The "Godhead"

[Nemo]

In researching Mormonism, I've noticed that Mormons believe that God is actually three separate entities under one Godhead - God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit. The Father is called Elohim, and the Son is Jehovah.

According to Mormon theology, God the Father is a physical being of "flesh and bones." Mormons identify him as the Biblical god Elohim. Latter-day Saint leaders have also taught that God the Father was once a mortal man who has completed the process of becoming an exalted being. According to Joseph Smith, God "once was a man like one of us and…once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh and like us."

According to Mormon belief, Jesus is identified as the god Jehovah (Yahweh). The pre-mortal Jehovah was born to the Virgin Mary and was named Jesus. Jesus was the Son of God—the literal father of his physical body was God the Father. Because Jesus was the Son of God, he had power to overcome physical death. Because he lived a perfect and sinless life, Jesus could offer himself as an "infinite and eternal" sacrifice that would be required to pay for the sins of all of the other children of God.

Mormon cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bible backs this up by saying that Jesus "sits at the right hand of the Father," and makes numerous references to them being separate entities.

[mikbone]

Well said.

One of my favorite documents is:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Father and the Son

[JThimm88]

In researching Mormonism, I've noticed that Mormons believe that God is actually three separate entities under one Godhead - God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit. The Father is called Elohim, and the Son is Jehovah.

According to Mormon theology, God the Father is a physical being of "flesh and bones." Mormons identify him as the Biblical god Elohim. Latter-day Saint leaders have also taught that God the Father was once a mortal man who has completed the process of becoming an exalted being. According to Joseph Smith, God "once was a man like one of us and…once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh and like us."

According to Mormon belief, Jesus is identified as the god Jehovah (Yahweh). The pre-mortal Jehovah was born to the Virgin Mary and was named Jesus. Jesus was the Son of God—the literal father of his physical body was God the Father. Because Jesus was the Son of God, he had power to overcome physical death. Because he lived a perfect and sinless life, Jesus could offer himself as an "infinite and eternal" sacrifice that would be required to pay for the sins of all of the other children of God.

Mormon cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bible backs this up by saying that Jesus "sits at the right hand of the Father," and makes numerous references to them being separate entities.

I've been doing a lot of reading about the Godhead in the forums today, and your post would be the perfect answer many investigators (like yourself) are looking for -- I'm just happy you found something and you were able to make sense of it. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Considering that the three major Abrahamic religions have held to a strictly monotheistic understanding of God, and that even trinitarianism is seen as flirting with polytheism, I find it difficult to agree that the Bible backs of the LDS teaching of the Godhead. The case might be made that the Bible need not contradict the teaching, but minus the added LDS revelations, the three-god-beings-in-one-Godhead doctrine is tough to formulate.

[JThimm88]

Considering that the three major Abrahamic religions have held to a strictly monotheistic understanding of God, and that even trinitarianism is seen as flirting with polytheism, I find it difficult to agree that the Bible backs of the LDS teaching of the Godhead. The case might be made that the Bible need not contradict the teaching, but minus the added LDS revelations, the three-god-beings-in-one-Godhead doctrine is tough to formulate.

I grew up in a Lutheran church which taught trinitarianism, and still never found that viewpoint of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit to be completely supported by Biblical teachings. Let's face it, the Bible may be slightly vague on the nature of God, leaving it up to the reader to interpret however they choose to... which makes me rather glad that the LDS church has the additional revelation ...makes it easier for me to understand because it's literally right in my face as I read it. That's just my personal experience, of course.

[prisonchaplain]

The Old Testament clearly teaches that there is one God. The schema is memorized by observant Jews from about age 5: Here O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one. Duet 6:4. In the New Testament we find Jesus revealed as God, and likewise, the Holy Spirit. Yet, the church, throughout history continued to insist that God is one. Bishop Arius was so insistent on the oness of God that he taught the subordinationist heresy (that Jesus is not God, but is subordinate to the Father--perhaps a god). Also, in a similar vein, in the early church, the modalist heresy arose--that God is absolutely one person, but reveals himself in three different modes, or roles. And so, to unify the church with a clear teaching on God's nature, the church eventually developed trinitarian theology through the creeds. Those creeds, and some of the vocabulary of them, are, of necessity, more detailed than the Bible because various teachings had arose, and a clearly dilineated one was necessary.

While it is true that a few readers of the Bible have chosen abberrant understandings of God's nature, the Christian churches are remarkably consistent in maintaining trinitarian teaching. That you came out of a Lutheran church is especially relevant, in that it was the first major doctrinal break from Catholicism (I'm not including the Orthodox schism, because historically the Eastern church really developed quite separately from western Roman Catholicism, almost from the beginning). Yet Luther maintained trinitarian teaching. Likewise Calvin, Wesley, the forefathers of my church, and even most of the past generations non-denominational mega-churches.

The reason to believe in the LDS Godhead teaching, imho, is if one accepts that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who restored a church that experienced the Great Apostasy. Apart from those beliefs, just using the Bible, no one else has come up with the unique LDS teachings, which is part monotheism, part polytheism, and perhaps is best described as henotheism (allegiance to one God, while allowing for the existence of more).

[Snow]

The Old Testament clearly teaches that there is one God.

Ah, well,

I think it is pretty well understood that ancient Israelites were polytheists. Numerous texts in the Biblie demonstrate an implicit assumption of multiple Gods"

Exod 15.11; 18.11; 20.3; 23.24; Num 25.2; Deut 10.17; Josh 24.15; 1 Kgs 11.2-10; 2 Kgs 17.31

"The existence of high places and other forms of ancestral and household god worship was not -- as the book of Kings imply -- apostasy from an earlier, purer faith. It was part of the timeless tradition of the hill country settlers of Judah, who worshiped YHWH along with a variety of gods and goddesses known or adapted from the cults of neighboring peoples. YHWH, in short, was worshiped in a wide variety of ways -- and sometimes pictured as having a heavenly entourage. From the indirect (and pointedly negative) evidence of the books of Kings, we learn that priests in the countryside also regularly burned incense on the high places to the sun, the moon, and the stars" I. Finkelstein and N.A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York, Toronto: Free Press, 2001), pp. 241-42.

Polytheism in the Old Testament

[Snow]

Considering that the three major Abrahamic religions have held to a strictly monotheistic understanding of God, and that even trinitarianism is seen as flirting with polytheism, I find it difficult to agree that the Bible backs of the LDS teaching of the Godhead. The case might be made that the Bible need not contradict the teaching, but minus the added LDS revelations, the three-god-beings-in-one-Godhead doctrine is tough to formulate.

I would dispute that - that adequate support (not proof) of the LDS understanding of the Godhead can be found in the Bible, however, what is abundantly clear is that the creedal Trinity is found nowhere in the Bible, Old or New.

[Guest mormonmusic]

a) I find there are enough scriptures in the Bible to justify both views -- the oneness of God, as well as the Godhead concept.

In fact, in another thread we discussed, I believe it was stated that there was a movement within the Catholic Church to redefine the God the Father, Christ and the Holy Ghost as three separate beings. So significant was the movement, that the Council of Nicea met to try to settle the question. Prisonchaplain indicated the Nicene Creed came out of this council as a reaffirmation of what always was accepted as truth (hopefully I'm representing what I remember you saying correctly, prisonchaplain). However, in my view, the fact there was a need to have this meeting showed that enough religious thinkers of the day thought the Bible justified a three separate Beings concept for the question to be given serious attention by the scholars of the day.

So, the idea that the concept of the Godhead isn't unreasonable in my view. Plus the scriptures that LDS folks quote as justifying the three separate beings idea provide compelling reasoning.

b) Prisonchaplain has implied that the widespread consistency across non-LDS Church that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one is further evidence that the Bible clearly supports this idea. I would postulate that this widespread consistency is due to the power of tradition, the labelling of contrarion thinkers as heretics, and in modern times, the fact that any Church that adopted this philosophy would be associated with the Mormons, who are not accepted in historical Christian circles. They would run into significant challenges in growing membership so that most fledgling Churches would avoid the doctrine like the plague.

c) However, because there is conflicting scripture about the nature of God, with each side -- traditional Christianity and LDS Christians -- I agree with that one's testimony of the true nature of God must hinge on whether you believe Joseph Smith is a prophet.

This is important because there are a lot of other doctrines based in the Doctrine and Covenants and continuing revelation that you'll also have to accept. So, you need a testimony that Joseph Smith really was a prophet to accept more than just the Godhead.

[Nemo]

I can agree with the Godhead concept, but I can't see how "Elohim" (God) was a man like us and lived on another planet. I always believed God was just...God.

[mikbone]

I can agree with the Godhead concept, but I can't see how "Elohim" (God) was a man like us and lived on another planet. I always believed God was just...God.

You move fast. One of the things about the LDS church that I absolutely love, is that we have a detailed and robust doctrine. It explains both the simple and complex concepts about the purpose of life, families, happiness, truth, and God.

I had the benefit of growing up in the church (the missionaries knocked on our door when I was just 6 months old). Anyway I learned the basic doctrine during primary, eventually went on a mission and spent many sessions in the temple and reading the scriptures and the more profound doctrines of the church naturally came through curiosity study and prayer.

Its kind of hard to enjoy a drink of water if it is coming from a fire hydrant, but some people have the capacity...

In the scriptures there just isn't much direct information about God the Father. From our perspective he is unchanging. There are basically 4 times that he ever interacted directly with man and each of those accounts he basically said the same thing, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him."

1) Baptism of Christ - Matthew 3:17

2) Mount of Transfiguration - Matthew 17:5

3) Visitation of the Nephites - 3 Ne 11:7

4) First Vision - JSH 1:17

On the other hand we do have an excellent record of Jehovah / Jesus Christ, and in that record it is easy to recognize that Christ did progress.

In a recent interview in KINGDOM COME - A Time magazine feature story on the Mormons Gordon B. Hinkley, the then President of the Church (Prophet) stated:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah

Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

If you want to go to the source of the doctrine you can read the King Follett discourse.

I hope to think that I understand a portion of what Joseph Smith was describing during that famous discourse but it took me many years to come to that understanding. It is a beautiful doctrine but it is deep, and I personally believe that it is generally greatly misunderstood by a majority of the members of the church. And more importantly the knowledge of the origin of God is not necessary for our personal progression and exaltation.

It is wise to stick to the basics. The first principles and ordinances of the gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Edited May 22, 2010 by mikbone

[Soninme]

I would dispute that - that adequate support (not proof) of the LDS understanding of the Godhead can be found in the Bible, however, what is abundantly clear is that the creedal Trinity is found nowhere in the Bible, Old or New

Snow,

Although you will not be convinced, your statement is not quite as "abundantly clear" as you say.

The Nicene Creed;

I believe in one God,(Deut. 6:4) the Father Almighty,(Rev. 4:8) Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.(Gen. 1:1)

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,(1Cor. 8:6) the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds;(John 3:18) (Micah 5:2 and Col. 1:17) God of God, (Luke 1:35)Light of Light,(1John 1:5) (John 8:12) very God of very God; begotten, not made,(John 1:3) being of one substance with the Father,(John 10:30) by whom all things were made.(Col. 1:16)

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) of the virgin Mary,(Luke 1:30-31) and was made man;(John 1:14) and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;(John 19:16) He suffered and was buried;(John 19:41-42) and the third day He rose again,(Luke 24:6) according to the Scriptures;(Luke 24:45) and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father;(Heb. 1:3) and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life;(Job 33:4) who proceeds from the Father(John 15:26) and the Son;(John 16:7) who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;(Psalms 95:6-7 compare with Hebrews 3:7-11) and (Isaiah 6:3) and (Math. 28:19) who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;(Ephesians 4:4-6) and I look for the resurrection of the dead,(Acts 24:15) and the life of the world to come. Amen

The Bible nowhere teaches this;

Quote:

The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).

Nor does it teach the Father was once a man.

I truly don't say this to argue but it seems as though some believe this creed was made up of thin air. One can sure think that but please take a line, or lines, and show Biblically or otherwise how they are off.

[prisonchaplain]

Ah, well,

I think it is pretty well understood that ancient Israelites were polytheists. Numerous texts in the Biblie demonstrate an implicit assumption of multiple Gods"

Exod 15.11; 18.11; 20.3; 23.24; Num 25.2; Deut 10.17; Josh 24.15; 1 Kgs 11.2-10; 2 Kgs 17.31

"The existence of high places and other forms of ancestral and household god worship was not -- as the book of Kings imply -- apostasy from an earlier, purer faith. It was part of the timeless tradition of the hill country settlers of Judah, who worshiped YHWH along with a variety of gods and goddesses known or adapted from the cults of neighboring peoples. YHWH, in short, was worshiped in a wide variety of ways -- and sometimes pictured as having a heavenly entourage. From the indirect (and pointedly negative) evidence of the books of Kings, we learn that priests in the countryside also regularly burned incense on the high places to the sun, the moon, and the stars" I. Finkelstein and N.A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York, Toronto: Free Press, 2001), pp. 241-42.

Polytheism in the Old Testament

Did the ancient Israelites often revert to polytheism? Yes. Were the repeated tempted to join in the polytheistic rituals and beliefs of their neighbors? Of course. And yet, as I stated, what Scripture teaches--what the prophets taught--was worship of the one true God, Yahweh.

Description of Judaism

Judaism 101: The Nature of G-d

The History of Monotheism - Chassidic Masters - Parsha

[prisonchaplain]

I would dispute that - that adequate support (not proof) of the LDS understanding of the Godhead can be found in the Bible, however, what is abundantly clear is that the creedal Trinity is found nowhere in the Bible, Old or New.

Oh, I would certainly grant you that if there was a Bible found with the prose of the creedal descriptions of Trinity in it, that would be more proof of late-dating, and perhaps of editorial adding, then it would the doctrine. The creeds were formulated a couple centuries after the Scriptures were written--and later. It would be anachronism to expect to find them imbedded explicitly in the earlier texts.

[mnn727]

It is a beautiful doctrine but it is deep, and I personally believe that it is generally greatly misunderstood by a majority of the members of the church.

And more importantly the knowledge of the origin of God is not necessary for our personal progression and exaltation.

It is wise to stick to the basics. The first principles and ordinances of the gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

All 3 points completly true

[Snow]

Snow,

Although you will not be convinced, your statement is not quite as "abundantly clear" as you say.

The Nicene Creed;

I believe in one God,(Deut. 6:4) the Father Almighty,(Rev. 4:8) Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.(Gen. 1:1)

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,(1Cor. 8:6) the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds;(John 3:18) (Micah 5:2 and Col. 1:17) God of God, (Luke 1:35)Light of Light,(1John 1:5) (John 8:12) very God of very God; begotten, not made,(John 1:3) being of one substance with the Father,(John 10:30) by whom all things were made.(Col. 1:16)

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) of the virgin Mary,(Luke 1:30-31) and was made man;(John 1:14) and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;(John 19:16) He suffered and was buried;(John 19:41-42) and the third day He rose again,(Luke 24:6) according to the Scriptures;(Luke 24:45) and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father;(Heb. 1:3) and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life;(Job 33:4) who proceeds from the Father(John 15:26) and the Son;(John 16:7) who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;(Psalms 95:6-7 compare with Hebrews 3:7-11) and (Isaiah 6:3) and (Math. 28:19) who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;(Ephesians 4:4-6) and I look for the resurrection of the dead,(Acts 24:15) and the life of the world to come. Amen

We've been through this so I know that you already know the answer - which makes me wonder what you are now trying to pass off:

The creedal Trinity is 3 hypostases in 1 ousia, co-eternal and co-equal.

There is no text in the Bible that says any such thing. Read what you posted.

ALL credible bible scholar understand that. No credible Bible scholar would represent otherwise:

"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.]

The Bible nowhere teaches this;

Nor does it teach the Father was once a man.

So???

We members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe in continuing revelation: Much of what we know comes from that continuing revelation.

You, on the other hand, believe that the heavens closed and that God no longer actively reveals his Word to mankind... and yet you believe things that were invented AFTER you believe that such revelation ceased.

Note: It gets tiring posting it over and over but there is adequate evidence from the Bible and the ancient world that both Christians and Israelites understood God in many of the same ways that Mormons do today and not in a way as understood by most non-Mormon Christians.

I truly don't say this to argue but it seems as though some believe this creed was made up of thin air. One can sure think that but please take a line, or lines, and show Biblically or otherwise how they are off.

I don't know who believes such a thing. I have never heard anyone so that. The creed was developed slowly other the course of 400 years though religious debate, Greek philosophy and political debate.

Do you know who it was that came up with the idea of homoousios?

Did you know that is was a non-Christian and murder?

Edited May 23, 2010 by Snow

[Snow]

Oh, I would certainly grant you that if there was a Bible found with the prose of the creedal descriptions of Trinity in it, that would be more proof of late-dating, and perhaps of editorial adding, then it would the doctrine. The creeds were formulated a couple centuries after the Scriptures were written--and later. It would be anachronism to expect to find them imbedded explicitly in the earlier texts.

Come now PC, don't now be coy. You know that I wouldn't stoop to such a weak argument as challenging the "prose."

It is the concepts that matter, not the words, although neither the concept nor the words are found in the Bible.

[prisonchaplain]

Imagine a society in which no one ever thought of white as other than a color. One day, someone started to proclaim loudly that white is dark and dim. So the elders convened and determined that this new description of white was heretical and wrong--that white is bright.

Creation out of nothing and God has one trinity--both of these are like the description of white. Up through the formation of scripture creation and God's nature were understood simply. As other descriptions arose, the church grappled with what was accurate and what was false. Their efforts were either misguided due to apostasy, or they were directed by the Spirit.

I can see some pre-trinitarian hints in Scripture, but you are correct. The concept is hardly full-blown and detailed. Likewise with creation out of nothing. We assume it, and your scriptures reject it. The Bible does not address the matter directly, so we can only use it to suggest plausibility/probability.

[Snow]

Imagine a society in which no one ever thought of white as other than a color. One day, someone started to proclaim loudly that white is dark and dim. So the elders convened and determined that this new description of white was heretical and wrong--that white is bright.

Creation out of nothing and God has one trinity--both of these are like the description of white. Up through the formation of scripture creation and God's nature were understood simply. As other descriptions arose, the church grappled with what was accurate and what was false. Their efforts were either misguided due to apostasy, or they were directed by the Spirit.

I can see some pre-trinitarian hints in Scripture, but you are correct. The concept is hardly full-blown and detailed. Likewise with creation out of nothing. We assume it, and your scriptures reject it. The Bible does not address the matter directly, so we can only use it to suggest plausibility/probability.

I'll certainly agree that the scriptures could be interpreted in such a way as to suggest parts of the Creedal Trinity. I imagine that you could also interpret some scriptures so as to suggest the possibility of creation out of nothing. Likewise, you could choose to interpret some scriptures in such a way as to suggest the opposite.

It's frustrating when some people, like another poster on this thread, reference dozens of scriptures all across the OT and NT that individually can be interpreted to support small individual components of the Trinity and then say, see, it's proved in the Bible.

[prisonchaplain]

My Catholic priest colleague says that it's acceptable for his church to make these presuppositions though--since it has the authority to do so. :-) I guess I'll leave your church and his to duke out the whole issue of authority...

[Soninme]

I'll certainly agree that the scriptures could be interpreted in such a way as to suggest parts of the Creedal Trinity. I imagine that you could also interpret some scriptures so as to suggest the possibility of creation out of nothing. Likewise, you could choose to interpret some scriptures in such a way as to suggest the opposite.

I would dispute that - that adequate support (not proof) of the LDS understanding of the Godhead can be found in the Bible, however, what is abundantly clear is that the creedal Trinity is found nowhere in the Bible, Old or New

Snow, I an confused as to which statement you want to stand by.

It's frustrating when some people, like another poster on this thread, reference dozens of scriptures all across the OT and NT that individually can be interpreted to support small individual components of the Trinity and then say, see, it's proved in the Bible.

Seriously, why would this be frustrating?

The question was about what is taught in the Bible.

If I quote a verse that says God is one(Deut 6:4) (1 Cor. 8:4) why in the world would we say it doesn't teach that?

If I quote a verse that says Jesus is God (Isaiah 9:6)(John 1:1) why in the world would we say it's not clear?

Biblical truth comes from the WHOLE Bible. This makes sense so we don't have a cult mentality building our theology on a verse out of context.

If you can demonstrate that those verses I quoted about the Trinity are out of context or don't mean what they say then do so but don't complain because I use the Bible to show what the Bible teaches.

[Snow]

Snow, I an confused as to which statement you want to stand by.

Read the posts. Figure it out.

[Justice]

The Old Testament clearly teaches that there is one God. The schema is memorized by observant Jews from about age 5: Here O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one. Duet 6:4. In the New Testament we find Jesus revealed as God, and likewise, the Holy Spirit. Yet, the church, throughout history continued to insist that God is one.

PC, we believe in one God, just as the Bible teaches. We aren't lying to you. To understand, maybe you need to ponder and pray on the definition of the word "one" that's used to describe God.

Genesis 1:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

One verse clearly uses a plural tone. The next is singular.

We understand the word "one" differently than you, that's all. Clearly, there is more than one being because of verse 26 (and others like it), yet they are One God.

The other point that people miss is how did God get male and female from just Himself?

He was speaking of His kind, "in our image," not necessarily Him personally. It turns out He did make man in His own image, but it is the same image as the rest of His kind, including females of His kind.

I don't see how the female equation can be removed from His statement. He is stating there are females of His kind also. Other scriptures support this.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, we believe in one God, just as the Bible teaches. We aren't lying to you. To understand, maybe you need to ponder and pray on the definition of the word "one" that's used to describe God.

Genesis 1:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

One verse clearly uses a plural tone. The next is singular.

We understand the word "one" differently than you, that's all. Clearly, there is more than one being because of verse 26 (and others like it), yet they are One God.

Without getting into the linguistics of it (I'm no expert!), trinitarians also sometimes try to use this verse to explain the validity of tri-unity as a monotheistic perspective. It's an extremely weak passage to use, and can at best only provide a hint of satisfaction to the already convinced. Thus sayeth some Hebrew scholars that are much wiser than I.

The other point that people miss is how did God get male and female from just Himself?

He was speaking of His kind, "in our image," not necessarily Him personally. It turns out He did make man in His own image, but it is the same image as the rest of His kind, including females of His kind.

I don't see how the female equation can be removed from His statement. He is stating there are females of His kind also. Other scriptures support this.

We do not believe we are in the literal, physical image of God. Rather, we look to our personhood, our emotions, and the potential of our character for goodness. Of course, part of this is that we believe our "Father" is Spirit, and not body, so we cannot put too much stock in the idea that males are in God's image and females are but a reflection.

But yes, I do see how the wording might work well with your doctrine and give rise to some rather fascinating speculation, once that direction is begun.

[Hemidakota]

In researching Mormonism, I've noticed that Mormons believe that God is actually three separate entities under one Godhead - God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit. The Father is called Elohim, and the Son is Jehovah.

According to Mormon theology, God the Father is a physical being of "flesh and bones." Mormons identify him as the Biblical god Elohim. Latter-day Saint leaders have also taught that God the Father was once a mortal man who has completed the process of becoming an exalted being. According to Joseph Smith, God "once was a man like one of us and…once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh and like us."

According to Mormon belief, Jesus is identified as the god Jehovah (Yahweh). The pre-mortal Jehovah was born to the Virgin Mary and was named Jesus. Jesus was the Son of God—the literal father of his physical body was God the Father. Because Jesus was the Son of God, he had power to overcome physical death. Because he lived a perfect and sinless life, Jesus could offer himself as an "infinite and eternal" sacrifice that would be required to pay for the sins of all of the other children of God.

Mormon cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bible backs this up by saying that Jesus "sits at the right hand of the Father," and makes numerous references to them being separate entities.

Being a non-member, this is quite impressive. But what is the question here? Or, is this your belief now?