Difference in doctrine

[Guest]

The outcome of those past discussions is that a few LDS have admitted to me that the LDS Godhood could be understood as polytheistic.  Still more of agreed to the term "henotheistic" (belief that there are gods, but only one God is to be worshipped).  Then there are those who insist that the LDS Godhead is just as monotheistic as the Trinity.

 

No, there really isn't any word that properly describes our belief in God other than the Godhead.  None of the other terms are a good match.  Yes, there are partial definitions that work.  But the real meaning of any of the three you mentioned is simply not complete or possibly even accurate.  To call us any of those is tantamount to saying Modalism is the same as Trinitarian.

 

Would it be fair to say that LDS are as skeptical of the process by which the early creeds were formulated as many of your critics are of the manner in which the LDS modern revelations were developed?

 

That depends on perspective.  The most fair way to do it would be to accept both sides of the story.

 

 We'd believe that the church leaders of the ancient creeds had much deliberation.  They felt they had an inspired conclusion and wrote it down. 

 

Joseph Smith on the other hand, didn't just have a "feeling of revelation".  He had visions in which Gods and Angels visited him physically and spoke with him as one man speaks with another.

 

To deny both sides of the story at least says that the ancient church leaders made their best attempt, and were well meaning.

But no one outside of our faith seems to think that Joseph was an honest man with good intentions.  That would be like saying Jesus was just a very good man, but not the Son of God.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Guest

[LeSellers]

Joseph Smith on the other hand, didn't just have a "feeling of revelation".  He had visions in which Gods and Angels visited him physically and spoke with him as one man speaks with another.

One other thing that Joseph had that others did not was corroboration and participation.

It doesn't really apply directly here, but others, notably Oliver Cowdery and Sydney Rigdon, shared his visions and revelations. If we look at section 13 or 76, we see that these shared visions make rejecting Joseph's calling as a prophet problematic.

He was not imagining his experiences. He was not mentally unstable. He was a prophet, and others' participation substantiates it — particularly when these others became disaffected and left the Restoration movement.

Lehi

[cdowis]

Among those who profess a prophetic ministry, to be a prophet Joseph Smith is unique in that he has a cloud of witnesses to his divine calling.  He had over eleven witnesses to various divine manifestations --  visits from angels who laid their hands on thei heads to confer the priesthood, the BOM plates, and shared visions and revelations. 

[prisonchaplain]

The role of modern day prophets is a interesting "difference," in that there are many views within the Christian community.  Of course, LDS are unique in claiming modern day prophets that serve much as the Old Testament ones did.  The "Bible-only" folks have been described, at length.  I would label these Fundamentalists.  Somewhat more nuanced are Evangelicals.  They, too, look to the Bible as their final authority.  However, they may look to church history, creeds, etc. as secondary sources. 

 

Then there are us Pentecostals and Charismatics.  We do believe in modern prophecies, dreams and visions.  However, for the most part, we perceive these as gifts, not offices.  Those who speak a word of prophecy (or interpret a message in tongues) often will end with "this is what the LORD says."  The message is meant for that specific time and that specific gathering.  As an example, two Pentecostal churches in the Seattle area may have prophetic words spoken on any given Sunday.  In church one the message might be:  God sees secret sins.  Today is the day to repent.  After such a word, the pastor may quiet everyone, and offer a time of prayer for repentance--encouraging people to obey the word from the LORD.  Church two may hear that God sees and knows the heavy burdens people are carrying, and is bring rest and resolution to the weary.  After such a word, the pastor may encourage praise, and invite those who are heavy burdened to receive, by faith, the blessing God is promising.

 

So, we practice prophecy differently, but agree that God still speaks today. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[dberrie2001]

 

I believe it was the leaders of the church who affirmed those early creeds.  They may have relied on their learned teachers to form the script, but approval was from the leadership of the recognized church.  I've discussed my own biblical reasoning for the Trinity on several strings over the years.  Father is God.  Son is God.  Holy Spirit is God.  God is one.  The three are the one God.  Our disagreement then is in the meaning of "one."  It really does come down to that.  The outcome of those past discussions is that a few LDS have admitted to me that the LDS Godhood could be understood as polytheistic.  Still more of agreed to the term "henotheistic" (belief that there are gods, but only one God is to be worshipped).  Then there are those who insist that the LDS Godhead is just as monotheistic as the Trinity.

 

 

 

Hi Prisonchaplin:

 

A very good --and fair --post.

 

For me--the problem with that is the NT writers never included God the Son into the "one God" of the Biblical NT, IE--

 

1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)

⁶ But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

 

1 Timothy 2:5---King James Version (KJV)

⁵ For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

 

Ephesians 4:4-6---King James Version (KJV)

⁴ There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

⁵ One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

⁶ One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

 

That kind of language would probably have been considered blasphemy to those of the Deutero-Isaiah era.

 

Considering the definition of "polytheism" is the belief of more than one god--was Paul polytheistic?

 

2 Corinthians 4:4--King James Version (KJV)

⁴ In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.