LDS as a Christian Denomination

[Justice]

Awesome video. Thanks for sharing.

[Vanhin]

SolaFide,

The main point I am making with you, and I hope you can see it, is that our doctrine is found in the scriptures, including the Holy Bible. I also understand, that you interpret the scriptures differently than we do. I can respect your interpretation of the scriptures, and I don't want you to think that I don't. We don't really need to argue about it. If you don't want to accept us as Christians because of our understanding of holy writ, then what can we say? So, be it. But we think we are Christians, and we accept you as a Christian as well. We even accept Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians, because they aim to follow the teachings of Christ, as they understand it.

When God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith, and spoke to Him - the question was answered. We now know that the Father and the Son are two separate divine Beings, each with a body of flesh and bone, and that the Holy Ghost does not have a body, but is a personage of spirit (D&C 130:22). We have learned that our spirits are the offspring of God, and that this mortal experience is part of God's plan for his children to reach their greatest potential, which is to be one with Him, and be like Him.

Because of this knowledge, when we read the Bible, we understand what God means when He calls us his children. It makes more sense now, when the Son prays to the Father, whom He calls His God and ours. We understand now what Christ means when He says that if you have seen him you have seen the Father, and we are able to reconcile that with the profession of the Savior that his Father is greater than He is.

So, really the question is - Did God appear to Joseph Smith, as he claimed? We assert that He did, because God himself has made it known to us. That is really the bottom line.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

Another point I just wanted to throw out there, because it has been on my mind lately, is that we even equate ourselves with Judaism. We claim to be adherents of the exact same religion as Abraham, and Moses, and that they also had the full gospel of Jesus Christ revealed to them. Modern revelation confirms that even Adam knew the Gospel and taught it to his posterity. The Book of Mormon has been instrumental in revealing these truths, that all the prophets knew of the coming of Christ, and worshiped God in His name. The message of God to his people has always been centered on the Messiah, and His infinite and eternal Atonement for all mankind. That is the true religion of God.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited December 5, 2009 by Vanhin

[ozzy]

By chance has anyone considered what 'denomination' means? This is purely specualtion, and is not based on any research whatsoever, but to me it almost sounds like denomination de-nominates something. In other words, doesn't it mean that a denomination of christianity basically de-nominates Christ? Or basically does the opposite of nominating him? I would prefer to be a christian nomination.

[pam]

Well if you want to go how it's defined in the dictionary:

–noun 1.a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination. 2.one of the grades or degrees in a series of designations of quantity, value, measure, weight, etc.: He paid $500 in bills of small denomination. 3.a name or designation, esp. one for a class of things.4.a class or kind of persons or things distinguished by a specific name.5.the act of naming or designating a person or thing.

But I can see your reasoning.

[ozzy]

Sorry, yeah :) I dunno why but I really enjoy picking apart words to argue whether or to they are used correctly. The last couple were diety and atheist.

[Flyonthewall]

The problem is that when we say, "the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are each individually God" we mean different things. You mean that there are 3 distinct gods. I mean that there is one being of God that is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons.

Apparently we do mean different things, as I pointed out. When we say they are each God, we mean they are each God. When you say they are each God, you don't really mean it...God is some stuff that they all three share.

Yes, Trinitarian do look at it and realize that three gods would violate the Biblical and often stated doctrine of Monotheism. Yet there are three distinct persons who are called by the divine name. Trinitarians bring things together in a way that, although complicated, does not contradict any one of these three Biblical truths. (One God, Three distinct Persons, all three called God).

I think "monotheism" is a term that was placed on the Christianity, but inaccurately so. Then Christianity was painted into a corner to come up with a way to redefine words and phrases to make it fit the inaccurate word.

Jesus made it clear that He was here to do His Father's will, not His own. If they were all of the same "essence" or "being", then they would have the same will, and there would be no distinction between the will of Jesus and the will of the Father.

My problem with LDS believers is that they say 3 separate gods makes 1 god and apparently do not mind the fact that it is a contradiction.

Being one in purpose fulfills all the talk of ther being but one God...God the Father is God. Jesus Christ is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is the "spirit" of God. The Father bestowed upon Jesus and the Holy Ghost their divinity...so they are both Gods under the direction of God the Father. They are one in purpose and testimony, and function as ONE, and together they form the Godhead, which is the One Eternal God. There is no contradiciton.

The contradiction comes in where you say there are 3 persons, each individually God, but there are not 3 Gods. If there are not 3 Gods, then each are only 1/3 God to make up the ONE...or they are each a subset of this "essence" or "being" which is actually God, and the three persons are merely pieces of it. Either way, that contradicts that each are fully individually God.

[pam]

Sorry, yeah :) I dunno why but I really enjoy picking apart words to argue whether or to they are used correctly. The last couple were diety and atheist.

It's funny because the next word I went and looked up was deity. :)

[Stidgeion]

A point of arigance.

If the LDS chuch is the only true and liveing church upon the face of the whole earth with wich the Lord is well pleased. And if you define a "Christian as some one that has the fullness of the gosple as it has been restored in our day. Then it seems to me that only mormans can be christians...

Every one else that claims to be christian is just trying to be. ...

Looking at it from a Mormon perspective .. if Christ were to appear to day and take a good look at "Mainstream christanity " .. would he consider himself Christian?

[ozzy]

It's funny because the next word I went and looked up was deity. :)

Awesome. What can I say, great minds think alike. :) Anyway, yeah, I once tried to argue that 'atheist' is actually 'without religion'. So the so-called atheists as we know them are 'adeists' or 'without God.' Way I see it, there are actually many more atheists out there than the ones who say 'I don't believe in God.' The category includes anyone who is either without a proclaimed religion, or who doesn't follow their religion even though they claim to be part of one. However I discovered on that one that the dictionary doesn't agree with me.

Which is why I am considering writing "The Ozzy Dictionary." That way, everything means what I want it to, and I can no longer be a culprit of spelling errors. :)

[spamlds]

I think Sola Fide has posed an ancillary question, that is: did Joseph Smith teach the same doctrine from day one. In this, I would point out a similarity between Joseph Smith and the Lord Jesus. For both of them, their ministries were conducted towards a crescendo that ended up taking their lives because the power of their teachings left their adversaries no other option. To silence them, their opponents had to kill them.

If we examine the ministry of Jesus, he didn't directly proclaim his Messiahship to everyone. He let the works bear testimony of him. The Pharisees often tried to goad him into saying who he was, but he always referred them back to the works he did. Those were his proof. By his fruits, he would be known.

When demons tried to "out" him prematurely, he told them to be silent. When Peter gave his momentous testimony that "thou art the Christ, the son of the living God," Jesus told him to "tell no man." Gradually, as the Church grew and his apostles gained the ability to direct the Church in his absence, Jesus turned up the heat. In the final weeks of his life, he boldly confronted his opponents, almost daring them to take him. He told them "if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

Finally, when hauled before the council of the Jews, when the High Priest adjured him "by the living God" if he was the Christ, Jesus answered him. That gave them the evidence they needed and wanted in order to put him to death.

Like Jesus, Joseph started out his ministry making small waves that gradually increased in intensity. I really think that, at the King Follett funeral, six weeks before his death, he intentionally provoked his enemies. He had taught these doctrines from the beginning, but at the end of his life, he did so with such boldness that they could no longer suffer him to live.

So did Joseph teach the same doctrines from the beginning? Given that the restoration took place bit by bit, there was further light of revelation that amplified his understanding. But of some things, like the nature of the Godhead, his teachings were consistent from the beginning.

Did he preach more boldly toward the end? Yes. From the time that Section 132 was published, wherein the Lord sealed upon him his exaltation (see D&C 132:49), Joseph feared not what man could do to him and his teachings were less "diplomatic" and more powerful than before that time. I can see where an outsider who is unfamiliar with Joseph's life might interpret that progression as does Sola Fide. It might seem that Joseph taught new doctrine about the Godhead, but that would simply be an errant impression. Joseph knew God the Father and he knew Christ. He had no doubts about their nature and needed no scripture or creed to explain what and who they were.

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!

Edited December 5, 2009 by spamlds

[Vanhin]

A point of arigance.

If the LDS chuch is the only true and liveing church upon the face of the whole earth with wich the Lord is well pleased. And if you define a "Christian as some one that has the fullness of the gosple as it has been restored in our day. Then it seems to me that only mormans can be christians...

Every one else that claims to be christian is just trying to be. ...

Looking at it from a Mormon perspective .. if Christ were to appear to day and take a good look at "Mainstream christanity " .. would he consider himself Christian?

We define a Christian as someone who is trying to follow the teachings of Christ. True Christians are defined by the Savior himself:

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:34-35)

:)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Guest mormonmusic]

OZZY WROTE: "If the LDS chuch is the only true and liveing church upon the face of the whole earth with wich the Lord is well pleased. And if you define a "Christian as some one that has the fullness of the gosple as it has been restored in our day. Then it seems to me that only mormans can be christians..." [note - I've been corrected, this was said by Stidgeion and not OZZY]

I've never heard the LDS Church define a Christian as "someone that has the fulness of the gospel as it has been restored in our day". To do so would be to participate in the same trickery as the anti-Mormons. In order to marginalize us, to prevent us from being viable and "normal" to the undecided, they defined a Christian as believing something they KNEW Mormons didn't believe.

The definition you've given above would do the same thing, and there's no way I'd ever participate in it. For me, anyone who is trying to follow the teachings of Christ is a Christian, regardless of whether they believe in the Trinitarian concept or the Godhead concept.

I'm not convinced Vanhin's definition of a Christian is sufficient though. I believe that Christians do show love for each other -- and that people who claim to be Christian yet seem unable to have harmonious relationships with others might cause onlookers to doubt. But I think the defining characteristic of a Christian is they believe Jesus was the Son of God, that he atoned for their sins, and that they try to pattern their life after his teachings.

Edited December 6, 2009 by mormonmusic

[Vanhin]

OZZY WROTE: "If the LDS chuch is the only true and liveing church upon the face of the whole earth with wich the Lord is well pleased. And if you define a "Christian as some one that has the fullness of the gosple as it has been restored in our day. Then it seems to me that only mormans can be christians..."

I think you meant "Stidgeion" not OZZY. :)

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

Hey Vanhin's definition of a Christian is "someone who is trying to follow the teachings of Christ." And I was further offering what the Savior taught, as the definition of true discipleship; to love one another as Christ loves us. That is what I think a "true" Christian is.

King Benjamin taught the same thing:

And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God. (Mosiah 2:17)

Regards,

Vanhin

[ozzy]

Thanks for that clarification guys. I was somewhat confused. :)

[spamlds]

Despite the truth that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indeed the "only true and living church," our understanding of the plan of salvation doesn't condemn others to hell. That's the big difference.

Let's look at it from the points of view that there is one true church, whichever one it is. If Catholics are right, then Protestants and Evangelicals are excluded from heaven because they reject Papal authority, sacraments, baptism, by authority, etc. The Pope said that there is only one true Church and said that Protestants are not "proper churches" because they lack authority. See this MSNBC article about a papal encyclical from 2007:

Pope: Jesus formed 'only one church' - The Vatican- msnbc.com

If Evangelicals are right, then Catholics are not saved in heaven because they rely on works as well as grace. The anti-Mormon and anti-Catholic CARM web site says the following about who is a Christian, and thus who is saved.

"Are Roman Catholics Christians? They are if they have trusted in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of their sins. However, if they believe that the are saved by God's grace and their works, then they are not saved -- even if they believe their works are done by God's grace -- since they then deny the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice.

"Being a Christian does not mean being a member of the Roman Catholic Church. It means being a member of the body of Christ which is accomplished by faith and trust in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of your sins. It means that you do not add your works to His work. Sincerity doesn't forgive sins. Membership in a church doesn't forgive sins. Doing works of penance doesn't forgive sins. Praying to Mary doesn't forgive sins. Forgiveness is received in the faithful trust and acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. You must trust Jesus, God in flesh, for the forgiveness of sins, not a man made ritual and certainly not the catholic saints. Even though Roman Catholic Church affirms the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and His physical resurrection, it greatly errs in its doctrine of salvation by adding works to salvation.

Catholics say Evangelicals are "Christian" if they've had a proper Catholic baptism. Evangelicals say that Catholics are "Christian" if they abandon Catholicism. So, without even bringing latter-day saints into the picture, you see there's a feud between two Christian branches, both of which claim the other is false. Each branch claims that it is the "true and living" church and condemns the other "Christians" to hell.

Latter-day saints do not exclude other Christians or denominations from a glorious resurrection in the afterlife. We know there are many mansions because Jesus said so. We know by revelation that all but the sons of perdition will inherit kingdoms of glory. Only those who receive the fullness of the gospel, obey its ordinances, and live faithfully will go to the Celestial Kingdom by the grace of Christ. Nevertheless, those who will inherit lesser kingdoms do so by the grace of Christ.

The whole argument about who is Christian and who isn't is an exercise in exclusivity. When Protestants and Catholics get it figured out, maybe they can let the world know which one of them was right. Meanwhile, the latter-day saints will continue to have faith in Jesus Christ, obey his commandments, and seek a remission of sin through his atonement. We'll keep the door open for the rest of Christendom once they get done bickering.

Logic tells us there can only be one true church or else none of them are. There can't be two true churches that contradict one another.

You can read an article I wrote on the topic at:

What is a Christian?

[Justice]

By chance has anyone considered what 'denomination' means? This is purely specualtion, and is not based on any research whatsoever, but to me it almost sounds like denomination de-nominates something. In other words, doesn't it mean that a denomination of christianity basically de-nominates Christ? Or basically does the opposite of nominating him? I would prefer to be a christian nomination.

Is that kind of like...

If progress means to advance and move forward, what does Congress mean?

:)

[bytebear]

I know that Mormons are sincere people who work hard to follow God. I do not deny that. But my question is are we so far away in our beliefs that we must be classified in different camps? And I honestly, with no ill will intedned, believe that we are. The most foundational belief of any religion is whether it is Monotheist, Pantheistic, Polythiestic, etc. And historical, orthodox Christians and Mormons differ on this key issue. Historical, orthodox Christians are firmly Monotheistic. But Mormons are Polytheistic, or at least Henotheistic. We differ on how many beings of God there are. That is the most basic question. Yes, we do both believe in Jesus, but they are different Jesus'. My Jesus has been the one God from all eternity. The Mormon Jesus was begotten by His Heavenly Father at some point in the past and progressed to Godhood. Those are very different Jesus'. I do not say that out of meaness or disrespect. I simply feel it is strong enough to push Mormons outside the bouns of Christianity.

sorry to pull out an old message, but would a Jew or Muslim agree with your assertion of monotheism? I think not. Are they different Abrahams' too?

[pam]

Actually thekabalist already commented on that.

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

The reality is that both the Trinitarian and the Latter-day Saint perspective are (from a neutral observer's view) the result of interpretation (Latter-day Saints believe the more correct word to be revelation) of scripture, with said interpretation being given the designation of "doctrine."

(The difference between an interpretation and a doctrine is that one "may be true," the other is, from the view of that faith "truth")

The result of Trinitarian interpretation of scripture is the Nicene Creed, the result of Latter-day Saint interpretation of scripture is the collected Standard Works.

A person may say, "the only reason we have the ________ (insert Creed, or Standard Works here at will) is because it is just a reaffirming of what is already in scripture". However...this is a very vacillating argument. If the Bible said "There is only one God, but three essences of said God," or "There are three separate and distinct personages acting together as one God," then there would be no need for the clarification the Nicene Creed and the Standard Words give, respectively. But because the Bible does not clearly indicate this, but may hint to either view, an interpretation is made.

Since this is not the case, both Trinitarian Christians and Latter-day Saints have, collected all the evidence, all the Biblical statements and verses in order to give a definitive statement of belief, or as we call it...a doctrine.

So to briefly sum up all the above:

The Nicene Creed is a statement of doctrine the Trinitarian churches believe to be supported by Biblical proof.

The Standard Works are a collection of statements and sermons that state a doctrine the Latter-day Saints believe to be supported by Biblical proof (As far as it is translated correctly, sorry I couldn't resist).

Now, here is the rub.

According to scripture one must have authority from God in order to make a definitive statement, and have it recorded as doctrine.

Dictionary.com states that authority is:

the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine

==================================

The difference between the Latter-day Saint claim to have the Truth about the nature of God seems to hold more water than the Trinitarian claim.

The first believes that a Prophet and his successors, each called of God, has authoritatively stated a belief in a Godhead that is three separate and distinct personages.

The Trinitarian claim was a process where a multitude of bishops from across the Roman Empire came together and tried to clarify what they found the scriptures to be somewhat unclear on. A key problem is that the resulting Nicene Creed was given by the authority of a pagan Roman Emperor who had no authority to actually give the statement (You can see him front row and center, holding the creed, the guy's name was Constantine, a brilliant opportunist), let alone any proper allowance to call the bishops to council in the first place. Had the bishops merely said "this is the way things may be, according to our reading," rather than "this is the way things are," then all may have been forgiven. However, this was not the case. To the Latter-day Saint, the Nicene Creed wasn't given by the grace of God, but by the grace of Constantine I of the Roman Empire, Pontifex Maximus of Pagan Roman religion, a Priest of the cults of Sol Invictus and Apollo, and despite the reverence many Christian religions have for him, never one of them until his deathbed baptism.

(On a side note, the Nicene Creed historically arose not to help the true believers, but to combat a heresy started by a Libyan priest named Arius, which threatened to break apart the unity of Christendom, and hence Constantine's dream of using the Christian church to his own ends)

======================

So I think the real question is, can either side claim to have their doctrine supported authoritatively?

For Latter-day Saints the answer is yes, they can claim that. They have made it quite clear that they believe that a Prophet is on the earth which can give a proper interpretation (via revelation) of doctrine.

For Trinitarian Christians the answer is a little bit harder....

Edited December 6, 2009 by YoungMormonRoyalist

[Moksha]

Looking at it from a Mormon perspective .. if Christ were to appear to day and take a good look at "Mainstream christanity " .. would he consider himself Christian?

Do you mean, "Would he still say he was the son of God"?

Edited December 6, 2009 by Moksha

[ozzy]

Is that kind of like...

If progress means to advance and move forward, what does Congress mean?

:)

It is exactly like that. :)

[SolaFide]

Joseph Smith saw two personages at the First Vision. They were separate and distinct. They were physical, tangible beings. His knowledge of God came from direct experience, not any developing of theology. Years before the plates came into his hands--years before the Book of Mormon was translated, Joseph knew the natures of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

It wasn't so much a case that his theology "evolved" but that the Lord gave the Church line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. Joseph knew much more than he was ever permitted to reveal. He was permitted to reveal to the saints the things he knew in a sequence determined by the Lord. Inasmuch as we are faithful, we expect to obtain further revelation in the future.

I am well aware of the first vision as it was reported by Joseph Smith. I am looking at things from the vantage point of someone who does not accept Mormonism. The BoM and D&C don't teach any overt Polytheism. There are many places that are very close to the Bible. (Looking at the BoM, I would say that Smith actually sat down and copied parts of the text word for word.) Yet, later on in Smith's life he makes claims that LDS have always been Polytheists. My suggestion is that Smith's theology had evolved over time.

These discussions miss the point. The quickest path to truth goes through the Sacred Grove. Those who are unwilling to go there in their hearts and ask of God will remain in error. That is the path to God for everyone in the dispensation of the fullness of times. Those who avoid it do so at their eternal peril.

Jazz trumpeter Miles Davis once told an interviewer that "talking about music is like dancing about architecture." To experience music, talking doesn't do the trick. Listening to music is necessary. To understand the nature of the Godhead, every person has to go to the Sacred Grove in his heart and ask of God, just as Joseph Smith did.

Those who refuse to do so because of fear of man's scorn or sectarian traditions are simply "dancing about architecture."

I agree that everything hinges on the first vision account. If it is true then Mormonism is true. If not, Joseph Smith is a liar. Simple as that. But, the best way to examine our relative systems is to compare them to the Holy Scriptures. That is the one thing that we have in common between us which we can judge by.

And I understnad that LDS teaching is that one should pray over the BoM to see if its true. However, I disagree that this is how God communicates truth. God has reveled Himself through the Scriptures. Never does He say to pray on the Bible and ask if its true. We determine truth by reading what He has given us. And if something is contradictory to what has already been revealed then it is false.

[SolaFide]

Are you basing your point on a rock having "being?"

Everything has being. Its what makes something what it is. But not everything has personhood, which makes them who they are. Speaking and thinking are examples of this. The rock example was to demonstrate the difference between 'being' and 'person'. A rock has being (as all things do) but it does not posess personhood.

Please don't take me as a hater, because I am not. I am a loving and compassionate person, and I have a great amount of compassion for you concerning this matter.

I'm going to post a scripture from the New Testament, and I would simply like for you to read it and explain how the Trinitarian view can be possible based on it. Deal?

I do not doubt your sincerity or compassion at all. And I would hope you would trust me in the same way when I say that I am genuinly concerned about the Mormon people. And I will gladly examine any Biblical text you wish if you will do the same for me.

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:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

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.

I can comment on this scripture at so many levels.

Please do.

Jesus clearly is asking the Father for all who believe on His name to be one in the same way (perfectly the same) as He is one with the Father.

Please exaplin what Jesus meant by asking for all His followers to be perfect in one, just as He is one with the Father? According to the Trinitarian belief, it would have to mean He is asking for God to become greater than the 3 "beings" He currently subsits of. He wants all followers to become a permament part of God.

However, the problem with this belief is that He then asks that they all be with Him where He is. Wouldn't that be a given if they were to become "one" with God the way Trinitarians believe?

thekabalist, you're a breath of fresh air in this thread.

Jesus is praying for all beleivers at all times, and He is asking that they be one like the Father and the Son is one. However, in your quotation you have cut out a key part of the text, verses 14 through 19, which has lead to your flawed critique.

14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Notice what Jesus begins by saying: Believers are not of this world in the same way that Christ is not of this world. This does not mean that all believers everywhere suddenly became incarnate Gods. It is that the world is sinful and evil, but believers, as those who are covered in the blood of Christ, are not. They are being sanctified (made holy) as the Spirit works through them to conform them to the image of Christ. They are not becoming gods as you have suggested. Rather, they are having their minds changed to think like Christ, their actions are being changed to reflect the actions of Christ, and their love for their brethren reflects Christ's love for them.

It is at this point that we come to the verses you have cited. With the point of the previous verses in mind (sanctification, which is clearly stated in the text) we have Christ asking for believers to be one as He and the Father are one. Again, believers will be united and reflect Christ in love, actions, thought etc. We are IN Christ and it is only IN Christ that we can become like Him.

Now, if you do not mind, would you please comment on Isaiah 43:10? "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

And John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."