LDS Mormon godhood vs Christian Trinity - Thread Split

[withwonderingawe]

All true. Now show us where God will fulfill that promise by walking through the door to your kitchen or dining room in the flesh, sit down at the table, and share a meal with you. If it were the case that those verses used such imagery, they would stil be open to a symbolic meaning, but they don't even describe--in figurative language or literal--what you say you're taking from them!

I side with the historic faith in understanding these verses as saying "I will come to you," not "I will be arriving on the 3:15 train wearing a blue suit. Pick me up at the station." To me, it's as clear as day that the message is about a spiritual connection.

In other words, NO chairs.

Well that hasn't been our experience, there are people within the Church who have been visited, don't talk about it much but ever so often.... Elder Scott would be my example.

"For me, the best way [to fulfill my calling] is to bear testimony of truth, to express gratitude for that sacred privilege and honor, and to respond to what is in section 46 of the Doctrine and Covenants, where it says: ‘To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

“‘To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful’ [verses 13–14].

“That word know is a very important word for those 15 men who are Apostles. [It expresses] the sacred experiences and the confirmation that there is a certainty that our Father in Heaven lives and that His Son, Jesus Christ, is our Savior—not a hope, not a belief, not a wish, but an absolute, confirmed certainty. . . . Our Father in Heaven is real. His Son, Jesus Christ, is real. I know that personally and bear certain witness because I know the Savior.” Elder Richard G. Scott

I was at a meeting once with him when he said 'If you could see the things I've seen and hear the things I've heard you would know the Gospel is true, I wish I could impart to you my knowledge but the Spirit constrains me" (I paraphrased that) Afterward the Stake President stood up and said Br. Scott is truly a friend of Jesus.

It's not just the Elders of the Church anyone one who can reach a point of holiness through faithfulness can also have this experience to become a friend of Jesus.

I'm afraid I'm rather a long way from it.

 

[Alla27]

TO MMKSPARBUD

In the beginning... was God(the Word). What does it mean?

 

[Albion]

No, the issue has been for some time, just exactly what I posted: That Jesus really did come to his disciples after his resurrection and he did eat with them.

Excuse me, but that was NOT the issue. We were not dealing with the specifics of Jesus appearing to his followers after the Resurrection. The topic was the nature of God, the Trinity, and the LDS' own perceptions of this.

Again, your answer side-steps the question and tries to move on to another issue, without a resolution. So tell me once more, what post did you answer the chair question, so I can read it, or just answer it simply by saying I believe there would need to be 3 chairs or 1 chair if the Godhead came to sup with me.

It must amuse you to ask that for the--what?--sixth or seventh time, but I answered it and did so in several different ways in several different posts. Therefore, all the nonsense about me supposedly changing the subject or being reluctant to answer is a game that I am not willing to play.

I was willing to discuss the topic of the nature of the Godhead, and it's since been explained for all of you here, either by me or other of the participants, so when someone brings in something more that's relevant but hasn't been covered yet, then we can proceed.

 

[Albion]

Well that hasn't been our experience, there are people within the Church who have been visited, don't talk about it much but ever so often.... Elder Scott would be my example.

That doesn't prove anything. There are thousands of people claiming to have seen God, or heaven, come back from the dead, talked with the Virgin Mary, been transported to other worlds, etc. etc. Such claims are just that--claims.

 

[Peter1000]

Where is Heavenly Mom gonna sit? Or does she just do dishes? She gets less respect than the elephant in the room.

About 90% of your posts these days refer to a Heavenly Mother. You must be fixated on this concept. So here is the Christian answer to a Heavenly Mother.

This comes from post #433 from ViaCrucis and the writings of Friar Hans Urs von Balthasar:
It is because he bears fruit out of himself and requires no fructifying that he is called Father, and not in the sexual sense, for he will be the Creator of man and woman, and thus contains the primal qualities of woman in himself in the same simultaneously transcending way as those of man. (The Greek gennad can imply both siring and bearing).

IOW God the Father has both the primal qualities of man and woman and can "beget" a son on His/Her own. He/She can both sire and bear.

This is an interesting concept to try to explain how God can be called a Father and how Jesus can be called a Son, all having been done without a Mother, because "begotten" is such a primal process. It has been an interesting question since about 200ad when men started to think for themselves instead of being taught by apostles and prophets and the HS.

How do you explain this question? Explain the process of "begotten" without the use of a Mother. Thank you.

 

[Peter1000]

system error

 

[Albion]

How do you explain this question? Explain the process of "begotten" without the use of a Mother. Thank you.

That's God for you! Almighty. Omnipotent. The creator of all that is. No gender bending needed.

 

[Alla27]

That's God for you! Almighty. Omnipotent. The creator of all that is. No gender bending needed.

Did God use material to create physical body of Adam? Yes, I think so.
Why didn't God create physical body of Adam out of nothing?
So, omnipotent God NEEDED material to build Adam's physical body.
Does God Father need a Wife to create spirit? Good question. But you can NOT know the answer. I mean, you can make up an answer(your very own answer).

So, those who say that God the Father always was the Father and that God Son is uncreated, HOW did they come up with this idea? where is it found?

In the beginning..... was God(the Word). What does it mean?

 

[Albion]

Did God use material to create physical body of Adam? Yes, I think so.
Why didn't God create physical body of Adam out of nothing?

He could have. But since he did not, there still isn't any reason to come up with some strange male-female theory that appears at least to be explained as necessary for him to do.

So, omnipotent God NEEDED material to build Adam's physical body.

No, he didn't There is absolutely no reason to reach that conclusion.

Does God Father need a Wife to create spirit?

No.

So, those who say that God the Father always was the Father and that God Son is uncreated, HOW did they come up with this idea? where is it found?

In the Bible. I recommend John 1:1 and the verses following.

 

[Peter1000]

That's God for you! Almighty. Omnipotent. The creator of all that is. No gender bending needed.

So you believe what Hans Urs von Balthasar says in post #433?

 

[Peter1000]

Excuse me, but that was NOT the issue. We were not dealing with the specifics of Jesus appearing to his followers after the Resurrection. The topic was the nature of God, the Trinity, and the LDS' own perceptions of this.


It must amuse you to ask that for the--what?--sixth or seventh time, but I answered it and did so in several different ways in several different posts. Therefore, all the nonsense about me supposedly changing the subject or being reluctant to answer is a game that I am not willing to play.

I was willing to discuss the topic of the nature of the Godhead, and it's since been explained for all of you here, either by me or other of the participants, so when someone brings in something more that's relevant but hasn't been covered yet, then we can proceed.

I have now gone back to your post #319 and looked forward, and the only time you came close to answering the 3 chairs question was when you said in post #413 "you don't set chairs for God to plunk down in." That was a side-step of an answer. First it was a hypothetical question, but a good one. If you believe God is 3 Persons in 1 God, then you would put out 1 chair. If you thought God was 3 Gods that are so unified it is as if they are 1 God, then you would put out 3 chairs. It is a reasonable question.

Surprisingly NYCGuy, a Trinitarian said he would put out 3 chairs. You have remained silent to this date as to how many chairs you would put out. I have asked many times, you have side-stepped many times, I have looked at your record, no answer to this question.

According to Luke 24:36-43 Jesus, after his resurrection, pulled up a chair and plunked down in it, when he ate fish and honeycomb with his apostles and others. So what is it.

 

[Albion]

I have now gone back to your post #319 and looked forward, and the only time you came close to answering the 3 chairs question was when you said in post #413 "you don't set chairs for God to plunk down in." That was a side-step of an answer. First it was a hypothetical question, but a good one. If you believe God is 3 Persons in 1 God, then you would put out 1 chair. If you thought God was 3 Gods that are so unified it is as if they are 1 God, then you would put out 3 chairs. It is a reasonable question.

Surprisingly NYCGuy, a Trinitarian said he would put out 3 chairs. You have remained silent to this date as to how many chairs you would put out. I have asked many times, you have side-stepped many times, I have looked at your record, no answer to this question.

According to Luke 24:36-43 Jesus, after his resurrection, pulled up a chair and plunked down in it, when he ate fish and honeycomb with his apostles and others. So what is it.

You know, this routine has ceased to be amusing. I not only explained my position on that in several different ways and in several different posts, but I then wrapped it up by writing "NO chairs" in post #444. You even acknowledged it in post #448, so if you cannot figure out what that means by now, I don't think I'll be able make it clearer.

 

[Alla27]

He could have.

To whom did God reveal that He could create Adam's body or anything out of nothing?
Please, tell me how would it be possible to create something out of nothing?
Did Jesus create wine out of nothing or He USED water(material)?

But since he did not, there still isn't any reason to come up with some strange male-female theory that appears at least to be explained as necessary for him to do.

If Joseph Smith made it up, then we could call it "a theory". But when God reveals something we call it "the truth".

No, he didn't There is absolutely no reason to reach that conclusion.

So, you say that God did not need any material to create Adam's physical body. You say there is no reason to reach the conclusion that He needed.
There are good reasons to make this conclusion: 1)God never said that He makes things out of nothing. 2)God revealed more than once that He creates things out of something. 3)You can't list any examples when something can be made out of nothing.
So, you or somebody else made up this theory that God creates things out of nothing.
You or somebody else made up this theory that God the Father always have been the Father and that God Son is uncreated.
who made up these theories. They are not in the Bible for sure.

Where in John 1:1 does God say that God the Father always have been the Father and God Son was uncreated?

 

[Peter1000]

You know, this routine has ceased to be amusing. I not only explained my position on that in several different ways and in several different posts, but I then wrapped it up by writing "NO chairs" in post #444. You even acknowledged it in post #448, so if you cannot figure out what that means by now, I don't think I'll be able make it clearer.

So that was a hypothetical question and you would not put out any chair for God. Thank you again.

Is that because God just would not come into my home and sup with me? He would make a spiritual connection, but would not literally come into my home, therefore don't get all excited and put out a chair for Him.

 

[Albion]

To whom did God reveal that He could create Adam's body or anything out of nothing?
Please, tell me how would it be possible to create something out of nothing?

This is our God.

Did Jesus create wine out of nothing or He USED water(material)?

You keep resorting to what Jesus did when the topic is supposed to be about God per se. Certainly Jesus, being human as well as divine, did things on Earth in the sight of us mortals for a purpose, but that doesn't tie the hands of God or limit the abilities of he who created the whole physical universe out of nothing.

If Joseph Smith made it up, then we could call it "a theory".

Right. Or if he borrowed it from some other writer or theorist.

So, you say that God did not need any material to create Adam's physical body. You say there is no reason to reach the conclusion that He needed.

That's correct. He who created everything is not just a super-human.

 

[Albion]

TO MMKSPARBUD

In the beginning... was God(the Word). What does it mean?

read further in that passage and you will have your answer.

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

The Joseph Smith Apostasy Thread went off-topic into a Mormon godhood vs Christian Trinity discussion.

Splitting the thread.

Both threads will be re-opened when the split/ transfer of posts is complete.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let me try a simple question: if I was to invite God-- all of God-- to dinner, how many chairs do I need? (even if the person is a being of spirit and doesn't actually need a chair, I'll set one anyways).

We can offer Christ a chair, we can speak of seeing Christ. But that's because Jesus is a human being, with a human body. Jesus is physical, with shape, form, flesh, matter, etc--because He's a human person, just like you and I are human persons.

At the 7th Ecumenical Council (Nicea II) the Iconoclast Controversy resulted in affirming holy images of Christ and the Saints, but rejected images of the Father and the Holy Spirit as inappropriate and improper. Because the Father and the Holy Spirit cannot be depicted. The Son can be depicted because He became flesh as Jesus Christ, He's a human being. Iconography and Christian art has sometimes tried to get around this by using symbolic depictions, for example the Father being represented by a hand, the Holy Spirit as a dove. In some cases the rules are thrown out and they are depicted directly, though again this isn't appropriate. That actually means that the famous Creation of Adam painted by Michelangelo is technically wrong, theologically speaking.

However icons of Abraham's Hospitality, which depicts the three angelic figures who visited Abraham, is often seen as an analogy for the Trinity.

One might argue, perhaps, from such that perhaps the Trinity ought to be conceived as occupying three hypothetical chairs, as is depicted in the above icon. Instead I'd want to point out that the interior communion of the Three ought to be the focus, for they face one another, share one another, and are together. So then only one chair?

So perhaps one chair, if so it would be Christ's chair. For in beholding the Son we shall also see the Father, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father" "I and My Father are one". For it is impossible to divide the Three, for to speak of the Son is to speak also of the Father and the Holy Spirit. "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me". Christian theology speaks of the Perichoresis of the Trinity. The concept of perichoresis speaks of the interior and interpenetrating reality of the Trinity; in the way in which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are together, in the other, and so forth. What the icon of Abraham's Hospitality would show us, by way of analogy, is perhaps this Perichoresis. It is their (the three figures) central communion and sharing together at the table in the icon that is significant. Remembering that the icon should be, in reference to the Trinity, understood rather symbolically, not literally.

If I am going to offer an answer to how many chairs, I would argue one: For Christ. And in beholding Christ we behold also the Father and the Holy Spirit, by their mutual coinherance and perichoresis.

-CryptoLutheran