Do you agree with these statements?

[Maureen]

So how is that so different from what we Mormons believe?

Trinitarians have different meanings for the words person and being when using these words to describe the Trinity. Mormons use person and being

as synonyms. When you describe Jesus and the Father, you would say they are separate beings or persons (these words are interchangeable), while Trinitarians would say that the Son and Father are separate persons but one being.

Do you believe that Jesus has a body of flesh and bones?

Yes, I believe that Jesus has a glorified body. But I do not believe that the Father has a tangible body.

M.

[Maureen]

So are you saying that each of the three persons are comprised of the same type of matter? If we were to see the Father and the Son, would we see two separate person side by side? And if we could see the Holy Ghost (perhaps in the form of a dove), would that be a third separate person so that we see three separate persons?

I believe that only God has a divine nature, while his creation (man) have a human nature. There are many humans but only one divine being, God. I do not know what God's divinity is made up of or what it would look like, but I believe that this divine nature that only God has, is the one and only nature that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share.

M.

[Timpman]

When you describe Jesus and the Father, you would say they are separate beings or persons (these words are interchangeable), while Trinitarians would say that the Son and Father are separate persons but one being.

If "being" means something like a team or a council, then we would have that in common.

Yes, I believe that Jesus has a glorified body. But I do not believe that the Father has a tangible body.

I have heard people say that Jesus does not have a body, so I was baffled and asked "So, when did He leave His body after being resurrected?" They didn't have a good answer.

Anyway, since Jesus was glorified and made "equal with God," how could it be that the Father does not have a tangible body? I know what John 4:24 says, but I don't' believe that literally means He is only spirit.

[Maureen]

If "being" means something like a team or a council, then we would have that in common.

But I don't know that LDS can use "being" to mean team or council because many LDS describe the Father and Son as separate beings; which could mean that they would be separate teams or councils.

Anyway, since Jesus was glorified and made "equal with God," how could it be that the Father does not have a tangible body? I know what John 4:24 says, but I don't' believe that literally means He is only spirit.

God has always existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit; no member of the Godhead was created, they have always existed. Only Christ (the Son) became human (and took on two natures, one human and one divine). It would not be necessary for the other two members (Father and Holy Spirit) to follow suit because only one member of the Godhead was needed for an atonement. When Christ became man and atoned for our sins, it was literally God that became man and saved us.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake. (John 14:6-11)

M.

[Timpman]

But I don't know that LDS can use "being" to mean team or council because many LDS describe the Father and Son as separate beings; which could mean that they would be separate teams or councils.

That is very, very, very incorrect. When we say that they are separate "beings" that only means they are not one physical person. They are very much one in purpose like a team or council. Aren't we all human beings? Yet we are not one mass. It seems to only be trinitarians who confuse the definition of that term.

Only Christ (the Son) became human (and took on two natures, one human and one divine). It would not be necessary for the other two members (Father and Holy Spirit) to follow suit because only one member of the Godhead was needed for an atonement.

There's nothing says the Father doesn't or can't have a body, though. Edited April 12, 2012 by Timpman

[Vort]

My view:

God is how he is. People's various ideas about God count for exactly zero.

Larger Christianity claims that God's essence is "unknowable" and "ineffable", then insists that only their idea of God sufficiently knows or effs him. Latter-day Saints come at the question from a different perspective: God is knowable, and in fact we know him, because he has revealed himself to us. Those non-LDS Christians who disbelieve us are welcome to point out what they consider discrepancies between Biblical teachings and LDS teachings -- though I find it humorous and more than a little inconsistent that many of these same Christians then insist that the Nicene nonsense is somehow "Biblical" through their reading-in of clearly non-Biblical teachings. Whatever.

What we know, we know through modern revelation, not because we're smarter or more virtuous than everyone else. Those who insist on denying modern revelation are welcome to believe whatever they wish. The inconsistencies rankle me, but I don't pretend that really means much.

Meanwhile, God continues being what he is, despite our ignorance, misunderstandings, and contention.

[Maureen]

That is very, very, very incorrect. When we say that they are separate "beings" that only means they are not one physical person.

Exactly, you (as in LDS) can use the words being and person interchangeably.

They are very much one in purpose like a team or council. Aren't we all human beings? Yet we are not one mass. It seems to only be trinitarians who confuse the definition of that term.

I'm not sure that I follow your logic with this one. And I wouldn't say that trinitarians confuse the definition, we just give the two words different definitions when referring to the Trinity. :)

M.

[Maureen]

...Meanwhile, God continues being what he is, despite our ignorance, misunderstandings, and contention.

I agree.

M.

[Guest]

My head hurts.

[Timpman]

Exactly, you (as in LDS) can use the words being and person interchangeably.

Using the terms interchangeably, we can say that they are, indeed, separate beings. That does not mean they are not one in purpose, like a team or council. I think our views on the Godhead are very similar, which might make you feel uncomfortable. :)

[Vort]

My head hurts.

Does it hurt your substance or your being?

[Maureen]

Using the terms interchangeably, we can say that they are, indeed, separate beings. That does not mean they are not one in purpose, like a team or council. I think our views on the Godhead are very similar, which might make you feel uncomfortable. :)

I agree that the members of the Godhead have a unity of purpose, but that is a characteristic of what they do together and not a characteristic of their nature or being.

I agree that non-LDS and LDS do have similar beliefs regarding certain characteristics of God. For example, some LDS on this forum believe that the Godhead is a social trinity, which many non-LDS also believe; I personally believe the Godhead is a social trinity. But from my understanding a social trinity describes the relationship that the members of the Godhead have with each other, and not so much about what their nature is.

M.

[Guest]

Does it hurt your substance or your being?

[Maureen]

Here's something that I really like that a past poster contributed about the Trinity:

The Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son which is so real that it constitutes a distinct person.

...I don't know if you saw one of my previous posts related to John telling us that "God is love". Love cannot exist unless there is someone to love. It requires a lover and a beloved. This is my argument for the Trinity. If God is Love, as has been revealed to us, then God, by his very nature, must consist of a Lover (the Father) and a Beloved (the Son) and the love between them (the Holy Spirit). So God has existed as a Trinity of Persons from eternity....(Originally Posted by StephenVH)

M.

[Guest]

So what you're saying is that He loves Himself so much, that it creates another Him?

[Maureen]

So what you're saying is that He loves Himself so much, that it creates another Him?

No.

M.

[Timpman]

I agree that the members of the Godhead have a unity of purpose, but that is a characteristic of what they do together and not a characteristic of their nature or being.

Yes, they have a unity of purpose, and they are three distinct persons. I'm not seeing a difference between our beliefs. Let's set a date for your baptism :).

[Maureen]

Yes, they have a unity of purpose, and they are three distinct persons. I'm not seeing a difference between our beliefs. Let's set a date for your baptism :).

It appears I don't need to be baptized LDS to believe them. :)

M.

[Guest ziwenga]

In the Orient

young bulls are tested for the fight arena in a certain manner. New Jersey Escorts Each is brought to the ring and allowed to attack a picador who pricks them with a lance. New Jersey Asian Escort The bravery of each bull is then rated with care according to the number of times he demonstrates his willingness to charge in spite of the sting of the blade. New Jersey Escort Henceforth will I recognize that each day I am tested by life in like manner. If I persist, if I continue to try, if I continue to charge forward, I will succeed. New Jersey Asian Escorts

[clarissa]

Yes, we absolutely believe that Jesus Christ is the center of our religion! He is the capstone of our faith. Above all, the LDS Church is centered on Jesus Christ and following His Gospel. =)

[Maureen]

I came across this article a couple weeks ago. If I were to guess, I would say that the author of this article would not agree with the two statements I posted in the OP. She concludes in her article:

Proper worship is essential for God’s children to receive salvation. While we reverence both the Son and the Holy Ghost, the proper object of true and saving worship is God the Father.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/byu-religious-education-student-symposium-2010/true-and-saving-worship

M.

[Timpman]

Well, now I'm confused.

[Timpman]

Dear "changed", we might have a case of Elder McConkie not teaching official doctrine. We have a recent statement from the Church saying "For Latter-day Saints, being a Christian means being a disciple of Jesus Christ, loving and worshiping Him above all."

We have the Book of Mormon stating "And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out. (2 Nephi 25:29)"

And the very official statement from The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles - "We testify that He will someday return to earth. 'And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together' (Isaiah 40:5). He will rule as King of Kings and reign as Lord of Lords, and every knee shall bend and every tongue shall speak in worship before Him."

And then we have Elder McConkie saying "We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense--the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator."

So what's the deal? I think this is significant!