Question about the Godhead

[SteveVH]

Still waiting for an answer to this:

Originally Posted by StephenVH

And yes, I think there is confusion in what you are asked to believe from the foundational standpoint of the very nature of God which then extends to other beliefs. Do you not find any contradiction in the fact that the Book of Mormon states that God "is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing..." and at the same time you are asked to believe in a God that was once as we are now and that he progressed to godhood just as you will progress to godhood; in other words that he "changed"? I'll just ask you straight out. Which of these two propositions do you believe? Objectively, you cannot believe in both simultaneously.

Thanks.

Edited September 9, 2011 by StephenVH

[bytebear]

Ugh. I hate these discussions. What is a "person" and what is a "being" and what is a "body of Christ?" It's all interpretation. And it's all quibbling about semantics.

The fact is the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants says explicitly that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is ONE GOD. But they are not metaphysically the same being. They are physically separate. They are united in purpose, and maybe even in more since they are in perfect harmony. But they are not one "being" like Cerberus.

And even by the definition of the Trinity: The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God. The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Father. etc...

That is exactly what Mormons believe.

Most of the verses that state there is ONE GOD, and we must worship Him are generally referring to Jesus who is the only mediator, the only savior and only path to salvation. But that does not make Jesus the Father.

The simple fact is that Jesus was physically resurrected from the grave. He had a body of flesh and bone. He showed his disciples, ate food, touched them, and ascended to heaven in bodily form. The problem with the trinity for most Latter-day Saints is the idea that Jesus then went and melded with the Father and the Holy Ghost, shedding his physical body for some metaphysical God blob. No, Jesus still has a physical body. His resurrection was not just some fancy show. It had a purpose as pivotal to our salvation as his atonement for sin. To dismiss his physical nature dismisses a major aspect of Christianity. The Trinity (or rather the prevailing interpretation of the Godhead) does exactly that.

Edited September 9, 2011 by bytebear

[z_o_n_e]

I don't think I will ever understand the trinity, or the Mormon definition of God as in Jesus is the Father, yet not the Father. It just throws me for a complete loop.

As far as I understood it though, I always thought Non Mormon Christians believed the Father and the Son were not mixed in a God Blob. I remember reading the Bible a long long time ago, and there was some scripture of us being reborn into heavenly bodies.. just as Jesus was.

I dunno, I'm just confused on the whole matter I'll stick to worshiping the Father as my God and hope I get some revelation down the road.. perhaps I will come across it in scripture.

[bytebear]

Well, the definition of God or a god is different in the LDS Church in that "god" can be interpreted as a state of being. That is, a state where you have not yet fallen, or been damned. In that sense, the interpretation of "Ye are gods" is perfectly accurate. We are all gods now because we have not been judged as damned souls. In that same sense, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are unable to enter a state of damnation, so they are gods. But together they are the Godhead, and they are one God. And as StephenVH pointed out, we have the potential to enter the body of Christ, and be one with God. So we will be part of God, or we can become God, but we do not take the place of the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost. Again, it's all semantics. Is God singular representing a single person or being? Or is it plural meaning a collection of perfect persons or beings who are in complete harmony to each other? This is why I like the term Godhead. It basically quantifies the Father Son and Holy Ghost as the head honchos of God, but we can also be part of that collection and be God. But just like the Son is not the Father, etc., neither will we be.

As for Jesus being the Father. That is not the same as God the Father. Jesus is the father of our salvation and also acts as the voice of the Father (as Jehovah in the OT) often using titles representative of both the Father and/or Son (i.e. The LORD [Jesus] GOD [Father]), but He not our Heavenly Father.

Edited September 10, 2011 by bytebear

[Vort]

"For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ…" (Romans 12:4).

"...put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body…" (1:22-23).

"For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…" (1 Corinthians 12:13)

While persecuting the Church, Paul encounters Jesus Christ who says to him,"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:1, 4). Jesus did not ask him, "Why are you persecuting my church?" Jesus asked him "Why do you persecute me?" Somehow, some way, Christ and the church are so intimately one, so united, that his persecution of the church was a persecution of Christ. That is why we refer to it as the "mystical body of Christ".

"We" being you and your dog? Because I don't use any such terminology.

If it is the word "mystical" that bothers you, please remember that it is the same Church that gave you the New Testament that has defined it in these terms.

While I have a great deal of respect for the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, I do not for a small moment believe that it is responsible for giving me the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church claims an unbroken line of leadership back to Peter himself, but this is false. The New Testament in its present form existed by the second century AD; the Roman Catholic Church cannot reasonably be traced to before Constantine, who reigned in the early fourth century. I do acknowledge the role of the RCC and many of its clergy (not so much the ordained clergy, but especially the regular clergy) in preserving the sacred Christian texts. But they certainly did not create the New Testament.

So which of the two possibilities listed before do you accept with respect to the "oneness" of Christ's disciples vis-a-vis the "oneness" of the Father and the Son?

[bytebear]

Don't forget Eastern Orthodox churches who have existed just as long as the Catholics.

[Vort]

Still waiting for an answer to this:

And yes, I think there is confusion in what you are asked to believe from the foundational standpoint of the very nature of God which then extends to other beliefs. Do you not find any contradiction in the fact that the Book of Mormon states that God "is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing..." and at the same time you are asked to believe in a God that was once as we are now and that he progressed to godhood just as you will progress to godhood; in other words that he "changed"? I'll just ask you straight out. Which of these two propositions do you believe? Objectively, you cannot believe in both simultaneously.

Thanks.

1. No, I do not find any contradiction.

2. President Snow's couplet was "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." This is not the same as claiming, as you do, that "[God] was once as we are now and that he progressed to godhood just as you will progress to godhood". It appears from various prophetic utterances that God, the Father of all, the Creator of all, passed through a mortal period. That is the obvious inference from President Snow's couplet and from Joseph Smith's marvelous discourse at the funeral of King Follett. But to go from there to the conclusion that God was once a fallible, sinful man, and that we will one day act in the exact same capacity as God himself acts toward us, is unjustified -- and, I would add, is not LDS doctrine, regardless of how many Latter-day Saints (or interested Catholics) may believe it to be.

[Just_A_Guy]

Still waiting for an answer to this:

And yes, I think there is confusion in what you are asked to believe from the foundational standpoint of the very nature of God which then extends to other beliefs. Do you not find any contradiction in the fact that the Book of Mormon states that God "is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing..." and at the same time you are asked to believe in a God that was once as we are now and that he progressed to godhood just as you will progress to godhood; in other words that he "changed"? I'll just ask you straight out. Which of these two propositions do you believe? Objectively, you cannot believe in both simultaneously.

Thanks.

Frankly, going back into Mormon history, it is arguable that there has been some confusion about the propriety of praying to God the Father versus God the Son. But we all got on the same page within the first six or seven decades of the Church's existence--our leadership made some proclamations; and the Church as a whole accepted them. For a bit of perspective, my understanding is that Catholicism didn't fully and officially embrace the Trinity until about the fourth century A.D.

As for the passage you cite in the Book of Mormon: I have no problem with it, in that I think prophets occasionally speak with a bit of hyperbole. The analogy I always use is Arnold Schwarzeneggar in "Kindergarten Cop", screaming "There is no bathroom!" to his kindergartners. Of course there was a bathroom; the point was just that the kids shouldn't be focusing on that at the moment.

Similarly, for a prophet who is trying to reassure his hearers that God really will hear their prayers just as He has heard the petitions of countless people throughout scriptural history, it is perfectly natural to say "Look, God's going to keep doing things the same way He's always done things".

I don't expect this to convince you, of course; but hopefully you'll at least get an idea of how we can reconcile this in our own minds. You'll need to weigh Mormonism's teachings and make your own decisions.

[SteveVH]

"We" being you and your dog? Because I don't use any such terminology.

Your Avatar is appropriate.

While I have a great deal of respect for the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, I do not for a small moment believe that it is responsible for giving me the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church claims an unbroken line of leadership back to Peter himself, but this is false. The New Testament in its present form existed by the second century AD; the Roman Catholic Church cannot reasonably be traced to before Constantine, who reigned in the early fourth century. I do acknowledge the role of the RCC and many of its clergy (not so much the ordained clergy, but especially the regular clergy) in preserving the sacred Christian texts. But they certainly did not create the New Testament.

It is always good to find out where one sits before they tell you where they stand. So thank you for that. I am more than happy to provide you with mountains of evidence in the form of undisputed writings coming from the early Church, even from the first century, that prove you wrong in your claim that the Catholic Church cannot be traced to before Constantine. The New Testament is a Catholic document. It was written subsequent to the founding of the Catholic Church in 33 A.D. by members of this Church and finally canonized by this Church late in the 4th century. There was no other church in existence at that time and there is no other church that can trace a line of succession all the way back to Peter today.

Now, I think I've already gone a bit far and we are straying way off topic here, but I could not let your remarks stand unanswered, at least to some degree. If you would like to discuss this further I'm happy to do it, but on another thread.

So which of the two possibilities listed before do you accept with respect to the "oneness" of Christ's disciples vis-a-vis the "oneness" of the Father and the Son?

Sorry, I think I got distracted and overlooked the rest of that post. Here is what you said:

Originally Posted by Vort

So, then, you are asserting one of two possibilities:

1. Jesus and the Father are individual beings, united in purpose and in heart, but not any sort of union of personhood, exactly as those who gain membership in the "mystical body* of Christ" become one.

2. Those who join the "mystical body of Christ" eventually lose their status as individuals and instead unite into a conglomerate personality of some sort, perhaps with individual expressions but with no actual individuality.

Which of these two possibilities best reflects your own ideas? Or is there a third possibility I have missed?

I'm not sure where you came up with these choices, but I'll give it my best shot.

1. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct in their personhood, but one in their very being. John tells us that God is love. That is Who he is, his very essence. Love cannot exist unless there is a lover and a beloved. One does not love unless there is someone to love. So God, in his very essence, consists of a Lover, the Father, the Beloved, the Son, and the Love between them, the Holy Spirit. God does not exist apart from all three persons which are necessary in order for Love, who is God, to exist. No one is father as God the Father is. He is eternally the Father in relaionship to his Son, Jesus. No one is a son of God as Christ is the Son of God. He is eternally the Son of the Father, without beginning. Otherwise Love, and therefore God, could not exist.

2. No, those who are part of the mystical body of Christ do not ever loose their status as individuals and certainly do not unite in some impersonal conglomerate of cosmic goo.

We will be more ourselves than we have ever been on this earth. We will finally be who God created us to be; our true selves; his adapted sons and daughters. We will share in the love between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Our bodies will be glorified bodies when we are resurrected, but they will be our bodies. We will be with our loved ones and share eternal life together. "No eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived of what God has planned for those who love him".

Edited September 10, 2011 by StephenVH

[Vort]

Your Avatar is appropriate.

You should have seen the Icelandic chick with the big eyes.

I am more than happy to provide you with mountains of evidence in the form of undisputed writings coming from the early Church, even from the first century, that prove you wrong in your claim that the Catholic Church cannot be traced to before Constantine. The New Testament is a Catholic document. It was written subsequent to the founding of the Catholic Church in 33 A.D. by members of this Church and finally canonized by this Church late in the 4th century.

Excellent. Please do so.

1. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct in their personhood, but one in their very being.

Can you explain exactly what this means? That is, can you give me an example of some things or beings that "are distinct in their personhood, but one in their very being"? Besides the "Holy Trinity", that is.

2. No, those who are part of the mystical body of Christ do not ever loose their status as individuals and certainly do not unite in some impersonal conglomerate of cosmic goo.

We will be more ourselves than we have ever been on this earth. We will finally be who God created us to be; our true selves; his adapted sons and daughters. We will share in the love between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Our bodies will be glorified bodies when we are resurrected, but they will be our bodies. We will be with our loved ones and share eternal life together. "No eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived of what God has planned for those who love him".

With this, at least, I agree (save the neoPlatonistic "mystical" wording).

[Just_A_Guy]

You should have seen the Icelandic chick with the big eyes.

Well, there's the authoritative answer to the most important debate ever to rock LDS.net: the question of whether that avatar was a male or a female.

(Or maybe it was just me who was confused.)

[SteveVH]

1. No, I do not find any contradiction.

So God is unchageable, according to the Book of Mormon, but changeable, according to the King Follett Doscourse, and you can somehow believe both at the same time? Please explain how this is not a contradition?

2. President Snow's couplet was "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." This is not the same as claiming, as you do, that "[God] was once as we are now and that he progressed to godhood just as you will progress to godhood". It appears from various prophetic utterances that God, the Father of all, the Creator of all, passed through a mortal period. That is the obvious inference from President Snow's couplet and from Joseph Smith's marvelous discourse at the funeral of King Follett. But to go from there to the conclusion that God was once a fallible, sinful man, and that we will one day act in the exact same capacity as God himself acts toward us, is unjustified -- and, I would add, is not LDS doctrine, regardless of how many Latter-day Saints (or interested Catholics) may believe it to be.

Well, those weren't my words, but whatever. My point is simply that if God was a man, even one who was without sin, who progressed to Godhood, then he changed. The unchangeable God, changed. That is a contradiction, pure and simple.

Christ was God from eternity, who became man. His divinity never changed, however. He was not half man and half God, rather fully man and fully God. His divine essence is eternal, unchageable. Maybe I have misunderstood your beliefs. Do you believe that Heavenly Father was God before he was a man, or that he was an intelligence that was given a human body who then progressed to Godhood. I've really never understood and would be happy to learn what you really believe.

[NoGreaterLove]

Well, those weren't my words, but whatever. My point is simply that if God was a man, even one who was without sin, who progressed to Godhood, then he changed. The unchangeable God, changed. That is a contradiction, pure and simple

You are playing with words here. This statement can be taken in a lot of contexts. You have chosen an all encompassing context which if taken literally would mean that God never even moves, speaks, creates or anything. Why? Well, because he can't under your rules of interpretation of "unchangeable".

So your argument lacks merit. We need to define unchangeable first then move on with the discussion.

[SteveVH]

You should have seen the Icelandic chick with the big eyes.

Excellent. Please do so.

Then start another thread and I will respond. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to start a thread for the purpose of Catholic apologetics.

Can you explain exactly what this means? That is, can you give me an example of some things or beings that "are distinct in their personhood, but one in their very being"? Besides the "Holy Trinity", that is.

No. God is completely unique and eternally above his creation. The human family is probably the best example of being made in the image and likeness of God. God is, in his essence, a family; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A husband and wife become one and the love between them results in another life. I have already given the example of water and the three distinct properties it posseses while remaining one essence, H20. But all of these are really shadows of God's true being and fall short of giving us complete understanding. We call it a mystery and you scoff, but it doesn't mean a "mystery" in the sense of a puzzle to be figured out. It simply means that it is beyond understanding with our finite human minds.

With this, at least, I agree (save the neoPlatonistic "mystical" wording).

[SteveVH]

You are playing with words here. This statement can be taken in a lot of contexts. You have chosen an all encompassing context which if taken literally would mean that God never even moves, speaks, creates or anything. Why? Well, because he can't under your rules of interpretation of "unchangeable".

So your argument lacks merit. We need to define unchangeable first then move on with the discussion.

Sorry for the confusion, I though I was pretty clear. Here was the question orignally posed by me:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by StephenVH

And yes, I think there is confusion in what you are asked to believe from the foundational standpoint of the very nature of God which then extends to other beliefs. Do you not find any contradiction in the fact that the Book of Mormon states that God "is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing..." and at the same time you are asked to believe in a God that was once as we are now and that he progressed to godhood just as you will progress to godhood; in other words that he "changed"? I'll just ask you straight out. Which of these two propositions do you believe? Objectively, you cannot believe in both simultaneously.

I don't think I tried to imply that an unchanging God would then be prevented from moving or speaking or creating so please don't put words in my mouth. I am speaking of the nature of God. I believe that he is eternally God, without beginning and without end. He did not become God through some process of exaltation. He was always God, the Creator of all things. There are no other Gods anywhere, not in distant universes far far away, or in some other dimension or world. His nature is eternal and therefore cannot change.

[SteveVH]

Frankly, going back into Mormon history, it is arguable that there has been some confusion about the propriety of praying to God the Father versus God the Son. But we all got on the same page within the first six or seven decades of the Church's existence--our leadership made some proclamations; and the Church as a whole accepted them. For a bit of perspective, my understanding is that Catholicism didn't fully and officially embrace the Trinity until about the fourth century A.D.

First of all, thanks for your comments.

Yes, that is a common misconception. The Council of Nicaea, as with all Councils, did not meet in order to form new beliefs, but rather to defend what the Church had always believed, against heretics. In this case the Council was called by Constantine due to the uproar caused by the Arians. His interest in the Council was really from a secular, civil concern. He just wanted peace and saw things heating up to a dangerous point. In any event, several hundred bishops met and very purposefully defined the Church's beliefs to leave no doubt as to where the Church stood in the face of the Arian heresy.

As for the passage you cite in the Book of Mormon: I have no problem with it, in that I think prophets occasionally speak with a bit of hyperbole. The analogy I always use is Arnold Schwarzeneggar in "Kindergarten Cop", screaming "There is no bathroom!" to his kindergartners. Of course there was a bathroom; the point was just that the kids shouldn't be focusing on that at the moment.

Similarly, for a prophet who is trying to reassure his hearers that God really will hear their prayers just as He has heard the petitions of countless people throughout scriptural history, it is perfectly natural to say "Look, God's going to keep doing things the same way He's always done things".

Was he using hyperbole when he translated the Book of Mormon or in the King Follett discourse? I'm still a little confused. How does one discern between what is hyperbole and what is not?

So what is it that you personally believe? Is God "the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing..." or do you believe in a God that was once as we are now and that he progressed to godhood? Those seem like pretty clear statements to me and I happen to agree with the BoM on this one.

[NoGreaterLove]

I don't think I tried to imply that an unchanging God would then be prevented from moving or speaking or creating so please don't put words in my mouth. I am speaking of the nature of God. I believe that he is eternally God, without beginning and without end. He did not become God through some process of exaltation. He was always God, the Creator of all things. There are no other Gods anywhere, not in distant universes far far away, or in some other dimension or world. His nature is eternal and therefore cannot change.

You failed to see my point. Taking what you just said, you have defined "unchangeable" and placed limitations on it. For instance, you say unchangeable allows him to move, speak and create. So he can change his words, change his location and what he creates. But in the next part of the paragraph you create more parameters in your definition of unchangeable. You say He can not change through some process of exaltation.

Those are rules you imposed upon this discussion. You have defined unchangeable. That is what I was pointing out, not putting words in your mouth.

Our definition is different. We believe God was speaking about eternal laws. That God lives by those eternal laws which include that an intelligence must progress through stages to become a God. We believe we have always existed in some form, that matter can not be created nor destroyed and that this law governs intelligences also. So God has always existed. So have we. The difference being he is the greatest intelligence of all and we must learn from him. He is our creator in many ways. Our father in many ways. Just like a biological father on earth may not be a true father unless he nourishes his children. Our Father in Heaven fulfills all His roles as Father.

So I see two different definitions of unchangeable. That is what we need to come in agreement upon, for that is why we disagree. Something simple, nothing but a definition. I believe it one thing and you another. So which one of us has the authority to define the word? Neither one of us, because the word belong to him who gave it, God.

What do you recommend as a solution to defining this word the way God meant it?

[SteveVH]

You failed to see my point. Taking what you just said, you have defined "unchangeable" and placed limitations on it. For instance, you say unchangeable allows him to move, speak and create. So he can change his words, change his location and what he creates. But in the next part of the paragraph you create more parameters in your definition of unchangeable. You say He can not change through some process of exaltation.

Those are rules you imposed upon this discussion. You have defined unchangeable. That is what I was pointing out, not putting words in your mouth.

Can a dog change into a cat? Can a dog still move, and bark, and eat, and sniff? One more time. I am speaking about the nature of God. Please. This is getting childish.

Our definition is different. We believe God was speaking about eternal laws. That God lives by those eternal laws which include that an intelligence must progress through stages to become a God. We believe we have always existed in some form, that matter can not be created nor destroyed and that this law governs intelligences also. So God has always existed. So have we. The difference being he is the greatest intelligence of all and we must learn from him. He is our creator in many ways. Our father in many ways. Just like a biological father on earth may not be a true father unless he nourishes his children. Our Father in Heaven fulfills all His roles as Father.

So I see two different definitions of unchangeable. That is what we need to come in agreement upon, for that is why we disagree. Something simple, nothing but a definition. I believe it one thing and you another. So which one of us has the authority to define the word? Neither one of us, because the word belong to him who gave it, God.

What do you recommend as a solution to defining this word the way God meant it?

Its not difficult. Unchageable means that something does not change. The nature of God is the something about which we are speaking. Therefore when we say God is unchangeable we mean his nature, his person, his being, cannot change. As the BoM states, God "is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing...". Why in the world would anyone construe that to mean that he is now incapable of acting in any manner?

Humans do change, in fact all of creation changes on a constant basis. But God never changes. He has existed in all of his glory forever; from eternity. He did not become God. And that's the rub. You believe that he did "become" God, which contradicts the Book of Mormon citation. That is my point.

[NoGreaterLove]

This is getting childish

This is not necessary. Please refrain from such comments.

I would like to have a respectful conversation about this subject without this type of behavior.

However, I will bow out to keep the peace.

[SteveVH]

This is not necessary. Please refrain from such comments.

I would like to have a respectful conversation about this subject without this type of behavior.

However, I will bow out to keep the peace.

Please don't bow out and please accept my apology. That was very rude of me.

[estradling75]

An unchangeable God...

Christ is God...

Before Christ was born of Mary what was he? After? Then after his death? Then after his resurrection?

Christ was a spirit... Then took on a human body with mortal frailties... Then lost that body... Then gained a perfect glorified body.

That sounds like a lot of changes for a God you claim can't have ever changed...

[NoGreaterLove]

Can we look at Hebrew 13:8?

8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

This is a description of Christ. Was he not changed from being a God to a man? And then back to a God again? Is this not your belief?

Yet Paul describes him as the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

My point is Paul was not talking about the physical state of Christ when he said this, and the prophets and Christ himself was not saying that either in the following BoM references.

Mormon 9:9

9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

1 Nephi 10:18

18 For he is the same yesterday, today, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.

Moroni 10:19

19 And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that all these gifts of which I have spoken, which are spiritual, never will be done away, even as long as the world shall stand, only according to the unbelief of the children of men.

2 Nephi 27:23

23 For behold, I am God; and I am a God of miracles; and I will show unto the world that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and I work not among the children of men save it be according to their faith.

2 Nephi 2:4

4 And thou hast beheld in thy youth his glory; wherefore, thou art blessed even as they unto whom he shall minister in the flesh; for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free.

Alma 31:17

17 But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God.

2 Nephi 29:9

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

Edited September 10, 2011 by NoGreaterLove

[Just_A_Guy]

First of all, thanks for your comments.

Yes, that is a common misconception. The Council of Nicaea, as with all Councils, did not meet in order to form new beliefs, but rather to defend what the Church had always believed, against heretics. In this case the Council was called by Constantine due to the uproar caused by the Arians. His interest in the Council was really from a secular, civil concern. He just wanted peace and saw things heating up to a dangerous point. In any event, several hundred bishops met and very purposefully defined the Church's beliefs to leave no doubt as to where the Church stood in the face of the Arian heresy.

I appreciate your perspective. Doubtless the Arians claimed that they were the heirs to the Lord's "true" teachings; I guess my point was just that both of our religions had trouble getting everyone on the same page.

Was he using hyperbole when he translated the Book of Mormon or in the King Follett discourse? I'm still a little confused. How does one discern between what is hyperbole and what is not?

I personally think the hyperbole in this case was in the Book of Mormon. The idea of the deification of man--and Lorenzo Snow's couplet--is, in my opinion, too deep a part of our history, even if we tend to soft-pedal it now.

So what is it that you personally believe? Is God "the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing..." or do you believe in a God that was once as we are now and that he progressed to godhood?

I believe that God is now unchanging, but wasn't always so. By way of analogy: I can make dough, and bake it into a cake. I can't take the cake and make it into dough again. The cake is now "unchanging", but that fact doesn't mean that it always existed in its current state.

Those seem like pretty clear statements to me and I happen to agree with the BoM on this one.

True, but wouldn't even Catholics acknowledge that God had to somehow change His nature in order to come to earth as Jesus Christ? Even a mere change in form (like the ice-to-water-to-vapor analogy you provide) is still a change.

It seems to me that a hyper-literalistic interpretation of the "eternal and unchanging" language is inconvenient for you as well as for us.

[Jason_J]

This, combined with the rejection of the Trinity, leaves you in confusion as to just who God is (is he the Father, or the Son or the Holy Spirit?). Just who is the one God that you should worship and adore?

No, there is no confusion as to who God is in Latter-day Saint theology. "God" can refer to the Father only (such as in Ephesians 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, etc), it can refer to the Son, it can refer to the Holy Ghost, and it can also refer to all Three collectively (also known as the "Godhead"). We worship all Three, however we pray to the Father in the name of the Son, in the Spirit. There is no confusion here.

[Jason_J]

Well, the fact that it is a mystery is not an excuse, it is a simple fact that humans, with a finite mind, cannot fully grasp the infinite God. Nevertheless, I had no intention of "falling back" on this as an argument.

You must begin with the fundamental Jewish and Christian belief that there is only one God:

“You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other.” – Deuteronomy 4:35

"This is what the LORD says- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.” – Isaiah 44:6

Other Old Testament Verses: Deut. 4:39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 14, 21-22; 46:9.

“How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?” – John 5:44

“…since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.” Romans 3:30

Other New Testament Verses: Rom. 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6, 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25.

Scripture tells us that the Father is God:

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,” – 2 Corinthians 1:3

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.” – Ephesians 1:3

Scripture tells us that Jesus is God:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.” – John 1:1

“Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” – John 20:28

“We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true--even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” – 1 John 5:20.

And Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit is God:

“Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.’” [emphasis added] (Acts 5:3-4)

Paul clearly and explicitly equated the Holy Spirit with God:

“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” – 2 Corinthians 3:17-18

So we know from the outset that there is only one God, yet we are aslo told that this God consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nowhere do we find that they are one only in purpose. Those words simply do not exist in the Christian Scriptures. No doubt they are one in purpose, but it is much more than just purpose. There is only one God.

Hope this helps.

Yes, Latter-day Saints completely agree with all of those verses listed above.

Yet you do not explain what this "more than just purpose" oneness is (and interestingly, "oneness of being" does not exist in the Christian Scriptures either), and the fact is that the Bible never states anything on that oneness of the Godhead other than what Latter-day Saints believe: that we are to be one with each other as the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost) are one.

Further, Latter-day Saints believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are considered to be "one God" (and are referred to as such in our additional scriptures) due to their oneness of mind, will, love, and purpose. This isn't a question about whether we believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God". The question is what does "one God" mean. Interestingly, Jews regard the Trinity doctrine as a heresy and not monotheistic, since you are introducing plurality (i.e. three distinct divine Persons) into the absolute unity of God.