The "oneness" Of The Father And Son

[Gaia]

The best way that this can be explained is the example of a family.

The mother and father are two distinct individuals, however their purpose that of raising their children in righteousness makes them one.

GAIA:

Hi There, Darth --

Yes, it is sometimes said that is one way they are "one" -- in terms of their desires, intentions, etc; but that's not all -- Actually, there is a way that the Father and Son are "one" that is beyond the kind of oneness that any mortals can experience in this life.

Y'see, according to the scriptures, God has a DUAL nature: He has a physical nature that is like ours, but He also has a DIVINE nature that is quite UNlike ours:

See for example, 2 Peter 1:3-4

"According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue : Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature..."

So there is something that God has -- this "Divine Nature" that we do NOT have, but that GOd intends for us to "partake" of --

Now, what exactly is this "Divine Nature"???

Joseph Smith described this dual nature of celestial life in reporting a divine manifestation that he and others were given in January, 1836:

"The heavens were opened upon us and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out cannot tell. I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire; also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son."

Elsewhere, Joseph taught that God "dwells in everlasting burnings" -- obviously, we're taling about something very UNLIKE us, or anything with which we are acquainted.

Man is in the presence of God when he is enveloped in the glory of God and is quickened by that substance -- and it is a "substance", not just "warm fuzzies". "On such occasions he may or may not be in the presence of God's person, but he is in the presence of God in sense of divine communion when he is enveloped in the glory of God"

[ibid]

"And the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence."

ONe way to understand this is to consider a magnet:

A magnet is a tangible object whose magnetic properties extend beyond its physical dimensions to permeate its magnetic field. Similarly, God is an immanent being who is (as D&C 88 tells us) "in and through all things" by the manifestation of His glory. His glory is as much a part of Him as magnetic properties or forces are essential parts of a magnet.

By means of His divine nature, the Father has a relationship with the cosmos that a mere corporeal being (as we are currently) does NOT possess -- D&C 88 tells us that He is "in and through all things" --

Nor can an unglorified being easily comprehend the kind of life that God experiences. This, i think, is one of the reasons many people (even some LDS) fail to comprehend many important LDS doctrines -- they think of God as being "just like us", and they fail to take into account His DIVINE NATURE.

Relationship of the Father and the Son:

The same may be said of the divine relationship that exists between the Father and the Son. In his testimony of Christ, John mentioned the divine relationship that came to exist when Christ received the fulness of the Father, saying of Jesus: "And the glory of the Father was with him, for he [i.e., the Father] dwelt in him ."

There is an "INDWELLING" relationship that exists between the Father and Son, which is not always understood even by some LDS. Of this "indwelling" relationship Jesus bore testimony to the Nephites, stating: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name."

Only by understanding this divine indwelling relationship can one comprehend Joseph Smith's concept of deity. In his Lectures on Faith, Joseph stressed that the full intelligence and power of the Father are centered in the Son so that both divine beings possess --

"...the same divine mind, the same wisdom, glory, power, and fullness -— filling all in all; the SON being filled with the fullness of the mind, glory, and power ; or, in other words, the Spirit, glory, and power , of the FATHER, possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom, sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father, mediator for man, being filled with the fullness of the mind of the Father ; or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father."

So they are "one" NOT just in terms of their goals, values, intentions, etc, but in terms of the DIVINE NATURE which they both share, by virtue of this "INDWELLING" of the Holy Spirit, through which the Father "DWELLS IN" the Son, and the Son "dwells in" the FAther, and they have "ONE mind, spirit, glory, power."

The entire design and goal of the Gospel is to get us "hooked up" to this same source of Power -- to get the Holy Spirit in us to such an extent, that Jesus and the Father can "DWELL IN" US, as they currently dwell in each other --

And then to have us begin to administer that Power, Glory and Spirit to others, beginning with our children --

Imagine the possibilities of that!

Blessings --

~Gaia

[john doe]

<div class='quotemain'>

Yes, but when someone comes in the guise of being LDS and claims a concept is doctrinal to LDS when it is not, they need to be corrected. And when that same person insists on pushing the issue, and uses cut-and-pastes from anti-LDS sources as backup, it needs to be pointed out even more forcefully that they are teaching falsehood. I agree, all people have the right to their beliefs. I have a few pet beliefs of my own that might possibly be true, but to claim them as doctrinal to the LDS church when they are not would be wrong. If I were to bring them up, I would point out that they are my own personal beliefs, not to be taken as LDS doctrine. Gaia is free to believe what she believes, but she shouldn't be claiming that what she has brought up lately is official LDS doctrine when they are not.

GAIA:

Hello JohnDoe --

I hope you will be honest and fair enough to actually go back and read what i actually wrote, instead of just accepting a second-hand report.

First of all, i NEVER said that the A-G doctrine "is official LDS doctrine"; rather, i said that Brigham Young certainly taught that it was -- called it "scripture" and "revelation", and for a time -- 0ver twenty-five years -- it was certainly treated that way -- people were called up for High Council trials for DISbeleiving it ---

but i have never implied that it is currently offiicial church doctrine; in fact i stated just the opposiite.

Secondly, i don't use "anti-LDS" sources; I neither beleive in doing so, nor need to -- I have a copy of the GospeLink 2001" program (see http://gospelink.com/ ) which has all the scriptures, periodicals and most LDS books on CD Rom.

Here's where you can read what i actually said, for yourself:

http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10005

Posts #1 and #12.

Blessings --

~Gaia

What I am talking about is preaching false doctrine as if it really were/was doctrine and claiming, wrongly, what we Mormons believe. They can believe anything they want. Bully for them. But they can't tell us untruths about our (we in the Church) beliefs and get a free pass from me.

<div class='quotemain'>

Yes, but when someone comes in the guise of being LDS and claims a concept is doctrinal to LDS when it is not, they need to be corrected. And when that same person insists on pushing the issue, and uses cut-and-pastes from anti-LDS sources as backup, it needs to be pointed out even more forcefully that they are teaching falsehood. I agree, all people have the right to their beliefs. I have a few pet beliefs of my own that might possibly be true, but to claim them as doctrinal to the LDS church when they are not would be wrong. If I were to bring them up, I would point out that they are my own personal beliefs, not to be taken as LDS doctrine. Gaia is free to believe what she believes, but she shouldn't be claiming that what she has brought up lately is official LDS doctrine when they are not.

So true - that I should take credit for saying it. :)

GAIA:

LOL -- That's about the most (unintentionally) funny/ ironic statement i've seen,

in a very long time --

My problem is that despite being shown differently numerous times, you insist on continuing to call it a doctrine, when it is not. I really don't even care if Brigham Young taught it as doctrine as you claim he did, It is not an official doctrine of the church. If it were church doctrine, Brigham could have easily have had it inserted into the D&C and announced it in General Conference. He didn't do that, which is one of many indicators to me that it was a pet theory of his, not a binding church doctrine. If you were to back off from calling it a church doctrine and start calling it the Adam/God Theory, I wouldn't have such a problem with it.

It is not an official LDS Church doctrine.

[Snow]

GAIA:

LOL -- That's about the most (unintentionally) funny/ ironic statement i've seen,

in a very long time --

Really. You think it was unintentional?

I don't have any misconception that you are notably smart, or not smart for that matter, but I'd think that just about anyone with a pulse would have been able to catch the itent. It's not like the smiley face wasn't a dead giveaway.

[Snow]

My problem is that despite being shown differently numerous times, you insist on continuing to call it a doctrine, when it is not. I really don't even care if Brigham Young taught it as doctrine as you claim he did, It is not an official doctrine of the church. If it were church doctrine, Brigham could have easily have had it inserted into the D&C and announced it in General Conference. He didn't do that, which is one of many indicators to me that it was a pet theory of his, not a binding church doctrine. If you were to back off from calling it a church doctrine and start calling it the Adam/God Theory, I wouldn't have such a problem with it.

It is not an official LDS Church doctrine.

It's painfully obvious at this point that when Gaia says "doctrine" she simply means 'something that is taught.'

When Mormons say "doctrine" they mean: "A core message of Jesus Christ..." "It is fixed and unchanging. It cannot be modified or contradicted, but merely amplified as additional truths that deepen understanding and appreciation of it’s meaning are revealed." (Encyclopedia of Mormonism)

Likewise, when Mormons say "scriptural" they mean something that is in the scriptures.

When Gaia says "scriptural" who knows what on earth she is talking about - certainly not anything in the scriptures.

[Gaia]

My problem is that despite being shown differently numerous times, you insist on continuing to call it a doctrine, when it is not. I really don't even care if Brigham Young taught it as doctrine as you claim he did, It is not an official doctrine of the church.

GAIA:

Hi John --

I've never said it IS an "official doctrine of the Church" -- That's a misrepresentation of what i actually wrote.

If it were church doctrine, Brigham could have easily have had it inserted into the D&C and announced it in General Conference. He didn't do that,

GAIA:

Well, aamof, JOhn -- *smile* -- he did (part of) that -- he announced / taught it at several General Conferences and Priesthood General Conferences, and called it both "revelation" and "scripture" (see the quotes) --

And in light of that i ask you to remember one of the OFFICIAL, scriptural definitions of "scripture":

D&C 68:4

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the bpower of God unto salvation.

Now, A President of the Church said that he was so "moved upon by the HOly Ghost" to give this "scripture" and "revelation" -- So you tell me, was or wasn't it "scripture"?

May i ask, John, have you actually READ either of my posts about it? Have you READ through the quotes i posted from Brigham and other General Authorities?

If so, what do you think he was saying?

If not, why not?

With all due respect, you certainly seem to be coming down on a side of a disagreement without having actually bothered to read the evidence - do you think that's right? Do you think that's fair? Do you think that's wise?

which is one of many indicators to me that it was a pet theory of his, not a binding church doctrine.

GAIA:

Yes John, actually it WAS binding church doctrine (at the time) -- people were brought up before Church courts for DISbelieving it.

AGain, i strongly urge you to actually read the material, rather than just go along with whatever misrepresentations you might have heard.

Again, Here's where you can read what i actually said, for yourself:

http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10005

Posts #1 and #12.

Blessings --

~Gaia

[CrimsonKairos]

Yes John, actually it WAS binding church doctrine (at the time) -- people were brought up before Church courts for DISbelieving it.

Sources, please.

I've never heard of anyone losing their TR or membership because they refused to pray to Adam, or because they disagreed with BY's theory.

[prisonchaplain]

As you know, I do not like to post what others believe. However, there is one argument concerning the Trinity that came out in the early history of Christianity long before LDS thought is to be considered. That is what is called the “Nestorian Heresy”. This has to do with the two natures of the Christ. One nature being the G-dly or the divine the other nature, the nature of mortal man. Many EV express this as Jesus being totally G-d and totally man. The heresy comes from this concept and the scriptures and the question and following answers as teachings – How is Mary the mother of our L-rd?

I would challenge any Trinitarian to answer this question. Commit their “inspired” answer as the spirit speaks to them in writing. Then and only then, after they have made witness to what the spirit speaks to them, turn to the ancient records and find out what teachings were considered heresy. This way you will know if the Church during the time of the Trinitarian Creed was teaching heresy or if you are today teaching yourself heresy or if you really in agreement with those that laid the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

I am sorry if this comes across in a manner that looks like criticism but it does concern me.

The Traveler

I'm going to try to discern what you are asking. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. Mary conceived Jesus through a miracle, via the Holy Spirit. So, she physically gave birth to God in-the-flesh.

If I understood the Nestorian heresy properly, they suggested that Jesus had to separate natures--as if he were two distinct beings, himself.

Before I go further, let me know Traveler, am I understanding the controversy as you do? And, are you suggesting that the Nestorians were espousing a line of thought that might lead to the LDS christology?

[Traveler]

I'm going to try to discern what you are asking. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. Mary conceived Jesus through a miracle, via the Holy Spirit. So, she physically gave birth to God in-the-flesh.

If I understood the Nestorian heresy properly, they suggested that Jesus had to separate natures--as if he were two distinct beings, himself.

Before I go further, let me know Traveler, am I understanding the controversy as you do? And, are you suggesting that the Nestorians were espousing a line of thought that might lead to the LDS christology?

I do not think that the Trinitarian concepts (Nestorian or otherwise) relates well to LDS understanding. But I am suggesting a historical understanding of how certain concepts evolved. When Christians discuss the nature of G-d and the oneness of the Father and the Son from a historical and traditional perspective - We should include understanding of past heresy and what was done about it. And ask ourselves if today there is more or less deviation in what has past as the consistant traditional (non-heretical) concepts.

When we relate to Jesus as both man and G-d - how do we justify that in light of the scriptures without creating a heresy - either by doctrine or how we deal with others and their beliefs?

The Traveler

[Gaia]

<div class='quotemain'>

Yes John, actually it WAS binding church doctrine (at the time) -- people were brought up before Church courts for DISbelieving it.

Sources, please.

I've never heard of anyone losing their TR or membership because they refused to pray to Adam, or because they disagreed with BY's theory.

GAIA:

Hi CK --

Yes, i'm happy to provide both quotes and references on this matter, but this really isn't the proper thread to do so --

So I'll post it to the "Adam God Questions" thread --

http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10005

Blessings --

~Gaia

[prisonchaplain]

I do not think that the Trinitarian concepts (Nestorian or otherwise) relates well to LDS understanding. But I am suggesting a historical understanding of how certain concepts evolved. When Christians discuss the nature of G-d and the oneness of the Father and the Son from a historical and traditional perspective - We should include understanding of past heresy and what was done about it. And ask ourselves if today there is more or less deviation in what has past as the consistant traditional (non-heretical) concepts.

When we relate to Jesus as both man and G-d - how do we justify that in light of the scriptures without creating a heresy - either by doctrine or how we deal with others and their beliefs?

The Traveler

The doctrine of the incarnation is well established, and the threat of heresies has been remarkably well controlled in the last 2000 years. The number of major heresies that gained measurable traction is remarkably small, considering the amount of time we are discussing.

How do we understand the incarnation without falling into heresy? We stick to what the Bible says, answers the questions it addresses only, and, yes, by weighing carefully the wise teachings of the church at large throughout the course of history.

[adobo44]

Heavenly Father and Jesus are 2 seperate beings(One is the Father,and the other one His Son),but they are one in goal,one in mission!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:):)

[USNationalist]

My head hurts, so I haven't read through this thread, so maybe my questions been answered already...

Do the Mormons have a "Oneness" theology (like many Pentecostal Protestants do) or do you consider yourselves more "Trinitarian"?

I have my own thoughts on the nature of the 3 Gods and their relation to one another, and from what I remember of the Mormon teachings I think it may be more closely aligned to the Mormon interpretation of the "Holy Trio" then the traditional Protestant views.