Son of God?

[Shelly200]

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.

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.

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).

Yes, I added words in to explain my point - hence, the parentheses. The correct verse states: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

To me and to the other Catholics and Protestants out there, this clearly shows that God has always existed, since the beginning. Not since the beginning of this time, but since The Beginning of everything. Can it be interpreted differently? Sure, since that is how the LDS church interprets it, but we feel we don't need to take that extra leap (for, to us, that *is* and extra leap) and (in our opinion) *add* meaning to something that isn't stated.

But in the end, my adding words to explain my point is moot, since you do the same. Let's continue.

The same as above would apply to Genesis. Since the Bible says "In the beginning..." we take it to mean "In the beginning..." Anything else (once again, to me and my fellow Catholics and Protestants) is either A.) trying to force the Bible to fit into an already conceived notion, or B.) simply unnecessary. And when looking at the Bible in its entirety (which is the proper way to interpret it), it makes most sense to say that God has always existed since the beginning of all time, ever, since He is continuously called eternal and the Creator. No other creators are ever mentioned. So we take that to mean that God has always existed (eternal), and that no one created Him (*He* is the Creator, no one else).

In the end, since none of us was there when God created everything, *ALL* of us are assuming what the Scriptures mean. Non-LDS assume Genesis refers to the beginning of everything. LDS assume it refers to the beginning of one particular eternity cycle. We are all going to go in a circle; you saying I assume suchandsuch, and I saying you assume suchandsuch. Well... it's true. I am, and you are. I have never had God come to me and explain His ways, and I'm pretty sure He hasn't to you either.

What we rely on is our respective churches to explain to us what Scripture means. I believe in my church because I believe it is the church Christ created while He was on Earth. I don't believe in the Great Apostasy, because I believe that Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church; that it would not go into grave error. And that it wouldn't leave the Earth (to me it makes no sense for Christ to establish His Church and then allow it to die out and have all of His followers living contrary to His will). You believe what your church says to be true, through the man Joseph Smith and his successors. You believe your church is the true church (and that I am a member of the Great Abominable Church... oh well for me, I guess?) that Christ created on Earth, that left entirely and had to be reinstated by JS.

For me, God is not human and, therefore, doesn't have to be subject to our rules. That's why 3=1 makes sense. For humans, 3 can't equal 1. For God, 3 can equal 560, or 900, or 27.

We do, however, believe that all three Persons of the Trinity are "one in purpose," because we believe them to be One. The Bible has many accounts of God being God alone, of there being only one God, which means there must be one Being who is God. In the LDS context, the Godhead has three beings...even if they are one in purpose, they are still three beings, which goes against all of the OT verses saying there is one God. If it is so difficult to believe that 3 Persons can make 1 God, then it should be equally difficult to believe that 3 beings equal 1 God.

To use the family analogy that I saw floating around here earlier: a husband, a wife, and a child all make up a family. They are three beings in one family. They can all agree on everything all of the time. But when it comes down to it, they are still three distinct beings. There will be three plates at each meal, three seats at the table, three deaths at the end. When you speak to the husband, you are not speaking to the wife, or the child, or all three at once. You are speaking only to the husband. They are three separate, distinct beings. Their family is a unit comprising three different, distinct beings. This, to me, explains the LDS Godhead. A Godhead (family) that has three distinct beings (Heavenly Father, Jesus, and Holy Ghost). If all of them are God, then they are God in and of themselves; three gods.

Would this be a valid way to describe it? Why not say that? Why not say that you worship three gods who make up one unit?

And, come to that, how is the Godhead worshiped and why? Are Christ and the Holy Ghost worshiped the same as the Father is worshiped (I have read somewhere that only the Father should be worshiped). And how did Christ and the Holy Spirit become part of the Godhead anyway? Wasn't Jesus a spirit child of Heavenly Father, the same as Lucifer and everyone else? Is He a member of the Godhead strictly because of His role as Redeemer? And if His role was to show us the way to ultimate salvation, why didn't Jesus ever marry? Or the Apostles? If the only way to the highest degree of the highest kingdom of Heaven is through eternal marriage, why did Christ not demonstrate that while on Earth, and why did none of the Apostles follow suit?

On a side note, about the offspring thing: I never got into that before. God has a Son who was not created through physical means, and who always existed in eternity with Him. (He was "eternally begotten of the Father... begotten, not made") We do not say He was created; He "was incarnate through the Virgin Mary." "...He (God) is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to His Father..." We do not believe that Christ is God's Son in the human sense of the word -- that a man and a woman created a male child through physical means.

[Shelly200]

Hala401--

From what I have been told, the LDS view is that we are all of the same "species" you could say of God and Christ. We are all spirit children of Heavenly Father (and Heavenly Mother, who for some reason no one talks about), and therefore are His literal children and Jesus' literal siblings.

The non-LDS position is that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit have always existed since the beginning of everything, and that God does not have spirit children (and there is no mother in heaven with him, nor are there any other gods in existence). So we are sons and daughters of God through adoption; our baptism into the Church makes us God's adoptive children.

This is essential to the very essence of what makes God God and what makes us humans. The LDS church teaches that we are pretty much the same, or at least that humans have the potential to become gods like God through exaltation in the celestial kingdom. The non-LDS churches teach that no one can become a god; God is God alone, always and forever. When we die, we can go to Heaven and live with Him, and "become like Him" in a sense, but not become gods. We become like Him through a new knowledge we will gain, and through our living in Heaven with him from death to eternity.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Vort]

Others have already corrected you several times, Shelly. You appear not to want to hear the corrections.

[Shelly200]

Wow, Vort, way to handle it! So... my above comment was incorrect? How so? I'd hate to go around giving out false information about what the LDS church teaches.

[Snow]

Snow - Other than the "made in God's image" verse, I'd like to see some verses that prove God the Father has any kind of physical body. Most of the verses I've seen explain the Father as being the "invisible" God... not the visible, physical God.

That's silly. Nothing PROVES that God has a body. You can't put God in a laboratory and run experiments on Him. In the Bible there are only the opinions of mostly anonymous people who wrote about God thousands of years ago. The Bible, as a single entity is not consistently explicit on the matter but individually there are numerous passages that are written in a way that depicts God physically...

Genesis 1:26-27 Man is in the image and likeness of God

... as Adam's son is in the likeness of him... Genesis 5:3

Genesis 32:23-30 See God face to face, (and physically fights with him for that matter)

Exodus 24:9-11 See God

Exodus 33:11 Speak with God face to face as a man speaks with friend face to face

Exodus: 33:21-30 Body parts of God

Numbers 12:5-8 Mouth to mouth

Hebrews 1:1-5 Image of God

James 3:8-11 Similitude of God

Genesis 6:3 Man (God) is also flesh

Acts 7:55

and so on...

I haven't thought about this recently but I'm confident that I could demonstrate that ancient Jews thought about God in a physical, anthropomorphic sense whereas the idea of an non-physical God is a latter idea based on or in harmony with pagan Greek philosophy.

[Snow]

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.

Shelly, I am going to ask again and also ask you to be honest and specific.

Show me where God said 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.

I say that you are just grabbing that out of thin air and that God says no such thing.

[Snow]

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.

Shelly - the "Church" doesn't say that because we don't believe it. At least I don't. Do you want me/us to say something even though we don't believe just to help you make your point?

That's goofy.

[Hala401]

Hala401--

From what I have been told, the LDS view is that we are all of the same "species" you could say of God and Christ. We are all spirit children of Heavenly Father (and Heavenly Mother, who for some reason no one talks about), and therefore are His literal children and Jesus' literal siblings.

The non-LDS position is that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit have always existed since the beginning of everything, and that God does not have spirit children (and there is no mother in heaven with him, nor are there any other gods in existence). So we are sons and daughters of God through adoption; our baptism into the Church makes us God's adoptive children.

This is essential to the very essence of what makes God God and what makes us humans. The LDS church teaches that we are pretty much the same, or at least that humans have the potential to become gods like God through exaltation in the celestial kingdom. The non-LDS churches teach that no one can become a god; God is God alone, always and forever. When we die, we can go to Heaven and live with Him, and "become like Him" in a sense, but not become gods. We become like Him through a new knowledge we will gain, and through our living in Heaven with him from death to eternity.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I meet with the Missionaries in a little while. I wonder what they think?

[Snow]

The Trinity *is* a difficult concept to wrap one's mind around. It's still difficult for me sometimes to explain it. But then I remember that God is above me - His ways are not my ways. So then I don't try to fit God into my ways - I simply acknowledge that He can work in ways I don't understand.

In fact the doctrine of the Trinity specifies that it is non-understandable: "The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. ..."

But it is very odd that you would explain it away as God's ways not being your ways, Since God Himself has never said anything about the Trinity.

[Shelly200]

Shelly - the "Church" doesn't say that because we don't believe it. At least I don't. Do you want me/us to say something even though we don't believe just to help you make your point?

That's goofy.

Okay, so I get an argument when I try to say that 3=1... and now I'm also wrong when I say that 3=3?

So maybe I am arguing under a false understanding here... what exactly does the LDS church teach about the Godhead? If it's that there are three distinct beings that make it up, then I don't see how that doesn't equal three gods. If it's that there is one being that makes it up, then I don't see how that isn't the same as the Trinity doctrine. What is the official teaching?

[volgadon]

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

What I mean is that your definition is flawed.

[Snow]

And once again, I request: I have listed Scripture verses that I believe back up my position.

I read the verse's you listed and not a single one of them describes the "Trinity."

This is the doctrine of the Trinity: 1 God in 3 separate hypostasises compromised of one ousia

Why do you think that no single person in the entire Bible demonstrates an awareness of the Trinity as you understand it. Not Jesus, not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, or James?

Just to be clear... the doctrine of the Trinity is not that God is one. We all agree that God is one. The Trinity holds that there is one God, comprised of three hypostases in one ousia, all co-eternal, and co-equal. (and no, I don't care about the actual words used).

That's a real question - can you answer it?

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 didn't say you were wrong (or that I am right)... just that your position is non-biblical.

There is this uninformed and naive belief by those that haven't studied the Bible that the Trinity is found in the Bible. Such people often proof-text (take snippets from here and there) that they think back up their position, ignoring context and other passages that are contrary) to make their case. However scholars have long recognized that the doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere found in the Bible.

"On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine..." [Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.]

That not an isolated opinion - that's the consensus.

The only verse in the Bible that explicitly taught some, but not all, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Johannine comma, turns out to be a dishonest forgery.

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.

You not understanding LDS doctrine means nothing other than that you don't understand it. For that matter, you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. No one does. That is not my opinion - that is part and parcel of the doctrine itself... "incomprehensible."

[Snow]

Okay, so I get an argument when I try to say that 3=1... and now I'm also wrong when I say that 3=3?

So maybe I am arguing under a false understanding here... what exactly does the LDS church teach about the Godhead? If it's that there are three distinct beings that make it up, then I don't see how that doesn't equal three gods. If it's that there is one being that makes it up, then I don't see how that isn't the same as the Trinity doctrine. What is the official teaching?

I/we believe that the three members of the Godhood, separate and not comprised of the same ousia but that together they form one God.

Yes - I get that you don't understand how we believe there is one God, but it is part of our official doctrine as found in the Bible and Book of Mormon. We accept the Bible. We reject the councils and creeds of the 4th and 5th century that define HOW God is one.

I think it probably pointless to take the time and effort to explain our belief but you don't appear to care what our belief is, you are seem to care about trying to show that it is wrong - although you are failing in your attempt, obviously.

If your are genuinely interested, let me know and I will point you to some web reading that explains what we believe and why.

[Shelly200]

Snow --

You are right. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention the word "Trinity." I understand that, and so does everyone else.

As a Catholic, I believe in that Christ left the Deposit of Faith while on Earth to His Church. The Church's job is to explain (but never add to or take away from) that Deposit. This is why the Trinity is so very well explained in the Nicene Creed; the Church was taking the Deposit of Faith and expounding it for the masses. But the doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical, for reasons I've already shown (there is one God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God; the Father isn't the Son, the Son isn't the Father, and the Spirit isn't either; they remain One in Being, not separate Gods), all of which are derived from the Bible. Verses aren't taken out of context, but exactly read *in* context; in the context of the whole Bible together. This isn't something that "uninformed and naive" people who "haven't studied the Bible" believe; this is something that billions of people, from the youngest and unread to the oldest and wisest believe. It's presumptuous and, honestly, kind of mean to say that only the uninformed or unread believe in the Trinity. Not to mention that it's strictly false.

So I'm not going to get anyone to agree with me on the doctrine of the Trinity. That's fine, and wasn't my overall goal to begin with. But it doesn't do the LDS side any good to simply write the idea off as belonging to those uninformed and naive. However, I would still like a breakdown of the LDS position, since I seem to obviously have it completely and totally wrong. 3 doesn't equal 1, but 3 doesn't equal 3 either, and so now I'm confused. Please help me out.

[Justice]

You asked a lot of valid questions about our beliefs. I like to limit the amount of things discussed at one time.

Would this be a valid way to describe it? Why not say that? Why not say that you worship three gods who make up one unit?

Jesus worshipped The Father. The Father is the Supreme Being. The Son acts under His direction. The Son conformed His will to the will of the Father. We worship God the Father.

The Son is also part of the Godhead, making Him God. He is the Savior of the world, but only because the Father sent Him.

On a side note, about the offspring thing: I never got into that before. God has a Son who was not created through physical means, and who always existed in eternity with Him. (He was "eternally begotten of the Father... begotten, not made") We do not say He was created; He "was incarnate through the Virgin Mary." "...He (God) is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to His Father..." We do not believe that Christ is God's Son in the human sense of the word -- that a man and a woman created a male child through physical means.

Very confusing. However, I do appreciate you taking the time to try to explain it. I will read your words many times and try to digest them.

[Justice]

what exactly does the LDS church teach about the Godhead?

I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me...

When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

Joseph Smith?History 1 

This simple testimony unravels all the false notions that were handed down by the fallen church for over 1500 years.

With this and subsequent visions, and being taught by messengers from the presence of God like John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John, Moses, Elijah, and others... we understand as much, or more, about the nature of God than did those who saw Him anciently.

Because of a prophet, we know God the Father has a glorified, perfected body of flesh and bones, just as Christ does.

So, we don't get hung up on trying to interpret the words of the Bible, but we project what prophets teach about God into the Bible to gain a greater insight as to what is being taught. In short, we interpret the words of the Bible through the medium of modern revelation.

[Snow]

Snow --

You are right. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention the word "Trinity." I understand that, and so does everyone else.

That's not the issue. It's that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. Who cares about the words.

As a Catholic, I believe in that Christ left the Deposit of Faith while on Earth to His Church. The Church's job is to explain (but never add to or take away from) that Deposit.

That's simply and factually untrue - as it related to what happened with the doctrine of the Trinity. Christ didn't leave a "deposit" of anything that contained the Trinity The Church subsequently added concepts NOT found in the Bible to create the doctrine of the Trinity

This is why the Trinity is so very well explained in the Nicene Creed; the Church was taking the Deposit of Faith and expounding it for the masses.

I wonder if you even know what the Trinity or the real Nicene Creed is. It's not an "expounding," it contains new and additional additive concepts. This is there frustrating part in talking to people who just don't know the material.

"It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty...The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas." [Maurice Wiles, The Making of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 4, 144.]

Moreover, the real Nicene Creed says nothing about the Trinity. That wouldn't come for another 56 years in the Council of Constantinople.

But the doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical, for reasons I've already shown (there is one God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God; the Father isn't the Son, the Son isn't the Father, and the Spirit isn't either; they remain One in Being, not separate Gods), all of which are derived from the Bible. Verses aren't taken out of context, but exactly read *in* context; in the context of the whole Bible together.

You saying it doesn't make it true. It is false. No person in the Bible demonstrates an awareness of the Trinity. Priests and scholars know that - in fact I posted a quote from a Catholic priest and scholar that said that the Trinity isn't found in the Bible - it's just the uninformed who think otherwise.

Here's the proof: I will wait until you post passages from any author in the Bible that demonstrate an awareness of the Trinity - the whole thing: one God, comprised of three hypostases in one ousia, all co-eternal, and co-equa.

How long do you guess I will wait until you post that?

Forever, that's how long.

This isn't something that "uninformed and naive" people who "haven't studied the Bible" believe; this is something that billions of people, from the youngest and unread to the oldest and wisest believe. It's presumptuous and, honestly, kind of mean to say that only the uninformed or unread believe in the Trinity. Not to mention that it's strictly false.

NO ONE said that only uninformed or unread people believe in the Trinity. NO ONE said it or implied it.

You you want to interact with me, interact with what I actually say. Don't make stuff up and then try and pass it off as my position. Some of the very smartest people in the whole world are Trinitarians, however, educated ones don't try and claim that the Trinity is found in the Bible.

[Shelly200]

That's not the issue. It's that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. Who cares about the words.

That's simply and factually untrue - as it related to what happened with the doctrine of the Trinity. Christ didn't leave a "deposit" of anything that contained the Trinity The Church subsequently added concepts NOT found in the Bible to create the doctrine of the Trinity

I wonder if you even know what the Trinity or the real Nicene Creed is. It's not an "expounding," it contains new and additional additive concepts. This is there frustrating part in talking to people who just don't know the material.

"It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty...The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas." [Maurice Wiles, The Making of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 4, 144.]

Moreover, the real Nicene Creed says nothing about the Trinity. That wouldn't come for another 56 years in the Council of Constantinople.

You saying it doesn't make it true. It is false. No person in the Bible demonstrates an awareness of the Trinity. Priests and scholars know that - in fact I posted a quote from a Catholic priest and scholar that said that the Trinity isn't found in the Bible - it's just the uninformed who think otherwise.

Here's the proof: I will wait until you post passages from any author in the Bible that demonstrate an awareness of the Trinity - the whole thing: one God, comprised of three hypostases in one ousia, all co-eternal, and co-equa.

How long do you guess I will wait until you post that?

Forever, that's how long.

NO ONE said that only uninformed or unread people believe in the Trinity. NO ONE said it or implied it.

You you want to interact with me, interact with what I actually say. Don't make stuff up and then try and pass it off as my position. Some of the very smartest people in the whole world are Trinitarians, however, educated ones don't try and claim that the Trinity is found in the Bible.

In the end you are wrong on one major point: I no longer want to interact with you. Feel free to ignore everything I say from now on. I'll simply interact with those who want to have valid debate without being catty or condescending.

[Shelly200]

You asked a lot of valid questions about our beliefs. I like to limit the amount of things discussed at one time.

Jesus worshipped The Father. The Father is the Supreme Being. The Son acts under His direction. The Son conformed His will to the will of the Father. We worship God the Father.

The Son is also part of the Godhead, making Him God. He is the Savior of the world, but only because the Father sent Him.

Very confusing. However, I do appreciate you taking the time to try to explain it. I will read your words many times and try to digest them.

Thank you for clarifying for me!

I have heard this before, but didn't know if it was true or not: that the LDS worship only the Father, and not the Son or Holy Ghost. Is that what you are saying in this explanation?

Also- is this also saying that Christ wasn't always God with the Father? How did He become God? In the same light: since the Holy Ghost is also in the Godhead, how did He become God as well?

As far as the description of Christ being begotten, not made: it is confusing to explain, but it's funny, because it's easy for most people to believe. I think it's similar to the way that those who believe in the BofM get a feeling that it's true; in the same way, those who believe in the Trinity frequently don't even think about it, they just know it. Suffice it to say that we think Christ's conception and birth to be a miracle, something only God could do, not something physical. That's the basic concept.

[prisonchaplain]

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 )

I think you may be on to something with both points. There does seem to be an aspect of trinitarian doctrine that LDS tend to argue against unnecessarily. You do believe that God the Father and God the Son share the same essence, and so are united in purpose and essence. Additionally, it is the potential for more Gods--especially through exaltation--that causes trinitarians to believe you have left the monotheistic fold.

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 also do not lose sleep over whether God can make square circles, or lift rocks so big that he can't lift them.

[Shelly200]

I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me...

When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

Joseph Smith?History 1*

This simple testimony unravels all the false notions that were handed down by the fallen church for over 1500 years.

With this and subsequent visions, and being taught by messengers from the presence of God like John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John, Moses, Elijah, and others... we understand as much, or more, about the nature of God than did those who saw Him anciently.

Because of a prophet, we know God the Father has a glorified, perfected body of flesh and bones, just as Christ does.

So, we don't get hung up on trying to interpret the words of the Bible, but we project what prophets teach about God into the Bible to gain a greater insight as to what is being taught. In short, we interpret the words of the Bible through the medium of modern revelation.

Yes, in the end I think it all comes down to Joseph Smith and the modern prophets.

In one way, the LDS church is similar to the mainline Protestant churches: both groups believe that there was a lap of time in which false doctrines were handed down for generations. The Protestants believe everything was taken care of during the Reformation. As I understand it, the LDS church believes that they were on the right track, but not quite there (maybe why they also use strictly the KJV of the Bible).

As a Catholic, I do not hold to this belief, believing that Christ's Church continued through the ages unscathed, and continues to this day. We believe that the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ have shown themselves to individuals through private revelation (the Church does not demand any member believe these appearances, since the revelations were private, but the Church does investigate them and can say if something supernatural probably occurred), though we don't believe they have given any doctrinal changes or that they speak through people as through prophets. (And we don't believe God the Father can ever show Himself to anyone, since we don't believe He has a physical body.) But it's interesting, because Protestants don't believe in appearances by any in Heaven to those on Earth. Just a different view of things I guess.

Does the LDS church teach that all of the prophets have the ability to receive prophecy from God? Have they? I wonder why the church doesn't continue adding to the D&C all of the revelations of the prophets down the line? I was told that this is similar to what the Ensign does... that when the prophets speak at the conferences it is (or is like?) revelation, and it is written in the magazines. Is that right? And have the Father and/or Son and/or Apostles made appearances to any of the other prophets, or just to Joseph Smith?

[Snow]

...

Edited December 12, 2011 by Snow
2nd thoughts

[prisonchaplain]

So I'm not going to get anyone to agree with me on the doctrine of the Trinity.

If it's any consolation, I agree with you. :)

It also might help you to know that amongst LDS that enjoy discussing this topic I have found three points of view on the LDS Godhead. Some, like Professor Robinson (BYU) do insist that the LDS view is monotheism. Snow pointed out the difficulty with insisting on hardclad definitions when using ancient texts penned in foreign languages. So he (and I believe Justice) suggests that "unity" can be a kind of oneness. Others (more common--at least on this site) would admit that the LDS Godhead is a kind of henotheism. This may be your definition of the doctrine, since you mentioned the belief in one God who gets worship, while others may exist. The third view, far less common, is that there is nothing wrong with polytheism, since many will achieve exaltation, and become Gods.

There are some pro-LDS sites that defend henotheism, and argue that the ancient Jews embraced it. So, I'm inclined to see their doctrine fitting this category. Nevertheless, I'm not sure it's worth the contention to tell someone who perceives him/herself to be monotheists, by using a looser definition (unity = oneness) that they aren't. I might try saying, "Well, maybe you're a 'soft monotheists.' I'm a hardline one."

BTW Kudos for engaging in some great dialogue. Keep asking questions, look for clarification, and keep expressing your openness and love for God and the folks here, and you will continue to do well.

By the way, for a solid overview of the LDS doctrine of Godhead--one that responds to many of the issues you raise, the following link should be helpful:

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism - FAIRMormon

Additionally, there is a fine book out, that is now nearly 15 years old, offering a very informative theological conversation between an LDS professor and an Evangelical one. Though you are Catholic, you will likely agree with the major points of the Evangelical, and get a good understanding of the differences we have on basic doctrines.

The book is: How Wide the Divide: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation, co-authored by Robinson (BYU) and Blomberg (Denver Seminary):

Amazon.com: How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation (9780830819911): Craig L. Blomberg, Stephen E. Robinson: Books

Edited December 12, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[Snow]

On the other hand Shelly,

You are probably right. I apologize. If you will please represent my position correctly I would appreciate you responding to the answered questions.

[Jason_J]

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.

Yes, actually we all do agree that God is one. The question is, what is meant by that oneness. Latter-day Saints believe that the correct view (which we also believe is completely Biblical), is that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Persons/Beings/Entities who are united in purpose, will, love, intent. This functional unity allows them to be called "one God". God is a family. A family is composed of different people, yet is one family. This is a good analogy to the Latter-day Saint view on the oneness of the Godhead.

The question for you is, if you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons, who are not each other, then what do you mean when you say that they are "one Being", and therefore "one God"? What does that definition entail? I already am familiar with this, but I'd like to hear your reasoning.

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.

The LDS Church doesn't try to say that three separate beings are really one being. You're right, that doesn't make sense, and the Church of Jesus Christ doesn't make that claim. We believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings/persons (we use those terms interchangeably) who are One in that they are of one mind, purpose, love. This makes them "one God" since they are in perfect harmony with each other, and function as a unit. This is similar to other usages of "one" in the Bible, such as a husband and wife being "one flesh". This doesn't mean that they become the same being/person. Similarly, the Latter-day Saint view on "one God" doesn't mean that the 3 distinct Persons are the same being/person. This is how we can same that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate in one sense, yet they are considered "one God" in another sense.