Another attempt at describing the Trinity

[JonboySquarepants]

lol. oh my goodness. the sons of El? lol, what is this, superman? are we discussing an episode of smallville here? you're quoting US presidents as if they're any kind of authority on the bible. and the verse i was quoting was john 4:24- "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." where in the reading of that verse do you not see 'God is [A] spirit...'?

anyway, i think it would be better if i just not listen to anything else you have to say. obviously this conversation will go nowhere. but thanks for the laughs. :)

[Maureen]

One more thought on Lucifer as a member of the divine council. Isaiah 14 refers to the King of Babylon as falling from his design to be king of the world, and then symbolically ties it to Lucifer....

Many years ago the old LDSTalk board had an indepth discussion about Isaiah 14 and the following was my response:

The bottom line with Isaiah 14:1-27 is that it is not about Satan. It is a taunt towards the king of Babylon. Canaanite mythology overtones are used metaphorically towards the king of Babylon.

Isaiah 14:12 reads:

Look how you have fallen from the sky,

O shining one, son of the dawn!

You’ve been cut down to the ground,

O conqueror of the nations!

HELEL: Or Lucifer. The Light Bringer, the Morning Star. Son of Shachar. Helel once attempted to take his Father's Throne, but failed (another myth concerning Venus' place as the last star in the sky each morning, as if trying to defy the Sun). This is the very Myth, which spawned the Christian Myth of the War in Heaven (see Isaiah 14:12- which, in Hebrew, says "Helel", and not "Lucifer").

http://phoenicia.org/pagan.html#anchor119863

One way to look at it is like this. Venus is the star that is being referred to. Venus was known as both the morning star (Latin name: Lucifer) and as the evening star (Latin name: Hesperus). What if the Isaiah verse had read:

"O shining one, son of the dusk!" (Note: the Canaanite god of dusk was Shalem and I do not know if he had any sons but lets just hypothesize that he did).

So if this verse were to be translated into English with the help of Latin, it would read:

"O Hesperus, son of the evening."

So in relation to the Venus mythology (not the specific god Helel) a similar association can be seen between Hesperus and Satan as there is between Lucifer and Satan; all have fallen when in an attempt to defy a higher power.

When taking everything into account, the Isaiah verses (1-27) are all about the king of Babylon. But because of the similar accounts between the “fallen”, (ie Helel, king of Babylon, Satan) these different interpretations will sneak in and evolve over time. Lucifer is a correct Latin translation in regards to “morning star”, but making Lucifer synonymous with Satan in Isaiah 14:12 is not correct. Over time language evolves and words take on numerous meanings. In the 21st century Lucifer is synonymous with Satan, but when the Isaiah verse was first translated into Latin, it was not.

M.

[moniemonie]

lol. oh my goodness. the sons of El? lol, what is this, superman? are we discussing an episode of smallville here? you're quoting US presidents as if they're any kind of authority on the bible. and the verse i was quoting was john 4:24- "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." where in the reading of that verse do you not see 'God is [A] spirit...'?

anyway, i think it would be better if i just not listen to anything else you have to say. obviously this conversation will go nowhere. but thanks for the laughs. :)

You can scoff and mock all you want. But all it does is show your ignorance and your desire to not find what was really believed anciently. It is not my problem that Superman and other modern myths used ancient names. If you want to learn about the ancients, then study about them from the actual scholars, such as Dever and Barker, in the case of Old Testament and multiple gods in the divine council.

[moniemonie]

Many years ago the old LDSTalk board had an indepth discussion about Isaiah 14 and the following was my response:

When taking everything into account, the Isaiah verses (1-27) are all about the king of Babylon. But because of the similar accounts between the “fallen”, (ie Helel, king of Babylon, Satan) these different interpretations will sneak in and evolve over time. Lucifer is a correct Latin translation in regards to “morning star”, but making Lucifer synonymous with Satan in Isaiah 14:12 is not correct. Over time language evolves and words take on numerous meanings. In the 21st century Lucifer is synonymous with Satan, but when the Isaiah verse was first translated into Latin, it was not.

M.

I agree, and mentioned that Isaiah 14 is specifically pointed at the King of Babylon. However, later interpretations strongly suggested that it was also understood to be Lucifer/Satan. And in modern prophecy, Joseph Smith also tied the two together. What Joseph Smith did, was a very common practice in ancient Israel that today we would perhaps call Midrashic interpretation. The Dead Sea Scrolls have several scrolls that comment and interpret Old Testament writings in connection to their generation, such as the Commentary on Habakkuk, where the Kittim are now the Greek/Romans.

[JonboySquarepants]

monie, as i'm sure all ignorant people think, i'm not trying to be ignorant. :) i'm just asking for a verse in the bible or book of mormon that says, "no there is not only one God; there are many." where in the book of mormon can i read there are many Gods, with Gods before them? book of mormon is straight from God to man, right? so we don't need to check other ancient lamanite or nephite or jaredite writings from their scholars to find out what is really being said. the book of mormon isn't missing any of those plain and precious truths, is it? i mean, why would it be? so, where in the book of mormon can i read there is more than one God? i know lds believe in many Gods, but where does the book of mormon teach it?

anyway, sorry about that rant.

[lilered]

I am a little confused when one indicates God has no bodily passions.

Passions by definition are compelling and/or strong feelings.

So am I correct in thinking that what is being said that God does not have strong feelings such as anger, joy, etc.?

[rameumptom]

monie, as i'm sure all ignorant people think, i'm not trying to be ignorant. :) i'm just asking for a verse in the bible or book of mormon that says, "no there is not only one God; there are many." where in the book of mormon can i read there are many Gods, with Gods before them? book of mormon is straight from God to man, right? so we don't need to check other ancient lamanite or nephite or jaredite writings from their scholars to find out what is really being said. the book of mormon isn't missing any of those plain and precious truths, is it? i mean, why would it be? so, where in the book of mormon can i read there is more than one God? i know lds believe in many Gods, but where does the book of mormon teach it?

anyway, sorry about that rant.

Given your request, the Book of Mormon does not spell it out as you would like. But that's why we have living prophets. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was/is a true prophet. Joseph Smith taught about multiple gods in the Doctrine and Covenants and in other talks (Sermon in the Grove, KFD).

Many Scholars now tell us that the Bible DOES teach of multiple Gods. William Dever, Margaret Barker, and many others have discussed the divine council. The Divine Council shows up frequently in the Bible, I've given examples before. Archaeology also shows that the early Hebrews believed in multiple gods. For example, there are early Hebrew ostraca and writings that tell of "Yahweh and his Asherah." Asherah was Yahweh's consort, or wife. Dever writes about her in one of his books (Does God have a wife?).

Asherah was so important, that when Elijah confronted the priests of Baal and Asherah (Baal also claimed Asherah as his consort), he showed them weaker than Yahweh. Then, commanded only the deaths of the priests of Baal. Why not also the priests of Asherah? Because she was Yahweh's true consort.

[rameumptom]

I am a little confused when one indicates God has no bodily passions.

Passions by definition are compelling and/or strong feelings.

So am I correct in thinking that what is being said that God does not have strong feelings such as anger, joy, etc.?

In the Trinity, God is without "body, parts and passions." Yet, somehow "God is love". Clearly, if God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that love from God is very different than the love mankind shares with one another.

Yet, the Bible and Book of Mormon shows a God that has passions. The Bible discusses God's wrath, and his having to repent of his anger towards certain groups. He tells them he has compassion for them, which is an emotional response. He describes his relationship to Israel as one between a husband and wayward wife, and that he is jealous, but willing to embrace her in forgiveness.

Either the Bible is completely metaphorical when it comes to God, or it is literal. That's a big difference in the discussion between Trinity and Godhead. In the Godhead, the members are all inter-relational and seek to relate deeply with us through God-like/human-like emotions, like love and compassion. We are to seek to love, even as Christ does - which we could never begin to do if his love was something completely incomprehensible.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I'm not sure this is appropriate here as it is more of a personal theorising than anything specific but I have thought that the Biblical references to Asherah may well have been ommitted when the Bible was compiled by men who decided what would be Christian doctrine as opposed to what had been taught in early Christianity. I think these are some of the 'plain and precious truths' which we have lost. I also think that Heavenly Father respects her so much that he does not want her to be disrespected and so would prefer nothing to be said in her name, just the knowledge that she is there.

We are told by archeologists and historians that she and her consort, El, were pagan deities from Canaan and opposed to the Jewish religion but others believe that she featured in Jewish religion and was suppressed or hidden by later scholars.

I am fascinated by these things and believe that every religion on earth is a derivation of some truth learned and passed on from our first parents

I think I'm waffling a bit but I hope I make sense.

[Maureen]

Just because it's mentioned in the Bible, doesn't mean it was seen in a positive light. God also warns his creation about doing evil.

Asherah...in Israel and Judah

The goddess Asherah, whose worship Jeremiah so vehemently opposed, was worshipped in ancient Israel and Judah as the consort of Yahweh and Queen of Heaven (the Hebrews baked small cakes for her festival):[1]

"Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger."

—Jeremiah 7:17–18

"... to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem ..."

—Jeremiah 44:17

Figurines of Asherah are strikingly common in the archaeological record, indicating the popularity of her cult from the earliest times to the Babylonian exile. More rarely, inscriptions linking Yahweh and Asherah have been discovered: an 8th century BCE ostracon inscribed "Berakhti et’khem l’YHVH Shomron ul’Asherato" was discovered by Israeli archeologists at Quntilat 'Ajrud (Hebrew "Horvat Teman") in the couse of excavations in the Sinai desert in 1975, prior to the Israeli withdrawal from this area. This translates as: "I have blessed you by YHVH of Samaria and His Asherah", or "...by our guardian and his Asherah", if "Shomron" is to be read "shomrenu". Another inscription, from Khirbet el-Kom near Hebron, reads: "Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh and by his Asherah; from his enemies he saved him!".[2]

The word asherah also referred to a sacred tree or pole that stood near shrines to honor the mother-goddess Asherah,[3] pluralized as a masculine noun when it has that meaning. In the Book of Judges, the Israelite judge Gideon orders an Asherah pole next to an altar to Baal to be cut down, and the wood used for a burnt offering. Among the Hebrews' Phoenician neighbors, tall standing stone pillars signified the numinous presence of a deity, and the wooden asherahs may have been a rustic reflection of these. Or asherah may mean a living tree or grove of trees and therefore in some contexts mean a shrine. These uses have confused Biblical translators. Many older translations render Asherah as 'grove'. There is still disagreement among scholars as to the extent to which Asherah (or various goddesses classed as Asherahs) was/were worshipped in Israel and Judah and whether such a goddess or class of goddesses is necessarily identical to the goddess Athirat/Ashratu.

Tilde Binger notes in her study, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament (1997, p. 141), that there is warrant for seeing an Asherah as, variously, "a wooden-aniconic-stela or column of some kind; a living tree; or a more regular statue." A rudely carved wooden statue planted on the ground of the house was Asherah's symbol, and sometimes a clay statue without legs. Her cult images— "idols"— were found also in forests, carved on living trees, or in the form of poles beside altars that were placed at the side of some roads. Asherah poles are mentioned in the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, Judges, the Books of Kings, the second Book of Chronicles, and the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah. The term often appears as merely אשרה, Asherah; this is translated as "groves" in the King James Version and "poles" in the New Revised Standard Version, although no word that may be translated as "poles" appears in the text. Scholars have indicated, however, that the plural use of the term Asherahs, as Asherim or Asherot, provides ample evidence that reference is being made to objects of worship rather than a transcendent figure.[4]

The majority of the forty references to Asherah in the Hebrew Bible derive from the Deuteronomist, always in a hostile framework: e.g., Deuteronomy 16:21 reads: "Do not set up any [wooden] Asherah [pole] beside the altar you build to the LORD your God." The Deuteronomist judges the kings of Israel and Judah according to how rigorously they uphold Yahwism and suppress the worship of Asherah and other deities: King Manasseh, for example is said to have placed an Asherah pole in the Holy Temple, and was therefore one who "did evil in the sight of the Lord" (2 Kings 21:7); but king Hezekiah "removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Asherah", (2 Kings 18.4), and was numbered among the most righteous of Judah's kings before the coming of the monotheistic reformer Josiah, in whose reign the Deuteronomistic history of the kings was composed.

Asherah In the Book of Kings Ta'anach Text 1 - Letter from Guli-Adad to Talwashur of Ta'anach Date of Discovery: c. 1903 - Excavator: Ernst Sellin Language Akkadian - Clay Tablet

Line 21 - "Furthermore, if there is a diviner of Asherah, then let him discern our fortunes and the omen and the interpretation send to me."

1 Kings 18:19 The four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table

Rogers, Robert William. Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament. New York: Eaton & Mains, 1912.

Albright, W. F. "A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 94 (1944) 12-27.

Asherah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M.

[rameumptom]

Margaret Barker explains that originally the wife of God was even represented in the original temple, as the Tree of Life (Asherah is represented by the Tree). During the Josian Reforms, the Deuteronomists and Priestly group(s) sought to bring all the Gods of Israel into one being, and so the reform of the scriptures became intense, unifying Elohim and Yahweh into the same Being, for example. They removed Asherah and the Tree of Life from Solomon's temple.

Was there corruption that needed fixing by the Deuteronomists? Of course. Ahab and other evil kings had led the people to worship other gods, such as Baal. Asherah was becoming more and more recognized as the wife of Baal, rather than of Yahweh. It was easier for them to do away completely with her, rather than risk more corruption. They also did away with angelic visitations (something that continued down to the Sadduccees of Jesus' day).

Kings Hezekiah and Josiah empowered themselves and their priests by removing worship from locations away from the temple. But there were two ancient forms of Israelite worship: the centralized temple building worship, and the temple altar in the wilderness. Josiah took his reforms farther than Hezekiah, in that Hezekiah removed the high places/altars of other gods, but not the high places to Yahweh. Josiah's priests insisted all the high places be removed, and insisted that sacrifice could only be accomplished by the sons of Aaron holding the Levitical Priesthood. Richard Elliott Friedman discusses the battle between the priests of Moses and of Aaron that caused differing versions of the Bible (E, J, P, D, R) that floated around and later were incorporated.

For example, the Bible has Moses going to get water from a rock in the same place, twice. In J/P's version, Moses screws up and loses his inheritance in Palestine. In the E version, he is shown the rock by an angel that stands over it. BTW, the Book of Mormon uses the E version, as it should, being the Northern Israel version.

The reality is, the official attacks on Asherah do not reflect the reality of the day. Several scholars, believe that some of the attacks were later added to the earlier records, in order to have the records agree with their (Deuteronomist/Priest) view.

[AnthonyB]

rameumptom,

I'm curious for what your take on "YHWH elohim" is, for If elohim means Gods, then the phrase would mean "Jehovah Gods"?

Got another trinity illustration I thought up.

One water course, that has a glacier, a river and a lake. all share the same substance/essence (ie water) but each have their own personality and the water course is all three at once.

[Flyonthewall]

There is a little quip in Genesis, after Abraham and Abimelech made up that is curious:

33 ¶ And Abraham planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God.

If groves were representative of pagan fertility worship, why did Abraham plant a grove?

I apologize for sticking my nose in this thread without reading it from start to finnish, and I don't even know how well this will fit in with the discussion, but, forgive me if this has been addressed already.

[Dinah]

Elohim has two meanings. One is simply the plural of Eloach (god/God). The other is much like the Royal 'We' -- Hebrew occasionally uses the plural of a word in order to suggest greatness, not just plurality. There is only one God, according to Biblical text (the Hebrew Bible, that is), and It is addressed in the greatness-'plural' rather than the multitude-'plural'.

[AnthonyB]

Dinah,

I don't think the "majestic" plural is likely, it is more likely that the plural for God is used in the same sense as Hebrew uses plural for water and heaven (ie they'd say waters and heavens, which we use in songs despite the fact that it isn't normal English. (eg in choruses like "The heavens declare the beauty of the risen Lord." or "As the waters covers the sea.")

I actaully don't think there is more then one God, I just wanted Ram.... to explain his take on "YHWH gods", I'm sure there is an official LDS answer ot this cause it seems like an obvious answer.

[Maureen]

There is a little quip in Genesis, after Abraham and Abimelech made up that is curious:

33 ¶ And Abraham planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God.

If groves were representative of pagan fertility worship, why did Abraham plant a grove?

I apologize for sticking my nose in this thread without reading it from start to finnish, and I don't even know how well this will fit in with the discussion, but, forgive me if this has been addressed already.

Hi Flyonthewall,

bible.org says this:

Abraham62 planted a tamarisk tree63 in Beer Sheba. There he worshiped the Lord,64 the eternal God. (Genesis 21:33)

63 sn The planting of the tamarisk tree is a sign of Abraham’s intent to stay there for a long time, not a religious act. A growing tree in the Negev would be a lasting witness to God’s provision of water.

M.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Why is a grove associated with paganism? Joseph Smith went into a grove to pray and that was where Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him.

[rameumptom]

The term Elohim can be used both for gods, and God. It is used in the Bible for idols/gods as well as those actual gods that belonged to the divine council. Often it is a contextual thing with ancient Hebrew words, and this often makes it more difficult to pull the intent and nuances out of the scriptures. But it usually can be done with proper research.

Hemidakota,

The groves are associated with paganism because the groves represented the Goddess Asherah/Astarte/Isis/Ishtar/Aphrodite/et al. Asherah was the consort of Yahweh, but also was known as the consort of Baal. Isis was the sister/wife of the Egyptian God Osiris. Astarte was northwest Semitic goddess. Ishtar was in Mesopotamia, and Aphrodite was the Greek version of Astarte.

So, while there is a true and correct form, there were adaptations that went throughout the world. These greatly influenced Israel's kings and people and later caused the Deuteronomists to reject the queen of heaven, because in much of the rites of other gods, she was involved in fertility rites in the groves, and her priestesses often were equivalent to religious prostitutes.

Now, for Joseph Smith, it was a matter not of a grove of trees representing Asherah, but a grove of trees representing sacred space. Anciently, sacred space was found in high places and groves. Later, with rising populations, many temples were built to set aside a sacred space for worship. The Jewish temple is just one example of a building representing sacred space. Even then, Jesus began his atonement in a sacred grove at Gethsemane, as it set him aside away from the world while sacred events occurred.

[Flyonthewall]

Why is a grove associated with paganism? Joseph Smith went into a grove to pray and that was where Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him.

From the OT Gospel Doctrine manual:

2. Meaning of high places and groves

The following definitions will help you explain the false worship instigated by Jeroboam and Rehoboam.

High places (1 Kings 12:31): altars that were built on hilltops. When the people fell into idolatry, they desecrated these altars and used them for idol worship.

Groves (1 Kings 14:15): places of pagan worship where people sometimes engaged in immoral behavior.

Edit: Lesson 27

[MorningStar]

I'll have to go with Occam's Razor on this one. All these posts, and I still can't understand how God the father and Jesus Christ can be one in anything other than purpose.

Very well and simply put, Heather! I agree. :)

[rameumptom]

Heather, if you get the chance to read Blake Ostler's Exploring Mormon Theology vol I, he has a great description of the relational experience in the Godhead. I think the term "purpose" doesn't quite begin to describe their relationship.

But I agree that logic cannot explain the Trinity, which is why it is understood as a mystery.

[Flyonthewall]

I have been thinking of alternative ways of describing the Trinity, or at least getting some of the concepts across.

Firstly idea is the rainbow, it is made of one essence or substance "light". It has several expressions or witnesses of it self as different colours, which although they can be referred to individually there is no way to partition them because they are not seperate but form a continuum so that a distinct line could never be drawn where one colour begins and the next ends. Despite the fact that they are not divided they are still distinct colours within the one entity of rainbow.

The second illustration is from Sci-Fi, so those who are not into that genre the following will make little sense, I will also preference this section that is was designed to just give an alternative to the prevailing LDS perception of 1 person in 1 being with an example of another way of divising things without explicitly being applicable to the trinity. The Borg in Star Trek are an entity, with a single shared conciousness, they inhabit multiple bodies and each Borg unit knows that it say 1 of 7 or 2 of 7 but that it is also part of a coporate consiouness. In many ways the Borg are described as being 1 personal consiousness in multiple bodies.

Please tell me if I am close to what the actual Trinity is.

I look at it as like a Stake Presidency. There are 3 individuals, and each one is called "president", but there are not 3 Stake Presidents, there is only one. Each has a humble nature, and a willingness to serve, so they are of the same nature. In this way I can understand the 3 individuals being president, but only one Presidency.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Like the Bishopric and even the First Presidency isn't it? That's how it seems to me too.

[Flyonthewall]

Like the Bishopric and even the First Presidency isn't it? That's how it seems to me too.

Right, except the 1st and 2nd counselors of a bishopric aren't also called "Bishop", but they are one "bishopric".

[JonboySquarepants]

"...Father, Son, and Holy Ghost which are/is one God..."-- not an exact quote, but paraphrasing of different scriptures.

i would like to thank rameumpton for saying "But I agree that logic cannot explain the Trinity, which is why it is understood as a mystery." it is a mystery and is an impossible task to put a incomprehensible God into terms so that we can fully understand His nature.

i look at it in this way though. if there is more than one God, wouldn't God have once said in the Bible or book of mormon, "...which Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit are three Gods..."? lds believe that the Father is a God, the Son is a God and the Holy Ghost is a God. so, when you throw that into the comparison of God being like a bishopric or stake presidnecy, it's like saying there are three bishops or three presidents when there really is not.