Aog Look At Cojclds - Revisit Of Question #3

[prisonchaplain]

I ran the 12 question "quiz" here and at the religion forum at hannity.com. Most takers did quite well, but there was a lot of confusion with question #3, because both answers could be LDS, the distinctions were not at all clear. I've reworked the first answer, and look forward to any comments.

3. We believe, concerning the image of God . . .

_____ Christ taught a distinction of persons in the godhead which He expressed in specific terms of relationship, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but that this distinction and relationship, as to its mode is inscrutable and incomprehensible, because unexplained. ... Man was created good and upright; for God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

_____ In the Old Testament God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Jacob declared he had seen God “face to face.” ... In the New Testament ... Jesus told his apostles, “handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” ... We are created in his image.

[Ray]

Christ taught a distinction of persons in the godhead which He expressed in specific terms of relationship, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but that this distinction and relationship, as to its mode is inscrutable and incomprehensible, because unexplained. ... Man was created good and upright; for God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

Personally, I'm still not sure what you think about God, and from the sound of that you aren't sure either.

But I think it is clear that's an AoG thought.. the "incomprehensible" kinda gives that away. :)

[JoshuaFKon]

<div class='quotemain'>

Christ taught a distinction of persons in the godhead which He expressed in specific terms of relationship, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but that this distinction and relationship, as to its mode is inscrutable and incomprehensible, because unexplained. ... Man was created good and upright; for God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

Personally, I'm still not sure what you think about God, and from the sound of that you aren't sure either.

But I think it is clear that's an AoG thought.. the "incomprehensible" kinda gives that away. :)

I agree with the Book of Mormon.

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. 2Nephi 31:21 (emphasis added)

and

7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. Morm. 7:7(emphasis added)

Josh B)

[prisonchaplain]

Personally, I'm still not sure what you think about God, and from the sound of that you aren't sure either.

But I think it is clear that's an AoG thought.. the "incomprehensible" kinda gives that away. :)

Let me break it down for you, Ray.

1. Christ taught a distinction of persons in the godhead which He expressed in specific terms of relationship, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

The emphasis here is on the word RELATIONSHIP. Historically, the Fundamentals were meant to defend against false teachings. The most painful and prevelant one at that time was Modalism (as taught by Oneness Pentecostals). They believe that God reveals himself in the mode of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but that He is essentially just Jesus.

As classic Trinitarians, we oppose this view, and stick with the rest of Christianity, in teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, who are in RELATIONSHIP with one another.

Sounds Mormon, so far, eh?

but that this distinction and relationship, as to its mode is inscrutable and incomprehensible, because unexplained.

Oops! Guess not. We will not attempt to do what the Bible does not. We will neither describe God as a tri-theistic godhead family, nor as a single person role-playing three parts. We leave God as he has revealed himself in the Bible--three persons, one God, one essential being, co-equal, co-eternal.

... Man was created good and upright; for God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

So, if we are created in the image of God--as he is revealed to us in the Bible, then that image is all about character, not biology, not physical essence. So the stress on goodness and uprightness.

[Ray]

I know what you think, Tommy... you don't think God is comprehensible.

At least not based on your interpretation of the Bible.

I disagree with you, of course. You know that I do. But I do not want to argue with you.

You can think what you want... you can beleive what you want.

I think God has taught me what I believe.

And I also believe God has taught not only me... but God has revealed Himself to other people...

... even though we are not mentioned in the Bible.

I do not believe God only speaks through the Bible.

I believe other people can speak for God too.

I believe God still speaks through prophets today... people who are not even mentioned in the Bible.

And btw...

but that this distinction and relationship, as to its mode is inscrutable and incomprehensible, because unexplained.

Oops! Guess not. We will not attempt to do what the Bible does not. We will neither describe God as a tri-theistic godhead family, nor as a single person role-playing three parts. We leave God as he has revealed himself in the Bible--three persons, one God, one essential being, co-equal, co-eternal.

... I believe you're trying to add some thoughts to the Bible.

Or maybe you can tell me where the Bible actually says:

God is "one essential being, co-equal and co-eternal".

I know you can interpret some thoughts that way, but aren't you saying those words are in the Bible?

I think God has taught some other people other thoughts... are you trying to tell me that God hasn't?

Can you prove what you think exclusively from the Bible... without adding your own thoughts to those words?

What makes your interpretation any better than ours?

What makes you think that you know God better?

How about this?

Let's just worship who and how we really want to.

I don't have a problem with that. :)

[Princess3dward]

I agree with the Book of Mormon.

I expect to never hear that ever again..

*ahem* read.

[JoshuaFKon]

<div class='quotemain'>

I agree with the Book of Mormon.

I expect to never hear that ever again..

*ahem* read.

lol probably not....

Of course, the theology of the Book of Mormon is not far off from prodestant theology...Only when you add the D&C and PoGP, do you really find any difference... :)

love to know what you think about those verses though...

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. 2Nephi 31:21 (emphasis added)

That confuses me. A little too deep for me. The God Head. My dad says (I talk to him about like everything... usually a bad idea because he goes on forever) that he doesn't really see too much difference between the God Head and the trinity.

If any LDS can clerifuy that for me that would be wonderful!

7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. Morm. 7:7(emphasis added)

OH! Same thing!

They are all seperate, but one in purpose!

The God Head!

[JoshuaFKon]

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. 2Nephi 31:21 (emphasis added)

7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. Morm. 7:7(emphasis added)

OH! Same thing!

They are all seperate, but one in purpose!

The God Head!

Would you mind telling my how you get that? It dosn't "say" one in purpose it says "one"

Sounds like the trinity to me.

How to you see different?

Josh B)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Because it's LDS doctrine that they're one in purpose. That's where she gets it from. Joseph Smith saw two Personages in his first vision.

[JoshuaFKon]

Because it's LDS doctrine that they're one in purpose. That's where she gets it from. Joseph Smith saw two Personages in his first vision.

Well...if you go by the 1938 version of Joseph Smith's Vision, yes "two Personages in his first vision." Of course earlier accounts (some from Joseph himself) only mention him seeing "the Lord"

Regardless, the fact that "two Personages" appeared to him does not prove or disprove the concept of the Trinity...The question is...are they "different" Gods? or "The Same" God? (a.k.a. part of the trinity)

I was asking why she (or anyone else) believes they are "different" Gods rather than part of the trinity?

Josh B)

[Maureen]

Personally, I'm still not sure what you think...

I know what you think...

Ray, you can't have it both ways.

Well...if you go by the 1938 version of Joseph Smith's Vision...

And would JS have had any input into this 20th century version?

I'm being very anal-retentive at the moment.

M.

[Outshined]

OH! Same thing!

They are all seperate, but one in purpose!

The God Head!

Sort of; we are also told that a husband and wife are one, and the disciples were told to "be one, even as my Father and I are one."

[JoshuaFKon]

Well...if you go by the 1938 version of Joseph Smith's Vision...

And would JS have had any input into this 20th century version?

I'm being very anal-retentive at the moment.

M.

Opps! "1838"

Josh B)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Well, if you go by Matthew's account of the inscription on Christ's cross, it says...

What's the point of that approach Joshuak. LDS doctrine is that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are three inidividual beings, separate in "essence" but united in purpose. In other words, there'd be three pairs of hands to shake (if the Spirit had tangible hands). I don't see why you'd bother trying to redefine LDS doctrine by selectively quoting one of Joseph Smith's accounts of his First Vision.

[JoshuaFKon]

Well, if you go by Matthew's account of the inscription on Christ's cross, it says...

What's the point of that approach Joshuak. LDS doctrine is that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are three inidividual beings, separate in "essence" but united in purpose. In other words, there'd be three pairs of hands to shake (if the Spirit had tangible hands). I don't see why you'd bother trying to redefine LDS doctrine by selectively quoting one of Joseph Smith's accounts of his First Vision.

I agree there would be three "hands" to shake (but I think the God and the Holy Spirit are Spirits)

All I'm staying is...what do you have against the trinity concept? I can't state the Trinity any clearer than:

"...the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen."2Nephi 31:21

Also, I am not the one who is "selectively quoting one of Joseph Smith's accounts of his First Vision."

you selectively quoted one of Joseph Smith's accounts of his First Vision...

Because it's LDS doctrine that they're one in purpose. That's where she gets it from. Joseph Smith saw two Personages in his first vision.

I pointed out that there are different accounts, how can that be called "selectively quoting one of Joseph Smith's accounts of his First Vision."?

Josh B)

[Outshined]

Some reading on LDS belief on this matter.

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,791-1,00.html

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/godhead/index.htm

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Whatever Joshua, I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue semantics with you. I believe the LDS concept of the Godhead. You don't. Now we understand each other.

[JoshuaFKon]

Some reading on LDS belief on this matter.

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,791-1,00.html

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/godhead/index.htm

Having read your links...It seems that the concept of "Godhead" as opposed to "Trinity" came from the revelations of JS, and that without these revelations, (which in my mind contradict the BoM) mormons would also accept the "Trinity."

Is that what you're saying?

I guess what I'm asking is: How do you accept the "Godhead" and the "God was once a man" doctrine in light of the many scriptures in the Bible as well as the BoM that states there is only one God?

no offense intended :)

Josh B)

Whatever Joshua, I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue semantics with you. I believe the LDS concept of the Godhead. You don't. Now we understand each other.

I understand. :) However I must point out that my question was not directed at you personally, and that you choose to try and answer my question.

Josh B)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Joseph Smith's revelations don't contradict the Book of Mormon's teachings on the Godhead. His revelations contradict your interpretation of the Book of Mormon's teachings on the Godhead. And yeah, I know you weren't asking me personally. I just don't see what the point of your comments are. Saying that LDS members would be trinitarians if they only go by Book of Mormon teachings on the Godhead, is about as useful as saying Christians who only go by the Old Testament would be Jewish. So what?

[JoshuaFKon]

Joseph Smith's revelations don't contradict the Book of Mormon's teachings on the Godhead. His revelations contradict your interpretation of the Book of Mormon's teachings on the Godhead.

As I said...

(which in my mind contradict the BoM)

Saying that LDS members would be trinitarians if they only go by Book of Mormon teachings on the Godhead, is about as useful as saying Christians who only go by the Old Testament would be Jewish. So what?

I don't believe the OT contradicts with the NT...do you?

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

<div class='quotemain'>

Joseph Smith's revelations don't contradict the Book of Mormon's teachings on the Godhead. His revelations contradict your interpretation of the Book of Mormon's teachings on the Godhead.

As I said...

(which in my mind contradict the BoM)

Saying that LDS members would be trinitarians if they only go by Book of Mormon teachings on the Godhead, is about as useful as saying Christians who only go by the Old Testament would be Jewish. So what?

I don't believe the OT contradicts with the NT...do you?

Josh B)

I think the WHOLE BIBLE contridicts istelf.

Havn't you ever heard the saying,

"if you prove something with this book, I can prove the oppisite with the same book?"

[JoshuaFKon]

I think the WHOLE BIBLE contridicts istelf.

Havn't you ever heard the saying,

"if you prove something with this book, I can prove the oppisite with the same book?"

Hello :)

Please be specific...what in the Bible contridicts itself?

thanks,

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

<div class='quotemain'>

I think the WHOLE BIBLE contridicts istelf.

Havn't you ever heard the saying,

"if you prove something with this book, I can prove the oppisite with the same book?"

Hello :)

Please be specific...what in the Bible contridicts itself?

thanks,

Josh B)

Awww.. come on. I only knew the saying.... I am too lazy right now.

I will get it from seminary (make them look it all up for me... hopefully. lol).

I am going to bed now.

Night everyone!! (I will find something.. even if I have to ask my dad......I just don't want to resort to that. lol)

[JoshuaFKon]

Awww.. come on. I only knew the saying.... I am too lazy right now.

I will get it from seminary (make them look it all up for me... hopefully. lol).

I am going to bed now.

Night everyone!! (I will find something.. even if I have to ask my dad......I just don't want to resort to that. lol)

Good night! :)

I'll be waiting for you answer!

Josh B)