What Do You Think About My Beliefs About: God's Nature?

[Brother Dorsey]

As for Bro. Dorsey's return post, I'm non-plused.

So....you're....minused? Oh come on...forgive already.....K?

[Brother Dorsey]

coming to events with bull horns and big boards, handing out anti literature ,dragging our scriptures and temple garments through the streets,

Wow Rosie...you just reminded me....a couple weeks ago (the 19th of Aug.) while on vacation visiting relatives in southern Calif. the wife and I did a session at the Los Angeles Temple (beautiful Temple) and on the drive home we stopped in Sacramento to the open house of the newly opened Temple there (dedicated on the 4th I believe) and the most disrespectful thing you could imagine happened....while taking the long winding drive up to the Temple (it's on a hill overlooking the city of Rancho something) at the start of the drive up on city land there were the protesters, a half dozen of them wearing temple robes and carrying very nasty degrading signs about the Temple and handing out anti literature....we had our 3 children with us and could not believe what we were seeing......I felt so sorry for those people....I just wanted to jump out and scream at them....but I didn't because right across the street were a group of Mormon youth carrying their own hand made signs which had arrows pointing the way to the Temple and read "this way to the eternities"...needless to say as cars passed they all honked and waved at the kids and the protesters got not even a glance.....

[prisonchaplain]

So....you're....minused? Oh come on...forgive already.....K?

Seek and ye shall find. I didn't sense in that first return post that you were really seeking forgiveness--but, having read more of your posts from today, looks like it's a fresh start you seek. You've got it with me. :-)

[Nicole]

ummm am Lost whats been going on ????????????

please inlight me? am no good at spelling if u cant tell by now why was Brother Dorsey ban for a short while?

[Brother Dorsey]

ummm am Lost whats been going on ????????????

please inlight me? am no good at spelling if u cant tell by now why was Brother Dorsey ban for a short while?

To be specific there was a anti-Mormon poster who came here in disguise and was relentlessly asking the same questions over and over...he'd ask about our beliefs, we'd give him an answer....he didn't like the answer and asked again, and again...all the while quoting from anti-LDS web sites which is by the way a violation of TOS....anyway, I got rude with him and Prisonchaplin...basically told them they were preaching the Devils doctrine...and it got me excommunicated for a day....I have since repented and (read) the TOS and follow the rules now.

[Nicole]

<div class='quotemain'>

ummm am Lost whats been going on ????????????

please inlight me? am no good at spelling if u cant tell by now why was Brother Dorsey ban for a short while?

To be specific there was a anti-Mormon poster who came here in disguise and was relentlessly asking the same questions over and over...he'd ask about our beliefs, we'd give him an answer....he didn't like the answer and asked again, and again...all the while quoting from anti-LDS web sites which is by the way a violation of TOS....anyway, I got rude with him and Prisonchaplin...basically told them they were preaching the Devils doctrine...and it got me excommunicated for a day....I have since repented and (read) the TOS and follow the rules now.

Oh i understand you now! do u know who it was at all?

[Princess3dward]

Who what was? Than anti-mormon?

In my opinion, that doesn't matter.

I think that things shouldn;t get around about other people like this, and that if he were to start posting again, that it would be a fresh start with him, and there would not be all this stigma around time.

That is just my opinion... but I don't feel it right to drag things on about him.

[Nicole]

i didnt know what you all were talking about i so was just asking as i was lost lol

no worries

[Guest JLHyde]

And yet....He is "God" at the same time....

* Jesus said: "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

* "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)

* "He who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me." (John 12:45)

Josh B)

__________________

I like to read people's "signature lines", at the bottom.

Perhaps, the Churchill quote could be amended, to include something about the United Order:

"...And the United Order is neither united nor ordered."

[JonboySquarepants]

i think that the clearest way to understand the trinity is by believing what the bible and even book of mormon teach. each book teaches over and over again that there is only one God. the doctrine of the godhead teaches that there is more than one God. which do we trust: the bible and book of mormon or the modern day revelation?

[JonboySquarepants]

The idea of the trinity follows the scriptures in the bible and even book of mormon that teach that there is only one God. If the bible and book or mormon say there is only one God, how can there be more than one God?

[Guest JLHyde]

i think that the clearest way to understand the trinity is by believing what the bible and even book of mormon teach. each book teaches over and over again that there is only one God. the doctrine of the godhead teaches that there is more than one God. which do we trust: the bible and book of mormon or the modern day revelation?

__________________

"Be One! Even as my Father and I are one!"

Oh, darn! I guess we humans have forgotten that innate ability of how to match-merge-meld.

(Or, something like that!)

[Dale]

The Bible and New Testament clearly wanders at time's into or close to the idea of three God's. The three person's of God arn't dumb. They are aware of each other as much as three person's are. The creedal writers to explain the person's of God adopted the latin word persona. It suggested the person's of God were mere role's of God, or to put it the dumb person's an actor play's. The word never fit the creed's as in the creed's they are aware of each other which fit's the modern definition associated with three person's only.

The Book of Mormon accept's the us and image of Genisis 1:26,27 literally. We were created according to Ether 3:15 after Christ's spirit body. 3rd Nephi has the Father, and Son distinctly aware of each other as much as human person's are. If the Father is a personage also that's not modalism, nor the creedal Trinity.

Part's of the book and even the Bible are absolutely mono-theistic. But the Bible is not purely mono-theistic everywhere unless the latin word persona really defend's the New Testament idea of the person's as mono-theistic. One would have to say the person's of God are dumb which they did to deny they were distinct person's. So i see the Bible and Book of Mormon as qualified mono-theism in places that wanders into the idea the Godhead consist's of three person's.

[JonboySquarepants]

sorry, i'm new to the board and didn't see the different pages of each thread. i've been reading for a while and now just found what i posted earlier. :) God says he doesn't know of any other Gods, right? If that's true, what about His God and his God and his God...? The Godhead itself is three Gods; that's the church's stance. How can God say he doesn't know of any other Gods if there are all these other Gods?

[Dale]

The Father and Son know of each other. Isaiah is purely mon-theistic, but the New Testament is not. Rather than try and explain away the contradiction between the exclusive God of Isaiah and the three persons of God i just confess to seeing an unresolveable contradiction. Not buying into the idea the three can't be defined as person's i see them as only defineable as person's.

[JonboySquarepants]

what can i do other than respect that? :)

[Traveler]

I'm preparing to teach a Sunday School class (adults) that will first focus on my own church's teachings about fundamental doctrines. After the two-week "Crash Course on the Fundamentals," we're going to explore how other churches view our doctrines. The first group we'll compare with is the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints. Fear not, as the main part of the curriculum, I'll use Mormon.org, and perhaps secondarily, FAIR and FARMS. However, there may be some interesting thoughts and impressions you have as well.

While I doubt my class will be converting en masse to the COJCLDS, I've already stated that our goal is more to better understand what we believe in contrast to other groups, rather than to debunk or "bash" anyone else.

To me, it's like visiting another country for several months, and then returning home. You see yourself and your community in ways you never have! (Returning Missionaries should be able to shout up an AMEN! on that one. )

Here's the official statement:

We believe there is only one true God--revealed in three persons...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (commonly known as the Trinity). We Believe...in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. As God's son Jesus was both human and divine.

This is my view and my view only - as I have expressed before. If man has access to the same G-d before and after the fall then there was no real fall or need for a true Messiah. The singularity of G-d in relationship to man is because of the fall of man. That singular G-d is the mediator G-d - Jesus Christ the Son of the Father whose mission is to bring us back from the fallen state of one G-d to the society of G-ds that exist in heaven where G-d the Father presides and rules over that divine kingdom of G-ds. (Thus the eternal and divine meaning of King of Kings and L-rd of L-rds).

The Traveler

[JonboySquarepants]

why do you type it 'G-d' instead of just typing God? It's not disrespect to call our God God, is it?

[AnthonyB]

This is my view and my view only - as I have expressed before. If man has access to the same G-d before and after the fall then there was no real fall or need for a true Messiah. The singularity of G-d in relationship to man is because of the fall of man. That singular G-d is the mediator G-d - Jesus Christ the Son of the Father whose mission is to bring us back from the fallen state of one G-d to the society of G-ds that exist in heaven where G-d the Father presides and rules over that divine kingdom of G-ds. (Thus the eternal and divine meaning of King of Kings and L-rd of L-rds).

The Traveler

Traveller,

Interesting take on the fall. I've always seen it as mainly a change in sovereignty. God created man and was his rightful sovereign. God then set up a suzerain covenant with man with the stipulation being not to eat from the tree. Adam and Eve at the behest of Satan disobeyed God and broke the treaty/covenant.

[Dale]

I see the exclusiveness of God as God as a true doctrine. but i like to know how the person's of God can be person's without contradicting that. So i got a book entitled Understanding the Trinity by Evangelical scholar Allister E. McGrath and he explained the latin word persona to his readers. I doubted the truth of it because it didn't fit the person's of god because the person's of an actor was dumb.

Inspite of my doubts about the Trinity idea i am open to the idea of person's not being person's if that can ever be logically explained.

[prisonchaplain]

I see the exclusiveness of God as God as a true doctrine. but i like to know how the person's of God can be person's without contradicting that. So i got a book entitled Understanding the Trinity by Evangelical scholar Allister E. McGrath and he explained the latin word persona to his readers. I doubted the truth of it because it didn't fit the person's of god because the person's of an actor was dumb.

Inspite of my doubts about the Trinity idea i am open to the idea of person's not being person's if that can ever be logically explained.

Dale, I'm trying to understand your question. Are you asking how three persons can be one God? If so, it breaks down like this:

1. In the Bible, the Father is clearly God, and is clearly a person.

2. In the Bible, the Son is called God, and is clearly a person.

3. In the Bible, the Spirit is called God, and is clearly a person.

4. The Bible informs us that there is only one God.

5. Therefore, the three persons are the one God.

The real distinction I see between the Trinity and the LDS Godhead, is the questions of monotheism and of essence. Is there only one, eternally supreme God, or is there one God for us to worship, but probably untold #s of them in existence? And, are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit one essence, or is their oneness simply that of purpose?

[Traveler]

Traveller,

Interesting take on the fall. I've always seen it as mainly a change in sovereignty. God created man and was his rightful sovereign. God then set up a suzerain covenant with man with the stipulation being not to eat from the tree. Adam and Eve at the behest of Satan disobeyed God and broke the treaty/covenant.

You are getting into some interesting concepts. However, I believe that the covenant with Adam and Eve was a "servant" covenant with G-d the Father as the Supreme Suzerain. The reason I make this distinction is because they could only act for the Suzerain under the covenant for that which they were commanded and to be a Suzerain covenant their act would be accounted for by the Suzerain under such a covenant. Note that G-d the Father took on no accountability for Adam’s or Eve’s eating of the fruit.

But we do see a Suzerain covenant between Jesus and his Father. I have tried to point out before (but no one seems to understand Suzerain servant and Suzerain Vassal covenants and that in ancient law a Suzerain and their covenant Vassal were considered the same and were often called “one” king or L-rd even though they were different people and both accepted legal responsibility for the other.

Under the covenant after the fall, man did have a Suzerain – Vassal covenant with Jesus as the Suzerain and man as a priesthood holder the Vassal. This allows Jesus to take upon him man’s sins and suffer or pay for them. The point that cannot be answered by the Trinitarian theory is how man could have fallen and still had access to the same Suzerain before and after the fall. And how Jesus could take upon him man's sins.

It is also interesting to note that the name of the Supreme Suzerain was never to be known to those that did not have a covenant with him – Therefore Jesus never refers to the Father by name before man – just the title of Father. But at the same time he pronounced that he had come in the name of the Father; which name he never speaks. There can be no doubt that Jesus was the Vassal of the Suzerain of Heaven from which man was fallen. Every reference that Jesus make to his standing and that of the Father indicates this covenant – which demands that they are two very different and distinct individuals bound as one in covenant law.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

why do you type it 'G-d' instead of just typing God? It's not disrespect to call our God God, is it?

You need not concern yourself - It is my personal and individual effort to express respect for that which I must guard as sacred. It is a promise to which I alone am accountable and has nothing to do with how any one else address the divine.

You may address G-d however you wish and I will not criticize any respectful divine reference.

The Traveler

[AnthonyB]

PC,

Got a question about "essence" ? Hopefully I can explain what I mean clearly!

It doesn't necessary follow that things that are of one essence are neccessarily one being. It just would seem to be to assert that they have the same qualtities or made of the same stuff. Certainly looking at Nicea (IMHO) it was mainly used to ensure that the Son wasn't in any sense a lesser being or have different attributes to the Father.

How do you personally get from asserting one essence for God, that the persons have the same attributes and essence, to asserting that this means that they are one being?

The simple way for me is to stay that one of things you can say about the essence of God is His oneness and that if all persons share the same essence they must share in that oneness.

I wonder if you could replace "oneness" with "unity". That one of essences or attributes of divinty is the requirement for "unity". That all divine persons must be in union or unified with one another whilst still remaining persons.

Now we know that we are to grow in union (or unity) with Christ as part of the process of santification. We are in my mind not just to grow in the purposes of Christ but in the nature of Christ. The persons of the godhead are already in that unity not just of purpose but of their natures.

[prisonchaplain]

PC,

Got a question about "essence" ? Hopefully I can explain what I mean clearly!

It doesn't necessary follow that things that are of one essence are neccessarily one being. It just would seem to be to assert that they have the same qualtities or made of the same stuff. Certainly looking at Nicea (IMHO) it was mainly used to ensure that the Son wasn't in any sense a lesser being or have different attributes to the Father.

How do you personally get from asserting one essence for God, that the persons have the same attributes and essence, to asserting that this means that they are one being?

If we are right that there is one and only one God, and Jesus is his only begotten Son, then Jesus' nature must be that of the Father--he must be God, and indeed not lesser than the Father, in his nature. So, we go from one essence to one being because we know there is only one God.

The simple way for me is to stay that one of things you can say about the essence of God is His oneness and that if all persons share the same essence they must share in that oneness.

I wonder if you could replace "oneness" with "unity". That one of essences or attributes of divinty is the requirement for "unity". That all divine persons must be in union or unified with one another whilst still remaining persons.

The thorough-going monotheism of the Old Testament, combined with the Hebrew opposition to anything that smacked of nature worship or polytheism, leads me to believe that Moses would turn over in his grave at the thought that God's people say that the gods are a unity, and that this was the limited meaning of the schema (Duet. 6:4).