclusion there is a need for other writings and later "revelations" that come from your church. The secret book of Enoch which has been rejected from my Bible is not relevant to me. If you'd like to look into why it is not part of scripture then you'll see why. I don't really want to walk u through, step by step, when you can really find it easily. I thought Megatron was in the future when robots come to Earth to get the Cube back and stop the Decepticons I do not see God the Father allowing just anybody to sit on His thrown unless He IS God like Jesus so that's that but I don't use or read Enoch. There were people that did depart theology with Christians in different ways and this discussion has been about one of them. Thanks Ram. :)

[Snow]

Thanks Ram,

Sorry, I forgot I responded to your post then I had to find it. I understand that you reject the Trinity brother, being One God in three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost that does not include "One in purpose" is what I'd figure you'd reject. I got that already. The understanding of the Trinity being laid out in the Bible IS biblical as that's where it came from. It keeps saying One God yet, calls all three persons God so that makes sense and laid out in the Bible. As far as your quote about what Paul said about being joint heirs and your interpretation that it means something beyond us being joint heirs and goes on to say that it means that we will be gods is heretical imo and really unbiblical sir. To come to that conclusion there is a need for other writings and later "revelations" that come from your church. The secret book of Enoch which has been rejected from my Bible is not relevant to me. If you'd like to look into why it is not part of scripture then you'll see why. I don't really want to walk u through, step by step, when you can really find it easily. I thought Megatron was in the future when robots come to Earth to get the Cube back and stop the Decepticons I do not see God the Father allowing just anybody to sit on His thrown unless He IS God like Jesus so that's that but I don't use or read Enoch. There were people that did depart theology with Christians in different ways and this discussion has been about one of them. Thanks Ram. :)

Think about what you are saying Dr. T.

You reject the idea of theosis because, you say, it is unbiblical, but in the same post you say that you accept the Trinity.

The "Trinity" is hardly biblical.

On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine... (Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.)

In order to argue successfully for the unconditionally and permanence of the ancient Trinitarian Creeds, it is necessary to make a distinction between doctrines, on the one hand, and on the terminology and conceptuality in which they were formulated on the other... Some of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as "substance", "person", and "in two natures" are post-biblical novelties. If these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly conditional, dependent on the late Hellenistic milieu.[George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), 92.]

The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.[P Achtemeier, editor, Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.]

here is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there...The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.)

...there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts...nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head...These passages [i.e. the Pauline epistles] give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine...[Paul] has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem…in John there is no trinitarian formula. ( Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 14,16, 22-23, 29.)

The God whom we experience as triune is, in fact, triune. But we cannot read back into the New Testament, much less the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries. (Richard P. McBrian, Catholicism (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980), 347.)

What you posted: "Trinity brother, being One God in three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost..." is not what the Trinity means. Your description is perfectly compatible with LDS beliefs. The "Trinity" however means not just three in once, but three co-equal, co-eternal gods, of the same consubstantial, ontological substance... and that is found nowhere in the Bible, and in fact is contradicted by the Bible; for example: "My Father is greater than I." In Trinitarism, the Father and the Son are co-equal, one is not greater.

If you want to believe things that are non, or extra-biblical, that's okay, but you can't reject LDS doctrine on the same basis - at least not and remain consistent.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Snow

[Guest]

Let me get this straight... Lattelady is non-LDS but is an investigator? Or just a theologian?

Dr T (I love your father to son thread, by the way) - is a non-LDS but likes to hang out in LDS.net?

Okay, first of all, I love Snow. I may not agree with him in certain areas but he's cool. He has an abrassive tone in an agressive online personality but he is very knowledgeable, very logical, and has no problem admitting he is wrong ONCE you can prove him wrong without reasonable doubt. What I have learned is that if I just keep in mind his online personality when reading his posts, I can pretty much weed out exactly what he is trying to say.

With that said, I've read pages and pages of this here crazy thread and I can pretty much tell from Snow's very first post on God worshipping His own father as non-doctrinal exactly what he was saying. And I agree completely. God worshipping His own father is not doctrinal and is all speculation - even when your gospel doctrine teacher says it, it is still, at that point speculation.

So, Gatorman, et. al., I understand completely what you are trying to say as well - that your own logical conlusion leads you to believe that God worshipped His father also because it is our nature to do so. I can buy that - although, I've never heard of that in my short years as an LDS member - which may be completely correct - but that is still speculation. Not doctrine (and that's all that Snow was trying to say).

So, you guys, if you would just try to understand what the other is saying and what angle he's saying it from, and completely ignore that heat that goes through your veins when you read some rebuttal (even if Snow is pushing buttons or you're pushing Snow's buttons or whatever button is pushing what)... we can get a better exchange of knowledge/ideas/doctrine/speculation instead of a 3rd grade pissing contest.

My contribution to that discussion is - it is not necessary for us to know how God "grew up" or what His relationship to His own Father is like. Arguing about it is not going to go anywhere because there is nothing in doctrine that says how it TRULY is. So, all it will do is provide fodder for contention and confuse the daylights out of a non-LDS OP.

Lattelady. You're non-LDS, I gather. I am not quite sure what your purpose is for wanting to know "if all LDS members believe in such and such..." about mono versus heno versus polytheism. Here's the thing - it is always advisable to heed the advice that the only way to learn the truth of the gospel is "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little"... No LDS member - not even scholars - can make you understand the answer to the "Is LDS monotheistic?" question as it pertains to the LDS faith because it is what you would call "an advanced concept". What you need to learn first is the LDS view of the Plan of Salvation. Now, if you cannot accept the Plan of Salvation as true, then the rest of the question is a mute point. You're just going to get very confused because any insuing discussion on the nature of God/Gods/man-to-God hinges upon the Plan of Salvation. Even if Snow and Gatorman are "arguing" - we who accept the Plan of Salvation as true can see where Snow and Gatorman are coming from - so it doesn't sound like the LDS faith cannot agree on what you may deem as a "basic knowledge with only one possible answer".

Dr T - I guess you're not LDS either? The only thing about your comments is that you are rejecting LDS doctrine in a site called LDS.net. Might not get you anywhere with that, man...

I used to be Catholic - so I am very familiar with the Trinitarian monotheism concept as opposed to the LDS concept. It was my very first discussion with somebody other than my husband that started me asking questions. I was visiting my husband's good friend at their house and his mother (who used to be Catholic) was making us pancakes and while flipping pancakes she told me, "I used to be Catholic too. Then I heard about Joseph Smith's first vision. It made God so much easier to understand. It makes sense! And so I asked to be baptized...". That made me curious, so I started my LDS study on the LDS version of the Godhead...

Anyway, Trinitarian monotheism is almost, but not quite, the same as LDS monotheism. In our mortal universe, we are monotheists, but, we do acknowledge, although we don't know of any, that the existence of other Gods/Godheads outside our known universe may be possible. It's the exact same thing as believing that God the Father has a wife - we don't know of her existence, but we acknowledge that it is possible and does not contradict revealed scripture. Same as believing that Jesus may have a wife - we don't know of her existence either, but we acknowledge that it is possible, although, with the publishing of DaVinci Code, the First Presidency(? could be one of the 12 apostles or GA?) has publicly stated that no, Mary Magdalene was not Jesus' wife...

And on top of that, we do believe that eventually, in the far distant future (or maybe sooner, who knows), choice men and women are going to "make it" to godhood. That doesn't contradict with our monotheist universe. Because, if we ever made it to that Godhood state, then that means that this earth as we know it, is no more - because it has already achieved its purpose. So, the order of things in that stage of our existence may be completely different after the fullness of the gospel is realized. Lattelady, see what I mean, when I said that it is almost impossible to grasp the meaning when we say monotheist if you don't hold the Plan of Salvation as true?

Man, I think I just muddied up this entire discussion. Oh well... it's only worth 2 measly cents.

Edited August 25, 2009 by anatess

[lattelady]

The trinity is taught throughout the Bible, and amazingly, LDS scripture seems to back it up as well! (Anatess, if loving the Bible and studying it makes me a theologian, I guess...

yes it's true that I'm a non-member; if the word "investigator" is used negatively, then I'm probably not that. If it's okay to have a discussion, then that's what I'm up for. I don't enjoy discussions peppered with anger/mockery/rudeness. But I suppose that's what I have to put up with now and then if I choose to hang out here! I do my best to be kind and considerate!

Edited August 25, 2009 by lattelady

[bytebear]

The trinity is taught throughout the Bible, and amazingly, LDS scripture seems to back it up as well! (Anatess, if loving the Bible and studying it makes me a theologian, I guess...

yes it's true that I'm a non-member; if the word "investigator" is used negatively, then I'm probably not that. If it's okay to have a discussion, then that's what I'm up for. I don't enjoy discussions peppered with anger/mockery/rudeness. But I suppose that's what I have to put up with now and then if I choose to hang out here! I do my best to be kind and considerate!

An investigator is one who is actively looking into the church as a possible convert. There is no negative connotation to the term. I agree with you on the teaching of the trinity, except that the Bible calls this triunion the Godhead, not trinity. And I disagree with God being of one substance, but rather of one purpose.

[Guest]

Okay, now I have a question about the KFD...

I have always believed that any sermon by any prophet is gospel truth. Now, a prophet making a speech at a public event that is not specifically addressed to the saints is different. I don't call that a sermon.

So, for me KFD is gospel truth. Just like anything on the Ensign is gospel truth.

So, like, if Pres. Monson would speak on Conference and say that we have a Heavenly Mother and her name is Anatess - wouldn't you then take it as gospel truth?

Am I missing something?

[Justice]

The Trinity is not taught throughout the Bible. The "Trinitarian view" is interpreted from the words. It's an interpretation. If there was proof of the Trinity in the Bible then this wouldn't be a discussion. The fact of the matter is, there is more that sides against a Trinitarian view.

For instance:

John 17:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Either He is talking about one in will and purpose, or He is asking for all believers to become one mass substance with them.

[bytebear]

Okay, now I have a question about the KFD...

I have always believed that any sermon by any prophet is gospel truth. Now, a prophet making a speech at a public event that is not specifically addressed to the saints is different. I don't call that a sermon.

So, for me KFD is gospel truth. Just like anything on the Ensign is gospel truth.

So, like, if Pres. Monson would speak on Conference and say that we have a Heavenly Mother and her name is Anatess - wouldn't you then take it as gospel truth?

Am I missing something?

Yes, the KFD was spoken at a conference, but it is called the King Follett Discourse, because it was really a speech about King Follett, a church member who had recently died, so it wasn't like your typical address we think of today.

Second, later church presidents were never even close to canonizing the concepts in it. Joseph F. Smith didn't have it included in the 1902 History of the Church, because he didn't feel it was doctrinally sound enough to be considered even in a supplemental church book.

Third, Joseph Smith died shortly after the sermon, so he never had a chance to proof the transcript, let alone correct anything that might have been misconstrued. We simply don't have further revelation or clarification on what he meant, so much of what is discussed today is speculation more than revelation.

Edited August 25, 2009 by bytebear

[BenRaines]

I would be very interested in the scriptures of the Holy Bible that say that there is a Trinity. Three Gods, same being or different beings same essence.

Ben Raines

[Guest]

The trinity is taught throughout the Bible, and amazingly, LDS scripture seems to back it up as well! (Anatess, if loving the Bible and studying it makes me a theologian, I guess...

yes it's true that I'm a non-member; if the word "investigator" is used negatively, then I'm probably not that. If it's okay to have a discussion, then that's what I'm up for. I don't enjoy discussions peppered with anger/mockery/rudeness. But I suppose that's what I have to put up with now and then if I choose to hang out here! I do my best to be kind and considerate!

I know what you mean about anger/mockery/etc... but, I think it is the nature of anonymous forums. It makes it easier to misunderstand sentences and it is easier to forget tact. And you can't tell what culture the other party is from or what facial expression went with the sentence...

Trinitarian monotheism (the Catholic way) believes that there is One God in 3 natures... Kinda like ice that turns to water and turns to steam... same exact water. So, God the Father doesn't have a body because Jesus is the mortal nature of God, and so on... But, LDS monotheism is different in that yes, there is One God - but they are not all H2O. They are One in Purpose but they are 3 completely separate beings. What one says would always align with what the other says. What Jesus says is always the same as what Heavenly Father would say. And what the Holy Spirit reveals to you is always the same as what Heavenly Father would say.

This is different from Polytheism - like the Greek Gods and such. They are many separate beings many separate purposes and Poseidon and Titan can go beat up on each other when they don't agree.

[Gatorman]

anatess - Thank you for your insightful post. I have agreed with what Snow said, that you could not find a quote specifically stating that. My issue was that Snow seems to suggest that is the end all, be all. Since there is no quote, then it is not so. And, such a suggestion goes against our faith. We are supposed to have our own revelation of the truth. Some will gain greater knowledge than others.

Snow also attacked a number of us who said we were taught this is Sunday school, stating such was a lie. However, he can not prove it was a lie. Yet, he won't admit the possibility that it was taught, based on church material, in a church class. Nor will he acknowledge that the idea that Heavenly Father did worship his own Heavenly Father is a reasonable and possible conclusion based on the lesson material. Instead, he insists, like Korihor, on proof. I acknowledge the possibility that Heavenly Father used evolution as the means for our creation. Yet, there is NOTHING in scripture or doctrine to prove this. So, does this mean it isn't so? Any of the positive to Snow's messages are lost in the negative of the personality and method.

[lattelady]

I believe in One God in three persons (God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), And God the Holy Spirit. It's one of the things about my faith that is hardest to comprehend and yet I still believe that the Bible teaches the truth of the concept--three in One. I believe God is Spirit, without a body, that Jesus is the Son of God and yet God at the same time (and that He took on a body when He came to earth, born of a Virgin) and that the Holy Spirit is God, and is just that: a Spirit.

[Justice]

Later in the same chapter He proves it's not one in substance...

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

So, He prays for His followers to be one with them, and here He prays that they will be with Him wherever He is. If it meant one in substance this part of the prayer would be ambiguous.