Trinity

[True Believer]

There are not 3 Gods.

There is not a Group of Gods.

"...you say but they are only 1 GOD" Whoever "you" is, "you" is correct: the three Persons are only 1 God.

***

Christianity teaches there is only One God.

The Father is God.

The Son is God.

The Holy Spirit is God.

Not that these are 3 Gods, but they are The One God.

And if this is too hard to understand, congratulations for it does not make sense to the human senses.
Saint Augustine could not fully understand it; he could not fully explain it.
He accepted it on faith.

CHRISTIANITY accepts it on faith.

***********

Then they would all have to be one person BUT the article points out that they ARE Three Persons
as much as you feel "you" is correct the rendering is double talk Three persons cannot be one person. Three Gods cannot be one God.

 

[TOmNossor]

The Trinity is complex. Many Protestants are trying to explain the Augustinian conflicts. I personally think while the nature of God is a mystery that it is preferable that we be able to understand it. However, I readily accept that I am not able to understand all things. Anyway here is some info on the state of Trinitarian formulations. (I leave out Economic Trinitarianism as I cannot explain much about his).



I will list 9 positions. I will list these positions in a logical order, starting with Absolute Monotheism and concluding with Pagan Polytheism.



1. Absolute Monotheism: This is the classic one God and only one God. Modern day Jews and Moslems would be AMs. A Jew would claim that ancient Jews where AMs, but some Old Testament scholars might not agree. Jews and Moslems can logically call Christians polytheist even though we reject this title.

2. Modalist:This is the Sabellian heresy. It maintains that God is one, but we experience him as 3 different modes. In human experience we see evidence of a God the Father, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit. This is just a representation of the one true God. An analogy could even be: Bush is the President, Bush is a Texan, Bush is an exerciser, Bush is one. Sometimes mentioned and generally true is the fact that a fourth nature exists for God that is his real nature encompassing all of his modes.

3. Modal Trinitarianism: This is similar to the above, but is an attempt at a real Trinitarian structure. We experience God as three different modes as above, and He really is composed of three different modes. There is no fourth “real nature.” God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We experience him as such and he exists as such. This structure is linked to Karl Barth. Critics claim it is just a restatement of the Sabellian heresy.

4. Augustinian Trinitarianism: While there is some wiggle room in what a Catholic can believe about the Trinity, if I understand correctly it generally centers around this formulation of the Trinity. For simplicity I will state this formulation with just two components, but of course the Holy Spirit is included.

a. There is exactly one God

b. The Father is God

c. The Son is God

d. The Father is not identical to the Son

The Trinity is more complex than this, but the above is a good starting point. If you look at a-d, it is a paradox or a mystery to hold all 4 of these positions at once. To distinguish this from the below I must mention some more things. The Father alone is unbegotten and non-proceeding. In Western or Augustinian Trinitarianism the fount of Diety resides in the Father’s Being (the more oneness component) rather than in his person. This allows for the Holy Spirit to proceed from both the Father and the Son. Another distinction is that Augustinian Trinitarianism starts with the oneness and formulates the threeness.

5. Easter Orthodox Trinitarianism: Same as above except that the fount of Diety resides in the Father’s person. This results in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father alone. Also the threeness is a starting point from which oneness is formulated. (I am almost positive that Byzantine Catholics reject the Easter Orthodox Trinitarianism, but I thought I might ask???)

6. Social Trinitarianism LDS: God is one and GOD is three. In a simplistic way the term God refers to one thing when it is attached to one and refers to a different but related thing when attached to three. Ostler used an analogy of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms. They are three that are gases at STP, but together they are one that is liquid at STP. The emergent property is different than the individual property. (much of the below is from Ostler)

a. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are there distinct divine persons and one Godhead in virtue of oneness of indwelling unity of presence, glory, and oneness of mind purpose, power and intent. Three wills exist, but the Son and the Holy Ghost freely, perfectly, and always choose to submit their will to the Father’s (the Son and Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father, but they are fully divine).

b. The Father is the fount of divinity. The Son and the Holy Ghost exist, but through the indwelling love of the Father are divine. Also, part of divinity is the love of the Father for the Son and Holy Ghost (and of course their love of him and eachother). Divinity is expressed through the relation of the three, thus one divinity exists.

c. The unity of the divine persons falls short of identity, but is much more intimate than merely belonging to the same class. There are distinct divine persons, but hardly separated or independent divine persons.

7. Social Trinitarianism (more Tri-theist): “The Holy Trinity is a divine society or community of three fully personal and fully divine beings…” - Cornelius Plantinga. In this formulation I will not require a different sense for God as one and God as three. The Protestant author who presented this possibly didn’t do Plantinga justice, but there is clearly a continuum within Social Trinitarianism.

8. Tri-theism: Three gods, Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Independent and all fully God.

9. Pagan Polytheism: Many gods. Sometimes look to components of nature for gods.



I think Social Trinitarianism and Modal Trinitarianism are attempts to resolve what Catholics and many Protestants call “Mysteries” associated with the Holy Trinity. I currently believe this is not unimportant towards being correct. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the Mysteries of the Trinity because it seems to be illogical. I do know that God knows things that I never would have supposed though.



I hope this is correct. I hope this is helpful. I hope this is interesting.



Charity, TOm

 

[xsimmsx]

The Trinity is complex. Many Protestants are trying to explain the Augustinian conflicts. I personally think while the nature of God is a mystery that it is preferable that we be able to understand it. However, I readily accept that I am not able to understand all things. Anyway here is some info on the state of Trinitarian formulations. (I leave out Economic Trinitarianism as I cannot explain much about his).



I will list 9 positions. I will list these positions in a logical order, starting with Absolute Monotheism and concluding with Pagan Polytheism.



1. Absolute Monotheism: This is the classic one God and only one God. Modern day Jews and Moslems would be AMs. A Jew would claim that ancient Jews where AMs, but some Old Testament scholars might not agree. Jews and Moslems can logically call Christians polytheist even though we reject this title.

2. Modalist:This is the Sabellian heresy. It maintains that God is one, but we experience him as 3 different modes. In human experience we see evidence of a God the Father, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit. This is just a representation of the one true God. An analogy could even be: Bush is the President, Bush is a Texan, Bush is an exerciser, Bush is one. Sometimes mentioned and generally true is the fact that a fourth nature exists for God that is his real nature encompassing all of his modes.

3. Modal Trinitarianism: This is similar to the above, but is an attempt at a real Trinitarian structure. We experience God as three different modes as above, and He really is composed of three different modes. There is no fourth “real nature.” God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We experience him as such and he exists as such. This structure is linked to Karl Barth. Critics claim it is just a restatement of the Sabellian heresy.

4. Augustinian Trinitarianism: While there is some wiggle room in what a Catholic can believe about the Trinity, if I understand correctly it generally centers around this formulation of the Trinity. For simplicity I will state this formulation with just two components, but of course the Holy Spirit is included.

a. There is exactly one God

b. The Father is God

c. The Son is God

d. The Father is not identical to the Son

The Trinity is more complex than this, but the above is a good starting point. If you look at a-d, it is a paradox or a mystery to hold all 4 of these positions at once. To distinguish this from the below I must mention some more things. The Father alone is unbegotten and non-proceeding. In Western or Augustinian Trinitarianism the fount of Diety resides in the Father’s Being (the more oneness component) rather than in his person. This allows for the Holy Spirit to proceed from both the Father and the Son. Another distinction is that Augustinian Trinitarianism starts with the oneness and formulates the threeness.

5. Easter Orthodox Trinitarianism: Same as above except that the fount of Diety resides in the Father’s person. This results in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father alone. Also the threeness is a starting point from which oneness is formulated. (I am almost positive that Byzantine Catholics reject the Easter Orthodox Trinitarianism, but I thought I might ask???)

6. Social Trinitarianism LDS: God is one and GOD is three. In a simplistic way the term God refers to one thing when it is attached to one and refers to a different but related thing when attached to three. Ostler used an analogy of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms. They are three that are gases at STP, but together they are one that is liquid at STP. The emergent property is different than the individual property. (much of the below is from Ostler)

a. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are there distinct divine persons and one Godhead in virtue of oneness of indwelling unity of presence, glory, and oneness of mind purpose, power and intent. Three wills exist, but the Son and the Holy Ghost freely, perfectly, and always choose to submit their will to the Father’s (the Son and Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father, but they are fully divine).

b. The Father is the fount of divinity. The Son and the Holy Ghost exist, but through the indwelling love of the Father are divine. Also, part of divinity is the love of the Father for the Son and Holy Ghost (and of course their love of him and eachother). Divinity is expressed through the relation of the three, thus one divinity exists.

c. The unity of the divine persons falls short of identity, but is much more intimate than merely belonging to the same class. There are distinct divine persons, but hardly separated or independent divine persons.

7. Social Trinitarianism (more Tri-theist): “The Holy Trinity is a divine society or community of three fully personal and fully divine beings…” - Cornelius Plantinga. In this formulation I will not require a different sense for God as one and God as three. The Protestant author who presented this possibly didn’t do Plantinga justice, but there is clearly a continuum within Social Trinitarianism.

8. Tri-theism: Three gods, Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Independent and all fully God.

9. Pagan Polytheism: Many gods. Sometimes look to components of nature for gods.



I think Social Trinitarianism and Modal Trinitarianism are attempts to resolve what Catholics and many Protestants call “Mysteries” associated with the Holy Trinity. I currently believe this is not unimportant towards being correct. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the Mysteries of the Trinity because it seems to be illogical. I do know that God knows things that I never would have supposed though.



I hope this is correct. I hope this is helpful. I hope this is interesting.



Charity, TOm

Your Modalist view is a little off we are totally Monotheistic only one God the Father. We also don't limit God to three modes that is what trinitarian modalists do. God can exist in any mode that he wants to exist
the possibilities are limitless as a matter of fact. I would Go so far as to say that Melchizedek is God, The Angel of God referred to in the Old Testament is God and atleast One place in the new. I could back it all up with scripture but what is the point if you don't get the most important part right, the part about Jesus. The trinity tries to keep God in a box but it can not. Most Don't even baptize correctly. All the forms of trintarianism are polytheistic because they make God more than one and then confuse the issue by saying that the more than one is one God. It is funny how that god is always represented as some conglomerate of persons working together co-equally yet at the same time the "Son" had to submit to the Father and all kinds of mess, I don't really feel like getting into tonight. But I appreciate the fact that you atleast mentioned some of the basics about differing beliefs. You should also add some of the other main polytheistic religions like Jehovah Witnesses, who happen to believe that Jesus is a lesser God. than the Father and run around frantically trying to proclaim Jehovah and they sadly don't realize the only way to do that right is the name of Jesus. And then there is the binitarians that believe similarly to the trinitarians except the only two persons they see in God is The Father and the Son. Which is also wrong according to the scripture. It's funny how they could be so hard on trinitarians and they still believe in Two God's themselves. Jehovah and Jesus. Bigger and Little. Well you want Good news here you go Jesus is Jehovah manifested in the flesh. And if you still don't believe me well I encourage you to stop believeing that Jesus is a lesser God for Jehovah said......

Deuteronomy 4:35:
To you it was showed, that you might know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.

I Samuel 2:2:
There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside you: neither is there any rock like our God.

II Samuel 7:22:
Why you are great, O LORD God: for there is none like you, neither is there any God beside you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

I Chronicles 17:20:
O LORD, there is none like you, neither is there any God beside you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

Psalms 73:25:
Whom have I in heaven but you? and there is none on earth that I desire beside you.

Isaiah 45:5:
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded you, though you have not known me:

Isaiah 45:6:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Isaiah 45:21:
Tell you, and bring them near; yes, let them take counsel together: who has declared this from ancient time? who has told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me.

I Corinthians 12:3:
Why I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

O what a great verse that let's us know that Jesus is Lord that One Lord The Father Jehovah our God. I love my Jesus. Jehovah-Oshea

 

[TOmNossor]

xsimmsx:

All the forms of trintarianism are polytheistic because they make God more than one and then confuse the issue by saying that the more than one is one God. It is funny how that god is always represented as some conglomerate of persons working together co-equally yet at the same time the "Son" had to submit to the Father and all kinds of mess, I don't really feel like getting into tonight. But I appreciate the fact that you atleast mentioned some of the basics about differing beliefs. You should also add some of the other main polytheistic religions like Jehovah Witnesses, who happen to believe that Jesus is a lesser God. than the Father and run around frantically trying to proclaim Jehovah and they sadly don't realize the only way to do that right is the name of Jesus. And then there is the binitarians that believe similarly to the trinitarians except the only two persons they see in God is The Father and the Son. Which is also wrong according to the scripture. It's funny how they could be so hard on trinitarians and they still believe in Two God's themselves. Jehovah and Jesus. Bigger and Little. Well you want Good news here you go Jesus is Jehovah manifested in the flesh. And if you still don't believe me well I encourage you to stop believeing that Jesus is a lesser God for Jehovah said......

What I believe, what I believe history shows us, and what Catholics believe is that I cannot demand that your view of God is wrong based on scripture. I believe we could go in circles for (is it 7 pages) based on scripture and not come to a conclusion. This is why God left his church with authority and priesthood.



Anyway, thank you for the education on Modalism. I will try to add that greater than three caveat into any future post on the nature of God.

I would invite you to not call me, Protestants, Catholics, JW, or anyone who rejects the term, POLYTHEISTS.

I understand that Jews called Sabellian Christians polytheists. I believe that semi-ancient Jews (somewhat hellenized) would also call you polytheistic. If you reject this term when applied to you I invite you to not use it when applied to me.



The Biblical scholar Margaret Barker (I am pretty sure she is Protestant in that her book is published by Westminster/John Knox Press) has recently 1992 written a book entitled, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. In it she suggests that the idea of a Second God is really Jewish and that Christ is that great angel from the Old Testament. I have actually not read this, but I have heard some good things about it. You might be interested in it in that you too hold that some of the “Angels” in the Old Testament” are God.



Charity, TOm

 

[rnmomof7]

xsimmsx:


What I believe, what I believe history shows us, and what Catholics believe is that I cannot demand that your view of God is wrong based on scripture. I believe we could go in circles for (is it 7 pages) based on scripture and not come to a conclusion. This is why God left his church with authority and priesthood.



Anyway, thank you for the education on Modalism. I will try to add that greater than three caveat into any future post on the nature of God.

I would invite you to not call me, Protestants, Catholics, JW, or anyone who rejects the term, POLYTHEISTS.

The difference is that Mormons are polytheists . Your Godhead is three separate "beings" they are only ONE in purpose not being.

Mormons also believe that there are other gods for other planets

That by definition is polytheism.


From your scripture

"So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 4:27).

"Some who write anti-Mormon pamphlets insist that the Latter-day Saint concept of Deity is contrary to what is recognized as traditional Christian doctrine. In this they are quite correct" (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint, Sure Foundation, p. 93).





Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (A of F 1). These three Gods form the Godhead, which holds the keys of power over the universe. (Encyclopedia Of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, copyright 1992, Vol. 2, p. 552, Macmillan Publishing Company, NY)

Mormon polytheism encompasses two aspects. First, there is a predominant "local" polytheism as far as the earth is concerned. The earth has three distinct gods who "rule it." Thus, Mormonism's concept of the biblical Trinity is tritheistic, not monotheistic. LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie declares, "There are three Gods–the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 317)

Three separate personages–Father, Son, and Holy Ghost–comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576- 577)

Although the three members of the Godhead are distinct personages, their Godhead is "one" in that all three are united in their thoughts, actions, and purpose, with each having a fulness of knowledge, truth, and power. Each is a God.
(Encyclopedia Of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, copyright 1992, Vol. 2, p. 552, Macmillan Publishing Company, NY)

Furthermore, he also said, "In the beginning the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods" (Teachings, p. 349).


If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds (Journal of
Discourses, 2:345)

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm:

First, you quoted me and then you spoke about something totally unrelated to what I wrote. Second, did you read the post I did above the post you quoted that explains a fair amount about Trinity formulations? You may know all of this or it might be of some value, but I specifically explained that some of what you posted is in error.

Anyway, on to your post.



rnmomof7:

The difference is that Mormons are polytheists . Your Godhead is three separate "beings" they are only ONE in purpose not being.



TOm:

I reject this and I am a LDS. I am not Polytheistic. It is true that LDS have emphasized the threeness of God over the oneness in a (perhaps misguided) attempt to distinguish themselves from other Christians. The truth is that LDS embrace a Social Trinitarian structure. If you read the above you would find that LDS oneness is greater than some Social Trinitarian might espouse. Cornelius Plantinga a Protestant is credited with the formulation of the Social Trinitarian structure.



You are absolutely wrong when you say the only aspect of ONENESS is being one in purpose. If you want to know generally what I espouse read above in this thread. If you think I am some radical Mormon then please go to the Eternal The Eternal Marriage thread (8th page) where twhite982 posted a link to Dr. Paulsen in a Protestant journal and a link to Blake Ostler in an LDS journal. They both embrace the same Godhead I do.



Or, you may believe what you like, but I present you with the truth. Some LDS are likely tri-theists, but they err in their formulation of God. Some Protestants believe actions against abortion doctors are ok, but I would never demand that you be accountable for their poor understanding of the Gospel.



The term God and the term Gods are both appropriate.





rnmomof7:

Mormons also believe that there are other gods for other planets
That by definition is polytheism.



TOm:

First, you do not understand the definition of polytheism. There are some LDS who are henotheistic, but no LDS (no LDS can be) polytheistic. To be polytheistic is not within the spectrum of what LDS can believe.

Concerning LDS being henotheistic. I believe it is obvious from our scriptures that God the Father is supreme and eternal (and always was God!).

That men who have lived on this earth can become Gods could be used to call us henotheistic, but if you where to do this you would then have to call Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and the Early Church Fathers henotheistic because they absolutely all believe/believed that men may become Gods.



In fact, it is the many Protestant denominations and the majority of Catholics that have forgotten the truth about deification.



One last rnmomof7, Jews and Muslims would call you polytheistic. Does that mean you are? If you are an Augustinian Trinitarian then you are on the oneness side of the LDS Godhead, but to draw a thin line between Augustinian Trinitarians and Social Trinitarians is to cut of many educated Protestants and many uneducated Christians. If you are masterful and educated enough to define this then I guess you have a right to your opinion. But if you are quoting your interpretation (or the interpretation of other non-LDS) concerning LDS leaders statements and LDS theology then trying to put me in a box, I think your time would be better spent listening to me tell you what I believe. I am the world authority on my beliefs, and I am pretty sound concerning LDS beliefs.



Charity, TOm

 

[True Believer]

For your information Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in two Gods as Supreme and Worshipable Only one Jehovah God Almighty. Jesus will be handed the position by his Father for !,000 years but He will still be Higher than Jesus.

 

[rnmomof7]

TOm:

First, you quoted me and then you spoke about something totally unrelated to what I wrote. Second, did you read the post I did above the post you quoted that explains a fair amount about Trinity formulations? You may know all of this or it might be of some value, but I specifically explained that some of what you posted is in error.

I responded to your comment that Mormons should not be called polytheists

You grouped the Mormons with Protestants and Catholics.

Mormons are indeed polytheists as proven by your scripture and leaders and prophets in your church.

Anyway, on to your post.



rnmomof7:

The difference is that Mormons are polytheists . Your Godhead is three separate "beings" they are only ONE in purpose not being.



TOm:

I reject this and I am a LDS. I am not Polytheistic. It is true that LDS have emphasized the threeness of God over the oneness in a (perhaps misguided) attempt to distinguish themselves from other Christians. The truth is that LDS embrace a Social Trinitarian structure. If you read the above you would find that LDS oneness is greater than some Social Trinitarian might espouse. Cornelius Plantinga a Protestant is credited with the formulation of the Social Trinitarian structure.

No Christians believe that God is 3 persons IN one being.. we are not even close


I find the dodging and weaving interesting ..a "social trinity" might be 3 business partners. By your definition the world is just chock full of "trinities"

You are absolutely wrong when you say the only aspect of ONENESS is being one in purpose. If you want to know generally what I espouse read above in this thread. If you think I am some radical Mormon then please go to the Eternal The Eternal Marriage thread (8th page) where twhite982 posted a link to Dr. Paulsen in a Protestant journal and a link to Blake Ostler in an LDS journal. They both embrace the same Godhead I do.

" Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are called the Godhead. They are unified in purpose. Each has an important assignment in the plan of salvation. Our Heavenly Father is our Father and ruler. Jesus Christ is our Savior. The Holy Ghost is the revealer and testifier of all truth.

Gospel Principles

Joseph Smith laid out his doctrine clearly in the King Follett sermon

. "I will preach on the plurality of gods. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see" (King Follett Discourse).

God, Godhead



There are three separate persons in the Godhead: God, the Eternal Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost. We believe in each of them (A of F 1: 1). From latter-day revelation we learn that the Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone and that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, without flesh and bone (D&C 130: 22-23). These three persons are one in perfect unity and harmony of purpose and doctrine (John 17: 21-23; 2 Ne. 31: 21; 3 Ne. 11: 27, 36).

That is three separate 'gods" polytheism , and that does not count the gods of other worlds ..that the LDS believe exist

Or, you may believe what you like, but I present you with the truth. Some LDS are likely tri-theists, but they err in their formulation of God. Some Protestants believe actions against abortion doctors are ok, but I would never demand that you be accountable for their poor understanding of the Gospel.



The term God and the term Gods are both appropriate.








TOm:

First, you do not understand the definition of polytheism. There are some LDS who are , but no LDS (no LDS can be) polytheistic. To be polytheistic is not within the spectrum of what LDS can believe.

The belief in other gods qualifies your church too be called polytheistic .

As we see from the quote from the King Follett discourse..Smith believed god hood was available to observant and obedient Mormon men. Theses men would then go with their goddesses and create and populate new worlds.

That goes beyond henotheistic "beliefs"

Concerning LDS being henotheistic. I believe it is obvious from our scriptures that God the Father is supreme and eternal (and always was God!).

I think it is clear that every observant mormon male desires to become a god . To pretend otherwise is being deceptive.

From the mouth of your prophet.

A Council of the Gods




In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and how to come to him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to him, he is ready to come to us.

"The idea that the Lord our God is not a personage of tabernacle is entirely a mistaken notion. He was once a man. Brother Kimball quoted a saying of Joseph the Prophet, that he would not worship a God who had not a Father; and I do not know that he would if be had not a mother; the one would be as absurd as the other. If he had a Father, he was made in his likeness. And if he is our Father we are made after his image and likeness. He once possessed a body, as we now do; and our bodies are as much to us, as his body to him. Every iota of this organization is necessary to secure for us an exaltation with the Gods."
- Prophet Brigham Young, True Character of God, Salt Lake Tabernacle, February 23, 1862, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p.286

That men who have lived on this earth can become Gods could be used to call us henotheistic, but if you where to do this you would then have to call Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and the Early Church Fathers henotheistic because they absolutely all believe/believed that men may become Gods.

That is gods not GODS

The hebrew

unciation Guide

towb {tobe}

TWOT Reference
Root Word

TWOT - 793a
from 02895

Part of Speech

adj, n m, n f

Outline of Biblical Usage

adj


1) good, pleasant, agreeable

a) pleasant, agreeable (to the senses)

b) pleasant (to the higher nature)

c) good, excellent (of its kind)

d) good, rich, valuable in estimation

e) good, appropriate, becoming

f) better (comparative)

g) glad, happy, prosperous (of man's sensuous nature)

h) good understanding (of man's intellectual nature)

i) good, kind, benign

j) good, right (ethical)


n m


2) a good thing, benefit, welfare

a) welfare, prosperity, happiness

b) good things (collective)

c) good, benefit

d) moral good


n f


3) welfare, benefit, good things

a) welfare, prosperity, happiness

b) good things (collective)

c) bounty


Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 559

AV - good 361, better 72, well 20, goodness 16, goodly 9, best 8,
*****merry 7, fair 7, prosperity 6, precious 4, fine 3, wealth 3,
*****beautiful 2, fairer 2, favour 2, glad 2, misc 35; 559

Not Gods
elohiym {el-o-heem'}

TWOT Reference
Root Word

TWOT - 93c
plural of 0433

Part of Speech

n m p

Outline of Biblical Usage


1) (plural)

a) rulers, judges

b) divine ones

c) angels

d) gods

2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)

a) god, goddess

b) godlike one

c) works or special possessions of God

d) the (true) God

e) God


Perhaps if Joseph had gone to the original language perhaps he would have understood his error

In fact, it is the many Protestant denominations and the majority of Catholics that have forgotten the truth about deification.

There were many heresies in the early church , unfortunately some remain today in the various cults..there is nothing new under the sun..the same errors keep repeating..perhaps because man is sinful and self seeking ,looking for a god like him or a god he can control .

One last rnmomof7, Jews and Muslims would call you polytheistic. Does that mean you are? If you are an Augustinian Trinitarian then you are on the oneness side of the LDS Godhead, but to draw a thin line between Augustinian Trinitarians and Social Trinitarians is to cut of many educated Protestants and many uneducated Christians. If you are masterful and educated enough to define this then I guess you have a right to your opinion. But if you are quoting your interpretation (or the interpretation of other non-LDS) concerning LDS leaders statements and LDS theology then trying to put me in a box, I think your time would be better spent listening to me tell you what I believe. I am the world authority on my beliefs, and I am pretty sound concerning LDS beliefs.

Actually most Jews do not view us as Polytheistic
in general they see us as worshipping the same God..but incorrect in the belief of Christ as lord and savior .

The Muslims were founded by a madman that hallucinated ..they worship demon (the moon god)..so what they believe is of little concern to professing Christians .

There is not one wit of evidence that the BOM is true..or that Joseph was anything more that a con man .
When the LDS find any tie of the Jews to the Native Americans genetically lingually, or any anthological evidence that the people in the BOM were ever here.. we can then consider that perhaps Joseph was not a deceiver.



It is not my desire to be unkind, but some very people are still being deceived.

 

[Der Alte]

Then they would all have to be one person BUT the article points out that they ARE Three Persons

as much as you feel "you" is correct the rendering is double talk Three persons cannot be one person. Three Gods cannot be one God.

Here is the classic misrepresenation of Trintarian theology. 1st it is NOT three persons, being one person, it is One Being, God, manifesting as three disctinct personas. 2nd, it is NOT three Gods, it is ONE God, manifest in three persons. All you are doing is beating a dead straw horse of your own invention.

Now the unstated part is, can your god do anything He wants to do, any time He wants to do it, any where He wants to do it, and any way He wants to do it? In order to prove Trinitarian theology wrong you must prove that any one, or all, of these four points are wrong.

 

[Der Alte]

That men who have lived on this earth can become Gods could be used to call us henotheistic, but if you where to do this you would then have to call Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and the Early Church Fathers henotheistic because they absolutely all believe/believed that men may become Gods.

This statement is absolutely false as it refers to Orthodox Christians and Early Church Fathers. Please quote some evidence from each of the sources.

In fact, it is the many Protestant denominations and the majority of Catholics that have forgotten the truth about deification.

Absolutely false!

 

[rnmomof7]

I like your reasoning Der Alter.You might just as well said it doesn't have to make sense.The trouble with that is that God is a God of Order not Disorder.

Psa 33:6**
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Jhn 1:1**
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Eph 3:9**
And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Hbr 1:10**
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

1Ti 3:16**
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Jhn 10:30**
I and [my] Father are one.

Jhn 14:9**
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

Mat 1:23**
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Col 1:19**
For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 2:9 *For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
**
*
1Jo 5:7**
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1Jo 5:8**
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Isa 9:6**
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Mat 1:23**
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

The apostles knew who Jesus was


Jhn 20:28**
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Act 7:59**
And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

1Ti 1:2 Unto Timothy, [my] own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Lord

kurios {koo'-ree-os}

TDNT Reference
Root Word

TDNT - 3:1039,486
from kuros (supremacy)

Part of Speech

n m

Outline of Biblical Usage


1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord

a) the possessor and disposer of a thing

1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master

2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor

b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master

c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah


Zec 13:9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It [is] my people: and they shall say, The LORD [is] my God.

 

[TOmNossor]

Rnmomof7:

I responded to your comment that Mormons should not be called polytheists

You grouped the Mormons with Protestants and Catholics.

Mormons are indeed polytheists as proven by your scripture and leaders and prophets in your church.



TOm:

I see what you were commenting on now. I was wrong you did have something to say related to my post. I apologize.



Later in your post, you will say that Jews do not call Christians polytheistic. I do not agree actually, but at the very least we can see our modalist friend above who considers Trinitarians polytheistic.



Rnmomof7:

There were many heresies in the early church , unfortunately some remain today in the various cults..there is nothing new under the sun..the same errors keep repeating..perhaps because man is sinful and self seeking ,looking for a god like him or a god he can control.



TOm:

Lets continue here. You suggest there were many heresies in the early church. This would be your early church. The church that followed Christ. If these writers produced heresy, then you feel free to reject it.

When I say that I along with every active LDS reject statements in the Journal of Discourses you continue to point to this book and demand I embrace all of its teachings.

When I say that the KFD is not canonized nor doctrine you still do the same.



I would repeat what we consider to be doctrine, but it was just 2 posts above this that I tried to clarify this.



I believe that God the Father is eternal. I know of no God beside the Trinitarian Godhead (and a couple of Deified Biblical figures who I do not pay any attention to, in fact we do not speak of the people as gods ever). I have shared with likeminded LDS and would council LDS who where not likeminded that we should follow the council of Origen and President Hinkley. We do not know much about any extra-Godhead gods and should focus on our Godhead.

And while I am adamant that God created the universe out of eternal matter and eternal intelligences, I embrace the fact that God is responsible for all we experience.



Concerning men becoming gods, this is what I do embrace and do say is currently taught in our church. In truth, I didn’t understand what your long list of Hebrew was trying to tell me.



I can show that the Roman Catholic Church believes that men can become gods.

I could of course show that men becoming gods was not some isolated thing in the ECF, but more universal and less conflicted than the Trinity.



Would either of these matter to you, or would you still marginalize the CoJCoLDS as a non-Christian cult?



And, I do not see you as being unkind. I just see that you are determined to continue to see the CoJCoLDS in the same light you saw us regardless of me, Twhite, and DocT trying to explain where you do not understand our doctrine. I undoubtedly could find a plethora of Protestant doctrines you reject. If I did so, you rejected them, and I continued to show you the “truth” of your beliefs; would you be as patient as I am trying to be?



Charity, TOm

 

[True Believer]

Here is the classic misrepresenation of Trintarian theology. 1st it is NOT three persons, being one person, it is One Being, God, manifesting as three disctinct personas. 2nd, it is NOT three Gods, it is ONE God, manifest in three persons. All you are doing is beating a dead straw horse of your own invention.

Now the unstated part is, can your god do anything He wants to do, any time He wants to do it, any where He wants to do it, and any way He wants to do it? In order to prove Trinitarian theology wrong you must prove that any one, or all, of these four points are wrong.

As I have said before there seem to be several private interpretations.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
Now supposedly this is the official version taken from the Encyclopedia.
the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."
Does it or does it not say three persons being distinct from one another?
Does it not say Godhead to try to explain away this Idea not found in the Bible.
Start reveiwing some of the others posts that say they are Trinitarians and see if their understanding is the same as the Encyclopedia which was written by the inventors of the Christian Trinity.

 

[KennySe]

Peace be with you, rnmom.

Indeed, the Apostles did know who Jesus IS.

Paul speaking in Acts 20:25-25
And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood"

Who purchased the Church of God with his own blood? God.

And what is his name that purchased with his own blood? Jesus.

****

Indeed the Jews knew who Jesus said He IS.

John 10:33
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

(And how many Gods are there, according to the Jews, class? ONE. Jesus said he was THAT God, the ONLY God.)

 

[TOmNossor]

Der Alter:

This statement is absolutely false as it refers to Orthodox Christians and Early Church Fathers. Please quote some evidence from each of the sources.

TOm:

I believe Der Alter is a Roman Catholic who is denying that Roman Catholics believe that men may become Gods (but acknowledging that Orthodox and ECF embraced this).



I promise you Der Alter I do not wish to drag you into some hole with me. Unlike the polytheistic stuff that I reject, I will sing from the rooftops that we LDS believe in deification. I find the Catholic Church to be a wonderful religion and I hope I can make it better for you by inviting you to consider some beliefs I find quite beautiful. I do not wish for anyone to think that I presume to define what Der Alter believes, nor can I as a former Catholic authoritatively speak on Catholic theology. I will quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church however. This is pertinent because while it has no parallel in the CoJCoLDS, it is the authoritative word on Catholic theology (I think).



The fact that the Catholic Church has made Irenaeus and Athanaus Saints I guess would not matter too much.

How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church?



The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, p. 116.)



The current Pope (this is not an infallible statement it could be rejected by latter Popes, but this truth has survived for thousands of years):



This is the central truth of all Christian soteriology that finds an organic unity with the revealed reality of the God-Man. God became man that man could truly participate in the life of God—so that, indeed, in a certain sense, he could become God. The Fathers of the Church had a clear consciousness of this fact. It is sufficient to recall St. Irenaeus who, in his exhortations to imitate Christ, the only sure teacher, declared: “Through the immense love he bore, he became what we are, thereby affording us the opportunity of becoming what he is.” (John Paul II, Jesus, Son and Savior, 1996, p. 215 - General audience address September 2, 1987.)



And lastly a comparative study of LDS vs. Catholics. Let my start by admitting that I have studied Catholicism a great deal and I know of one major difference between LDS deification and Catholic deification. To become a god, a Catholic must “partake of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4) and in doing this a Catholic will have their nature changed. In a sense the Catholic will become uncreated. A LDS will also “partake of the divine nature,” but in doing this the LDS will unite with God but not change nature. LDS believe that we are already “homoousian” in the original Nicene meaning.



Let me quote Father Jordan Vajda. This is from a introduction to his masters thesis he wrote in 1998. I must admit that like Cardinal Newman who left the Church of England as a result of his study of Christian history, Father Vajda has left the Catholic Church, but it took him 5 more years to come to terms with the rest of LDS theology. He was baptized earlier this year.



"The underlying motive for this thesis," Father Vajda states in the new introduction that he has written for FARMS, "was my . . . perception that one connection between the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lay in the fact that those who sought to deny the label 'Christian' to the LDS Church were, more often than not, the very same people who would then turn around and attempt to deny this label to the Catholic Church with the same reasons often being used in both instances to justify the conclusion. And since it was easy enough for me to see through the many half-truths, misunderstandings, and even outright errors alleged against the Catholic Church, I suspected that similar critiques leveled against the LDS Church as to its 'non-Christian' status were equally flawed." Accordingly, he decided that he "wanted to reach beyond the rhetoric and discover for [himself] what the LDS Church actually taught," in the hope of encouraging responsible and accurate interfaith dialogue.


"I firmly maintain," writes Father Vajda, "that the Latter-day Saints are owed a debt of gratitude by other Christians because the Saints remind us all of our divine potential. The historic Christian doctrine of salvation theosis, i.e., human divinization for too long has been forgotten by too many Christians." "Members of the LDS Church," he promises near the beginning of his thesis, "will discover unmistakable evidence that their fundamental belief about human salvation and potential is not unique nor a Mormon invention. Latin Catholics and Protestants will learn of a doctrine of salvation that, while relatively foreign to their ears, is nevertheless part of the heritage of the undivided Catholic Church of the first millennium. Members of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches will discover on the American continent an amazing parallel to their own belief that salvation in Christ involves our becoming 'partakers of the divine nature.'"



Father Vajda not only unbiasedly considered the CoJCoLDS’s view on deification, he ultimately left the Catholic Church. Did he become overwhelmed by the improbability that Joseph Smith could have possibly come up with this concept on his own? I know that I have been suitably impacted by this.



Anyway, Der Alter, I hope I have given you something to think about. I suspect I will envy the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation forever, and had I truly understood it I might have never left Catholicism. But I feel I have found a greater light and now all I can do is follow God and envy Catholic’s view of Transubstantiation.



Charity, TOm

 

[Der Alte]

As I have said before there seem to be several private interpretations.

Now supposedly this is the official version taken from the Encyclopedia.

"the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God".

Does it or does it not say three persons being distinct from one another?

Yes, and does it not continue, "there are not three Gods but one God. You said, "Three Gods cannot be one God." Which is a misrepresentation.

Does it not say Godhead to try to explain away this Idea not found in the Bible.

What idea is not found in the Bible, Godhead?

Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.​

Start reveiwing some of the others posts that say they are Trinitarians and see if their understanding is the same as the Encyclopedia which was written by the inventors of the Christian Trinity.

Irrelevant what a few indivduals might think or believe. If you are going to speak about the Trinity then you would do well to refer to the official positions of the mainline denominations which are Trinitarian.

Who do you mean by the, "inventors of the Christian Trinity.?" If you are referring to the RCC, the Trinity was written and spoken of about 1000 years before the RCC came in to existence.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
​

 

[rnmomof7]

Der Alter:


Anyway, Der Alter, I hope I have given you something to think about. I suspect I will envy the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation forever, and had I truly understood it I might have never left Catholicism. But I feel I have found a greater light and now all I can do is follow God and envy Catholic’s view of Transubstantiation.



Charity, TOm

Tom , you are at variance with your own prophet . Joseph Smith believed Catholicism and Protestantism to he heretical .
He had no place of honor for any of them.

He denied all the creeds and spoke against them. He had a minister as the tool of Satan in one of the rituals

It seems that you be" a courting" folks ..perhaps a missionary outreach?? :>)

For the record.



"Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the harlot of all the earth." (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10)



"Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (Documentary History of the Church, Introduction, xl)



"I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian Churches), for they were all wrong...that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight" (Joseph Smith History 1:19).



"...orthodox Christian views of God are Pagan rather than Christian." (Mormon Doctrine of Deity by B.H. Roberts, p.116)



"...the God whom the 'Christians' worship is a being of their own creation..." (Apostle Charles W. Penrose, JD 23:243)



"The Christian world, so called, are heathens as to their knowledge of the salvation of God." (Brigham Young, JD 8:171)



"We may very properly say that the sectarian world do not know anything correctly, so far as pertains to salvation. Ask them where heaven is?- where they are going to when they die?-where Paradise is! -and there is not a priest in the world that can answer your questions. Ask them what kind of a being our Heavenly Father is, and they cannot tell you so much as Balaam's *** told him. They are more ignorant than children." (Brigham Young, JD 5:229).



"The Christian world, I discovered, was like the captain and crew of a vessel on the ocean without a compass, and tossed to and fro whithersoever the wind listed to blow them. When the light came to me, I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness." (Brigham Young, JD 5:73).



"What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute best." (John Taylor, JD 13:225)



"What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing...Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God." (John Taylor, JI) 13:225)



"Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.177)



"I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true." (Joseph Smith, DHC 1:6)



"I spoke of the impropriety of turning away from the truth, and going after a people so destitute of righteousness as the Methodists." (Joseph Smith, DHC 2:319)



"...brother Joseph B. Nobles once told a Methodist priest, after hearing him describe his god, that the god they worshiped was the "Mormon's" Devil-a being without a body, whereas our God has a body, parts and passions." (Brigham Young, JD 5:331)



"...brother Heber C. Kimball was beset by a number of Baptist priests who had been attending a conference. He read them all down out of the New Testament....With regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world." (Brigham Young, JD 8:199).



"The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church, is the great corrupt, ecclesiastical power, represented by great Babylon...." (Orson Pratt, Orson Pratt, Writings of an Apostle, "Divine Authenticity," no.6, p.84).



"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels." (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60)



"And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act." (Orson Pratt, OP-WA, "The Kingdom of God," no.2, p.6)



"...all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who recieves baptism or the Lord's supper from their hands will highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt people." (Orson Pratt, The Seer, pg. 255)



"...the great apostate church as the anti-christ...This great antichrist...is the church of the devil." (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine p.40)



"Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the "harlot of Babylon" whom the lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness." (Pratt, The Seer, p.255)



"Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth." (Brigham Young, JD 6:176)



"Evil spirits control much of the so-called religious worship in the world; for instance, the great creeds of Christendom were formulated so as to conform to their whispered promptings." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.246)



"After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christiandom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common orgin. They belong to Babylon." (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, p.324)



Finally, note the views of Mormon Prophet Brigham Young regarding the Christian view of Jesus Christ:



"You may hear the divines of the day extol the character of the Saviour, undertake to exhibit his true character before the people, and give an account of his origin...I have frequently thought of mules, which you know are half horse and half ***, when reflecting upon the representations made by those divines. I have heard sectarian priests undertake to tell the character of the Son of God, and they make him half of one species and half of another, and I could not avoid thinking at once of the mule, which is the most hateful creature that ever was made, I believe. You will excuse me, but I have thus thought many a time" (Journal of Discourses 4:217).

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter:

This statement is absolutely false as it refers to Orthodox Christians and Early Church Fathers. Please quote some evidence from each of the sources.

TOm:

I believe Der Alter is a Roman Catholic who is denying that Roman Catholics believe that men may become Gods (but acknowledging that Orthodox and ECF embraced this).

I am not now and have never been a card carrying RC. You misunderstood my post. I excluded the RCC and said your blanket statement was "absolutely false as it refers to the Orthodox Christians and Early Church Fathers. Please quote some evidence from each of these sources." I meant quotes from Orthodox Christian and ECF sources. If I was only speaking of the RCC, I would not have said "each."

 

[lared]

Oh my goodness!


I never realized that there were so many different kinds of trinities worshiped.

It is way too confusing for me.

I think I will stick with the Father/Son explanation.
Jehovah is the Father and Jesus is the Son.
Jehovah is Almighty God.

Have a good night.

 

[Der Alte]

Finally, note the views of Mormon Prophet Brigham Young regarding the Christian view of Jesus Christ:

"You may hear the divines of the day extol the character of the Saviour, undertake to exhibit his true character before the people, and give an account of his origin...I have frequently thought of mules, which you know are half horse and half ***, when reflecting upon the representations made by those divines. I have heard sectarian priests undertake to tell the character of the Son of God, and they make him half of one species and half of another, and I could not avoid thinking at once of the mule, which is the most hateful creature that ever was made, I believe. You will excuse me, but I have thus thought many a time" (Journal of Discourses 4:217).

Mom, as for B. Young's views about asses, I think the old adage it takes one to know one applies to him.