The Nature of God

[WillowTheWhisp]

You have asked this question many times, the answer is simple and plain. God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are One God. That One God is the only true and living God.

The above statement confuses me a-train. It sounds as if you are agreeing with the Trinitarian doctrine of three in one and one in three.

[Elgama]

The above statement confuses me a-train. It sounds as if you are agreeing with the Trinitarian doctrine of three in one and one in three.

I agree with A-Train that is how I would phrase it - largely because rather than a Godhead I see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God with 3 beings.

-Charley

[a-train]

Don't be troubled by me. Mormon said: 'And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.' (Mormon 7:7)

Plus, Joseph Smith wrote in D&C 20:28: 'Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.'

The only difference between Trinitarianism and Mormonism is the sense and meaning of the Oneness of the Holy Three and the understanding of the corporeal nature of the body of the Father. The vast majority of Trinitarians I know believe just as do we concerning the body of Jesus.

It is very possible that you, like I, have long mistaken Trinitarianism for Modalism.

-a-train

[WillowTheWhisp]

I must admit that before I joined this message board I had never heard of modalism but I do know that the Catholic priest and Baptist minister I know who both believe in the Trinity do not believe that Jesus and Heavenly Father have separate bodies. They believe that God came down from Heaven into the body of Jesus. I can't make sense of that because that would make him his own son.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I agree with A-Train that is how I would phrase it - largely because rather than a Godhead I see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God with 3 beings.

-Charley

This sounds like how the Catholic priest described God to me as being like a shamrock leaf. (He was Irish) I don't think that's how I understand the Godhead though. To me it's like the First Presidency where you have the president who is prophet seer and revelator and his two counsellors who are also prophets seers and revelators and part of the same presidency but they are three totally separate and individual men. If President Monson went somewhere on his own he is still the prophet and leader of the church but if you rip off part of a shamrock leaf it would die.

[a-train]

Phillippians 3:20-21:

'For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.'

Not only does this demonstrate that Christ is in heaven with a body, but that our bodies will be changed that they may be fashioned like unto His glorious body.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Does you also believe that Heavenly Father has a body a-train?

[a-train]

Willow,

The Father is an Individual Being with a physical body of flesh and bone. The Son is also an Individual Being with His own physical body of flesh and bone. The Holy Ghost is a third Individual Being, but He has not a body of flesh and bone. These three distinct Beings are one God. This is no different from saying we are one nation, one family, one corporation, one movement, one body. It does not mean that God the Father is the same individual Being as the Son or anything like that. It is simple.

D&C 130:22: 'The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.'

-a-train

[WillowTheWhisp]

Yes, that is what I believe too. That is why I was confused by your posts because it sounded to me like you were saying something different when you were emphasising that God has a body by the evidence of Jesus being born, dying and being resurrected.

[a-train]

Well, the modalists have to accept that the Father has a body, because they believe the Father and Son are literally one and the same Being in every way. The Trinitarians believe that God is a single Being in Three Divine Persons, thus whatever One has, God has.

This is why I find it so odd when I hear either of them make harsh comments against the Mormon teaching that God has a body of flesh and bone. The notion didn't come as some shock to us when we read the Book of Mormon. The New Testament is full of the idea.

-a-train

[a-train]

As far as I can tell, those espousing the Trinity doctrine make up a spectrum of ideas within or about the model. Many are actually modalists, others are almost Mormon. Most are somewhere in the middle which is mainly of the mindset that they don't know how God is both One and Three and that is because God is too incomprehensible. It is not important nor required that a man denounce Trinitarianism or Modalism to become a Mormon. We view these doctrines to be misunderstandings about the true God to be corrected by the Spirit as the mind and heart are prepared, not understandings about a false god which should prevent a man from obtaining the Spirit in the first place.

-a-train

[xanmad33]

I am sorry that I do not have the time that others have for the internet.

How does one know the one true G-d? The Pharisees, Scribes and Jews that rejected Christ argued that they knew G-d from the Scriptures. Jesus taught that those that know G-d “do the deeds of G-d” and love those that G-d sends to testify. (see John 8) Those that testify of G-d and do not keep the commandments are lying. One last point here with another reference to John 8 – what did Jesus say was the most important indication of someone praying to the wrong G-d? (see verse 44) Now I ask you – what did the traditional Trinitarian Christians do to anyone that did not agree with their Trinitarian doctrine? When in history was a law (first recorded) finely passed that prevented a sentence of death to someone that did not believe in the Trinity? I do not think you have researched of thought much on this subject.

I know God through his written word and my personal relationship with him.

The pharisees were lacking in one basic component to "knowing" someone, and thats to have an intimate relationship.

In your example of Jesus, I guess I fail to see what your point is???

And as far as what men have done in Gods name, it is pretty sick your right there...

Kinda like the Mountain Meadows Massacre...

I believe that someone worships that to which they look toward as a source or the source of truth. I do not put much in what a person says – it is what they do that tells me what they believe and worship (again see John chapter 8). If scripture (the Bible) is your religious authority and source of your truth then that is your G-d. Jesus said that many would make claim to his name but he never knew them. Where would they learn of his name and claim to do things in his name if it was not from the scriptures – but (for example) if they would hold the scriptures of more value than praying to him to know what religion he would have us follow – he would not know them. I want to make it very clear why I do not believe in your witness.

Then I guess you worship Joseph Smith, by this logic.

You constant insinuation that I do not pray or have a relationship with God is unfounded.

Before I read the Bible I prayed and loved God, you don't know me at all traveler.

Now do you know that the Nestorian Christians of “The East” have a scripture that they believe was written by the very hand of Jesus? Do you know that the document has been tested and found to come from the area of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus? But since it is not in the Bible is this “another gospel” that you would reject. And how do you know that it was not written by Jesus? Or how are you to know if it was?

I trust God. I trust the prophets that walked the earth with Jesuss and lay claim of inspiration while writing. I trust God is big enough to have made certain his word would stand as he said.

I do not think you understand the meaning of an unchanging G-d. Therefore, I ask you:

• Was the manifestation of Jesus in the flesh a change in how G-d had manifested himself in the Old Testament?
• Did Jesus change from a baby to a boy and then again from a boy to a man? Do you not count this as change?
• Did Jesus die? Is death a change from life?
• Did the resurrection of Jesus from the dead really happen? Is the resurrection count as a change?

The "unchanging" in scripture is his nature, his charachter. He does not grow in knowledge, he does not grow in power, his spirit is omnicent and omnipresent.

Philippians 2:6-7 says this of Jesus:

Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

He emptied himself of the expression of deity, not the possession of deity.

He literally, laid aside His privileges as God, to live on earth as a man.

Gravity is also called a theory so is electrical magnetism called a theory. I guess since it is just a theory we should not wire our houses for electricity?

What I said is that any truth must come from G-d and that truth from G-d will reveal, at least in part unto us, his nature. Do you understand what evolution is? Or do you reject it because some miss-informed preacher said something about which he knew nothing?

The Traveler

I believe in the concept to a certain point, but I would call it adapting.

Creatures may adapt to there environment to survive.

I disagree that man was ever an ape or started off as anything other than man. That concept is completely unbiblical and also against what Jesus himself taught.

I agree with your truth point but my point has been to show you that things may appear to be truth because Satan is a deciever. I think posts past adequately cover this...

[xanmad33]

So you refute biblical scripture and accept nonbiblical teaching, but the Mormons are the ones who are doing wrong by accepting extrabiblical revelation?

What Biblical scripture have I refuted?

What teachings have I accepted that stands in contradiction to the Bible?

It is understood that there are many symbolisms in the Bible, but do you think that the Gospel message of the physical birth of God, His life, His death, His resurrection and ascension, was all merely figurative?

Nope.

You have asked this question many times, the answer is simple and plain. God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are One God. That One God is the only true and living God.

hmm....to you or to Mormons?

Do you believe God the father was once a man (not Jesus)?

Unscriptural and highly presumptive. What basis do we have to verify this? Is it even necessary that we do so?

There are many...

In Psalm 139 David wrote,

Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. [Psalm 139:7-12]

I know. The Bible teaches plainly that God has a body of flesh and bone and you don't believe that, you refute it. This is one reason why I am Mormon. The LDS Church seems to be the only Church that actually believes the Bible.

Show me

Sorry, not LDS teaching. God the Father is Endless, He is without beginning or end. (Moses 1:3)

Completely unfounded. What LDS source states that the Father's origins are in mortality? Or anyone else for that matter?!?!?

God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s..." (D&C 130:22).

God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.)

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345

God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105.)

God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428.)

"Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).

The Bible plainly states that Jesus (God) is the offspring not only of God, but of a woman. Are you saying that God cannot be born as a child to parents?

I have already covered this completely in previous posts...

Are you saying that Jesus was never a man?

No I am saying Jesus had a dual nature.

Is the New Testament as a whole not a declaration of the literal, physical, corporeal nature of God? Are the Gospels not testaments that God was once a man on earth with a body of flesh and bone? If you refute scripture, how will scripture prove anything?

What scripture have I refuted?

What scriptures say that God has NOT a body of flesh and bone in heaven?

I think these are becoming word games

I have already explained this many times...

Luke 24:36-43:

3 Nephi 11:14-15:

Luke 24:50-51:

What indication do we have that our LORD did not bodily ascend into heaven? Did he lose it somewhere on the trip to Bethany? If the Bible does not say so, then the notion is unbiblical. If he did lose His body on His way to Bethany, what hands did He lift when He arrived? If He was an omnipresent spirit without any body, how then did He ascend to heaven being He was already there? Am I expected to believe that it is unbiblical and illogical that the body of Jesus ascended into heaven, but more biblical and logical that it did not?

The physical, bodily resurrection and ascension of our LORD is a basic truth for which the disciples died as they bore witness of it. It is scriptural, it is Biblical, it is true. God has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man's.

-a-train

I never denied the physical ascention of Jesus' body.

[xanmad33]

That's the question to be asking then...

It's the one I've been asking repeatedly

That's wonderful that people will look for these scientific/historic evidences to help support their faith. But why did they look for these evidences in the first place? They must have first had "blind" faith and then decided to go look for evidences to support it.

I have always had faith there was a God. The Bible is the most reliable truth acount for WHO the true God is.

Since Jesus was alive he quoted scripture, he referred to psalm and a couple of others that were already written, as law. I don't think it's so much as man went looking for these evidences as the evidences have always been there.

A quest for truth is entirely different than a persons search to validate preconcieved notions about what truth is.

Now the problem with putting aside your faith entirely and relying completely on these evidences, is that there will be many who will come back at you with their own evidences to refute you. They might find some way to discredit your evidences.

I welcome it, truth can withstand scrutiny.

So is the truth of the bible really up to which side finds the best evidence? Or is it possible for you to find a faith you can trust in despite what all the critics say? What if the critics found enough evidence to seemingly disprove the bible- or poked enough holes in your evidence supporting it? Would that shatter your faith? Or is it possible for you to base your faith on something else?

The Bible has existed for thousands of years, if it was a fraud it would have been proven already.

I submit to you that if you spend all your days researching the scientific and historical evidence of the bible in order to keep your faith, in the end you'll realize that you could had a more sure spiritual witness, and you could have been spending your time going on to learn the more important spiritual truths that God would have us to learn, without having to worry about having enough good scientific or historical evidence.

I don't spend all my days researching the Bible in order to keep my faith, trust me

It actually started the opposite for me. I've always had faith that there is a God, and the more I have read his word the more he speaks to me in my spirit. I am completely sure of his existance... My studies are not for my assurance, they are for a better understanding of who I worship.

That's wonderful- I don't fault you for that one bit. But I just wish you could know that it is possible for you to also gain a spiritual witness by the power of the Holy Ghost.

I have never said it wasn't

But you must still choose to believe in that evidence rather than in the evidence put forth by the critics.

Again, the Bible has been scruitnized for thousands of years, more than ANY other book in the history of books.

The fact is there is no sufficient evidence proving it a fraud.

I sure do. But not based solely on history and science.

me niether

Don't get me wrong- I'm always glad to learn more of what science and history have to teach us.

If you're worried about possibly being deceived by false spirits, then seek to study the workings of the spirit, and to gain experience with them- the fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, goodness. I submit to you that if someone honestly follows after such feelings, seeking to do the will of God and not their own will, they will not go wrong. But there are also levels of "rightness" - levels of truth if you will... all of us are at a different level, and are prepared to be led by God to certain things. Truth is a spectrum. God will lead us toward the good end. The devil will lead us toward the bad. There are many good churches, and people might need to be led from church to church until they find the one that has the most truth, that will benefit them the most.

How does this all feel to you? Do you think it's possible it could be true?

I personally am not worried for myself, no... But I'm sure you can relate to the importance of knowlege of truth...Why else would your church send missionaries out to peoples homes?

If being a good person was good enough then why do the LDS missionaries not leave a house when the inhabitants say they are "Christian"?

This has happened to me

[aisling]

heavenly father and the savior love us, and are pleased with the level of truth we can recieve, but want us to learn a fullness of truth. this was the concept addressed by joseph smith as he prayed to know which church was right so he could join. he had a level of knowlege of truth from his parents and the differing beliefs by sincere christian denominations who's members and leaders he admired were confusing in their conflicting doctrines. he would have hapily joined any that heavenly father directed him to, and his pure and simple faith led him to trust that god would answer him. heavenly father thought the issue was important enough to make a personal appearance to answer, and as he did, the savior was beside him,teaching some of the plain and precious truths that had been lost, answering the questionby their appearing that they are seperate beings in whose image our physical bodies are made. we are directed by the savior to become one, like jesus and his father are one. no loss of our bodies but becoming one in love and purpose in seeking with all our hearts to build the kingdom of god.and since the worth of our souls are so great, as we feel the love of our savior within us and radiating out to others, how could a missionary or anyone not continue to try to reach out and offer such a message of eternal life and hope? when i learned about the church i was an active member of another church, and my father, who didnt attend anywhere but was a christian would lay in wait for the elders to come, having prepared many arguments to prove them wrong.the young elders were just a year or so out of highschool and no way prepared for my dad with his remarkable intelect and knowlege.however, they came filled with the light and love of the savior, and through the power of the holy spirit were able to bear the pure and simple truths of the gospel to us. he joined a year after i did, and i will forever be greatful for the courage and love of those young men to bike down the near ghetto streets of our neighborhood into such a hostile enviroment to bring the light of the gospel to us. it has been an unreplacable gift of love whos ripples in the waters of eternity will go on forever. love to you from aisling

[Elgama]

If being a good person was good enough then why do the LDS missionaries not leave a house when the inhabitants say they are "Christian"?

This has happened to me

LOL well nothing gets rid of proselytizing Christians quicker than saying you are LDS and offering to read their material but would hey like a Book of Mormon - however Pagans and Hare Krishna;s that come round the door usually come in and take one away:)

It is important for everyone to have an opportunity for growth but its their decision to grow or not

-Charley

[xanmad33]

LOL well nothing gets rid of proselytizing Christians quicker than saying you are LDS and offering to read their material but would hey like a Book of Mormon - however Pagans and Hare Krishna;s that come round the door usually come in and take one away:)

It is important for everyone to have an opportunity for growth but its their decision to grow or not

-Charley

You are correct there (Although I have invited some missionaries in and know quite a few other Christians who have done this as well.) They have come often, and sometimes I talk, sometimes I tell them I am a Christian and I don't have time :)

My only point in that was to show that being a good person is obviously not enough..even to LDS

There have been those who claim all you have to be is "good" and have the fruit of the holy Spirit no matter your beliefs, and I was showing that yes, it in fact does matter.... Evident by the fact that Mormon missionaries still feel the need to proselytize to "Christians" as well.

[a-train]

What Biblical scripture have I refuted?

I mentioned scriptures that say the God has a body and your response was: 'They have all been refuted.' So that is why I asked about you refuting the scriptures.

What teachings have I accepted that stands in contradiction to the Bible?

That God has a body of flesh and bone.

hmm....to you or to Mormons?

To ALL Mormons.

Do you believe God the father was once a man (not Jesus)?

God the Father IS a man. Jesus of Nazareth IS a man. They have bodies of flesh and bone.

There are many...

In Psalm 139 David wrote,

Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. [Psalm 139:7-12]

The question was about scriptures saying that two ominscient beings will cancel one another out, not whether or not God is omniscient.

Show me

Show you what?

God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s..." (D&C 130:22).

God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.)

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345

God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105.)

God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428.)

"Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).

None of this says that God's origins were in mortality.

I never denied the physical ascention of Jesus' body.

Then do you believe that Jesus has a body of flesh and bone in heaven?

-a-train

[Traveler]

I know God through his written word and my personal relationship with him.

The pharisees were lacking in one basic component to "knowing" someone, and thats to have an intimate relationship.

In your example of Jesus, I guess I fail to see what your point is???

And as far as what men have done in Gods name, it is pretty sick your right there...

Kinda like the Mountain Meadows Massacre...

Then I guess you worship Joseph Smith, by this logic.

You constant insinuation that I do not pray or have a relationship with God is unfounded.

Before I read the Bible I prayed and loved God, you don't know me at all traveler.

I trust God. I trust the prophets that walked the earth with Jesuss and lay claim of inspiration while writing. I trust God is big enough to have made certain his word would stand as he said.

The "unchanging" in scripture is his nature, his charachter. He does not grow in knowledge, he does not grow in power, his spirit is omnicent and omnipresent.

Philippians 2:6-7 says this of Jesus:

Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

He emptied himself of the expression of deity, not the possession of deity.

He literally, laid aside His privileges as God, to live on earth as a man.

I believe in the concept to a certain point, but I would call it adapting.

Creatures may adapt to there environment to survive.

I disagree that man was ever an ape or started off as anything other than man. That concept is completely unbiblical and also against what Jesus himself taught.

I agree with your truth point but my point has been to show you that things may appear to be truth because Satan is a deciever. I think posts past adequately cover this...

Wow - now that I know that you believe a few renegade Mormons that were left over from numerous murders, driven from their homes by official extermination orders and their women raped and their children starved - started the whole mountain meadows thing. That says a great deal about you and you’re G-d. Prior to 1649 can you point me to any Traditional Trinitarian society that did not put to death by law those that disagreed with their merciful Trinity G-d? All I asked for is one counter example and instead you attacked with one and one only one counter example of a single settlement of renegade Mormons going against published Mormon doctrine. I asked you for and exception and the exception I get is the one and only exception among the Mormons. Yes -

You know what – I am not interested at all in your G-d knowing that you represent his methods.

From what I have read of your understanding of evolution – I do not believe you have a clue there either. Perhaps you are not human – every human I have encountered started out as a single cell zygote. You may disagree that man starts off as anything less than man?? But the last time I checked apes are far more advanced and more human than single cell creatures such as a zygote. I do not know of any person that started off as an ape. I do not know where you get your information but it cannot be form a source of truth. You may think that a zygote becomes a human by adapting – but you are so far from the truth and so uninterested in truth – I cannot help you.

The Traveler

[xanmad33]

Wow - now that I know that you believe a few renegade Mormons that were left over from numerous murders, driven from their homes by official extermination orders and their women raped and their children starved - started the whole mountain meadows thing. That says a great deal about you and you’re G-d. Prior to 1649 can you point me to any Traditional Trinitarian society that did not put to death by law those that disagreed with their merciful Trinity G-d? All I asked for is one counter example and instead you attacked with one and one only one counter example of a single settlement of renegade Mormons going against published Mormon doctrine. I asked you for and exception and the exception I get is the one and only exception among the Mormons. Yes -

You know what – I am not interested at all in your G-d knowing that you represent his methods.

From what I have read of your understanding of evolution – I do not believe you have a clue there either. Perhaps you are not human – every human I have encountered started out as a single cell zygote. You may disagree that man starts off as anything less than man?? But the last time I checked apes are far more advanced and more human than single cell creatures such as a zygote. I do not know of any person that started off as an ape. I do not know where you get your information but it cannot be form a source of truth. You may think that a zygote becomes a human by adapting – but you are so far from the truth and so uninterested in truth – I cannot help you.

The Traveler

You see Traveler, you attacked my argument by just attacking my religion (or what you think is my religion) and me.

Instead of actually giving me a respectable answer, or even touching on the topic that started this thread to begin with, you skipped over all the debate to tell me that I worship scripture and I have no truth...

Frankly, I think your a sad representative for someone who follows"Christ" if this is the way you treat people.

Further, I'm not interested if you ever "believe" me, everything I layed out is pretty black and white, no need for your faith to be put in me T.

My point in bringing up the massacre was to show you that what people do in Gods name NO MATTER the religion, has no reflection on God, The argument is useless.

Your attacking me because of what other people did in Gods name throughout History...I really don't understand that, but whatever.

As far as evolution goes T, when I was in HS, there was a picture on the wall explaining how man evolved from Ape. Your right, I have never taken a course in it, my knowledge is limited, but I can tell you I disagree with that pic on my high school wall

I will pray for you tonight T and ask God to give you more fruit of the Spirit.

Peace, Love and Blessings <3

[AnthonyB]

a-train,

Would you agree that practically, (leaving aside the Father being embodied) that the 3 persons of (socail) trinitarian thought and the 3 beings of LDS thought are equivalent in what we percieve they are capable of doing?

They can intercommunicate, they can emotionally respond to each other, they can be in different locations. Is there any difference that you can illuminate (other than the Father being incarnate.) that you think describing them as beings gives you that "persons" wouldn't?

As for the oneness of God, the LDS saying that it is only "one in purpose" it bewilders me. If you have a class or a level of exaltation that certain persons belong to than surely membership of that class must entail something that its members share in common. Mobs can be one in purpose, surely you don't believe that all the persons/beings of God share is that they have a common purpose. Surely they share other characteristics then just being like a "mob". God is love, mercy, faithfulness etc not just in part but as the ultimate expression of those characteristics. Surely each person equally shares those qualities or do you see that one loves more than another, or one is more faithful than another?

Willow,

It was the Logos, the 2nd person of the trinity that came down and incarnated as Jesus. The person of the Father remained in heaven.

[a-train]

Would you agree that practically, (leaving aside the Father being embodied) that the 3 persons of (socail) trinitarian thought and the 3 beings of LDS thought are equivalent in what we percieve they are capable of doing?

Yes. However, this can get difficult because the fine details of the Trinity are understood variously from Trinitarian to Trinitarian. Many of them are actually modalists unawares.

They can intercommunicate, they can emotionally respond to each other, they can be in different locations. Is there any difference that you can illuminate (other than the Father being incarnate.) that you think describing them as beings gives you that "persons" wouldn't?

Well, many Trinitarians believe that the Godhead is a single Being, a single Lifeform, with three extensions known as 'persons'. The LDS proclamation is that They are three individual Beings, three Lifeforms. They are as seperate in every way as you and I. Their Oneness, or Unity, is in like manner to that which man can do, only It is perfect.

As for the oneness of God, the LDS saying that it is only "one in purpose" it bewilders me. If you have a class or a level of exaltation that certain persons belong to than surely membership of that class must entail something that its members share in common. Mobs can be one in purpose, surely you don't believe that all the persons/beings of God share is that they have a common purpose. Surely they share other characteristics then just being like a "mob". God is love, mercy, faithfulness etc not just in part but as the ultimate expression of those characteristics. Surely each person equally shares those qualities or do you see that one loves more than another, or one is more faithful than another?

The Three are individually and collectively perfect in their love, their faith, their mercy, etc. We will not expect to have a different response from One than from Another. The Unity of God is not as far removed from us as the devil would like us to believe.

The scriptures demonstrate that the Unity of will among the Godhead is voluntary and that there are indeed distinct wills for each Individual. The Three are also physically seperate, and Each possesses a unique Personal History. The Father and Son share that familial relationship. All possessions are shared, just as in our families.

Is there a manner of Unity, something we find the Godhead sharing in the scriptures, that you find the LDS not proclaming? What is it that you are bewildered by?

-a-train

[WillowTheWhisp]

As far as evolution goes T, when I was in HS, there was a picture on the wall explaining how man evolved from Ape. Your right, I have never taken a course in it, my knowledge is limited, but I can tell you I disagree with that pic on my high school wall

Wow! I just had to respond to this bit because I'm really surprised that any school has such a poster. I think I went to school a lot longer ago than you but the poster we had on the wall to illustrate evolution showed men and apes both evolving from the same original source. Not that I go along with that one either and some points of it, such as including Neanderthal Man in the Homo Sapiens lone has been proved to be wrong. It is after all only a theory and still surprising to me that it is taught as a fact when they can't even seem to agree on what the 'facts' are.

a-train,

Would you agree that practically, (leaving aside the Father being embodied) that the 3 persons of (socail) trinitarian thought and the 3 beings of LDS thought are equivalent in what we percieve they are capable of doing?

They can intercommunicate, they can emotionally respond to each other, they can be in different locations. Is there any difference that you can illuminate (other than the Father being incarnate.) that you think describing them as beings gives you that "persons" wouldn't?

As for the oneness of God, the LDS saying that it is only "one in purpose" it bewilders me. If you have a class or a level of exaltation that certain persons belong to than surely membership of that class must entail something that its members share in common. Mobs can be one in purpose, surely you don't believe that all the persons/beings of God share is that they have a common purpose. Surely they share other characteristics then just being like a "mob". God is love, mercy, faithfulness etc not just in part but as the ultimate expression of those characteristics. Surely each person equally shares those qualities or do you see that one loves more than another, or one is more faithful than another?

Willow,

It was the Logos, the 2nd person of the trinity that came down and incarnated as Jesus. The person of the Father remained in heaven.

Anthony, your description of the Godhead and their individuality and relationship to each other sounds very much like my understanding. Jesus told his disciples to be one as he and his Father in Heaven are one. That's the kind of one I understand them to be. The disciples still remained individuals but were to become 'one'. I think when we simplify it by saying 'one in purpose' we do so in order to distinguish from the idea of being the actual same person.

.

The scriptures demonstrate that the Unity of will among the Godhead is voluntary and that there are indeed distinct wills for each Individual. The Three are also physically seperate, and Each possesses a unique Personal History. The Father and Son share that familial relationship. All possessions are shared, just as in our families.

It is this distinction of will which is so apparent in Gethsemane and on the cross where Jesus prays to his Father. This is why I cannot understand anyone reading the Bible who can believe that they are the same being. The only Trinitarians I have spoken to in the past have been those who believed that all three were the same being. The Catholic priest also had different incarnations of Jesus and his mother such as 'the Infant of Prague' and 'Our Lady of Lourdes' who were prayed to separately from 'The sacred Heart' or 'Our Lady of Perpetual Succour' which seems to be the opposite extreme and very confusing.

[AnthonyB]

a-train,

I realize your not willing to ascribe the oneness of the persons as "one being" but "one in purpose" seems to sell their commonality well short. If they each and corporately share a raft of characteristics to a level of perfection so as to be identical in their expression of those characteristics, then I just think your catch phrase to describe them should at least pay tribute to that.

For me "one in nature, not in being" would be a better description for LDS to use. "Nature" as in the outward expression of the sum of their characteristics. (eg love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, mercy.) Hitler and Missoulini were one in purpose for much of WW2, but that didn't mean they shared anything of their natures.

Of course your free to use whatever description you wish, far be it for me to change your expression, but I just feel it sells God (or Gods in your case) short. (Odd that isn't it, I've seen trad Christians use hebrew plural words for "waters" and "heavens" but we wouldn't use the equivalent for "Gods" but I suppose it would be too confusing.)

How do you work the timelessness of God into the order of creating the other beings before time began?

Willow,

The difference being is that I see the unity of their natures to be infinitely like each other, so as to have a reached a point where they can only be described as one being.

We on the other hand approach the likeness "asymptotically" (sorry big maths word, meaning ever getting closer but never quite arriving).

[WillowTheWhisp]

Do you mean like parallel lines?