1nephi 11:26

[sanctuaryave]

When It says" Look and behold the condescension of God!

27 "and I looked and beheld the redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken..."

There are other questions I have as well depending on the answer.

[serapha]

Originally posted by sanctuaryave@Apr 12 2004, 11:30 PM

When It says" Look and behold the condescension of God!

27 "and I looked and beheld the redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken..."

It's Christ... and a new "title" of "condescension of God"

~serapha~

[sanctuaryave]

Originally posted by serapha+Apr 12 2004, 11:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (serapha @ Apr 12 2004, 11:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--sanctuaryave@Apr 12 2004, 11:30 PM

When It says" Look and behold the condescension of God!

27 "and I looked and beheld the redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken..."

It's Christ... and a new "title" of "condescension of God"

~serapha~

I was raised believing in the Trinity, 3 in 1 Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I have struggked with the concept that these are 3 seperate entities. As I read the scripture it appears to be saying that Jesus is not a separete entity but rather a lower form of the same god which seems to support the 3 in one.

what am I missing?

[Spencer]

Not sure how you get that.

This scripture must be just to simply laid out to be taken word for word I guess?

Acts 7 55,56

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

I also grew up to believe in the Trinity, but I am opposite, ive always had a problem believing that 3 could be 1.

Spencer

[serapha]

Originally posted by sanctuaryave@Apr 13 2004, 04:30 AM

I was raised believing in the Trinity, 3 in 1 Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  I have struggked with the concept that these are 3 seperate entities.  As I read the scripture it appears to be saying that Jesus is not a separete entity but rather a lower form of the same god which seems to support the 3 in one. 

what am I missing?

Hi there!

I am not LDS.

LDS's believe in a trinitarian God, but a different interpretation of trinitarianism than mainstread Christianity. The main difference in the view of the trinitarian Godhead of mainstream Christianity and the view of the CoJCoLDS's is the concept of an ontological God.

To explain, an example of ontology, view the Father, Son, and Holy Spirt as a three-leaf clover. They are three separate entities performing separately from each other, yet connected at some point... but not connected at all points at all times.

The trinitarian God is best explained with the example of light. There are three forms of light that are existent at one time. If one property of light is not existent, then there is no light. The three persons of the trinity are omnipresent all the time, each permeating the other beings as the totality of God. Everywhere present, always one.

~serapha~

[Spencer]

Im not sure what serapha is saying we believe, but as she stated she is NOT LDS.

We believe in the Godhead The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost 3 different entities but one in purpose.

Spencer

[Guest Starsky]

Spencer is right...three separate yet one in purpose...

As to the 'condescension of God'...if you understand condescension as 'coming down to a lower level'....then you understand that Christ was 'as the Father's son' being given to us, on our level.

Christ, as our God, condescending to our level, as a Gift to us From His Father.

Three separate beings are envolved and portrayed in the scripture.

[Jason]

One might also think that when Joseph Smith & Co. wrote the Book of Mormon, they still believed in the Trinity. The evolution of mormon godhead wasn't cemented until later. (IMO James Talmage gave lds theology on this issue it's final form.)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Spencer@Apr 13 2004, 07:44 AM

Im not sure what serapha is saying we believe, but as she stated she is NOT LDS.

We believe in the Godhead The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost 3 different entities but one in purpose.

Spencer

Her post may not have made complete sense but she was on the right track.

Mormons and Engelicals both believe that The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one. We just don't believe that they are one in the same way. Mormons interpret the Bible more literally than do the Evangelicals in this regard.

Ontology is the study of being. Mormons do not believe that the trinity are ontologically one being. Neither does the Bible so teach. Rather, we believe the oneness to be unity in purpose. On the other hand Evangelicals (and many others) believe the otological oneness of the the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds

[AFDaw]

We are not the only Christians that believe this. I grew up in the Bible Belt and I grew up with SEVERAL other Baptists, Methodists and such that all believed that they were seperate. Granted, it may not be the most popular view, but we are not the only ones that believe in the Godhead.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 13 2004, 07:30 AM

LDS's believe in a trinitarian God, but a different interpretation of trinitarianism than mainstread Christianity. The main difference in the view of the trinitarian Godhead of mainstream Christianity and the view of the CoJCoLDS's is the concept of an ontological God.

To explain, an example of ontology, view the Father, Son, and Holy Spirt as a three-leaf clover. They are three separate entities performing separately from each other, yet connected at some point... but not connected at all points at all times.

The trinitarian God is best explained with the example of light. There are three forms of light that are existent at one time. If one property of light is not existent, then there is no light. The three persons of the trinity are omnipresent all the time, each permeating the other beings as the totality of God. Everywhere present, always one.

~serapha~

I, personally, believe in the modal concept of God (one being, three manifestations), and what is funny is that every (non-LDS) Christian that tries to explain their view of the Trinity completely defines modalism in their answer, yet denies that they are modalists.

Serapha's example of using light is very confusing because first she says forms of light, then she goes on to explain properties of light, and if one of the properties of light is missing, then there is no light. I am betting that she is referring to the properties and not the form of light. Therefore, her definition agrees entirely with a modalists POV. Light (God) consists of three properties, each dependent on the other (three manifestations each with different purposes yet needing one another to be whole).

The BoM is rife with scripture that supports the modalist POV, especially the original manuscript (as translated by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost.)

[sanctuaryave]

Is the belief in 3 seperate beings critical to the "Mormon" belief or could I be a member in good standing believing as I do now?

[Guest lt]

everybody takes there religion to there own view of it....

[Snow]

Originally posted by sanctuaryave@Apr 13 2004, 08:01 PM

Is the belief in 3 seperate beings critical to the "Mormon" belief or could I be a member in good standing believing as I do now?

Hmmm,

I have never been asked my views of the Godhead/trinity, nor have I ever gotten the impression that anyone care, though I am sure that it is assumed that I am fairly orthodox in that regard.

Also, I have no idea what "member in good standing" means. If you were to be given a calling, say, as a Sunday School Teacher or Auxillary function president, you would probably be asked if you sustained your Church leaders. If you were want to attend the Temple you would be asked if you sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer and revelator and perhaps by extension that might mean that you accept doctrine as taught by him but there is no acid test such as a required agreement with a 4th century creed that defines you as a member in good standing.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by sanctuaryave@Apr 13 2004, 08:01 PM

Is the belief in 3 seperate beings critical to the "Mormon" belief or could I be a member in good standing believing as I do now?

The Mormon teaching on the Trinity isn't as clear as some people think it is. Although the unity of the Father and the Son is often simply described as being a unity of purpose, I think there's something deeper to it. We don't much like the concept of mystery in the Church; we prefer to have answers to everything. That comes, I suppose, from believing a religion that promises so much further light and knowledge. But I do think that we are limited to some extent, in our understanding of sacred things, by our own mortality. The Godhead is one in one sense, and separate in another, and it beats the heck out of me how that works.

What is unambiguous is that the most widely accepted account of the First Vision has the Father and the Son appearing separately to Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove (just as Stephen saw the Father and the Son appear separately to him in the book of Acts). So the oneness of the Father and the Son isn't the kind of "consubstantial" oneness that the Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant (how's "COP" for an acronym? I've never much liked the "traditional Christians" or "mainline Christians" moniker. Seems elitist) derive from the Nicene and Athanasian creeds.

Interestingly, the Apostles' Creed -- the oldest of the traditional creeds -- doesn't mention the consubstantial Trinity. Also interestingly, when President Hinckley explicitly rejected the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, he didn't mention the Apostles' Creed.

[serapha]

Interestingly, the Apostles' Creed -- the oldest of the traditional creeds -- doesn't mention the consubstantial Trinity.  Also interestingly, when President Hinckley explicitly rejected the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, he didn't mention the Apostles' Creed.

Hi there!

Correct me if I am wrong, but the CoJCoLDS's adheres to each statement of the Apostle's Creed.

~serapha~

[Snow]

ProudDuck does but he is kind of an Episcopalian Mormon.

[serapha]

Originally posted by Jenda@Apr 13 2004, 08:42 PM

for clarity....

Serapha's example of using light is very confusing because first she says forms of light, then she goes on to explain properties of light, and if one of the properties of light is missing, then there is no light.  I am betting that she is referring to the properties and not the form of light.  Therefore, her definition agrees entirely with a modalists POV.  Light (God) consists of three properties, each dependent on the other (three manifestations each with different purposes yet needing one another to be whole).

Light is unlike any other form of matter. It has three properties. These properties are inseperabl, without them there is no light. Just like God. Without the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, there would be no God. Each is coequal, coeternal, and coinfinite.

Light's three properties are the actinic (analogous to the Father), luminiferous (analogus to the Son), and the Calorific (analogous to the Holy Spirit). The actinic property is the property of light which is neither seen nor felt. The luminiferous property of light is both seen and felt, while the calorific property is not seen but it is felt.

It is not "modalism" if the entirity of God is the entirity of all three persons ever present, ever powerful, all knowing, eternal.

They are not "modes" of God.... as "modalism" implies, and yes, most LDS's seem to identify "modalism" even though they do not use the word.... but the separation of Heavenly Father and Son to different "modes" of God.

~serapha~

[sanctuaryave]

Originally posted by Snow+Apr 13 2004, 09:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Apr 13 2004, 09:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--sanctuaryave@Apr 13 2004, 08:01 PM

Is the belief in 3 seperate beings critical to the "Mormon" belief or could I be a member in good standing believing as I do now?

Hmmm,

I have never been asked my views of the Godhead/trinity, nor have I ever gotten the impression that anyone care, though I am sure that it is assumed that I am fairly orthodox in that regard.

Also, I have no idea what "member in good standing" means. If you were to be given a calling, say, as a Sunday School Teacher or Auxillary function president, you would probably be asked if you sustained your Church leaders. If you were want to attend the Temple you would be asked if you sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer and revelator and perhaps by extension that might mean that you accept doctrine as taught by him but there is no acid test such as a required agreement with a 4th century creed that defines you as a member in good standing.

"member in goodstanding" is a term I've heard used when talking about Temple-worthiness. I may have misused it. If I have I'm sorry.

I've always looked at the "mormon" church as a very "law " driven church. By that I mean one that had definate beliefs and a rigid structure that demanded compliance to even the most minute detail of that belief. To not agree with the group on anything would be to turn your back on the church.

What I'm learning is that there are some very basic beliefs and to understand the church one would need to grasp and hold onto these core beliefs. There are also many areas where intrepretation guides a members personal walk with his savior.

I am surprised by that. I am not sure why.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 13 2004, 08:54 PM

Serapha's example of using light is very confusing because first she says forms of light, then she goes on to explain properties of light, and if one of the properties of light is missing, then there is no light.  I am betting that she is referring to the properties and not the form of light.  Therefore, her definition agrees entirely with a modalists POV.  Light (God) consists of three properties, each dependent on the other (three manifestations each with different purposes yet needing one another to be whole).

Light is unlike any other form of matter. It has three properties. These properties are inseperabl, without them there is no light. Just like God. Without the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, there would be no God. Each is coequal, coeternal, and coinfinite.

Light's three properties are the actinic (analogous to the Father), luminiferous (analogus to the Son), and the Calorific (analogous to the Holy Spirit). The actinic property is the property of light which is neither seen nor felt. The luminiferous property of light is both seen and felt, while the calorific property is not seen but it is felt.

It is not "modalism" if the entirity of God is the entirity of all three persons ever present, ever powerful, all knowing, eternal.

You constantly refer to only one form of modalism as if it is the only form, or even the most adhered to form, of modalism. What you are referring to is Monarchian Modalism, and I know very few people who claim to believe in Modalism as that kind of modalist. Most people believe in Sabellianist Modalism, where God assumes three distinct modes at all times, each with a different purpose and function.

It was Monarchian Modalism that was considered a heresy, not Sabellianism.

They are not "modes" of God.... as "modalism" implies, and yes, most LDS's seem to identify "modalism" even though they do not use the word.... but the separation of Heavenly Father and Son to different "modes" of God.

~serapha~

I don't think you read my post clearly. It is the non-LDS Christians on the other board (ChristianForums) that define their Trinitarian beliefs exactly as a modalist would define theirs. I think they are confused and have no idea what they are talking about and don't want to be called "heretics" (as labeling there is rampant) and so continue to claim to be trinitarian even when they aren't.

The LDS are not modalists in any sense of the word, even though the BoM speaks heavily to it.