How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???

[jlf9999]

Soninme

Essentially yes. Christ (in His Yahweh role) is speaking in His authority as the voice of the Godhead. LDS theology holds that the relationship between God, Christ and The Holy Ghost is though they were one. Christ is speaking as God the Father. Christ's authority and power comes from His father as does all authority everywhere. There is no authority unless it comes from God the Father. Therefore anyone who speaks with authorization, that is, speaks on behalf of God, it is as though God the Father was speaking. However not everyone, such as earthly authorities, have Christ's authority to speak that way. Mankind must add a "thus sayeth the Lord..." type acknowledgment of where the authority lies. That is so we can know it is not the speakers personal opinion or merely advice. Christ does not need such a disclaimer to speak. Someone else may want to put a finer point on the that however.

This is another of those commonly misunderstood subjects that requires some foundation in order to understand better. There is more to this subject than what we have covered here today such as speaking and acting with priesthood authority which has similar authority but a limited capacity.

Edited April 7, 2011 by jlf9999
clarity

[Jason_J]

Latter-day Saints maintain that the phrase "one God" can refer specifically to the Father (I find this somewhat similar to the usage by Eastern Orthodox Christians, who speak of the Father as the 'source" or "fount" of the Trinity, as well as 1 Corinthians 8:6, where "one God" is referring to the Father, or even the Nicene Creed itself, which says something similar to 1 Cor 8:6-"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty...We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ...") and it can also refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost collectively, as is used in the Book of Mormon and other scriptures. They are "one God" because they are one in purpose, mind, intent, and love. This is called "the Godhead".

I'm still curious as to what you mean by God being numerically one something, yet the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered to be distinct Persons who are not each other (in contrast to Modalism which states that the three Persons are merely masks or roles that the one Person of God takes). Some Trinitarians, such as Sheed in his "Theology and Sanity", a Catholic work, believe that "being" is referring to "nature", where the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons who are of the same divine nature, and no one or else is of that nature. Therefore they would be one nature. However, I don't see how such a definition maintains monotheism any more or less than the LDS view. This view of "being" also finds support when Trinitarians say that the Son is not only "consubstantial" with the Father and the Spirit, but He became consubstantial with us (in His human nature of course) due to His incarnation.

[Jason_J]

In fact the bible is quite specific in saying they are three distinct beings.

Chapter and verse please.

Thanks

Part of the problem with these discussions is that Trinitarians are using the words "person" and "being" in a way that isn't used in everyday language, where they are used interchangeably, and is the way that Latter-day Saints use them as well. So, while Trinitarians are okay with saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons, they won't say that they are three distinct Beings, but one Being. "Person" and "Being" therefore refer to two different concepts (stemming from the Greek hypostasis and ousia, respectively, if I remember correctly). LDS instead are okay with saying that they are three distinct Persons and/or that they are three distinct Beings, since we use those words interchangeably. I think it is safe to say that both Trinitarians and LDS agree that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct from each other, meaning that they are not each other.

The problem with the Trinitarian definition is when we get into whether it is really monotheistic, as I briefly brought up in my last post. If they are three distinct Persons, then they are numerically one what? What is the definition of "being"? Is it nature (as some Trinitarians define it as)? If so, how is having three distinct Persons with the same nature monotheism? LDS believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons who are united in purpose, will, and love. They can be referred to as "one God" because of this. "One God" can also refer to the Father, as in 1 Cor 8:6.

[rameumptom]

jlf9999

Thank you for taking the time to responed.

The verses you quoted are ones that I would say show the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be separate Persons but the Bible states for sure there is only one God.

Your thoughts on Isa. 43:10 and 44:6,8.

For me these, and others, show there to be only one, and only ever one, single Being Who is God

What do these verses mean to you?

Thanks

From a modern reading, it would seem you have the point here. However, when we look at this from an ancient understanding, you'll find that the modern interpretation has major problems. First, they key sections of the verses:

Is 43:10

before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Is 44:8

Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

When Isaiah wrote these, the prevailing belief in Israel was the El Elyon (God Almighty) was the chief God of a pantheon with 70 divine sons. He gave to each of his sons an earthly kingdom to reign over in the days of Peleg. This is known as the Table of Nations, as given in the genealogy of Noah and his sons. To El's son Yahweh/Jehovah was given Israel as a nation. Many of these nations did not yet exist when the nations were divided up.

I've written about how Yahweh chose Abraham, testing him to ensure he would be the perfect mortal son through whom he would create the nation of Israel. From that was formed an eternal covenant.

These Gods continually sought to overthrow one another's kingdoms. We see in Job 1, where some of the sons of El, including the Adversary (which is what "Satan" means, but in this instance is not the Satan we now know as the devil) go to Yahweh and test him through Job, his special mortal servant.

In later years, the Canaanites had their God, Yam, overthrown by Baal. Baal was known as a storm God, represented by a bull for strength and fertility. Baal worship was quickly taking over much of the Levant, and entered into the northern kingdom of Israel (and to some extent the kingdom of Judah) through Jezebel.

In Isaiah we see that Yahweh is telling Israel (not the world) that he is their God, has always been their God, and will always be their God. Unlike Canaan, where their current god Baal was not their original, Israel did not have a God before him, nor would they have one afterward, and Yahweh would not share Israel with another god.

So, suddenly we do see that there are more gods, such as Yahweh's father El. However, Yahweh was God of Israel, and later overcame the other gods and became God of the earth.

As for the concept that the scriptures say God is one God, we agree. In John 17, we read Jesus' intercessory prayer, where Jesus prays for his disciples. In this, he prays that they may be one, even as Jesus and God are one. Well, we can interpret this two ways: either they remain separate beings and one in purpose, or they become of one substance. Your choice in how that should be interpreted, but if you choose #2, then the resurrection gets very strange, indeed.

[Soninme]

I'm still curious as to what you mean by God being numerically one something, yet the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered to be distinct Persons who are not each other (in contrast to Modalism which states that the three Persons are merely masks or roles that the one Person of God takes).

Part of the problem with these discussions is that Trinitarians are using the words "person" and "being" in a way that isn't used in everyday language, where they are used interchangeably, and is the way that Latter-day Saints use them as well. So, while Trinitarians are okay with saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons, they won't say that they are three distinct Beings, but one Being. "

Hello Jason

This is a great question and I will do my best to answer as biblically as I can. Please bear with me as I'm no scholar and won't pretend to be.

We humans do use the words "being" and "person" interchangeably as you said and I can see why it's confusing.

I believe the Bible tells us that God is a different "species" if you will, than humans.(Num. 23:19) (Hosea 11:9)

The Bible tells me there is only One (1) and only ever will be One (1) Who is of that "species" or "nature" or "being" (for a lack of better words). Evidently in the "species" that is called God, there is a "plurality of personages" (again, for the lack of a better term) within that "nature" "being" etc."

We see in scripture that God created the heavens, the earth, and all things by Himself (Isa. 44:24) yet also says the Father did it; (Isa. 64:8) the Son did it; (John 1:3) (Col. 1:15-17) and the Holy Spirit did it. (Job 33:4 and 26:13) One God 3 Personages created the heavens and the Earth.

God raised Jesus from the dead yet scripture says the Father did it (1 Thess. 1:10) and Jesus raised Himself (John 2:19 and 10:17) and the Holy Spirit did it. (Rom 8:11) 1 God 3 Persons raised Him from the dead.

More examples could be shown.

I believe also that it is beyond the ability of man to comprehend the essential nature of God.

From Charles Welch;

God has condescended to limit Himself to the capacity of our understanding, to employ terms that are within our cognizance, and above all to tell us that all we can hope to know of Himself, during the present life, will be learned as we see His glory in the face of Jesus Christ. In all our acquisition of knowledge the mind is comparing, contrasting, labelling and drawing conclusions. Into what category must we place God? He is Spirit.

What do we KNOW of the conditions and modes of a life that pertain to pure Spirit? Just nothing. An infant on its mother's knee could more readily be expected to grasp the meaning of the fourth dimension than a man can be expected to understand the nature of Infinite Being. God has no COMPEER, therefore there is nothing with which we

may COMPARE Him. We are halted at the start. He has no equal.

To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto Him? (Isa. 40:18).

To whom then will ye liken Me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One (Isa. 40:25).

To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal, and compare Me, that we may be like? (Isa. 46:5).

For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD? (Psa. 89:6).

God is and must be incomparable.

Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? (Job 11:7).

I can certainly get one not understanding the Trinity, but problems come when denying the Trinity.

Much more can/needs to be said but I stink at typing. Thanks

[Soninme]

Should this be moved to the Trinity thread?

[Soninme]

In fact the bible is quite specific in saying they are three distinct beings.

In LDS theology, God with a capital G means God the Father of which there is but one.

jlf9999

If capitol "G" God is refering to the Father only, then what of Jesus capitol "G" (John 1:1) and the Holy Spirit capitol "G" (Acts 5: 3-4) since, as you say, they are three distinct beings/Gods?

Then are you saying that the Isaiah passages quoted are refering to God the Father only?

Essentially yes. Christ (in His Yahweh role) is speaking in His authority as the voice of the Godhead. LDS theology holds that the relationship between God, Christ and The Holy Ghost is though they were one. Christ is speaking as God the Father

Isa. 44:6 I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa. 44:8 Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

If Jesus is speaking "as the voice of the Godhead" and "they are three distinct beings"

Wouldn't He have better said "We are the first, and we are the last; beside us there are no Gods" and "Is there Gods beside me? yea, we know not any.?

Thanks

[jayanna]

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.

Genesis 1Â*

[Soninme]

Hey jayanna

Note when the Persons of the Godhead speak to each other they use "us" and "our". When God speaks to us He ALWAYS says "I".

Thanks

[jlf9999]

The original was written in Aramaic and Hebrew which were later translated into Greek and the Greek was translated into Latin and the Latin into English. That is how all this came about. There is genuine and legitimate confusion about it all. According to LDS theology, that is one reason there had to be a restoration. Whether it was translated correctly is a legitimate concern. Determining whether God the Father always uses a certain personal pronoun in every case or whether Christ is talking on behalf of God the Father in every case seems to be somewhat of a fruitless endeavor if we use just the bible. The bible in itself has a limited capacity to shed light. Now if you ask an Old Testament specialist at BYU maybe you can get an answer that works better than mine.

[jlf9999]

jlf9999

If capitol "G" God is refering to the Father only, then what of Jesus capitol "G" (John 1:1) and the Holy Spirit capitol "G" (Acts 5: 3-4) since, as you say, they are three distinct beings/Gods?

Isa. 44:6 I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa. 44:8 Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

If Jesus is speaking "as the voice of the Godhead" and "they are three distinct beings"

Wouldn't He have better said "We are the first, and we are the last; beside us there are no Gods" and "Is there Gods beside me? yea, we know not any.?

Thanks

Christ, as Yahweh, was admonishing the Israelites to stop worshiping idols and false Gods because He was the only true God. Christ is talking on behalf of God the Father and the Godhead. Christ does not demand worship of Himself. In the New Testament, he identifies himself as the son of God, not God. Matthew 16:15-17. "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

There can be no clearer explanation of who Christ is and what his relationship is to The Father and the Holy Ghost. You have to look at Isaiah in that light. Or so it seems to me. If Matthew is clear, so then must Isaiah be.

[Soninme]

Christ, as Yahweh, was admonishing the Israelites to stop worshiping idols and false Gods because He was the only true God. Christ is talking on behalf of God the Father and the Godhead.

Okay, but my confusion is still "if" Isaiah understood there are 3 distinct Gods, why would he say the Father was the only true one?

Christ does not demand worship of Himself.

The Bible disagrees;

Jesus own words "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. (Matt 4:10) See also Rev (22:8-9) (19:10)

(Matt) 8:2 - A leper came and worshipped Jesus. [9:18; 15:25; Mark 5:6]

(Matt 14:33) Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped Him, saying, Of a truth Thou art the Son of God.

(John 9:38) And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him.

(Matt 28:9) And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him.

(Luke 24:52) And they worshipped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

(Hebrews 1:6) The Father speaking. And again, when He bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him.

(Rev 5:11) And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

12Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

13And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. 14And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped Him that liveth for ever and ever.

In the New Testament, he identifies himself as the son of God, not God.

Doesn't a son have the same nature as his father?

See John 8:58 and John 1:1 Also note the Father calls Him God. (Heb 1:8) But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.

There can be no clearer explanation of who Christ is and what his relationship is to The Father and the Holy Ghost.

Agreed:) Edited April 9, 2011 by Soninme

[Maureen]

...Christ does not demand worship of Himself. In the New Testament, he identifies himself as the son of God, not God....

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3:13-14)

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Then took they up stones to cast at him...(John 8:56-59)

In Exodus God identifies himself as I AM, and in the NT Jesus also identifies himself as I AM. His audience took this to mean that he was calling himself God, which they took as blasphemy, hence their attempt to stone him.

M.

[jlf9999]

Maureen and Soninme

This has been discussed in several posts and prior comments in some detail. I refer you to them. But, briefly, Christ speaks with authority granted him as a member of the Godhead. He is not God the Father. I know it is a foreign concept to traditional Christians but they are three distinct beings. They are not an all-in-one God except in purpose and mind. Matthew lays that out quite clearly. One either accepts Matthew as definitive or he doesn't.

[Soninme]

jlf9999

Catholics, Protestants, etc. and LDS all believe Christ can speak as a member of the Godhead. None of us believe He is God the Father. That belief is called Modalism, ( which was accuratley defined by JasonJ in a previous post) and is considered false by "traditional Christians".

I understand how you and LDS can believe the Godhead is 3 Gods, 1 in purpose and mind.

My question to you though is, and please bear with me as I really want to know; who do you personally worship? Remember "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. (Matt 4:10) (Deut 6:13) "It is the Lord your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear" (Deut 6:15) "for the Lord your God in your midst is a jealous God". Before you answer please consider my previous post where Jesus is said many times to have received worship without rebuking those who did. Note Who Thomas said was his "Lord and God" (John 20:28)

If we worship God the Father only then we are not with those in Revelation 5:11-13 who are worshiping the Father and the Son. Also consider Isaiah 45:22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. 23 By myself I have sworn, My mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before Me every knee will bow; by Me every tongue will swear. Compare Phil 2:10 "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father".

We both agree we are NEVER told to worship 2 Gods. I submit to you to reconsider the teaching that God is not only one in "purpose and mind" but also one in Being; For; (John 4:24) God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth.”

Thanks

[Maureen]

Maureen and Soninme

This has been discussed in several posts and prior comments in some detail. I refer you to them. But, briefly, Christ speaks with authority granted him as a member of the Godhead. He is not God the Father. I know it is a foreign concept to traditional Christians but they are three distinct beings. They are not an all-in-one God except in purpose and mind. Matthew lays that out quite clearly. One either accepts Matthew as definitive or he doesn't.

Soninme and myself are aware of those other discussions since we took part in some of them. We both agree that Jesus is not God the Father, he is God the Son. Their distinctness is definitely not foreign to a Trinitarian, we agree they are distinct from one another. It is the definitions of the words person and being in reference to the Trinity that some LDS and non-LDS disagree on. For a trinitarian the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but they are one Being, meaning they are one God.

M.

[bytebear]

For a trinitarian the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but they are one Being, meaning they are one God.

I think most LDS would agree with that. Although LDS use "Godhead" instead of "Trinity". But boiling down the definitions, there is not much difference.

The bigger difference is when you talk about whether God is of the same species as Man or a different type of being. This is where things differ greatly.

But I think LDS have stronger ground on the point. We are Sons of God, both figuratively and literally. I would like to see what others think on this point.

[jlf9999]

There is no doubt. We worship God the Father through Jesus Christ. Christ is the conduit. That is LDS doctrine.

As regards our relationship to God, yes we believe we are genetically similar just as my physical body is similar genetically with my earthly parents. I could not say we understand the genetics, if that is the right term, but I think you get the point. We do not lower God to our level, we elevate man to God's level - at least we have potential to be raised to His level.

Maureen, you said "For a trinitarian the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but they are one Being, meaning they are one God.". Does that not make you polytheists too? That is the problem many outsiders have with us. I suppose it depends on which denomination you belong to, but for the most part, we hear that a lot. If I don't understand correctly please explain because so far what you say and what I understand others to say don't fit. Otherwise, we seem to be in agreement on God's nature and the Godhead.

Edited April 10, 2011 by jlf9999

[jlf9999]

By the way, do you Maureen and you Soninme have any heart burn with LDS people doing temple work for our mutual relatives? I accept that you have a different view of the worth of the work, but how do you or would you view it in your extended family if LDS cousin Eddy asked for data so he could submit great aunt Edna's or great grandpa Bill's names - or even if you were not asked or data. Do you know enough about what we do to have an informed opinion? I ask because I do a lot of this work and like everyone else, have relatives who are not LDS. So far I have had no trouble but I would like to know how a wider group of people view this.

Edited April 10, 2011 by jlf9999

[Maureen]

...Maureen, you said "For a trinitarian the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but they are one Being, meaning they are one God.". Does that not make you polytheists too?

As a trinitarian I am monotheistic. I believe there is only one God. I see the persons of the Trinity, as individually and collectively God. Trinitarians believe that the one and only God has always existed as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But it is true that some non-Trinitarians might view the Trinity as not monotheistic.

...Otherwise, we seem to be in agreement on God's nature and the Godhead.

I view God as divine and mankind as human. I believe LDS see themselves as gods in embryo, meaning you do believe that you have the potential for divineness. Trinitarians believe that we will never be gods and I'm sure many do not wish to be gods.

M.

[Maureen]

By the way, do you Maureen and you Soninme have any heart burn with LDS people doing temple work for our mutual relatives? I accept that you have a different view of the worth of the work, but how do you or would you view it in your extended family if LDS cousin Eddy asked for data so he could submit great aunt Edna's or great grandpa Bill's names - or even if you were not asked or data. Do you know enough about what we do to have an informed opinion? I ask because I do a lot of this work and like everyone else, have relatives who are not LDS. So far I have had no trouble but I would like to know how a wider group of people view this.

Personally I feel that if a non-LDS person does not wish to have LDS proxy work done for them, their wishes should be respected.

M.

[jlf9999]

Personally I feel that if a non-LDS person does not wish to have LDS proxy work done for them, their wishes should be respected.

M.

And that wish would be honored. However, that was not the question.

[jlf9999]

As a trinitarian I am monotheistic. I believe there is only one God. I see the persons of the Trinity, as individually and collectively God. Trinitarians believe that the one and only God has always existed as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But it is true that some non-Trinitarians might view the Trinity as not monotheistic.

I view God as divine and mankind as human. I believe LDS see themselves as gods in embryo, meaning you do believe that you have the potential for divineness. Trinitarians believe that we will never be gods and I'm sure many do not wish to be gods.

M.

I am sorry Maureen but that makes no sense, at least to me. Either there are three members of the God head or there is but one - and I think that is the conundrum. It seems to me that the Trinitarian concept is based solely on tradition not scripture. The sole scripture Trinitarians use (I am sure you can provide it) to bolster their belief is countered by many others that counter it.

[Maureen]

And that wish would be honored. However, that was not the question.

What exactly were you asking then?

M.

[Maureen]

I am sorry Maureen but that makes no sense, at least to me. Either there are three members of the God head or there is but one - and I think that is the conundrum. It seems to me that the Trinitarian concept is based solely on tradition not scripture. The sole scripture Trinitarians use (I am sure you can provide it) to bolster their belief is countered by many others that counter it.

jlf9999, as you know there are several threads about the Trinity and some of those threads do provide scripture - check them out if you wish.

I'm not surprised the Trinity does not make sense to you. In some cases the explanation of the LDS Godhead sometimes does not make sense to me. I have asked questions about the LDS Godhead like, do you believe in 3 Gods or one God and some have answered "Both". I guess we have something in common. :)

M.