The Godhead

[_Gazelam]

This is so idiotic. Anyone that has been through the Temple and believes this nonsence should be excommunicated on grounds of heresy.

What an odd thing to say. I would imagine that the correct statement should be, "anyone who has been to the temple and teaches this stuff as doctrine should be called to repentance, and if they do not desist, submit to church discipline."

Your statement is absurd.

I'm still working on the attribute of Charity.

[_Trevor]

I'm still working on the attribute of Charity.

Charity, huh? Looks more like an issue with listening to the prophet, rather than a charity thing.

[_Mercury]

Mercury:

WARNING - the Irony quotient for this thread has just buried the needle on the gage. Gaz, if you keep this up were going to have to engage the overrides and run like hell, fearing for the space-time continuum.

Its alright, I know a guy who fixes those.

teehee

[_Jason Bourne]

Richards comment a cheap shot? doesn't work here?

Where is here? Is this a closed board allowing only Mormon views? Admitedly the board is largely exMormon. I am exmormon. I think Richards comment is spot on.

It requires no special accomplishment of the rest of Christianisty. There is doctrinal diversity confusions and hostilities. The question in view of Richards comment is whether a prophet like Joseph Smith is the answer to that situation. If it creates more confusion instead of increased clarity that observation argues that a prophet is perhaps not the answer. that observation does not require that the rest of Christianity be clear or even right.

A prophet like Joseph Smith can create confusion by supplamenting assertion in the place of thought. It is better to think and even argue like at Nicea. It is better to understand the reason for trinitarian doctrin and accept or reject it or improve it with thought than to just assert stuff.

I think the LDS prophets have defined what LDS believe God is (accept for the AG dilemma from BY). To use someone's off the wall speculation that Adam is the HG that would certainly be rejected by LDS prophets to say "Gee isn't it great to have a living prophet is a cheap shot.

[_Brackite]

Hi All Here,

Let me expound on the Doctrine of the Godhead (Trinity) here. The Holy Ghost is (an) Eternally God just like God the Son, Jesus Christ, and God the Father. All the three members of the Godhead (Trinity) are one Eternal God. Let us go to the Scriptures, Within the Book of Mormon, that states this Doctrine pretty much very clearly. First let's go to 2 Nephi 31:21. Here is 2 Nephi 31:21:

2 Nephi 31:21:

[21] And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

The Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are (is) all one God without end.
Now let's go to Alma 11:44, Within the Book of Mormon. Here is Alma 11:44:

Alma 11:44:

[44] Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

All three members of the Godhead (Trinity) are (is) indeed one Eternal God. They are all one Eternal God, meaning that they are all eternal without beginning of days and end of years. They are all also one in essence and one in Nature.
Now let's go to Mormon 7:7, Within the Book of Mormon. Here is Mormon 7:7:

Mormon 7:7:

[7] 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.

If we have faith in Jesus Christ, try to endure to the end, and if we are found guiltless before Christ through his atonement and grace at the Judge-ment Day, then we as children of God will be able to dwell within Heaven, and sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one Eternal God, in a state of happiness which has absolutely no end. Amen!

[_Trevor]

Hi All Here,

Let me expound on the Doctrine of the Godhead (Trinity) here...

I guess I understand why contemporary LDS people retreat to the Book of Mormon when describing LDS theology, but it always strikes me with a mixture of humor and sadness. You would think that Nauvoo and the rest of 19th century Mormonism never happened. And I really think it is odd that LDS people continue to hold Book of Mormon theology as representative of contemporary LDS theology, when very few people outside of the Margaret Barker acolytes would hold that the pre-Christian theology was anything like Christian theology. If Old Testament theology can be different from New Testament theology, why can't Book of Mormon theology be a little different from latter-day LDS theology? I see no reason.

In other words, why believe in dispensations, continuing revelation, and eternal progression, when the party line is that the same understanding of God always pertains, even when the texts themselves do not really support it...even the Book of Mormon?

The current attraction of the Book of Mormon seems to be, in my mind, its regression to the good old Christian theology, and thus we may safely bid farewell to the theology of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, returning to a more mainstream point of view. So we get guys like Ostler, who savagely misread the King Follett discourse, and in their sophistry try to make it say the opposite of what it says... and then there is all of the crap about social trinitarianism. In my book it's all just sad, sad, sad. Why be a Mormon if all that means is you are an everyday Christian with a little twist on the theology?

Oh, I know, it is that great deity Authority that gives the LDS Church its raison d'etre. Sigh. It is no wonder that I quit going. All of the unique beauty of Mormonism has been sapped out of the system, leaving a parched husk of its former self. Almost completely desiccated.

[_richardMdBorn]

Richards comment a cheap shot? doesn't work here?

Where is here? Is this a closed board allowing only Mormon views? Admitedly the board is largely exMormon. I am exmormon. I think Richards comment is spot on.

It requires no special accomplishment of the rest of Christianisty. There is doctrinal diversity confusions and hostilities. The question in view of Richards comment is whether a prophet like Joseph Smith is the answer to that situation. If it creates more confusion instead of increased clarity that observation argues that a prophet is perhaps not the answer. that observation does not require that the rest of Christianity be clear or even right.

A prophet like Joseph Smith can create confusion by supplamenting assertion in the place of thought. It is better to think and even argue like at Nicea. It is better to understand the reason for trinitarian doctrin and accept or reject it or improve it with thought than to just assert stuff.

I think the LDS prophets have defined what LDS believe God is (accept for the AG dilemma from BY). To use someone's off the wall speculation that Adam is the HG that would certainly be rejected by LDS prophets to say "Gee isn't it great to have a living prophet is a cheap shot.

Does God the Father have a father? I've gotten different answers from different LDS.

[_Jason Bourne]

Richards comment a cheap shot? doesn't work here?

Where is here? Is this a closed board allowing only Mormon views? Admitedly the board is largely exMormon. I am exmormon. I think Richards comment is spot on.

It requires no special accomplishment of the rest of Christianisty. There is doctrinal diversity confusions and hostilities. The question in view of Richards comment is whether a prophet like Joseph Smith is the answer to that situation. If it creates more confusion instead of increased clarity that observation argues that a prophet is perhaps not the answer. that observation does not require that the rest of Christianity be clear or even right.

A prophet like Joseph Smith can create confusion by supplamenting assertion in the place of thought. It is better to think and even argue like at Nicea. It is better to understand the reason for trinitarian doctrin and accept or reject it or improve it with thought than to just assert stuff.

I think the LDS prophets have defined what LDS believe God is (accept for the AG dilemma from BY). To use someone's off the wall speculation that Adam is the HG that would certainly be rejected by LDS prophets to say "Gee isn't it great to have a living prophet is a cheap shot.

Does God the Father have a father? I've gotten different answers from different LDS.

Is Jesus subordinate to the father? Christians have not gotten this one straight yet.

[_richardMdBorn]

Richards comment a cheap shot? doesn't work here?

Where is here? Is this a closed board allowing only Mormon views? Admitedly the board is largely exMormon. I am exmormon. I think Richards comment is spot on.

It requires no special accomplishment of the rest of Christianisty. There is doctrinal diversity confusions and hostilities. The question in view of Richards comment is whether a prophet like Joseph Smith is the answer to that situation. If it creates more confusion instead of increased clarity that observation argues that a prophet is perhaps not the answer. that observation does not require that the rest of Christianity be clear or even right.

A prophet like Joseph Smith can create confusion by supplamenting assertion in the place of thought. It is better to think and even argue like at Nicea. It is better to understand the reason for trinitarian doctrin and accept or reject it or improve it with thought than to just assert stuff.

I think the LDS prophets have defined what LDS believe God is (accept for the AG dilemma from BY). To use someone's off the wall speculation that Adam is the HG that would certainly be rejected by LDS prophets to say "Gee isn't it great to have a living prophet is a cheap shot.

Does God the Father have a father? I've gotten different answers from different LDS.

Is Jesus subordinate to the father? Christians have not gotten this one straight yet.

It would be nice if you would answer my question first. I admit that Evs don't have the answers to all the questions one might want to ask. But the LDS church claims to have a living prophet. And the living prophet is supposed to be a superior system. It seems to me that the LDS have as many, if not more, nagging problems as do other religions.

[_Jason Bourne]

It would be nice if you would answer my question first. I admit that Evs don't have the answers to all the questions one might want to ask. But the LDS church claims to have a living prophet. And the living prophet is supposed to be a superior system. It seems to me that the LDS have as many, if not more, nagging problems as do other religions.

I never said they did not. I just said your use of someones wild speculation was a cheap shot. It was,

If you want to have a discussion about your questions what you perceive are LDS problems regarding their doctrine about the godhead start the thread.

As for your question, Joseph Smith late in his life taught the God has a father. 19th century LDS prophets emphasized that idea. I think that today it is not a popular idea.

Note that the teaching was never canonized in LDS canon. An apologist will argue that it was thus never official binding doctrine.