Son of God?

[Justice]

On another note- I don't think God purposely confuses us, as you keep stating. The problem is that we try to fit God into our box, our mind, our explanations, our language, when God is outside all of that.

My point was that God is a master teacher and master of languages. He knows our language, and He knows our definitions of words.

When God says "There are three, but we are One God," He is speaking to us, and therefore to our intellect. If there is something that can't be understood by man in those words, how can we be expected to believe those words? (Unless we blindly believe)

Especially when there is a way we can understand those words that fits perfectly into accepted definitions, and is explained in the Bible quite in depth in John 17 (among other places).

This is one issue many people run into in the LDS doctrine of beliefs: that God is an exalted man, who lived just like we do now. This idea goes contrary to what Catholics and Protestants teach about the very essence and qualities of God. God is eternal. God has always existed; He is the first Creator; no one created Him, because He is existence itself.

Yes, I have been told this many, many times. What this does is place our lack of understanding on something we have been told we can't understand... eternity.

How can God be 3 Beings, yet One substance?

Mystery, with no examples.

How can God be "Created or born" yet be eternal?

Mystery.

At least we have presedence.

Do you believe that some men will gain eternal life? If you believe the Bible, your answer will be yes.

Will that not make them eternal? Well... yes?

How can that be if they were "created or born?" Not sure, but God said it.

So, obviously we have "proof" that something that is "born or created" can be eternal.

Does eternal mean forever? To us it does, but it may not to God.

It could be that when you live outside of time, it is called eternity. One you live outside of time you will live forever. So, for that example God has given us a way to understand and compare.

For 3 to be equal to 1, we have nothing to understand or compare to.

It seems much more plausible to place your lack of understanding on eternity, and leave the simple definitions alone, like 1 and 3.

Eternity could be made of eternal rounds, or generations. "From everlasting to everlasting," or "from eternity to all eternity." We may not be considered "eternal in this eternal round" because we were created or born in this one. But, in the next one maybe we can be.

One thing is certain, something that is created or born certainly can become eternal.

[Justice]

You are saying that God is a Spirit, so he does not have body?

Not me. I never said such a thing. I don't believe He could exist if He didn't have a body of some kind. I believe He has 2 bodies, a spirit body and a physical body, just like His Son, Jesus Christ does.

Can he not do as he wishes?

To some degree. But, even He is bound by and to eternal law. There are as many things He cannot (or better, will not) do as He can.

Do we humans make rule book for God?

Rhetorical, I assume.

I thought that Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ?

He did.

In studies with Missionaries, I thought that we decided that there is God, Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ all three separate but in complete agreement with each other?

That is what you believe if you're LDS. My friend is not.

Thank you for joining in. :)

[Justice]

There is no reason to think that spirits cannot be see, simply because they are not encased in human flesh.

In that case, do you have an idea what God's spirit body looks like, or is formed like?

[Hala401]

Hala, traditionalists get worked up over this because the LDS doctrine of Godhead seems to walk away from monotheism. Indeed, most LDS posting here seem to believe their doctrine embraces henotheism (the belief that there may be more than one god, but only one is the object of our group's worship). Antis accuse you of polytheism, of course.

Jews and Muslims argue that even the Trinity is not true monotheism. We rigorously disagree, and defend our faith in one and only one God. When LDS come along and say, "We Christians believe in three God-beings who are a united Godhead," we see that as jumping off the monotheistic cliff--something we never want to do.

NEVERTHELESS, I agree with you that God is greater than us, and we ought not be so quick to insist on a thorough understanding of who he is. He has revealed himself, but not fully. Two me, it's like describing 3-dimensions to a two-dimensional being--it only works so far.

'

The LDS tend toward, watzat word? Henotheisism? Yes, well, I will have been investigating them for about 10 months and I have seen no hint of anything but one God. By the language of your post, you are not LDS are you? How did you get in here?

So, I just love investigating disinformation about the LDS, and actually what they believe is suprisingly simple and reasonable to me. I am not an LDS member yet, so I don't have to be nice. LOL

The multi God thing was one of my first questions and here is roughly the explanation I got. One of you Missionaries correct me if I get it wrong OK?

The idea is, for sake of simplicity, Humans are at level 3, just right above the Angels, and Animals. Lets say that God is at level 100. Someday when we leave this life, if we have pleased God, we will be raised to level 5 from 3. In an eon or so as we continue to improve and become more pleasing to God, we will attain level 8. But in the mean time, God has gone to level 200. One day we may be at level 100 but by then God will be at level 1000. So, we improve and so does God and we never catch him.

This I can go with because Lucifer, the Shaitun, the devil wanted to be like the most high God. In my opinion we will never be equal with God. Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

I used to be an evangelical, and it bothered me, and then they threw me out. So, searching for the one God, I became Muslim. Islam was better than my old Christianity, until I ran into the LDS.

Maybe you should go to an LDS church a few times; talk with the missionaries; watch how they treat each other?

Sorry to be snarky, but I like them a lot, and maybe one day I will be LDS.

[Forget-Me-Not]

Sorry to be snarky, but I like them a lot, and maybe one day I will be LDS.

That was snarky? Lol. I would love to never be any more snarky than that! You're doin' good. Like, 1 level under Sainthood.

[Justice]

John 20 raises an interesting point to this discussion also.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

How similar is He describing the relationship He has with the Father to the one we have with the Father? Similarly, how much alike is the "my God" relationship that He has with Him compared to the "your God" relationship we have with Him?

[prisonchaplain]

In that case, do you have an idea what God's spirit body looks like, or is formed like?

I don't. Moses has a vague idea.

[prisonchaplain]

'

The LDS tend toward, watzat word? Henotheisism? Yes, well, I will have been investigating them for about 10 months and I have seen no hint of anything but one God. By the language of your post, you are not LDS are you? How did you get in here?

You are correct, that I am not LDS. I have been posting here for over 5 years, and enjoyed many good conversations. Some of the most learned members here grant that the LDS belief in at least three beings who are Gods (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), along with the doctrine that humans have the potential for exaltation to Godhood, results in a theology that is more appropriately identified as henotheism.

So, I just love investigating disinformation about the LDS, and actually what they believe is suprisingly simple and reasonable to me. I am not an LDS member yet, so I don't have to be nice. LOL

The multi God thing was one of my first questions and here is roughly the explanation I got. One of you Missionaries correct me if I get it wrong OK?

The idea is, for sake of simplicity, Humans are at level 3, just right above the Angels, and Animals. Lets say that God is at level 100. Someday when we leave this life, if we have pleased God, we will be raised to level 5 from 3. In an eon or so as we continue to improve and become more pleasing to God, we will attain level 8. But in the mean time, God has gone to level 200. One day we may be at level 100 but by then God will be at level 1000. So, we improve and so does God and we never catch him.

The above would suggest that God is not perfect, that he continues to change and progress. I'm not sure most LDS would say that. They instead argue that God is at 100, and as we progress towards 100 ourselves, that is progress for him, because those he created are progressing--and that reflects upon the creator.

This I can go with because Lucifer, the Shaitun, the devil wanted to be like the most high God. In my opinion we will never be equal with God. Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Do we have to be equal with our God to become Gods ourselves? Perhaps many LDS would say no?

I used to be an evangelical, and it bothered me, and then they threw me out. So, searching for the one God, I became Muslim. Islam was better than my old Christianity, until I ran into the LDS.

Maybe you should go to an LDS church a few times; talk with the missionaries; watch how they treat each other?

I've been attending the LDS.net ward for over 5 years now...it's one of the few that allow long-term visitors, without pressuring us to get wet.

Sorry to be snarky, but I like them a lot, and maybe one day I will be LDS.

You're not so bad. Please know though, that I've not been accused of being unfair or grossly misrepresentative by anyone here yet. When I am uncertain, I try to ask questions, rather than make statements. I felt quite secure with the henotheism remarks.

[Justice]

Moses and others have more than a vague idea. Granted, these are speaking of seeing the pre-mortal Jesus Christ, or Jehovah, not the Father. But, the spirit body of "God" nonetheless.

Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend...

There are other uses of the term face to face where the Lord promised to speak to the people, like Ezekiel 20:35.

We also have a very powerful story in the Book of Ether where the Lord shows Himself to the brother of Jared, and His spirit body looks much like the body He will take upon Him in the flesh.

[Vort]

I've been attending the LDS.net ward for over 5 years now...it's one of the few that allow long-term visitors, without pressuring us to get wet.

Clearly, the other mods are slacking in their duties. For shame!

[Guest Ivo_G]

lol...i've read countless Trinity-discussions on here and on several other sites and each time i get the feeling LDS and their counterparts in the discussions are talking past each other...

fortunately a few times people have pointed out the elephant in the room:

Trinitarians say that God is one being, yet three persons. We distinguish between these two by saying the being is God's essence, and his singular status as the all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere present GOD. The persons are distinct and sovereign. They are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each is his own, yet they are one God--not a mere united group, but an essential ONE.

how is that any different than the LDS definition

we too believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost have the same essence, we too believe God is all-powerful, all-knowing etc., we too believe each of the three persons/beings in the Godhead is his own and yet they are ONE God...

the big difference b/w the LDS Church and other mainstream churches is our definition of the nature of Man and the believe that we are of the same essence with God (albeit in a "raw" form ) - i see no problem with the Trinity when it's being defined properly as in the above example...

Edited December 11, 2011 by Ivo_G

[Guest Ivo_G]

lol...i've read countless Trinity-discussions on here and on several other sites and each time i get the feeling LDS and their counterparts in the discussions are talking past each other...

fortunately a few times people have pointed out the elephant in the room:

how is that any different than the LDS definition

we too believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost have the same essence, we too believe God is all-powerful, all-knowing etc., we too believe each of the three persons/beings in the Godhead is his own and yet they are ONE God...

the big difference b/w the LDS Church and other mainstream churches is our definition of the nature of Man and the believe that we are of the same essence as God (albeit in a "raw" form )

- i see no problem with the Trinity when it's being defined properly as in the above example...

[Snow]

we too believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost have the same essence

ummmm? I've been Mormon since Gidget went to Rome and I've never heard that before.

, we too believe God is all-powerful, all-knowing etc.,.

Kinda, most/many Mormons I talk to think of a god that is limited in some way - like God can't act evilly and still be God.

[Guest Ivo_G]

ummmm? I've been Mormon since Gidget went to Rome and I've never heard that before.

uh? i think you are confusing the meaning of essence do we (you and I) have the same essence? yes, we do - human essence :) the same thing goes for the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost - they've got the same divine essence -> and here is the difference b/w LDS and most other churches: most of the other churches consider these 2 essences completely different from each other whereas the LDS believe they are basically the same (us being the literal children of Heavenly Father and all that )

Kinda, most/many Mormons I talk to think of a god that is limited in some way - like God can't act evilly and still be God.

I'm 99% certain most/many Trinitarians believe the same way but it doesn't stop them from considering God to be all-powerful

Edited December 11, 2011 by Ivo_G

[Shelly200]

My point was that God is a master teacher and master of languages. He knows our language, and He knows our definitions of words.

When God says "There are three, but we are One God," He is speaking to us, and therefore to our intellect. If there is something that can't be understood by man in those words, how can we be expected to believe those words? (Unless we blindly believe)

Especially when there is a way we can understand those words that fits perfectly into accepted definitions, and is explained in the Bible quite in depth in John 17 (among other places).

Yes, I have been told this many, many times. What this does is place our lack of understanding on something we have been told we can't understand... eternity.

How can God be 3 Beings, yet One substance?

Mystery, with no examples.

How can God be "Created or born" yet be eternal?

Mystery.

At least we have presedence.

Do you believe that some men will gain eternal life? If you believe the Bible, your answer will be yes.

Will that not make them eternal? Well... yes?

How can that be if they were "created or born?" Not sure, but God said it.

So, obviously we have "proof" that something that is "born or created" can be eternal.

Does eternal mean forever? To us it does, but it may not to God.

It could be that when you live outside of time, it is called eternity. One you live outside of time you will live forever. So, for that example God has given us a way to understand and compare.

For 3 to be equal to 1, we have nothing to understand or compare to.

It seems much more plausible to place your lack of understanding on eternity, and leave the simple definitions alone, like 1 and 3.

Eternity could be made of eternal rounds, or generations. "From everlasting to everlasting," or "from eternity to all eternity." We may not be considered "eternal in this eternal round" because we were created or born in this one. But, in the next one maybe we can be.

One thing is certain, something that is created or born certainly can become eternal.

1.) I see once again you use Christ praying to the Father as an example to disprove the Trinity. But I have spoken before about how it is possible for person of the Trinity to speak to another, while still remaining one Being.

2.) I do not believe God was "created or born." I don't know where you got this idea. I have said repeatedly that God is the first Creator: nothing created Him; He has always existed, He is the First and the Last.

3.) I have sited many verses to help explain the Trinity. I *have* said that the Trinity is a mystery, but have also given examples. Too numerous to post again.

4.) The only thing I will say again is: The Bible (OT, NT), as well as the BofM, frequently and continuously make mention of God being the *only* God, being God *alone.* Therefore, He would have to have one Being. If He were three Beings, He would be three gods.

5.) To me, this is human language. Point blank. Three beings = three gods. If this is what God meant and, as you keep mentioning, God doesn't want to confuse us but use language we can understand, then why has He never mentioned even ONCE that He is three gods with one purpose? He doesn't. Because that's not who He is.

6.) Men can have eternal life after death. How? Because God grants it. God created us here on Earth (not before) through God-like means (not through physical sex with a heavenly mother), and will judge us according to this life. If we have been tainted with sin and not repented, then we will go to Hell. If we have been reconciled to God, but still have the taint of venial sin, we will go to Purgatory to be purged of that sin (for nothing unclean can enter into God's presence), and then go to Heaven. If we are lucky enough to have been reconciled to God and die in a state of grace, then we go to Heaven for the rest of eternity. (Protestants deny the doctrine of Purgatory, but other than that the idea is the same.)

7.) We do not believe we existed before this life on Earth. We believe that we can live forever after death. Now, as to what Heaven looks like or what our intellects will be like, we don't know. Will we be able to see all time? I personally think so. Will we be able to know more? I personally think so. Will we be outside of time? I think so too. But our outside of time and God's outside of time I believe will be different. Because God has always existed, and we have not. It is only through God that we can gain eternity, not through our own existence. I believe we will be able to *see* all of time, but not *exist* in all time. Kind of like, You can live for eternity from this point on-type thing.

8.) As always, I am not a professional theologian. And I'm pretty sure no one on this board is either. I, and everyone else, might not be able to explain everything the way a professional theologian could. And anyone's silence or ignorance of something doesn't mean that their respective churches don't have an answer for a question, or don't have evidence for their reason for believing something. I will try to defend my faith as well as I can, but please don't mistake me for an expert. I will do the same for everyone else.

9.) Now, if you look at your explanation for man becoming eternal, and then apply it to God, that would make sense. Except that in that case you are bringing God down to your level instead of understanding that He is above us. If the Bible had only ever described God as "eternal" then you might have a better case. But the Bible says God is the First and the Last (the First Being ever). Not the First *in this eternity,* but *the First.* The very first verse of the Bible says "In the beginning..." the beginning of what? Why assume it is the beginning of this eternity? It doesn't say that. It says in the beginning. There's no reason to add more to the verse.

If God were trying to use our language and not confuse us, why would He want these verses stated, and then have us make the jump from "In the beginning..." to "In the beginning... of this cycle of eternity, because, really, God hasn't always existed *literally* since the beginning; but was a man on another world somewhere else that just happens to never be mentioned in this book ever, and so we're talking here about God creating this Earth in the beginning of this cycle of time." To me *this* is the bigger leap. The much bigger leap.

10.) There are still two issues aside from this that, in my opinion, lead the LDS church into a problem.

A.) The LDS church, even aside from the doctrine of the Trinity, is polytheistic anyway. Even if this Earth should only worship one god, the church still believes that other gods exist.

B.) The OT, NT, *and* the BofM frequently make mention of God as being unchangeable, the same from first to last. How can God be constant and unchangeable if He has not always been God, but was once a man like you or me on a world somewhere out in space, and then *became* God later on?

And on *that* note, who was the first god? If this is just one long cycle of men becoming gods... wouldn't there have to be an eternal first god to get the ball rolling? The cycles can't have existed on their own without some help. Why not worship that first god, since he would have to be the eternal, all-powerful one?

[volgadon]

A.) The LDS church, even aside from the doctrine of the Trinity, is polytheistic anyway. Even if this Earth should only worship one god, the church still believes that other gods exist.

Perhaps a better dictionary is in order.

[Snow]

uh? i think you are confusing the meaning of essence do we (you and I) have the same essence? yes, we do - human essence :) the same thing goes for the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost - they've got the same divine essence -> and here is the difference b/w LDS and most other churches: most of the other churches consider these 2 essences completely different from each other whereas the LDS believe they are basically the same (us being the literal children of Heavenly Father and all that )

No. I am not confusing the meaning. In religious discussions about the nature of God, "essence" has a very particular meaning. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all believed to be on the same essence, not merely of the same nature. What you are talking about, in a theological context is nature.

I'm 99% certain most/many Trinitarians believe the same way but it doesn't stop them from considering God to be all-powerful

I doubt that. Many Mormons, (whether or not they are right) believe that God is subject to some force, law or principle. Most other Christians believe that God is sovereign and not subject to anything outside Himself - everything else is subject to Him.

[Snow]

What I'm saying is that if God is three *beings* then He is three Gods. Period.

This is why the doctrine of the Trinity works: because God is one Being, with three persons *within that one Being.* If God were three separate, distinct, complete-within-themselves beings, then He would be three separate, distinct, complete-within-themselves gods.

Is that your opinion (yes) or God's opinion.

You can write something and say it is so, but so what. We all agree that God is one but we reject that you - or the creeds and councils of the 4th and 5th century - describe that oneness.

Here's a question for you. Can we just believe what's in the Bible, or do we also have to believe what you say and what is not in the Bible?

[Snow]

God is the Creator. The Creator of space and time. To say that God occupies space is to render Him NOT the Creator. He would be rendered subject to His creation.

Huh? Where on earth did you get that from? It doesn't even make sense. Besides which, if God couldn't be the creator and occupy space then he wouldn't be all-powerful. Is that your point = that God lacks the ability to do both?

[Shelly200]

Is that your opinion (yes) or God's opinion.

You can write something and say it is so, but so what. We all agree that God is one but we reject that you - or the creeds and councils of the 4th and 5th century - describe that oneness.

Here's a question for you. Can we just believe what's in the Bible, or do we also have to believe what you say and what is not in the Bible?

I am so confused by this. You asked that before: if this was my opinion or God's. Then I sited multiple instances from the Bible which support my statement. But instead of trying to debate those points, you just once again ask if this is my opinion. I don't know what more I can do to answer the question aside from site holy Scripture.

And no. We *don't* all agree that God is one. Trinitarians believe that God is one. The LDS church believes that God is three. Three beings. Three beings who have a common purpose are *still* three beings, not one. That's my opinion. That's just fact. You and I are two separate beings. If we agree on everything there is to agree on... we will still be two separate beings, not one.

I don't understand why the LDS church doesn't just call a spade a spade and admit that they believe in a Godhead that is comprised of three separate beings who work in harmony, instead of trying to say that three separate, but harmonious beings are really one being. It doesn't make sense.

And once again, I request: I have listed Scripture verses that I believe back up my position. Instead of just saying my position is incorrect or doesn't make sense (which, to me and billions of other people over the past 2,000 years, it does), site some Scriptures to both refute my position and support your own.

I understand that there are different ways to interpret Scripture. If I was not a Trinitarian, then I would probably interpret Scripture in the way the Oneness Pentecostals interpret it (you can look them up on Wikipedia). But the LDS view would still not make sense to me unless the church admits that they believe in a three-being Godhead and worship all three separate beings. But believing one thing, and then trying to make it fit into a different description doesn't work.

[Justice]

But the Bible says God is the First and the Last (the First Being ever).

You added words (...Being ever) and made an interpretation. Those words only mean that if you choose to believe they do. There are other possible, even valid, interpretations of the words.

Not the First *in this eternity,* but *the First.*

I add words to clarify the meaning of the words that are there... just as you did right above these remarks. It was not an attempt to change the words of the Bible, or to misunderstand it, but to show you a different way they can be understood. Remove all my words of clarification and the words of the Bible can be understood the way I described.

The very first verse of the Bible says "In the beginning..." the beginning of what? Why assume it is the beginning of this eternity? It doesn't say that. It says in the beginning. There's no reason to add more to the verse.

Why assume it was the beginning of the universe? It doesn't say that.

It doesn't say the ultimate beginning of all things, even matter and the very universe itself. It says "heaven and earth," and then goes on to describe how God Himself defines what "heaven and earth" is. Hint: it's not universe or all things, it's "firmament and dry land" (see verse 8 and 10).

Again, I add words so you can understand how I interpret it, not to add words to the Bible. I only need to add the words for clarification of belief, they don't need to be there in order to understand it that way.

Continuing to say that these aren't valid interpretations of the words isn't getting you anywhere. They are valid, just as yours are. I'm trying to go beyond the technical definitions of the words and see if they actually make sense.

Like, does saying 3 is equal to 1 make sense?

Like, saying can a being who cannot have offspring have a son?

I'm not saying your interpretaion of the word "one" in the Bible is invalid, just that it cannot be equal to 3.

You are saying my interpretation of "one in purpose" or "unity" is not a valid interpretation for the word "one."

It is (see John 17).

Edited December 11, 2011 by Justice

[Shelly200]

Huh? Where on earth did you get that from? It doesn't even make sense. Besides which, if God couldn't be the creator and occupy space then he wouldn't be all-powerful. Is that your point = that God lacks the ability to do both?

I didn't make this idea up, if that's what you mean. And it does make sense.

God cannot be subject to His creation. We, as humans, as God's creations, cannot tell God what to do. He cannot be subject to our laws, our time, our minds, our definitions. He is above, and outside, all of that.

The only time God has been subject to our laws of nature was when the Second Person of the Trinity - Christ - took on a physical body and lived on Earth among us. Even now He has a perfected, transfigured body in Heaven.

Ultimately, God is not the same as us, and we are not the same as God. His realm trumps ours. We are subject to His laws, but He is not subject to ours. He will not be subject to something He created (unless He specifically allows it; unless He specifically puts on our humanity, comes down to *our* level).

[Justice]

And no. We *don't* all agree that God is one. Trinitarians believe that God is one. The LDS church believes that God is three. Three beings. Three beings who have a common purpose are *still* three beings, not one. That's my opinion. That's just fact. You and I are two separate beings. If we agree on everything there is to agree on... we will still be two separate beings, not one.

This is my point.

Unity is a valid definition of the word one. The very prefix "uni" is from the root word that means one, or single.

If their wills were perfect and harmonious, it is valid to say they are one.

Please, slowly read John 17. Jesus describes exactly how the Father and Son are one.

It is not bodily or "essence," but one in will and purpose.

It's a valid interpretation no matter how many times you say it's not.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

By Jesus using "are" and not "is" He is describing more than one.

I and my Father are...

Those words are used to descibe 2 different things, not 1.

I and my Father are... in perfect untiy, is a valid interpretation of scripture.

[Shelly200]

Perhaps a better dictionary is in order.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.

[Hala401]

lol...i've read countless Trinity-discussions on here and on several other sites and each time i get the feeling LDS and their counterparts in the discussions are talking past each other...

fortunately a few times people have pointed out the elephant in the room:

how is that any different than the LDS definition

we too believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost have the same essence, we too believe God is all-powerful, all-knowing etc., we too believe each of the three persons/beings in the Godhead is his own and yet they are ONE God...

the big difference b/w the LDS Church and other mainstream churches is our definition of the nature of Man and the believe that we are of the same essence with God (albeit in a "raw" form ) - i see no problem with the Trinity when it's being defined properly as in the above example...

The biggest surprise for me as I continue to meet with the Missionaries, and become socialised with other Mormons is the "extension of belief" about our nature, that is talked about in the protestant, non Mormon, KJV, but never discussed in those circles. To be clear, I am writing about Non-LDS Christians.

So, I can easily see from Luke 12:4 that we are friends of Jesus. I am less certain about the brother/sister of Jesus status, so if someone can help me over that intellectual hump, I would be most grateful. I have found Matt 12:48 and that seems to give permission, but I still squirm a little with this, not out of lack of faith but out of adoration for God and Jesus Christ.