John 17

[prisonchaplain]

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

To me, that we must may choose or embrace or reject God is self-evident. I take the quotation as a refutation of the doctrine of Predestination. Yet, I see this sometimes invoked almost as a debate-ender (You believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want). Are there aspects of this doctrine I am missing?

[apexviper13]

Which brings me to what I already said: "Even if they did, that isn't what the Trinity doctrine states anyway, so they would be incorrect."

Which proves my point that trinitarians are not in unity with the "trinity"concept.

[apexviper13]

Most you say? It is hard to believe because you are stating it without any verification. It is just your opinion. I am a trinitarian and I know that the Trinity states the 3 in 1 is three persons in one God.

M.

Most trinitarians I've talked to described it as 3 beings in 1 person that is God.

[Dravin]

To me, that we must may choose or embrace or reject God is self-evident. I take the quotation as a refutation of the doctrine of Predestination. Yet, I see this sometimes invoked almost as a debate-ender (You believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want). Are there aspects of this doctrine I am missing?

Consider the context of the times it was written, namely the persecution the Church encountered. It's less a doctrinal statement that men are free to accept or reject Christ because of agency/will/whatever you want to call it, and more a, "We don't think it's right to go chasing people out of states or persecuting them for what they believe, let them worship in peace."

Obviously there are limits to it (for instance, you sacrifice your child to Molech we do want you thrown in jail, but you are free to believe you should sacrifice your child to Molech), but the general concept is relentlessly hassling people for what they believe is rude, not nice, and not something we should be doing. It tends to get brought up in debates when people think it's crossed the line between explaining differing beliefs, or even trying to convince people, and harassing people. Obviously people have different senses of when that line is crossed.

[Seminarysnoozer]

It is important to understand both that Jesus is God and that God is one single God, who is alone in who and what He is. At the same time we recognize that there is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are one God, yet distinct persons.

Believers will see mystery in this Triune God. Skeptics (of the Trinity) will see confusion, and find it difficult to reconcile the three in one. We agree with you about the distinctness of the three persons, but you find it hard to understand our loyalty to strict monotheism. It's understandable. You hope to become Gods, so why would you be married to absolute monotheism?

How does "absolute monotheism" differ from just saying that I recognize God is my Heavenly Father, there is only one, Jesus is my Savior, only one of Him and there is the Holy Ghost, only one of him?

I still am not gathering how this changes ones worship practices. What practical difference does it make to you?

For this life, all that is necessary is to have faith in Jesus and do what He asks. Whether my ultimate sights are a little higher, I don't think matters as I realize that to get there requires absolute faith in Christ. For me there is only the Father in Heaven, none above Him. So, how would that change my worship practice by calling it one or the other, I don't see the benefit of specifying "trinity". Does it change the way you say your prayers? Does it change your relationship with God, and how? I don't get the benefit of such a distinction.

[prisonchaplain]

One major difference that it makes is that we insist, as byte mentioned in a previous post, that God is alone in his nature and essence. We do not share his eternal essence. We are not eternal. God may resurrect us to an eternal future, but he alone is from everlasting to everlasting.

I will become much more than I am. Perhaps godlike--certainly compared to now. There will be an exaltation of sorts--a glorification. However, never will there be another God. There is only one. It will be my eternal joy to worship Him, now and forevermore.

Because Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence, there is no misunderstanding about Jesus progressing to be like his Father, and me eventually doing the same, and there being many gods out there, but me serving a particular one.

My God made this world, and every world that exists. He made this universe and every universe that exists. There is no other god--only false images and demonic pretenders.

There is a mystery to God's Oneness in three persons--but I know I worship the single true and living God.

Having said all that, I understand that LDS worship one God, that this will always be so, and that so much about exaltation, glorification, future 'Godhood' is speculation. I'm not suggesting that my allegiance to God is any greater or superior. Perhaps the trinitarian tendency to describe God as "God" or "Almighty God" vs. the LDS practice of referring to "Heavenly Father," shows a difference in tone?

Edited October 19, 2011 by prisonchaplain
remove quote since it's from the post right before

[apexviper13]

One major difference that it makes is that we insist, as byte mentioned in a previous post, that God is alone in his nature and essence. We do not share his eternal essence. We are not eternal. God may resurrect us to an eternal future, but he alone is from everlasting to everlasting.

I believe many of us that are LDS would disagree here due to our belief in the pre-mortal life. To me, the fact that the scriptures talk about Eternal Life with the Father and Son can refer to a pre-mortal life as well. After all, eternity is without beginning and without end, not just without end.

I will become much more than I am. Perhaps godlike--certainly compared to now. There will be an exaltation of sorts--a glorification. However, never will there be another God. There is only one. It will be my eternal joy to worship Him, now and forevermore.

Psalm 82:6/John 10:34-35 Thought I'd mention both since John quotes Psalm. I'd compare the usage here to Psalm 89:6 For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?

Because Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence, there is no misunderstanding about Jesus progressing to be like his Father, and me eventually doing the same, and there being many gods out there, but me serving a particular one.

This is something I was referring to in the other thread. While the Catholic Nicene Creed states the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and Son, the Eastern Orthodox version has the Holy Ghost just proceeding the Father.

Having said all that, I understand that LDS worship one God, that this will always be so, and that so much about exaltation, glorification, future 'Godhood' is speculation. I'm not suggesting that my allegiance to God is any greater or superior. Perhaps the trinitarian tendency to describe God as "God" or "Almighty God" vs. the LDS practice of referring to "Heavenly Father," shows a difference in tone?

I do have a question. Maybe you can clear this up. Many trinitarians I've encountered have said Joseph Smith's teaching of the "plurality of gods", calling each member of the Godhead, is considered blasphemous. My question is why do they see it to be blasphemous? The reason I ask is because to me its no different from saying "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit/Ghost."

[prisonchaplain]

I believe many of us that are LDS would disagree here due to our belief in the pre-mortal life. To me, the fact that the scriptures talk about Eternal Life with the Father and Son can refer to a pre-mortal life as well. After all, eternity is without beginning and without end, not just without end.

God is eternal. We believe we gain, or acquire, eternal life. I'm not sure how we could gain an eternal past.

Psalm 82:6/John 10:34-35 Thought I'd mention both since John quotes Psalm. I'd compare the usage here to Psalm 89:6 For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?

Who are these sons of the mighty? Royalty? Judges' children? The sons of generals?

This is something I was referring to in the other thread. While the Catholic Nicene Creed states the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and Son, the Eastern Orthodox version has the Holy Ghost just proceeding the Father.

I'm not well versed in this matter. However, I believe Othodox, Catholic, and Protestant all teach that each person in the Godhead is co-equal and co-eternal. So, I would guess they are referring to hierarchy, or leadership.

I do have a question. Maybe you can clear this up. Many trinitarians I've encountered have said Joseph Smith's teaching of the "plurality of gods", calling each member of the Godhead, is considered blasphemous. My question is why do they see it to be blasphemous? The reason I ask is because to me its no different from saying "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit/Ghost."

Both henotheism and polytheism would be considered heresy by most traditional Christians. Especially since this plurality allows for the existence of other gods, many would consider the doctrine blasphemous.

[apexviper13]

I'm not well versed in this matter. However, I believe Othodox, Catholic, and Protestant all teach that each person in the Godhead is co-equal and co-eternal. So, I would guess they are referring to hierarchy, or leadership.

The Catholic version has the Holy Ghost proceeding from both so this seems to be more in line with all 3 being of the same substance. With the Orthodox version it seems the Father and Son are of the same substance because the Son is the begotten of the Father, the Father and Holy Ghost are of the same substance because the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, yet at the same time, the Orthodox version excludes the Son in regards to who the Holy Ghost proceeds from. So its as if the Father and Son are of the same substance and the Father and the Holy Ghost are of the same substance but somehow the Son and Holy Ghost aren't of the same substance according to Eastern Orthodox standards. I'm not a trinitarian because I believe scripture teaches contrary to the trinity but if I were a trinitarian I'd definitely believe in the Catholic version where the Holy Ghost proceeds both the Father and the Son.

[apexviper13]

Both henotheism and polytheism would be considered heresy by most traditional Christians. Especially since this plurality allows for the existence of other gods, many would consider the doctrine blasphemous.

Difference between the "plurality of gods" and polytheism:

Clean Cut (with a Coke): The Doctrine of a Plurality of Gods Is Not Polytheism

[prisonchaplain]

This from the source...

To avoid confusion, I should clarify and separate two different concepts here. There are two different kinds of plurality: the plurality within the Godhead (only three) and the plurality that arises from the fact that exalted children of God can be called gods. Whether we're talking about a plurality of Gods within the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), or a plurality of gods (ie: all the "sons of God"), it doesn't change the fact that there is only one true source of worship, love, power, light, and glory in the universe--God the Eternal Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

The more precise term for this is henothism. However, allowing for the very existence of other gods (and I think more of those outside the Godhead) still has the feel of paganism. Granted, there is no competition for worship. Still, this strikes a theological nerve with monotheists.

[prisonchaplain]

The Catholic version has the Holy Ghost proceeding from both so this seems to be more in line with all 3 being of the same substance. With the Orthodox version it seems the Father and Son are of the same substance because the Son is the begotten of the Father, the Father and Holy Ghost are of the same substance because the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, yet at the same time, the Orthodox version excludes the Son in regards to who the Holy Ghost proceeds from. So its as if the Father and Son are of the same substance and the Father and the Holy Ghost are of the same substance but somehow the Son and Holy Ghost aren't of the same substance according to Eastern Orthodox standards. I'm not a trinitarian because I believe scripture teaches contrary to the trinity but if I were a trinitarian I'd definitely believe in the Catholic version where the Holy Ghost proceeds both the Father and the Son.

I'm not sure we are understanding the Orthodox teaching correctly here. They seem to believer the Trinity is "consubstantial," and that it was never divided.

See: Orthodox Teachings on the Most Holy Trinity

[Seminarysnoozer]

One major difference that it makes is that we insist, as byte mentioned in a previous post, that God is alone in his nature and essence. We do not share his eternal essence. We are not eternal. God may resurrect us to an eternal future, but he alone is from everlasting to everlasting.

I will become much more than I am. Perhaps godlike--certainly compared to now. There will be an exaltation of sorts--a glorification. However, never will there be another God. There is only one. It will be my eternal joy to worship Him, now and forevermore.

Because Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence, there is no misunderstanding about Jesus progressing to be like his Father, and me eventually doing the same, and there being many gods out there, but me serving a particular one.

My God made this world, and every world that exists. He made this universe and every universe that exists. There is no other god--only false images and demonic pretenders.

There is a mystery to God's Oneness in three persons--but I know I worship the single true and living God.

Having said all that, I understand that LDS worship one God, that this will always be so, and that so much about exaltation, glorification, future 'Godhood' is speculation. I'm not suggesting that my allegiance to God is any greater or superior. Perhaps the trinitarian tendency to describe God as "God" or "Almighty God" vs. the LDS practice of referring to "Heavenly Father," shows a difference in tone?

If the only difference in how it affects our worship is "tone" then I don't think it is that big of a difference. Trinitarians never say "Our Father who art in Heaven... "?

Even with the disagreements etc. I still fail to see how it is a cornerstone to any major doctrinal differences.

Maybe I should ask then, how is believing that God is alone in His essence make different our worship from yours? What difference does that make to your worship that I am not worshiping or getting?

To me it is sounding a little like discussing whether Christ currently has brown hair or white hair or some other color. Does it really make a difference, how?

To us, I think, it is helpful to know our purpose in life and to know where we came from and where we are going. But, if a person doesn't have that help in knowing they could still travel down the same path because the current mortal path is to have faith in Jesus and obey His commandments. It wouldn't make any difference in following His prophets and belief in priesthood authority, following Christ' every word whether from Him or His servants. In other words, this shouldn't be the point from which people reject His called servants. This shouldn't be a point to trip over as I can't see how it would change one's worship one way or the other.

[volgadon]

Who are these sons of the mighty? Royalty? Judges' children? The sons of generals?

Gods. The verse states "among the sons of elim" (בִּבְנֵי אֵלִים).

[Justice]

The other question I have, that I would really like to hear explained from a Trinitarian standpoint, is what about angels and Lucifer?

If God existed alone, and man did not exist until he was put on this earth, when were the "angels" made? They did exist prior to man being created on this earth, didn't they? And, what of Lucifer? He appears in the Garden of Eden story without having been created, and apparently existed prior to man's creation.

Who are the angels and Lucifer? Where did they come from? When did they come about? What was this war in heaven where Lucifer was cast out?

[peteolcott]

So, then you must believe all believers will become "one in singularity" with them?

Because, that's what the passage states.

Yes. This is also confirmed in Isaiah 45:6 (kjv) I am the Lord, and there is none else.

Only God exists, and nothing at all besides God exists. I have directly experienced this mystical "union with God" very many (at least hundreds of) times.

[peteolcott]

I would say that it is the only way they can rectify the problem of three Gods mentioned in the Bible, yet consisting only of one God.

All Christians believe the "three" is numerical.

The discussion is over if the "one" is numerical.

If it is, then something mystical has to be done with the numbers to make both 3 and 1 true.

If it is not, then 3 is true, and one in unity is true.

The problem with our view is the Bible seems plain at times that there is only 1 God, none beside Him, before Him, or after Him.

Both sides can explain how these words support their view.

Numerical Singularity is the most literal truth, any understanding beyond this (such as the trinity of the Godhead, or the multiplicity of individual humans) is more figurative.

[apexviper13]

My problem, aside from the "trinity" concept itself, is people saying you must believe in this concept in order to be considered a Christian. At the same time, some trinitarians don't bring up the need to believe in Jesus Christ himself. Another thing that I see as a problem is trinitarians claim if you don't believe in the "trinity" concept you're denying the deity of Christ. Paul, Jeremiah, John, Isaiah, James, Abraham, Peter, Ezekiel, and the other men of God in the Bible couldn't have believed in the "trinity" concept because this doctrine didn't exist until the debate between Athanasius and Arius started which led to the Nicene Creed of 325 which pretty much didn't include the Holy Ghost.

[bytebear]

I agree. I hate when people say Mormons aren't "Biblical Christians" when they really mean "Creedal Christians" which is a huge difference.

[apexviper13]

I agree. I hate when people say Mormons aren't "Biblical Christians" when they really mean "Creedal Christians" which is a huge difference.

Same here. Usually, when someone says certain people aren't "orthodox" Christians they're referring to the people that don't believe in the creeds.

[Justice]

The other question I have, that I would really like to hear explained from a Trinitarian standpoint, is what about angels and Lucifer?

If God existed alone, and man did not exist until he was put on this earth, when were the "angels" made? They did exist prior to man being created on this earth, didn't they? And, what of Lucifer? He appears in the Garden of Eden story without having been created, and apparently existed prior to man's creation.

Who are the angels and Lucifer? Where did they come from? When did they come about? What was this war in heaven where Lucifer was cast out?

Any Trinitarians willing to help me with this?

[prisonchaplain]

If the only difference in how it affects our worship is "tone" then I don't think it is that big of a difference. Trinitarians never say "Our Father who art in Heaven... "?

It's a difference, not the only one. Trinitarians focus more on God's power and sovereignty, in general. LDS seem more focused on the familial relationships.

Even with the disagreements etc. I still fail to see how it is a cornerstone to any major doctrinal differences.

Who is God and who are we? Those are huge questions. We disagree about the nature of each. You are asking why it matters. It could simply come down to we cannot both be right, and we ought to pursue truth--especially about God and ourselves.

Maybe I should ask then, how is believing that God is alone in His essence make different our worship from yours? What difference does that make to your worship that I am not worshiping or getting?

We are to worship God in spirit and in truth. We should want to be right about who He is, and what his nature is.

To me it is sounding a little like discussing whether Christ currently has brown hair or white hair or some other color. Does it really make a difference, how?

I'd suggest that whether God is alone in his nature, and we are his eternal creation, or whether God has progressed to his current state, and we can to makes a big difference in how we view the world, God, ourselves. Besides, we can't both be right, and we should want to be right about God.

To us, I think, it is helpful to know our purpose in life and to know where we came from and where we are going. But, if a person doesn't have that help in knowing they could still travel down the same path because the current mortal path is to have faith in Jesus and obey His commandments. It wouldn't make any difference in following His prophets and belief in priesthood authority, following Christ' every word whether from Him or His servants. In other words, this shouldn't be the point from which people reject His called servants. This shouldn't be a point to trip over as I can't see how it would change one's worship one way or the other.

If I am right about God's nature, that would effect whether I believed there was a Great Apostasy, and whether the latter day Restoration was true or not.

[prisonchaplain]

The other question I have, that I would really like to hear explained from a Trinitarian standpoint, is what about angels and Lucifer?

If God existed alone, and man did not exist until he was put on this earth, when were the "angels" made? They did exist prior to man being created on this earth, didn't they? And, what of Lucifer? He appears in the Garden of Eden story without having been created, and apparently existed prior to man's creation.

Who are the angels and Lucifer? Where did they come from? When did they come about? What was this war in heaven where Lucifer was cast out?

All the angels are created too. They are not eternal. Their creation is not described, so we could only speculate. It could have been they were made as He was creating the heavens and earth. Perhaps before. I'm not sure it matters much, since it's not revealed.

Here is a source that suggests angels had to be created before the physical universe (based on a passage in Job), and so he speculates it was just prior to...When did God create the angels?

Edited October 20, 2011 by prisonchaplain