Trinity in BOM

Hello my Mormon friends,

Today i have a bit heavy questions (for me)...
I know the main concepts of restoration, and the first vision ... so on.
But sometimes in the BOM i find some hints which shows trinity aspect,
and since i know that trinity is fully refused, then i decided to ask you how do you read & explain those parts.

Let me show you some from BOM, and will be glad if you explain for me, i guess you can, since you are attainding chapels & study sessions (not like me )

2Nephi31
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.

Mosiah15
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son

and in some other parts it repeats those same phrases, like in Alma mentioned somehow the same words as in 2nd Nephi...

So, without being offended, could you please explain how you understand those parts?

Note: hope non-lds won't respond, because i'm only interested to know LDS view. Thank You!

Marco19 said:

Hello my Mormon friends,

Today i have a bit heavy questions (for me)...
I know the main concepts of restoration, and the first vision ... so on.
But sometimes in the BOM i find some hints which shows trinity aspect,
and since i know that trinity is fully refused, then i decided to ask you how do you read & explain those parts.

Let me show you some from BOM, and will be glad if you explain for me, i guess you can, since you are attainding chapels & study sessions (not like me )

2Nephi31
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.

Mosiah15
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son

and in some other parts it repeats those same phrases, like in Alma mentioned somehow the same words as in 2nd Nephi...

So, without being offended, could you please explain how you understand those parts?

Note: hope non-lds won't respond, because i'm only interested to know LDS view. Thank You!

Click to expand...

Hello, Marco. Long time no see.

You are much too considerate. I can't imagine what reason you have given any of us to be offended. Let me see if I can do justice to your question.

I believe it would be accurate to say that we Latter-day Saints think of the word "God" as being used -- at least some of the time -- as a collective noun, like "team," "partnership," "jury" and "committee." That is definitely the case in 2 Nephi 31:21. The individuals who make up each of these entities are unique. They are physically distinct from one another. My husband and I are a "couple." Notice the use of the singular indefinite pronoun "a." Since it is singular, the word which follows (i.e. "couple") is singular. But since it is a collective noun, we know that it has to be referring to more than one individual. If either my husband or I were not a part of this union, we could not be spoken of as a "couple." The "couple" would simply cease to exist. As united as we may be in many ways, when he is out on the golf course and I am at home feeling sorry for myself because I am a golf widow, we are definitely two physically distinct beings. In this way, we can be divided but still be a couple.

The word "Trinity" is not, of course, found in English Bibles. The word which is used instead is "Godhead." If you look up the word in the dictionary, you'll see the word "God" is listed as a synonym, which would mean that, depending upon the usage, you could substitute the word "Godhead" for "God." We can do just that in 2 Nephi 31:21, making it say, "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 Godhead, without end. Amen." Incidentally, I know that Spanish Bibles (including the one used by Spanish-speaking Latter-day Saints) uses the word "Trinidad." So, if you really want to get technical, it's not so much that we don't believe in the Trinity per se as it is that we don't believe in the Creeds which first defined the word. When we say we don't believe in the Trinity, what we're really saying is that we reject the way the Creeds describe God.

The word "God" is also used as a title. It can be applied to all three of the members of the Godhead, who are "one God," but it can also be applied to each one individually. Normally, I use the word "God" to refer to God the Father, even though I believe the Son to be every bit as divine as I believe the Father to be. When I say I worship "God," I worship God as one "Godhead," because they are so perfectly united in will, purpose, mind and heart, that I could not conceivably worship one without worshipping the others.

Going on to Mosiah 15:2... This is a little more difficult. When I first noticed what this verse said, I remember thinking, "What!!!" At the time, I did some research on the subject, and this is what I found: In that verse, Jesus Christ is referred to as both "Father" and "Son." This does not mean that the Father and the Son are the same individual. Here we are simply applying two different titles to the same individual (Jesus Christ). His role as the Son is, I believe, pretty self-evident. He is also considered to be a Father in that just as God the Father initially gave us life, Jesus Christ gave us renewed life, life after death, eternal life. He is therefore the Father of our resurrected bodies because it is through Him that we will all rise again. Those who accept His gospel are said to be Christ's "sons and daughters." He is the Father of our salvation.

I hope that clears things up. If not, please feel free to tell me what's lacking.

Hello Katzpur. Thanks for asking, glad to read your respond

Let me split your respond into two parts, the one with 2nd Nephi, and the other with Mosiah.

First part:
God= Godhead
hmmm, seems i misunderstood the first vision...
my understanding is that you worship only one God, the Heavenly Father, but through Jesus christ,
Jesus is the path, to follow God's rules and be righteous....
so you worship the Father, not Jesus, BUT through Jesus only...
- Even in your prays you say: Dear Heavenly Father, XXXXXXXX, in the name of Jesus Christ ...

is that right? if not, could you correct
##########################################################

Second part: Mosiah

When I first noticed what this verse said, I remember thinking, "What!!!"

Click to expand...

the same here.

He is also considered to be a Father in that just as God the Father initially gave us life

Click to expand...

so why you call yourself as monotheist?

Jesus Christ gave us renewed life, life after death, eternal life.

Click to expand...

Yes, but He did as an assignment given to Him by the Father, so He followed the rules (as Adam did)
even resurrection is to accomplish Father's plan (not His)

He is therefore the Father of our resurrected bodies because it is through Him that we will all rise again.

Click to expand...

yes, that's my understanding too, through Him. so His is like the window through it we get sun rays. don't we?

He is the Father of our salvation

Click to expand...

But He is not our Heavenly Father, isn't He?

please feel free to tell me what's lacking.

Click to expand...

As you've seen, i still have huge lack :help:

Thank You!

Marco19 said:

Let me split your respond into two parts, the one with 2nd Nephi, and the other with Mosiah.

First part:
God= Godhead
hmmm, seems i misunderstood the first vision...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. What do you think you misunderstood?

my understanding is that you worship only one God, the Heavenly Father, but through Jesus christ,
Jesus is the path, to follow God's rules and be righteous....
so you worship the Father, not Jesus, BUT through Jesus only...
- Even in your prays you say: Dear Heavenly Father, XXXXXXXX, in the name of Jesus Christ ...

is that right? if not, could you correct

Click to expand...

I believe it would be misleading of me to say that we do not worship Jesus Christ. While we definitely to hold the Father to be the Supreme Being, and therefore superior in rank to Jesus Christ, the two of them are virtually inseparable in purpose, testimony, glory, and power. Thus, it would be pretty hard not to worship the Son right along with the Father. Since Jesus Christ is the only means by which I can be reconciled to my Father in Heaven, since His resurrection gives me the promise of life after death, He is definitely worthy of my worship.

I think of when I go to a Utah Jazz basketball game. I am rooting for "one team" throughout the game, even when I might actually be cheering and clapping for one particularly outstanding player at a time. If every individual player on the team excels and works well with the others, the end result will be a victory for the team as a whole. If I'm focusing my attention at any given time to one single player, it is with the team as a whole in mind.

Second part: Mosiah

so why you call yourself as monotheist?

Click to expand...

Honestly, it's a label. I am quite sure it means nothing at all to God. People can say we're polytheistic. That wouldn't particularly bother me except that their motive in doing so is generally to scare prospective converts away. Polytheism, to most people, invokes images of competing gods who are constantly striving for one-upmanship. One is temporarily allied with another against a third to accomplish something he could not do on his own. But then there is a disagreement and allegiances change. They trick each other, lie to one another, try to usurp one another's power. There is no real unity between them. And mankind finds itself in the middle of the mess, trying to please one god without offending another. This is not in any way, shape or form characteristic of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. So, there are three. If that makes us polytheistic in the eyes of the world, so be it. It does not make us polytheistic in God's eyes.

Trinitarians quote the Athanasian Creed, which states: "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God."

To a Latter-day Saint, that's nothing but a huge contradiction (at least interpreted as they interpret it). It's essentially the same as saying, "Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States; Jimmy Carter was the President of the United States; George Bush was the President of the United States. And they were not three Presidents, but one President."

That's how they get around being labeled polytheistic. But in the end, you can't have three individuals, each of whom is "God" and still have only "one God" -- unless that "one God" is "one Godhead."

Yes, but He did as an assignment given to Him by the Father, so He followed the rules (as Adam did)
even resurrection is to accomplish Father's plan (not His)
yes, that's my understanding too, through Him. so His is like the window through it we get sun rays. don't we?
But He is not our Heavenly Father, isn't He?

Click to expand...

You seem to have a pretty good handle on it, actually. The Son always acted as the Father's agent. He did His Father's will. He sits on His Father's right hand today. They are not one and the same.

Marco19 said:

Hello Katzpur. Thanks for asking, glad to read your respond

Let me split your respond into two parts, the one with 2nd Nephi, and the other with Mosiah.

First part:
God= Godhead
hmmm, seems i misunderstood the first vision...
my understanding is that you worship only one God, the Heavenly Father, but through Jesus christ,
Jesus is the path, to follow God's rules and be righteous....
so you worship the Father, not Jesus, BUT through Jesus only...
- Even in your prays you say: Dear Heavenly Father, XXXXXXXX, in the name of Jesus Christ ...

is that right? if not, could you correct

so why you call yourself as monotheist?

Click to expand...

Hello,

I think Katzpur gave a fine answer(s). Another way to reply would be:

God in Mormon Thought is equivocal. It can refer to a being or a way of being. Any who fully participate in that way of being are thereby God. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost each are full participants and therefore fully divine. This participation is a complete indwelling of love, commonality and openness. Even so, participatory status does not mean erasure of the participants. The Son at one point divested Himself from this status/relationship to become mortal and experience the foibles of the flesh.

Per the Trinity as a term: Modern Mormons do not typically use the term trinity to describe God or the Divine due to its connection to the Creedal Tradition which Mormons reject as both lacking prophetic authority and being contrived. Godhead is the more common descriptive term used. The Mormon understanding on God is similar in certain ways with social trinitarianism and/or the Eastern (Greek) Christian Tradition i.e. three persons who are one God as the emphasis over the Latin Christian Tradition where the thrust is typically one God who is three persons. The later can run into issues with modalism.

Per monotheism: Mormonism moves in the direction of suborbinationism. Suborbinationism was the standard view in Christian circles prior to the Council of Nicea. The view is often tied to Origen (3rd Century) who attempted to describe the relationship of the Father to the Son. Both the Son and the Holy Ghost are seen as subordinate to the Father (despite all sharing in the divine nature). One verse that was typically used relating to this notion is found in the Gospel of John 20:17 where Christ states:

“Jesus saith unto her,Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”​

Here the resurrected Christ identifies the Father as His God. Suborbinationistism faded with the rise of the Creedal Tradition where the notion of The Father and the Son being of one substance began to move things in another direction. With any parsing of the meaning of the Godhead and Mormons being fully comfortable with recognizing the Son and the Holy Ghost as subordinate to the Father, Mormons are even less vulnerable to polytheistic charges than Trinitarians are from Muslim critics.

Hi Katzpur

Thanks for the explanation
- I don't agree with Athanasius at all, may be it's rude to say, but for me he is the reason why christian faith included non logical aspects...
Normally LDS doesn't like the word trinity (i agree with your comment), but if we want to correct Athanasius statement, do you agree with the following:

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are three seperate Gods, but one God (Godhead)."

The Son always acted as the Father's agent. He did His Father's will. He sits on His Father's right hand today. They are not one and the same.

Click to expand...

Yes, i agree, and it matches JS first vision (which is for me the base of the LDS concepts)

Thank You!

Hello Orontes!

The Mormon understanding on God is similar in certain ways with social trinitarianism and/or the Eastern (Greek) Christian Tradition

Click to expand...

Well, i always have the feeling that Mormonism is somehow similar to Arianism in general.

Both the Son and the Holy Ghost are seen as subordinate to the Father

Click to expand...

So it's absolute monotheism, where the Father brought some auxiliary tools to manage His own plan.
but here another issue appears:
Why Holy Ghost is not on the same level as the Son?
what i mean from my question is, if Son and Holy Ghost are both subordinated, and they both are involved in the plan (plan of salvation), then Why you always mention only Jesus.(even in your prayer you mention Jesus but not the Holy Ghost)

Here i may add something from Acts1:2 where it shows that Jesus can't alone effect, unless He uses the power of the Holy Ghost
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

even in Moroni10:3-5 shows that there is nothing could be done without Holy Ghost
having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

additional question:
-In which period we get it (pre-mortal life, when we born, when we baptize)

Note: may be my question about Holy Ghost is not clear enough, but i grasp it from the (catholic-orthodox) dispute about Holy Spirit (being distinct from either God the Father or the Father & Jesus himself)

Marco19 said:

Hello Orontes!


Well, i always have the feeling that Mormonism is somehow similar to Arianism in general.


So it's absolute monotheism, where the Father brought some auxiliary tools to manage His own plan.
but here another issue appears:
Why Holy Ghost is not on the same level as the Son?
what i mean from my question is, if Son and Holy Ghost are both subordinated, and they both are involved in the plan (plan of salvation), then Why you always mention only Jesus.(even in your prayer you mention Jesus but not the Holy Ghost)

Here i may add something from Acts1:2 where it shows that Jesus can't alone effect, unless He uses the power of the Holy Ghost
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

even in Moroni10:3-5 shows that there is nothing could be done without Holy Ghost
having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

additional question:
-In which period we get it (pre-mortal life, when we born, when we baptize)

Note: may be my question about Holy Ghost is not clear enough, but i grasp it from the (catholic-orthodox) dispute about Holy Spirit (being distinct from either God the Father or the Father & Jesus himself)

Click to expand...

Neither social trinitarianism nor Eastern Christian Thought, nor Mormonism is similar to arianism on the key features that define that position. Arianism was however necessarily a suborbinationist view as was the larger Christian understanding in the 4th Century leading up to the Council of Nicea.


Absolute monotheism per the adjective choice would be something like deity in Islam: the adjective ‘absolute’ is necessarily exclusive. As I explained, God in Mormon thinking can be a being or way of being. It includes a participatory element.


Jesus is the Christ. He is the Messiah. This is a unique role essential to salvation. He walked the wine press alone in this capacity and made salvation possible. The Holy Ghost is a testator of truth, not the Savior.


The scriptures you cite do not state your conclusions.

Per Acts 1:2: it does not state “that Jesus can't alone effect, unless He uses the power of the Holy Ghost”. It does state after Christ was taken up (ascended) He gave commandments through the Holy Ghost. It is not an exclusive claim. It does not state Christ is/was restricted in how He gives commandments. It is a chronological statement: after one event X (Christ’s ascent), another event Y occurred (Christ gave commandments through the Holy Ghost).

Per Moroni 10:3-5: it does not state “there is nothing could be done without Holy Ghost”. It does note answers to prayer can be given through the Holy Ghost and that through the Holy Ghost all things can be known. It is an epistemic claim. It is not an ontic claim on the power of Deity.



To the additional question: I’m not sure I understand it. Are you asking about ideas on preexistence from larger Christianity?

To your note on the Holy Ghost and Catholic-Orthodox disputes: there is no commensurate idea of the filoque in Mormon Thought. Mormonism did not develop under neo-platonic influence. The Holy Ghost is a distinct person.

The Holy Ghost is a testator of truth, not the Savior.

Click to expand...

Do you think it's fair when i draw the Mormon Godhead as a pyramid, on the top is the Father, then in the mid Jesus, and then the Holy Ghost on the bottom?

The scriptures you cite do not state your conclusions
It is an epistemic claim. It is not an ontic claim on the power of Deity.

Click to expand...

may be you are right. i haven't looked to the picture in a chronological order, therefore i made both Jesus & Holy Ghost as they are hands of God (being equal under one control).

Are you asking about ideas on preexistence from larger Christianity?

Click to expand...

actually here my question was about the Holy Ghost (only LDS view), whether He is with us even in the pre-mortal life
or just as Jesus has the influence in the period after becoming mortals.

there is no commensurate idea of the filoque in Mormon Thought.

Click to expand...

Ok, got it :yes:

Thank You!

Marco19 said:

Hi Katzpur

Thanks for the explanation
- I don't agree with Athanasius at all, may be it's rude to say, but for me he is the reason why christian faith included non logical aspects...
Normally LDS doesn't like the word trinity (i agree with your comment), but if we want to correct Athanasius statement, do you agree with the following:

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are three seperate Gods, but one God (Godhead)."

Click to expand...

I'd say that is a reasonably accurate statement, Marco.

Marco19 said:

Do you think it's fair when i draw the Mormon Godhead as a pyramid, on the top is the Father, then in the mid Jesus, and then the Holy Ghost on the bottom?

Click to expand...

I think if one were to draw a triangle, assigning members of the Godhead to each point, with the Father as the top point, the Holy Ghost wouldn’t be on the bottom per say, but on one of the “lower” points parallel to the Son. I think that is what your geometry would require.

actually here my question was about the Holy Ghost (only LDS view), whether He is with us even in the pre-mortal life
or just as Jesus has the influence in the period after becoming mortals.

Click to expand...

For Mormons, The Holy Ghost pre-existed mortality, but then so did everyone else.

Marco19;

Hi;

RE: SPECIFICITY OF "TERMS"

I am a convert into the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Before I converted, I attended several christian churches in my life. I noted significant differences between terminology used by Christians. (E.g. “baptism” was “tubbing” in one church I attended as a youth)

Specific religious principles not only had different names but specific names meant different principles (i.e. had different) meanings in the various christianities I’ve seen.

As a convert, I notice the term “trinity” (which refers to the LDS Godhead) is certainly used by the LDS, but not as often as in other churches I’ve attended. I’ve wondered if the term is used less often by the LDS due to it’s various and ambiguous connotations depending upon who one is speaking to and the context of it’s usage. For example, If one hears the word “trinity”, does one automatically assume an early first century Judao-Christian meaning; does one assume a later catholic model; or another model altogether? This type of “specificity” was not so important in other churches I attended, partly because we did not have conversations that were as specific as the LDS conversations I listen to. In my prior christian churches, we simply did not have the level of doctrinal depth and doctrinal specificity that the LDS have on many issues.

However, the first time I heard the word “Godhead”, it was a bit foreign to me and I was not sure just what meaning to assign to the term. I think most non-LDS or new LDS experience the same bit of disorientation to the term. (Though historians of the first century texts are used to such terms, very few of the rest of us are.) I also think that this is part of why the early Judao-Christian texts have such fascination and interest for the LDS. The LDS share some important symbology with early texts (though they are most often completely unaware of this connection) and thus the ancient textual landscapes are already familiar to them when they read them.

When the prophet Enoch describes his vision where he sees God the Father and Jesus as individuals, it is a “plug and play” description to the LDS and there is no doctrinal discomfort or confusion as to what is meant. Enoch says :

“1 At that place, I saw the “The beginning of days”. And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. 2 And I asked the one–from among the angels–who was going with me, and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings, “Who is this, and from whence is he who is going as the prototype of the Before-Time (i.e. should be translated - ...from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?&#8221. 3 And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the Spirits in eternal uprightness. 4 This Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the Kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats, and the strong ones from their thrones. He shall loosen the reins of the strong and crush the teeth of the sinners. 5 He shall depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms. For they do not extol and glorify him, and neither do they obey him, the source of their kingship. (1st Enoch 46:1-6)

Click to expand...

Such language is a bit disorienting to most “would-be” historian christians since the early doctrines no longer fit into their current model of the trinity. The LDS become excited by such ancient descriptions (since the LDS claim that such things WERE the early descriptions). One group is confused and the other enthused.

It’s not simply the ancient sacred textual descriptions of the trinity that excite and interest the LDS, but doctrinal declarations and imbedded in the ancient prayers contain familiar language and relationships. For example Many of the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers are like those heard in LDS general conference :

“O God and Father of Jesus our Savior...on behalf of the knowledge and faith and love and immortality which you gave to us through Jesus your Son. 4 O Master Almighty, the God of the universe, you created the world and what is in it through him, and you planted deeply in our souls a law; and you prepared for men the things (necessary) for communion; 6 (you are) the God of the holy and blameless ones, ...8 the one who sent forth upon earth Jesus your Christ... (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - 1. A Prayer of thanksgiving following Communion (aposCon 7.26. 1-3) #1:1-8)

Click to expand...

I do not know if the earliest Judao-Christians spoke of geometric models of the Trinity as we sometimes do (since controversies regarding the trinity emanated from later theories regarding the trinity), however the hierarchal relationships within the Trinity/Godhead the LDS describe are also accurately described in the earlier sacred texts. The text has Isaiah describing his vision of pre-creation Jesus receiving his mission from the Father:

“ I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus, “Go out and descend through all the heavens...12 and they shall not know that you (are) with me when with the voice of the heavens I summon you...14 And afterwards you shall ascend from the gods of death to your place, and you shall not be transformed in each of the heavens, but in glory you shall ascend and sit at my right hand, and then the princes and the powers of that world will worship you. 16 This command I heard the Great Glory giving to my Lord.” (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 10:6-16)

Click to expand...

Such language is disorienting to later theorists who believe in a “three-is-one” God since the obvious dissonance lies in why one “part of a God” (the father) would need to command another part of a God (jesus) to do anything at all.

For the early Judao-christians, such descriptions were comfortable and simple. Such ancient themes are also comfortable and simple to any Judao-Christianity which possesses the same doctrinal roots as the LDS claim to have. The degree of doctrinal affinity between LDS doctrine and the earliest sacred texts was an incredibly profound discovery for me.


part two of two follows

part two of two


LANGUAGE INADEQUACY. (WE ARE LIMITED BY INADEQUATE AND INACCURATE LANGUAGE, YET WE STILL USE THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE)
This concept of inherent inaccuracy due to inadequate language comes up in clements discussions with the apostle Peter (in the recognitions) and in other early Judao-Christian texts. For example, Phillip describes two profoundly different types of unions between man and wife, though they are referred by the same name because we don’t HAVE a better and more accurate term to describe the eternal union.

“Whereas in this world the union is one of husband with wife –...in the Aeon the form of the union is different, although we refer to them by the same names.” (The gospel of Phillip)

Click to expand...

They are still called “husband” and “wife” in both situations because that is what their union most resembles in our mortal conceptual language and descriptions. Those are simply the best words we have which describe that reality.

I have wondered if the same is true of the translated descriptions of “gods” and “god-like” and “divine beings” that permeates so much of the early Judao-Christian literature. Are they labeled “gods” because we do not possess a more accurate term? (i.e. "lieutenant God-like being, second class" versus "major God-like being, first class") I'll provide textual examples from the early sacred texts below.

It was budge, the great egyptologist who reminded us that the earliest egyptian religion (which had many beings that we describe as “Gods&#8221 was essentially monotheistic since there was always one God over all other beings who were subservient to him.

The Jews, certainly saw themselves as completely monotheistic, yet the Dead Sea Scroll literature, in honoring God the Father, does so partly by placing him above other beings they call “gods”; such language is woven throughout their texts. For example, they honor the Father by saying :

“You are chief of the gods and king of the Glorious, Lord of every spirit and Ruler of every creature. Apart from you nothing is done, nor is there any knowing without your will. There is no one beside you and no one approaches you in strength. No one can compare to your glory and as to Your strength, there is no price.” (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, + 4Q 428 Frag 7. Col. 18)

Click to expand...

It was said of the Father : “You have humbled the gods from the foundation...” (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH + 4Q 427 Frag. 2 Col. 24) The war scroll speaks of the “...righteous ones among the gods of [...] in the holy habitation. (THE WAR SCROLL 4Q491 Manuscript C Frag. 11 Col. 1)

Again, referring to such beliefs as they were reflected in the prayers of the Judao-christians, an early Christian funeral prayer asks for the dead christian :

“... on behalf of those our brothers who are at rest in Christ, let us beg....that God, the lover of man, having received his soul, may forgive him every sin – voluntary and involuntary; 4and being gracious and favorable, may appoint him to a position among the godly ones, sent into the embrace of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, with all those from of old who were well pleasing, and who did his will; ...... (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #16:1-4; Funeral Prayer for the Dead (AposCon 8.41.2-5)

Click to expand...

The concept of there being those who “imitate” and thus become “Godly”, or “like God” or “god-like” existed long before the chistian texts of ignatius and diognetus. It is sometimes so deeply woven into the architectural language of early Judao-Christianity that it becomes a monotonous and oft-repeated message. In one of the hymns the words of praise for God were :

“Praise the God of …, you godlike beings of utter holiness; rejoice in his divine kingdom. For He has established utter holiness among the eternally holy, that they might become for Him priests of the inner sanctum in His royal temple, ministers of the Presence in His glorious innermost chamber. In the congregation of all the wise godlike beings, and in the councils of all the divine spirits, He has engraven his precepts to govern all spiritual works and his glorious laws for all the wise divine beings, that sage congregation honored by God, those who draw near to knowledge. [...].eternal, and from the font of holiness to the temple of utter holiness…priests who draw near, ministers of the Presence of the utterly holy King…His glory. Precept by precept they shall grow strong, to be seven eternal councils; for He established them for Himself to be the most holy of those who minister in the Holy of Holies. [...] They shall become mighty thereby in accordance with the council [...] [...] the Holy of Holies, priests of …these are the princes of …who take their stand in the temples of the King [...] in their realm or within their inheritance [...]” They tolerate none who transgress the true Way, nor is there any unclean in their holy ranks. The precepts governing the holly ones has He inscribed for them, that all the eternally holy might thereby be sanctified.” (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400 Frag. 1 Col. 1)

Click to expand...

None of these Judao-Christians, saw themselves as strict “polytheists” but rather as "monotheists". Judaism and Christianity AND egyptians who held that there was a “God of Gods”; a “LORD God” (over all other Gods) were always monotheists since there remained a Lord God who lead and directed all other beings (whether they were called Gods or not) and to which all other beings (whether Gods or Not) remained subservient and shared only the degree of power and authority given them by the Lord God and by his administration and laws. If one applies these very simple descriptions to the three in the "Godhead" or "Trinity", then it makes perfect sense in the authentic ancient context.


Good luck Marco19, in coming to your own understanding on issues of import to you.


I hope my philoso-historo-philolo-personal comments did not seem too disjointed. However, since I am writing between appointments at work, my train of thought changes slightly each time I return to the computer.

Also, I have to say, that Katzpur and Orontes are my hero’s and I appreciate the insights they have and still give me into many, many things I do not know. I hope that as I progress, I can attain more of the strengths I see in those two (and others, of course).


Clear
eieitwmm

I’ll have to get back to the internet later and correct spelling and punctuation, grammar, etc.

Katzpur said:

Hello, Marco. Long time no see.

You are much too considerate. I can't imagine what reason you have given any of us to be offended. Let me see if I can do justice to your question.

I believe it would be accurate to say that we Latter-day Saints think of the word "God" as being used -- at least some of the time -- as a collective noun, like "team," "partnership," "jury" and "committee." That is definitely the case in 2 Nephi 31:21. The individuals who make up each of these entities are unique. They are physically distinct from one another. My husband and I are a "couple." Notice the use of the singular indefinite pronoun "a." Since it is singular, the word which follows (i.e. "couple") is singular. But since it is a collective noun, we know that it has to be referring to more than one individual. If either my husband or I were not a part of this union, we could not be spoken of as a "couple." The "couple" would simply cease to exist. As united as we may be in many ways, when he is out on the golf course and I am at home feeling sorry for myself because I am a golf widow, we are definitely two physically distinct beings. In this way, we can be divided but still be a couple.

The word "Trinity" is not, of course, found in English Bibles. The word which is used instead is "Godhead." If you look up the word in the dictionary, you'll see the word "God" is listed as a synonym, which would mean that, depending upon the usage, you could substitute the word "Godhead" for "God." We can do just that in 2 Nephi 31:21, making it say, "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 Godhead, without end. Amen." Incidentally, I know that Spanish Bibles (including the one used by Spanish-speaking Latter-day Saints) uses the word "Trinidad." So, if you really want to get technical, it's not so much that we don't believe in the Trinity per se as it is that we don't believe in the Creeds which first defined the word. When we say we don't believe in the Trinity, what we're really saying is that we reject the way the Creeds describe God.

The word "God" is also used as a title. It can be applied to all three of the members of the Godhead, who are "one God," but it can also be applied to each one individually. Normally, I use the word "God" to refer to God the Father, even though I believe the Son to be every bit as divine as I believe the Father to be. When I say I worship "God," I worship God as one "Godhead," because they are so perfectly united in will, purpose, mind and heart, that I could not conceivably worship one without worshipping the others.

Going on to Mosiah 15:2... This is a little more difficult. When I first noticed what this verse said, I remember thinking, "What!!!" At the time, I did some research on the subject, and this is what I found: In that verse, Jesus Christ is referred to as both "Father" and "Son." This does not mean that the Father and the Son are the same individual. Here we are simply applying two different titles to the same individual (Jesus Christ). His role as the Son is, I believe, pretty self-evident. He is also considered to be a Father in that just as God the Father initially gave us life, Jesus Christ gave us renewed life, life after death, eternal life. He is therefore the Father of our resurrected bodies because it is through Him that we will all rise again. Those who accept His gospel are said to be Christ's "sons and daughters." He is the Father of our salvation.

I hope that clears things up. If not, please feel free to tell me what's lacking.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of this.

Haha a "golf widow". I've never heard that before. I like it.