God has a wife in heaven???

[parsnips]

The Word teaches that Jesus said no man cometh to the Father except through him. The Word teaches that Jesus prayed to his Father and taught us to do the same. He said we should ask the Father for blessings, in the name of the Son. He prayed to his Father asking that if it be possible the cup be taken from his, but then said 'nevertheless not my will but thine.' If he and the Father were one being why would he be praying to himself?

Jesus explains it clearly in his prayers

I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.

Jesus knows that God hears him always, because Jesus shares God's spirit. Jesus, the man, refers to himself separately than God to demonstrate that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel is the same Spirit that created and sent Jesus the man and he is one with God.

A good exercise is to ask yourself, "Do I ask myself questions? Do I hold conversations with myself?"... The very fact that you did this exercise, proves that you do. I know in my case, whenever I mess up I say "Oh Mike, why did you do that?" Do people question my sanity? Maybe ;-) But it's more like that is the way human nature demonstrates itself, we're very powerful, intelligent beings, who often search ourselves for answers. This demonstrates a characteristic we inherited from creation. Unfortunately for those who still search themselves for answers, there is none but God who contains those answers. So that is why it is so key to spread the Gospel (Good News) of Christ's resurrection from death, that Total Grace has been given, and access to God is no longer hindered by our own sin.

[AnthonyB]

I know this is an issue that shouldn't be taken too lightly, but I got thinking about the progression of God's that LDS believe in, and then that you believe God has a wife, and then the thought hit me, you'd also believe God has a mother-in-law.

[parsnips]

Lol.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Jesus explains it clearly in his prayers

Jesus knows that God hears him always, because Jesus shares God's spirit. Jesus, the man, refers to himself separately than God to demonstrate that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel is the same Spirit that created and sent Jesus the man and he is one with God.

A good exercise is to ask yourself, "Do I ask myself questions? Do I hold conversations with myself?"... The very fact that you did this exercise, proves that you do. I know in my case, whenever I mess up I say "Oh Mike, why did you do that?" Do people question my sanity? Maybe ;-) But it's more like that is the way human nature demonstrates itself, we're very powerful, intelligent beings, who often search ourselves for answers. This demonstrates a characteristic we inherited from creation. Unfortunately for those who still search themselves for answers, there is none but God who contains those answers. So that is why it is so key to spread the Gospel (Good News) of Christ's resurrection from death, that Total Grace has been given, and access to God is no longer hindered by our own sin.

So what you are actually saying then is that when Jesus prayed to his Father he was really talking to himself? I don't mean this to sound facetious but when God spoke from Heaven when Jesus was baptised was that just him being a ventriloquist?

I really do find that impossible to believe.

[rameumptom]

Parsnips, your logic lacks logic. Christ showing his body to his disciples proves that God has a body!!! It doesn't show that Christ pretended or manifested a pretend body. We either have a perfect Jesus-God with a body, or we have a perfect Trinity-God without a body. To claim both is to twist the scriptures until they no longer mean anything. If you are like most EVs, the Bible is God-Breathed. Well, if that is so, then you need to take it as it is written. God is anthropomorphic throughout the Bible, Jesus has a body forever, and Stephen saw God and Jesus as separate beings.

Any other interpretation would mean: God pretended to all the prophets in the Bible, Jesus lied about his body (can God lie?), and Stephen must have been smoking mushrooms just prior to being stoned.

In Trinitarian teaching, Jesus does NOT share a spirit with the Father. They are one essence. Nothing is shared, as they are both all and everything. Looks to me like you'd better talk with your preacher about your own creeds concerning the Trinity, before you attempt to defend it in a way that is incongruent with the Trinitarian creed itself. St Augustine would be ashamed at you, you heretic! ;-)

[rameumptom]

I know this is an issue that shouldn't be taken too lightly, but I got thinking about the progression of God's that LDS believe in, and then that you believe God has a wife, and then the thought hit me, you'd also believe God has a mother-in-law.

Yes, that is true. However, the Gods create new worlds all the time. I can imagine God the Father placing his mother-in-law on her very own vacation home/world far far far far far away!

[parsnips]

So what you are actually saying then is that when Jesus prayed to his Father he was really talking to himself? I don't mean this to sound facetious but when God spoke from Heaven when Jesus was baptised was that just him being a ventriloquist?

I really do find that impossible to believe.

Well there is one of two possibilities:

1. God was demonstrating for us (that is for John the Baptist and his disciples) his pleasure at how Jesus was living his life.

2. Jesus was doing a ventriloquist act.

I believe it is the former. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus does specific things to fulfill prophecy and to cause people to believe. In fact, this is exactly what Jesus explains to the disciples after his resurrection (Luke 24:25-27), that he had to do things in a certain way, in order fulfill all prophecy and leave no doubt about his nature. What was that nature? Jesus Answers Philips question leaving no doubt:

8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

The fact that God the Father communicates with the son, and vice versa, as shown by scripture is for our benefit, to know for certain that Jesus is sent by the God of Israel.

[parsnips]

Parsnips, your logic lacks logic. Christ showing his body to his disciples proves that God has a body!!!

No. Christ showing his body to the disciples proved that he rose from the dead, and was not a ghost visiting them. Read the passages.

It doesn't show that Christ pretended or manifested a pretend body. We either have a perfect Jesus-God with a body, or we have a perfect Trinity-God without a body. To claim both is to twist the scriptures until they no longer mean anything. If you are like most EVs, the Bible is God-Breathed. Well, if that is so, then you need to take it as it is written. God is anthropomorphic throughout the Bible, Jesus has a body forever, and Stephen saw God and Jesus as separate beings.

Any other interpretation would mean: God pretended to all the prophets in the Bible, Jesus lied about his body (can God lie?), and Stephen must have been smoking mushrooms just prior to being stoned.

Well first of all, Stephen didn't say he saw God the father, He specifically said that he saw the Glory of God, and Jesus at the right hand of the Glory. But this is semantics. What you are attempting to do, is infuse your own belief about the Trinity into the discussion, and pretend as if it were the standard opinion. This called building a straw man, and I don't play that game.

In Trinitarian teaching, Jesus does NOT share a spirit with the Father. They are one essence. Nothing is shared, as they are both all and everything. Looks to me like you'd better talk with your preacher about your own creeds concerning the Trinity, before you attempt to defend it in a way that is incongruent with the Trinitarian creed itself. St Augustine would be ashamed at you, you heretic! ;-)

Actually no, that is not what Trinitarian thought is. Once again you're building up straw men. Read John 14, Jesus describes the relationship himself. The Father is in him, and he is in the Father.

And if we actually read both the first council of Nicea

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

Or the council that Constantinople put together

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

We can see it is not I who misunderstands Trinitarian thought, but rather someone else ;-)

I really encourage you, rather than take the same mocking attitude of Elder Holland towards the scripture, that you study it. Pray about it, and understand that the Nicene Creed is simply a statement of faith that is a summation of the scriptures.

Peace brother!

[rameumptom]

Parsnips wrote:

Well there is one of two possibilities:

1. God was demonstrating for us (that is for John the Baptist and his disciples) his pleasure at how Jesus was living his life.

Rameumptom: Actually there are more than two possibilities. The Gnostics gave another proposal that Jesus and Christ were two separate beings. Their view of Luke 24 was that Jesus was resurrected and told them "behold that a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have", which for them meant that he was not the Christ/God, but was a mortal Jesus that was immortalized after the Christ left his body on the cross! They believed that it was at Jesus baptism that the Christ entered into the mortal Jesus, and not before. So, there are at least 3 possibilities. Oh, and then there's the LDS belief that there is more than one God in the Godhead.

When Jesus was in Gethsemane in great pain, he prayed to have it lifted, but "not my will, but thine be done." Are we to say that the Trinitarian God has two wills? If he doesn't, then suddenly we have Luke lying to us or Jesus lying to us. And if such a major lie is made in the Bible, then the Bible must be false (or at least not God-breathed). We see the same issue with Stephen seeing God and Jesus as separate beings. Why would God lie to Stephen, and so lie to us?

You may not agree with what I'm discussing about the Trinity, but it is because you need to rediscover what the creeds actually state. I've quoted them here for all to read. The scholars agree with what I've said about them. Now, if you wish to disagree with the Trinity creeds, that is your right.

I said that Jesus does not "share" substance with the Father. They don't. In the Trinity they ARE the same substance. They are three persons in one and one in three. There is no sharing, as they are all the same being. To claim they share is to suggest modalism, which is not Trinitarian in scope, and St Augustine and others claimed was heresy.

The creeds are not just a summation of the scriptures. Most Biblical scholars will tell you that an anthropomorphic God is found in the scriptures, not the Trinity. Secondly, the creeds are used by many Christians and Christian religions to exclude others from the Christian title, including Mormons. Remember that the first concept in the Athanasius Creed is that the Trinity must be accepted to be considered Christian and not heretic. It was because of that creed that many early Christians were excommunicated, exiled, or declared heretics, including Arius, Eusebius the historian, Tertullian and Origen.

That God the Father communicated with Jesus means one of two things: 1) that they are separate beings, or 2) that God deceives mankind in what is written in the Bible.

Either God is knowable, as required in John 17:3, or he is incomprehensible. We can't have it both ways, otherwise God puts us in an impossible catch-22. You claim that the Father and Son being in each other means a Trinity - I say that it is meant in the same way Jesus references it in John 17, where he wants the disciples to be one, even as he and the Father are one. If we take the Trinity in the context of John 17, we have to figure that the disciples are not going to resurrect, but become some giant nebulous blob!

Either the New Testament is literal in the events that occurred, or they are figurative. And if they are figurative, then we really have a problem. How do we really believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, did miracles, resurrected, etc., if we can't believe that the Father was really speaking to him, that he and the Father have separate wills, or that the two of them are one, even as we are to be one?

These are serious logic issues that I've yet to have answered by a Trinitarian. Either the Bible is to be trusted, or it isn't. Either God is anthropomorphic, as the vast majority of the Bible teaches, or the Bible is not to be trusted or believed. Either Stephen saw two individuals, or the Bible is lying to us. Either Jesus resurrected with an actual physical body, meaning that at least one member of the Godhead has a body covering his spirit, or the Bible is meaningless.

The Trinity is incomprehensible. It is unknowable. If this is the case, then the Bible, which teaches us of them must also be incomprehensible and unknowable. And if that's the case, then we're wasting our time trying to know God and Jesus - but then knowing them is eternal life, so we're in a vast catch-22.

How can a Trinitarian claim to know what God is about, when his own creed confesses that his God is incomprehensible?

I will stick with the ancients and modern prophets that teach that God IS knowable, is an exalted anthropomorph with a divine council, and has a son Jesus Christ that is also knowable.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Parsnips may I ask you to reply, as a Trinitarian, to one little question which I simply cannot understand.

How can one person be begotten of another and at the same time be of the same substance?

The only way I know of coming near an explanation of that is with something like DNA where a father and son are of the same genetic substance but still are two very distinct and individual human beings.

I actually think that some people who think they are Trinitarians are in reality closer to the LDS concept than they realise.

[parsnips]

Parsnips wrote:

Well there is one of two possibilities:

1. God was demonstrating for us (that is for John the Baptist and his disciples) his pleasure at how Jesus was living his life.

Rameumptom: Actually there are more than two possibilities. The Gnostics gave another proposal that Jesus and Christ were two separate beings. Their view of Luke 24 was that Jesus was resurrected and told them "behold that a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have", which for them meant that he was not the Christ/God, but was a mortal Jesus that was immortalized after the Christ left his body on the cross! They believed that it was at Jesus baptism that the Christ entered into the mortal Jesus, and not before. So, there are at least 3 possibilities. Oh, and then there's the LDS belief that there is more than one God in the Godhead.

And not surprisingly, the apostles had to gently correct the gnostics in the same manner that I have to correct you.

When Jesus was in Gethsemane in great pain, he prayed to have it lifted, but "not my will, but thine be done." Are we to say that the Trinitarian God has two wills? If he doesn't, then suddenly we have Luke lying to us or Jesus lying to us. And if such a major lie is made in the Bible, then the Bible must be false (or at least not God-breathed). We see the same issue with Stephen seeing God and Jesus as separate beings. Why would God lie to Stephen, and so lie to us?

Or how about this: That Jesus's fleshly desire not to be in pain, could not override his Godly desire to save mankind from sin?

You may not agree with what I'm discussing about the Trinity, but it is because you need to rediscover what the creeds actually state. I've quoted them here for all to read. The scholars agree with what I've said about them. Now, if you wish to disagree with the Trinity creeds, that is your right.

This is called appeal to authority. It is a form of logical fallacy. Not only that, your appeal to authority is wrong, as I've demonstrated by quoting the creeds themselves, and scripture. Please stop using logical fallacies.

I said that Jesus does not "share" substance with the Father. They don't. In the Trinity they ARE the same substance. They are three persons in one and one in three. There is no sharing, as they are all the same being. To claim they share is to suggest modalism, which is not Trinitarian in scope, and St Augustine and others claimed was heresy.

You're arguing semantics again. To share the same substance is really saying they are of the same substance.

The creeds are not just a summation of the scriptures. Most Biblical scholars will tell you that an anthropomorphic God is found in the scriptures, not the Trinity. Secondly, the creeds are used by many Christians and Christian religions to exclude others from the Christian title, including Mormons. Remember that the first concept in the Athanasius Creed is that the Trinity must be accepted to be considered Christian and not heretic. It was because of that creed that many early Christians were excommunicated, exiled, or declared heretics, including Arius, Eusebius the historian, Tertullian and Origen.

The Mormons are "excluded" from Christianity more because of their non-Christian beliefs in about what salvation is, how salvation is earned (Total Grace vs Works+Ordinances+Grace to make up for whatever is left), plural Gods, Eternal Progression, Celestial Marriage, Baptism for the Dead, and a whole host of other doctrines that are either refuted outright in the Bible and the Book of Mormon(!), or simply not mentioned in either book.

That God the Father communicated with Jesus means one of two things: 1) that they are separate beings, or 2) that God deceives mankind in what is written in the Bible.

Either God is knowable, as required in John 17:3, or he is incomprehensible. We can't have it both ways, otherwise God puts us in an impossible catch-22. You claim that the Father and Son being in each other means a Trinity - I say that it is meant in the same way Jesus references it in John 17, where he wants the disciples to be one, even as he and the Father are one. If we take the Trinity in the context of John 17, we have to figure that the disciples are not going to resurrect, but become some giant nebulous blob!

Your doctrines is getting in the way of simple scripture, in John 17, he's asking his disciples to be of one spirit, like his (Jesus the man's) relationship to God is. God is knowable, you can have a personal relationship with him, be taught directly by him, all with the simple requirement of loving him and keeping his commandments. God is incomprehensible in terms of this: You cannot understand that which God does not reveal to you. There is a proverb that says something like "Mysteries are the Glory of God, and Discovering their answers is the Glory of Kings"... You cannot possibly know all of God's motivations, his thoughts, because he's too big to understand in entirety. These two principles are not in conflict, they describe different things.

Either the New Testament is literal in the events that occurred, or they are figurative. And if they are figurative, then we really have a problem. How do we really believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, did miracles, resurrected, etc., if we can't believe that the Father was really speaking to him, that he and the Father have separate wills, or that the two of them are one, even as we are to be one?

How does the idea that God is One (as Jesus, the Prophets of Old, and Christians today believe and teach) make Christ's actions on Earth false? Do you even know why Christ was crucified? Jesus asked the Pharisee's if his actions merited death. They replied no, that it was his claim to be God that did.

These are serious logic issues that I've yet to have answered by a Trinitarian. Either the Bible is to be trusted, or it isn't. Either God is anthropomorphic, as the vast majority of the Bible teaches, or the Bible is not to be trusted or believed. Either Stephen saw two individuals, or the Bible is lying to us. Either Jesus resurrected with an actual physical body, meaning that at least one member of the Godhead has a body covering his spirit, or the Bible is meaningless.

You sincerely believe these things because your questions and doubts come from doctrines which color the issues. The Bible is trusted, and I've shown you throughout the NT, in Jesus's own words his claims to Godhood, and his verification that there is only one God. I've shown how Old Testament Prophecy, confirms this relationship between Begotten Son and the Father. The anthropomorphic characteristics of God, that you refer to, are not physical characteristics, but come non-physical attributes (Logos, Pathos, Ethos), and is perfectly congruent with Trinitarian beliefs. This is because Trinitarian beliefs are revealed and confirmed (by the Holy Spirit, at the Council of Nicea, and through scripture)

The Trinity is incomprehensible. It is unknowable. If this is the case, then the Bible, which teaches us of them must also be incomprehensible and unknowable. And if that's the case, then we're wasting our time trying to know God and Jesus - but then knowing them is eternal life, so we're in a vast catch-22.

How can a Trinitarian claim to know what God is about, when his own creed confesses that his God is incomprehensible?

Because the creed isn't talking about not being able to know God period. It is talking about the nature of God's bigness, that you cannot possibly comprehend all of God. It's an essential truth, you can only understand what God reveals through his word.

I will stick with the <strike>ancients</strike> and modern prophets that teach that God IS knowable, is an exalted anthropomorph with a divine council, and has a son Jesus Christ that is also knowable.

And I will stick the scriptures, and the word of God, as this is the only way to know him. They teach that Jesus claimed to be God, that he is our savior, that he is knowable, that only he has seen God the father, that he is our only representative before God, that he is the only one with authority to forgive sin (since only God has that authority), that his judgment is perfect and in no need of council, and that in spite of you being wrong that his grace covers you for trying :-)

Love you Brother!

[parsnips]

Parsnips may I ask you to reply, as a Trinitarian, to one little question which I simply cannot understand.

How can one person be begotten of another and at the same time be of the same substance?

The only way I know of coming near an explanation of that is with something like DNA where a father and son are of the same genetic substance but still are two very distinct and individual human beings.

I actually think that some people who think they are Trinitarians are in reality closer to the LDS concept than they realise.

I don't understand the "how" its done part. I can only read the words of the Lord, and trust what they're saying, through confirmation with the holy spirit and the examination of other scripture to ensure that they agree.

[WillowTheWhisp]

And I will stick the scriptures, and the word of God, as this is the only way to know him. They teach that Jesus claimed to be God, that he is our savior, that he is knowable, that only he has seen God the father, that he is our only representative before God, that he is the only one with authority to forgive sin (since only God has that authority), that his judgment is perfect and in no need of council, and that in spite of you being wrong that his grace covers you for trying :-)

Love you Brother!

You say that the scriptures teach that only Jesus has seen the father and yet at the same time you say that Jesus IS the father. So now he is the only person to have seen himself? Was he looking in a mirror? It's just a riddle. And yet to me it is perfectly clear and simple. Jesus and the Father are two separate beings one of whom who has seen the other.

How can the same words mean different things such as when Jesus tells his disciples to be one just as he and the father are one - you say that means a different kind of 'one' to the other times when he refers to himself and the father being 'one'. Again, another riddle. But if each time he refers to people being 'one' he means exactly the same thing, there is no contradiction and no confusion.

As for the point you brought up about faith and works - why are we told in the Bible itself that faith without works is dead?

My brief time on this message board has shown me only too well why we needed the Book of Mormon as another Testament of Jesus Christ and why we need a living prophet and modern day revelation as there are so many different ways people interpret the scriptures in the Bible, even the ones which seem simple and straightforward.

[rameumptom]

>Parsnips wrote: And not surprisingly, the apostles had to gently correct the gnostics in the same manner that I have to correct you.

Rameumptom: Sorry, the Gnostics pretty much started up AFTER the apostles were gone. The proto-orthodox apologists were not gentle in their "correction" of those they considered "heretics." And what do you do with people like Origen, whose teachings were considered very orthodox by the Church in his day, but was later considered heretical later?

>Or how about this: That Jesus's fleshly desire not to be in pain, could not override his Godly desire to save mankind from sin?

Rameumptom: But that doesn't answer the question of two wills. If God does not wish to be in pain, and he is but one God, then they both would wish to avoid it but continue on. There would not be "not my will, but thine be done", but "this sucks, but I know I have to do it."

>This is called appeal to authority. It is a form of logical fallacy. Not only that, your appeal to authority is wrong, as I've demonstrated by quoting the creeds themselves, and scripture. Please stop using logical fallacies.

Rameumptom: There is nothing wrong with appealing to the scholars on what the creeds and Bible mean. It is not a logical fallacy IF those experts give ample evidence of their point, which they do. Appealing to authority is only a fallacy if someone says, "I have a PhD in this, you don't, therefore I win...."

>You're arguing semantics again. To share the same substance is really saying they are of the same substance.

Rameumptom: No, I'm not arguing semantics. If Stephen sees two people. If Jesus says that his disciples should be one, even as he and the Father are one. If Jesus says he has a separate will than the Father. If. If. If. I could go on with many other examples. Trinity and Modalism are two distinct beliefs, of which St Augustine thought they were different enough to state that modalism was heresy. That is not arguing semantics. That is clarifying the argument, according to Trinitarian scholars and creators. Otherwise, we could argue "semantics" that the LDS Godhead, which is a social Trinity, is as valid as the traditional Trinity is - but we're not given that right by the majority of Christianity, including the Roman Catholics and the Southern Baptists.

>The Mormons are "excluded" from Christianity more because of their non-Christian beliefs in about what salvation is, how salvation is earned (Total Grace vs Works+Ordinances+Grace to make up for whatever is left), plural Gods, Eternal Progression, Celestial Marriage, Baptism for the Dead, and a whole host of other doctrines that are either refuted outright in the Bible and the Book of Mormon(!), or simply not mentioned in either book.

Rameumptom: Yet I've shown how those beliefs were held by many ancient Christians. Many Christians, including Roman Catholics consider works+grace+ordinances a necessary part of salvation. Are you kicking them out of the Christian network, also? We believe in monolatry - a plurality of Gods, but we worship the Godhead, simply because that is what the ancients also did. Read William Dever, Margaret Barker and a dozen other key Biblical scholars and they will tell you this. I cannot help that 3d century Christianity corrupted the earlier belief, but they have no right to say I'm believing "non-Christian beliefs" as that is historically proven to be untrue. No LDS doctrine is refuted by the Book of Mormon - perhaps you should read it the way Mormons read it, and not from an elementary surface view. I would recommend a reading of Barry Bickmore's book, Restoring the Ancient Church. It is available for free online, and uses references from both early Christian Fathers and modern scholars: Restoring the Ancient Church, Table of Contents

>Your doctrines is getting in the way of simple scripture, in John 17, he's asking his disciples to be of one spirit, like his (Jesus the man's) relationship to God is. God is knowable, you can have a personal relationship with him, be taught directly by him, all with the simple requirement of loving him and keeping his commandments. God is incomprehensible in terms of this: You cannot understand that which God does not reveal to you. There is a proverb that says something like "Mysteries are the Glory of God, and Discovering their answers is the Glory of Kings"... You cannot possibly know all of God's motivations, his thoughts, because he's too big to understand in entirety. These two principles are not in conflict, they describe different things.

Rameumptom: They supposedly describe different things only at your word. The Godhead can tie them all together much easier, without having to explain why they are different. I agree it is a relationship issue: Father and Son in the Godhead. However, when we are talking one God with 3 essences/persons, we are not talking about a relationship, but we are talking about 3 persons in 1 and 1 in 3. There is no relationship in a being that is non-relational to anything but itself. I agree that God is knowable. But that is not what the creeds teach! If God is incomprehensible and unknowable, two terms the Athanasian creed uses, then he is incomprehensible and unknowable. Period. End of discussion.

>How does the idea that God is One (as Jesus, the Prophets of Old, and Christians today believe and teach) make Christ's actions on Earth false? Do you even know why Christ was crucified? Jesus asked the Pharisee's if his actions merited death. They replied no, that it was his claim to be God that did.

Rameumptom: If they are literally one being, then there was no ancient divine council, as taught by Isaiah, Job, and others in the Old Testament. It means that Stephen did not see the Son standing on the right hand of God, as God would not have a right hand to stand beside, nor would the Son be a separate entity from God. According to Biblical scholars, Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God, or Messiah, not God himself. Jesus clearly differentiated between himself and his Father in telling us how to pray, etc. There would be no need for distinction if they are the same being (as many Christians today pray to either God or Jesus, believing it to be the exact same thing). Margaret Barker, a Methodist preacher and one of the top Old Testament scholars in England explains in "The Great Angel" that the early Christians saw Jesus as the Messiah, or Great Angel of the Presence/Most High God. They were separate entities, and the Messiah was clearly a being with human-like form. For Jesus to claim he was the Messiah was, in the Jewish view, blasphemy.

>You sincerely believe these things because your questions and doubts come from doctrines which color the issues. The Bible is trusted, and I've shown you throughout the NT, in Jesus's own words his claims to Godhood, and his verification that there is only one God. I've shown how Old Testament Prophecy, confirms this relationship between Begotten Son and the Father. The anthropomorphic characteristics of God, that you refer to, are not physical characteristics, but come non-physical attributes (Logos, Pathos, Ethos), and is perfectly congruent with Trinitarian beliefs. This is because Trinitarian beliefs are revealed and confirmed (by the Holy Spirit, at the Council of Nicea, and through scripture)

Rameumptom: I also believe in Jesus' Godhood from the Biblical writings. However, I disagree with your interpretation that the Father and Son are one entity. Your claim to a non-physical God/Trinity disagrees with the Bible's main teachings, the early Christian Fathers (Origen and Eusebius, for example), and that of the biblical scholars. Weave your ideas anyway you wish, but facts are hard things to budge. I seriously disbelieve in creeds that are based on the interpretation of a couple Bible verses and on Hellenistic changes in the early Christian church. I don't know how you can claim the Trinity to be confirmed by the Holy Spirit, as it has confirmed the Godhead to me. The Council of Nicea ran roughshod over 1/2 the bishops there, excommunicating or exiling them. And scripture vastly supports an anthropomorphic God and Son. Either Stephen saw two beings, or he didn't - there is no other alternatives, without making the Bible false and God a liar.

>Because the creed isn't talking about not being able to know God period. It is talking about the nature of God's bigness, that you cannot possibly comprehend all of God. It's an essential truth, you can only understand what God reveals through his word.

Rameumptom: While that is true that a mortal cannot understand God's "bigness", the scope of the creed is that we cannot understand how God can be one in three and three in one, without dividing the substance, etc. It is also true that Jesus told us that we can know God through him, and that it is eternal life to know God. Obviously, there's some disparity that the creed does not detail or answer.

>And I will stick the scriptures, and the word of God, as this is the only way to know him. They teach that Jesus claimed to be God, that he is our savior, that he is knowable, that only he has seen God the father, that he is our only representative before God, that he is the only one with authority to forgive sin (since only God has that authority), that his judgment is perfect and in no need of council, and that in spite of you being wrong that his grace covers you for trying :-)

Rameumptom: The scriptures do help us know him. I am glad you think his grace covers me, as I do believe myself to be saved in Christ. As I also believe you to be saved in Christ. I also believe that we can know God by listening to the Holy Spirit and living prophets of God. In that last part, we will ultimately disagree. But I can and will extend my hand out to you as a fellow Christian.

[parsnips]

Rameumptom: Sorry, the Gnostics pretty much started up AFTER the apostles were gone.

Do you know what the purpose of nearly all of Paul's letters to the churches were? Peter's and James, Jude and John also wrote on the topics in their circular letters. Early gnosticism was very prevalent in the Apostle's time, and they took the time in their letters to address the Gnostics, the Jewish attacks on Christianity, and early Mysticism which began to synthesize pagan rituals, jewish belief, and Christianity.

The proto-orthodox apologists were not gentle in their "correction" of those they considered "heretics." And what do you do with people like Origen, whose teachings were considered very orthodox by the Church in his day, but was later considered heretical later?

Which teachings in particular? As far as I could tell in history, Origen only had problems with Demetrius, and it was a personal issue. His theology was different as far as Christ's relationship to the Father (he believed he was an image of the father), but then again Origen wasn't the only theologian, nor was he the only one that based his work in scripture. For example, you'll find that his view of the Oneness of God very similar to the Nicean view of God, that he's uncreated, incomprehensible, omnipotent etc etc.

Also, Origen was tortured and killed during the persecution of the church, by non-Christians.

Rameumptom: But that doesn't answer the question of two wills. If God does not wish to be in pain, and he is but one God, then they both would wish to avoid it but continue on. There would not be "not my will, but thine be done", but "this sucks, but I know I have to do it."

The purpose of Jesus (Immanuel, God with Us) was to expose himself to temptation, to expose himself to physical pain, and to endure those things without sin (without denying the word). It is clear that it is Jesus the man, expressing the pain and temptation to not follow through his Godly will, yet going through with it anyways. It is yet more proof that Jesus is the Messiah!

Rameumptom: There is nothing wrong with appealing to the scholars on what the creeds and Bible mean. It is not a logical fallacy IF those experts give ample evidence of their point, which they do. Appealing to authority is only a fallacy if someone says, "I have a PhD in this, you don't, therefore I win...."

>You're arguing semantics again. To share the same substance is really saying they are of the same substance.

Rameumptom: No, I'm not arguing semantics. If Stephen sees two people.

Stephen did not see two people. Stephen saw the "Glory of God" and Jesus on it's right hand, which is an expression to indicate position, not an expression to indicate that the Glory had a hand. Any elementary study of Greek colloquialism will show that.

If Jesus says that his disciples should be one, even as he and the Father are one. If Jesus says he has a separate will than the Father. If. If. If. I could go on with many other examples. Trinity and Modalism are two distinct beliefs, of which St Augustine thought they were different enough to state that modalism was heresy. That is not arguing semantics. That is clarifying the argument, according to Trinitarian scholars and creators. Otherwise, we could argue "semantics" that the LDS Godhead, which is a social Trinity, is as valid as the traditional Trinity is - but we're not given that right by the majority of Christianity, including the Roman Catholics and the Southern Baptists.

How can you be denied the rights that being the "true church" allows you to claim? You claim to be able to go on, but first let's stick with the simple subjects that you haven't been able to defend thusfar.

Rameumptom: Yet I've shown how those beliefs were held by many ancient Christians. Many Christians, including Roman Catholics consider works+grace+ordinances a necessary part of salvation. Are you kicking them out of the Christian network, also?

The Catholic Church is simply wrong on their form of salvation. For example, look to the Eastern Orthodoxy, which is the most similar to the ancient church, and they believe in Total Grace.

We believe in monolatry - a plurality of Gods, but we worship the Godhead, simply because that is what the ancients also did.

Source?

Read William Dever, Margaret Barker and a dozen other key Biblical scholars and they will tell you this. I cannot help that 3d century Christianity corrupted the earlier belief, but they have no right to say I'm believing "non-Christian beliefs" as that is historically proven to be untrue.

Actually, no, there is not a historically proven to be untrue. Because we have the sources (the Bible, and specifically the Apolistic letters) which tell us what the early church believed.

No LDS doctrine is refuted by the Book of Mormon - perhaps you should read it the way Mormons read it, and not from an elementary surface view. I would recommend a reading of Barry Bickmore's book, Restoring the Ancient Church. It is available for free online, and uses references from both early Christian Fathers and modern scholars: Restoring the Ancient Church, Table of Contents

Everything from the oneness of God (compare creation account in Moses vs Abraham) shifting to a plural council of God's, to whether God resides in the heart (compare the view in Alma and the Bible, as opposed to the D&C where it is said to be a false Sectarian view), to celestial marriage (A key doctrine found no where in the Book of Mormon, and outright refuted in Luke). Community of Christ figured out that these doctrines were doctrines of men, I wish you could as well.

Rameumptom: If they are literally one being, then there was no ancient divine council, as taught by Isaiah, Job, and others in the Old Testament.

Sources?

It means that Stephen did not see the Son standing on the right hand of God, as God would not have a right hand to stand beside, nor would the Son be a separate entity from God.

Again, the account in Acts never once says Stephen saw God.

According to Biblical scholars, Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God, or Messiah, not God himself. Jesus clearly differentiated between himself and his Father in telling us how to pray, etc. There would be no need for distinction if they are the same being (as many Christians today pray to either God or Jesus, believing it to be the exact same thing).

The Aramaic and Hebrew use of "Son of God" is a lot different than our common use of the word "Son". In our language, "Son" indicates a birth relationship to a father. In the use of the term by Jesus and others, "Son of God" refers to a title. It is used to describe the role of human judges or rulers (see Psalm 82:6, where it refers to "children of the Most High"), and specifically to the proper King of Israel (II Samuel 7:14). Perhaps this has lead to your confusion on the issue.

Rameumptom: I also believe in Jesus' Godhood from the Biblical writings. However, I disagree with your interpretation that the Father and Son are one entity. Your claim to a non-physical God/Trinity disagrees with the Bible's main teachings, the early Christian Fathers (Origen and Eusebius, for example), and that of the biblical scholars. Weave your ideas anyway you wish, but facts are hard things to budge. I seriously disbelieve in creeds that are based on the interpretation of a couple Bible verses and on Hellenistic changes in the early Christian church.

Your standards of belief are amazing. You refuse to believe a statement of faith based on scripture, but you believe in a prophet's claims that has zero confirming sources outside of his own works.

I don't know how you can claim the Trinity to be confirmed by the Holy Spirit, as it has confirmed the Godhead to me.

Because one of us isn't speaking with the Holy Spirit. Do you follow the advice in I John 4:1?

The Council of Nicea ran roughshod over 1/2 the bishops there, excommunicating or exiling them. And scripture vastly supports an anthropomorphic God and Son. Either Stephen saw two beings, or he didn't - there is no other alternatives, without making the Bible false and God a liar.

Your assertion that Stephen saw two beings is not contained in any translation (excluding possibly the the "Inspired" Joseph Smith "translation") of Acts anywhere. You're setting up a false dichotomy.

Rameumptom: While that is true that a mortal cannot understand God's "bigness", the scope of the creed is that we cannot understand how God can be one in three and three in one, without dividing the substance, etc. It is also true that Jesus told us that we can know God through him, and that it is eternal life to know God. Obviously, there's some disparity that the creed does not detail or answer.

Which is why the Nicean Creed (or any statement of faith) not taken as the exhaustive word of God.

Rameumptom: The scriptures do help us know him. I am glad you think his grace covers me, as I do believe myself to be saved in Christ. As I also believe you to be saved in Christ. I also believe that we can know God by listening to the Holy Spirit and living prophets of God. In that last part, we will ultimately disagree. But I can and will extend my hand out to you as a fellow Christian.

Thanks man. I hope we can disagree, agreeably.

[parsnips]

You say that the scriptures teach that only Jesus has seen the father and yet at the same time you say that Jesus IS the father. So now he is the only person to have seen himself? Was he looking in a mirror? It's just a riddle. And yet to me it is perfectly clear and simple. Jesus and the Father are two separate beings one of whom who has seen the other.

How can the same words mean different things such as when Jesus tells his disciples to be one just as he and the father are one - you say that means a different kind of 'one' to the other times when he refers to himself and the father being 'one'. Again, another riddle. But if each time he refers to people being 'one' he means exactly the same thing, there is no contradiction and no confusion.

As for the point you brought up about faith and works - why are we told in the Bible itself that faith without works is dead?

My brief time on this message board has shown me only too well why we needed the Book of Mormon as another Testament of Jesus Christ and why we need a living prophet and modern day revelation as there are so many different ways people interpret the scriptures in the Bible, even the ones which seem simple and straightforward.

Does the Book of Mormon contain plural Gods?

Does the Book of Mormon contain the Doctrine of Eternal Progression?

Does the Book of Mormon contain the Doctrine of Celestial Marriage?

Does the Book of Mormon contain the Doctrine of Plural Marriage?

Does the Book of Mormon contain anything on the Baptism of the Dead?

Does the Book of Mormon contain anything on the priesthood?

Does the Book of Mormon contain anything on Works+Ordinances+Grace, after all we can do?

(Hint: The answer to all of these questions is no)

The Book of Mormon does nothing to answer these questions at hand. So now we must go to the Prophet, and the doctrines, because that is the only place where these questions are attempted to be answered. So it all comes down to a test of a prophet, and of a spirit. 1 John 4:1 says we should test every spirit, because there are many false prophets. How do we test a spirit? By consulting the word of God, and seeing if their messages are congruent. How do we test a prophet? By the veracity of his prophecies, they all must be true. There are several prophecies of Joseph Smith that simply were false. (Location of Zion, the Building of the Temple in Missouri being the key ones).

Until you can answer those challenges, you cannot be glad for the Book of Mormon, or a Prophet, because they don't address the fundamental issues.

[pushka]

'This stinging reproach touched them to the quick and kindled them into a rage, gnashing with their teeth at the holy martyr and expressing all the symptoms of unbridled passion. The saint, not heeding what was done below, had his eyes and heart fixed on higher objects, and being full of the Holy Ghost and looking up steadfastly to the heavens, saw them opened, and beheld his divine Saviour standing at the right hand of his Father appearing by that posture ready to protect, receive, and crown his servant. With this vision the saint was inexpressibly ravished, his soul was inspired with new courage, and a longing to arrive at that bliss a glimpse of which was shown him. His heart overflowed with joy and in an ecstasy, not being able to forbear expressing his happiness in the very midst of his enemies, he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God." The Jews became more hardened and enraged by hearing the saint's declaration of this vision; and calling him a blasphemer, resolved upon his death without any further process. In the fury of their blind zeal they stayed not for a judicial sentence nor for the warrant of the Roman governor, without which no one could at that time be legally put to death amongst them. But stopping their ears against his supposed blasphemies, they with great clamour rushed upon him, furiously hauled him out of the city, and with a tempest of stones satiated their rage against him.'

The above is an account of St.Stephen's vision and his subsequent stoning..I must admit to not having studied the lives/deaths of the Saints for many years, so I was surprised when his vision was mentioned in this thread.

It does seem to state that God the Father and Jesus were sitting/standing as 2 individuals in the vision..

St. Stephen

[rameumptom]

I agree there were apostate groups in Peter and Paul's time, however most are not tied to the Gnostics. Gnosticism flourished after the death of the apostles, and continued even long after the Council of Nicea.

[rameumptom]

Parsnips asked:

>Does the Book of Mormon contain the Doctrine of Eternal Progression?

Rameumptom: No, but that does not mean it contradicts it. There is a major difference. The Book of Mormon's purpose is to teach the foundational doctrine of Jesus Christ's gospel, including the atonement, priesthood authority, continuing revelation, and the first principles and ordinances of the gospel.

>Does the Book of Mormon contain the Doctrine of Celestial Marriage?

Rameumptom: No, but once again it does not preach against it, either.

>Does the Book of Mormon contain the Doctrine of Plural Marriage?

Rameumptom: It does. And it states that the standard for the Nephites is monogamy, unless God commands otherwise (Book of Jacob). That is how we are living now, as well.

>Does the Book of Mormon contain anything on the Baptism of the Dead?

Rameumptom: No, but it does teach about continuing revelation and priesthood authority. Remember, Baptism for the Dead became an issue with early Christianity, and not before. The great majority of the Book of Mormon deals with time before Christ. 300 years of the time after Jesus is handled in just a few pages, and focuses on the apostasy of the Nephites, not on doctrinal issues.

>Does the Book of Mormon contain anything on the priesthood?

Rameumptom: Yes, it does. One of the best teachings on the priesthood is contained in Alma 9-13.

>Does the Book of Mormon contain anything on Works+Ordinances+Grace, after all we

can do?

Rameumptom: Yes it does. Nephi says we are saved after all we can do (2 Ne 25). Jesus commanded the Nephites to follow the "Law of Christ" which is: Faith in Christ, Repentance, Baptism, Reception of the Holy Ghost, and Enduring to the end (2 Ne 31, 3 Ne 11-12).

>(Hint: The answer to all of these questions is no)

Rameumptom: Hint: you are wrong.

>The Book of Mormon does nothing to answer these questions at hand. So now we must go to the Prophet, and the doctrines, because that is the only place where these questions are attempted to be answered. So it all comes down to a test of a prophet, and of a spirit. 1 John 4:1 says we should test every spirit, because there are many false prophets. How do we test a spirit? By consulting the word of God, and seeing if their messages are congruent. How do we test a prophet? By the veracity of his prophecies, they all must be true. There are several prophecies of Joseph Smith that simply were false. (Location of Zion, the Building of the Temple in Missouri being the key ones).

Rameumptom: If your test is correct, then we'd have to reject Jesus for teaching other than the Law of Moses. We'd have to reject Peter for taking the gospel to the Gentiles. Should I go on? Whenever there is a prophet, the Lord can and does change the standard as needed. The building of the temple in Missouri was a commandment of God, not a prophecy, and I still believe that the location of Zion will be in Missouri. Joseph Smith prophecied of the Civil War, World Wars, the fall of the Soviet Empire, etc. He predicted the gathering of the Jews to Israel, and the Mormons becoming a great people in the mountains. Shall I go on?

You seem to forget that the idea of a Restoration is just that - to RESTORE information. If it were all in the Book of Mormon, there would be no need for anymore revelation. You are treating the Book of Mormon as you do the Bible, a closed and static book.

BTW, for the well-studied, the Book of Mormon has much to teach us about the LDS temple rites, as well as the ancient temple rites (so sayeth Margaret Barker).

>Until you can answer those challenges, you cannot be glad for the Book of Mormon, or a Prophet, because they don't address the fundamental issues.

Rameumptom: Hmmmm. I guess I CAN be glad for both! And they DO address the fundamental issues that God wishes to reveal. They just aren't the issues you insist upon.

[a-train]

There are several prophecies of Joseph Smith that simply were false. (Location of Zion, the Building of the Temple in Missouri being the key ones).

Did the location of Independence and the temple lot move? Has there been some new disavowal of the notion that what is now Independence, MO is the center of the future New Jerusalem? Perhaps I missed something.

If by eternal progression, we mean the taking up of men to sit in the throne of God then we are talking about a Biblical notion. Rev. 3:21: 'To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.'

Jacob 2:30 said this of polygamy: 'For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.'

Alma 13 talks about Melchizedek and the Priesthood. Moroni 3 gives the manner whereby men were ordained as priests and teachers by the laying on of hands.

2 Nephi 9:24 says: 'And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it.' Certainly this Book of Mormon reference demonstrates the need for ordinances and obedience in partaking of salvation from damnation.

Indeed let us test every spirit, let us try the prophets. Those spirits that lie about the contents Book of Mormon can easily be detected as misleading when we read the book.

-a-train

[WillowTheWhisp]

Your assertion that Stephen saw two beings is not contained in any translation (excluding possibly the the "Inspired" Joseph Smith "translation") of Acts anywhere. You're setting up a false dichotomy.

I have here in front of me various translations of the Bible.

In the Authorised King James version Acts 7 verse 55 & 56 states:

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

And said, behold I see the Heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.

The Revised Authorised Version says:

But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed inti heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"

The Douay-Rhiems version:

But he,being full of the Holy Ghost looked up steadfastly to heaven, saw the Glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.

The New American Standard Bible:

But being full of the Holy Spirit he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God: and he said, "Behold I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

The Amplified New Testament:

But he,full of the Holy Spirit and controlled by (him), gazed into heaven and saw the glory - the splendour and majesty - of God, and Jesus standing at God's right hand: And he said, Look! I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at God's right hand!

The New English Bible:

But Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, and gazing intently up to heaven, saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at God's right hand. "Look," he said, "there is a rift in the sky; Ican see the Son of Man standing at God's right hand!"

The Living Bible:

But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed steadily upward into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at God's right hand. And he told them, "Look, I see the heavens opened and Jesus the Messiah standing beside God at his right hand."

Now none of those various translations have anything to do with Joseph Smith but all of them seem to be pretty much in agreement about where Jesus was standing and who he was standing next to.

Yes indeed they do all say he saw the Glory of God, but ithey also without doubt say that he saw Jesus standing 'at the right hand of God', not towards the right hand side of some vague nebulous glory-thing.

I'll try to catch up on the rest of this thread - we've just finished our Family Home Evening so I've been otherwise engaged.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Does the Book of Mormon contain the Doctrine of Plural Marriage?

Not only does the Book of Mormon contain it. The Bible does too but it's amazing how quickly people seem to be able to gloss over this fact.

[rameumptom]

Pushka got the Stephen martyrdom version above from a website that was also on the reply:

St. Stephen

It was a descriptive article by the Reverend Alban Butler on Stephen's martyrdom. Clearly, his description was flowery, but it was also illustrative of the two divine and separate beings, Jesus Christ and God the Father.

It must be difficult to struggle getting scriptures like this to fit into a teaching that does not correspond with it. My Christian minister boss and I have discussed this, and he's open minded enough to agree that Stephen's martyrdom does throw a kink in the Trinity. He just states there is not enough info available, and so he'll keep an open mind on what/who God ends up being. Fair enough, and an honest approach to what the scriptures actually state.

[AnthonyB]

Not only does the Book of Mormon contain it. The Bible does too but it's amazing how quickly people seem to be able to gloss over this fact.

The trickier question is can you find a plural marriage where the it turned out good for people involved.

Abraham, Sarah, Hagar. -Hagar and Ishmael kicked out and almost died.

Israel, Leah, Rachel -One continual fight over hubby, and the kids carried it on. (The whole Joseph down the well thing.)

David and various wives.-One brother raped his step sister, and then was killed by her brother. Who then led a rebellion and debauched David's wives.

Solomon and various wives -The bible makes it clear that his many foreign wives lead him astray from God.

I can't think of a single harminous plural household in the bible.

[rameumptom]

Often times, it isn't an issue of whether it worked out well in this world, but whether the individual was faithful to God, throughout whatever trial was handed to him or her.

As it is, many of those same problems occur in monogamy. Families are broken apart. Wives and children are kicked out. A continual fight over/among family members. Rape and incest, including by step-brothers and fathers. Family rebellions occur all the time. And spouses lead spouses away from Christ and the gospel continually.