Who is God: LDS and NAE versions


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 2/12/2018 at 6:57 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Our LDS volunteer handed me a paper that neatly summarizes some major doctrinal differences between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Christian churches. The first 13 are lifted from the Articles of Faith. I figured that I would simply put an LDS teaching down directly, then quote from the Statement of Faith at the National Association of Evangelicals official site, and let us engage in a discussion of comparisons, contrasts, thoughts about the importance of the similarities and differences, and see what mutual understanding we can re-affirm, or even build.

I'm told that that this is a paraphrase. If so, it's not mine, but comes from the paper the LDS volunteer gave me:

1. LDS:  A belief in the Godhead of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.  And that they are separate personages. We are devout Christians.

NAE:  We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Initial questions for discussion (feel free to raise more)

What is the difference between "personage" and "person"?

Why might the phrase "we are devout Christians" have been added here?

Is the discussion about Trinity vs. LDS Godhead really just semantics and straining at gnats, or is it a vitally important one related to the very doctrine of who God is, or perhaps something in between (in other words, the two teachings are more similar than different, but not the same)?

 

I'd say the difference between the two words is what we give them. To some they are synonyms. To others, personage is a person of high(est) rank or esteem. To others, personage is an archetype, which is interesting given our doctrine that we can become like God.

The volunteer evidently felt the need to explicitly emphasize that we are devout Christians, for whatever reason. The paraphrase seems to refer to the name of our Church and her members taking His name upon us.

I think the difference between “God is…[person]” and “God is eternally existent in…[persons]” is very important. The first immediately describes the object, God (what—D&C 93:19); the second describes where God is found (John 4: 20-24. Note also that Joseph Smith took verse 24 to mean, “For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth.” These verses refer to Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit). Good-faith semantics are important!

I think from a 30,000 foot level, I think this semantic impacts our sense of what are to become: a) is like a personal God, relating in an integrated fashion with the assembly or church of the firstborn (the Church in heaven after the final judgement), and b) is like a God found and relating to others in the church of the firstborn in segregated manifestations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'd say the difference between the two words is what we give them. To some they are synonyms. To others, personage is a person of high(est) rank or esteem. To others, personage is an archetype, which is interesting given our doctrine that we can become like God.

I suspect that the word personage was used to distinguish from the Trinitarian "person" (which could be spirit-only). It's harder, perhaps, to say that a personage is non-corporeal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, e v e said:

I don’t care for the obsession since centuries ago of fighting to insist on the roman version of trinity, which was based on an already platonic view. He and His Spirit and the Son are separate persons. They share the same nature. That nature is eden nature. They are of one house. 

It is popular to believe that most Trinitarians rely deeply on ancient creeds. There may be some historic basis for saying that, but most Evangelical, Baptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic and non-denominational Christians have probably never laid eyes on the creeds. A much more elemental approach is taken. It goes something like this:

1. The Father is God (Just look at the Lord's Prayer, Matthew 6)

2. The Son is God (John 8:58, Hebrews 1:6, 8)

3. The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5--the account has Peter condemning Ananias for lying to God...lying to the Holy Spirit)

4. God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4) 

Sans LDS prophetic revelations, most Christians churches believe that the Father is Spirit-only, and so the oneness of God is more than unity of thought--that it a oneness of essence. We do not imagine that each person of the Godhead is physically distinct because only Jesus was made flesh. The whole matter of whether human exaltation is possible also depends on LDS prophetic revelations, so most Christians believe that we shall obtain glorified bodies, but do not expect to ever become what God is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I suspect that the word personage was used to distinguish from the Trinitarian "person" (which could be spirit-only). It's harder, perhaps, to say that a personage is non-corporeal. 

Good idea! A synonym for person, at least archaically, was the least-common meaning.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/personage

And, "Personage” had more to do with exterior appearance: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Home?word=personage

From the first link, the meanings of personage that have fallen from use over time are mostly abstract: “the form or appearance of a person,” “a person of specified bodily form,” “a representation of a human being,” and “one’s self, personality, or personal identity.”" The abstraction at first seems odd to me, as it implies that God only "appears" or "presents" to us as  as three personages, something we can wrap our minds and fallen natures around. So perhaps God is more complicated than that, as some scholars say that "God" comes from a plural Hebrew Word, and so is a Council (or in our doctrine which expands on that theme, an exalted family).

I'm also thinking that since the three Persons of the Trinity are one "substance, essence or nature" this abstraction may transcend "spirit" since the Holy Ghost is one of them.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2018 at 6:57 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Our LDS volunteer handed me a paper that neatly summarizes some major doctrinal differences between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Christian churches. The first 13 are lifted from the Articles of Faith. I figured that I would simply put an LDS teaching down directly, then quote from the Statement of Faith at the National Association of Evangelicals official site, and let us engage in a discussion of comparisons, contrasts, thoughts about the importance of the similarities and differences, and see what mutual understanding we can re-affirm, or even build.

I'm told that that this is a paraphrase. If so, it's not mine, but comes from the paper the LDS volunteer gave me:

1. LDS:  A belief in the Godhead of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.  And that they are separate personages. We are devout Christians.

NAE:  We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Initial questions for discussion (feel free to raise more)

What is the difference between "personage" and "person"?

Why might the phrase "we are devout Christians" have been added here?

Is the discussion about Trinity vs. LDS Godhead really just semantics and straining at gnats, or is it a vitally important one related to the very doctrine of who God is, or perhaps something in between (in other words, the two teachings are more similar than different, but not the same)?

 

There's no difference between personage and person.

The difference between LDS and NAE is not the persons - it's how those persons are ONE GOD.  This may sound like a simple difference (one in essence versus one in will) but the implications reverberates through the entire faith system as it pertains to our own essence and how we ourselves become one with God which is the ultimate meaning and purpose of mortal existence.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, anatess2 said:

There's no difference between personage and person.

The difference between LDS and NAE is not the persons - it's how those persons are ONE GOD.  This may sound like a simple difference (one in essence versus one in will) but the implications reverberates through the entire faith system as it pertains to our own essence and how we ourselves become one with God which is the ultimate meaning and purpose of mortal existence.

For some inexplicable reason, nearly all Latter-Day Saints fail to realize that in the theology of the restoration the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are indeed each filled to eternal fullness with an uncreated divine substance that God himself calls the Spirit of Truth, which is the same spiritual substance that, to a lesser degree, unifies the saints of the Church with their God and to each other. So in the theology of the restored Church of Jesus Christ there really is a shared spiritual substance that fills, to an I nfinite and eternal degree, each member of the Godhead — the self-existent Spirit of Truth that enables the three members of the Godhead to operate as one perfectly unified God. And it’s important to understand that the Latter-Day Saints testify that the Spirit of Truth is an actual material substance, howbeit a more refined and pure one.

There are two main differences between the Latter-Day Saint understanding of the Godhead and the understanding of the the Godhead by heirs of historical Christianity: 1) The Latter-Day Saints believe the personage of the Father has a perfect body of flesh and bone. Meanwhile the heirs historical Christianity believe the person of Father has has no body and is immaterial. 2) We are able to actually identify that shared spiritual substance of divine light, power and intelligence, alluded to by non-LDS Christians, that unifies the three members of the Godhead and empowers them to perfectly think, feel and act as one unified God. Contrarily, the heirs of historical Christianity assert that the nature of the mysterious substance that unifies each person in the Godhead is an unknowable, incomprehensible mystery. In other words, we know what the unifying substance actually is (the Spirit of Truth), while our non-LDS Christian friends frankly admit they don’t know and even can’t know what the unifying substance is. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has simply demystified the unity of the Godhead.

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&C 88) Please note that this verse is referring to an actual material substance...

 

 

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2020 at 8:22 PM, prisonchaplain said:

It is popular to believe that most Trinitarians rely deeply on ancient creeds. There may be some historic basis for saying that, but most Evangelical, Baptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic and non-denominational Christians have probably never laid eyes on the creeds. A much more elemental approach is taken. It goes something like this:

1. The Father is God (Just look at the Lord's Prayer, Matthew 6)

2. The Son is God (John 8:58, Hebrews 1:6, 😎

3. The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5--the account has Peter condemning Ananias for lying to God...lying to the Holy Spirit)

4. God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4) 

Sans LDS prophetic revelations, most Christians churches believe that the Father is Spirit-only, and so the oneness of God is more than unity of thought--that it a oneness of essence. We do not imagine that each person of the Godhead is physically distinct because only Jesus was made flesh. The whole matter of whether human exaltation is possible also depends on LDS prophetic revelations, so most Christians believe that we shall obtain glorified bodies, but do not expect to ever become what God is.

Eden nature of God is not physical. Physical = the fallen satanic realm we are in right now. Not His. The nature all around us: not His. Medieval lie 

Edited by e v e
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2020 at 10:45 PM, e v e said:

Eden nature of God is not physical. Physical = the fallen satanic realm we are in right now. Not His. The nature all around us: not His. Medieval lie 

 

16 hours ago, e v e said:

Christ in His resurrected body, one would say seemed physical right? yet He could appear and disappear. The Eden body can be touched, just as these, but is not of the same coarse nature of these perishable bodies.

We don't use the word "physical" in the way you use it here.  Physical means "of the body", as opposed to "of the spirit".  Just because a body is invisible doesn't mean it is not there, so the resurrected body of Christ is still physical.

All the Personages of God have physical bodies controlled by their spirits.  What material that body is made out of is something that has not been revealed beyond the Father's revelation as he showed himself to the prophet Joseph Smith standing with His Son.  That revealed to us that the Father and the Son have physical bodies of flesh and bone when they showed Themselves to Joseph Smith.

Mortal bodies are different than pre-mortal bodies or resurrected bodies.  Mortal bodies are made from the earth and to earth it will return when it dies.  The spirit has the capacity to act upon the mortal body or be acted upon by it.  After death, our spirits shed the mortal body but our spirits will eventually re-join a physical body during resurrection, which, by God's image would be made of flesh and bone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2020 at 12:12 PM, anatess2 said:

 

We don't use the word "physical" in the way you use it here.  Physical means "of the body", as opposed to "of the spirit".  Just because a body is invisible doesn't mean it is not there, so the resurrected body of Christ is still physical.

All the Personages of God have physical bodies controlled by their spirits.  What material that body is made out of is something that has not been revealed beyond the Father's revelation as he showed himself to the prophet Joseph Smith standing with His Son.  That revealed to us that the Father and the Son have physical bodies of flesh and bone when they showed Themselves to Joseph Smith.

Mortal bodies are different than pre-mortal bodies or resurrected bodies.  Mortal bodies are made from the earth and to earth it will return when it dies.  The spirit has the capacity to act upon the mortal body or be acted upon by it.  After death, our spirits shed the mortal body but our spirits will eventually re-join a physical body during resurrection, which, by God's image would be made of flesh and bone.

How I understand is that His Body is not made of atoms of this sin realm...is the point.  His body being visible or not is a separate theme... and it's nature is not of the type of material of this earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2018 at 7:08 PM, Guest said:

My understanding is this: both LDS and NAE believe there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet there can only be one God.

For NAE, pursuant to the Nicene Creed, the three have to be "consubstantial" somehow for there to be one God.

For LDS, it is enough for the three to be unified in purpose.  This looks like tritheism to some, but we believe the three being unified in purpose, with God the Father as the clear leader, is still within monotheism.

It is, on the surface, a microscopic difference, probably poorly understood by the average Evangelical or Mormon.  That said, the term "consubstantial", while small, could never be accepted by LDS, since it messes up a number of very central doctrines down the line.  For example, LDS believe in eternal progression, which is impossible if the term "consubstantial" is required, since we cannot become like a traditionally trinitarian God.  I think the concept of eternal marriage as understood by LDS would also be incompatible with "consubstantiality".

So, LDS and NAE are so close, yet so far, regarding this doctrinal point.

@prisonchaplain

 

As to unified, in purpose, also, they are a family, He, His Spirit and the Son... which seems to be an ignored point by everyone.  Why is cosubstantial simply not like saying , of the same nature, the same family, though a poor and lesser analogy, as DNA.? I don't know what eternal progression is, so i won't comment on that. I also don't know what the eternal marriage concept would be in relation to that term. Would it imply incest? In ancient texts the topic comes up of the same house (eden) wanting to stay to itself rather than agreeing to mixing in with the satanic one and that being considered a sin., with eden then being forced to mix.

Edited by e v e
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a bit of cherry picking on cosubstantialism... Anyway, my trinity is He, His Feminine spirit and the son, and by extension, all their sons and daughters. I'm not bothered if the cosubstantiality of deity, as His Image, is granted by God (He and She) to the 144k sons. Though I am not sure how LDS or others use this concept. I just understand it as "sharing the same eden nature" as opposed to having the nature of the satanic realm.

Edited by e v e
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, e v e said:

How I understand is that His Body is not made of atoms of this sin realm...is the point.  His body being visible or not is a separate theme... and it's nature is not of the type of material of this earth.

This make no sense to me in light of scripture.  Death defines the realm of sin and Jesus died (according to scripture).  Are you saying Jesus did not die?  I also understand that in the  resurrection we (mankind) will be like him (Jesus Christ).  As a scientist I understand that atoms (as we think we understand them) are complex elementary particles made up of quarks, leptons, fermions and bosons.  But also in science it has been determined that the universe (including this sin realm) is made up of 95% stuff we can not see or define beyond calling such Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Dark Radiation.  

Do you believe in the resurrection -  Of Jesus?  Of man?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Traveler said:

This make no sense to me in light of scripture.  Death defines the realm of sin and Jesus died (according to scripture).  Are you saying Jesus did not die?  I also understand that in the  resurrection we (mankind) will be like him (Jesus Christ).  As a scientist I understand that atoms (as we think we understand them) are complex elementary particles made up of quarks, leptons, fermions and bosons.  But also in science it has been determined that the universe (including this sin realm) is made up of 95% stuff we can not see or define beyond calling such Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Dark Radiation.  

Do you believe in the resurrection -  Of Jesus?  Of man?

 

The Traveler

 

The physics we are subject to is the world of death of scripture since it exists as a system of decay and lack, and requires the law of conservation as well as suffers gravity. Its not the only physics. A different set of factors produces a different cosmology and reality altogether. 

 

Eden is such. God brought me and showed me. And i couldn’t have made it up. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by e v e
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, e v e said:

have you read mikio kaku? Not that i agree with all his science

Interesting statement. Just out of curiosity: Do you even understand Kaku's science? He's a theoretical physicist. Do you have a background in theoretical physics, mathematics, etc.? If you do, can you provide some examples of parts of "his science" that you don't agree with? If you do not, then how are you in a position to agree or disagree with any of "his science"?

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Traveler said:

This make no sense to me in light of scripture.  Death defines the realm of sin and Jesus died (according to scripture).  Are you saying Jesus did not die?  I also understand that in the  resurrection we (mankind) will be like him (Jesus Christ).  As a scientist I understand that atoms (as we think we understand them) are complex elementary particles made up of quarks, leptons, fermions and bosons.  But also in science it has been determined that the universe (including this sin realm) is made up of 95% stuff we can not see or define beyond calling such Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Dark Radiation.  

Do you believe in the resurrection -  Of Jesus?  Of man?

 

The Traveler

Christ’s resurrection is a perfect example of eden’s defiance to this world and its laws of physics, which are the nature of this world but not the nature of eden. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, e v e said:

As a being your criteria as to what i’m allowed to do doesn’t limit my right to understand and have a point of view. 

But of course, that's the point. Do you understand anything he says? He's a physicist. That means he has a certain specialized intellectual toolkit that allows him insights into theoretical physics. Do you share that specialized toolkit? If so, then can you provide a few examples of your disagreements with a world-class theoretical physicist? And if not, then why do you think you're qualified to hold an opinion on a subject you lack the tools even to examine?

I mean, sure, you're allowed to have any opinion you want. You can have an opinion on how much birds enjoy flying or on a male perspective on midwifery, but I doubt anyone would imagine that your opinions on such topics hold any weight. Yet you seem to think that your opinions on the scientific beliefs of a theoretical physicist are somehow relevant. I'm just curious to understand in what way your opinions on such a topic might be relevant, or at least why you think they are.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, e v e said:

Even though, I am an academic and i do read and I have discussed some of his theories and sometimes contrast them to leibniz in philosophy classes.

Fascinating. Leibniz was a rationalist mathematician, a contemporary of Newton with some truly amazing (for his time) physical insights. What contrasts do you see between Leibniz, a seventeenth-century German mathematician, and Kaku, a twenty-first-century theoretical physicist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share